Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Hyatt Regency Expansion - PA 2005-212CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 14 February 24, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner 949- 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion (PA 2005 -212) 1107 Jamboree Road • Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report • Parcel Map No. 2007 -003 • Use Permit No. 2005 -046 • Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 • Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 ISSUE: Should the City approve the following discretionary approvals in order to accommodate the applicant's proposed timeshare development and hotel expansion that includes the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a new 10,072- square- foot spa and fitness center, and a new, two -level parking garage, at the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach resort hotel complex located at 1107 Jamboree Road? • A parcel map to reconfigure two existing lots, allowing the timeshares to remain on one parcel and the hotel on the other, and to establish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height. • A use permit to allow the expansion of the existing hotel and establishment of a timeshare development. A use permit is also required to allow the proposed timeshare buildings and ballroom to exceed the 26 -foot base height limit. • A modification permit to allow commercial tandem parking and to allow the architectural tower and finial element of the proposed ballroom to exceed the 35- foot maximum height limit. • A development agreement between the City and the operator of the timeshare development. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive staff report, receive applicant's presentation, open public hearing, and receive public comments; and 2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006121052) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 3. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 2) adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005- 046, and Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, subject to the attached findings and conditions. 4. Introduce an ordinance (Attachment 3) approving Development Agreement No. 2005 -002, and pass the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on March 10, 2009. U L J 11 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 3 Project Site ON -SITE 11 Commercial CV Loiall RSC VIII......... Hyatt Regency' Hotel NORTH Open Space (OS) Newporter North Planned Newporter North (`nmmfmi }, (p(7_d11 Fmii�nnmcnral Cfi lily a'.. SOUTH Multiple -Unit Residential Bayview Landing Planned Bayview Landing EAST ....., , �,, B Attached residences ralna dnu RGUCdIIVI.I Ivewpun Uunes rlenneu WEST app r a„ fOr X71 1 Newport Dunes Resort Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 4 DISCUSSION: Project Overview The project site consists of 25.7 acres situated on two parcels located at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. A 403 -room resort-style hotel is currently developed on the site that includes associated restaurants, banquet facilities, an outdoor amphitheater, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and maintenance and housekeeping sheds. The site is heavily vegetated with mature palm trees and other ornamental trees and shrubs. The applicant proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel with the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a new 10,072 - square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage (Attachment 4 — Plans). Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel 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. Please refer to the attached November 6, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5) for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project and related application requests. This staff report supplements the attached November 6, 2008, Planning Commission staff report with following additional information: • A summary and updated discussion of the environmental review prepared for the project. • Recent California Coastal Commission action affecting the project. • Modified site plan required as a result of the wetland expansion north of the site. • Updated discussion of the development agreement negotiations between the City Council Ad Hoc Committee and the applicant. • Planning Commission review and modifications Environmental Review Prior to taking action on the requested use permit, modification permit, tentative parcel map, and development agreement, the City Council must first review, consider, and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR is comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Attachment 6, and the Responses to Comments and revisions to the DEIR, Attachment 7. 5 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 5 The City contracted with The Planning Center, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an Initial Study and DEIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the issue areas identified to be affected as either a no impact or a less than significant level are: Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation and Utilities and Service Systems. These topics were not discussed further in the DEIR. The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of one impact related to noise, which is discussed in the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts discussion section below. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45-day review period that began on February 12, 2008 and concluded on March 27, 2008. Comments were received from several interested parties, including the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, California Coastal Commission, Department of Transportation, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of Conservation, Native American Heritage Commission, Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, The City of Irvine, The Irvine Company, Unite Here! Local 11, and several residents. Also, at the November 6, 2008, Planning Commission hearing, a new comment letter was submitted by Robert Hamilton, biological consultant retained by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), which has been included as a formal comment on the adequacy of the DEIR. The consultant and staff have prepared detailed written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR (Section 2 of Attachment No. 7). Revisions to the DEIR were also prepared that provide: 1) additional or revised information required for the preparation of responses to certain comments; 2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; 3) updated figures reflecting the modified site plan (see Wetland Expansion/Modified Site Plan section of report); and 4) corrections to typographical errors. The revisions also include clarification to Mitigation Measures 3 -2 and 5 -3. The revisions to the DEIR do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the DEIR, and therefore, do not warrant recirculation of the DEIR for public review. The revisions to the DEIR are included in Section 3 of Attachment 7. Alternatives The document discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA (Section 7 of DEIR). These alternatives include a No Project Alternative (existing conditions would remain), an Alternative Development Area (developing the proposed timeshares and ballroom at an alternative location), Alternative Land Use (developing hotel rooms instead 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 6 of timeshares), Reduced Ballroom Alternative (reducing the size of the ballroom by 4,000 square feet to eliminate the need for a parking structure), Reduced Timeshare Alternative (reducing the number of timeshare units), Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative (reducing the use of construction equipment by extending the construction schedule), and Site Plan Alternative (original design of the proposed project locating two of the timeshare buildings closer to the northern edge of the property). Although in some cases the alternatives are considered to have reduced impacts and considered environmentally superior, none of those alternatives were found to achieve the project's objectives. The project objectives are identified in Section 3.3 of the DEIR (Page 3 -2). Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As previously stated, all of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the following impact: Impact 5.9 -5 Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency would significantly elevate the daytime noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and recreational uses. Despite the application of several mitigation measures (MM 9 -1 through 9 -5) to reduce noise levels from construction activities, nearby noise - sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities and Impact 5.9 -5 would remain significant and unavoidable. If the City Council believes the benefits of the project outweigh the one unavoidable adverse environmental impact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in order to approve the project. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attached as Exhibit B of Draft Resolution Certifying the EIR; Attachment 1) has been prepared for the City Council that identifies economic benefits to the City with the ability to attract additional visitors to the City with the expanded hotel facilities and amenities, and by increasing the City's hotel room demand by providing a conference facility large enough for group demand segments that are not currently accommodated within the City. The project also provides technological benefits with the proposed storm drainage improvements and water quality improvements. California Coastal Commission Update As discussed in the November 6, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report, comments were received from the staff of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) suggesting that timeshare developments are not permitted within the Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) designation of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). They expressed the opinion that timeshares are only "quasi" visitor - serving when compared to hotel rooms, and that since the CLUP does not specifically permit timeshares within the CV designation, the project would require an amendment to the CLUP. As explained in more detail in the response to the Coastal Commission comment letter (Response to Comment A2 -2 of the Final EIR), 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 7 City staff disagreed with this interpretation since 100 percent of the proposed timeshare units are visitor- serving as they provide overnight lodging accommodations and other services to visitors to the coastal zone, and the City has historically defined Visitor Accommodations to include timeshares. If the City Council decides to approve the project, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) will be required to be obtained from the CCC. Given the disagreement over whether the timeshares are permitted and the likely possibility that Coastal Commission staff would reject the applicant's CDP application on the basis that they believe it to be inconsistent with the current CLUP, City staff included the following provision in the City's separate application to amend the CLUP making it consistent with the updated General Plan: Policy 2.3.3 -V.• Permit limited -use overnight visitor accommodations on the hotel resort property located at 1107 Jamboree Road where such accommodations are provided together with traditional overnight, hotel visitor accommodations and which shall be subject to specific restrictions, including: quantity (no less than 391 units shall be traditional hotel units available for transient overnight use by the general public year round and no more than 88 of the total 479 units planned may be limited -use overnight visitor accommodations), duration of owner use of such facilities (maximum use of 90 days per calendar year with a maximum of 29 days of use during any 60 day period), management of the units as part of the hotel facility and allowance for transient overnight use by the general public when not owner occupied, all of which shall be further defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified) and through the coastal development permit process. The applicant was consulted in advance regarding this policy and expressed agreement to the provisions and consent to pursue it with Coastal Commission staff. Coastal Commission staff was agreeable to this policy and recommended its approval to the CCC. On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Commission approved the City's CLUP amendment application including the specific policy above for this project. It should also be noted that the Coastal Commission rejected a policy proposed by Coastal Commission staff prohibiting timeshares in all CV designated areas, and instead, included a provision to allow timeshares under specific operational rules that would be included in the future Implementation Plan. Although the CLUP amendment is not yet effective, the action by the Coastal Commission clearly supports the conclusion that ' Although the California Coastal Commission approved the City's Coastal Land Use Plan amendment application on February 5, 2009, modified policy language and revised findings to implement the Commission's action must be developed and presented to the Commission. Consideration of the final language and findings is likely to occur in April 2009. Subsequent to the Commission's acceptance of the final policy language and revised findings, the City Council will consider the Hyatt timeshare policy language along with the entire amendment as modified and either accept it or reject it. If accepted, the entire amendment would then be considered "certified" upon verification by the California Coastal Commission that the City's adoption of the entire modified amendment is consistent with what the California Coastal Commission approved. At the conclusion of these steps, the policy would be effective. I Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 8 the project would be consistent with the CLUP as modified. To insure the operation of the proposed timeshares is consistent with the policy language above, staff has included Condition Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. Wetland Expansion/ Modified Site Plan At the November 6, 2008, Planning Commission hearing, Robert Hamilton, biological consultant retained by SPON, distributed a report stating that the CEQA documentation for the project did not accurately delineate or describe the natural resources on the adjacent open -space parcel north of the site. As previously stated, the Planning Center and staff (with the assistance of Tony Bomkamp of Glen Lukos Associates, project biologist) has prepared detailed responses to each of his comments (Response to Comments 0-4 of the Final EIR). One of the comments stated that the limits of the wetland north of the site, a cattail marsh, were incorrectly mapped. To verify, on November 17 and December 2, 2008, Mr. Bomkamp conducted additional site visits to formally delineate the cattail wetland using sub -meter accuracy GPS mapping technology. The results of this delineation conclude that the limits of the wetland north of the site have shifted closer to the project boundaries. This expansion is likely attributable to the extreme drought conditions in 2007 when the wetland was initially mapped and the wetter conditions in 2008. Mr. Bomkamp also concluded that the existing cattails are at their maximum extent, or very close to it, and given the topography and associated hydrology, would not be able to extend into the required fuel modification area due to slopes to the east and south that currently limit the potential extent of the cattails. As a result of the wetland expansion, proposed timeshare building TS -1 would be located as close as 85 feet from the wetland, which is inconsistent with CLUP Policy 4.2.2 -3 that requires a minimum buffer width of 100 feet to a wetland, wherever possible. Although the policy allows for a reduced buffer width under certain conditions, the applicant has revised the site plan to relocate timeshare building TS -1 an additional 15 feet to the south providing the required 100 -foot buffer. A condition of approval has been added requiring compliance with the revised site plan (Attachment 8- Revised Site Plan). Development Agreement Section 20.84.050 (Development Agreement) of the Zoning Code requires that the City and the operator of a timeshare project enter into a development agreement to set forth the amount payable to the City by a timeshare owner for the right of occupancy of any timeshare unit. An Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of Mayor Selich and Council Member Rosansky, was established for the purpose of negotiating the required development agreement between the applicant and the City. In exchange for vested rights to construct the project, the applicant has agreed to the following: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 9 ■ Timeshare Development- Payment of a fee of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). The fee shall be paid at the issuance of the first timeshare building permit. ■ Visitor and Recreational Facilities /Marina Park- As a public benefit, payment of a visitor and recreational facilities fee of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). The fee shall be paid in three phases: 1) $500,000 shall be paid at the time the final parcel map is recorded or June 30, 2013, if any building permit for the construction of any timeshare unit is issued for the project, whichever is sooner; 2) $1,000,000 shall be paid at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new ballroom facility or June 30, 2013, if any building permit for the construction of any timeshare unit is issued for the project; and 3) $500,000 shall be paid at the issuance first timeshare building permit. This fee shall be used for improvements that provide visitor and recreational facilities at Marina Park or at any other site designated by the City, at its sole discretion. The fee may be used by the City to provide public access to Newport Bay, public parking, picnic areas, playground equipment, basketball and tennis courts, concessions, and recreational programs. ■ Off -Site Water Quality Improvements- As a public benefit, payment of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for off -site water quality improvements shall be paid at the time the final parcel map is recorded or June 30, 2013, if any building permit for the construction of any timeshare unit is issued for the project, whichever is sooner. The City shall use the fee to pay for water quality improvements to be selected by the City in the City's sole discretion. ■ Bayfront Walkway Connection- As a public benefit, payment of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) towards the cost of public improvements that expands access to the bayfront, such as the Marine Avenue Bridge /Bayside Drive bayfront walkway connection. The fee shall be paid at the time of execution of the development agreement. ■ Cancellation of CIOSA Agreement- The CIOSA Agreement shall automatically terminate on the effective date of the proposed development agreement. ■ Maintenance of. CIOSA Pre -Paid Transportation Fund- The cancellation of CIOSA terminates the parties' remaining rights and obligations under the CIOSA, including any obligation of the City to repay funds that were provided pursuant to the CIOSA. The City may retain any balance of pre -paid transportation funds the City may be holding as a result of unused CIOSA mitigation. The City may use any such remaining balance of prepaid transportation funds for transportation improvements in accordance with the Protocol Agreement for CIOSA. A copy of the final development agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the draft ordinance approving the development agreement (Exhibit A of Attachment 3). 1b Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 10 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (see Environmental Review section of this report) prepared for the project on October 23, 2008, and reviewed the project and related application requests on November 6, 2008. The Planning Commission voted 5 -2 to adopt Resolution No. 1770 recommending that City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and to adopt Resolution No. 1776 recommending that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the project and related application requests. The Planning Commission hearing minutes from both the October 23, 2008, and the November 6, 2008, meetings have been attached for reference (Attachments 9 and 10). The Commission's concerns and comments on the DEIR are summarized and addressed in the November 6, 2008, Planning Commission staff report (Page 27 of Attachment 5). After considering all environmental documentation, including the comments and responses to comments, the Planning Commission found that the FEIR adequately considered all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and that it was completed in compliance with CEQA. With regard to the project design and operation, a majority of the Commissioner's generally agreed that: • The project would not result in private view denigration for the surrounding residents. • The project would not result in property value impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Increased traffic generation as a result of the project was adequately analyzed in the DEIR and the increased traffic has already been incorporated into the approval of the General Plan at its maximum entitlement of 479 rooms. • The loss of the golf course is unfortunate; however, they recognized that the golf course is underutilized, is not a regional attraction, and would not impact the City's ability to attract tourism to the City. • The additional conference space is important. • The proposed ballroom tower and cupola feature are attractive and would create an identifiable feature for the ballroom. Also, the Commission eliminated staffs recommended condition of approval requiring the height of the tower to be reduced 5 feet in height as they felt the proposed height is necessary to ensure the ballroom's visibility for guests visiting the ballroom. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 11 • Project lighting was a concern and could create visual nuisances for adjacent residences. The Commission modified conditions of approval to prohibit illumination of the tower feature between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., limited the height of the roof -top parking lot lighting standards to a total height of 20 feet (instead of 32 feet), and required the use of high - pressure sodium lighting in the parking areas to match the street lights. It should be noted that two Commissioners voted against the project for the following reasons: • One Commissioner was not confident that the proposed parking and circulation plan would function well and that on -site circulation needs to be improved to properly address vehicle stacking /queuing during large events. • Another Commissioner did not feel that the timeshare component of the project was consistent with the CV coastal land use designation of the CLUP. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Summary The proposed addition of the 88 timeshare units utilizes the remaining entitlement permitted under the General Plan and vested development rights granted under the 1992 Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). The proposed expansion of the hotel, including the new ballroom, will help meet the City's needs of enhancing visitor accommodations and conference facilities. The project is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, and proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures for this project will ensure that all conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. The project has been designed to avoid disturbances to the adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat area. All potential environmental impacts have been analyzed in the Initial Study and FEIR and were found not to be significant with the incorporation of specific mitigation measures, with the exception of temporary construction noise impacts to nearby noise - sensitive uses. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the one impact that can not be mitigated, and approve the requested applications J01, Prepared by: J6me Murillo, Associate Planner Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion February 24, 2009 Page 12 Submitted by: rVV01 .. P17... ina Director Attachments: 1. Draft resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report 2. Draft resolution adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving project 3. Draft ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 (Development Agreement included as Exhibit "A ") 4. Project plans 5. November 6, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report 6, Draft EIR (under separate cover) 7. Final EIR, including response to comments and revisions (under separate cover) 8. Revised Site Plan 9. October 23, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes 10. November 6, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes FAUSERSIPLN1Shared\PXs1PAs - 20051PA2005- 2121City Council\Staff Report5PA2005 -212 CC rpt.doc 13 ATTACHMENT 1 Draft resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report 15 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY • 0 ju RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFIYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2006121052) FOR HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH HOTEL EXPANSION AND TIMESHARE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1107 JAMBOREE ROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sunstone Jamboree, LLC ( "Sunstone "), requesting approval of Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002, with respect to property located at 1107 Jamboree Road, and legally described as Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 17, Page 3, of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County ( "Property"), to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. Proposed improvements include the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a new 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage. Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel 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; and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "); and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2006, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOR described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on February 12, 2008, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on March 27, 2008; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on October 17, 2008 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and 11 City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2008 and November 6, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearings to consider recommending: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR "), and (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2009, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR "), and (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations; and WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the Project was presented to the City Council, the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations of the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. J� City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "B ", which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the state Office of Planning and Research within five Working days of this approval. SECTION B. Certification. Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. City Council Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS u_ •- ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 21 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH EXPANSION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2006121052 Exhibit A BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the Lead Agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA. A. PROJECTSUMMARY The proposed project is an expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. Proposed improvements include the addition of 88 new timeshare units; a 24,387 square -foot, 800 -seat ballroom /meeting building; a 10,072 square -foot spa and new pool; and a two -level parking garage. As proposed, implementation would require demolition of 12 villas (rooms) and the 3,190- square -foot terrace ballroom, and removal of the nine -hole golf course. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code and is also consistent with the .1993 Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company (the project applicant's predecessor -in- interest for the property). B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. • The City of Newport Beach determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on December 17, 2006. The public review period, was extended from December 18, 2006 to January 16, 2007. Section 2.2 of the Draft EIR (DEIR) describes the issues identified for analysis in the DEIR through the Initial Study, NOP, and public scoping process. • Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City of Newport Beach staff determined that a DEIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. • The City of Newport Beach prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period, beginning February 12, 2008 and ending March 27, 2008. • The City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR), including the Responses to Comments to the DEIR, the Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -1 - .i FEIR /Response to Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the DEIR, and appended documents. • The City held public hearings on the proposed project, including a Planning Commission hearing on October 23, 2008 and November 6, 2008 and a City Council Hearing on February 24, 2009. C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEOA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The FEIR for the proposed project; • The DEIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR ; • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments; • All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR; • The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEOA Findings of Fact - 2 - h� the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(a). II. FINDINGS AND FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, is required under CEQA to make written findings concerning each alternative and each signirfcant environmental impact identified in the DEIR and FEIR. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made R the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or atematives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact - 3 - A3 (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. FINDINGS AND FACTS REGARDING IMPACTS A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Initial Study An Initial Study was prepared by the City of Newport Beach to identify the potential significant effects of the project. The Initial Study was completed and distributed with the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project, dated December 17, 2006. The Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not have the potential to result in significant impacts to mineral resources, agricultural resources, utilities and service systems, recreation and population and housing. All other topical areas of evaluation as included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in an EIR. Final EIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project - specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with Existing Regulations as detailed in Chapter 5 of the FEIR. 1. Aesthetics Environmental Impact: The proposed project would alter the visual appearance of the project area. The 25.7 -acre project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. Project implementation would intensify on -site land uses by removing open space (nine -hole golf course) and introducing new structures (including seven new timeshare unit buildings, a new Boo -seat ballroom, and a two -story parking structure). The majority of the hotel expansion would consist of redevelopment in the northern, northwestern, and southern portions of the project site. Other upgrades would also occur in the central portion of the project site. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact - 4 - 94 As demonstrated in the visual simulations and visual simulation analysis in the DEIR, expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel would not have a substantial adverse affect on scenic vistas or substantially alter the visual appearance of the project site or surrounding area. With implementation of Land Use Policy 5.6.3 and compliance with the municipal code regulations, the impact regarding lighting, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover of the proposed hotel expansion would be less than significant. Environmental Impact: The proposed project would generate additional nighttime light and glare. The project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach and generates nighttime light and glare. Additionally, a significant amount of ambient lighting from surrounding land uses already exists. Expansion of the hotel would result in additional lighting, which would increase nighttime light and glare in the project area. The light sources proposed for the hotel expansion are similar to those of the existing hotel and the surrounding land uses. More specifically, additional lighting would be required to provide nighttime illumination for the proposed timeshare buildings, ballroom and ancillary structures, internal drive aisles and walkways, and parking areas. Nighttime illumination would also be used to highlight building design and landscape features and to create a feeling of security and safety. Other sources of light would include security lighting, minimal nighttime traffic, and light associated with the nighttime use of the timeshare units and hotel's recreational facilities, such as the timeshare clubhouse and pool and fitness center. With implementation of Land Use Policy 5.6.3 and project compliance with the municipal code regulations regarding lighting, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover of the proposed hotel expansion would be less than significant. 2. Air Quality Environmental Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan. The land use designation for the site specifically entitles the hotel to expand to 479 rooms as proposed by the project. Ancillary uses, such as the new 800 -seat ballroom, are considered to be included in this existing entitlement. In addition, the proposed hotel uses would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operational emission thresholds. The SCAQMD does not consider projects that result in emissions below the daily operational phase thresholds to be a substantial source of air pollutant emissions. Consequently, it would not significantly interfere with the goals of the AQMP. Because the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and would not result in substantial quantities of air pollution, the project would therefore be considered consistent with the AQMP. Environmental Impact: The proposed project is not a regionally significant project that could potentially cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. Although the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project, the proposed project would contribute to global warming through direct emissions of GHG and indirectly through removal of existing vegetation and replacement of the surface area with paved parking lots, sidewalks, and structures. Project - related CO, emissions from operation and construction activities were calculated by URBEMIS2007 with the exception of CO, emissions from off -site energy use from on -site energy production, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact - 5 - A5 which were calculated based on average energy demand for commercial lodgings and GHG emission rates by region from the United States Department of Energy (USDOE). The proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project by SCAG and criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, project - related CO, emissions and their contribution to global climate change impacts in the State of California are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Environmental Impact: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. Construction activities associated with new development occurring in the project area would temporarily increase localized PM,,, ROG, NOx, SOX, and CO concentrations in the project vicinity. The primary source of construction- related ROC and NO, emissions is gasoline- and diesel - powered heavy -duty mobile construction equipment. Primary sources of PM,, emissions would be clearing and demolition activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Construction emissions for the project would not exceed SCAQMD standards. Consequently, no significant regional air quality construction - related impacts would occur. Environmental Impact: Long -term operation of the project would not generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. Long -term air emission impacts are those associated with changes in stationary and mobile sources related to the proposed project. Using the default emission factors included in URBEMIS2007, emissions associated with project- related vehicular trips were calculated and project- related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions for all the analyzed pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project's impact to air quality is considered less than significant. Environmental Impact: The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels or place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. As shown in the DEIR, project emissions would not exceed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for CO, NO,, PM,, and PM..,. Because the project's operational emissions would not exceed the LSTs for a 5 -acre site, air pollutant concentrations from project- related operational activities would not exceed the California or federal AAOS and no significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Because the project's construction emissions would not exceed the stringent LST for a five -acre site, no air pollutant concentrations from project related construction activities would exceed the California or federal AAQS and no significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact 6 - -A �D 3. Biological Resources Environmental Impact: The proposed development and related fuel modification would not remove any coastal sage scrub and would comply with the City's Coastal Act Policies set forth to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). The coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat adjacent to the project site is assumed to be an ESHA. The project design would result in complete avoidance of off -site CSS. In compliance, grading nor fuel modification activities would not remove any CSS. In addition, the project design includes a minimum 50 -foot buffer between developed areas and off -site CSS to assure full compliance with the City's Coastal Land Use Policies. Environmental Impact: Development of the proposed project would not impact any sensitive plant species. The majority of the project site includes existing golf course, which is predominantly turf grass with ornamental landscaping. The conversion of turf and ornamental landscaping to hotel uses would not be considered a significant impact on biological resources. No special status plants were observed during site reconnaissance, and none have the potential to occur, as the entire site is landscaped. Environmental Impact: The proposed project would not affect wildlife movement. The existing golf course does not function as a wildlife movement corridor and the proposed project would not impact wildlife movement. Environmental Impact: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances and would comply with the provisions of the Central /Coastal HCP /NCCP. Project development would completely avoid CSS and would comply with ESHA policies as detailed in the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. There are numerous palm trees located on the project site, and although these trees are not protected by any of the City's local ordinances or policies regarding trees, the majority of the trees would be retained in place or transplanted within the property boundaries. 4. Geology and Soils Environmental Impact: The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Substantial soil erosion is not expected to occur during the operational phase of the proposed project. However, construction of the proposed project would involve grading, excavation, and hauling of materials (including dirt, demolition debris, etc.) off the site. These activities may result in the loss of topsoil or substantial soil erosion impacts on off- site areas, such as nearby streets and storm drains, which could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. Compliance with local and state codes are required for erosion control and grading during construction. The proposed project shall comply with standard conditions, including South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact - 7 - �1 5. Hazards and Hazardous Material Environmental Impact: The proposed project could create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. There is a possibility that hazardous demolition debris containing asbestos and /or lead -based paint may require remediation and off -site transportation. Implementation of the project would require the demolition of 12 villas; the 3,190- square- foot Terrace Ballroom, and hardscape materials such as concrete and asphalt. Based on the type and age-of the buildings, there is a potential for hazards involving the release of asbestos and lead -based paint as a result of the demolition of these structures. Without proper monitoring, removal, and disposal, lead -based paint chips and friable asbestos may be released to the environment, causing potential exposure to humans. Upon implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval, this impact would be less than significant. Environmental Impact:The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, development would not be expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Based on a review of the GeoSearch environmental database report, historical aerial photographs, and historical topographic maps, the project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The database search did not identify any hazardous substance releases on- or off -site that would be expected to have an impact on the project site. Upon implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval, this impact would be less than significant. Environmental Impact:The project site is located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, it is 3.5 miles from the airport and project implementation would not be expected to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project site is approximately 3.5 miles south of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is overseen by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The project site is within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone for JWA. In addition, the project site is located within the FAR Part 77 JWA Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Zone. The project site is located within Safety Zone 6 Traffic Pattern Zone, as indicated in Cal raps, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002). Allowed uses within this safety zone include residential and most nonresidential uses. The proposed project would create vacation dwellings that are intermittently occupied and would be expected to fall within the allowable nonresidential use category. The project is also located within an Airport Influence Area, which is defined as the space surrounding an airport that can be affected by airport operations. The proposed project shall comply with AB 2776, which notifies prospective buyer /renters of the existence of an airport in the area. Upon implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval, this impact would be less than significant. 6. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste- discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact - 8 - The construction and operational phases of the proposed project could have the potential to impact water quality. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils. The operational phase would alter the existing land uses of the project site and would, consequently, alter the anticipated and potential pollutant sources generated at the site. The DEIR discusses in detail components of the site - design, source control, and treatment control BMPs that would be incorporated as a part of the proposed project. Collectively, the site- design and source, and treatment- control project design features would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational phase of the proposed project. Additionally, through the development- review process, the City of Newport Beach complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the project's impact on water quality. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, this impact would be less than significant. Environmental Impact: Expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, resulting in substantial erosion or siltation, or flooding on- or off -site. Collectively, the site - design and source, and treatment- control project design features would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational phase of the proposed project. Additionally, through the development - review process, the City of Newport Beach complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated stormwater runoff. stormwater runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the project's impact on water quality. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, this impact would be less than significant. 7. Land Use and Planning Environmental Impact: The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion is consistent with applicable local plans, including the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. A detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable policies of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan is provided in Table 5. 8-1 in the DEIR. The analysis concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan policies. Project implementation will not interfere with applicable local plans, including the City of Newport General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Environmental Impact: Implementation of the project would be in accordance with the vested entitlement for the project site under the 1993 Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEOA Findings of Fact 9 - 0+ The proposed project is consistent with the existing development entitlement for the project site under the 1993 CIOSA. The proposed agreement authorizes the operation of additional hotel rooms, which the project applicant proposes to, operate as timeshare units. Upon development, there will be a total of 479 rooms on the property. Environmental Impact: The proposed Hyatt Regency Expansion would comply with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP). The project site is located within the Height Restriction Zone and the Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surface Overlay Zone as designated in the AELUP for JWA. Although the project site is included in the Height Restriction and Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surface Overlay Zones as designated in the AELUP, the proposed project does not include a general plan or specific plan amendment or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation. The proposed project would be consistent with the building height limitations set forth under the current civilian airport standards of the AELUP and would not require submittal to ALUC for consistency review. 8. Noise Environmental Impact: The increase in traffic from operation of the Hyatt Regency Expansion Project would not significantly increase traffic noise levels. The operations phase of the project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. In accordance with General Plan Policy N1.8, project - related noise impacts may occur 'rf there are substantial noise increases (3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors) in comparison to Without Project conditions. The project would increase traffic noise levels by a maximum of 0.1 dBA on Jamboree Road, north of Santa Barbara Drive and south of the Hyatt Regency entrance. At these locations, future noise levels at the residences would be less than 75 dBA. Consequently, a project - related noise increase of less than 1 dBA at Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara Drive and south of the Hyatt Regency entrance would not significantly contribute to the impacted noise environment in the vicinity of noise- sensitive receptors. Environmental Impact: New stationary noise sources from long -term operation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion would not substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. Operation of the Hyatt Regency project would include the following improvements: 88 new timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a new 10,072- square -foot spa and pool, housekeeping and engineering building, and a new two -level parking garage. Use of these new facilities would generate stationary noise at the Hyatt Regency in Newport Beach. Currently, stationary noise sources at the project site include noise sources associated with landscaping, maintenance, recreation (golf and pool), deliveries, parking, and events (conferences, weddings, etc). Use of the new facilities would generate similar types of stationary noise on -site and due to the current levels of activity on -site, the expansion of the on -site facilities would not substantially increase noise levels when located in the vicinity of similar facilities at the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, including the ballroom facilities. Consequently, the project would be required to abide by the mandatory noise limits of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEOA Findings of Fact _10- 'lib Environmental Impact: Newly expanded on -site noise - sensitive uses would be compatible with the noise environment. Operation of the proposed project would include the following noise - sensitive uses: 88 new timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom, and a new 10,072 - square -foot spa and pool. Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, new Commercial (Regional, District) — Hotel, Motel, and Transient Lodging land uses are considered noise impacted if they are located in a noise environment that exceeds 70 dBA CNEL. Consequently, exterior noise levels at these noise - sensitive land uses are calculated at 66.4 dBA CNEL, and would be within the normally compatible noise environment. Exterior noise levels at other proposed facilities of the Hyatt Regency expansion would be at even greater distances, and therefore would also be within a normally compatible noise environment. For interior noise environments associated with the proposed project, the state of California requires that new construction achieve a noise environment of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, interior noise environments at the nearest noise - sensitive structures to Jamboree Road are calculated at 54.4 dBA CNEL with windows open and 42.4 dBA CNEL with windows closed. Therefore, standard building construction would be sufficient to meet the California Building Code noise -level requirements. Environmental Impact: Construction of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion would not generate vibration levels that exceed the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) criterion for human annoyance at nearby residential structures. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Hence, the communities of Harbor Cove and Villa Point would not be affected by construction vibration generated at the project site, as these communities are significantly elevated above the project site on a bluff and are located at a significant distance from project - related construction activities. The nearest vibration-sensitive off -site uses are the communities of Bayview Landing, the senior community south of Back Bay Drive, and the Sea Island residential community east of Jamboree Road. The majority of heavy construction equipment would be used during grading operations. The FTA has established thresholds for vibration levels that would cause annoyance to a substantial number of people or damage to building structures. As shown in the DEIR, construction of the project would not generate levels of vibration that exceed the FTA criterion for nuisance for existing residential uses. Environmental Impact: The Hyatt Regency is located outside the 60 and 65 DBA CNEL noise contour of the John Wayne Airport and would not result in substantial aircraft noise exposure to future occupants and workers. The project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the John Wayne International Airport, under the primary departure corridor. Noise from takeoffs and occasionally landings contribute to the ambient noise environment at the project site. The John Wayne Airport maintains a network to monitor aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of the airport. The project site is in close proximity to the airport's noise monitor No. 7. As shown in the DEIR, the Hyatt Regency is located outside the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for the airport. Therefore the project would not expose future occupants and workers to excessive noise levels from the John Wayne Airport. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact 11 - �t 9. Public Services Environmental Impact: The proposed project's incremental increase in demand for City fire protection services would not significantly impact the Newport Beach Fire Department's ability to provide fire and emergency /medical services. Increased usage generated by the expansion of the Hyatt Newport Beach may increase the need for fire protections services, emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations. Provision of additional fire facilities are added incrementally as the need arises. The NBFD indicated that no additional fire equipment or personnel would be needed to maintain the necessary level of service. Environmental Impact:The proposed project's introduction of new structures, workers and visitors into the City of Newport Beach police service boundaries would not substantially increase the demand for police protection services. According to the service correspondence received from NBPD, the proposed project would add to the number of service calls received to serve the area, and the department has no immediate or near future plans to expand police facilities, staff, or equipment. However, NBPD indicated that they have adequate staffing levels to serve the proposed project. 10. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Impact:The proposed project would generate an estimated total of 661 daily vehicle trips and 51 AM and 58 PM peak hour trips. These project - related trips would not impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system. Operational Impacts. The City of Newport Beach standard for the minimum acceptable intersection LOS is D. Currently, the 10 study intersections are all currently operating at acceptable levels of service per the City's standard (LOS D or better). Four of the ten intersections that were studied would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or worse) with or without the proposed project during the PM peak hour. However, the increase in V/C resulting at these intersections from project - related traffic would not exceed the 0.010 impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Construction Impacts. Three of the four intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or worse) with or without the proposed project during the PM peak hour. The contribution of project- related trips to the Jamboree Road/Coast Highway and Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard intersections would be less than significant. A significant traffic impact would occur at the Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road intersection during the PM peak hour under the with project condition. However, this traffic impact would be temporary, as it would only occur during the construction phase of the proposed project and would not impose a long -term traffic impact. Environmental Impact:The project- related volume -to- capacity ratio (V /C) increase of 0.001 and 0.002 in the AM and PM peak hours for Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard intersection, (the only congestion management plan (CMP) intersection in the study area) would be less than the 0.010 V/C increase that would be classified as a significant impact. The project, therefore, would not result in a designated road or highway exceeding County Congestion Management Agency service standards. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -12- �a Under future conditions (Year 2012) with and without the proposed project, the Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS C and LOS E, respectively, for AM and PM peak hour conditions. The CMP defines a significant impact as an increase in V/C of 0.010 or greater during either the AM or PM peak hour. The project's contribution to trips at this intersection is less than significant as it would not exceed this impact threshold. Environmental Impact: On -site site access and circulation to accommodate the new timeshare units, ballroom facility, and ancillary uses would not increase hazards or incompatible uses. With the proposed expansion, the project site would include four access driveways. The primary access driveway would remain on Jamboree Road at the existing signalized intersection with Island Lagoon Road. This driveway would continue to serve as the primary access point for hotel guests and visitors. A second main access driveway would be created on Back Bay Drive by enhancing an existing, rarely used gated driveway approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. This driveway would be an upgrade of the existing driveway and would serve as the primary access for visitors and guests attending conferences and functions at the hotel. Additionally, this access driveway would be modified from a gated to an ungated entry. Two additional secondary access driveways are proposed farther west on Back Bay Drive. One driveway would provide secondary access to the main parking lot and the fourth driveway furthest to the west would provide emergency vehicle access to the new timeshare units and the hotel. Vehicles traveling to and from the timeshare units would use Driveway 1 as the main access point to the Hyatt Regency property. Parking facilities for these timeshare units would be adjacent to the units. Vehicles accessing the timeshare units would circulate to the north of the project site, away from the main parking facilities in the southern portion of the project site. With the separation of on -site vehicle traffic for the hotel and traffic for the timeshare units, no significant impacts to on- site traffic circulation are anticipated to be caused by the proposed timeshare units. B. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Biological Resources Environmental Impact: Construction - related activities could have a temporary adverse impact on coastal California Gnatcatchers (CAGN) nesting in preserved areas of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site. Construction of the project could have a temporary adverse impact on CAGN nesting within preserved areas of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site due to construction noise, which could disrupt breeding activities. Potential impacts due to construction . noise could be considered harassment under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and would be addressed through coordination with the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS). Such impacts could potentially require authorization through the Section 7 or Section 10 process. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and are applicable to the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the FEIR. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEOA Findings of Fact -13- 33 3-1 The applicant shall comply with requirements of the NCCP /HCP, including construction- related minimization and mitigation measures that minimize impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub species. These include: To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 though 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. These considerations could require unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies /utilities will provide USFWS /CDFG with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP /HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other coastal sage scrub Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed, and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of public health and safety considerations. Prior to commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of coastal sage scrub, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction /grading plans. Following the completion of initial grading /earth- moving activities, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage /Special Management areas containing significant coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut -and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. • Coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and location within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -14- 10 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels, noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to) construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. 3 -3 To ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause significant impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures shall be implemented: All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall be directed away from coastal sage scrub habitat. All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. A qualified biologist shall review lighting plans prior to construction to ensure that the proposed lighting minimizes potential impacts on the California gnatcatcher. Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant biological resources impacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the DER. Environmental Impact: The proposed project could impact migratory birds and raptor foraging habitat. The Hyatt Regency golf course property currently contains ornamental trees and shrubs that have the potential to support nesting birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The property is an open golf course adjacent to open space that supports, at best, moderate - quality foraging habitat for common raptor species. Impacts to potential foraging area would not be considered significant. In the postproject condition, there would actually be an increase in forage as currently much of the Special Treatment Area consists of golf course turf, bare areas, or weedy species. The native plantings to be installed in the Special Treatment Zone would actually increase the foraging potential for a variety of species. Mitigation Measures: 3 -4 During project construction, all trees to be removed shall be identified. Such trees should be removed outside the avian nesting season, which extends from March 14 to July 15, 3 -5 If for some reason it is not possible to remove all trees during the nonnesting season, then trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to removal. If no nesting birds are found, the tree may be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact - 1 s - '5� 3 -6 For trees being preserved, if construction is to occur during the nesting season, preserved trees shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible, and would assure protection of potential foraging habitat. Environmental Impact: The proposed project would comply with the provisions of the Central /Coastal HCP /NCCP. Although the proposed project would not be required to comply with the NCCP, the project applicant would voluntarily adopt the NCCP Construction Minimization Measures outlined in Mitigation Measure 3 -3, as they have been vetted and approved and as such represent a highly acceptable approach to minimizing construction - related impacts. Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures 3 -1 through 3 -3. Finding: Upon implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. 2. Cultural Resources Environmental Impact: Development of the proposed project could impact archaeological resources. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on archaeological resources. However, given the potential to unearth archaeological resources in the project area during excavation and grading activities, the proposed project could impact significant prehistoric resources. Additionally, there are two archeological sites are known within the project boundaries. However, the project site has previously been disturbed and is developed with the existing Hyatt Regency Hotel and its ancillary uses. No impacts to identified archaeological resources are anticipated to occur with implementation of the proposed project. However, there is a potential for impacting previously unidentified archaeological remains. Mitigation Measures: 41 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the project applicant has retained an Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist. The archeologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The archaeologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The archaeologist shall determine the extent of monitoring that is required during excavation and grading activities. The qualified archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. The methods of Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -16- C, archaeological monitoring, including timing, location, types of artifacts anticipated, and procedures for additional analysis, if necessary, shall be described in an archaeological monitoring plan. The extent and duration of the monitoring program shall be dependent upon the City - approved grading plans. The construction manager shall adhere to the stipulations of the archaeological . monitoring plan. 2) The archaeological monitoring plan shall be developed prior to commencement of on -site grading activities. 3) Should any subsurface cultural resources be encountered, the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to halt grading activities until uncovered resources are evaluated and a determination of significance is made. If cultural resources are encountered, a Native American monitor with a Tongva/Gabrielino lineage, the project applicant, and the City of Newport Beach shall evaluate the significance of the resources and, if appropriate, shall determine appropriate treatment and mitigation of the resources. If cultural artifacts are recovered, any eligibility testing and /or determination of additional mitigation should be done in consultation with the Native American monitor. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -17- 4) During construction, if buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historical artifacts, specimens, fossils, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground - disturbing activities, the contractor shall ensure that all work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until the qualified on- call archaeologist arrives on -site and can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City. 5) Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological monitor has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 6) A report that documents the findings of the program shall be prepared. The report shall provide an itemized inventory of the recovered specimens. Submission of the final report and inventory to the City of Newport Beach shall represent completion of the mitigation monitoring program for archeological resources. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation of each site /locality, and interpretation of resources recovered and shall include all specialists' reports as appendices. All project documents, including field records and the report itself, should be included on a CD in portable document format. The CD shall be included a pocket at the rear of each copy of the report. 4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a preconstruction testing plan for cultural resources shall be implemented. Testing may be conducted during the same period as demolition activities. However, ample time shall be allowed for the results of the testing to be evaluated and for possible redesign to avoid the findings sites or mitigation of destructive construction impacts on the sites. Testing shall be conducted as follows: • Proposals to conduct testing shall include construction fencing and warning signs to protect patrons of the Hyatt Regency and the shoring of deep units and /or trenches to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. • A trench at least 20 meters in length within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, for a total of four trenches. The depth of the trenches shall be 20 centimeters below any cultural or potential cultural levels and must be sufficient to determine site stratigraphy. Soil profiles and stratigraphic columns are required to document the site integrity or lack thereof. If intact site deposits are demonstrated to be present within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, then a minimum of two 1- meter - square units shall be placed in intact site areas, to be determined by the principal investigator. The units shall be dug in natural stratigraphic levels if possible and in 10- centimeter levels otherwise. These units will document the potential of the site to contribute new information to prehistory. Documentation shall be thorough and detailed. • A minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50 test pits shall be utilized to determine the boundaries of the site. The test pits should test the limits of the site at the limits of the project along the project footprint in the vicinity of timeshare buildings 1- 7, the timeshare clubhouse, the new ballroom, and the new spa facility. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact _18- Limited testing of the new ballroom area shall be conducted to determine if resources exist in the area in order to avoid construction delays caused by unanticipated finds. • Artifacts recovered will be in the custody of the principal investigator until they are transported to the designated accredited repository and will be prepared, identified, and cataloged prior to transport. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant archaeological impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact: The proposed project could destroy paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. While no paleontological resources were observed during the survey performed as a part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, the sediments that underlie the project site are well known to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Excavations anywhere in the proposed project area could encounter significant fossil vertebrates from the marine (and terrestrial) quaternary Terrace deposits. Mitigation Measure: 4 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the applicant has retained an Orange County Certified Professional Paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The paleontologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation plan and maintaining professional standards of work at all times. 2) The paleontologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting and shall be invited to briefly define paleontological resources, discuss cooperation with the paleontological monitor, and outline the on -call procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery when the monitor is not present. 3) The paleontologist shall prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with the City. The principle investigator shall prepare a final report to be filed with the City. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation for each locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. All specialists' reports shall be included as appendices. 4) Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed surfaces and microscopic examination of matrix. 5) The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading from exposed resources in order to recover the specimens and contextual data. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact _19- �0 6) If the discovery of paleontological resources meets the criteria for fossil locality, formal locality documentation activities shall be performed. In addition, samples shall be submitted for dating and other special analyses. 7) If microfossil localities are discovered, the monitor shall collect matrix for processing. To limit downtime, the monitor may request heavy machinery assistance to move large quantities of matrix out of the path of construction to designated stockpile areas. Testing of stockpiles shall consist of screen washing small samples (200 pounds) to determine if fossils are present. Productive tests shall result in screen washing of additional matrix from the stockpiles to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality. 8) Fossils recovered shall be prepared, identified, and cataloged before donation to the accredited repository that will maintain the collection for future scientific study and exhibition within Orange County, to be designated by the City. Such fossils shall be prepared, prior to donation, to the point of dedication. The project proponent shall be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the county or other suitable repository for long -term curation and maintenance of the donated collection. Any resources determined not to meet the significance criteria can be used in school education programs. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant paleontological impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact: The proposed project's grading activities could result in the disturbance of human remains. The project site has been previously disturbed and has not been identified for a high likelihood of containing human remains. No known human burial sites have been reported on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on human remains. However, the excavation and grading activities of the proposed project could result on impacts to human remains. Mitigation Measure: To ensure that Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 is implemented during all project - related excavation and grading activities, the following mitigation measure was included in the DEIR. 4-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall place the following note on all grading plans: °If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his or her authorized representative, the MILD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MILD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials." This requirement shall also be discussed at the pregrade meeting(s). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -20- %Ab Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. 3. Geology and Soils Environmental Impact: Persons and existing and future structures within the project site would be subjected to potential seismic hazards. The project site is located in a seismically active region. However, the project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone and no known faults traverse the project site. However, the project site is located within seismically active southern California (Seismic Zone 4). The Newport- Inglewood fault, approximately two miles southwest of the project site, is considered to be the most significant active fault with respect to the City and the project site. Measures are listed below for the project site, relative to site preparation, excavation, fill placement and compaction, foundation design, site drainage, and retaining wall designs, would be incorporated into the structural design of the project and would minimize the potential for significant seismic - related impacts. According to Figure S2, Seismic Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is located in an area considered to have a potential for ground failure in the form of liquefaction. More specifically, the areas surrounding the main hotel complex to the south, east, and west (parking lots) are located within a designated seismic hazard zone for liquefaction potential. The proposed improvements within the designated liquefaction hazard zone consist of the parking structure and the new 800 - seat ballroom. Additionally, based on the geotechnical feasibility study performed in the DEIR, the soils below the groundwater level consist of medium stiff to very stiff sandy clay and siltstone /claystone of the Monterey /Capistrano formations. These soils are not considered liquefiable and, therefore, the potential for liquefaction and its adverse affects, such as seismic settlement and lateral spreading, are considered low within the project site. Mitigation Measures: 5-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate that all grading operations and construction will be conducted in conformance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall include a note on all grading plans indicating that grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in Geotechnical Engineering in order to achieve proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, placement and compaction of structural fill, stability of finished slopes, and incorporation of data supplied by the engineering geologist. The geologist shall geologically map the exposed earth units during grading to verify the anticipated conditions, and K they are different, provide findings to the geotechnical engineer for possible design modifications. 5-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed engineering -level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEOA Findings of Fact -21 - M` settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and to provide site- specific recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level report shall include and address each of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared by Kleinfelder and included as DES Appendix F (Kleinfelder, November 29, 2004, Project No. 61618). The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. 5 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits and based upon the soil corrosivity tests conducted for the proposed project, the project applicant shall include a note on all grading plans indicating that site - specific soils testing shall be performed under the observation of a registered corrosion engineer specializing in soil corrosivity, for any areas proposed to be developed with structures. The corrosion engineer shall evaluate the corrosion potential of the soils on proposed improvements, recommend further testing if deemed necessary, and identify specific construction methods to address soil corrosivity, if detected. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant seismic hazards to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact: Unstable geologic units or soil conditions, including soil corrosivity, could result due to development of the project. As a part of the geotechnical feasibility study performed for the DES, selected samples of on -site soils were tested for preliminary evaluation of the potential soil corrosivity to concrete and reinforced steel. Based on the minimum resistivity results from the soils tested, the near - surface site soils may be considered to be severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals. The relatively low concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that on -site soils of similar composition should not be aggressive to concrete elements. Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures 5 -1 through 5-4. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant geologic impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact: The project site is located on expansive soil that could result substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical feasibility study evaluated the potential for expansive soils within the . project site. Based on the soil classification (sands) encountered; the potential for expansion of the fill soils and terrace deposit is very low. The finish -grade soils should be further analyzed to verity the expansion potential of final subgrade soils. Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures 5 -1 through 5-4. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact .22- 0 Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts regarding soil to a less than significant level. 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Impact: Design measures and mitigating actions detailed in the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) would minimize the potential risks to people and /or structures to loss, injury, or death. Fire behavior modeling was conducted to document the type and intensity of fire given the topography, vegetation, and weather characteristics of this site. Given the climatic, vegetation, and topographic characteristics, along with the general lack of periodic fires in the area and fire behavior modeling results, the Hyatt Regency site is considered moderately vulnerable to wildfire. Under fall weather conditions, fire can move rapidly through sage scrub vegetation. The most likely type of fire anticipated in the vicinity of the project area is a wind - driven brush fire originating north of the project site and pushed southward by Santa Ana winds. Flame lengths in some areas could be over 35 feet. The rate of spread is moderate due to volatile fuels, wind, and moderately low fuel moisture. A typical cause is related to roadways, such as Back Bay Drive (tossed cigarette, vehicle accidents, or car fire). 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 the following specific provisions: Water Supply and Fire Flow • Fire hydrants and fire flow capacity shall be approved by the fire Chief. A reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, may be allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Fire Access • New driveway entrance areas shall be designed to City requirements with all - weather driving surface of A.C. paving over approved base and a capacity rating of at least 75,000 pounds, to accommodate fire apparatus. Approach /departure angles associated with development driveways shall not exceed 3 degrees. • The minimum width of fire lanes shall be 26 feet. There are no planned traffic calming devices • Adequate fire apparatus turnarounds shall be provided and approved by the NBFD (current plans include a minimum 28400t turning radius adjacent to Building TS -7 and another turnaround located adjacent to Building TS -4 /Clubhouse). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -23- qj • Unobstructed firefighter access to all portions of the buildings via walkways, driveways, or trails shall be provided. A minimum of 3 feet for firefighter access shall be maintained along both sides of all structures adjacent to fuel modification zones. Roads and access components (gates, sign, etc.) shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Building Fire and Ignition Resistance The project shall include ignition - resistant construction features consistent with current fire and building codes for the proposed structures exposed to wildland vegetation (buildings TS -1, TS -2, TS -3, and TS -4). Enhanced structural requirements shall be provided for the following as detailed in the FPP: roofing, fire - resistive walls, eaves protection, venting, glazing, skylights, insulation, gutters and downspots, appendages and projections, spark arrestors, exterior doors, and detached accessory structures. Fire Protection Systems • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National Fire Protection Association sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Defensible Space The Fuel Modification Plan (see details, Section 3.4.3 of this DEIR and the FPP, Appendix H) shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the NBFD. The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD. Brush removal must be completed prior to commencing any flammable construction, and final inspection and approval must be obtained prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures adjacent to the fuel modification area. Fuel Modification Zones shall be subject to an annual inspection conducted by a representative of the City in order to assure that zones are maintained in compliance with the applicable fuel modification requirements. The property owner shall maintain defensible space in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan as approved. Vegetation Management The fuel modification area along the northern boundary of the project lies partially on the Hyatt Regency property, owned by the City of Newport Beach. The proposed landscape plan /fuel modification zone plant palette shall be reviewed and approved by the NBFD. Landscape plans shall comply with all landscaping requirements. Defensible space vegetation management responsibility is assigned to persons /company(ies) owning buildings or structures on this property. Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of the defensible space shall include modifying or removing nonfire - resistive vegetation and keeping leaves, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -24- I` needles, and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from roofs of buildings and structures. • Maintenance and funding for vegetation management shall be required and enforced by deed encumbrances, which are attached to the property. Such deed encumbrances shall be reviewed and approved by NBFD Chief. • An agreement with the neighboring property owners (as described above), to be conveyed with deed, for permanent maintenance of landscape area that also serves as extended fuel modification area for Hyatt property. • Vegetation management shall be completed prior to the start of and continue throughout the construction phase. Prior to site demolition, adequate fuel breaks shall be constructed between demolition areas and existing flammable vegetation. Vegetation maintenance includes ensuring operation of irrigation systems. Vegetation maintenance is required following wind and rain storms to remove combustible plant - related debris from fuel modification zones. • Caution must be exercised on steep slopes to minimize erosion with the removal of vegetation and the addition of irrigation. Finding: Implementation of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures outlined above would reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. 5. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Impact:A total of 912 parking spaces would be provided to serve the proposed project. However, the project's valet parking component could result in an on -site parking impact. The provision of 912 parking spaces, including surface and structure parking, would meet the City's standards for parking for the uses of the proposed project. However, the valet parking component of the proposed project could result in an on -site parking impact. More specifically, parking impacts could occur on -site during special events such as conferences or weddings. Therefore, further review would be required by the City under a valet parking plan to determine the adequacy of the proposed valet parking component. Mitigation Measure: 11 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed ballroom facility, the project applicant shall submit a valet parking plan to the Planning Director and City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. All valet parking services provided pursuant to the valet parking plan shall comply with the measures outlined in the parking plan. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -25- AID Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant parking impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact: Temporary construction impacts would result in a significant impact to the Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills intersection during the PM peak period. Based on project construction - related vehicle trips (employee and construction equipment), all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills intersection during the PM peak period. With or without construction activities, this intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E. Project- related construction trips would contribute to a V/C increase of 0.01, resulting in a project- specific impact to this intersection. Mitigation Measure: 11 -2 During the construction of the Hyatt Regency expansion, no construction vehicle trips shall be permitted to enter or exit the project site during the PM peak period between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Construction vehicles shall be defined as dirt haulers, material delivery trucks, construction- vehicle transport trucks, and other similar large vehicles. Construction employee trips are not included in this restriction. Finding: The mifigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant transportation and traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact: Adequate on-site parking would not be available during some phases of project construction. It is estimated that a minimum of 406 parking spaces would be available during both the timeshare /spa construction phase and the new ballroom construction phase. During construction, 391 guestrooms would be available for use, resulting in a minimum parking requirement of 196 spaces, per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. Additionally, 15,538 square feet of banquet and meeting room space would also be available for use during construction. Based on the analysis in the DEIR, a minimum of 467 parking spaces would be required during construction. Based on the construction management plan, 406 spaces would be provided, resulting in a deficit during peak periods. Mitigation Measure: 11.3 The Hyatt Regency shall maintain a minimum of 467 parking spaces for use by hotel guests and visitors during the full duration of construction activities. This minimum requirement of 467 may be provided through either self - parking or valet parking. In addition, the project applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan prior to the initiation of construction activities to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall clearly identify how and where the 467 necessary parking spaces would be accommodated on -site during construction. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -26- N(D Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant parking impacts to a less than significant level. C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or mitigation would lessen impacts to less than significant. The following impact would remain significant and unavoidable: 1. Noise Environmental Impact: Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency would substantially elevate the daytime noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and recreational uses. Short-term noise can be associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Grading of the project would involve the heaviest pieces of construction equipment. Consequently, this phase of development would result in the loudest noise levels at the existing noise - sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 23 months) and level of noise from the combination of construction activities (ranging from 58 to 88 dBA), project - related construction noise at the nearby residential and recreational receivers would be significant. Mitigation Measures: 9-1 Temporary sound blankets (fences typically comprised of poly - vinyl - chloride - coated outer shells with adsorbent inner insulation) shall be placed alongside the boundary of the project site during construction activities that occur in the vicinity of residential and recreational land uses, which includes the areas adjacent to the Palisades Golf Course, the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, and the Bayview Landing senior community. The temporary sound blankets shall be to prevent direct line -of- sight from active construction areas. 9-2 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. 9-3 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 9 -4 The Construction Contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential and recreational receptor locations as is feasible. 9-5 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -27- %A'1 Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and substantially lessen the significant noise impacts. Although construction activities would comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and be limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, the combination of construction activities (ranging from 42 to 83 dBA) for approximately 23 months would result in noise levels that would be considered a nuisance to surrounding residential and recreation uses. Impact 5.9-5 would remain Significant and Unavoidable. IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR. The feasibility of developing the project on an alternative site was the only alternative reviewed and rejected during the scoping /project planning process. Altemative Development Areas CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on. alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (Guidelines Sec. 15126[5][B][1]). The proposed project is the expansion of an existing hotel use within the property boundaries of the existing facility. The proposal is in accordance with a development agreement (Community Improvement and Open Space Agreement [ CIOSA]) with the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to the 1993 agreement, the Hyatt Regency has a vested right to expand to 479 rooms. Currently the hotel has 403 rooms. This vested development right is specific to the parcel on which the hotel is located. Moreover, development of the proposed uses in another location within the City of Newport Beach would be unlikely to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project. It could be anticipated that development of similar uses (timeshare units and ballroom facility) would result in the similar traffic - related noise impacts. Short -term, construction- related air quality impacts would also be similar at an alternate location. The extent to which temporary construction- related noise impacts would be significant would depend on the sensitivity of surrounding land uses. This, however, would be the only significant impact associated with the project at its current location that could potentially be minimized or eliminated by development at an alternate location. Alternative Land Use The proposed project is consistent with the CIOSA development agreement for the project site. The project site is already developed as a resort hotel. The continued and expanded use of this facility is also consistent with the City's General Plan. Alternative land uses, such as retail or service commercial or residential uses, would not be logical for the site and would not be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. In lieu of the proposed timeshare units, regular hotel rooms could be proposed. Such a use would be consistent with the CIOSA and the General Plan, but would not reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed timeshare units. The traffic report concludes that timeshare units would be expected to generate the same traffic as regular hotel rooms. Therefore, this alternative would not have the ability to Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -28- �f reduce traff - related noise impact of the project as proposed. Similarly, since the same number of hotel rooms would be constructed (88 as proposed for timeshare units), this use would not be expected to reduce construction - related impacts (air quality and noise impacts) in comparison to the proposed project. Reduced Ballroom Alternative A project alternative that would reduce the size of the new ballroom structure by approximately 4,000 square feet in order to eliminate the need for a parking structure was considered but rejected for further analysis. The primary objective of this alternative would be to reduce significant noise impacts during construction. Although eliminating the parking structure would slightly reduce noise impacts to sensitive residential receptors (particularly Bay View Landing Senior Apartments and Sea Island residences), this reduction would be nominal, since ballroom construction and related infrastructure improvements would still result in significant noise impacts to surrounding residents. Moreover, this alternative would not substantially reduce the duration of construction activities. Reduced Timeshare Units Alternative A project alternative that would reduce the number of timeshare units was considered but rejected for further analysis. Reducing or eliminating construction in this area of the project site would not eliminate the significant noise impact to the most sensitive receptors, the Bay View Landing and Sea Island residential uses. Moreover, a reduction or elimination of the timeshare units would not achieve the entitlement for the Hyatt Regency granted under the CIOSA development agreement. Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative An alternative that reduced the construction equipment by extending the construction schedule was considered for its potential ability to reduce or eliminate the significant construction - related noise impact of the proposed project. Since fewer pieces of construction equipment would be used under this alternative, noise levels during construction would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. The reduction, however, would likely be minimal, since construction noise is dominated by the loudest piece of equipment (in comparison to the number of pieces of equipment). Moreover, construction noise that could impact sensitive residential and recreation receptors would be extended from an overall 221/2 months for the proposed project to 321/2 months for this alternative. Considering the substantial increase in duration of activities, construction - related noise would be considered to be greater than for the proposed project. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. No Project Altemative Description: This alternative, which is required by CEQA, existing conditions would remain. No buildings would be demolished and none of the proposed expansion improvements would be implemented. The Hyatt Regency would continue to operate as a 403 -room resort hotel with existing ballroom /conference facilities. The existing golf course would also remain. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -29- IV Finding: With the exception of hydrology and water quality impacts, the environmental impacts associated with each category analyzed in this DEIR would be reduced under this alternative, and the significant noise impact would be eliminated. However, the No Project alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project, such as increased development as permitted by the City's General Plan and the CIOSA development agreement, and to develop a new, larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference needs for the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the City of Newport Beach finds that the No Project Altemative is less than desirable. Reduced Intensity Alternative Description: Under this project alternative, expansion of the Hyatt Regency would be limited to development of 88 new timeshare units, a spa and fitness building, and a clubhouse. The new ballroom and parking structure would not be constructed under this alternative. The existing Terrace Ballroom would remain. The proposed new storm drain in Jamboree Road would be included under this alternative, but it would connect to the existing storm drain to outlet as surface flow across the parking lot. The new drain included in the proposed project across the parking lot would not be required. Similarly, the new water and sewer lines in this portion of the site would not be required. This alternative was specifically selected for its potential ability to eliminate significant construction - related noise impacts. Elimination of the ballroom and parking structure have the most potential to reduce the significant noise impact (in comparison to the timeshare units and related facilities) because of the proximity of these structures to sensitive residential receptors. It is anticipated that the duration of demolition and building activities would be reduced under this project alternative. The demolition and building construction phases would be reduced substantially in comparison to the proposed project. The grading phase, however, would only be reduced slightly because of the increase in the amount of material export. Under this project alternative, there would be 37,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net export of 33,000 cubic yards of material. In comparison to the proposed project, which would result in 24,000 cubic yards of export, the Reduced Intensity alternative would require an additional 9,000 cubic yards of export. The net export increase would occur because the bulk of the cut material generated from the timeshares portion of the project site would no longer be utilized for the fill required to develop proposed ballroom and parking structure. Therefore, if the ballroom and parking structure are eliminated, there would no longer be a place to put the fill. An estimated 3,300 truck trips would be required to export this material in comparison to 2,400 trips for the project as proposed. Finding: The Reduced Intensity Alternative would increase short-term construction- related air quality impacts and result in a new significant air quality impact during grading activities, primarily due to the increase in material export. All other impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. However, these impacts are less than significant without mitigation for the proposed project. The City has determined a need for additional conference facilities and has recognized this use as essential to increasing tourism. Therefore, the elimination of the new ballroom would jeopardize the economic viability of the project. The City of Newport Beach finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative is less than desirable. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion CEQA Findings of Fact -30- �O Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B i Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) �:3 BIOLfSI; IRCES .� 3 -1 The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the NCCP /HCP, including Project Applicant and Prior to grading and City of Newport Beach construction- related minimization and mitigation measures that minimize cerlifed Project Biologist construction Planning Department impacts to the coastal Califomia gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub species. These include: • To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub Project Applicant and Prior to grading and City of Newport Beach habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcalchers shall occur during the certified Project Biologist construction Planning Department breeding season (February 15 though 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. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies/utilities will provide USFWS /CDFG with the maximum practicable nofice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP /HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other coastal sage scrub Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed, and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of public health and safety considerations. • Prior to commencement of grading operations or other activifies involving Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach significant soil disturbance, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be certified Project Biologist Planning Department avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of coastal sage scrub, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction /grading plans. • Following the completion of inifial gradinglearth movement activities, all Project Applicant and During grading City of Newport Beach areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction certified Project Biologist Planning Department equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. • In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage /Special Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach Management areas containing significant coastal sage scrub identified in certified Project Biologist construction Planning Department i Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B 2 S Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) the NCCPIHCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut- and-fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Reconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. • Coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP/HCP for protection and location Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically certified Project Biologist construction Planning Department sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage certified Project Biologist construction Planning Department scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels, noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to), construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate b the pro 'act biologist. 3 -3 To ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does Project Applicant, certified Prior /during construction City of Newport Beach not cause significant impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures Project Biologist, and Planning Department shall be implemented: Construction Contractor • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall be directed away from coastal sage scrub habitat. • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. A qualified biologist shall review lighting plans prior to construction to ensure that the proposed lighting minimizes potential impacts on the California natcatcher. 2 S Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) 3.4 During project construction, all trees to be removed shall be identified. Such Project Applicant and Prior to construction City of Newport Beach trees should be removed outside the avian nesting season, which extends certified Project Biologist Planning Department from March 14 to July 15. 35 If for some reason it is not possible to remove all trees during the nonnesting Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach season, then trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no certified Project Biologist Planning Department more than three days prior to removal. If no nesting birds are found, the tree may be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined (hat the nest has failed. 3 -6 For trees being preserved, if construction is to occur during the nesting Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach season, preserved trees shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. If certified Project Biologist Planning Department nesting birds are detected, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have the nest or the biol ist has determined that the nest has failed. }.. yyvacated .'}t,i 'Cllt.T'reN. rvt+taCi ., - 4 -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide Project Applicant and During excavation and City of Newport Beach written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the project applicant has certifed Archaeologist grading Public Works Department retained an Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist. The archeologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activites. The archaeologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The archaeologist shall determine the extent of monitoring that is Project Applicant and During excavation and City of Newport Beach required during excavation and grading activities. The qualified certified Archaeologist grading Public Works Department archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. The methods of archaeological monitoring, including finning, location, types of artifacts anticipated, and procedures for additional analysis, if necessary, shall be described in an archaeological monitoring plan. The extent and duration of the monitoring program shall be dependent upon the City - approved grading plans. The construction manager shall adhere to the stipulations of the archaeological monitoring Man. 2 The archaeological monitoring Ian shall be developed prior to Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B r Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) commencement of on -site grading activities. certified Archaeologist Public Works Department 3) Should any subsurface cultural resources be encountered, the Project Applicant, certified During grading City of Newport Beach archaeological monitor shall have the authority to halt grading activities Archaeologist, and a Native Public Works Department until uncovered resources are evaluated and a determination of American monitor with a significance is made. If cultural resources are encountered, a Native Tongva/Gabrielino lineage American monitor with a Tongva /Gabdelino lineage, the project applicant, and the City of Newport Beach shall evaluate the significance of the resources and, if appropriate; shall determine appropriate treatment and mitigation of the resources. If cultural artifacts are recovered, any eligibility testing and/or determination of additional mitigation should be done in consultation with the Native American monitor. 4) During construction, if buried cultural resources, such as chipped or Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach ground stone, historical artifacts, specimens, fossils, or human bone, are certified Archaeologist construction Public Works Department inadvertently discovered during ground - disturbing activities, the contractor shall ensure that all work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until the qualified on -call archaeologist arrives on -site and can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City. 5) Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall Project Applicant and During grading and City of Newport Beach not be lifted until the archaeological monitor has evaluated discoveries to certified Archaeologist construction Public Works Department assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 6) A report that documents the findings of the program shall be prepared. Project Applicant and After completion of the City of Newport Beach The report shall provide an itemized inventory of the recovered certified Archaeologist mitigation monitoring Public Works Department specimens. Submission of the final report and inventory to the City of program for archeological Newport Beach shall represent completion of the mitigation monitoring resources program for archeological resources. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation of each site /locality, and interpretation of resources recovered and shall include all specialists' reports as appendices. All project documents, including field records and the report itself, should be included on a CD in portable document format. The CD shall be included a pocket at the rear of each copy of the report. 4 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a preconstruction testing plan for Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach cultural resources shall be implemented. Testing may be conducted during certified Archaeologist! Public Works Department the same perlod as demolition activities. However, ample time shall be Paleontologist r Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) allowed for the results of the testing to be evaluated and for possible redesign to avoid the findings sites or mitigation of destructive construction impacts on the sites. Testing shall be conducted as follows: • Proposals to conduct testing shall include construction fencing and Project Applicant ,certified City of Newport Beach warning signs to protect patrons of the Hyatt Regency and the shoring of Archaeologist/ Public Works Department deep units and /or trenches to meet Occupational Safety and Health Paleontologist, and Administration (OSHA) standards. Construction Contractor • A trench at least 20 meters in length within the footprints of Timeshare Project Applicant ,certified City of Newport Beach Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, for a total of Wur trenches. The depth of the Archaeologist/ Public Works Department trenches shall be 20 centimeters below any cultural or potential Guttural Paleontologist, and levels and must be sufficient to determine site stratigraphy. Soil profiles Construction Contractor and stratigraphic columns are required to document the site integrity or lack thereof. • If intact site deposits are demonstrated to be present within the footprints Project Applicant , certified City of Newport Beach of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, then a minimum of two 1- meter- Archaeologist/ Public Works Department square units shall be placed in intact site areas, to be determined by the Paleontologist, and principal investigator. The units shall be dug in natural stratigraphic levels Construction Contractor if possible and in 10centimeter levels otherwise. These units will document the potential of the site to contribute new information to prehistory. Documentation shall be thorough and detailed. • A minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50 lest pits shall be utilized to Project Applicant, certified City of Newport Beach determine the boundaries of the site. The test pits should test the limits of Archaeologist/ Public Works Department the site at the limits of the project along the project footprint in the vicinity Paleontologist, and of timeshare buildings 1 -7, the timeshare clubhouse, the new ballroom, Construction Contractor and the new spa facility. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B S Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring Date of Compliance) • Limited testing of the new ballroom area shall be conducted to determine Project Applicant ,certified City of Newport Beach if resources exist in the area in order to avoid construction delays caused Archaeologist/ Public Works Department by unanticipated finds. Paleontologist, and Construction Contractor • Artifacts recovered will be in the custody of the principal investigator until Project Applicant ,certified City of Newport Beach they are transported to the designated accredited repository and will be Archaeologist/ Public Works Department prepared, identified, and cataloged prior to transport. Paleontologist, and Construction Contractor 4 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the applicant has retained certified Paleontologist Planning Department an Orange County Certified Professional Paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The paleontologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation Project Applicant and Prior to and throughout the City of Newport Beach plan and maintaining professional standards of work at all times. certified Paleontologist entire grading and Planning Department construction process 2) The paleontologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting and Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach shall be invited to briefly define paleontological resources, discuss certified Paleontologist Planning Department cooperation with the paleontological monitor, and outline the on -call procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery when the monitor is not present. 3) The paleontologist shall prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with Project Applicant and Prior to and throughout the City of Newport Beach the City. The principle investigator shall prepare a final report to be filed certified Paleontologist entire grading and Planning Department with the City. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, construction process documentation for each locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. All specialists' reports shall be induced as appendices. 4) Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed surfaces and microscopic Project Applicant and Prior and during grading City of Newport Beach examination of matrix. certified Paleontologist Planning Department S Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit 8 7 Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mfti ation Measure Reportin Timin Monitoring Date of Compliance 5) The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading from exposed Project Applicant and During grading City of Newport Beach resources in order to recover the specimens and contextual data. certified Paleontologist Planning Department 6) If the discovery of paleontological resources meets the criteria for fossil Project Applicant and During grading/construction City of Newport Beach locality, formal locality documentation activities shall be performed. In certified Paleontologist Planning Department addition, samples shall be submitted for dating and other special analyses. 7) If microfossil localities are discovered, the monitor shall collect matrix for Project Applicant and During grading /construction City of Newport Beach processing. To limit downtime, the monitor may request heavy machinery certified Paleontologist Planning Department assistance to move large quantities of matrix out of the path of construction to designated stockpile areas. Testing of stockpiles shall consist of screen washing small samples (200 pounds) to determine d fossils are present. Productive tests shall result in screen washing of additional matrix from the stockpiles to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality. 8) Fossils recovered shall be prepared, identified, and cataloged before Project Applicant and During gradingconslruction City of Newport Beach donation to the accredited repository that will maintain the collection for certified Paleontologist Planning Department future scienfrfic study and exhibition within Orange County, to be designated by the City. Such fossils shall be prepared, prior to donation, to the point of dedication. The project proponent shall be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the county or other suitable repository for long- term curation and maintenance of the donated collection. Any resources determined not to meet the significance criteria can be used in school education programs. 4-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall place the Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach following note on all grading plans: °t human remains are encountered, State certified Archaeologist Planning Department Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notiy the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MILD). With the permission of the landowner or his or her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery, The 7 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B M C� oC Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring Date of Compliance) MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials." This r uirement shall also be discussed at the re rade meetin s . 55 tiE0L'{3G315 ;4i „u, __ '.I iFfi F F i .: -: 5 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach that all grading operations and construction will be conducted in conformance Project Engineer Public Works Department with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall include Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach a note on all grading plans indicating that grading and earthwork shall Project Engineer Public Works Department be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in Geotechnical Engineering in order to achieve proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, placement and compaction of structural fill, stability of finished slopes, and incorporation of data supplied by the engineering geologist. The geologist shall geologically map the exposed earth units during grading to verify the anticipated conditions, and if they are different, provide findings to the geotechnical engineer for possible design modifications. 5-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed engineering -level geotechnical Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading Project Engineer Public Works Department plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and provide site - specific recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level report shall include and address each of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared by Kleinfelder and included as DER Appendix F (Kleinfctder, November 29, 2004, Project No. 61618). The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. 54 Prior to issuance of grading permits and -based upon the soil oorrosivity tests Project Applicant and Prior to grading City of Newport Beach conducted for the proposed project. the project applicant shall include a note I Project En ineer Public Works Department M C� oC Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) on all grading plans indicating that soils tesfing in the areas proposed for development shall be performed under the observation of a registered corrosion engineer specializing in soil corosivity for any areas proposed to be developed with structures. The corrosion engineer shall evaluate the corrosion potenfial of the soils on proposed improvements, recommend further testing if deemed necessary, and identify specific construction methods to address soil corrosivity, if detected. .; ,-- 6 -1 The project applicant or successor in interest shall comply with the provisions Project Applicant and the Prior to Construction City of Newport Beach in the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) as reviewed and approved by the Newport City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD), including but not limited to the following specific provisions: Water Supply and Fire Flow Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and • Fire hydrants and fire flow capacity shall be approved by the fire Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Chief. A reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 percent, as Department approved by the Fire Chief, may be allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Fire Access Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and • New driveway entrance areas shall be designed to City requirements Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire with all- weather driving surface of A.C. paving over approved base Department and a capacity rating of at least 75,000 pounds, to accommodate fire apparatus. Approach /departure angles associated with development driveways shall not exceed 3 degrees. • The minimum width of fire lanes shall be 26 feet. Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Department • There are no planned traffic calming devices. Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and Newport Beads Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Department • Adequate fire apparatus turnarounds shall be provided and Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and approved by the NBFD (current plans include a minimum 28 -foot Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire turning radius adjacent to Building TS -7 and another turnaround Department located adjacent to Building TS-4 1Clubhouse). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B 10 WWI Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) • Unobstructed firefighter access to all portions of the buildings via Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and walkways, driveways, or trails shall be provided. A minimum of 3 feet Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire for firefighter access shall be maintained along both sides of all Department structures adjacent to fuel modification zones. • Roads and access components (gates, sign, etc.) shall be Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Department Building Fire and Ignition Resistance Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and • The project shall include ignition - resistant construction features Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire consistent with current fire and building codes for the proposed Department structures exposed to wildland vegetation (buildings TS -1, TS-2, TS- 3, and TS4). Enhanced structural requirements shall be provided for the following as detailed in the FPP: roofing, fire - resistive walls, eaves protection, venting, glazing, skylights, insulation, gutters and downspots, appendages and projections, spark arrestors, exterior doors, and detached accessory structures. Fire Protection Systems Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National Fire I Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Protection Association sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Department 10 WWI Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B 11 o� Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring (Date of Compliance) • Defensible Space Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and • The Fuel Modification Plan (see details, Section 3.4.3 of this Draft Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Department EIR and the FPP, Appendix H) shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the NBFD. The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD. Brush removal must be completed prior to commencing any flammable construction and final inspection and approval must be obtained prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures adjacent to the fuel modification area. • Fuel Modification Zones shall be subject to an annual inspection Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and conducted by a representative of the City in order to assure that Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire zones are maintained in compliance with the applicable fuel Department modification requirements. The property owner shall maintain defensible space in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan as approved. • Vegetation Management Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan approval City of Newport Beach and The fuel modification area along the northern boundary of the project Newport Beach Fire Chief the Newport Beach Fire Department lies partially on the Hyatt Regency property, partially on property owned by the City of Newport Beach, and partially on property owned by the Irvine Company_, . • The proposed landscape plan /fuel modification zone plant palette Project Applicant and the Prior to site plan /landscape City of Newport Beach and shall be reviewed and approved by the NBFD. Landscape plans Newport Beach Fire Chief plan approval the Newport Beach Fire shall comply with all landscaping requirements. Department • Defensible space vegetation management responsibility is assigned Project Applicant and the Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and to persons/oompany(ies) owning buildings or structures on this Newport Beach Fire Chief throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fin; property. phase Department 11 o� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B 12 Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporting Timing Monitoring Date of Compliance) • Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May Project Applicant and the Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of the Newport Beach Fire Chief throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire defensible space shall include modifying or removing nonfire- phase Department resistive vegetation and keeping leaves, needles, and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from roofs of buildings and structures. • Maintenance and funding for vegetation management shall be Project Applicant and the Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and required and enforced by deed encumbrances, which are attached Newport Beach Fire Chief throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire to the property. Such deed encumbrances shall be reviewed and phase Department approved by NBFD Chief. • An agreement with the neighboring property owners (as described Project Applicant Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and above), to be conveyed with deed, for permanent maintenance of throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire landscape area that also serves as extended Less than significant phase Department fuel modification area for Hyatt property. • Vegetation management shall be completed prior to the start of and Project Applicant and Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and continue throughout the construction phase. Prior to site demolition, Construction Contractor throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire adequate fuel breaks shall be constructed between demolition areas phase Department and existing flammable vegetation. • Vegetation maintenance includes ensuring operation of irrigation Project Applicant and Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and systems. Construction Contractor throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire phase Department • Vegetation maintenance is required following wind and rain storms Project Applicant and Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and to remove combustible plant - related debris from fuel modification Construction Contractor throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire zones. phase Department • Caution must be exercised on steep slopes to minimize erosion with Project Applicant and Prior to site demolition and City of Newport Beach and the removal of vegetation and the addition of irrigation. Construction Contractor throughout the construction the Newport Beach Fire phase Department 12 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B 6 13 Responsibility for Monitor Implementation and Responsibility for (Signature Required) Mitigation Measure Reporhn Timing Monito±9 ate of Compliance) 9 -1 Temporary sound blankets (fences typically comprised of poly-vinyl-chloride- Project Applicant and Prior to grading and City of Newport Beach coated outer shells with adsorbent inner insulation) shall be placed alongside Construction Contractor construction Public Works Department the boundary of project - related site during construction activities that are located in the vicinity of residential and recreational land uses affected by significant levels of construction noise, which includes the areas adjacent to the Palisades Golf Course, the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, and the Bayview Landing senior community. The temporary sound blankets shall be to prevent direct lme-of-sight from construction activities occurring directly adjacent to this property. 9-2 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment on- Project Applicant and During construction City of Newport Beach site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. Construction Contractor Public Works Department 9 -3 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is fit Project Applicant and During construction City of Newport Beach with property operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no Construction Contractor Public Works Department less effective than as originally equipped b the manufacturer. 9-4 The Construction Contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., Project Applicant and During construction City of Newport Beach generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential and Construction Contractor Public Works Department recreational receptor locations as is feasible. 9 -5 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction Project Applicant and During construction City of Newport Beach activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Construction Contractor Public Works Department Munici at Code, Section 10.28.040. 5!1t itflNdtMfT18ApFYC, . 11 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed ballroom facility, the Project Applicant in Prior to approval of any City of Newport Beach project applicant shall submit a valet parking plan to the Planning Director and coordination with the City building permit Public Works Department City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. All valet parking services Traffic Engineer provided pursuant to the valet parking plan shall comply with the measures outlined in the parldflq plan, 11 -2 During the construction of the Hyatt Regency expansion, no construction Project Applicant in During construction City of Newport Beach vehicle trips shall be permitted to enter or exit the project site during the PM coordination with the City Public Works Department peak period between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Construction vehicles shall be Traffic Engineer defined as dirt haulers, material delivery trucks, construction- vehicle transport trucks, and other similar large vehicles. Construction employee trips are not included in this restriction. 6 13 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation and Reporting Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) (Date of Compliance 11 -3 The Hyatt Regency shall maintain a minimum of 467 parking spaces for use Project Applicant in Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach by hotel guests and visitors during the full duration of construction activities. coordination with the City building permits, grading, Public Works Department This minimum requirement of 467 may be provided through either self- parking Traffic Engineer and construction or valet parking. In addition, the project applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan prior to the initiation of construction activities to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall clearly identify how and where the 467 necessary parking spaces would be accommodated on -site during construction. 6 14 ATTACHMENT 2 Draft resolution adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving project 0 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY C� • �J k� RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 2007 -003, USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -046, AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -095 FOR THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH HOTEL EXPANSION AND TIMESHARE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1107 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2005 -212). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sunstone Jamboree, LLC ( "Sunstone "), requesting approval of Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002, with respect to property located at 1107 Jamboree Road, and legally described as Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 17, Page 3, of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County ( "Property"), to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. Proposed improvements include the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a new 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage. Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel 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; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2008, and November 6, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these meetings; and WHEREAS, at the November 6, 2008 hearing, the Planning Commission received public comments and with a majority vote of 5 ayes recommended adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005- 002 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 24, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006121052) identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain ko1 City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 32 mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of one significant unavoidable impact that will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV), which is intended to provide for accommodation, goods, and services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City. The project site, in particular, is allocated a maximum development limitation of 479 hotel rooms (Anomaly No. 52). The demolition of the 12 traditional hotel rooms and construction of the 88 new timeshare rooms results in a total room count of 479 rooms, consistent with maximum development limitation for the site. The Land Use Element does not establish a maximum square footage development limit for the proposed hotel's ancillary uses (i.e. ballroom, spa, and clubhouse); and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.2.1 that requires that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in consideration of a number of design principles. The proposed project has been designed to exhibit high - quality architecture and site design. The timeshare buildings and ballroom facility would include modulated building masses and rooflines that would provide visual relief and aesthetically pleasing building facades. The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower features, and ornamental windows and the variation in building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the visual quality of the buildings. The proposed lighting scheme would also provide a means for highlighting building details. The proposed project also includes a comprehensive landscaping plan that would include existing mature and proposed trees, shrubs, and ornamental ground cover and a lighting plan for highlighting of prominent landscaping elements; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.2.2 that requires commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through a number of techniques. The proposed project has been designed in a manner that would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses through the use of high - quality architecture, a comprehensive landscape plan and lighting plan, and an access and circulation plan that would adequately serve the existing and proposed hotel uses on- and off -site. The existing parking area light poles would be removed and replaced with modern light poles designed with full cut -off features that would cast light downwards and minimize light spillage and glare impacts. The proposed 1, N City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 32 architecture would complement the surrounding architecture, including the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments to the south. The proposed project would also provide a comprehensive landscape plan that would include existing mature and proposed trees and shrubs. The dense landscaping components would adequately buffer buildings, structures, and parking areas from surrounding areas and roadways; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resources protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the CLUP for the following reasons: 1. The site is designated as Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B). This designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended for visitors to the City. The proposed timeshare units are visitor serving as they provide overnight lodging accommodations and other services to visitors to the coastal zone. The proposed project will provide expanded accommodations and services in the City and result in a total gross floor area of 374,104 square feet. This equates to a 0.34 floor area to land area ratio, which is below the 0.50 to 1.25 floor area ratio permitted under the CV -B land use designation. 2. The project has been designed so that grading and required fuel modification activities would completely avoid disturbance of all off -site delineated coastal sage scrub (CSS) vegetation and that a minimum 50 -foot buffer would be provided between the proposed timeshare structures and the CSS vegetation. The timeshare buildings have also been designed to provide a minimum 100 -foot buffer from the wetland located north of the project site. To ensure project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause a significant impact to nesting gnatcatchers, a mitigation measure has been proposed requiring all lighting within 100 feet of the CSS to consist of low intensities, directed away from the CSS habitat, and review of the lighting plans by a qualified biologist. 3. The project design proposes the use of native, fire- resistant species, planted exclusively in the Special Treatment Zone that is the 50 -foot buffer between the environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) and the proposed buildings. The native vegetation would be low- growing grasses and (orbs that would require only periodic minor maintenance that would not result in any degradation of the adjacent ESHA. The species selected are native to the coastal ecosystem of Central Orange County and would provide transitional habitat for foraging for a wide suite of native species that also utilize the adjacent coastal sage scrub ESHA. 4. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. �I City Council Resolution No. Page 4 of 32 5. The project includes 916 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code and exceeds the projected peak parking demands as illustrated by the traffic analysis prepared for this project. 6. Policies 4.4.1 -1 through 4.4.2 -3 of the CLUP pertain to the design of structures to protect public coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities of the coastal zone. Coastal views from designated roads are to be protected and enhanced. There are two such coastal view roads in close proximity to the project site: Back Bay Drive and a short segment of Jamboree Road north of the project site. The coastal views from Back Bay Drive are to the Back Bay and not the project site; therefore, there is no impact. Visual Simulation 1 (Figure 5.1 -2 of the DEIR) is from a vantage point nearest the Jamboree Road segment; the simulation indicates that no coastal views currently exist from this location. The DEIR also includes view simulations from other public vantage points (Visual Simulations 2 through 9) in the immediate vicinity of the site and concludes that project implementation will not impact any public views. WHEREAS, the proposed sales, management, and contingency plans adequately address the purpose of Section 20.84.040 of the Zoning Code, and in conjunction with the recommended conditions of approval, should not negatively impact surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code does not permit the utilization of tandem parking for commercial uses unless a modification permit is approved for the deviation in access of parking spaces. Also, pursuant to Section 20.65.070.A (Exceptions to Height Limits) of the Zoning Code, architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other roof -top features of an open nature may be permitted in excess of the height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. Section 20.93.030 of the Zoning Code requires the City Council to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a modification permit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Strict application of the parking requirements would only require a total of 396 spaces, which could be accommodated on -site without the need for tandem parking; however, as illustrated by the peak parking demand analysis prepared for this project, the proposed 912 parking spaces is consistent with the project's total parking needs. This number of parking spaces cannot be accommodated z1b City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 32 on -site without the extensive use of tandem parking, unless the construction of a much larger parking structure is proposed. The applicant opted to construct a smaller, less visually intrusive parking structure and expand the use of tandem parking throughout the site. This increased parking meets the intent of the Code by ensuring sufficient parking is being provided for the expanded uses, while the proposed valet operation will insure efficient and safe parking management for the hotel and banquet guests b. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 5.2.1 (Architecture and Site Design) requires that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit high quality architectural and site design in consideration of a number of design principles. One principle in particular requires modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest. Use Permit No. 3161 permitted a cupola over the main hotel entry measuring a total height of 52 feet 9 inches, which was used to establish an identifying feature for the hotel visible from Jamboree Road. This was similar to the ballroom cupola proposed with this project and intended to serve a similar function. The proposed architectural cupola and tower feature is intended to complement the existing hotel and cupola, create visual interest, and establish a separate identifiable feature for the ballroom building. Strict application of the height limits would eliminate the ability to provide this enhanced architectural treatment of the ballroom structure. 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: a. The existing hotel and banquet facilities currently operate primarily with valet service utilizing tandem parking (previously approved by Use Permit No. 3161). Proposed operations will not change significantly from current operations, with the exception of the increased utilization of tandem parking spaces. Continued valet parking service will ensure guests arriving for large banquet events can be parked more efficiently and safely than can be achieved though self - parking. Several self - parking spaces (non- tandem) will remain available for guests seeking short-term parking for use of the spa, restaurants, shops, or meeting facilities without having to utilize valet service. b. To minimize the visual impact of the parking areas as viewed from the adjacent right -of -ways and properties, the parking areas will remain extensively screened from view with the use of proposed and existing groundcover, hedges, and trees. 11 City Council Resolution No. Page 6 of 32 c. The ballroom's proposed cupola and tower feature is 57 feet 6 inches in height with an additional 5- foot -high finial on top. This is approximately 5 feet higher (10 feet including finial) than the height of the existing cupola located at the hotel entrance. Within the context of a 25 -acre site, the cupola and tower feature is a rather minor projection and is consistent with the height of the existing cupola over the hotel entrance (exclusive of the finial). 3. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The existing hotel and banquet facilities were previously approved and currently operate primarily with valet service utilizing tandem parking. To date, the utilization of a tandem parking with valet service has not proven detrimental to persons residing or working in the neighborhood. It should also be noted that several other large hotels in the City, such as the Island Hotel and Fairmont Hotel, operate exclusively with valet service utilizing tandem parking and have also not proven detrimental. b. The use of valet parking will provide guests with direct access to the hotel uses, eliminates the need for guests to park a significant distance from the hotel entry, and enhances safety for guests by eliminating the need to walk through parking lot areas, separating them from vehicles circulating the parking lots, particularly during large banquet events where guests tend to arrive simultaneously. c. To ensure that the valet parking services needed to effectively utilize the large number of tandem spaces do not result in a significant impact, particularly during large wedding, banquet, conference, and special events, preparation of, and compliance with, a valet parking management plan has been included as a mitigation measure d. The proposed cupola and tower feature will be visible from Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, as well as the adjacent Sea Island residential community and the Bayview Landing senior apartment complex; however, above the maximum height limit, the edges of the tower are tapered, and arched openings (5.5 feet wide x 8 feet high) exist on each of its four sides, visually reducing the mass of the tower feature and allowing it to remain open in nature. The cupola and tower feature will not block any private or public views, but will project into the panoramic views of the site, similar to the existing cupola over the main hotel structure which has not been detrimental to the visual quality of the area. I City Council Resolution No. Page 7 of 32 e. A condition of approval has been included to limit the illumination of the cupola to soft accent lighting at night so as not to become a nuisance to the adjacent residents. WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in the 26/35 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 26 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 35 feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 26 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the timeshare buildings are at 35 feet and the ridges are at 40 feet, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The proposed roof midpoints of the ballroom building is 31 feet 6 inches and the ridge is 36 feet 6 inches (exclusing cupola), as measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the City Council to make certain mandatory findings to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed timeshare buildings are to be located on a portion of the site with the highest grade elevations and most visible from the Newport North View Park to the north. Currently, development is not visible from this location. Maintaining the 26 -foot height limit would not allow the design of structures greater than two- levels in height, resulting in the need to create much larger building pads in order to develop the remaining entitled rooms. This required increase in horizontal dimensions of these structures would reduce the amount of open space and landscaping that can be provided on the site. Instead, the proposed project clusters the taller, three -level buildings throughout the site to provide increased public visual open space, not only by allowing a significant amount of open space to remain around the timeshare structures as viewed from the Newporter North View Park, but also by allowing approximately 40.4 percent of the site to remain as open space and visually enhanced with landscaping. b. The proposed ballroom consists of a single level; however, increasing the height limitation for the ballroom accommodates ceiling heights approximate to the size of the 800 -seat capacity ballroom. An alternative to developing one large ballroom, which can be divided up into smaller ballrooms and meeting rooms, would be to simply construct three or four smaller ballroom structures that can be designed with lesser ceiling heights consistent with the base 26- foot height limit. It is important to note, however, that the consolidation of 13 City Council Resolution No. Page 8 of 32 smaller ballroom /meeting spaces into one grand ballroom structure, results in the consolidation of the support uses, such as kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, pre- function areas, trash areas, etc. Consolidation reduces the amount of floor area and lot coverage that would otherwise be dedicated to these various support uses. The development of one large ballroom also allows for the retention of increased setbacks from Jamboree Road (approx. 379 feet) and Back Bay Drive (approx. 94 feet), whereas, smaller detached ballrooms would likely have reduced setback distances. 2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts in Support of Finding: Maintaining the 26 -foot height limit would result in increased lot coverage. Clustering the proposed buildings throughout the site and around the existing buildings, which are approximately 9 feet lower in height, would create variation in roof heights. This would enhance the visual character of the area. The additional height would also allow significant use of sloping roof planes, which would add visual interest. The alternative would be to utilize flatter roofs and low sloping roofs to achieve higher ceilings, similar to the existing hotel buildings. 3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project, which consists of one, two, and three -story structures, is consistent with the development of the existing hotel structures. Due to the distance between the project site and adjacent neighborhoods, and the significant amount of mature landscaping on the site, impacts to surrounding neighborhoods are negligible and property owners will retain most of their current views. The proposed heights of the buildings are only approximately 9 feet higher than the existing buildings on -site, and are comparable in height to the adjacent Bayview Landing Senior Apartments; therefore, the proposed building heights will not result in an abrupt scale relationship with the existing developments in the area. 4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed structures will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without requesting the increased height. The structures could have been designed to comply with the height limit; however to -114 City Council Resolution No. Page 9 of 32 achieve the same room count, the buildings would be enlarged horizontally increasing horizontal bulk and reducing open space. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative parcel map to reconfigure two existing lots, allowing the timeshares to remain on one parcel and the hotel on the other, and to establish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a tentative tract map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. b. The proposed finished grades, as shown on the proposed site grading plan and site section (Sheets C -2 and A -3 of Project Plans), are not unreasonable given the variable topography of the site. A majority of the natural grade elevations will actually be lowered, particularly the highest portions of the site where the proposed timeshare buildings are proposed. Overall, 24,000 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be exported (40,000 c.y of cut — 16,000 c.y. of fill). The proposed finished grade beneath the ballroom is approximately 7 feet higher than the underlying existing grade because proposed storm drain improvements will eliminate the need for the existing drainage swale. The ballroom's finished floor was set at an elevation convenient for handicapped accessibility and for management of storm water runoff. c. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed project is consistent with the maximum General Plan development limitation established for the site and significantly below the 15 City Council Resolution No. Page 10 of 32 applicable maximum floor area limit established by the CV -B coastal land use designation. b. The site is currently utilized as a resort-style hotel complex. The hotel expansion and addition of the 88 timeshare units will not change the principal use of the site. c. The project is not on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. d. No releases of hazardous substances that would require investigation and/or remediation have been identified at the site. e. As designed, the proposed project would not result in significant biological resource impacts and would protect existing resources through the use of native vegetation. f. A geotechnical feasibility study was prepared by Kleinfelder, which concludes that the site can be developed as planned from a geotechnical perspective. Although the project requires excavation for subterranean parking, the results of the study conclude that excavation required for the timeshare structures would not encounter any groundwater. g. The project is located within a Special Fire Protection Area as defined by the City's Fire Department. A Fire Protection Plan prepared by Dudek, and preliminarily approved by the Fire Department, concludes that through code and mitigation requirements, the buildings can be designed to be defensible from wildfire and, in turn, do not represent a significant threat of ignition source from the adjacent native habitat. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and concludes that the proposed development will not result in a significant environmental impact with respect to fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project has been designed so that grading and required fuel modification activities would completely avoid disturbance of all off-site delineated coastal sage scrub vegetation _J(D City Council Resolution No. Page 11 of 32 and compliance with mitigation measures will ensure impacts to wildlife within the adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat area are minimized. 4. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project consists of 479 hotel/timeshare units and ancillary eating, drinking, banquet, and spa facilities as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed project will generate any serious public health problems. c. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Draft EIR to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: No public easements for access through the property currently exist or have been retained for use by the public at large. b. Several existing public easements exist on -site, including utility, sewer, water, drainage, and traffic signal maintenance easements. Project implementation will require modification of the sewer, water, and storm drain easements to avoid constructing permanent improvements over said easements. 6. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. 11 City Council Resolution No. Page 12 of 32 Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding is not applicable. 7. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore, this finding is not applicable. 8. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: Title 24 of the California Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes 9. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is designated for Visitor Serving Commercial land uses by the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Residential development is not proposed or permitted on the site; therefore, this finding is not applicable 10. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with commercial use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. -J� City Council Resolution No. Page 13 of 32 b. The RWQCB has not provided any comments related to the proposed Draft EIR during the 45 -day review period. 11. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. WHEREAS, a use permit to allow the proposed expansion of the existing hotel use has been prepared and approved in accordance with Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings and facts in support of such findings: 1. Finding: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is located within the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) Zoning District. Hotels and timeshares are considered visitor accommodations that are permitted land uses with the approval of a use permit. The proposed expansion of the existing hotel uses and addition of the 88 timeshare units is consistent with the RSC District. With the exception of the use permit request for increased height, and modification request for the commercial tandem parking and increased height of the architectural tower element, all required development regulations of the RSC zoning regulations have been met. 2. Finding: That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Facts in Support of Finding: The project has been conditioned to regulate the design and operation of the use to minimize impacts to adjacent uses and to guests of the hotel and timeshare development. Specifically, the project will not be detrimental to the public for the following reasons: a. All potential environmental impacts have been analyzed in the Initial Study and FOR and were found not to be significant with the incorporation of specific mitigation measures, with the exception of temporary construction K City Council Resolution No. Page 14 of 32 noise impacts to nearby noise - sensitive uses. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels; however, the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. b. The proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures for this project will ensure that all conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. c. The project has been designed to avoid disturbances to the adjacent ESHA. d. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. e. A contingency parking plan for additional off -site parking will provide sufficient parking for those special occasions in hotel operation when demand for parking exceeds the number of available on -site parking spaces. f. A traffic analysis has determined that the increased traffic generated as a result of project implementation will not result in significant impacts to intersections or traffic circulation in the City of Newport Beach, and more specifically, within the vicinity of the project site. g. The project has been conditioned so as to control and reduce excess lighting and to avoid off -site light spillage. 3. Finding: That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this Code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Facts in Support of Finding: The Zoning Code requires the approval of a use permit for hotel and timeshare uses. The sales, management, and contingency plans required per Section 20.84.040 adequately address the purpose of each required plan. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, and Modification Permit NO City Council Resolution No. Page 15 of 32 No. 2007 -09, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and made hereof. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 0 City Council Resolution No. Page 16 of 32 Exhibit "A" CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH EXPANSION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2006121052 BACKGROUND CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The following sections provide a description of the each of the project's significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations. A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following adverse impacts of the project are considered significant and unavoidable based on Draft EIR and the findings discussed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the Draft EIR The following effects of the project have been determined to be significant, adverse and unavoidable after implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Noise- Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 23 months) and level of noise from the combination of construction activities (ranging from 58 to 88 dBA), project - related construction noise at the nearby residential and: recreational receivers would be significant. B. CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified above may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the proposed project. 12 City Council Resolution No. Page 17 of 32 Economic Development and Additional Meetina Space The proposed project would enhance the City's fiscal health through the expansion of the existing hotel uses, including a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, 88 new timeshare units, and other ancillary amenities such as a new spa, fitness and swim facility, and a timeshare clubhouse. The proposed uses would attract additional visitors to the City by expanding the destination services and uses currently provided on -site and in the coastal areas of Newport. For example, the expansion of the hotel's destination services and uses would provide a great means for visitors to take advantage of the hotel's adjacency (south and southwest of the project site across Back Bay Drive) to the Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. A preliminary study of the potential market demand for a conference or convention center was conducted, which evolved into a revenue enhancement study for Transient Occupancy Tax for the City. PKF Consulting conducted the Revenue Enhancement Study on behalf of the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau. The study's primary findings included the potential opportunity for expanded ballroom facilities or conference centers in existing hotels to assist in meeting conference need for the City of Newport Beach. The study provided an example of Public- Private partnerships that could allow for the development of a large ballroom or conference center at one of the existing hotels which would allow the City of Newport Beach to increase its level of rooms demand by appealing to group demand segments not currently able to be accommodated within the community. The proposed project, more specifically the development of a new, larger ballroom facility, will assist in meeting the conference need for the City of Newport Beach." Storm Drainaae Improvements The proposed project would introduce new storm drainage improvements in the project area. These improvements would include a new storm drain on the north side of Jamboree Road, which would connect to a new storm drain that would traverse the southwestern portion of the site beneath the parking lot adjacent to Back Bay Drive and would discharge to an existing storm drain at the northwestern corner of the site at Back Bay Drive. A system of grated inlets and curb opening catch basins at sump locations would capture and direct flows to the new drains. Flows from the north and northeastern portion of the site would be collected iri a separate storm drain system that would outlet to an existing concrete ditch at the northeast corner of the site. A new storm drain would also be provided along the northern portion of Back Bay Drive, adjacent to Timeshare Building TS -7, and would discharge into an existing public storm drain system. The project will provide upgraded drainage facilities and water quality best management practices (BMPs) that would in fact improve existing conditions. Additionally, drainage flows from the project site would be decreased under the proposed project conditions, as compared to the existing conditions. This would be accomplished through a combination of site - design and p City Council Resolution No. Page 18 of 32 treatment - control BMPs, such as various media filters, bioswales, and filtration trenches. �A City Council Resolution No. Page 19 of 32 Exhibit "B" Conditions of Approval Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, and Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 (Project - speck conditions noted in italics) Plannina Department 1. The following conditions herein replace and supersede all conditions of previous discretionary approvals for the 1107 Jamboree Road project site, except for Use Permit No. 1697 and Use Permit No. 2001 -031. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved project plans stamped with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval) 4. The location of timeshare building TS -1 shall maintain a minimum 100 -foot buffer from the wetland located north of the project site, as illustrated on the revised Site Grading/Technical Plan dated January 23, 2009. 5. Excepting the Summer Jazz Series events conducted pursuant to Use Permit No. 2001 -031, a Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or for those occasions when the existing or proposed banquet/meeting rooms are used by large outside groups which will generate a level of activity that will require additional off -site parking spaces, that would attract large crowds, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 6. Excepting the Summer Jazz Series events conducted pursuant to Use Permit No. 2001 -031, any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the applicant, operator, owner or his employees or representatives share in,any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks is prohibited. 7. Of the maximum 479 hotel rooms allowed for development on the site, no more than 88 rooms shall be developed as timeshare units, and no less than 391 rooms shall be maintained as traditional hotel rooms available for transient overnight use by the general public year- round. �5 City Council Resolution No. Page 20 of 32 8. Annual limits shall be established limiting the number of weeks an owner or owners can occupy a timeshare unit to a total of 90 days per calendar year, with a maximum of 29 days of use during any 60 day period. 9. Sales and management of the timeshare units shag be in substantial conformance with the approved sales, management, and contingency plans stamped with the date of this approval, with the exception of the time periods set forth in Condition No. 8. 10.All unsold or unoccupied timeshare units shall be made available to the general public for overnight rental through the resort hotel reservation system. 11. The timeshare development shall be granted access to 13 additional parking spaces on the hotel development parcel through an irrevocable access agreement. 12. The proposed spa facility shall be made available for use by members of the general public. 13. The applicant and property owner shall comply with the terms of the executed development agreement for the project. Timeshare development shall only occur if a development agreement is in effect for the development of the property and the applicant strictly complies therewith. 14. The project shall maintain a minimum of 912 parking spaces. 15. That valet parking service shall be provided 24 hours a day. (1985 Condition) 16.A minimum of 25 spaces shall be maintained in self - parking areas in the upper lot to provide self - parking for hotel guests and patrons of retail, restaurant and service uses. (1985 Condition) 17. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shag be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. (1985 Condition) Disclosure Statement a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport, c) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. Iii/ City Council Resolution No. Page 21 of 32 18. Within the Special Treatment Fuel Modification Zone located between the identified environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and Timeshare Building Nos. TS -i and TS -2, only the following native, fire- resistant plant species shall be planted, subject to the approval of the Fire Department: a. Coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) b. Coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera) c. Sticky - leaved monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus) d. Foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida) e. Purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) f. Lance - leaved dudleya ( Dudleya lanceolata) g. Blue -eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum) 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits a qualified biologist shall review the final landscaping plans to ensure that the proposed trees do not pose a potential threat to areas of adjacent CSS Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. 20. Disposal of green waste onto the natural open space areas adjacent to the site shall be prohibited. 21. All employees shall park their vehicles on -site except during special events when off - site parking arrangements are implemented and authorized, in which case employees shall park either on -site or at such authorized off -site facilities. 22.All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, approval from the California Coastal Commission is required. 24. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, approval from the California Coastal Commission is required. 25. Prior to the issuance of a permit or within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department. 26. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department, General Services Department, and Fire Department. Except as otherwise may be required for fuel modification and ESHA buffer zones, all planting areas shall be provided with a permanent �I City Council Resolution No. Page 22 of 32 underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 27.All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. 28. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be prohibited. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform and notice the responsible party, and, as appropriate, cite the responsible party and/or shut off the irrigation water. 29. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M.) to minimize evaporation. 30.AII leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant shall complete all required repairs. 31. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 32. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 33. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plan. 34.7his Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 35. Any change in operational characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. .� City Council Resolution No. Page 23 of 32 36. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 37. Use Permit No. 2005 -046 and Modification Permit 2007 -095 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 and Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted (in no event shall extensions be granted beyond the effective term of the development agreement for the project). 38. Parcel Map No. 2007 -003 shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the effective date of approval (includes additional 12 months permitted under Government Code Section 66452.6(a)), unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (in no event shall extensions be granted beyond the effective term of the development agreement for the project). 39. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 40. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 41. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. 42. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures, utilize high pressure sodium lamps, and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. 43.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning FOR, E City Council Resolution No. Page 24 of 32 Department. The plan shall show that lighting values would be 1- foot - candle or less at all property lines. 45. Any proposed illumination of the new ballroom cupola and tower feature shall consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the views of the adjacent residents, and shall be prohibited between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 46. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in condition of approval Nos. 42, 43, & 45. 47.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 48.AII signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, with the exception of temporary parking signs on the site during events at the hotel. 49.Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 50.The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 51.Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right - of -way. 52.The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 53.The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self - contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). �b City Council Resolution No. _ Page 25 of 32 54. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Department. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls, a self closing, self latching gate and have a have a decorative, solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. The design of the enclosure shall be integrated with the design of the other on -site buildings and structures. 55. Deliveries of food products shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., daily. All other deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director, and may require an amendment to this use permit. 56.A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment, with minimum useable area dimensions of 36- inches wide, 36- inches deep and 72- inches high, shall be provided, and the area shall drain directly into the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternate drainage plan. 57. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 58.A six - foot -high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. 59. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. 60. The applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows: Land Clearing /Earth - Moving a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with 5 percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily. C. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., qr City Council Resolution No. Page 26 of 32 minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). e. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. f. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 mph. g. All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. h. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be tumed off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible. Paved Roads k. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall be paved. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. m. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Unpaved Staging Areas or Roads n. Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. 61.Construction activities which produce loud noise that disturb, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, shall be limited to the weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No such noise occurrences shall occur at anytime on Sundays or federal holidays. 62. Noise - generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures). All qa City Council Resolution No. _ Page 27 of 32 equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. 63. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel expansion and timeshare project including, but not limited to, the approval of the Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005- 046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002, and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and /or statement of overriding considerations for Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel expansion and timeshare project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Buildina Department 64. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 65. Strict adherence to maximum occupancy limits is required. 66. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 93 City Council Resolution No. Page 28 of 32 67. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 68. A list of "good house - keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long -term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Fire Department 69. Fire sprinklers shall be provided for all new buildings. 70. Fire hydrants shall be provided every 300 feet along the main access driveway through the timeshare development. 71. The porte cochere on the new ballroom shall have a minimum vehicle clearance of 13 feet 6 inches high. 72. The proposed fire access road shall not exceed a grade of 10 percent. 73. All new elevators shall be gurney accommodating in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code. 74.A11 gates to the property shall be automatic opening and provided with knox key switch and approved strobe. 75. Fire alarm systems in new buildings shall be tied into the main panel in the existing Catalina building. Fire alarm systems located within the existing buildings shall be tied into Catalina building when undergoing replacement or upgrade. 76. Smoke detectors shag be provided in new buildings with sleeping areas and shall be powered through the fire alarm panel. 77. Class I standpipes shall be provided in all stairwells of the timeshare buildings. �i City Council Resolution No. _ Page 29 of 32 78. The existing fire hydrant and Fire Department connections located adjacent to the sand volleyball court shall be relocated to a new location, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department, adjacent to the main access driveway through the timeshare development. Public Works Department 79.A parcel Map shall be recorded. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 80. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 81. The required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. (1988 Condition) 82. Valet and parking management operations shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Departments. (1985 Condition) 83. The project shall comply with the City's sight distance standard for driveway /public street intersections and internal roadways. 84. Curb cuts no longer in use shall be abandoned and plugged per City Standards. 85. Cu / -de -sacs shall be designed per City Standard STD -102 -L and STD - 103 -L. 86. Ramp slopes shall comply with City Standards. 87. Final parking and circulation plans shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. M City Council Resolution No. Page 30 of 32 88. Prior to the issuance of a buildina permit and /or recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall resolve all easement issues to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. No permanent ground improvements such as buildings, walls, etc. shall be built over any active easements or underground utilities. 89. The existing Street, Storm Drain, and Traffic Signal Easements along the Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive frontages shall be maintained, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 90. If it is desired to record the Map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements, the applicant will provide the City through the Public Works Department with either a refundable deposit or Material /Labor /Performance bonds to guarantee satisfactory completion of the required public improvement. 91.All new sewer facilities constructed on -site to serve the development shall be privately owned and maintained. 92. All on -site storm drain inlets and connections to City storm drain facilities shall be privately owned and maintained. 93.A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as part of the submitted plans. 94. Double backflow preventers shall be installed to serve the site. 95. Should project implementation require the reconstruction of existing City facilities, such as water, storm drain, sewer, traffic signals, etc., the costs shall be borne by the applicant. 96. Street, drainage, and utility improvements to be owned and maintained by the City shall be submitted on the City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 97.Aff on -site runoff shall be intercepted by on -site runoff retention devices or approved water quality devices prior to discharge into public storm drain system or through curb drains. 98. All on -site runoff not captured by on -site runoff retention devices shall be treated by industrial -grade clarifier(s), devices or other approved water quality methods, prior to discharge through curb drains onto Back Bay Drive. Direct connection of untreated runoff to the public storm drain system is not allowed. qO City Council Resolution No. _ Page 31 of 32 99.ADA compliant pedestrian paths shall be provided throughout the development to serve new buildings and related amenity facilities. 100. All existing and new curb returns along Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive frontages shall be constructed or reconstructed with ADA compliant curb access ramps. 101. The driveway decorative pavers proposed within the public right -of -way will be subject to additional conditions during the plan check process. The execution of an encroachment agreement(s) will be required if the installation of said decorative pavers is approved by the City. 102. All new landscaping within the public right -of -way and adjacent to driveway approaches shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department for sight distance conformance. 103. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 104. Public Works Department improvement plans plan check and inspection fees shall be paid prior to encroachment permit issuance. 105. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing; parking arrangements for both sites during construction; anticipated haul routes; and construction mitigation. -Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 106. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. 107. A construction traffic control plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the encroachment permit. Said plan shall be wet sealed, signed, and dated by a California Registered Traffic Engineer. 108. Staging and /or queuing of construction vehicles shall be allowed within the project site but shall be prohibited within the public right -of -way. q1 City Council Resolution No. Page 32 of 32 109. Prior to any proposed street closures, the applicant shall submit an application for a temporary street closure permit and an encroachment permit. No street closures shall be permitted until such permits are issued by the Public Works Department. Mitigation Measures 110. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006929052) for the project. M ATTACHMENT 3 Draft Ordinance Approving Development Agreement No. 2005- 002 (Development Agreement included as Exhibit "A ") qA THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 11 r, P 16b ORDINANCE NO. 2009- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005 -002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, JGKALLINS NEWPORT INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND SUNSTONE JAMBOREE, LLC, FOR THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH HOTEL EXPANSION AND TIMESHARE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1107 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2005 -212). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sunstone Jamboree, LLC ( "Sunstone "), requesting approval of Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002, with respect to property located at 1107 Jamboree Road, and legally described as Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 17, Page 3, of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County ( "Property"), to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. Proposed improvements include the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a new 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage. Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel 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; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.84.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Development Agreement), the City and the operator of a timeshare project are required to enter into a development agreement under the provisions of Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to set forth the amount payable to the City by a timeshare owner for the right of occupancy of any timeshare unit; and WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.040 requires that development agreements include the term, permitted uses, density and intensity of development, and the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; and WHEREAS, a Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach, JGKallins Newport Investments, LLC, the fee owner of the Property ( "JGKallins "), and Sunstone, the leaseholder of the Property (collectively Sunstone and JGKallins are referred to hereafter as the "Landowner "), has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, during the term of the Development Agreement, the Landowner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Agreement and project approvals, subject to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2006121052); and (d1 WHEREAS, adoption of this ordinance and approval of the Development Agreement rescinds and cancels Landowner's remaining rights and obligations under the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( "CIOSA ") upon the effective date of the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Landowner has agreed to provide public benefits as consideration for the Development Agreement, including the timeshare development fee required by Chapter 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code in the amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000); a visitor and recreational facilities fee in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to be used for improvements that provide visitor and recreational facilities at Marina Park or at any other site designated by the City; an off - site water quality improvement fee in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000); and a bayfront walkway connection fee in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to be used towards the cost of public improvements that expands access to the bayfront, such as the Marine Avenue Bridge /Bayside Drive bayfront walkway connection; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, 2008 and November 6, 2008 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission considered the proposed project, including the parcel map, use permit, modification permit, and development agreement, the Final Environmental Impact Report, and the full administrative record. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing and after considering the evidence and arguments submitted by the City staff, the Landowner, and all interested parties, the Planning Commission adopted: (1) Resolution No. 1770 recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2006121052) prepared for the project, and (2) Resolution No. 1776 recommending adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification. Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.45.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3360 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV), which is intended to provide for accommodation, goods, and services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City. The project site, in particular, is allocated a maximum development limitation of 479 hotel rooms (Anomaly No. 52). The demolition of the 12 traditional hotel rooms and construction of the 88 new Ida timeshare rooms results in a total room count of 479 rooms, consistent with maximum development limitation for the site. The project has also been reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the General Plan and been determined to be consistent each applicable policy; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The project site is designated as Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B). This designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended for visitors to the City. The proposed project will provide expanded accommodations and services in the City and result in a total gross floor area of 374,104 square feet. This equates to a 0.34 floor area to land area ratio, which is below the 0.50 to 1.25 floor area ratio permitted under the CV -B land use designation. The project has also been reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the CLUP and been determined to be consistent each applicable policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the Development Agreement and in the full administrative record, and found that: 1. The Development Agreement is entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, the City's police power. 2. The Development Agreement is in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City, its residents, and the public. 3. The Development Agreement is compatible and consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, and does not create any direct conflict with the General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The Development Agreement is consistent with Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections 15.45.040 and 20.84.050, and includes all the contents required for development agreements by the City of Newport Beach. 5. The Development Agreement Amendment is consistent with provisions of state law (California Government Code Sections 65864- 65869.5) and local law (Municipal Code chapter 15.45) that authorize binding agreements that: (i) encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning and public facilities financing; (ii) strengthen the public planning process and encourage private implementation of the local general plan; (iii) provide certainty in the approval of projects to avoid waste of time and resources; and (iv) reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance to the property owners that they may proceed with projects consistent with existing policies, rules, and regulations. More specifically, the Development Agreement is consistent and has been approved in 103 accordance with provisions of California Government Code Section 65867 and Municipal Code Chapters 15.45. A Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006121052) was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code § §21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq. The City Council considered and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on February 24, 2009, by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained within Resolution No. 2009 -_, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 7. The Development Agreement provides significant public benefits to the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorney's fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Based thereon, the Landowner shall be required to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City as provided for in the Development Agreement and project conditions of approval; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 attached hereto as Exhibit "A," including rescission of Landowner's remaining rights and obligations under CIOSA, is adopted and approved. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on February 24, 2009, and adopted on March 10, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS F5 ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED TO AS FORM: CITY ATTORNEY /z- EXHIBIT "A" Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 X0 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Attn: City Clerk Recorder's Use Only) This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and 27383. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, JGKALLINS NEWPORT INVESTMENTS, LLC and SUNSTONE JAMBOREE, LLC CONCERNING THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH PROPERTY (1107 JAMBOREE ROAD) 16`i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Definitions ............................................................................................. ..............................4 1.1 "Adopting Ordinances".... . ... I ... I ..................... ... .......................... I ............ 111-4 1.2 " Agreement.. .................................................................. ..............................4 1.3 "Approval Date" ............................................................. ..............................4 1.4 "Cancellation" ............................................................... ............................... 5 1.5 " CEQA" .......................................................................... ..............................5 1.6 " CIOSA ......................................................................................................... 5 1.7 "City.. .......................................................................... ..............................5 1.8 "City Council" ................................................................. ..............................5 1.14 "ENR Index" ................................................................... ..............................5 1.15 "Exhibit" ......................................................................... ..............................6 1.16 "Existing General Regulations ....................................... ..............................6 1.17 "Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance" ....................... ............................... 6 1.18 "First Time -Share Building Permit.. ................................ ..............................6 1.19 "Future General Regulations.. ........................................ ..............................6 1.20 "General Plan.. ............................................................... ..............................6 1.21 "General Regulations .............................................................. ..............................6 1.22 "Governmental Reservations.. ........................................ ..............................7 1.23 "Include" ........................................................................ ..............................7 1.24 " Mortgage" ..................................................................... ..............................8 �t1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.25 " Mortgagee" .............................................................................. ..............................8 1.26 "Off -Site Water Quality Fee" .......................................... ..............................8 1.27 "Party" or " Parties" ......................................................... ..............................8 1.28 " Project" ......................................................................... ..............................8 1.29 "Project Approvals" ........................................................ ..............................8 1.30 "Project Conditions" ....................................................... ..............................8 1.31 " Property ........................................................................ ..............................9 1.32 "Single Site Time -Share Plan" ....................................... ..............................9 1.33 "Single Time -Share Property" ........................................ ..............................9 1.34 "Subsequent Approvals.. ................................................ ..............................9 1.35 "Term" .......................................................................... ..............................9 1.36 "Time -Share Fee" .......................................................... ..............................9 1.37 "Time -Share Unit" .......................................................... ..............................9 1.38 "Time -Share Unit Purchaser" ......................................... ..............................9 1.39 "Time -Share Use" .......................................................... ..............................9 1.40 "Vested Entitlement" or "Entitlement"... ........................................................ 9 1.41 'Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee" ........... ..............................9 1.42 'Walkway Connection Fee" .......................................... ............................... 9 2. Development of Property... ..... ........................................................................................ 9 2.1 Development Program ................................................... ..............................9 2.2 Compliance with Project Conditions ............................. .............................11 2.3 Compliance with General Regulations .......................... .............................11 2.4 No Conflicting Enactments ........................................... .............................11 2.5 Public Health and Safety /Uniform Codes.... .............................................. 12 2.6 Police Power... .............................................. ............................................ 12 �t1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.7 Public Works Improvements ......................................... .............................13 2.8 Overriding Federal and State Laws and Regulations ... .............................13 2.9 Procedural Regulations ................................................ .............................14 3. Benefits to Owner .............................................................................. .............................14 3.1 Right to Develop ........................................................... .............................14 3.2 Benefits to Landowner .................................................. .............................15 3.3 Reservations or Dedications of Land ............................ .............................15 3.4 No Additional Traffic Related Fees or Conditions. ..................................... 15 3.5 Time for Construction and Completion of Project ......... .............................15 3.6 Tentative Maps ............................................................. .............................16 3.7 Processing and Issuance of Permits ............................ .............................16 3.8 Future Approvals .......................................................... .............................17 4. Fees ...................................................................................................... .............................17 4.1 Time -Share Development ............................................. .............................17 4.2 Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities - Marina Park Marina ............. 17 4.3 Off -Site Water Quality Improvements ........................... .............................18 4.4 Bayfront Walkway Connection ...................................... .............................19 4.5 ENR Index .................................................................... .............................19 4.6 Development Fees ...................................................... .............................19 4.7 Permitted Increases in Development Fees Applicable to Property . ........... 21 5. CIOSA ................................................................................................. .............................21 5.1 Cancellation of CIOSA .................................................. .............................21 5.2 Maintenance of CIOSA Pre -Paid Transportation Fund . .............................21 5.3 No Payments Due from City ......................................... .............................21 6. Sales Tax ............................................................................................ .............................22 iii \ Ja- TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa4e 6.1 Project Construction ..................................................... .............................22 6.2 Direct Payment Process ............................................... .............................22 6.3 Fixtures, Materials and Equipment ............................... .............................22 7. Project as Private Undertaking ....................................................... .............................23 8. Effective Date; Term .............................................................. .............................23 9. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ............................ .............................23 10. Enforcement .......................................................................... .............................23 11. Periodic Review of Compliance ............................................. .............................23 12. Events of Default .................................................................... .............................23 12.1 Default by Landowner ................................................... .............................23 12.2 Default by City .............................................................. .............................24 12.3 Specific Performance and Damages Remedies ........... .............................24 12.4 Limited Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action......................................................................... .............................24 13. Cooperation ........................................................................................ .............................25 14. Force Majeure ........................................................................ .............................25 15. Indemnity ............................................................................. ............................... 25 16. Third Party Legal Challenge .................................................. .............................25 17. Mortgagee Rights ................................................................... .............................26 17.1 Encumbrances on Property .......................................... .............................26 17.2 Mortgagee Protection ................................................... .............................26 17.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated ............................................. .............................26 17.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure .....................26 18. Assignment ......................................................................................... .............................27 18.1 Right to Assign ............................................................. .............................27 18.2 Agreement Binding on Successors and Assigns .......... .............................27 iv l tr�) TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae 19. Estoppel Certificate ........................................................................... .............................28 20. Further Actions and Instruments ............................................ .............................28 21. Notices ................................................................................... .............................28 22. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms ................... .............................29 22.1 Rules of Construction ................................................... .............................29 22.2 Time Is of the Essence ................................................. .............................29 22.3 Waiver .......................................................................... .............................29 22.4 Counterparts ................................................................. .............................30 22.5 Entire Agreement .......................................................... .............................30 22.6 Severability ................................................................... .............................30 22.7 Construction ................................................................. .............................30 22.8 Constructive Notice and Acceptance .......................... ............................... 30 22.9 No Third Party Beneficiaries ......................................... .............................30 22.10 Applicable Law and Venue ........................................... .............................31 22.11 Non - Liability of City Officers and Employees ................ .............................31 22.12 Section Headings ......................................................... .............................31 22.13 Covenant Not To Sue ................................................... .............................31 22.14 Eminent Domain ........................................................... .............................31 22.15 No Brokers ................................................................... .............................31 23. Authority to Execute ............................................................. ............................... 31 24. Recordation ........................................................................... .............................32 EXHIBITA .................................................................................... ............................... A -1 EXHIBITB .................................................................................... ............................... B -1 EXHIBITC .................................................................................... ............................... C -1 v � DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Hyatt Regency Newport Beach (Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65864 - 65869.5) This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is entered into on March 10, 2009, by and between: (1) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation and charter City ("City"); (2) JGKALLINS NEWPORT INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company ( "JGKallins "); and (3) SUNSTONE JAMBOREE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "Sunstone ") (JGKallins and Sunstone are collectively referred to herein as "Landowner "). City and Landowner are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party." RECITALS A. Property /Ownership Status. JGKallins is the fee owner of a 25.7 -acre parcel of real property (the "Property") that is described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A and depicted on the site map attached hereto as Exhibit B. Sunstone is the leaseholder of the Property pursuant to an assignment of lease dated May 13, 2005 between WHP Hotel Owner -1, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, the assignor, and Sunstone, the assignee. The Property is under the City's land use jurisdiction and is developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Hotel ( "Hyatt Hotel ") located at 1107 Jamboree Road. The Property is located in the California Coastal Zone and therefore this Agreement will require approval by the California Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 65669 of the California Government Code. B. CIOSA Agreement. On September 14, 1992, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ( "City Council ") adopted Ordinance No. 92 -35, through which City and Landowner's predecessor -in- interest, The Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation, entered into the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement pertaining to twelve (12) parcels of real property located in City, including the parcel owned by Landowner. On September 11, 1995, City adopted Ordinance No. 95 -42 approving the First Amendment to the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement dated March 12, 1996 ( "CIOSA Amendment"). The original Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and the CIOSA Amendment are collectively referred to herein as the " CIOSA." C. Public Benefits under the CIOSA. Under the CIOSA, Landowner: (1) Committed to road improvements adjacent to proposed projects, made an interest -free loan to City, and pre -paid required fair share road improvement fees that City used as matching funds when obtaining outside transportation funding; and (2) Committed to dedicating 138.1 acres for open space and public facilities which was more than was required for the twelve (12) parcels under the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the City of Newport Beach Park Dedication Ordinance, in effect at the time. 022.17.09 Clean 1 \ 0 D. CIOSA Building Entitlements. The CIOSA provided Landowner with certain building entitlements with respect to the Property including the right to develop 68 hotel rooms at the Property for a total of 479 hotel rooms. To date, Landowner has not developed the 68 additional hotel rooms provided for in CIOSA. E. CIOSA Status. Although Landowner did not utilize all of the building entitlements provided by CIOSA as set forth in Recital D, it fulfilled all the public benefits listed in Recital C as if it had done so. F. Project. Landowner has asked City to approve this Development Agreement, a Use Permit, a Modification Permit, and a Parcel Map which would authorize the Landowner to: (1) exceed the base height limit of 26 feet to allow the seven (7) buildings constructed on the Single Time -Share Property and the Ballroom, defined below, to be constructed at heights of up to 35 feet; (2) exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet for an architectural cupola and tower feature of the proposed Ballroom, as defnied below; (3) allow commercial tandem valet parking; (4) reconfigure two existing lots allowing for a SingleTime -Share Property to be governed by a Single Site Time -Share Plan to be located on one parcel and the hotel to remain on the other parcel; (5) establish finish grades for the purposes of measuring height; (6) construct 88 Time -Share Units within seven buildings on the Sing leTime-Share Property to be governed by a Single Site Time -Share Plan and which will allow the Landowner to sell, lease or convey Time -Share Use interests in the Sing leTime-Share Property; (7) construct a new 800 -seat ballroom facility (the `Ballroom "); (8) construct a new 10,072 square - foot spa and fitness center, including a new outdoor pool facility; (9) convert an existing building used for storage to a housekeeping and engineering use; and (10) construct a new two -level parking garage (collectively the "Project'). To implement the Project without exceeding the overall entitlement cap of 479 hotel rooms, Landowner is proposing to demolish 12 existing villas (rooms) so that the net number of hotel rooms at the Property will be 391 hotel rooms and construct 88 Time -Share Units for a total of 479 hotel rooms/time -share units. In addition, implementation of the Project would require the demolition of the existing 3,190 - square -foot Terrace Ballroom as well as the existing engineering and maintenance building, and removal of the existing nine -hole golf course. The Project will also require 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. The majority of the Project consists of redevelopment in the northern, northwestern, and southern portions of the Property. Other upgrades included in the Project would also occur in the central portion of the Property. The total area for the Project is approximately 14 acres, or about 55 percent, of the Property. Landowner anticipates developing the Project in two phases with the ballroom, spa and garage being constructed in phase one prior to the Time -Share Units to be developed in phase two. G. CIOSA Cancellation. Given the proposed Time -Share Use of the Single Time - Share Property and that CIOSA is no longer needed for the development of the Property, this Agreement provides for the rescission and cancellation of the 02.17.09 dean 2 `�`✓ Landowner's remaining rights and obligations under CIOSA on the Effective Date ( "Cancellation "). H. Public Benefit. Subject to the provisions in Section 4 below, and in exchange for the approvals, any authorization contained in Recital F and the other promises and covenants herein, Landowner has agreed to provide public benefits as consideration for this Agreement enabling City to fund and complete Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities, Marine Avenue Bridge — Bayside Drive Bayfront Walkway Connection, as well as Off -Site Water Quality Improvements as follows: (1) Landowner's payment of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in fees for Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities; (2) Landowner's payment of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) in fees for the Marine Avenue Bridge — Bayside Drive Bayfront Walkway Connection; and (3) Landowner's payment of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in fees for Off -Site Water Quality Improvements. I. Time -Share Developments. On March 24, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97 -09, which added Chapter 20.84 entitled "Time-Share Developments" to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (the "Time -Share Developments Ordinance "). On March 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -6, entitled "Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.45 of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding Development Agreements" (the "Development Agreement Ordinance "). This Agreement is consistent with the Time -Share Developments Ordinance and the Development Agreement Ordinance, which requires the amount payable to the City by any Time -Share Unit Purchaser for the right of occupancy of any Time -Share Unit to be set forth in an approved development agreement, which has been determined to be and is set forth herein as Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). J. Consistency with State and Local Laws. This Agreement is consistent with provisions of State law (California Government Code sections 65864 - 65869.5) and local law (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45 and 20.84) that authorize binding vested rights agreements between the City and persons having a legal or equitable interest in real property to: (1) encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning and public facilities financing; (2) strengthen the public planning process and encourage private implementation of the local General Plan; (3) provide certainty in the approval of projects to avoid waste of time and resources; and (4) reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance to property owners that they may proceed with projects consistent with existing policies, rules, and regulations during the term of the vested rights agreements. K. Findings. In recognition of the significant public benefits that this Agreement provides, the City Council has found that this Agreement: (1) is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan as of the date of this Agreement; (2) is in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of City, its residents, and the public; (3) is entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, City's police power; (4) is consistent and has been approved consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project (State 02.17.09 Clean 3 W Clearinghouse No. 2006121052), which analyzed the environmental effect of the proposed development of the Project on the Property; and (5) is consistent with and has been approved in a manner consistent with provisions of California Government Code section 65867 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapters 15.45 and 20.84. L. Planning Commission Hearing - Recommendation. On November 6, 2008, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the terms and conditions of this Agreement, made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and recommended to the City Council that the City Council approve this Agreement. M. City Council Hearing - Approval. On February 24, 2009, the City Council also held a public hearing on this Agreement and considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and information submitted by City staff, Landowner, and members of the public. On March 10, 2009, pursuant to the applicable state law (California Government Code sections 65864- 65869.5) and local law (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapters 15.45 and 20.84), the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. _, finding this Agreement to be consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the Recitals and Exhibits set forth in this Agreement. City and Landowner agree as follows: Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below: 1.1 "Adopting Ordinances" shall mean: (a) Ordinance No. 2009 -_ adopted by the City Council on March 10, 2009, approving this Agreement; (b) Resolution No. 2009 -_ adopted by the City Council on February 24, 2009 approving Use Permit No. _, Parcel Map No. _, and Modification Permit No. (c) Resolution No. 2009 -_ adopted by the City Council on February 24, 2009 certifying the EIR as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, adopting all feasible mitigation measures. 1.2 "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement. 1.3 "Approval Date' shall mean March 10, 2009, the date on which the City Council approved the Adopting Ordinances. 02.17.09 Clean 4 �,l� 1.4 "Cancellation" shall have the meaning ascribed in Recital G of this Agreement. 1.5 "CEQA" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code sections 21000 - 21177). 1.6 "CIOSA" shall have the meaning ascribed in Recital B of this Agreement. 1.7 "91ty" shall mean the City of Newport Beach, a chartered municipal corporation. 1.8 "City Council" shall mean the governing body of City 1.9 "Develop" shall mean all forms of use of the verb "develop" and the noun "Development ", whether or not capitalized, means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading: the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping and parking facilities and improvements. "Develop" or "Development" also includes the maintenance, repair, alteration, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, landscaping or facility after the initial construction and completion so long as the work is consistent with the Project Approvals, Project Conditions, the Development Plan and this Agreement. 1.10 "Development Fees" shall mean the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, the Off -Site Water Quality Fee, and the Walkway Connection Fee all as set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. 1.11 "Development Plan" shall mean and constitutes the plan for the development of the Property, as embodied and stated in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions and this Agreement. 1.12 "Effective Date" shall mean the date this Agreement is recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 1.13 "EIR" shall mean Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006121052), prepared for the Project and certified as fully compliant with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by the City Council on the Approval Date. 1.14 "ENR Index" shall mean the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. 02.17.09 clean 5 k�� 1.15 "Exhibit" shall mean the Exhibits to this Agreement. All Exhibits are incorporated as a substantive part of this Agreement. The Exhibits to this Agreement are as follows: (a) Legal Description of the Property Exhibit A); (b) Map depicting the Property Exhibit B); (c) Project Approvals and Project Conditions (Exhibit C). 1.16 "Existing General Regulations" shall mean those General Regulations approved by the City on or before the Approval Date (irrespective of their Effective Date) and not rescinded or superseded by City action taken on or before the Approval Date. 1.17 "Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance" shall mean City's Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, codified in Chapter 15.38 of City's Municipal Code, together with resolutions implementing said ordinance. 1.18 "First Time -Share Building Permit" shall mean the first building permit issued for time -share development on any portion of the Property. 1.19 "Future General Regulations" shall mean those General Regulations adopted or approved by the City in any way, after the Approval Date. 1.20 "General Plan" shall mean City's 2006 General Plan adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006 -76 and any amendments thereto, excluding any amendments after the Approval Date unless specifically agreed to by Landowner in writing or authorized herein. The Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element of the General Plan was approved by City voters in a general election on November 7, 2006. 1.21 "General Regulations" shall mean all laws, ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City governing the development and permitted uses of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property and provisions relating to applicable fees, charges, assessments and levies. General Regulations do not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy identified in or governing the following ( "Governmental Exceptions "): (a) The provisions of Titles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; 02.17.09 Clean 6 1D � (b) The provision of Title 19 and 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to the extent Landowner seeks approval from the City to subdivide any portion of the Single Time -Share Property including, but not limited to, the subdivision of any of the Time -Share Units located on the Single Time -Share Property, which future subdivision is not contemplated, approved or entitled by this Agreement; (c) Property taxes and assessments; (d) The control and abatement of Nuisances (subject to the provisions of Section 2.5); (e) The exercise of the power of eminent domain; (f) The provision of, or charges for, water, sewer, refuse, police, fire and other municipal services that are generally applicable to all owners or lessees of commercial property in the City; (g) The manner in which Property is used that are related to the amount and time of noise from permitted activities, the use of alcohol, and the nature and timing of special events; and (h) The provisions of Chapter 3.16 and 3.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall apply to all hotel rooms located at the Property and to the occupancy of any Time -Share Unit that: (1) is occupied by any person who is not a Time -Share Unit Purchaser or a guest of the Time -Share Unit Purchaser; and (2) any portion of a Time -Share Unit not expressly sold, leased or conveyed to a Time - Share Unit Purchaser. 1.22 "Governmental Reservations" shall mean those actions that City may take that may affect the Project or the operation of the Project, as follows: (a) Enforcement of the specific provisions, limitations and restrictions contained in the Project, Project Approvals, Development Plan and Project Conditions; (b) Enforcement of the provisions and conditions of this Agreement; (c) Enforcement of, or pursuant to, Governmental Exceptions or Governmental Reservations; and (d) Enforcement of Existing General Regulations. 1.23 "Include" and all contexts and forms of the words "includes" and "including" shall be interpreted to also state "but not limited to." 02.17.09 Clean 7 t, W1 1.24 "Mortgage" shall mean a mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance in which the Property, or a part or interest in the Property, is pledged as security and contracted for in good faith and for fair value. 1.25 "Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage or any successor or assignee of the Mortgagee. 1.26 "Off -Site Water Quality Fee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. 1.27 "Party" or "Parties" shall mean either City or Landowner or both, as determined by the context. 1.28 "Project" shall mean the existing and proposed development of the Property described generally in Recital F and pursuant to, and consistent with the Project Approvals, consistent with and subject to Project Conditions, and as described in this Agreement. The Project includes those improvements existing on the Property as of the Effective Date. 1.29 "Project Approvals" shall mean all approvals, amendments, permits, licenses, consents, rights and privileges, and other actions required or authorized to be approved, issued or taken by City in connection with development of the Property, including but not limited to the following discretionary actions: (a) Use Permit No. ; (b) Modification Permit No. ; (c) Parcel Map No. ; and (d) Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006121052). Project Approvals shall also include any Subsequent Approvals contemplated in this Agreement that are necessary to implement this Agreement and all discretionary or ministerial permits related to construction of the Project including grading permits, building permits, and occupancy permits. 1.30 "Project Conditions" shall mean all conditions to Landowner's right to proceed with Development pursuant to the Project Approvals, including the provisions of this Agreement, the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City Council, conditions to Project Approvals, Existing General Regulations, Governmental Exceptions and Governmental Reservations. The Project Conditions are generally described in Exhibit C. 02.17.09 Clean 8 1; �,D- 1.31 "Property' is described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B. 1.32 "Single Site Time -Share Plan" shall have the meaning set forth in California Business and Professions Code Section 11212(z)(1). 1.33 "Single Time -Share Property' shall refer to parcel 2 approved by Parcel Map No. , the location where Landowner plans to construct the 88 Time -Share Units. 1.34 "Subsequent Approvals" shall mean all Project Approvals granted or issued by the City subsequent to the Approval Date in connection with development of the Property. 1.35 "Term" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8 of this Agreement. 1.36 "Time -Share Fee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.1 of this Agreement. 1.37 "Time -Share Unit" shall mean the specific and defined portion of the Single Time -Share Property that is divided into time -share intervals and sold, leased or conveyed to a Time Share Unit Purchaser. 1.38 "Time -Share Unit Purchaser" shall mean a person who has received a right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of Time -Share Unit annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a fixed period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the Project has been divided. 1.39 "Time -Share Use" shall mean a right to occupy a SingleTime -Share Property by a Time -Share Unit Purchaser, which right is neither coupled with a freehold interest, nor coupled with an estate for years with a future interest in a Single Time -Share Property. 1.40 "Vested Entitlement" or "Entitlement" refers to the development rights granted Landowner pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals that are subject to Project Conditions. 1.41 "Visitor Servinq and Recreational Facilities Fee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.2 of this Agreement. 1.42 "Walkway Connection Fee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.4 of this Agreement. 2. Development of Property. 2.1 Development Program. This Agreement vests Landowner's right to proceed with the development described in the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. Landowner also acknowledges 02.17.09 Clem 9 1 a.3 02.17.09 Clean and agrees that its right to proceed with the Vested Entitlement is subject to the Project Conditions. The Parties also expressly acknowledge and agree that this Agreement does not vest Landowner with the right to subdivide the Single Time -Share Property (or portion thereof) including, but not limited to, any of the Time -Share Units located on the Single Time - Share Property and that any proposal to subdivide the Single Time -Share Property (or portions thereof) including, but not limited to, any of the Time - Share Units located on the Single Time -Share Property would require an Amendment of this Agreement. Landowner acknowledges that City grants no assurance that Landowner will receive necessary permits or approvals from any other public agency with jurisdiction over the Project or that Project Approvals will not be subject to and affected by legal or other challenges or procedures initiated by third parties. (a) Permitted Uses. The Property shall be used and developed only in the manner provided in the Project Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement and shall be subject to the Project Conditions. City acknowledges that, from time- to-time, Landowner may seek and obtain, in accordance with applicable provisions of State and local law, minor amendments to the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. The Planning Director of the City ( "Planning Director') shall determine, subject to appeal by Landowner to the Planning Commission, whether a proposed amendment is a "minor amendment" for purposes of this Agreement. A minor amendment is one that does not materially modify, alter or change a material term of this Agreement and one that does not increase trips, noise or other environmental impacts associated with Project Approvals or the Development Plan. City acknowledges that the tentative parcel map may require corrections or amendments prior to the approval and recording of a final parcel map. The tentative parcel map may be amended or corrected provided that Landowner complies with the applicable procedures set forth in Title 19 and this Agreement. City may impose standard conditions of approval on any subdivision or resubdivision requested by Landowner and authorized by this Agreement, so long as the condition(s) do not reduce the permitted density or intensity, or substantially increase the cost of the development, allowed in the Project Approvals and described in the Development Plan. (b) Permitted Density of Development. Landowner shall have the vested right to develop the Property consistent with the permitted density and level of intensity authorized by the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement, subject to the Project Conditions. City shall not impose any condition on any Project Approval that reduces the permitted density and level of intensity allowed in the discretionary Project Approvals. 10 �a (c) Maximum Height and Size of Structures. Landowner shall have the vested right to develop the Property with the maximum height and size of structures as set forth in the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. 2.2 Compliance with Project Conditions. Landowner acknowledges that City Council approval of the Project Approvals, the Development Plan and this Agreement is subject to compliance with the Project Conditions. The Project Conditions are, among other things, designed to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts of the Project and protect and enhance the environment. In certain instances, the Project Conditions exceed those that might otherwise be appropriate under "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests articulated by the courts. By entering into this Agreement, Landowner agrees to be bound by, and waives any protest of, any Project Conditions. Any Project Conditions imposed by the City after the Effective Date shall be consistent with the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. 2.3 Compliance with General Regulations. Landowner shall comply with the Existing General Regulations. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, Landowner shall not be obligated to comply with any Future General Regulations that are in conflict with the Development Plan or this Agreement. Any Future General Regulation(s) that are inconsistent with this Agreement and /or the Development Plan and which do not fall within the definition of Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions shall not be applicable to the development or use of the Property. With respect to Existing General Regulations that require the payment of fees, costs, and expenses, the applicable fee, cost, or expense shall be that in effect on the Approval Date subject to any increases or decreases authorized by the text of the Existing General Regulation as of the Approval Date. Landowner shall, however, comply with any Future General Regulation that does not impair or affect its ability to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan or impact the development of the Property at the cost, rate, timing and sequencing that the Landowner deems appropriate. Landowner shall also comply with all provisions of the Uniform Codes including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, mechanical, swimming pool, and electrical, whether adopted before or after the Approval Date by the City, which are in effect at the time applications for specific Project Approvals are submitted. 2.4 No Conflicting Enactments. Except to the extent City reserves its discretion as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Term of this Agreement City shall not apply to the Project any ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure relating to development of the Project that is enacted or becomes effective after the Approval Date to the extent it conflicts with this Agreement. This Section shall not restrict City's ability to enact an ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure applicable to 02.17.09 Clean 11 L'�L,5 the Project pursuant to California Government Code section 65866. In Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, the California Supreme Court held that a construction company was not exempt from a City's growth control ordinance even though the City and construction company had entered into a consent judgment (tantamount to a contract under California law) establishing the company's vested rights to develop its property consistent with the zoning. The California Supreme Court reached this result because the consent judgment failed to address the timing of development. The Parties intend to avoid the result of the Pardee case by acknowledging and providing in this Agreement that Landowner shall have the vested right to develop the Property at the rate, timing, and sequencing that Landowner deems appropriate within the exercise of Landowner's sole subjective business judgment provided that such development occurs in accordance with this Agreement and the Development Regulations, notwithstanding adoption by City's electorate of an initiative to the contrary after the Approval Date. No City moratorium or other similar limitation relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the development of the Property or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or another method, affecting subdivision maps, use permits, modifications, EIR certification, terms of this Agreement, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use, shall apply to the Project to the extent such moratorium or other similar limitation restricts Landowner's vested rights in this Agreement or otherwise conflicts with the express provisions of this Agreement. 2.5 Public Health and Safety /Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from adopting, and applying to the Project, Future General Regulations, including Uniform Codes (as referred to above), that are based on recommendations of a multi -state professional organization relating to the specifications for the constructions of improvements ( "Building Codes ") and become applicable throughout the City. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from adopting, and applying to the Project, conditions inconsistent with the Development Plan or Project Approvals, when the conditions are adopted by the City Council after a noticed public hearing and pursuant to a determination by the City Council that the conditions are necessary to abate a public nuisance (Nuisance). In no event shall the City impose any condition pursuant to a determination of Nuisance unless the Landowner has been given notice of, and the right to present evidence at, a public hearing. Any determination of Nuisance, and the rational relationship between the Nuisance and the conditions imposed, must be supported by substantial evidence in the record of the hearing. 2.6 Police Power. In all respects not provided for in this Agreement, City shall retain full rights to exercise its police power to regulate the development of the Property. Any uses or developments requiring a use permit, tentative 02.17.09 Clean 12 d: tract or parcel map, modification, EIR certification, or other discretionary permit or approval in accordance with the Existing Development Regulations or Future Development Regulations shall require a permit or approval pursuant to this Agreement, and, notwithstanding any other provision set forth herein, this Agreement is not intended to vest Landowner's right to the issuance of such permit or approval nor to restrict City's exercise of discretion with respect thereto, provided that pursuant to Government Code section 65865.2, "such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development" set forth in this Agreement. Not by way of limitation of the foregoing, it is specifically understood that City reserves the right to amend, pursuant to procedures provided by law and this Agreement, City laws, rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the Property as to which Landowner's rights are not expressly vested and such amendment or amendments shall be binding on the Property except to the extent that the same conflict with the express provisions of this Agreement. 2.7 Public Works Improvements. To the extent Landowner constructs or installs public works or facilities, the City standards in effect for such public works or facilities at the time of City's issuance of a permit, license, or other authorization for construction or installation of same shall apply. 2.8 Overriding Federal and State Laws and Regulations. Federal and state laws and regulations that override Landowner's vested rights set forth in this Agreement shall apply to the Property, together with any City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies that are necessary to enable City to comply with the overriding federal and state laws and regulations, provided that: (a) Landowner does not waive its right to challenge or contest the validity of any such federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or official policies; and (b) Upon the discovery of a federal or state law or regulation (or City ordinance, resolution, regulation, or official policy undertaken pursuant to those laws and regulations), that prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement, City or Landowner shall provide the other Party with written notice of the state or federal law or regulation, provide a copy of the law or regulation, and a written statement of conflict(s) with the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter City and Landowner shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. In such negotiations, City and Landowner agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of Landowner as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent 02.17.09 Clean 13 �� while resolving the conflict. City agrees to cooperate with Landowner at no cost to City in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon Landowner. City also agrees to process in a prompt manner Landowner's proposed changes to the Project and any of the Development Regulations as may be necessary to comply with such federal or state law; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by City shall be subject to the discretion of City, consistent with this Agreement. 2.9 Procedural Regulations. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure shall apply to the Property, provided that they are adopted and applied City -wide or to all other properties similarly situated in City. 3. Benefits to Owner. 3.1 Riaht to Develop. Except to the extent City reserves its discretion as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the term of this Agreement, Landowner shall have a vested right to develop, and receive building and occupancy permits for construction on the Property to the full extent permitted by this Agreement, the Project Approvals and the Development Plan, subject to the Project Conditions. City shall only take action with respect to the Property that complies and is consistent with the Project Approval and the Development Plan unless Landowner gives its written consent to the action or City is permitted to take the action pursuant to this Agreement. Where applicable, Landowner may refuse to grant consent in Landowner's sole and absolute discretion. City shall not impose or increase any condition or requirement (whether in the form of a fee, tax, requirement for dedication or reservation of and, or any other type of exaction) on the Project, except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, Existing General Regulations, Governmental Reservations or Governmental Exceptions. However, City may impose or increase a condition or requirement when such action is required (as opposed to permitted) by state or federal law and then only to the minimum extent and duration necessary to comply with state or federal law. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, the ordinances, plans, resolutions, and policies governing the permitted use and development of the Property shall be those described in the Project Approvals and the Development Plan. The Parties acknowledge that the vested rights described in this Section provide that Landowner has a vested right to develop the following improvements on the Property, all as described in the Project Approvals and the Development Plan and subject to the Project Conditions: (a) Construct 88 Time -Share Units within seven building on the Single Time -Share Property to be governed by a Single Site Time -Share Plan and which will allow the Landowner to sell, lease or otherwise 02.17.09 clean 14 `� convey a Time -Share Use interests in the Single Time -Share Property (provided that the total number of Time Share Units and hotel rooms does not exceed a combined total of 479 Time Share Units /hotel rooms); (b) Construct a new 800 -seat ballroom facility; (c) Construct a new 10,072 square -foot spa and fitness center, including a new outdoor pool facility; (d) Construct a new housekeeping and engineering building; and (e) Construct a new two -level parking garage. 3.2 Benefits to Landowner. Landowner has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money on the planning of the Project and construction of infrastructure for and in conjunction with the Project. Landowner represents and City acknowledges that Landowner would not make these expenditures without this Agreement, and that Landowner makes these expenditures in reliance upon this Agreement. A benefit to Landowner under this Agreement is the assurance that Landowner will preserve the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City acknowledges that Landowner will be investing money and planning efforts in the Project in reliance on City's covenants and representations in this Agreement. City agrees that Landowner may reasonably and justifiably rely on City's covenants and representations in this Agreement and on the enforceability of this Agreement. 3.3 Reservations or Dedications of Land. Except as may be provided in the Project Approvals, Project Conditions, Development Plan or this Agreement, no dedications or reservations of all or a portion of the Property shall be required of Landowner in conjunction with the application or issuance of any Project Approval authorizing development, construction, use, or operation of the Property. 3.4 No Additional Traffic Related Fees or Conditions. Under CIOSA, Landowner has paid all required fair share traffic fees required to be paid under the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance. City shall not impose any traffic- related fee, charge, dedication, or improvement relative to, or as a condition to, development of the Project except as provided in this Agreement, the Project Approvals or Project Conditions. 3.5 Time for Construction and Completion of Project. Landowner shall have the right to develop the Project in the manner and at the time that Landowner deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment. The Parties acknowledge that Landowner cannot predict the timing of the development of the Project because of numerous factors not within the 02.17.09 Clean 15 control of Landowner, such as market demand, economic conditions, interest rates and competition. 3.6 Tentative Maps. (a) Improvement Security. As a condition of approving a final subdivision map or any future resubdivision for all or a portion of the Property as authorized by this Agreement, the City may require the furnishing of appropriate and reasonable improvement agreements and security pursuant to the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as altering or relieving Landowner of any obligation imposed pursuant to the Municipal Code or the Subdivision Map Act. The improvement requirements, exactions or other conditions of approval of a subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment shall be consistent with this Agreement but City may impose standard conditions of approval generally applicable to similar projects subject to the provisions Section 2.1(b). (b) Expiration. Any current or future tentative maps for resubdivision of the Property shall expire concurrently with the termination of this Agreement or after the maximum period for the expiration of tentative maps authorized by Government Code Section 66452.6, whichever is later. Should the time periods authorized by Government Code Section 66452.6 be lengthened after the execution of this Agreement, Landowner shall be entitled to further extensions of any tentative subdivision map applicable to the Property, to the maximum extent authorized by law. (c) Adjustments. The Parties acknowledge that lot line adjustments, or similar modifications may be necessary to develop the Project and are contemplated by this Agreement. These modifications or adjustments shall be approved provided they are in substantial conformance with the Development Plan and the Project Approvals. (d) Time -Share Units. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the subdivision of the Single Time -Share Property (or any portion thereof) including, but not limited, any of the Time -Share Units located on the Single Time -Share Property is not contemplated, authorized or entitled by this Agreement and would require an Amendment of this Agreement. 3.7 Processing and Issuance of Permits. (a) Processing of Permits. As a material term of this Agreement benefiting Landowner, the City shall promptly accept for processing /review, and expeditiously approve, permit applications for the development and use of the Property that are in substantial 02.17.09 Clean 16 � `i' conformance with the Project Approvals, Development Plan, Existing General Regulations, and this Agreement. (b) Issuance of Ministerial Project Approvals. City shall issue to Landowner all necessary use, building, occupancy, and other permits and approvals upon request, provided that applications are submitted in accordance with the Existing General Regulations and are in substantial conformance with the Project Approvals, Development Plan and this Agreement. (c) Vesting of Proiect Approvals. Any permit, license or approval issued pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested and deemed a Project Approval when granted. 3.8 Future Approvals. The future approval or issuance of any Project Approval that is determined by the Planning Director to be a minor amendment as provided in Section 2.1(a) shall not require an amendment of this Agreement. 4. Fees. 4.1 Time -Share Development. For the vested right to construct the 88 Time - Share Units on the Single Time -Share Property, which vested right is subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the Project Conditions, Landowner shall pay Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) ( "Time -Share Fee ") to the City. The Time -Share Fee shall be paid at the time the First Time -Share Building Permit is issued by the City. Beginning two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement and every year thereafter for the Term of this Agreement or until the Time - Share Fee is paid in full, the amount of the Time -Share Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with Section 4.5. 4.2. Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities — Marina Park Mar Landowner shall pay to City the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,( ( "Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee ") to be paid as follows: • Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) at the time the final parcel map for the Project is recorded or June 30, 2013, if any building permit for the construction of any time -share is issued for the Project, whichever is sooner. • One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) at the time the City issues the Certificate of Occupancy for the Ballroom or June 30, 2013, if any building permit for the construction of any time -share is issued for the Project, whichever is sooner. • Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) at the time the First Time -Share Building Permit is issued. 02.17.09 Clean 17 131 The Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee shall be used by City for improvements that provide visitor serving or recreational facilities either at Marina Park Marina or at any other site designated by City in City's sole discretion. The Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee may be used by City to provide public access to Newport Bay, public parking, picnic areas, playground equipment, basketball and tennis courts, concessions, recreational programs or any other visitor serving or recreational use. Should the California Coastal Commission require mitigation in the form of a monetary contribution to support the provision of visitor serving uses in the City's coastal zone as a condition of approval of the coastal development permit issued for the Project, all said monetary contributions that are expressly allocated to Marina Park Marina for visitor serving uses shall be applied by City to off -set and provide a credit against the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee. Because the specific improvements that will be selected by City are not known at this time, City shall have the responsibility to conduct all appropriate environmental review as required by state or federal law, and to implement any identified mitigation measures. City shall have the responsibility to obtain any and all state and federal permits and approvals that may be required for construction, operation and maintenance of the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities. Beginning two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement and every year thereafter for the Term of this Agreement and until the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee is paid in full, the amount of the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee shall be adjusted with Section 4.5. 4.3 Off -Site Water Quality Improvements. City and the Landowner have agreed that water quality improvements beyond those required for the Project's Water Quality Management Plan would be of benefit to the City, its residents and visitors to the City. Landowner has agreed to pay to the City the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for off -site water quality improvements ( "Off -Site Water Quality Fee "). This Off -Site Water Quality Fee shall be paid at the time the final parcel map for the Project is recorded or June 30, 2013, if any building permit for the construction of . any time -share is issued for the Project, whichever is sooner. The City shall use the Off -Site Water Quality Fee to pay for water quality improvements to be selected by the City in the City's sole discretion. Because the specific improvements that will be selected by the City are not known at this time, the City shall have the responsibility to conduct all appropriate environmental review as required by state or federal law, and to implement any identified mitigation measures. The City shall have the responsibility to obtain any and all state and federal permits and approvals that may be required in order to implement the Off -Site Water Quality improvements, including but not limited to coastal development permits and Clean Water Act permits that may be required for construction, operation and maintenance of the water quality improvements. Beginning two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement and every year 02.17.09 Clean 18 thereafter for the Term of this Agreement and until the Off -Site Water Quality Fee is paid in full, the amount of the Off -Site Water Quality Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with Section 4.5. 4.4 Bayfront Walkway Connection. Landowner shall pay to the City at the time of execution of this Agreement by the Parties the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to be used by the City towards a public improvements project that increase access to the bayfront ( "Walkway Connection Fee ") including, but not limited to, projects such as the Marine Avenue Bridge Bayside Drive Bayfront walkway connection. Because the specific improvements that will be selected by the City, in its sole discretion, are not known at this time, the City shall have the responsibility to conduct all appropriate environmental review as required by state or federal law, and to implement any identified mitigation measures. The City shall have the responsibility to obtain any and all state and federal permits and approvals that may be required in order to implement the the public improvements. 4.5 ENR Index. Beginning two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every year on the anniversary date of the Effective Date thereafter ( "generally referred to herein as the "Adjustment Date "), any unpaid portion of each of the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee (including prior year increases to the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee made pursuant to this Section which remain unpaid) shall be increased in proportion to changes in the ENR Index. Such adjustment to the Time - Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee shall be made on the Adjustment Date by multiplying the unpaid portion of each of the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee (including prior year increases to the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee made pursuant to this Section which remain unpaid) by a fraction, the numerator of which is the value of the ENR Index for the calendar month preceding the Adjustment Date and the denominator of which is the value of the ENR Index for the same calendar month one year prior to the Adjustment Date. However, in no event shall the amount of Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee be reduced below the amount of the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee (including prior year increases to the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, and the Off -Site Water Quality Fee made pursuant to this Section which remain unpaid) in effect immediately preceding such adjustment. 02.17.09 Clean 19 13 3 4.6 Development Fees. During the Term of this Agreement, the "Development Fees" shall be the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, the Off -Site Water Quality Fee, and Walkway Connection Fee as set forth in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 and subject to increase as provided in Section 4.5. City shall retain the right to increase the Development Fees or impose other monetary exactions charged by City in connection with a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to development of the Project as it may adopt, and whatever applicable rate City may adopt, to any development of the Property beyond the development of the Property contemplated by this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that for purposes of this Agreement, the term Development Fees is limited to the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, the Off -Site Water Quality Fee, and Walkway Connection Fee as set forth in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 and subject to increase as provided in Section 4.5 and that all other fees, taxes, and charges do not constitute Development Fees and that nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to release Landowner from the obligation to pay such fees, taxes, and charges, including increases, if and when they become due including, but not limited to, the following: (a) City's normal fees for processing, environmental assessment and review, tentative tract and parcel map review, plan checking, site review and approval, administrative review, building permit, grading permit, inspection, and similar fees imposed to recover City's costs associated with processing, reviewing, and inspecting project applications, plans, and specifications; (b) Fees and charges levied by any other public agency, utility, district, or joint powers authority, regardless of whether City collects those fees and charges; (c) Taxes and fees set forth in Chapter 3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code including, sales and use taxes, Property Development Taxes under Section 3.12 of City's Municipal Code and Transient Occupancy Taxes set forth in Chapter 3.16 and Visitor Service Fee as set forth in Chapter 3.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which shall apply to all hotel rooms located at the Property and to the occupancy of any Time -Share Unit that: (1) is occupied by any person who is not a Time -Share Unit Purchaser or a guest of the Time -Share Unit Purchaser; and (2) any portion of a Time -Share Unit not expressly sold, leased or conveyed to a Time -Share Unit Purchaser; and (d) Community facility district special taxes or special district assessments or similar assessments, business license fees, bonds or other security required for public improvements, property taxes, 02.17.09 Clean 20 � � I sewer lateral connection fees, water service connection fees, and new water meter fees. This Agreement does not authorize Landowner to transfer any fees paid or fee credits to any other property outside the Property that is the subject of this Agreement. Once the Term of this Agreement has ended, Landowner shall not receive any credit for future planned development of the Property based on the fees paid pursuant to this Agreement. 4.7 Permitted Increases in Development Fees Applicable to Property. During the Term of this Agreement, City shall not increase the amount of the Time -Share Fee, the Visitor Serving and Recreational Facilities Fee, the Off -Site Water Quality Fee, or Walkway Connection Fee except as set forth in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. This Agreement does not vest Landowner against increases in any other fees other than Development Fees that are payable by Landowner, including without limitation the Property Development Tax referred to in subparagraph (c) of Section 4.6. 5. CIOSA. 5.1 Cancellation of CIOSA. Pursuant to the ordinance adopted by the City Council approving this Agreement, the CIOSA shall automatically terminate on the Effective Date ( "Cancellation "). The Parties shall cooperate in executing and recording against the Property a written instrument memorializing the termination of said agreement in such form as to permit the CIOSA to be removed as an encumbrance upon title. The Cancellation shall not affect the rights and obligations of any third parties under the CIOSA. 5.2 Maintenance of CIOSA Pre -Paid Transportation Fund. The Cancellation referred to in Section 5.1 terminates the Parties' remaining rights and obligations under the CIOSA, including any obligation of City to repay Landowner for funds that Landowner provided pursuant to the CIOSA. In connection therewith, Landowner agrees that City may retain any balance of pre -paid transportation funds City may be holding as a result of unused CIOSA mitigation. City may use any such remaining balance of prepaid transportation funds for transportation improvements in accordance with the Protocol Agreement for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement dated December 11, 1995, and the Protocol Agreement Memorandum dated December 11, 2001, 5.3 No Payments Due from City. The Parties acknowledge that City is not required to make any reimbursement payments to Landowner and that no funding is otherwise due from City to Landowner for improvements under CIOSA made by or at the direction of Landowner including, but not limited 02.17.09 Clean 21 ) 3 5 to, improvements to Back Bay View Park, located at Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. 6, Sales Tax. 6.1 Project Construction. Landowner will include in its general contractor construction contract a provision that Landowner's general contractor and subcontractors, to the extent allowed by applicable law, will obtain a Board of Equalization sales /use tax subpermit for the jobsite for the Project at the Property and allocate all eligible sales and use tax payments for individual contracts over $5 million to the City. Landowner will provide Landowner's general contractor and subcontractors with the name and contact information of the City's Revenue Manager and notice of the Revenue Manager's availability to meet and confer with them on the implementation of the Board of Equalization sales /use tax subpermit procedures. Landowner will further include a notice in its general contractor construction contract that prior to beginning a qualified construction project, the general contractor and subcontractors are encouraged to meet with the City's Revenue Manager to review the process to be followed with respect to sales and use taxes. Landowner will further include a provision in its general contractor construction contract that the general contractor or subcontractors will certify in writing that the person(s) responsible for filing the tax return understands the process of reporting the tax to the City and will follow the guidelines set forth in the relevant sections of the Sales and Use Tax Regulations. Landowner shall not be responsible for failure of Landowner's general contractor or subcontractors to follow the procedures set forth in this Section. Landowner, if readily available, shall provide to the City or any City designated representative the names, addresses, phone numbers and contact name of the general contractor and all subcontractors. 6.2 Direct Payment Process. Landowner will follow the Direct Payment Permit Process established in the Revenue and Taxation Code and use the permit for all qualifying individual purchases in excess of $100,000 so that the local share of its sales /use tax payments is allocated to the City as the point of sale. 6.3 Fixtures. Materials and Equipment. It is understood and agreed that any fixtures, materials and equipment with a purchase total that exceeds $100,000 purchased directly by Landowner and shipped to Landowner's Newport Beach location may also be eligible for direct allocation of sales /use tax to the City. Upon request of the City, Landowner will provide City on a semi - annual basis with a list of purchases exceeding the $100,000 threshold during the preceding six -month period, including the amount of the purchase and, if readily available, the name and contact information for the vendor upon request by the City. The City agrees to review the semi - annual list of purchases made by Landowner and advise Landowner of any missed opportunities for direct allocation. Landowner 02.17.09 Clean 22 1 �� agrees to file its Direct Payment Permit with vendors identified by the City in an effort to improve the direct allocation of the local share of sales /use tax payments in future periods. 7. Project as Private Undertaking. The development of the Project is a private undertaking. Neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect, and each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. This Agreement forms no partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind. The only relationship between the Parties is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property by the owner of the property. 8. Effective Date: Term. The term of this Agreement ( "Term ") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue thereafter until the earlier of the following: (i) July 1, 2013; or (ii) the date this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Sections 9 or 12 of this Agreement. 9. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual written and executed consent of the Parties in compliance with California Government Code Section 65868 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.070 or by unilateral termination by City in the event of an uncured default of Landowner pursuant to Section 12.1 of this Agreement. 10. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in Section 9 of this Agreement, or modified or suspended pursuant to California Government Code Section 65869.5, this Agreement is enforceable by either Party despite any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulation or other applicable ordinance or regulation adopted by City (including by City's electorate) that purports to apply to any or all of the Property. 11. Periodic Review of Compliance. The Parties shall review this Agreement at least once every 12 months from the Effective Date consistent with California Government Code Sections 65865 and 65865.1 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.080 ( "Annual Review "). At the Annual Reviews, Landowner shall, demonstrate its good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Landowner also agrees to furnish evidence of good faith compliance as City may require in the reasonable exercise of its discretion and after reasonable notice to Landowner. The City's or Landowner's failure to conduct an Annual Review shall not constitute or be asserted by either Party as a Default under this Agreement. 12. Events of Default. 12.1 Default by Landowner. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1, if City determines following a noticed public hearing and on the basis of substantial evidence that Landowner has not complied in good faith with Landowner's material obligations pursuant to this Agreement, 02.17.09 Clean 23 1 - 0 City shall by written notice to Landowner specify the manner in which Landowner has failed to comply and state the steps Landowner must take to bring itself into compliance. If Landowner does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and diligently pursue steps to completion within forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of the written notice from City specifying the manner in which Landowner has failed to comply, then Landowner shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement. City may then: (1) seek a modification of this Agreement; (2) terminate this Agreement; or (3) seek any other available remedies as provided in this Agreement. 12.2 Default by City. If City has not complied with any of its obligations and limitations under this Agreement, Landowner shall by written notice to City specify the manner in which City has failed to comply and state the steps necessary for City to bring itself into compliance. If City does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and diligently pursue steps to completion within forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of the written notice from Landowner specifying the manner in which City has failed to comply, then City shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement. Landowner may then exercise any or all of the following remedies: (1) withhold payments that might be otherwise due to City under this Agreement; and /or (2) seek a specific performance or similar equitable remedy including the return of any fees paid under Section 4 as provided in this Agreement. 12.3 Specific Performance and Damages Remedies. Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project and the potential impracticality or impossibility of restoring the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun, the Parties acknowledge that, except as provided in this Section 12.3 and Section 12.4 of this Agreement, money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and that specific performance is appropriate for the enforcement of this Agreement. The remedy of specific performance or, in the alternative, a writ of mandate, shall be the sole and exclusive remedy available to either Parry in the event of the default or alleged default by the other, with the exception that City shall be entitled to damages against Landowner for Landowner's breach of its obligations under Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 15 or 16. The limitations on the remedy of damages in this Agreement shall not prevent City from enforcing Landowner's monetary obligations hereunder including, but not limited to, the monetary obligations of Landowner set forth in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of this Agreement. 12.4 Limited Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action. In any judicial proceeding, arbitration, or mediation (collectively, "Action ") between the Parties that seeks to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover all of its reasonable costs and expenses, regardless of whether they would be recoverable under 02.17.09 Clean 24 13� California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 or California Civil Code Section 1717 in the absence of this Agreement. These costs and expenses include expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, and costs of investigation and preparation before initiation of the Action. The right to recover these costs and expenses shall accrue upon initiation of the Action, regardless of whether the Action is prosecuted to a final judgment or decision. 13. Cooperation. Each Party covenants to take reasonable actions and execute all documents that may be necessary to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 14. Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused, through no fault of the Party whose performance is prevented or delayed, by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes or other labor difficulties, state or federal regulations, or court actions. Except as specified above, nonperformance shall not be excused because of the act or omission of a third person. In no event shall the occurrence of an event of force majeure operate to extend the Term of this Agreement. 15. Indemnity. Landowner agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, City's designee, and their respective elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, attorneys, and employees from all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs) that may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions, or operations of Landowner or Landowner's agents, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the right to select and retain counsel to defend any actions, and Landowner shall pay the reasonable cost for this defense. The indemnity provisions in this Section 15 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 16. Third Party Legal Challenge. Landowner shall defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, boards, commissions, employes and attorneys ( "Indemnified Parties ") from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the Project, the Project's Approval, the City's CEQA determination and /or the City's failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, General Plan and zoning requirements. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the Indemnified Parties, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by Landowner, the Indimnified Parties, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. 02.17.09 Clean 25 3� 17. Mortgagee Rights. 17.1 Encumbrances on Proaertv. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Landowner in any manner from encumbering the Property, any part of the Property, or any improvements on the Property with any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or operation of the Project. 17.2 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Nevertheless, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in the Property or part of the Property by a Mortgagee (whether due to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination, or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee who takes title to the Property or any part of the Property shall be entitled to the benefits arising under this Agreement. 17.3 Mortyaaee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 17.3, a Mortgagee will not have any obligation or duty under the terms of this Agreement to perform the obligations of Landowner or other affirmative covenants of Landowner, or to guarantee this performance except that: (a) The Mortgagee shall have no right to develop the Property under the Development Regulations without fully complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (b) To the extent that any covenant to be performed by Landowner is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, that performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance. 17.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. Each Mortgagee shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive written notice from City of: (a) The results of the Periodic Review of compliance specified in this Agreement, and (b) Any default by Landowner of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. Each Mortgagee shall have a further right, but not an obligation, to cure the default within ten (10) calendar days after receiving notice of monetary defaults and within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving notice of non - monetary defaults. If Mortgagee can only remedy or cure the default by 02.17.09 Clean 26 1 `N obtaining possession of the Property, then Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through a receiver or otherwise, and to remedy or cure the Default within thirty (30) calendar days after obtaining possession. Except in case of emergency or to protect the public health or safety, City may not exercise any of its judicial remedies set forth in this Agreement until expiration of the thirty (30) calendar day period. But in the case of a default that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within thirty (30) days, the Mortgagee shall have additional time as is reasonably necessary to remedy or cure the default, provided Mortgagee promptly commences to cure the default within thirty (30) calendar days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. Landowner shall not be released from performing its obligations as set forth in this Agreement in the event of a foreclosure by a Mortgagee. 18. Assignment. 18.1 Right to Assign. Landowner shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in compliance with the following conditions precedent: (a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property; (b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within fifteen (15) business days thereafter, Landowner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of Landowner under this Agreement which apply to the Property in whole or in part being sold, transferred or assigned; and (c) The provisions of this Section 18.1 shall not apply to transfers by Landowner of an interest in all or a portion of the Property to any subsidiary or affiliate entity of Landowner. 18.2 Agreement Binding on Successors and Assigns. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement inure to, all successors in interest of the Parties to this Agreement, and constitute covenants that run with the Property. To provide continued notice, the Parties will record this Agreement and any subsequent amendments to it. 02.17.09 Clem 27 0\ 19. Estoppel Certificate. At any time, either Party may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting that the Party certify in writing that, to the best of its knowledge: (a) This Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding on the Party; (b) This Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing. If this Agreement has been amended, the Party providing the certification shall identify the amendments; and (c) The requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. If the requesting Party is in default, the other Party must describe the nature and amount of the default, if any. The requesting Party shall execute and return the certificate within fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt from the requesting party. Any assignee of a Party's rights and obligations hereunder, as referred to in Section 18.1, and any Mortgagee, shall be entitled to rely on the certificate. 20. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party to the extent consistent with and necessary to implement this Agreement. Upon the request of a Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record the required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 21. Notices. Any notice or demand that shall be required or permitted by law or any provision of this Agreement shall be in writing. If the notice or demand will be served upon a Party, it either shall be: personally delivered to the Party; deposited in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid; or delivered by a reliable courier service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery with courier charges prepaid. The notice or demand shall be addressed as follows: TO CITY: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Attn: City Manager 02.17.09 Clean 28 , A,a With a copy to: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 TO LANDOWNER: JGKallins Newport Investments, LLC 15747 Woodruff Avenue Bellflower, CA 90706 Attn: With a copy to: Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1931 Attn: Richard P. Sims Sunstone Jamboree, LLC c/o Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 100 San Clemente, CA 92673 Attn: Legal Department With a copy to: Hewitt & O'Neil LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 Attn: Dennis D. O'Neil Either Party may change the address stated in this Section 21 by notice to the other Party in the manner provided in this Section 21, and notices shall be addressed and submitted to the new address. Notice shall be deemed to be delivered upon the earlier of: (1) the date received; or (2) three business days after deposit in the mail as provided above. 22. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. 22.1 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive. 22.2 Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement in which time is an element. 22.3 Waiver. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, and failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon a default by the other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the other Party in the future. 02.17.09 clean 29 tq3 22.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be identical and may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without any other counterpart, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same agreement. 22.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter addressed in this Agreement. 22.6 Severability. The Parties intend that each and every obligation of the Parties is interdependent and interrelated with the other, and if any provision of this Agreement or the application of the provision to any Party or circumstances shall be held invalid or unenforceable to any extent, it is the intention of the Parties that the remainder of this Agreement or the application of the provision to persons or circumstances shall be rendered invalid or unenforceable. The Parties intend that neither shall receive any of the benefits of the Agreement without the full performance of all of the obligations provided for under this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend that Landowner shall not receive any of the benefits of this Agreement if any of Landowner's obligations are rendered void or unenforceable as the result of any third party litigation, and City shall be free to exercise its legislative discretion to amend or repeal the development regulations applicable to the Property and Landowner shall cooperate as required, despite this Agreement, should third party litigation result in the nonperformance of Landowner's obligations under this Agreement. 22.7 Construction. This Agreement has been drafted after extensive negotiation and revision. Both City and Landowner are sophisticated Parties who were represented by independent counsel throughout the negotiations. City and Landowner each agree and acknowledge that the terms of this Agreement are fair and reasonable, taking into account their respective purposes, terms, and conditions. This Agreement shall therefore be construed as a whole consistent with its fair meaning, and no principle or presumption of contract construction or interpretation shall be used to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against either Party. 22.8 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who now or later owns or acquires any right, title, or interest in any part of the Project or the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision of this Agreement. This Section 22.8 applies regardless of whether the instrument by which the person acquires the interest references this Agreement. 22.9 No Third Part Beneficiaries. The only Parties to this Agreement are City and Landowner. This Agreement does not involve any third party 02.17.09 Clean 30 0A beneficiaries, and it is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person or entity. 22.10 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced consistent with the internal laws of the State of California. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any Party for the purpose of enforcing, construing, or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, or the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Parties waive all provisions of law providing for the removal or change of venue to any other court. 22.11 Non - Liability of City Officers and Employees. No official, officer, employee, agent, or representative of City shall be personally liable to Landowner or its successors and assigns for any loss arising out of or connected with this Agreement or the Development Regulations and no judgment or execution thereon entered in any action hereon shall be personally enforced against any such official, officer, employee, agent, or representative of City. 22.12 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience. 22.13 Covenant Not To Sue. The Parties to this Agreement, and each of them, agree that this Agreement and each term hereof is legal, valid, binding, and enforceable. The Parties to this Agreement, and each of them, hereby covenant and agree that each of them will not commence, maintain, or prosecute any claim, demand, cause of action, suit, or other proceeding against any other party to this Agreement, in law or in equity, or based on an allegation, or assert in any such action, that this Agreement or any term hereof is void, invalid, or unenforceable. 22.14 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain. 22.15 No Brokers. City and Landowner represent and warrant to the other that neither has employed any broker and /or finder to represent its interest in this transaction. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold the other free and harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, cost, or expense (including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees) in any manner connected with a claim asserted by any individual or entity for any commission or finder's fee in connection with this Agreement arising out of agreements by the indemnifying party to pay any commission or finder's fee. 23. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the 02.17.09 dean 31 145 entity for which they are executing this Agreement. They further warrant and represent that they have the authority to bind their respective Party to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 24. Recordation. This Agreement and any amendment, modification, or cancellation to it shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange, by City Clerk within the period required by California Government Code section 65868.5 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.100. [Signature page follows] 02.17.09 Clean 32 I 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Agreement on the date first written above. "LANDOWNER" JGKALLINS NEWPORT INVESTMENTS, LLC By: Its: By: Its: SUNSTONE JAMBOREE, LLC By: Its: By: Its: "CITY, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Edward D. Selich, Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: David R. Hunt, City Attorney 02.17.09 Clean 33 1,11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , personally known to me who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) (is/are) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that (he/she /they) executed the same in (his /her /their) authorized capacity (ies), and that by (his /her/their) signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public 02.17.09 Clean 34 16 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PARCEL A: PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SAID SUBDIVISION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD (100.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SAYSIDE DRIVE (80.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4286, PAGE 216 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 330 47115* EAST 353.63 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE NORTH 514 12' 45" WEST $0.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 33' 47' 15' EAST 235.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE NORTH 51 ° 12'45" WEST 390.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 850 44D` 23" WEST 205.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 330 47' 18" WEST 11&00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 51 n 12'450 EAST 570.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN 800K 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. PARCEL 2: A PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF, RECORDED IN 90OX 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD (100,00 FEET IN WIDTH) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, OF ORANGE COUNTY WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BAYSIOE DRIVE (80.00 FEET IN WIDTH), AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4288, PAGE 216, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, THENCE NORTH 330 47' 15" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 365.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 516 12" 45" WEST 50.13 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE NORTH 33° 47' 15" EAST ALONG THE SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 235.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS. DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTH 5:10 12'45- WEST 390.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85° 40' 43" WEST 205.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 330 47' 15" WEST 118.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 516 12' 45" WEST 248.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SAYSIDE DRIVE, SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND ALONG THE SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF S° 38'21 " A DISTANCE OF 74.80 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT; THENCE NORTH 260 23' 16" EAST ALONG, SAID LINE TANGENT AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE 223.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 840.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 12" 56' 13" A DISTANCE OF 189.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 566 12' 45" EAST 692.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33 ° 47' 15' EAST 220.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 569 12'454 EAST 210.00 Final 2/13/09 0 A -1 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 330 47' 15' WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 5355.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND 1S INCLUDED? WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD (100.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE (80.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4288, PAGE 216, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 330 47' 1 S" EAST 1140, 00 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE NORTH 56 ° 12'45* WEST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 560 12' 45' WEST 210.00 FEET FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ;'THENCE SOUTH 334 47' 15' WEST 220.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 56" 12'45" WEST 852,.63 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 840.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51" 00'200 A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 76° 31' 57" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY 290,20 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19 ° 47'40" TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE BEARS NORTH 83° 40'23* EAST; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, NORTH 83° 40'23- EAST 311 A 5 FEET ALONG SAID LINE; THENCE SOUTH 56" 12'45" EAST 810.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 33° 47' 15" WEST 230.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITH THE AREA SHOWN ON .A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SAID SUBDIVISION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE, 80.00 FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4288, PAGE 216, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD, 100.00 FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 330 47'15" EAST 330.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE MDST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 OF THE FIFTH ADDENDUM TO LEASE EXECUTED BY THE NEWPORTER RESTAURANT CORP., A CORPORATION, AS LESSEE RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 1963 IN BOOK 6771, PAGE 443, OFFICIAL RECORDS: Final 2113/09 A -2 `�� THENCE NORTH 510 12'454 WEST 818.42 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE, SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 187.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 060 35` 15" WEST 3.17 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 14° OW 40" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 410,00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY 449.38 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE BEING ALSO SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 620 48'990; THENCE TANGENT SOUTH 56° 12' 45" EAST 384;75 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS; MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE OR OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AS RESERVED BY THE IRVINE COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1992 A$ INSTRUMENT NO. 92- 441109 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING'THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO MATTER HOW ACQUIRED BY GRANTOR, AND OWNED OR USED BY GRANTOR IN CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AND POWER TO EXPLORE; DRILL, REDRILL, REMOVE.AND STORE THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER, RIGHTS OR INTEREST ON ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER RIGHTS SHALL BE RIPARIAN, OVERLYING, APPROPRIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, ADJUDICATED, STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL, BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS RESERVED BY THE IRVINE COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-441109 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ALSO, EXCEPTING FROM PARCELS 1 THRU 4 ABOVE ALL RIGHT TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ANY AND ALL STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS, INTERIORS AND /OR IMPROVEMENTS, AND ANY AND ALL ITEMS OF FIXTURES LOCATED WITHIN SUCH STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS. INTERIORS ANDIOR IMPROVEMENTS, OR APPURTENANT THERETO, ALL OF WHICH ARE AND SHALL REMAIN REAL PROPERTY AND ARE NOW LOCATED OR HEREAFTER LOCATED ON THE REAL PROPERTY. PARCEL B: ALL RIGHT TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ANY AND ALL STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS, INTERIORS AND /OR IMPROVEMENTS. AND ANY AND ALL ITEMS OF FIXTURES Final 2/13/09 A. -3 \4)" LOCATED WITHIN SUCH STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS, INTERIORS ANO10R IMPROVEMENTS, OR APPURTENANT THERETO, ALL OF WHICH ARE AND SHALL REMAIN REAL PROPERTY AND ARE NOW LOCATED OR HEREAFTER LOCATED ON THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS; PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 65 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SAID SUBDIVISION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD (100.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE {80.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4288, PAGE 10 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 33° 47' 15" EAST 365.63 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE NORTH 610 12' 45" WEST 50.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 339 47' 15" EAST 235.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE NORTH 516 12'45m WEST 390.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 859 40'23* WEST 205.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33 ° 47' 15" WEST 118.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 514 12' 45" EAST 570.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE. OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. PARCEL 2: A PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF: RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 86 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 000.00 FEET IN WIDTH) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10 -OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, OF ORANGE COUNTY WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE )80.00 FEET IN WIDTH), AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4288, PAGE 216, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 339 47' 15' EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 365.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 519 12' 45" W EST 50.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE NORTH 330 47' 15" EAST ALONG THE SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 235.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTH 510 12' 45" WEST 390.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85° 40'430 WEST 205.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 330 47' 15" WEST 118.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 519 12'46* WEST 248.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE, SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND ALONG THE SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 5 ° 38' 21 " A DISTANCE OF 74.80 FEET TO A LINE TANGENT; THENCE NORTH 269 23' 16" EAST ALONG SAID LINE TANGENT AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE 223.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 8,40.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 129 55' 13' A DISTANCE OF 189.42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 561 12'45' EAST 692.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33° 47' 15" EAST 220.00 FEET- , THENCE SOUTH 569 12' 45" EAST 21 0.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; T14ENCE: Final 2/13/09 A -4 1 S SOUTH 330 47' 15" WEST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 535.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD 1100.00 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WITH THE CENTERLINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE (60.30 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4288, PAGE 216, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 33° 47' 15" EAST 1140.00.FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE NORTH 560 12' 45" WEST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TI4ENCE CONTINUING NORTH 56'9 12'45" WEST 210.00 FEET FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 330 47' 15" WEST 220.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 580 12'46' WEST 692.63 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 840.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 510 00'20" A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 780 31.57" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY 290,20 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY. LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 190 47'400 TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE BEARING NORTH 830 40'23' EAST; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, NORTH 830 40'23" EAST 311,15 FEET ALONG SAID LINE; THENCE SOUTH 560 12' 45' EAST 810.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID JAMBOREE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 330 47' 15" WEST 230.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITH THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. PARCEL 4- THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 55 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SAID SUBDIVISION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 86 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BAYSIDE DRIVE, 80.00 FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4266, PAGE 216, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD, 100.00 FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4110, PAGE 10, OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 330 47' 15* EAST 330.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 OF THE FIFTH ADDENDUM TO LEASE EXECUTED BY THE NEWPORTER RESTAURANT CORP., A CORPORATION, AS LESSEE RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 1963 IN BOOK 6771, PAGE 443, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 510 12' 45" WEST 818.42 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLYLINE Final 7113/09 A_5 1 OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE, SAID EASTERLY RIGHT Of WAY LINE BEING A NON - TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 760.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 187114 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 06" 35' 15" WEST 3.17 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THROUGH AN AAN13LE OF 140 09' 40' TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 41044 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY 449.39 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE BEING ALSO SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 62° 48' 00 "; THENCE TANGENT SOUTH 58° 1V 45" EAST 384.75 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID BAYSIDE DRIVE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IN BOOK 17, PAGE 3 OF PARCEL MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS; NATURAL GAS RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE HEREWABOVE DESCRIBED, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELL, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN„ REPAIR., DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, NINE, STORE, EXPLORE OR OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AS RESERVED BY THE IRVINE COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-441109 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ALSO EXCEPTING' THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO MATTER HOW ACQUIRED BY GRANTOR, AND OWNED OR USED BY GRANTOR IN CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AND POWER TO EXPLORE, DRILL, REDRILL, REMOVE AND STORE THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER, RIGHTS OR INTEREST ON ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER RIGHTS SHALL BE RIPARIAN, OVERLYING, APPROPMATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, ADJUDICATED, STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL, BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS RESERVED BY THE IRVINE COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92441 109O OFFICIAL RECORDS. Asseswr's Psrcel No: 440 - 132.41 Final 2/13/09 A -6 1 EXHIBIT B MAP OF THE PROPERTY 1% i S-_U i%: ' PARCEL MAP s cr r ac r anrr rs �. dYP%WG%Y'Towmvagr dF.SCItS movrW- 'ro"mfliE' son �CAprfilAfuA fWJ/p11Ti¢,N UtIMPfTq a/Y'141eYMlFC'nwpN{M�nvM Bave� yy �® MgNil�IVln/itiMN4VlN�QMW WM.fNfft�fiAM 11' wIm MIR MMY COrIR1. i11B1EA1N tltlWNIANNry pplf®I 1.1R[6iKM9 fi[nIF AS W ww.e�s�sx' cp0 �� - a�.yF�PIF R *� M N.I AY FF)ImmtITTY`tlII RVN♦V �IMMOMHT '/AYRI��MIM ��tT9 ew�iRnCd i �Mw aYY1r InY OB AMn0awM. iY�f ��AlM N/N 4iE N.tI %M'i651i o'= 1YMMtMW�l ��W �irMN wlrp. Final 2/13/09 B -I `�)5 EXHIBIT C PROJECT APPROVALS AND PROJECT CONDITIONS Final 2/13/09 C -1 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Project Plans (51 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY r� u • • kf)l HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, California APPNCANT APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS. INC., GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. LEE& SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, AW, INC. FUSCOE ENGINEERING DFESCAPES INTERNATIONAL, INC. 9M Calla Amanecer 203 Newport Center D"N, Suite 210 16642 Von Marian Avmwe, Suite 300 16796 Van Korman Avanue, 4930 Campus Drive San Clemente, CA 92613 Newport beach, CM2660 Irene, CA 82606 Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel. 949d69-4212 Tel, 94&717 -7943 Tea. 9492614100 Wine, CA 92505 T.I. 949.4166668 CONTAM. HUNTER OLIVER, CONTACT, CORALEE NEWMAN, CONTACT. RONALD SAKAHARA. ALA Tel. 949A7h1960 CONTACT: DON BRINIO:RHOFF, FASIA V.P.) AQUISITIONS PRINCIPAL n r6 CONTACT: CAL WOOLSEY. PE ea wn MARICE WHITE. VP T, Brev ELEmAn.r+E A.1. e+eM1mse.eerrre .Ep.r.m.YBmo-:Fww PUN l Cis INDEX OF DRAWINGS SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 ne. nE na ei"eea r(o.xPUry eau.w A nevpnwa seu✓,. wee -1 mono.. ELEVpn ,F...NO,m MFWFPiN.'x eM EIEVAPGry6 11 I.E.A CW6n.U6EFICCP PNu irMEA1MEgW xDUEFPODG Pon E V 6NME.... CEIE.e A -11 iG RD e.nMemeuYBpB-I FCGGfl FVH nnt\rAiIONS n r6 e�w B'matlul ertl�Bl ea wn . n T, Brev ELEmAn.r+E A.1. e+eM1mse.eerrre .Ep.r.m.YBmo-:Fww PUN A :s 'ze Mmw Nam FL... ww maw ==.rw N 1- 7 .a P. Mmr,YauBl a.w ury A a. -, uM�e.YeaBI E�Er+Air.xs A— N. r z p� - e.n..n6 baaxsr n a n zrf� I— nB)EwoanA:, w NNi uY BNNI apI Ary F(,or�rve3x..FPWi �m A.x iea &16E N'MWUMBHpIF➢.PPWr A a/ �NMmui.Brepl aDDPPUx a her.ae:mor 6 P.Meee. Br'Iwo.Fnew A 61a uoe�tr0.p1 /CLV6 M.l5E HD.x PLex: ....NE ,Fp'raw'�4.MB1:' -w Z: INN` n.GP FIAN : ]M riser 6 ae fLu A�a S 6(a1MeOUe BIeBI(cW BnWi A ], rro61� rwun 3.Bi /Cw0 nGU6E u Eer. wen A.p.: R 6f+r�MVw.BYW /CLUC H.UEE _LEV.n.N: xm . w V-111 ' Mm.Y6mvnccfl PUx A-In `- I I-wee',n�e a.Da'IN BkP (emm.ie a..)x.uFPw+ A -11 IN moeuY 9apl Fi£vAnONS 1..'e TI > pe Me4Wep N) ELEVGn.1. ttPE0.B rv,1YPEC.. SIPUCin PEL.'NEAIN L. WEN'A.l A-a} A 4 1. WEN PAZNG SRrM:Yel UFPEPIEVEL fCIN OPENPAIkIxG SmVCtVRE E4EVpn.H6 C+ ....N NAry RdNrC4 ME PLFN C f 'NINIE.A .MAP L r uI1 .CAPEPIAx.A IL ] .a NI. a GxnN3 MrryG 21= tCUiL:FETE SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 Y� rxauu l � I �- E eCIMW;ai �E /. P�9M1a MEd X%v t(3 MP,,, - ' ' -- k�Ei$nN3TIME4G01Wrta1 THE 1WHE (���m+�w�4IrcVmMon�n COM1IPPNY — y.. �wMEENE»,orm.Tr I�Yy`Em�FgsW VICINITY MAP V 1\ •—uT�yrtxaLeLwmwwce SCN.E t•- 2008'p' \i _ Sz r T � Y �mnwreawo nnEPrw'.w4 _ rc 1111 111E suLCt9• —� a �i mcxFw`"A r.YPwc / �� \ \ -_ E ,°ER I fJ� f ` ..W Y' \ Y ; FAw'M xw. •PMS�FLT r \ ^. \` M� LL I -CItt OF IiPYPOflT _ PMb1NBOMMJ4P // /�y��j �����ppppp% i(FN l BFACHPPOPERtt oP�nwm xu / i Wp v r �� noRnunw�ti �� ..yam ^� no 2 I ! ®v�cwcc q LEGEND 'f OPW nBlt09. `.J/ iN \ \ � � if �� a 0.A°a wnxWG MEMI.TON IN.GE6WI __ ri snEFrx4maEn nP ��4rtrtv 111T°E 9UM1gGHY w _ �n- +EwxrnvF Ex snx4 usEw 1 '..W \ r SpVgnEFp4Tg4F5 �� I I I �� C�/ _� �• FErWN, +cwnu xmv.norons (Y�iU a�anw ®1 • ' NPMxn6J 1 't vr - ?�ry��(' mR .. E "y— nvr'�9F MET WYWgCE 1 `cTl .. �BPCK BNY �Yp°�{S1QPY• O' - FROPD 44npx> UIIES VIEW PAPKII 1 , BEy r}(,3 EBIMIE VN115 GV I I II i C.$ ry T3�'L qB FWSE X°VFOCM /MFEY rvU uvESInET) EN n gII I 1 INV m� f ,', III �� 1 } l EtM9 +'� MIESNPRE VXRBVMbNY jl' I � flaLLF4CMx ri Yl ,` ` �.o INRS JOfPL enrvtEw �' li I._ M '.' nw ONG III �� I " ry N41BPlI[VagY, L NMI .. I i PWPBVY ME JAMBOREE— HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Y �, �/.•. Lwc .pm s I i 9 All 4 �h10Y.i� P r. <� ro L Haas sv i;_ ' � \ E J h � �9 9 ESXEYE BWLBPIP BUMNOxY I' j IJ7 Li I f ill Il I_ %r \ .� �. mCttnncE Yfrt .......... WEm.Y GnE E4.n5Y,Ux'® tt v2 BVW ,Y 1PP ROAD ^. Bw o In cv » _ fm — - ... . -. _ __ ve .6B ENEfl RKP PaRpPo69LMMWY. __ _ _ �� -- _ aaBLxEYlrfl9 VsSEOOx1NYlYl nPlVm SITE PLAN A -1 vaX Pv..xanrt4x]&Sti Pry.AUyp J1. :9E :gSwCn t.MX MMnTM MA Px.py3ii AD Pn. WNty: Jf. AM Ptr. Mryva, E05 �X��Y9A PCr. Mb/ ]➢@ Ph.vb.nb9. SE Pw LM1i. 9A EN.oxan 14 E[m 4b,.5p°Wmuv't°i: Eo9E Poi��31.� PM. W. 9Ja re.wmawrXi.�.. V; /// BACK RAY ''�HHII NEW PPAK I i - I I T F1 m RF l!! I I� BAYNEW SENIOR r I i _ 1� _ Eql l HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. MEIRNNE� COMPANY PROPERN 'JOHN WAYNE KING GULCH' — I 0Y' ! l l Y� 1i,CP i ••.•••••. P.RKING RUMAIARY mon -d -'ter 'lI} 1�'�q urvowe no�un�n // da � (~ '� E0 „ 4 Orniti y�ii4wl A,mene w® 'mo J i k! 5 j w�sl I I l r x "`r Ib Af Y r axo au ITT S sH� �lyl' I1. 1 cl I:— i o H� " - - afr'� W"JV�,tE� wsmxxGSmvcm RpgD_ _ sB9A(F51 PARKING PLAN A -2 M&MMHAM e RE�rs aA �sm.�mxm. P�: urz.:Ws Pry n(as W, �I Rrv. hqup,. m]E wwunnfisnnin�x. STORY asroar 1S .T a .. 3 STORY SITE SECTION A -A 15TOflY "° zsm 1STOflv 2 MRY / wswE b H T SITE SECTION B -B m —m F•va SECTION C -C (TS -4) SECTION D -E) (TS-5) SGtf: 1tl6' -1'L" SCNLE: VI6' -f•�0' HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. r KEY MAP N.Ts SITE SECTION p_g c an Ny . aw stp mc. us LEE Pa.. Mi5 6 . Ngw .'PM pr➢ Af6 RCHIT— 41A N SGIe .'d'fi R.. Olfi ,o P2v. jan =s kP. s; :z I Ic- W I 7 J U = �a qn _7 HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. BALLROOM 11,032 S.F. PREFUNCTION 5,067 S.F. SERVICE 8,288 S.F. TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 24,387 S.F. HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH �--�. BALLROOM ROOF PLAN A -5 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS,. INC. LEE tiSAKAFIARA a x ARCHTECC5 ALA� Nei �+sa ]A .YG uwMe w[m SOUTH ELEVATION u .nq VV COI CLC VA IVitl HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH (BALLROOM - TIMESHARE - FITNESS CENTER) SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. b ^� YSiu Reesprtmeai N. wa, 1EE 65AKAHA&A aev. retw:,.zs. woe gRCHRECTS AIA Rer.IUgup0i.2090 .r_xi�xz+. woa I I Z117 o, Peu.OmMl15. w9B S �6 w�I� 16i , SOUTH ELEVATION u .nq VV COI CLC VA IVitl HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH (BALLROOM - TIMESHARE - FITNESS CENTER) SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. b ^� YSiu Reesprtmeai N. wa, 1EE 65AKAHA&A aev. retw:,.zs. woe gRCHRECTS AIA Rer.IUgup0i.2090 .r_xi�xz+. woa I I Z117 o, Peu.OmMl15. w9B a: 6 EAST ELEVATION b MV. f HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. �i 9 Yi0]6 wEP no orcFwPa 5E6` BALLROOM ° ELEVATIONS ke+. JUry zo, xoon LEE &SA AM ae.. znaan ao.zme A1111QS ALA Rev. W9P%�31, LqB aev. PLB�I P5. dtl8 !r. Rev. bloEe� 15.3810 ..� mx.a[wue..::.. SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. SPA 9,393 S.F. OUTDOOR RESTROOM & SHOWER 418 S.F. ELECJ POOL EQUIP. 261 S.F. TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 10,072 SPA ° FLOOR PLAN A -8 "o'^�' LEE &SAMHAM AIA i A HYATT eF SUNSTONI R yyp! 4x i NEWPORT BEACH INC. LEE &SAh'A M 9n: nvpps am Aft m EM A;A • ® • 11 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. J Y406 sewamu<+a zoos LEE aSrwNA xe. teWu.+nn iMe nRCHIiECnKA11 nyn PtxUiux s ]Wtl .�.,� ,npy.. e F HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH 1� i� .ter SLINSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC T$6 BUILDING AT IST FLOOR TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 4,194 S.F. PRELIMINARY 1� TIMESHARE CLUBHOUSE " FLOOR PLAN A -11 va,e mpv f. mr Y �.hOa ARE ITEUS AAA ASR AIA gCH1TER5 Pn •gYU+Ya> ffil asmu r'+nm. � HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. TS-6 SUILOING AT 2ND & 3RD FLOOR 0 PRELIMINARY ITIMESHARE C ROOFPLAN I-" se' --,.mss 1 111 SAK 1 A ARFITEMAIA POOLCOURT HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. /J�waaownov WEST ELEVATION (POOL COURT) SOUTH ELEVATION FE1ElrwAl I r i - - aoceurre I TENNIS COURTS — TIMESHARE C ureuxE ELEVATIONS vWR Reu. sePkrrprl <, zom LEE kEAN IAARA Y_ b ARCHRECTS AIA Pee Oq�15.2n08 I ti I r i I TENNIS COURTS — TIMESHARE C ELEVATIONS vWR Reu. sePkrrprl <, zom LEE kEAN IAARA Rer. Macon fd,xWE ARCHRECTS AIA Pee Oq�15.2n08 f � L Y _�` `7 E43R sE nartc HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH { SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Bx �A 5i 2ND FLOOR R MRT BE FIRE DEPT. FEOBIRME F /L.BVIW 11G95HMLREEpUW ® @RNS4GXgF11 +Y�NSpFd'pJYYWAWA(OM'[£NT+MGA Ii. wcY�pYenvs w+eunv ncsvfspuWCnrt e art+n �oauseaumv.smESe�im� .Y+H xnxnaFwY•eWOFFX+Bievw+armwE BEpmREO, mE oRExxo XLar sE sEF BwX PXOe+nrE TMABEpGTiEOU+ER WALLPBVYYUYIOi,Y+x4Xg8 E NC W E EOUIN£9 W IX BPP W V H+ F50Ri`lILL'i. peM+ eEO a6vnP$�TPoNOMGCHBVM01£x419,WS. w wPNJ NJyTeE78C1fhP Vtmm. E.IUaW�PYrnWnsow s=EO+LGWEwwrECnw+F.PE sl THE Fksn+gfIPE9PPo•MfA p}ufWlvnLVf86FpE OEPnpiHEMCONXEC1i0x yAUCBUi iO MEUVO i➢L4L+MYxEW ipeERpD8alE0 xPV LCGnpN NUSi BEAPPR0VF4 BY MEGIPEOFFA4lYEM TS - 1 FLOOR PLAN a 6 - MODULE BLDG rw++ smw+ea1. WA LEESSAWRMARA ARCHITKTS AA P..�iwR'M+n�a�mr HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. TS - 1 ROOF F 7- MODULE E r.m.. iocmiavf:xios "TEll LEE AIA Pei °'°'m'�•� �RC�eITECfS..VA, a. �rasw f1ry Sep Z M] LJ HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH INVESTORS, . INC.. WEST ELEVATION (BACK BAY DRIVEL. EAST ELEVATION at x- r k •.f TS-- 1 /ELEVP 6.- MODULE E WO H6v. seou_mav m.iaor LEE '. &SAKAHAM xav, radua�tizi3uoa TRw�iESAA Hw.PUp Ili�Hpf N��Niviwr- .O.vn[ec4. Hr:RUA ]5 ]OJB ' rsn..aaoo sAd �F a ..�.•n �>• )d% i HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. ITS - 1 ELEVA' 6- MODULE E roots Rw. SRnemoerza.mw I +A%al M,AM A Rw. raeNa:y ]s,fio9 ftCH wERS MAC Pn. AUp�11h2tt8 fle:.AU9u:,R5.]fnY Rev.OUOECr 15. XlA NORTH ELEVATION RRDRERry EwE BACK BAY DRIVE DEFY Bm r a , y q W BE L Y... Y LNxrVR LGRADE V+ �� xEW OPaDE BACK BAY �RRGCERIr YxE SOUTH ELEVATION DRIVE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. ITS - 1 ELEVA' 6- MODULE E roots Rw. SRnemoerza.mw I +A%al M,AM A Rw. raeNa:y ]s,fio9 ftCH wERS MAC Pn. AUp�11h2tt8 fle:.AU9u:,R5.]fnY Rev.OUOECr 15. XlA 5 ti as 6. J r HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Y. .4 "s i PRELIMINARY —` TS - 2 FLOOR PLAN 3 - MODULE BLDG rmw snox..:. x<s LEE &SA HAM MHREM IA Per nq "`YA6 a+ �ao:mr ro. �Rtror ° UPPER PARKING � 1 HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Y. .4 "s i PRELIMINARY —` TS - 2 FLOOR PLAN 3 - MODULE BLDG rmw snox..:. x<s LEE &SA HAM MHREM IA Per nq "`YA6 a+ �ao:mr ro. �Rtror a 3 Y 2ND FLOOR 1 ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR s HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. 3x. a NEWPOST BEACH RRE DEW. fl UWEMENrS: A: NI BkB..s8W41 EE E'u BWiM EPw. eYSiFIS9OE5%1NF➢N A2 .W FWTM 1F Ee. IDWIp EF..B S. BEIII. flop LESW�r�E WEAFAOUSS Ox BOM ®65 & NFI%FD NE �p ET BEIEWwpp I.E. W.. iNE iOPEIfiNp . AIVBT .. l.M MENU iNENNVEEdFMCFp Yi1M BLEBNgFNPNpIECTON. p P1ALL BE OF ENNP'ESl Npry CprSNV8T0E—TEBE1 :pLL��Cparv�E4 LLpE EOpiPPEp WIMSVTINMEP EpEWM NN SPEENL FlPOiECigN NE51 rNEEi6iw4Hrf BIBIBB EA fANrgN.VAlV. a PNE E,.rmuxmrou.n�ACEmro rvE Lwo Dorn vvsrer`i APma�osrmEiiNioa��wr. xm xi. A TS - 2 FLOOR PLAN 3 - MODULE BLDG rAa� � >nD. i,aips LEE 6 SAKAHARA AR�MTFRS NA 3 :F €a �a Y e—� HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. PRELIMINARY ITS -2 ROOF PLAN 3 - MODULE BLDG vwi "w 3i. moe� EEE� AM ARCHITECTS h+..mryxiva MA MUS F NORTH ELEVATION (VIEW FROM OPEN SPACE) � ex xnw+w :'- i .. 8iGN6l4JVN1 "�sraar� 2sTaxx � — �6 occo SOUTH ELEVATION (INTERNAL VIEW FROM LIDO BLDG.) — u.+�w.caoe HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. w1r-- TS - 21 ELEVATIONS " 3- MODULE BLDG. vwra ex. �rzxwxa,xm R"'I'ItlM'II� 1@v.Nqup i &FW9 .LECHIIR6HARA AR�ClZS AIA Rw.Aw�MU'.aw m r y OPL0.tt UxE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. �Y EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Ylm R. SepNmba 2+. M' LEE65ANA M Pw Aemn�i. MOa ARCHRECfS AIA ftn Wryn18.Me Pvv.AVi'+nai. M8 Rer.PUi' +n 25.m Per.0uvw 15,dWE a+n +rs rararu,. .r Ali I.t r y OPL0.tt UxE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. �Y EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Ylm R. SepNmba 2+. M' LEE65ANA M Pw Aemn�i. MOa ARCHRECfS AIA ftn Wryn18.Me Pvv.AVi'+nai. M8 Rer.PUi' +n 25.m Per.0uvw 15,dWE a+n +rs rararu,. 2ND FLOOR HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SLINSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. ]J HEW MOE H RRE DEPT. RMUWEMEM P: �LL� M�A98HVLfE EOVIPPEDw1iX9PPWN1Efl SgNEO x PCMPOnNCF wnM KPP I8 wwopwoPEN.XGSOn WII➢IXGSmES fMarvsmE VII➢UND F%P08lWE8XN1BEFiYID& WMG41ID DN iFMPEXED D V58 ON BTX BNFe a PFF uED NE pP4ME.I..IK LE WINDDwB PPE EOUPEO EN111p NUSi0E M PALBf MEA.P E 1D wNLFUWIWNai 12 WdiS& 98 waiErnaN. C' BiNXWPYSONmEIXPWED BJDSDF ISn a iH BEpi EMIPELYNprOJMaUSnBLEA4iE84Le. POIECXONESSxsLLBE EGViP'fp WIm LPHNttIFP E: PLLPOPCWP15 MU8ie[ ®'CVIA WNiX. BEGNXEMEM fpX SPELW fWERWIErnpXMFM� 0II Np PPE 9GMNIUEA CDHfPM VPLVES a FleE PWPCEMMMEYM WG W MVL! LE PMeDVED BY ml P�A�DPPRFMEXi. pan ra mPlreuu = nEwxSm"P . mom. an ARQ ITEM AIA Par.noremm 1. m EE xJft VnrroMn m EUIIT vcsrtT TYPE � � PE =AA L ED c.. HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. W 3RD FLOOR NEYJ WEE HMEDEPT.RE WEMENI3: 6EEaUi WNAEVrrNO.. p�A51Ea6vE :IswuGrcEDIPR4SOr9W4En1A1nfPn ls. RV UpN OPFHIN4$ OH BLU➢NL fiDR FnprG ME IdYN E.Vq.WPE4MLLeEFlIFDa WPLEVIID PiWAFD. mEOPINPU4U6l PE6fl pUPR OMIiIE PoCEOFMEOVIEN W.Vi eF,IrNDN OF tsm6Nf68 mE KGO'IE EOUavEDwRx SFwtpE0 Wprt4 rTx. wnY6 ory mEwasmwEa OF n:r eFv vwueE6EMnLLVwNt 9191PEwluua .aLLeV WNE95NNy8EEOVP oDxMrs >PnN➢1 WpIFLTW.. E:OLLgpP01vnv6raU6F 0E'dCIEYI wDm �FIdUNFFEM FDN 6KO4PRE FPUf ECApX MFAp e. mEwmNCFwE 6mvrNerFmvmoLVUxFSaNNE DEPMT@M WKBCnTx WYYFM IOmEUW MU61 fiE /A >IpV Fd fiY mE F W EE W➢FX1rsP1iD�TDY Yore 5ed •1. #E�nAR INM AIA ^A' uj, Q ARCHITECTS AIA oc mr Nc:ib.mW U.mm y Y 5 p'o s- P� P� HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. io V� v,oi sopw,q +. I N A „ARCH U MID E � - -eoou cougr , TS - 3 TS - 4 NEWPOP BEPp FlPE CEP .gEWIgEMFMS: WM6uG65XPLL9E WVPPm NRIH SGPIXgEA n: 6/SFM&OESI6xEUIx PtCMpPNEE WI]X NRe I]. ALL W NM 8'.oE4FPCMOTfE 4X6 S EVO5Y EHeLL3Ef4B E6OWLtlM1'E➢ } - MXIEMPE3E0 GLV6IXi WTi910E38PRVF➢ 'M IN INANE. IFOPEM&£W1XM49ME PEOEIPEO, iN�WNWM1'n eI y . MNBML'MOFt 311CNES 6E ME PFOlE4TOx ? GROUND FLOOR `- s`xPAN oFe nan ".+oNEOIn°SV3�Xa :nrinw]s. y EIPµ EAL N &66XPLL&EE0NWE3WMsPPoNMVN vap]ELTON, E: PLLXOP3WPrs MUSreEx6auaLMmX. ? �NEwlfleewrPO3sPxaunEEPEmEO1ow PSFwei ]] IEEk..IIIFE6PFINgEEEBNTROLVPWE6 NFI3E NF EBNNEC EN PUMCEem ro I wo i MUS BE Y nFF➢ BY ME F AEESMWNTMEW. Gi I HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH %° TS-4 N MODULE BLDG A-26 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. .1 vnMi'.AW LEE &3 ARn § , rov H.]WI: zWWWi n HITECTS AR feN M�N,]W] NNE. Ip.EW ga - A -1A Ts 5 TS - 2ND FLOOR any TS -4 (3 STOW) HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. -POOL COU TS -5 (3 stow) TS-4&TS-5R 4 - MODULE E Ll I SAKAHAm MM AIA CLUBHOUSE sraa HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. 4e #a GROUND FLOOR -� TS -6 /CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN rw, w•�wcm yw'�ca LEE w•.viso,am A0.011fECR A�IA Y&SANAARA .r HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH s SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. f� 2ND & 3RD FLOOR PRELIMINARY TS -6 /CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLANS rai. i; LEE A poe xaam A ww.Tm....�A QLUB HOUSE,,,,, _.... _, PRELIMINARY HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH IROO PLUBHOUSE '� ROOF PLAN SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. E ..r LEE & MA AKA A"� yNR r ARCHIIEUS AIA .. rwowwdw . CLUB HOUSE EAST ELEVATION a+ 'I s® I11;9 rurvaucFno[� - -- I— nnrww.w.ce �,�suvunmo �K -- vvnxrsrrlws aaoan WEST ELEVATION (POOL COURT) HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. i CLUB HOUSE TS -61 CLUBI ELEVATIONS _� rams Fa'.. w,.,w., x,zoox 1EE 65AKRHAW+ FW.FeprveryR Sl'Ja pRCNBECTS flIA Re�'.Opopw l; XS]B HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. �r} l SOUTH ELEVATION vam wr. �meerza.mn &SARA M P r.Fa Nnza. ARCHMUSS AIA Wrv.Gtl i4'3® rx�.nvama.��. HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVES TORS, INC. FLOOR .. ... ......... . . o u, 3 � r .,:TYRE A.s�_ -?E YaiE 3- yry ' -:TYPE Tj- � � eaw w•a h , !fit _ :♦. IIIJII _ �� <Sq a�..`56 3RD FLOOR HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH r SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. 3r :.1 -� v-rvwwvvcc vas. sawnur+.xa LU 65AKWPA ARCHMM AR wquw�w�c e..wl+rcao.. PLAN HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. TS - 7 ROOF PLAN 8 - MODULE BLDG rw,� soemen name LEA & &S nrtairtccrs ua mKAan F" I .,. EAST ELEVATION (INTERNAL VIEW) W, y h SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Y40M n2arceers nw aw oaoen is zaoa „„...,,,mw 0 • HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE 1 ° INC. CLCVMI IV14 TS- a_n Rw slip ux xom. I LEE &SA HARP xw.uarmu ime ARCH pERS PIA w. oemeils moB a m TYPE A 5 ? NO. OF BEDROOM:2 17 NO. OF BATH: 2 t !�' TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 1,268 Y HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. k T 2 BEDROOM R2 I a HALCANY WING RM ...� . MASTF�R SURD; -p E DINING I�.I �aw. J! - BATH d TOTAL SUARE FEET: 1,268 urwn WCHEN '. UNIT PLAN I ( BEDROOM i2 vwu snxv.ee+.sox n _�i6t9f"OS LEE 6 SARAHAW ARCHITECTS AW m TYPE A 5 ? NO. OF BEDROOM:2 17 NO. OF BATH: 2 t !�' TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 1,268 Y HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. k T 2 BEDROOM R2 I a TYPE B _ NO. OF BEDflOOM.2 t ?' NO. OF BATH: 2 TOTAL SUARE FEET: 1,268 urwn UNIT PLAN vwu snxv.ee+.sox n _�i6t9f"OS LEE 6 SARAHAW ARCHITECTS AW TYPE C NO. OF BEDROOM. 2 NO. OF BATH: 2 TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 1,268 HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. TYPE D NO. OF BEDROOM: 3 NO. OF BATH-:-3 TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 1,705 rwwv . I,- 77- ��" 1.1. : M I McUE & SA�AM 'MMS AIA uR ------------------- --------- -- - ----- --- OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE LOWER LEVEL SS SPACES UPPER LEVEL 84 SPACES TOTAL 170SPACES SQUARE FEET: 25,229 LOWER LEVEL PLAN HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH OPEN PARKING LOWER LEVEL I SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Lff & MMHAM ARMITEM MA 9 OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE LOWER LEVEL SS SPACES UPPER LEVEL 84 SPACES TOTAL 170SPACES SQUARE FEET: 25,229 LOWER LEVEL PLAN HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH OPEN PARKING LOWER LEVEL I SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. Lff & MMHAM ARMITEM MA UPPER LEVEL PLAN HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SLINSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. c7r SQUARE FEET: 25,229 M�ITIM A' i HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH d0 YOM Rw Nquu3�1C� I LEE SSAKAHARA R°"A10 K ARCHITECTS AIA Pev Miy tS abR Fn n�o ixtxWe Rw NqufllS M]8 Tian •uuu 1lw.OtloEU I ;.'N'r! ,p ........ . . ... ......... ... . .... HYATr REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH D SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. CT IN PLAN SEPf MR 6. C1 WL - aft -M� 'Mrs" FUSCOE SUNSTONE HOTEL 4>- !: C2 M-� Iv 4/ <Y \ r �v +a \ rNTATIV/E PARCEL MAP N0. 206 A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 77 PAGE 3 IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY RECORDER gm 4 1' r.., J r- i 1 V ' PP�Eti 2 Gi '\ xB mrowzs. "1 rvw�v �[ -max ttmm xom ri �� �a.""II Z -zosu r� ®vma rasa in>� us�mE suc wars �� � �B]IIIIDUrvmm�����mn nva •s. 11! � 1 oal rwirx w-mm. mnrin v � e L u FAN �l � �orte sn un mm.a �'3°avrwo � HYA7T REGUYCYHOM AERFORF MACH CANPORMA r owP�AlsuenNlom ` { 4V XUS rtaurvYwG�mu.'m ¢� / sn N VIA FUSCOE f I TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 2006 -200 FQ4 HYA7T REGUYCYHOM AERFORF MACH CANPORMA HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH PLAN aSU ®NE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. �o� a"idw¢m�00wn AIttl11iKl5 nu N }� HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH PLAN aSU ®NE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. �o� a"idw¢m�00wn AIttl11iKl5 nu \ \ V FUEL IFICATION ZONE DESCRIPTIONS TS 1 I / , i/; T ! �•` - 1 EXISTING WILDING BUILDING q REMAIN T / 4 r- a�+wi t 11lr TS -7 -� ! 4.. ' TSS �F' \ TSO /Clubhouse i rr HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SLNSLONE NOIEL�NVESTORS.INC. CONCEPTUAL FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN SERFS AWFR }S. 7 D DEK J - :DRIVE — zw W. m� c aw Ve ft t Z l �« JAMBOREE ' ROAD -_ HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH wALE: rW0' LIGHTING PLAN Lo -1 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. LEE 65AKd M ARMTEUS AK Q _ TYPE McGRAW- EDISON" xe Gv (WARM WHITE). 14'TALLTAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLE. M I OF 2 N.a s I., f A, A l= .. A. 11., 1�h -C GENERATION SERIES CVL ,„ o-.� ".,,,,. "eew. CUTOFF x• ° ° " „ "' POSTTOP LUMNAME COMGIIANi �� a� NOTES: TYPE SINGLE 50WATT METAL HALIDE FIXTURE, 3000K I (WARM WHITE). 14'TALLTAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLE. I OF 2 S�, moon SO xu\►_c_ \\m xxxv.9_59 \" ®�•l�mamCL'U.0 mI1l1lIL \MRLI 17lN IN O IN c �_T2q"11p�t in nnin 9 Imnn � .� NOTES: TYPE (WARM READ 50WATT METAL HALIDE FIXTURE, 3000K BM' 14' TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLE. 2OF2 mi �9 � a Ed i } U Z W � z W � w Hw S :tee =.N n 11i -111 ddill I'd .a... .a, d . a dIdd uW II—XI. HID �kew.re me�Wm!enn ' i,mpnouers. INVUE �k u 1. n I, 6 ilea. :,Nj_i =.' ._.......___ ._....._. _..___... _ u._ __.I'd —0. NOTES: TYPE BM2 (SINGLE HEAD), BM2a (TWO HEAD), BM2b (THREE HEAD) BM2a - HIGH PRESSURF SODIUM FIXTURE WITH 150W LAMPS 25' TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLES. 1 OF 2 s� ....r: ax I'll ,,... BM2a BM2b NOTES: TYPE BM2 (SINGLE HEAD), BM2a (TWO HEAD), BM21, (THREE HEAD) g M 2a- HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM FIXTURE WITH I5OW LAMPS 25' TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLES, 20F2 " 12. y BM2a BM2b NOTES: TYPE BM2 (SINGLE HEAD), BM2a (TWO HEAD), BM21, (THREE HEAD) g M 2a- HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM FIXTURE WITH I5OW LAMPS 25' TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLES, 20F2 -W yr¢w r V Z UJ Lu C L -2 o^+oez�nidranaw�m ° °,�� -g.1 rn We ..rt „M Mp a �arym msnu aae a rvra vni BM1 nan as aa�WNt 9 °uAVp'e INVUE ' W E Nnv wopvinuvomdniiN o Vueu�eea wwnq hpe°Mnr wv a lqm g5wm� msne �j Mir iil "LJ � NOTES: TYPE TWO HEAD I50WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM FIXTURE WITH BM2C 150 WATT LAMPS. 225'TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLE. I OF 3 I BMU C (�rdAp ivm- mar.rprmu..rrn wp.. wr. rw.aeua.radvvws.ranvrrm.,urvr.ni urmrna NOTES: TYpE TWO HEAD 150WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM FIXTURE WITH BM2c 150 WATT LAMPS. 22.5' TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLE. 30F3 b I BMU C (�rdAp ivm- mar.rprmu..rrn wp.. wr. rw.aeua.radvvws.ranvrrm.,urvr.ni urmrna NOTES: TYpE TWO HEAD 150WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM FIXTURE WITH BM2c 150 WATT LAMPS. 22.5' TALL TAPERED ROUND ALUMINUM POLE. 30F3 -z ag3 ¢� 9 w } u z LLJ w w �=w a =zvo 1 L -3 4640 KNUCKLE MOUNT ACCENT LIGHT DESCRIPTION meaM6e neau.rennntac"A"I'voAn't"enAn dwmlmaam OaIW die caR.Iuminum reasonless, Ana an 'note YN as Oaanfe.TrisAnn. acoomnalleas1In PRAF, 1.A 11111Wa extra 'AI NIlaneoi and ncted.,rral applieirionS. The TAGIr A ,balpe A., in sid. arnmere A,.'and'Alope"S pehmmanne nor .,.,a, fiM l.I,A .,ad'Ange Ad AAani per'ormenceA ate Vdllahle .1d, ielamal new., w@rnal glam SPECIFICATIONS: MATEFIALRVAI neldr la'I)I¢:i3lfoppv /reenWMnumallW AifA Nllrie @tali are chmmnfirador Ali prior In alllonsi LAMP: Incantle¢cenl; 15WV Max. T "6 and Pi d5aalli ii, OR:'Wil/ Mae:TBand PPS N ,=,ax: Ali end FlllyJCal, 90CXET: Inoandeannnl: Medium base or E27 base. Boa@: AS can base. HI0:G12ee"Arlm... base. VOLTAGE: See rind, Tile. OISTPIBUTION; for amps Beer,ual""p"A IJ. FA anefnnr Elbprwarzampa: Spmaremam —forr avaaaw! LENS: lmwnnm.mpeledglnn. MOUNTING: I TISTdx PGInadENpbletear . INIARL Sea veem, gale Nl later epddns, FASTENERS: SIR nines Steel. LISTING: CE. u L, CUL .a.. RIMEL NESEAVES NO at.' IO AAORRY 01111IG11➢N wllx09 eNO¢. by lime n I s It to 1 m.e Ai 9o.u.m.nleafW i p ex onap.An. "wemed,'Ard91 Y1A511. Ia iw 1, Cndue Fnn.la•wm TYPE TYPE 111 NAME Pa P: Ndanall STAKE MOUNTED, BRONZE FINISH. 4640 ORDERING INFORMATION ol", 4m Mor C.MI(SPOTLIGHT) AND LM2(FLOODLIGHT) DISTRIBUTION. PPRINO. Y I OF 2 dom INCMT6 EA BP YM &Le ut 155 SF IT, Bz An g 15/lfi = a.,.. 1337 1 6 11IS., A. vN3 ey�a Mwnong OP1ma• be S 9. 91 O p O DP'CauEf, ed TJI .a «.,a« A—, TvmP OVIE. ILa SM O dAt p !BA .l.Bm awM .rear 6emna 11061 , _ O 1m Pa O n nlml F 4 e.�af Ad Imm .ader- 4 314' (J Y S d p� me ilkLaMPAa�uf m:x 03x1 -a O Psm P,NmI suaJi. @ I 4mg i_ Ivune, .vPTYDa O WNS N ON, Sew Ad IN a ... W "'a'3[Fev Aeeua e alwr 1i3 NPT or PG 16 — e.1. Aral nr4lnt 1> Sn6 saxi I.Bm Nrr NIPPLE PPRMALB Ia•1•:•iFmw n I�N XM NB� :w,:Xr I NOTES: TYPE 70W CERAMIC METAL HALIDE FIXTURE, 3000K (WARM WHITE). LM STAKE MOUNTED, BRONZE FINISH. 4640 ORDERING INFORMATION ol", 4m Mor C.MI(SPOTLIGHT) AND LM2(FLOODLIGHT) DISTRIBUTION. PPRINO. Y I OF 2 9 G8o3©L 1P66 4640 ORDERING INFORMATION ol", 4m Mor PPRINO. Y dom INCMT6 EA BP YM &Le ut 155 SF IT, Bz An = a.,.. oeeat.d6l�u @` vN3 ey�a Mwnong OP1ma• be S 9. �udZ¢� E O p O DP'CauEf, ed TJI .a «.,a« A—, TvmP D a D.n A.— 41 DGX ILa SM O dAt p !BA .l.Bm awM .rear 6emna O D,vuM m _ O 1m Pa O n nlml F 4 e.�af Ad Imm .ader- O bal (J Y S d p� me ilkLaMPAa�uf m:x on R.P..,caY -a O Psm P,NmI suaJi. @ I 4mg a rvt nits "o. GMear Ivune, .vPTYDa O WNS N ON, Sew Ad IN a ... W "'a'3[Fev Aeeua e alwr — e.1. Aral nr4lnt 1> Sn6 saxi I.Bm Nrr O Cf Swmm fimn OP9If9V, PM.Y m6hae 11 Selo Wand J Ad. A'm. pcvaavlea oa.tlP ®n plinki Sua Nwau]JFtx Bmn NQyypn ava tata .mrsun 0308133 S= Npmb F¢ex ban O GITEreayA 4m F1[? tt It Roar. PS— f.ab Pgxr tub O (ASPEme AARPRNtla' At. S.T4 O Pn3>ERNAPRAR, M5 or SYe O I.e.I ,'Aar. 0YC A3:MG1 Y PUmIm am M, la' A ,N O PNAP P4ae0. Mn p dou Bww ,y hams Am As, re iN oeanw3 Ga.. An4 pea. omnx.., .i em ua...aea saa Fe��1r Fn.n3ae Arm hx a' P9ptM PAR 1IY.m.6[au 91X83•«".;',A dBVnpe_xxx tea 5D1:PSnu4d Mses" OMM Ed and pan .A J.tba Apv maa ORPRa Cf Enxba n.m. 11 x° Xm a` "on uvt Ir l...+ ..SAcmddnmwr F.a..up. yae o IF. 1P., pepnaia ihu me^3o3ien e.r care... yw,l dMOmrsmF�gAi .1. Flt. AIL m�e wG 1X3 1n Xew .1 @ 6 O ded. 9 nR r, .-A. FAA !1 ber;A —., No— .,.,A — @1016 I.P. PAR .In Male=. "A"M A IrN PANlpmi emM[aentre ¢ OCaANB Gi. rallor " O IN Sp[rmn mMCpea, RSYavaa OP{BSa LYa Nb 84 oMrlem 3A Snnunrt'Aress AnAln. vcaXre >FaX. erean o A. l4.NmamM.AAAAARMr, ..'a. ..."A's o "It". I'll. Nnaen A. oa�l Mao R� m RAez cl.n oNT An eau.mr To ulGeneabi At 3e All v.A, Bie ertlMidn" V x mmemn u z W 'O3.ymmhd,u.aaeruwa'sordearrt eeEer .."Adn NSNn ."Andaq(mnen .aa.AAFAA.6m.AFxA As •am araanew.MR,m FRNmA Pr'A... Arena •art.n.Wl. dxw.va tcewe >i •G.n.a6n.ar.amr..�m. nd.N..Rn sse..d wlASa W so AI xa.d.ma PPn YAW. nmmmlr M�GaW Fne.— Xnarxm. A....-, �! 'L. narc6el aeebq WeoomN�SMmW "310au'1Ya vA PEEfL WSZA, RSHSiTgePGWBR9mN, 4a. Ad epem . ••bSt F i"v aretixrIXN. es HN[«rd6arw XlRaq _ •anrt �rcN'n4lR C Rtal1 AAr'hs drat v aNiw .1.1 Ai ~ v ~m Wa nl Aw ubOp nM ve,ovn a xvY.ganlaen F. x =me NOTES: TYPE 70W CERAMIC METAL HALIDE FIXTURE, 3000K (WARM WHITE). LM STAKE MOUNTED, BRONZE FTNISH. LMl (SPOTLIGHT) AND LM2 (FLOODLIGHT) DISTRIBUTION. 20F2 L -4 4421 WET NICHE MOUNT LINE VOLTAGE SWIMMING POOL FIXTURE DESCRIPTION 1 N M' d' m . e Oe p^ e npne ' t , h,ni1 , aw k nl R �s L. mep np l bem.v i, a6 u�. FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS Exa oaoN: x X51 ma... aonvrvngn, bulnbs ®IxI JOOl Inm rvai4Ek. e mlal„5 ilm.en.na mooei..p :4 Abp, wn a, m. �m.e MamX m Ime�e ime onSnmN eee;owl'el�;� In .L�oam.a mna,��e nervv..ei ai'. ia'In ;m.MO bryn s •.pmmp. L4MP: See vNerieg quip¢. SOLCEi base I.'I w,l llmo DISTRIBUTION. R,b- r'u pe'1p1l ppu ^i,ppaG I enrm.. 1111-6, , "° n•na p45..:m. w "mmo]ene u' xASMFT. Silgbple[e -11,1 OlbfprJ nTiwiiv. CORO: ATie.mumvl ]E'o'. Ir 6l5l nemeniDle iaW wll Cw0 id an ewvy anrepA irdl. Gwe bnpul SlNr[iei ftml e<Nwp'p N6R evL,n eroJee va'bwb X na lnmi Mauar Ne nmoMal Manmeew, wnn5leul.W rMaryHp. '. ��aaaneanl Dlm lmwy.�dl �.nmel w�.�a:nle 4vil, :.bmemea'�. -ak,. N -IE x11.1 RE.'El iK XIGMI Ip MWll SPE[INLAIIOx X01 Q.IILA e M uuleel: to bev nlenni nlkA lo�nlmm Vuryoi p+a'n menulapwin 5 r.1 IN aslI nvl -�'� 9vemry¢elfon npulremenn: IPNS 1'p 19111 '0 Z-11, e MenuN.iwr Ip68 ,y„ ®/1 IvPE JpB XPME 50OW QUARTZ TUNGSTEN HALOGEN LAMP. PAPTNYMBM U V UNDER WATER INCANDESCENT POOL LIGHT. STAINLESS STEEL FINISH I OF 2 9 V{ 12.0 1 I2 nle (T) L (I I �6 APPRMAl NOTES: TYPE 50OW QUARTZ TUNGSTEN HALOGEN LAMP. U V UNDER WATER INCANDESCENT POOL LIGHT. STAINLESS STEEL FINISH I OF 2 s� W P047 oDF ®ts ip68 4421 ORDERING INFORMATION - ®X,Applmtrm .{ ESFM E am a spn Im r -cTU� ran xe rsiv swx Erl ss o � Jel E.m lY Coetlnl Enld., 0.'9 ..Can OPVnna 1pa omI Mc one u..,. Sm v�Nnmaia,.. sae,a,. tiemo T��s� o'' m .� vmci Ive an sxx as x,4.° s:n °f 6Y6 $$ �..n.m Hillan... yea W V £ll vam a. cros.i s.mm� T.msncv. rhimliry emp } V W N w �Wpxp v i n laM ~u� nfvl iJ 1�SNm�uMri Fw }g x�e NOTES: TYPE 50OW QUARTZ TUNGSTEN HALOGEN LAMP. 1 �V UNDER WATER INCANDESCENT POOL LIGHT. �J STAINLESS STEEL FIMSH 20F2 L -6 iS r Recessed wall Nmma«es Type BEGA Product It rY.w d �a .rrn1=wnarw Project: w n44.nnYnr uY:n4yum4W.wi Voltage: EnYV w auur.r.wnYwub rbarmmyw d�,1. S fMW YldtlYlku�.IJ11u,n.4Pe Odor' b.4W.nom4 e: '^] 4vna .rKwaoarmnnmb.r Modthetlifiietl: Y^o.'n'°E' ,M p ':,Y EYar4s. Mvnv YvmnrY.mpv+bY K.rr �'tm ,mn 4> 2 -w+. oom w�ner nwwr <.w+w aaxu.�w......w woos ihouplr i]M I#nrW 9.R FKRpmpv. inuplr lNr.q'.WVnw IM.ru1W F24WLwxM'Wr, qyn 9T�m1 umde brb'C. r.oi vq.ax, pwdq la'.'wmm� rawvr.IeS$f 9yi 14n h %FM IMMt. ?]m Iflvt FnrK'M- M1NUI JBCOVry ,may yyr.rpiW wPabnrYay rents Fn FapbM m brmtlEEGAM1nr4xn4 Pa'ui. ruts u i>nYw mnnrun Y.m d...4,ou aa.a+rew,eyl,,r.n . rrrameanwr u.r. wep e.vebarn -. romr ..+nwewwuw�wrm.xw.rr. ca W.,rwem w. MY.4 wnn4rlun kYmW wwdova.n. w ,Y mx arw wao eFwwavo+o-+rarm.cn own Ivlaosasi osv Irl eo,.ra. wat NOTES: TYPE I 0 �� I �c - -. EPAW Uroureniu,4Nwr. ' V1 YW0.5utW bx01 1•- • � liluow V'1 bMYYSamMelb 9ti amMy I OF 1 4w9nrJn46EGU mra p ':,Y 4> 2 w ,Y mx arw wao eFwwavo+o-+rarm.cn own Ivlaosasi osv Irl eo,.ra. wat NOTES: TYPE ISW COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMP, 2700K (WARM WF11TE), �� I RECESSED STEPLIOH'C. BRONZE FINISH. I OF 1 • • EXISTING POLE FIXTURES IN SITE bK x 'x fLQ3� HIM <�3 -1 ilk } U Z W l7 W `o S' w H= F` Qa _ s: I* Lighting Fixture Schedule Project: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Date: 30 August 2005 Lighting Design Alliance Project #: 5146 Latest Revision Date: 1234 East Burnett Street „ , 20 October 2006 Signal Hill, CA 90755 -3510 ph 562- 989 -3843 a �e 02 April 2008 Fixture Notes: 1) Fixtures shall have appropriate UL label, damp, or wet as required by local codes. 2) Fixtures shall Include accessories for installation according to local and national codes. 3) Prbr ed ordering lighting equipment, the contrattor shall verify Icranonn and recess depths 4) Lamps shall be instilled according to the attached fxmre schedule, 5) Contractor shall verify final voltages and ceiling trim compatibility prior to ordering fixtures. 6) Ceiling thickness in excess of 314" shall be identified in writing by Contractor /Architect. 7) Fixtures shall be ordered with the appropriate ballasts that have UL and CBM labels. Ballasts shall conform to Tide 24 requirements for performance, switching, and wiring fie. tandem). 8) provide approved fire -raced enclosures for lighting fixtures located in a fire -rated ceiling. 9) Walls directly illuminated shall be installed and finished in a manner to eliminate shadows or blemishes pro, hang dry will vertically). 10) Responsibility for emergency lighting. Tide 24 calculations, and circuiting ed melt code conformance remains with the Architect and Electrical Engineer as required by law. 11) Fixtures located in an insulated ceiling area, shall have an IC housing (electrical contractor to coordinate). 12) The Architect and Lighting Designer shall approve fixture substitutions prior to bid. Contractor shall supply a sample and /or photometric data if requested. If substitution is rejected, Contractor shall provide specified product. Latest revisions In BOLD Manufacturer Lamp Max. Type Description Location & Catalog # Qty. Unnir Type Watt Voids Remarks BMI Pale mounted decorative metal McGraw Edison I Phillips Mastercolor 150 Per EE Stmttural engineer to provide halide pedestrian fixmre with a Cascade Series MHC I SOIU/i base detail. 14' -0" round papered aluminum pole. BM2 Single head Pole mounted high Parking lots Cooper Ughting -Inoue I ISOW Deluxe HPS ISO Per EE Structural engineer m provide pressure sodium Ordure with a VXS Series base detail. 25' -0" round tapered aluminum pole. BM2a Two head ni anerni high Parking lots Cooper Lighting - Imue I I SOW Deluxe HPS 300 Per EE Scmcl engineer m ptovsda pressure sodium fixtures VXS Series base detail. Q I SO' with a 25' -0" round tapered aluminum pole. BM26 Three head pole mounted high Parking lots Cooper Lighting -Invue I 15OW Deluxe HPS 450 Per EE Structural engineer to provide pressure sodium fixtures with VXS Series base detail. a 251 round tapered aluminum pole. BM2c Two head pole mounted Parking Cooper Lighting- 1 ISOW Deluxe HPS 300 Per Seructurelengineer t- high pressure sodium terrace Invue EE Provide bans distaff. 0xture, 0180° orientation VXS Series on 22'4" round tapered VXSI50W -HPS- aluminum pole. [VOLTS] -4S -BZ Stake mounted metal halide Palm tree Hydrel I Phillips Mastercolor 70 Per EE To be located In the field by the landsape spotlight upllght 4640- 70CM76- 277.5?- CDM70R6183D lighting dessgner KM-SBAIB-IHL-GEB- LPI -BZ dLMM3 Stake mou nted medal halide Canopy tree Hydrel I Phillips Mastercolor 70 Per EE To be located in the field by the landscape llo diligfu uplight 46Q-70CMT6-277-FL- CDM7LVT6 /830 lighting dengnr KM-SBAI84HL-GEB- LPI-BZ Tree mounted metal halide Walkways Hydrel I Phillips Mastercolor oed in the field by the floolight with remote ballast through out 4620- 35CMT4 -vors- CDM35/TC /830 designer box NFL- KM- TRB-SCB- emote ballast in GEB- LPI -BZ -UL e burial box a base of UVI Underwaterwtt niche mounted Swimming I SOOQT4MC VlocMed candescent pool light pools r2226P-BRZ WFi Rcessed compact fluorescent Swimming I PL -T IBW/827 /4Plako steplight pools r IHYATT REGENCY C0 xMSTOT e.t.a VFSTnnan ms su e stonss.. sn oz nran tooe X15 x & SAKAHA Mall", ®LEE All ARCHITECTS AIA „ , qx ntmtntwnnnmmsrwn a �e zwuwtmun..suusuu ame.cntaemwsaw+ mac.umr.wemr.n✓ _ X15 Hyatt Regency Site Lighting Newport Beach, CA LDA Project No. 5146 Lighting Fixture Schedule and Fixture Illustrations 30 August 2004 02 April 2008 1234 East Burnett Street Signal Hill, CA 90755 -3510. USA TEL 562 989 3843 FAX 562 989 3847 w .UghtingDesi,Alliancamm V6 • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY • Lighting Fixture Schedule Project: Hyatt Regency NewpoH Beach Date: 30 August 2005 Lighting Design Alliance Project #: 5146 Latest Revision Date: 1234 East Burnett Street 20 October 2006 Signal Hill, CA 90755 -3510 ph 562 -989 -3843 02 April 2008 Fixture Notes: I ) Fixtures shall have appropriate UL label, damp, or wet as required by local codes. 2) Fixtures shall include accessories for installation according to local and national codes. 3) Prior to ordering lighting equipment the contactor shall verify locations and recess depths. 4) Lamps shall be installed according to the attached fixture schedule. 5) Contractor shall verify final voltages and ceiling trim compatibility prior to orderingfeatures, 6) Ceiling thickness in excess of 314" shall he identified in writing by Contractor /Architect. 7) Fixtures shall be ordered with the appropriate ballasts that have UL and CBM labels. Ballasts shall conform to Title 24 requirements for pedos mane, switching, and wiring (i.e. tandem). 6) Provide approved fire -rated enclosures for lighting fixtures located in a fire -rated ceiling. 9) Walls directly illuminated shall be installed and finished in a manner to eliminate shadows or blemishes (Le. hang dry well vertically). 10) Responsibility for emergency lighting, Tide 24 calculations, and circuiting to meet code conformance remains with the Architect and Electrical Engineer as required by aw. 11) Fixtures located in an insulated ceiling area, shall have an IC housing (electrical contactor to coordinate). 12) The Architect and Lighting Designer shall approve fixture substitutions prior to bid. Contactor shall supply a sample and /or phammevic data if requested. if substitution is rejected, Contractor shall provide specified produce Latest revisions in BOLD Manufacturer Lamp Max. Type Description Location & Catalog # Qty. Lsna2 T e Watt Volts Remarks BMI Pole mounted dworative metal McGraw Edison I Phillips venereal., 150 Per EE Structural engineer to provide halide pedestrian fixture with a Cascade Series MHCISOIUfM 13K base detail. 14' -0" round tapered aluminum pole. -Pa BM2 Single head pole mounted high tog lots Cooper Lighting - Invue I [SOW Deluxe HPS 150 Per EE Structural engineer to provide pressure sodium fixture with a VXS Series base derail. 25'-0" round tapered aluminum pole. B112a Two head pole mounted high Parking lots Cooper Lighting- Invue I Deluxe HPS 300 Structural engineerto provide pressure sodium fixtures VXS Series base derail. 180- with a 25' -0" round I r JPurEE tapered aluminum pole. Lighting Fixture Schedule Project: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Date: 30 August 2005 Lighting Design Alliance Project#: 5146 Latest Revision Date: 1234 East Burnett Street 20 October 2006 Signal Hill, CA 90755 -3510 ph $62-989-3843 02 April 2008 Manufacturer Lamp Max. Type Description Location & Catalog # Qt . Lam T Watt Volts Remzrks BM26 Three head pole mounted high Parking lots Cooper Lighting- Invue I ISOW Deluxe HPS 4SO Per EE Suvctural engineer w provide pressure sodium fixtures with - VXS Series base detail. a 25' -0" round tapered aluminum pole. BM2c Two head pole mounted Parking Cooper Lighting- I I SOW Deluxe PIPS 300 Per Structural engineer to high pressure sodium terrace Invue EE provide base decal). fixtures @180 - orientation VXS Series on 22'4" round tapered vXS- ISOW -HPS- aluminum pole. [VOLTS].4S.BZ LMI Stake mounted metal halide Palm tree Hydrel I Phillips Mastereolor 70 Per EE To be located in the field by the landscape spotlight uptight 4690JOCMT6.277-SP. CDM70lT6l830 lighting deisgner KM- SBAIB - IHL -GEB- LPI.SZ LM2 Stake mounted metal halide Canepy tree Hydrel I Phillips Ma mmoolor 70 Per EE To be located in die field by the landscape floodlight uplighc 4640- 70CMT6- 277 -FL- CDM70IT61830 lighting deisgner KM-SBAIB- IHL -GEB- LPI -BZ LM3 Tree mounted metal halide Walkways Hydrel I Phillips Mascercolor 39 Per EE To be located in the field by dse floodlighr wrch remote ballast throughout 4620- 35CMT4 -vacs- CDM357TCIS30 lighting designer box NFL- KM- TRB -SC& Provide remote ballast in GEB - LPI -BZ -UL separs a burial box at base of tree UVI Underwater wet niche mounted Swimming Hydrel 1 5OOQT9MC 590 120 incandescent pool light pools 4421- BS00 -Q I20 -CLS- NM-34B-CSL35-SWM- LPI -SS • I WFI Recessed compact fluorescent Swimming Begs 1 PL -T 18W182714Pfalw 18 Per EE stephght pools 2226P -BRZ Page 2 Lighting Fixture Schedule Project: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Date: 30 August 2005 Lighting Design Alliance Project M. 5146 Latest Revision Date: 1234 East Burnett Street 20 October 2006 Signal Hill, CA 907553510 ph 562- 989 - 3843 02 April 2008 Manufacturer Lamp Max. Type Description Location & Catalog # Q Lam Type Vdan Vohs Remarks End of Lighting Fixture Schedule 5-T Page 3 ATTACHMENT 5 November 6, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report pA THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 6, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion (PA 2005 -212) 1107 Jamboree Road • Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report • Parcel Map No. 2007 -003 • Use Permit No. 2005 -046 • Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 • Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 APPLICANT: Ken Cruse, Sunstone Hotels PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, imurillo Ccacitv.newport- beach.ca.us This item was continued from the October 23, 2008, Planning Commission meeting per the request of the applicant. At the hearing, several residents in attendance commented and expressed concerns on the project (See Community Concems section of report). The Planning Commission raised concerns and requested staff and the applicant to return at tonight's meeting with additional information (see Planning Commission's Comments section of report). This staff report focuses primarily on the project's discretionary applications, addresses the comments raised at the previous meeting, and supplements the October 23, 2008, staff report which focused on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Receive staff report, receive applicant's presentation, re -open public hearing, and receive public comments. 2. Adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006121052) and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. Adopt a resolution (Exhibit 2) recommending that the City Council make findings relative to significant environmental effects and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005- 046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095, and Development Agreement No. 2005- 002, subject to the attached findings and conditions. aX� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 3 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Setting The project site consists of 25.7 acres situated on two parcels located at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. A 403 -room resort-style hotel is currently developed on the site which includes associated restaurants, banquet facilities, an outdoor amphitheater, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and maintenance and housekeeping sheds. The site is heavily vegetated with mature palm trees and other ornamental trees and shrubs. The Palisades Tennis Club abuts the project site along the northeastern boundary. The remainder of the site's northern boundary abuts open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area (ESA), which contains native coastal sage scrub, marsh, and riparian areas. The Harbor Cove residential community is located further north beyond the Environmental Study Area. East of the project site, across Jamboree Road, is the Sea Island residential community. South of the site, across Back Bay Drive, is the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments. To the west of the site, across Back Bay Drive, is the Newport Dunes Resort Community. Project Description The applicant proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel with the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a new 10,072 - square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage (Exhibit 3 - Plans). Details of the project components are as follows: Demolition Project implementation requires the demolition of four existing villas located on the northwestern portion of the site. Each villa consists of three rooms; one room on the lower floor and two rooms on the second floor. Each room can be rented out individually, for a total of 12 hotel rooms (keys), or in combinations of one, two, or three rooms. The demolition of the 4 villas results in a loss of a total of 12 hotel rooms, since each room can be rented independently. Also proposed for demolition is the 4,035 square -foot maintenance and engineering building located near the villas and the existing 3,190 - square -foot Terrace Ballroom on the western portion of the site. In addition to the buildings proposed for demolition, project implementation will result in the elimination of the existing nine -hole golf course to accommodate the timeshare units and associated improvements. The proposed project will also require the removal and reconfiguration of the recreational courtyard located in the center of the main hotel complex. AX 5 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 4 Timeshares Seven new buildings containing a total of 88 timeshare units are proposed to be constructed on the northern portion of the site over the existing nine -hole golf course. The buildings would consist of either two or three stories with a maximum height of 35 feet to the roof midpoint and 40 feet to the roof ridge. Four of the timeshare buildings also include a subterranean parking garage level. The proposed timeshares are fractional ownership units where the buyers of the timeshare interests would be given a deed subject to a ground lease (leasehold estate). The deed given to the buyers would expire December 31, 2062, consistent with the expiration of the ground lease. A minimum of one week may be purchased, with a maximum consecutive stay of four weeks per year. The maximum number of days a buyer may purchase is 63 days (9 weeks). The applicant's proposed timeshare operations plan is attached as Exhibit 4. Clubhouse Timeshare Building . No. 6 (TS -6) includes a one -story, 4,194- square -foot clubhouse. The clubhouse includes offices, restrooms, pool equipment storage space and 1,702 square feet of meeting /assembly space. The clubhouse will be used for timeshare guest check -in, sales, and other timeshare - related activities. Spa and Fitness Center A new 10,072 square -foot building containing a spa and fitness center is proposed to be constructed in the center of main hotel complex. The spa would consist of several massage and treatment rooms, a beauty salon, gift shop, and separate locker rooms, steam rooms, hot tubs and restrooms for men and women. While the spa and fitness center would be oriented for use by both hotel and timeshare guests, it would also be open for use by the general public. New Ballroom A new 800 -seat ballroom facility is proposed in southwest portion of the site. The ballroom would consist of 11,032 net square feet of banquet area, 5,067 square feet of pre - function area, and 8,288 square feet of service area, for a total of 24,387 gross square feet. The banquet area is designed so that smaller banquet/meeting rooms can be created through the use of removable wall partitions. The height of the ballroom structure would be 31 feet 6 inches to the roof midpoint and 36 feet 6 inches to the roof ridge, with the exception of a proposed architectural cupola and tower feature that would measure 57 feet 6 inches in height (62 feet 6 inches to the 5- foot -high finial on top). M Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 5 Parking Structure A two -level parking structure, with a maximum height of 18 feet to the top of the parapet, is proposed on the southern portion of the site. The roof -level parking deck would include two, 22- foot -6- inch -high light standards, which would result in an overall height of 34 feet, 6 inches from finished grade. The 25,229- square -foot parking structure would accommodate 170 parking spaces. Circulation Improvements The existing driveway on Jamboree Road would be enhanced with decorative paving. It would remain the hotel's primary entry drive, providing access to the hotel, new timeshares, new spa, and tennis club. The two existing gated entry drives that provide access from Back Bay Drive would be removed and three new access drives from Back Bay Drive would be constructed: 1) a primary access drive to the new ballroom and parking structure that would be aligned with the entry drive to the Bayview Landing Apartments south of the project site; 2) a secondary entry drive to the surface parking adjacent to the ballroom; and 3) a fire access road to the new timeshare units. Storrs Drainage Improvements Currently, drainage for the project site occurs via surface flow. Off -site flows from an existing storm drain on the north side of Jamboree Road are discharged to a site near the parking lot adjacent to Back Bay Drive and surface flow to a collection drain in Back Bay Drive. Project implementation requires several drainage improvements, including the construction of a new storm drain on the north side of Jamboree Road (within the public right -of -way), which would then connect to a new on -site storm drain that would traverse the southwest portion of the site beneath the parking lot adjacent to Back Bay Drive and would discharge to an existing storm drain at the northwestern corner of the site at Back Bay Drive. A system of grated inlets and curb opening catch basins at sump locations would capture and direct flows to the new drains. Flows from the northern portion of the site would be collected in a separate storm drain system that would outlet to an existing concrete ditch at the northeast corner of the site. A new storm drain would also be provided along the northern portion of Back Bay Drive, adjacent to Timeshare Building TS -7, and would discharge into the existing public storm drainage. On -site water quality measures are proposed to include several best management practices (BMPs), including various media filters, bio- swales, and filtration trenches. Background Hotel Entitlements The hotel was originally permitted in 1962 while under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The area was later annexed to the City of Newport Beach in 1963. Since then, ail i Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 6 several additions and activities have been permitted for the hotel over the years. The table provides a breakdown of the various approvals throughout the years: County of Orange Use 4/10162 Permitted a 103 -room hotel with restaurants and banquet Variance No. 4897 facilities. Use Permit No. 886 12/20162 Allowed the addition of 103 rooms to the existing hotel (French Use Permit 4/18/02 Court Building). Use Permit No. 958 6/6/63 Allowed the construction of a convention building (Plaza Ballroom). Use Permit No. 1099 1/7/65 Private heliport for 1- ear Use Permit No. 1355 6/10/68 Allowed construction of 118 additional hotel rooms (Terrace Building and Carousel Room). Use Permit 4/17/69 Allowed a kitchen and dining room expansion (Marine Dining No. 1355 Amendment Room). Use Permit No. 1597 8/3/72 Allowed construction of additional convention facilities; however Use Permit No. 1697 Use Permit No. 3161 included an off -site parking agreement which allowed the tennis club to use a portion of the hotel parking spaces during major hotel which included: 104 additional rooms; an outdoor dining area addition; a 4,100 square -foot addition to an existing ballroom; a cupola addition, and general remodeling. The approval also permitted the use of additional compact and Use Permit 2/22/88 Allowed construction of new 8,000 square -foot banquetimeeting No. 3161 Amendment room, the construction of a laundry facility and an 18 square -foot expansion of an existing restaurant. Use Permit 4/18/02 Allowed a Summer Jazz Series as an annually recurring event, 1 No. 2001 -031 ancillary to the normal operations of the existing hotel facility. Use Permit No. 2001 -031- Summer Jazz Series Use Permit No. 2001 -031 authorized the Summer Jazz Series as a permanent entitlement under hotel's use permit, thereby eliminating the need to seek annual Special Event Permits and approvals from the City. The use permit authorizes concerts, ancillary to the normal operations of the existing hotel, to take place annually on Friday nights from June 1 through October 31, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Performances are required to take place in the existing amphitheatre on the grounds of the hotel. No changes to the operation of the Summer Jazz Series is proposed at this time and all applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 2001 -031 (Exhibit 5) will remain in effect as a separate entitlement from the subject project. Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) • • In 1992 (amended 1996), the City entered into the CIOSA with the Irvine Company. The • agreement granted the Irvine Company vested development rights for 11 projects in Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 7 exchange for prepaid "fair share" road improvement fees, construction of certain road improvements, granting to the City an interest -free loan, and the conveyance of approximately 140 acres of property to the City for open space and park purposes. The Hyatt Regency site was one of the 11 sites that received vested entitlements under CIOSA, receiving the right to expand to the total maximum development limitation of 479 rooms permitted under the General Plan. DISCUSSION General Plan The Land Use Element designates the project site as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV), which is intended to provide for accommodation, goods, and services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City. The project site is allocated a maximum of 479 hotel rooms (Anomaly No. 52). The demolition of the 12 villa hotel rooms and construction of the 88 new timeshare rooms results in a total of 479 rooms, which is consistent with maximum development limitation for the site. The Land Use Element does not establish a maximum square footage development limit for the proposed hotel's ancillary uses (i.e. ballroom, spa, and clubhouse). The General Plan includes goals and policies related to development. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies appears within the DEIR on pages 5.8 -13 through 5.8 -24. The environmental analysis concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. Local Coastal Program The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The project site is designated as Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV -B). This designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended for visitors to the City. The proposed project will provide expanded accommodations and services in the City and result in a total gross floor area of 374,104 square feet. This equates to a 0.34 floor area to land area ratio, which is below the 0.50 to 1.25 floor area ratio permitted under the CV -B land use designation. Comments were received from the California Coastal Commission staff suggesting that timeshare developments are not appropriate within the CV -B designation as they are only "quasi visitor- serving when compared to hotel rooms, and that since the CLUP does not specifically permit timeshares within the CV -B designation, the project would require an amendment to the CLUP. As explained in more detail in the response to the Coastal Commission comment letter (Response to Comment A2 -2 of the Final EIR), City staff disagrees with this interpretation since 100 percent of the proposed timeshare units are � a� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 8 visitor - serving as they provide overnight lodging accommodations and other services to visitors to the coastal zone. Although the CLUP does not define "accommodations" or describe specific uses that are permitted under the CV -B designation, timeshares are described as a visitor - serving use in the narrative within Section 2.3.1 (Visitor- serving and Recreational Development) of the CLOP, which states, "Visitor-serving and recreational activities are an important part of the character and economy of Newport Beach. In 2003, Newport Beach had 14 hotels, motels, timeshares and bed & breakfast inns in the coastal zone and 18 citywide." Timeshares are also included in the definition of "Visitor Accommodations" within the City's Zoning Code, along with hotels and motels. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the CV -B land use designation and no amendment to the CLUP is necessary for project approval by the City. Although the project has been reviewed for consistency with all applicable CLUP policies in the DEIR, the following policies warrant additional discussion relative to the proposed development: ESHA Protection 4.1.1 -3 Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in ESHA 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. 4.1.1 -10 Require buffer areas of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect. Terrestrial ESHA shall have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet wherever possible. Smaller ESHA buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 50 -foot wide buffer is not possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the ESHA given the site- specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance. 4.1.1 -11 Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion. 4.1.1 -12 Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas. 4.1.1 -13 Shield and direct exterior lighting away from ESHAs to minimize impacts to wildlife. 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 - listed 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 DER, 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 a,�a Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 9 Newporter North Environmental Study Area qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Upon discovering the need for a fuel modification in accordance with the City's Fire Prevention Guidelines, the project was redesigned so that grading and required fuel modification activities would completely avoid disturbance of all off -site delineated CSS vegetation and that a minimum 50 -foot buffer would be provided between the proposed timeshare structures and the CSS vegetation. To ensure project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause a significant impact to nesting gnatcatchers, a mitigation measure has been proposed requiring all lighting within 100 feet of the CSS to consist of low intensities, directed away from the CSS habitat, and that the lighting plans be reviewed by a qualified biologist. Concerns were also raised by the California Coastal Commission staff in regards to the use of the required 50 -foot buffer as the fuel modification zone; however, as explained in Response to Comment No. A2 -3, none of the CLUP policies specifically prohibit the buffer from providing dual functions of fuel modification and setback from sensitive habitat where such functions be accomplished with the use of native species. The project design proposes the use of native, fire- resistant species planted exclusively in the 50 -foot buffer between the ESHA and proposed buildings and would only require periodic minor maintenance that would not result in any impacts to or degradation of the adjacent CSS habitat. Scenic and Visual Resources Policies 4.4.1 -1 through 4.4.2 -3 of the CLUP pertain to the design of structures to protect gULk coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities of the coastal zone. Coastal views from designated roads are to be protected and enhanced. There are two such coastal view roads in close proximity to the project site: Back Bay Drive and a short segment of Jamboree Road north of the project site. The coastal views from Back Bay Drive are to the Back Bay and not the project site; therefore, there is no impact. Visual Simulation 1 (Figure 5.1 -2 of the DEIR) is from a vantage point nearest the Jamboree Road segment; the simulation indicates that no coastal views currently exist from this location. The DEIR also includes view simulations from other public vantage points (Visual Simulations 2 through 9) in the immediate vicinity of the site and concludes that project implementation will not impact ar y public views. Although private views are not protected, surrounding land uses with existing private views above or through the project site include the Harbor Cove residential community on the bluff north of the project site across the Newporter North ESA and the Sea Island community east of the project site across Jamboree Road. Private view impact concerns were raised at the October 23, 2008, Planning Commission meeting by several residents of these communities. The Community Concerns section of this report addresses these impacts in more detail. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 10 Timeshare Developments Sales, Management, and Contingency Plans Timeshare development projects are subject to the regulations of Chapter 20.84 (Timeshare Developments) of the Zoning Code. Per Section 20.84.040 (Application Process), timeshare development applications shall be accompanied by a sales plan, management plan, and a contingency plan, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The sales plan is intended to address the times, areas, and methods that will be used to sell the timeshare units. The management plan is intended to guarantee the future adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenance of the timeshare project. The contingency plan is intended to address the actions to be taken by the applicant if the timeshare project is an economic failure or fails to sell 50 percent of the units within 2 years of receiving a permit to occupy the first unit. The applicant's proposed sales, management, and contingency plans are attached as Exhibit 6. Staff believes the proposed plans adequately address the purpose of Section 20.84.040, and in conjunction with the recommended conditions of approval, should not negatively impact surrounding uses. Development Agreement Section 20.84.050 (Development Agreement) of the Zoning Code requires that the City and the operator of a timeshare project enter into a development agreement relating to the amount of tax payable to the City by a timeshare owner for the right of occupancy of any timeshare unit (in order to off -set the loss of transit occupancy tax revenues). An Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of Mayor Selich and Council Member Rosansky, was established for the purpose of negotiating the required development agreement between the applicant and the City. As of this writing, the terms and conditions of the development agreement were in the process of being finalized; however, a draft copy of the development agreement is attached as Exhibit 7 for reference. In exchange for vested rights to construct the project, the applicant has agreed to the following terms: Timeshare Development- Payment of an in -lieu transient occupancy tax fee of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). The first half of the fee shall be paid at the time of recording the final parcel map or issuance of the first timeshare building permit, which ever is sooner. The second half of the fee shall be paid at the issuance of the first timeshare building permit Visitor and Recreational Facilities /Marina park- As a public benefit, a visitor and recreational facilities fee of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) shall be paid at the time of issuance of the first timeshare building permit. This fee shall be used for improvements that provide visitor and recreational facilities at Marinapark or a3a Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 11 at any other site designated by the City, at its sole discretion. The fee may be used by the City to provide public access to Newport Bay, public parking, picnic areas, playground equipment, basketball and tennis courts, concessions, and recreational programs. Off- Site Water Quality Improvements- As a public benefit, payment of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for off -site water quality improvements shall be paid at the time of recording the final parcel map or the issuance of the first timeshare building permit, which ever is sooner. The City shall use the fee to pay for speck water quality improvements identified in the draft agreement. The City retains discretion to select the specific improvements for implementation from the list, or to identify other water quality improvements adjacent to Upper Newport Bay and the Dunes Resort and in the general vicinity of the property as may be deemed appropriate by the City. ■ Cancellation of CIOSA Agreement- The CIOSA Agreement shall automatically terminate on the effective date of the proposed development agreement. Maintenance of CIOSA Pre -Paid Transportation Fund- The cancellation of CIOSA terminates the parties' remaining rights and obligations under the CIOSA, including any obligation of the City to repay funds that were provided pursuant to the CIOSA. The City may retain any balance of pre -paid transportation funds the City may be holding as a result of unused CIOSA mitigation. The City may use any such remaining balance of prepaid transportation funds for transportation improvements in accordance with the Protocol Agreement for CIOSA. Subdivision — Tentative Parcel Mao The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative parcel map to reconfigure two existing lots to place the timeshares on one parcel and the hotel on the other, and to establish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code (Title 19), the following standard findings must be made to approve the tentative parcel map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed in relation to the map cannot be made, the tentative parcel map must be denied. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. X33 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 12 Unaltered, natural grade typically is utilized for the purpose of measuring building height, in accordance with Section 20.65.030.B (Measurement of Height) of the Zoning Code. Whenever a tentative map is approved, the finished grade as shown on the approved grading plan shall be utilized for measuring building height. The proposed finished grades, as shown on the proposed site grading plan and site section (Sheets C- 2 and A -3 of Project Plans), are not unreasonable given the variable topography of the site. As illustrated in Figure 10 of the previously distributed Final EIR, a majority of the natural grade elevations will actually be lowered, particularly the highest portions of the site where the proposed timeshare buildings are proposed. Overall, 24,000 cubic yards of earth are proposed to be exported (40,000 c.y of cut — 16,000 c.y. of fill). The proposed finished grade beneath the ballroom is approximately 7 feet higher than the underlying existing grade because proposed storm drain improvements will eliminate the need for the existing drainage swale. The ballroom's finished floor was set at an elevation convenient for handicapped accessibility and for management of storm water runoff. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. As previously discussed in the report, the proposed project is consistent with the maximum General Plan development limitation established for the site and significantly below the applicable maximum floor area limit established by the CV -B CLUP designation. The site is physically suitable for development based on the following: • The site is currently utilized as a resort style hotel complex. The hotel expansion and addition of the 88 timeshare units will not change the principal use of the site. • The project is not on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. • No releases of hazardous substances that would require investigation and /or remediation have been identified at the site. • As designed, the proposed project would not result in significant biological resource impacts and would protect existing resources through the use of native vegetation. • A geotechnical feasibility study was prepared by Kleinfelder which concludes that the site can be developed as planned from a geotechnical perspective. Although the project requires excavation for subterranean parking, the results of the study conclude that excavation required for the timeshare structures would not encounter any groundwater. • The project is located within a Special Fire Protection Area as defined by the City's Fire Department. A Fire Protection Plan prepared by Dudek, and preliminarily approved by the Fire Department, concludes that through code and mitigation requirements, the buildings can be designed to be defensible from wildfire and, in turn, do not represent a significant threat of ignition source from the adjacent native habitat. a3� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 13 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision- making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The DEIR concludes that the proposed development will not result in a significant environmental impact with respect to fish, wildlife, or their habitat. As previously discussed, the project was redesigned so that grading and required fuel modification activities would completely avoid disturbance of all off -site delineated CSS vegetation and compliance with mitigation measures will ensure impacts to wildlife within the adjacent ESHA are minimized. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project . consists of 479 hoteVtimeshare units and ancillary eating, drinking, banquet, and spa facilities as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed project will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the DEIR to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This ,finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. No public easements for access through the property currently exist or have been retained for use by the public at large. Other types of existing public easements exist on -site, including utility, sewer, water, drainage, and traffic signal maintenance easements. Project implementation will require modification of the sewer, water, and storm drain easements to avoid constructing permanent improvements over said easements. 6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California �3S Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 14 Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding is not applicable. 7. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the. California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision- making body rinds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore, this finding is not applicable. 8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act Title 24 of the California Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the Califomia Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The site is designated for Visitor Serving Commercial land uses by the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Residential development is not proposed or permitted on the site; therefore, this finding is not applicable. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with commercial use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. The RWQCB has not provided any comments related to the proposed DEIR during the 45-day review period. 340 11. For subdivisions lyin g subdivision conforms applicable, with public Coastal Act. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 15 partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the As previously discussed, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the City's CLUP and the Coastal Act. Modification Request The Zoning Code does not permit the utilization of tandem parking for commercial uses unless a modification permit is approved for the deviation in access of parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 20.65.070.A (Exceptions to Height Limits) of the Zoning Code, architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other roof -top features of an open nature may be permitted in excess of the height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. Section 20.93.030 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a modification permit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 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. Tandem Parking The purpose and intent of the off -site parking regulations of the Zoning Code is to ensure sufficient parking is provided for new and expanded land uses, and to ensure efficiency, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate land uses from adverse impacts. Strict application of the parking requirements would only require a total of 396 spaces, which could be accommodated on -site without the need for tandem parking; however, as described in the Parking section of this report, the proposed 912 parking spaces is consistent with the project's total parking needs. This number of parking spaces cannot be accommodated on -site without the extensive use of tandem parking, unless the construction of a much larger parking structure is proposed. The applicant opted to construct a smaller, less visually intrusive parking structure and expand the use of tandem parking through out the site. This increased parking meets the intent of the Zoning Code by ensuring sufficient parking is being provided for the expanded uses, while the proposed valet operation will insure efficient and safe parking management for the hotel and banquet guests. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 16 Cupola & Tower Feature General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 5.2.1 (Architecture and Site Design) requires that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit high quality architectural and site design in consideration of a number of design principles. One principle in particular requires modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest. Use Permit No. 3161 permitted a cupola over the main hotel entry measuring a total height of 52 feet 9 inches, which was used to establish an identifying feature for the hotel visible from Jamboree Road. This was similar to the ballroom cupola proposed with this project and intended to serve a similar function. The proposed architectural cupola and tower feature is intended to complement the existing hotel and cupola, create visual interest, and establish a separate identifiable feature for the ballroom building. Strict application of the height limits would eliminate the ability to provide this enhanced architectural treatment of the ballroom structure. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Tandem Parking The existing hotel and banquet facilities currently operate primarily with valet service utilizing tandem parking (previously approved by Use Permit No. 3161). Proposed operations will not change significanfly from current operations, with the exception of the increased utilization of tandem parking spaces. Continued valet parking service will ensure guests arriving for large banquet events can be parked more efficiently and safely than can be achieved through self - parking. To minimize the visual impact of the parking lots as viewed from the adjacent right -of- ways and properties, the parking areas will remain extensively screened from view with the use of groundcover, hedges, and trees. Cupola & Tower Feature The ballroom's proposed cupola and tower feature is 57 feet 6 inches in height with an additional 5- foot -high finial on top. This is approximately 10 feet higher than the height of the existing cupola located at the hotel entrance. Besides the height differential, the difference in location within the site is also important. The existing cupola is located at a higher elevation, but is less visibly intrusive since it is buffered from adjacent properties due to the extensive landscaping throughout the site and its location in the center of the property. The proposed cupola and tower feature, on the other hand, are located on the lowest elevation of property, but in a location that will be highly visible by the Sea Island Community, Bayview Landing Senior Apartment, and Newport Dunes. 1 3� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 17 Within the context of a 25 -acre site, the cupola and tower feature are a rather minor projection; however, given its prominent location, staff would recommend that the cupola and tower be reduced in height 5 feet, consistent with the height of the existing cupola over the hotel entrance (exclusive of the finial). As shown in Exhibit 8, the recommended reduced height of the cupola and tower feature still achieves visual interest and articulation, but is more in line with the scale of the existing development. 3. 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. Tandem Parking As previously stated, the existing hotel and banquet facilities were previously approved and currently operate primarily with valet service utilizing tandem parking. To date, the utilization of a tandem parking with valet service has not proven detrimental to persons residing or working in the neighborhood. It should also be noted that several other large hotels in the City, such as the Island Hotel and Fairmont Hotel, operate exclusively with valet service utilizing tandem parking and have also not proven detrimental. This parking configuration provides guests with direct access to the hotel uses, eliminates the need for guests to park a significant distance from the hotel entry, and enhances safety for guests by eliminating the need to walk through parking lot areas, separating them from vehicles circulating the parking lots, particularly during large banquet events where guests tend to arrive simultaneously. To ensure that the valet parking services needed to effectively utilize the large number of tandem spaces do not result in a significant impact, particularly during large wedding, banquet, conference, and special events, preparation of, and compliance with, a valet parking management plan has been included as a mitigation measure. Cupola & Tower Feature The proposed cupola and tower feature will be visible from Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, as well as the adjacent Sea Island residential community and the Bayview Landing senior apartment complex. Above the maximum height limit, the edges of the tower are tapered, and arched openings (5.5 feet wide x 8 feet high) exist on each of its four sides, visually reducing the mass of the tower feature and allowing it to remain open in nature. The cupola and tower feature will not block any private or public views, but will project into the panoramic views of the site, similar to the existing cupola over the main hotel structure which is not detrimental to the visual quality of the area. A condition of approval has been added to limit the illumination of the cupola to soft accent lighting at night so as not to become a nuisance to the Sea Island residents. a3�� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 18 Use Permit for Increased Height • The site is located in the 26/35 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 26 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 35 feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 26 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoint and ridge heights, as measured from the proposed finished pad elevations, are as follows: Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make is certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The proposed timeshare buildings are to be located on a portion of the site with the highest grade elevations and most visible from the Newport North View Park to the north. Currently, development is not visible from this location. Maintaining the 26 -foot height limit would not allow the design of structures greater than two- levels in height, resulting in the need to create much larger building pads in order to develop the remaining entitled rooms. This required increase in horizontal dimensions of these structures would reduce the amount of open space and landscaping that can be provided on the site. Instead, the proposed project clusters the taller, three -level buildings throughout the site to provide increased public visual open space, not only by allowing a significant amount of open space to remain around the timeshare structures as viewed from the Newporter North View Park, but also by allowing approximately 40.4 percent of the site to remain as open space and visually enhanced with landscaping. 0 '�'4b TS -1 33 feet 37 feet TS -2 35 feet 40 feet TS -3 35 feet 40 feet TS-4 35 feet 40 feet TS -5 35 feet 40 feet TS -6 35 feet 40 feet Ballroom 31 feet 6 inches 36 feet 6 inches (excluding cupola) Spa 17 feet 22 feet Parking Structure 18 feet (top of parapet) 34 feet 6 inches (top of light standards Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make is certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The proposed timeshare buildings are to be located on a portion of the site with the highest grade elevations and most visible from the Newport North View Park to the north. Currently, development is not visible from this location. Maintaining the 26 -foot height limit would not allow the design of structures greater than two- levels in height, resulting in the need to create much larger building pads in order to develop the remaining entitled rooms. This required increase in horizontal dimensions of these structures would reduce the amount of open space and landscaping that can be provided on the site. Instead, the proposed project clusters the taller, three -level buildings throughout the site to provide increased public visual open space, not only by allowing a significant amount of open space to remain around the timeshare structures as viewed from the Newporter North View Park, but also by allowing approximately 40.4 percent of the site to remain as open space and visually enhanced with landscaping. 0 '�'4b Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 19 In contrast to the timeshare buildings, the proposed ballroom consists of a single level; however, increasing the height limitation for the ballroom accommodates ceiling heights approximate to the size of the 800 -seat capacity ballroom. An alternative to developing one large ballroom, which can be divided up into smaller ballrooms and meeting rooms, would be to simply construct three or four smaller ballroom structures that can be designed with lesser ceiling heights consistent with the base 26 -foot height limit. It is important to note, however, that the consolidation of smaller ballroom/meeting spaces into one grand ballroom structure, results in the consolidation of the support uses, such as kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, pre- function areas, trash areas, etc. Consolidation reduces the amount of floor area and lot coverage that would otherwise be dedicated to these various support uses. The development of one large ballroom also allows for the retention of increased setbacks from Jamboree Road (approx. 379 feet) and Back Bay Drive (approx. 94 feet), whereas, smaller detached ballrooms would likely have reduced setback distances. 2 The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Maintaining the 26 -foot height limit would result in increased lot coverage. Clustering the proposed buildings throughout the site and around the existing buildings, which are approximately 9 feet lower in height, would create variation in roof heights. This would enhance the visual character of the area. The additional height would also allow significant use of sloping roof planes, which would add visual interest. The alternative would be to utilize flatter roofs and low sloping roofs to achieve higher ceilings, similar to the existing hotel buildings. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The proposed project, which consists of one, two, and three -story structures, is consistent with the development of the existing hotel buildings. The proposed heights of the buildings are only approximately 9 feet higher than the existing buildings, and are comparable in height to the adjacent Bayeiew Landing Senior Apartments. Also, as reflected on the view simulations contained within the DEIR (Figures 5.1 -2 through 5.1 -11), the proposed building heights will not result in an abrupt scale relationship with the other existing developments in the area due to the distance between the project site and adjacent neighborhoods, and the significant amount of mature landscaping on the site. � .kl Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 20 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved • without the use permit. The proposed structures will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without requesting the increased height. The structures could have been designed to comply with the height limit; however to achieve the same room count, the buildings would have to be enlarged horizontally, thus increasing horizontal bulk and reducing open space. Parking The proposed project would provide a total of 912 parking spaces to serve the hotel and timeshare facilities. The hotel rooms and ballroom facilities, located on Parcel 1, would be served by 785 parking spaces, configured as 345 standard parking spaces and 440 tandem spaces. The timeshare units and clubhouse facility, located on Parcel 2, would be exclusively served by 127 standard parking spaces for use by timeshare unit guests only. Any additional parking spaces needed for the timeshare units would be provided on Parcel 1. Based on the following Zoning Code parking requirements, the proposed project only requires a total of 336 parking spaces: The Zoning Code hotel parking requirement assumes incidental eating, drinking and banquet/meeting facilities for the convenience of guests will be provided. In reality, the one -space per two -rooms parking ratio is unrealistic given the size of this project and significant area devoted to banquet use. The 1989 amendment to Use Permit No. 3161 established a parking ratio for the hotel based on a demonstrated parking formula supported by a parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Engineers. The parking study concluded that under normal day to day operations, a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per guest room would be adequate for the hotel and related uses; however, that parking study also concluded that when the proposed banquet/meeting rooms were heavily used by groups that were not staying at the hotel, additional off -site parking would be necessary (expected to occur only 4 to 5 times per year during special events). To address the need for the additional off -site parking, conditions of approval were imposed requiring a contingency parking plan that identified various off -site parking opportunities that would be available to the hotel when needed and requiring the approval of a special events permit for those said occasions. • �,O_ . a u g 'fie e �r FEW I � Hotel 1 per 2 rooms 391 rooms 196 785 Timeshare Units 1.2 per room 88 units 106 127 Timeshare 1 per 50 sq. ft. 1,702 net sq. ft. 34 Clubhouse Meeting FacilitV Total 336 912 The Zoning Code hotel parking requirement assumes incidental eating, drinking and banquet/meeting facilities for the convenience of guests will be provided. In reality, the one -space per two -rooms parking ratio is unrealistic given the size of this project and significant area devoted to banquet use. The 1989 amendment to Use Permit No. 3161 established a parking ratio for the hotel based on a demonstrated parking formula supported by a parking study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Traffic Engineers. The parking study concluded that under normal day to day operations, a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per guest room would be adequate for the hotel and related uses; however, that parking study also concluded that when the proposed banquet/meeting rooms were heavily used by groups that were not staying at the hotel, additional off -site parking would be necessary (expected to occur only 4 to 5 times per year during special events). To address the need for the additional off -site parking, conditions of approval were imposed requiring a contingency parking plan that identified various off -site parking opportunities that would be available to the hotel when needed and requiring the approval of a special events permit for those said occasions. • �,O_ Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 21 is Applying the 1988 use permit amendment parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per hotel room to the proposed project would result in the following parking demands: A recent parking demand analysis was prepared as part of the traffic analysis for the proposed project by IBI Group, utilizing the Urban Land Institute (ULI) manual Shared Parking, 2nd Edition. The analysis compares the hotel and ballroom facility parking demand data included in the ULI publication with the parking proposed for the project. The ULI manual contains parking data from land uses throughout the United States and identifies typical peak parking rates for specific land uses and opportunities for shared parking. Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of facility space for hotels with ballrooms/banquet facilities that exceed 50 square feet per guest room (project provides 70.1 sq. ft. per guest room). Adjustments to the parking demands for certain uses are recommended to account for captive and • non - captive users; banquettmeeting space at hotels is identified as such a use. The parking analysis assumed a conservative, non - captive ratio of 90 percent. In other words, 90 percent of the banquet guests drive to the hotel and park for the sole purpose of attending a banquet function (Shared Parking actually recommends ratios between 25 percent and 60 percent). Applying the ULI Shared Parking peak parking demand of 20 spaces per 1000 square feet of facility space, with a 90 percent adjustment to account for captive users, to the required Zoning Code parking requirements, results in the following parking demands: Shared Parking also forecasts peak parking demand time periods based on actual parking surveys. The parking demand analysis concludes that at no time would the • hotel demand exceed the 785 parking spaces located on Parcel 1 for use by the hotel guest rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities. The analysis also concluded that J Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 22 anticipated parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated • clubhouse facility would not exceed the 127 parking spaces designated exclusively for the timeshare facilities on Parcel 2. The following table summarizes the parking demand analysis for the entire project on an hourly basis for a typical weekday, with the peak parking demand occurring at 5:00 p.m.: Based on the forecast parking demand summarized in the table above, the proposed project is expected to provide sufficient parking to meet the parking demand generated by the hotel and the timeshare facilities. In order to ensure that sufficient parking is continued to be provided during occasional large events, such as the Summer Jazz Series permitted by Use Permit No. 2001 -031 and other special events (requiring a special events permit), the applicant has maintained reciprocal parking arrangements with the Newport Dunes and the Palisades Tennis Club for use of overflow parking, as well as an arrangement with the Irvine Company for additional overflow parking at Newport Center office building facilities. Letters have been provided (Exhibit 9) from each of these facilities stating that they have, and will continue to provide, off -site parking to the Hyatt Regency during the occasional large special events. General Use Permit Findings In addition to the required findings for the increased height request, the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These findings and facts in support of findings are listed and discussed below. J 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • aaq 8:00 AM 479 106 585 327 9:00 AM 762 88 850 62 10:00 AM 742 78 820 92 11:00 AM 742 76 818 94 12:00 PM 732 103 835 77 1:00 PM 732 103 835 77 2:00 PM 742 85 827 85 3:00 PM 742 78 820 92 4:00 PM 752 83 835 77 5:00 PM 762 95 857 55 6:00 PM 469 109 578 334 7:00 PM 348 111 459 453 8:00 PM 358 119 477 435 9:00 PM 247 123 370 542 10:00 PM 186 121 307 605 Based on the forecast parking demand summarized in the table above, the proposed project is expected to provide sufficient parking to meet the parking demand generated by the hotel and the timeshare facilities. In order to ensure that sufficient parking is continued to be provided during occasional large events, such as the Summer Jazz Series permitted by Use Permit No. 2001 -031 and other special events (requiring a special events permit), the applicant has maintained reciprocal parking arrangements with the Newport Dunes and the Palisades Tennis Club for use of overflow parking, as well as an arrangement with the Irvine Company for additional overflow parking at Newport Center office building facilities. Letters have been provided (Exhibit 9) from each of these facilities stating that they have, and will continue to provide, off -site parking to the Hyatt Regency during the occasional large special events. General Use Permit Findings In addition to the required findings for the increased height request, the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These findings and facts in support of findings are listed and discussed below. J 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. • aaq Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 23 The subject property is located within the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) Zoning District. Hotels and timeshares are considered visitor accommodations that are permitted land uses with the approval of a use permit. The proposed expansion of the existing hotel uses and addition of the 88 timeshare units is consistent with RSC zoning designation. With the exception of the use permit request for increased height, and modification request for the commercial tandem parking and increased height of the architectural tower element, all required development regulations of the RSC District have been met. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Staff believes the project will not be detrimental to the public or properties in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • All potential environmental impacts have been analyzed in the Initial Study and DEIR and were found not to be significant with the incorporation of specific mitigation measures, with the exception of temporary construction noise impacts to nearby noise - sensitive uses. No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted that finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. • The proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures for this project will ensure that all conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. • The project has been designed to avoid disturbances to the adjacent ESHA. • Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. • A contingency parking plan for additional off -site parking will provide sufficient parking for those special occasions in hotel operation when demand for parking exceeds the number of available on -site parking spaces. • Traffic analysis has determined that the increased traffic generated as a result of project implementation will not result in significant impacts to intersections or traffic circulation in the City of Newport Beach, and more specifically, within the vicinity of the project site. • The project has been conditioned so as to control and reduce excess lighting and to avoid off -site light spillage. �'.5 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion. November 6, 2008 Page 24 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The Zoning Code requires the approval of a use permit for hotel and timeshare uses. As previously noted, the sales, management, and contingency plans required per Section 20.84.040 adequately address the purpose of each required plan. Community Concerns At the October 23, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, several residents from the adjacent communities of Sea Island (across Jamboree Rd.) and Harbor Cove (north of the site) expressed concerns with the project. Their concerns focused on impacts associated with traffic, noise, lighting, ESHA buffer, and private views. These concerns are similar to comments received during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. The following summarizes the verbal concerns received at the last meeting and provides a reference to the associated response to comment number: Traffic Concerns General Concern- Project will generate excessive traffic. Response Section 5.11 (Transportation and Traffic) of the DEIR evaluates the project's potential to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City. As stated in several responses to comments, including R1 -1, R2 -1, R6-1, R8-2, and R8 -3, the traffic impact analysis identified no significant impact to the surrounding roadway network, per the guidelines established by the City. General Concern- Project will increase the number of accidents that occur at the intersection of Jamboree and the project driveway as a result of vehicle stacking. Response- As illustrated in detail in Response to Comment No. R9 -7 and R5-4, and based on accident history for 2005 through 2007, it is not anticipated that the project would cause an increase in traffic accidents along Jamboree Road adjacent to the project. It should also be noted that the events cited to cause excessive vehicular.. stacking at the driveway intersection were not associated with normal hotel operations, but rather associated with special events such as the Summer Jazz Series and the Jazz Festival that require a separate special events permit. Noise Concerns General Concern- Increased noise generation associated with the new location of the housekeeping and engineering building. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 25 Response- As indicated in Response to Comment No. R5 -3, stationary noise from operation of the project was addressed in the DEIR under Impact 5.9 -2 and, per Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code, noise generated at the Hyatt Regency property is prohibited from generating noise levels at residential properties that exceed 55 dBA L25 during the day and 50 dBA L25 during the night. General Concern- Additional noise generated as a result of the increased traffic. Response As indicated in Response to Comment Nos. R8 -2 and R11- 42(7), DEIR Section 5.9 provides a detailed, qualitative analysis of the noise impacts that would be caused by the project. The increase in traffic noise associated with the project was specifically addressed in the DEIR under Impact 5.9 -1, which concludes that future noise levels would not significantly contribute to the existing noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive receptors. Lighting Concerns General Concern- Lighting from the roof -level of the parking structure will negatively impact adjacent residences. Response Due to the existing ambient lighting conditions of the project site, the proposed lighting necessary for the illumination of the parking structure, as designed with full cut -off luminaries, will not create a significant new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As described in Response to Comment Nos. 01 -8, R5-5, R6 -1, and R8- 6, lighting will have to comply with standard lighting conditions of approval, including the preparation of a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan, which must show that lighting values would be 1- foot - candle or less at all property lines. Also, prior to occupancy, the lighting improvements would be inspected by Code Enforcement personnel to confirm that lighting levels to confirm the control of light and glare and that lighting levels do not exceed the requirements of the approved lighting plan ESHA Buffer Concern General Concern— The proposed 50 -foot buffer is not sufficient, given the ecologic significance of the Upper Newport Bay ecosystem and the proximity of nesting gnatcatchers. A buffer of 100 meters should be provided, similar to a recent project in Bolsa Chica. Response- As explained in detail by Response to Comment No. R3 -1, the determination of appropriate buffer widths depends on a variety of factors, including the species potentially affected, the extent of the interface between development and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and other measures to mitigate potential indirect impacts. For this project, a 50 -buffer is sufficient given 41 i. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 26 the site conditions and the type of species impacted. The project referenced in Bolsa Chica was approved with a variable buffer to mitigate impacts to the white - tailed kite, a species that is more sensitive to development than the gnatcatcher. The gnatcatcher has been documented to nest within 19 feet of a major interstate. Private View Concerns General Comment- Existing views of Catalina Island, Back Bay, and the golf course (greenbelt) will be compromised or lost, and replaced with views of new buildings, parking structure, and /or more cars. Impacts to private views may result in a decrease in property values. Response- As explained in Response to Comment Nos. R5-6, R7 -2, and R8 -6, and as documented in Section 5.1 (Aesthetics) of the DEIR, the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies focus on the protection of public views. The City does not have any private view protection ordinances or policies. The DEIR acknowledges that surrounding residential communities have existing views of the site and some existing views may be impacted. The economic issue of the potential loss of property values is not in the realm of the environmental review under CEQA; however, the Planning Commission may consider these impacts when reviewing the project's discretionary applications related to the increased heights of the structures. Also, for the benefit of the public and the Planning Commission, the applicant will be preparing view simulations, from both the adjacent Sea Island and Harbor Cove communities to provide better visual representations of what the anticipated private view impacts will be. General Comment- The view of the proposed. timeshare buildings from the Harbor Cove community should be screened with increased landscaping to visually soften and /or obstruct views of these buildings. Response- As indicated in response to Comment No. R11- 26(6), the new view simulations in Section 3 of the FEIR have been revised to accurately reflect the landscape plan and fuel modification plan. Due to the potential fire hazard, fuel modification is required along the northern boundary of the project which includes compliance with specific landscaping requirements, such as limiting the :planting of trees to groupings of three maximum, with groupings spaced a minimum of 30 feet apart; therefore, the timeshare buildings cannot to be fully screened by increased landscaping. Environmental Review Prior to taking action on the requested use permit, modification permit, tentative parcel map, and development agreement, the Planning Commission must first review, consider, and recommend City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report a4� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 27 (FEIR). Refer to the October 23, 2008, staff report that provides a detailed overview of the DEIR, and includes formal response to comments and revisions to the DEIR, which together comprise the FEIR. Additional comment letters were recently received by Unite Here! Local 11 (October 21, 2008) and the City of Irvine (October 22, 2008), regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Both letters were received outside the public comment period, which concluded on March 27, 2008. The letter from Unite Here! reiterates previous comments made by the organization in their original March 26, 2008, comment letter and comments made by the California Coastal Commission staff in their letter dated March 25, 2008. The previously prepared response to these comment letters adequately addresses their recent comments. The City of Irvine did not previously comment during the formal public comment period, and although not required per CEQA, staff will be preparing formal responses for the Planning Commission's consideration and for inclusion in the FEIR. Planning Commissions' Concerns At the last meeting, the Planning Commission provided comments on the DEIR and requested staff to return at tonight's meeting with additional information. The following section provides a summary and response to each of these comments: Comment- The environmental topic area of Recreation may have been improperly scoped out from further discussion in the DEIR as a result on the loss of the nine -hole golf course. The Commission requested staff consult with the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce to receive their opinion on the potential impacts to hotel demand in the City that may result from the loss of the golf course. Response- The typical thresholds used to determine whether a project may have a significant impact are related to whether the project will increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur, and whether the project includes or will require the construction of recreational facilities, which might have a adverse physical effect on the environment. Based on the discussion in the Initial Study, it was determined that impacts related to recreation would be less than significant and no further analysis was required. The timeshare units are short-term vacation units and not permanent residences. Recreational needs would likely be accommodated by several existing recreational facilities located in the surrounding area. With the exception of the new spa, the project does not include any new recreational facilities or require the construction of any new facilities; the spa is not anticipated to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Staff also consulted with Richard Luehrs, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, who confirmed that the nine -hold golf course is underutilized and the loss of the course should have no impact on the ability of the City to attract hotel guest to the City. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 28 Comment- Due to the modification request to exceed the height limit, requested staff to look at Sections 15064(e) and 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines related to the economic impacts that the project may have on the impacts to private views. Response- While economic and social impacts of proposed projects are outside the purview of CEQA, pursuant to Sections 5064(e) and 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines, when there is evidence that economic and social effects caused by a project could result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, then the City is obligated to assess this indirect environmental impact. An example of this would be a proposed shopping center located away from a downtown shopping area that would take business away from the downtown area and thereby cause business closures and eventually physical deterioration of the downtown. There is no evidence to suggest that a significant reduction in property values would result from the completion of this project and its impact on private views, and indirectly result in a significant physical change to the environment. Comment - Requests that authority be cited stating that a design -level study is appropriate at the level of analysis that is provided in the DEIR. Response- CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, Degree of Specificity, clarifies that the level of study should correspond to the degree of specificity of the activity described in the EIR. The Hyatt Regency expansion is a project -level analysis which requires a relatively detailed level of analysis (compare to a General Plan for example), but it is not a grading permit level of approval. The geotechnical study that was performed was based on detailed analysis including field exploration (including site borings). The requirement for more detailed analysis does not represent mitigation deferral. The geotechnical report concludes that the development as proposed is feasible if the recommendations in the report are followed. Detailed recommendations (performance standards) are included and have been incorporated into the EIR mitigation measure. Comment- If possible, requested a draft Construction Management Plan be submitted for the Planning Commission's review. Response Basic and preliminary construction traffic control and parking control activities were described in the DEIR and response to comments; however, detailed construction management plans are typically reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits. Lack of information at this time on staging of the project, method to construction, project phasing, and need for off -site storage or parking makes it infeasible to develop a realistic construction management plan for review. A condition of approval has been included requiring the plan to include a discussion of project phasing, parking arrangements for both sites during construction, �5 � i Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 29 anticipated haul routes, and any required construction mitigation measures. Large construction vehicles will not be permitted to travel narrow streets and disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles must be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. Should the Planning Commission wish to review the construction management plan for the project, a condition of approval can be included requiring Planning Commission review prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit for the project. Comment- Provide data to support the statement in Response to Comment R11- 4, which states that Population and Housing was scoped out of the DEIR for further discussion because "the number of new employees required to support expansion would be minimal*. How many new employees are anticipated to be required upon build -out? Resoonse- The applicant has stated that Hyatt Regency Newport Beach currently employees 220 full -time employees and expects to employee an additional 53 to 63 new full -time employees. The project should not generate significant population growth with respect to the creation of these new jobs. Orange County's unemployment rate is currently estimated at 5.7 percent (State of California, Employment Development Dept.); therefore, employees to staff the hotel expansion would be available from the local labor market. Also, the City's job /housing balance is 1.0 (based on 2008 EDD employment of 44,200 and 2007 Census housing unit estimate of 43,851) which indicates the City is housing rich Qobs poor), given that a range of 1.3 -1.7 is typically considered ideal. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As described in the October 23, 2008, staff report, all of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the following impact: Impact 5.9 -5 Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency would significantly elevate the daytime noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and recreational uses. Despite the application of several mitigation measures (MM 9 -1 through 9 -5), to reduce noise levels from construction activities, nearby noise- sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities and Impact 5.9 -5 would remain Significant and Unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will have to be. adopted at the time of project approval by the City Council. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared that identifies economic, social, and technological benefits of the project related A 5 t Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 30 to the growing demand and need for visitor accommodations and conference facilities in the City of Newport Beach and the introduction of new storm drainage improvements in the project area (Exhibit 10). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Summary The proposed addition of the 88 timeshare units fulfills the remaining entitlement permitted under the General Plan and vested development rights granted under CIOSA. The proposed expansion of the hotel, including the new ballroom, will help meet the City's needs of enhancing visitor accommodations and conference facilities. The project is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, and will result in no adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, with the exception of the one impact that necessitates the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approval of the requested applications. Alternatives Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible. with the surrounding uses and /or that the timeshare component of the project is inappropriate for the CV land use designation and CV -B coastal land use designation, the project should be denied, or modified to address the issues of concern. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Prepared by: J me Murillo, Associate Planner EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. lir OnWii m 4. Timeshare Operations Plan Submitted by: David Lepo, Piping Director a7-;L- Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion November 6, 2008 Page 31 5. Use Permit No. 2001 -031 resolution of approval 6. Timeshare sales, management, and contingency plans 7. 8. Reduced height alternative for ballroom tower 9. Off -site parking arrangement letters 10. FAUSERSIPLMSharedlPA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 2121PIanning Commission1PA2005 -212 110608 Krpt.doc � s3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 • a�� Exhibit No. 9 C1 • x5tp Exhibit • LJ 0 0 M. Exhibit No. 3 �5� THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 • Exhibit No. 4 TIMESHARE OPERATIONS PLAN ��k THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY C� • a OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH TIME SHARES Overnight Visitor Accommodations Involving Ownership There are a variety of overnight visitor accommodations which involve some form of ownership: condominium hotels, fractional ownership hotels, limited use overn ight visitor accommodations, and time shares. These are frequently confused, for clarification purposes, time share development shall be defined as: a facility wherein a purchaser receives ownership rights in, or the right to use, accommodations for a specific interval on a recurring basis for more than one year. Operational Characteristics Hyatt Vacation Ownership Inc. (HVOI), or an affiliate, would operate the time shares Pursuant to an agreement with the time share association. Ownership in the Hyatt time shares would be granted through a deed, subject to a lease. The minimum time frame that could be purchased would be for one week, with a maximum consecutive stay allowed of up to four weeks. No portion of the project would be converted to full -time occupancy such as condominiums, apartments, or any other type of project that differed from the approved limited tern occupancy time share resort without approvals from the City of Newport Beach and an approved amendment to the Coastal Development Permit. There will be reciprocal easement agreements between the hotel and the time shares for .all roads and utilities. In addition, the timeshare clubhouse will have access to additional Parking spaces in the vicinity of the clubhouse, through an irrevocable agreement. There will be a revocable easement for use of all pools by both hotel and time share visitors. Purchasers of time share interests ( "Owners') may reserve their inventory by contacting Hyatt at 1- 800- GOHYATT or by making reservations on line. Owners may choose to use, trade, rent or allow a friend to use their inventory. Time share owners would check - in at a separate desk to be located in the Time Share Clubhouse, time share owners would have use of all amenities and be able to use the hotel's room service. The Time Share Clubhouse would not be available for use by a time share owner if that time share owner was not in residence. The general public would have access to the spa and the fitness center, as part of the spa. CC&Rs will be developed specifically for the time share development. a Maintenance The time share development would be maintained and operated separately from the hotel. The time share association will contract with a Hyatt affiliate to provide management services. Hyatt will have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the association's interest on an efficient basis consistent with the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) to which the property has been submitted. This may or may not include contract services provided by entities other than the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. However, the CCR's will require that the property be maintained in a first class manner consistent with the quality of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. Rental of Units Developed, unsold time share inventory will be available for rent by the public. If time share owners choose to offer their respective unit for rent, they may enter into a rental agreement with an affiliate of HVOI to make their inventory available for rent. If time share owners choose to offer to rent their respective units through a party other than HVOI, the time share owner and HVOI must comply with the following restrictions: Time share owners will not discourage rental of their unit or create disincentives meant to discourage rental of their unit. The unit owner shall inform HVOI of all rental reservations made independent of HVOL HVOI shall book all unit reservations, including reservations solicited by unit owners who offer to rent their respective units through a party other than the HVOI in the reservation database, a service for which HVOI may charge the unit owner a reasonable fee. In the event, a time share owner chooses not to rent their unit, but rather invite a guest to use the time share free of charge during the period of time the owner would use the time share, HVOI must be notified and a guest fee assessed. a (i l Exhibit No. 5 USE PERMIT NO. 2001 -031 RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL a�5 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 • M RESOLUTION NO. 1557 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2001 -031 (PA2001 -180) FOR THE HYATT NEWPORTER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1107 JAMBOREE ROAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Mr. Bruce Brainerd, Hyatt Newporter General Manager, with respect to property located at 1107 Jamboree Road, legally described as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 440- 132 -41, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2001 -031 to authorize the Sumner Jazz Series of concerts as a permanent entitlement, ancillary to the normal operations of the existing resort hotel. The concerts will take place annually on Friday nights from June I" through October 31", between the hours of 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Section 2. A public hearing was held on April 18, 2002 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed location of the use is in accord with the Policies and intent of the General Plan. The site is designated as Retail & Service Commercial, which allows for resort hotels and ancillary operations that include recurring events, subject to certain limitations. The proposed location for the concert series and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code. The Summer Jazz Series has been approved at the same venue as an annual, temporary event for approximately 10 years utilizing generally the same parking arrangements. As the series has evolved and grown, it has become ancillary to the normal operations of the existing resort hotel facility, subject to the seasonal and temporary nature of the series: 3. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between March 30, 2002 and April 18, 2002. No comments were received from any responsible agency, member of the community, or other interested party and no responses were prepared. � (Vi 4. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. There are no cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. The prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration is herby approved. Adequate mitigation measures have been included to ensure that any potential impacts associated with sound emanating from the concerts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. 5. Project approval will not result in circumstances that are detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city due to the following: a) The operational characteristics of the Summer Jazz Series are limited in nature, occurring for only a portion of the year; b) The days and hours that performances are proposed, the circulation and parking characteristics pertaining to the project, and the limiting conditions and restrictions on the events are such that minimize negative impacts from occurring; c) The sound system is controlled and monitored by employees or consultant's hired by the Hyatt and not the artists' performing, thereby ensuring consistency between concerts comprising the series. No outside equipment is authorized in conjunction with this approval; d) The generated noise levels and recommended mitigation measures related to the sound system, monitoring, and community outreach support project approval; and e) The past problems related to sound related impacts and traffic flow were minimal and corrective measures were demonstrated during the year 2001 series resulting in no complaints from the public. This indicates that the concerts are not a detriment to the public's health, safety and welfare. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2001 -031, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A." Section S. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. M PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TINS 18a' DAY OF APRIL, 2002. Larry Tucker, Chairman BW LIJ Earl McDaniel, Secretary AYES: Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzlev NOES: None EXCUSED: McDaniel and Selich 0 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Project Approval Hyatt Newporter Summer Jazz Series The Summer Jazz Series is approved as an entitlement under the Use Permit as ancillary to the normal operations of the existing resort hotel facility. Annual approvals are no longer required as long as the concerts are limited to Friday nights, from June I" through October 31st, between the hours of 7:OOpm and 10:00pm. The Summer Jazz Series performances must take place in the existing amphitheatre on the grounds of the Hyatt Newporter Resort Hotel located at 1107 Jamboree Road. 2. A list of all scheduled concerts presented under the Summer Jazz Series for the subject year shall be submitted to the Planning and Police Departments at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the rust performance. The list will assist City staff in the prevention of schedule conflicts of similar or other events in the vicinity and will not be used to deny a performance by any proposed artist. Any proposed changes to the schedule for concert dates, as approved in past years (e.g., a Sunday night concert instead of a Friday night concert for a given weekend), must have prior approval by the Planning Director. 3. Where applicable, any or all temporary improvements associated with the Summer Jazz Series must obtain the required permits from the Building Department prior to the installation of said improvements, unless otherwise exempted in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Other than directional signage, no temporary improvements shall be located on or within any public property or right -of -way. 4. The temporary storage bins and containers located in the lower parking areas shall be completely removed from the hotel property prior to the commencement of the 2003 Summer Jazz Series. 5. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 6. The use of all sound amplification devices or equipment shall cease at 10:OOpm or upon order of the Police Department. The project shall be designed to eliminate light spillage and glare onto adjacent properties, the public right -of -way or uses. Temporary, exterior lighting associated with the Summer Jazz Series that is visible from the surrounding residential properties shall be operated by a timer mechanism and turned off no later than 11:00 p.m. 8. The project shall retain the use of a sound amplification system that is comparable to or improved from the one implemented and utilized for the 2001 Summer Jazz Series, including the following: a) state of the art matrix.controls and carbon fiber speaker enclosures; b) amplification control with the use of audio compressors and limiters; c) repositioning of the speakers to reduce or eliminate noise reflections from the hotel building; and J� d) installation of sound baffles and panels on and behind the stage, and next to speakers and any band equipment to minimize unwanted amplification and control the direction of the sound. The project shall maintain the same sound level monitoring processes utilized for the 2001 Summer Jazz Series, including the following: a) maintain a calibrated integrating sound level meter for noise level monitoring purposes; b) provide a contract for a licensed acoustical engineer to oversee the monitoring activities associated with the Jazz Series if it is determined by the Planning Director to be necessary to achieve compliance with these conditions; c) provide an on -site contact for responding to City Employees including Code Enforcement, Police Department, as well as any resulting community complainants. Public notice of this person shall be provided in all advertisements for the series. In the event noise complaints are received, the contact person and a member of the audio engineers shall travel to the complainant's location to investigate and understand the nature of the disturbance. Adequate steps shall be taken to resolve the complaint including lowering the music setting or stopping the event upon order of the Police Department; d) the sound level experienced at the mixer board during a performance shall not exceed 90db(C); e) retention and maintenance a calibrated integrating sound level meter capable of measuring, displaying, and storing 1- minute Leq's (equivalent or average sound level) using the C- weighting scale. f) operation of the sound level meter at the mixer board, which generated data that may be submitted to the City upon request, documenting to the sound levels experienced; g) conducting pre- performance sound check to ensure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance; h) employing the same audio engineers, or a replacement in conjunction with City approval, for the entire series for any given year. i) without exception, all performers utilizing sound amplification equipment shall use the venue sound system; and j) operation of the sound mixer board and volume shall be under control of the designated contact person or the applicant. Under no circumstances shall the applicant release responsibility of the control of the mixer board or volume. 10. Adequate trash and restroom facilities shall be provided for patrons and shall be conveniently located on site. However, these facilities shall not be located on or within any public property or right -of -way. 11. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 12. Should the resort hotel be sold or otherwise come under different ownership or management, any future owners, managers or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company. 13. Use Permit No. 2001 -033 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 14. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. AIa Exhibit No. 6 TIMESHARE SALES, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTINGENCY PLANS o-�) HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH TIME -SHARE DEVELOPMENT SALES, MANAGEMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLANS Introduction Section 20.84.040, Application Process, of the City's Time Share Developments Ordinance, stipulates that any proposed time -share project be accompanied by Sales, Management and Contingency Plans which will be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Section 20.84.040 specifies the contents of each of these plans: "...Sales Plan: A Sales Plan shall address the times, areas and methods that will be used to sell the time -share project. Factors to be defined in the plan shall include, but not be limited to: the location, length, and marketing methods that will be used, distinguishing on -site and off -site marketing and signage; and an estimate of the potential numbers of individuals and automobiles expected during the various stages of the sales effort. The plan also shall describe measures that will be implemented to reduce traffic during peak hours." "•..Management Plan: A Management Plan shall describe the methods employed by the applicant . to guarantee the fixture adequacy, stability, and continuity of a satisfactory level of management and maintenances of a time -share project." "...Contingency Plan: A Contingency Plan shall address the actions to be taken by the applicant if the time -share project is an economic failure or fails to sell 50 percent of the time -share estates or uses within two years of receiving a permit to occupy the first unit." Sales Plan The Sales Plan will use several marketing channels including the following: In -Hotel Lead Generation — These customers are already staying at the hotel and will be solicited to take a tour of the project. A Hyatt Vacation Club Welcome Desk will be located in a prominent place in the lobby, which is designed to interest customers into taking a tour. Direct Mail Marketing — This will generate tours from mail sent to pre - determined, qualified buyers. These prospective purchasers will generally stay overnight at the Hyatt Regency Newport and take a tour while they are on property. This will not generate any additional traffic other than the traffic generated by the customer coming to the hotel to stay overnight, as these customers will already be staying at the property pursuant to the marketing plan. Local Market Lead Generation — This will also take place once we determine potential locations within the market area. Such locations may include a kiosk location in the Fashion Island Mall or other similar locations. We anticipate that five to ten tours per day will be generated from this activity and will result in a trip to the property. In addition to the above three primary market channels, we will aggressively pursue owner reloads and referrals. The reloads will typically not result in a trip, as those customers will either purchase another week over the telephone or when they are in residence. The owner referrals will typically result in a stay similar to the direct -mail program described above. All of the above referenced marketing programs will be in place during the duration of the sell -out, which is likely to take from four to seven years. With respect to traffic, it is anticipated that a majority of the tours will be scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 4;00 p.m., therefore, will not interfere with peak traffic times. Management Plan Hyatt Vacation Management Corporation, an experienced manager of time -share and fractional resorts, will manage the vacation ownership component of the project. Hyatt Vacation Management Corporation currently manages 12 resorts in ten destinations around the country and Puerto Rico. The property will be managed pursuant to the laws of the State of California governing time -share and homeowner's association management. The condominium and time- share documents for the project will require that the project be maintained to the first -class standard. Hyatt's policy is to fully fund reserves for replacement and every other year commissions, on behalf of the homeowner's association, a reserve study to determine the adequacy of reserves and the need to adjust Fixtures, Furniture and Equipment (FF &E) reserve funding. Contingency Plan During the sell -out of the project, which likely take more than two years and as many as seven years, inventory of the time -share project, as well as inventory in the hotel, will be used for marketing purposes and, when not used for marketing purposes, will be made available for rental. If the inventory is available for rental, all distribution channels available to Hyatt, including Hyatt's reservation system (SPIRIT), the Global Distribution System ( "GDS ") and other web -based rental outlets will be used. In addition, inventory will be available to the hotel to book for the general public. Pursuant to time -share regulations in the State of California, the developer must fund the reserves of the unsold inventory annually to support the project. 14 • • �„ Ol- THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY r- -I L-A • • Exhibit No. 8 REDUCED HEIGHT ALTERNATIVE FOR BALLROOM TOWER Ala 0 n U 0 %10 HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH (BALLROOM - TIMESHARE - FITNESS CENTER) pi� *'-'l HOTEL INVESTORS. INC. v- I� YIOf6 24M LK&SAK MW. MCMrt l AI Rm MMU01. ]ON uN�.m .wnui.� THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 11 • C� ��a Exhibit No. 9 OFF -SITE PARKING ARRANGEMENT LETTERS THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY n �J • August 20, 2008 John Buanno Regional Director Ace Parking Management 4680 Macarthur Ct. Suite A Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Hyatt Newport Beach — Overflow Parking John, To fallow up on our discussion of past and future parking needs that may arise at Ace Parking's Hyatt Newport Beach location, I wanted to reiterate our willingness to work with Ace Parking as both The Irvine Company and Hyatt Newport Beach parking vendor to help accommodate overflow parking by Ace Parking/Hyatt NB at Newport Center office building parking facilities. All requests must be made in a timely manner and each request will be approved on case by case basis, taking into account dates, times, and parking space availability. Sincerely, Irvine Company LLC Chris Mansour Property Manager 630 Newport Center Drive, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 729 -1460 .� ° 6 Palisades T E N N IS C L U B August 13, 2008 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Paul Devitt, General Manager Hyatt Regency Newport Beach 1107 Jamboree Road Newport Beach CA 92664 Re: Overflow Parking Dear Paul: As background I am the owner of Palisades Tennis Club, which opened in 1973 as the John Wayne Tennis Club, and we occupy five acres directly adjacent to the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Jamboree Road. It is my understanding that there may be concerns about the continuation of our reciprocal parking arrangement as it relates to your proposed new development of timeshares in the location of the existing executive golf course. Our facility has 92 parking spaces and, as you know, as part of our sub -lease the hotel is required to provide us with overflow parking for our members and their guests during times when we may have an event at the club which necessitates overflow parking and at times when our members may need additional parking, (usually on Saturday mornings and sometimes on Sunday mornings). Since 1 purchased the tennis club in 1995 we have enjoyed a terrific relationship with the Hyatt Regency Hotel and we have made 100% of our parking facility available at times when the hotel can use additional parking such as Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoons and evenings, as well as times when the hotel may need evening or overnight parking. It is fully my intention to continue this practice 365 days a year, As you know our current sub -lease from the hotel matures at the end of 2019. 1 met recently with the management of Sunstone Hotel Investors who own the Hyatt Regency Hotel and they have given me a verbal statement that they fully intend to extend our lease to parallel the hotel lease, which ends in 2048. 1171 Jamboree Road • Newport Beach • California • 92660 • Tel: 949.644.6900 • Fax: 949.644.2329 _ 1, www.palisadestennis.com �6 t In addition to giving my full personal support for the proposed timeshares as well as the 100% commitment to continue the reciprocity with overflow parking, I am certain that once Sunstone and Palisades are able to execute the lease extension that the 1,500 members of Palisades Tennis Club (95% of whom are Newport Beach residents) will be eager to throw their collective and individual support behind the proposed timeshare development. If you have any questions or want to discuss this further, please call me. I can be reached at 949 - 644 -6900. If I am not available, please contact our general manager, Terri DeLong. Sincerely, KENSTUART KS:jke CC: Ken Cruse, Sr. V.P. of Asset Management Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. J ,111] BUR . �RT DUE HATE 0.f RO %T 0.(,UY} f 9 • CELEBRATING 50 YEARS OF HOSPITALITY August 14, 2008 Mr. Paul Devitt General Manager Hyatt Regency Newport Beach 1107 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 REGARDING: OVERIFLOW PARKJNG Dear Paul: The Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort is very supportive of your future development projects. in our ongoing relationship with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, we look forward to the future time - share, ballroom, and spa projects. We would like to continue to support the parking needs in the event of a need for overflow parking. The Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort would continue to provide the spaces needed based upon availability. We currently have approximately 1,400 parking spaces. Please let me know if we can assist in any way by supporting in helping to make this project a success. Andrew Theodorou Vice President & General Manager 1131 Back Bay Drive Newport Reach, California 92660 949.729 -3863 Fax: 949.729.1131 newportd(rnes.com rimportdunesspecialevenes.com - �, t Exhibit • 0 0 Exhibit • 10 .., ► a a tic, .. a - • 0 0 m ATTACHMENT 6 Draft EIR (under separate cover) ��I ' THE PLANNING CENTER I 1 I 1 i 1 11 I I j I 1 I I I I I" HYATTREGENCY NEWPORTBEACH EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT SCH NO. 2006121052 VOLUME)— DRAFT EIR & APPENDICES A & B Preparedfor' C17Y OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Jaime Murillo Associate Planner Prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: JoAnn Hadfield Director, Environmental Services FEBRUARY2008 HYATTREGENCY NEWPORTBEACH EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT SCH NO. 2006121052 VOLUMEI- DRAFT EIR & APPENDICES A & B Prepared for: CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact: PO Box 1768 Jaime Murilto Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Associate Planner 949.644.3231 CNB -09 0E FEBRUARY 2008 prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 JoAnn Hadfield Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Director, Environmental E-mail. • costamesa @planningcentercom Services Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -09 0E FEBRUARY 2008 Table of Contents Section Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................ .. .............. .... ....................... ....... ...... 1 -1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ....... ............................. ............................................. .............................. 1 -1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ........................................................... ....................... 1 -1 1.2.1 EIR Format .............................................................................. ............................1 -2 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR ................................... ............................... ........ 1 -4 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................... ............................1 -4 1.4 PROJECTSUMMARY ......... .......... ................................................................................... 1 -4 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .......................................... ............................1 -4 1.5.2 No-Project Alternative ............................................................. ............................1 -5 1.5.3 ReducedlntensityAltemative ................................................. ............................1 -5 1.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ............................... ............................1 -5 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................ .. ........................... .......................... ....... ..... 2 -1 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .................. ............................2 -1 2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ............... ............................. ............... 2 -1 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR ......................................................................... ............................2 -2 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant .......................... ...................... ........ 2 -2 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse impacts .......................................................... .... 2 -2 2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ............................. .............................23 2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE .................................................... ............................2 -3 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION ................................................................ .............................23 2.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ................................................................. ............................2 -4 2.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ............................ ................................... . .................... ........ 2 -4 2.8 MITIGATION MONITORING ................................................................. ............................2 -8 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................... ...................... ... ...... _. ........................ ............... 3.1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................ ........................ ........... 3 -1 3.2.1 Existing Improvements ............................................................ ............................3 -1 3.2.2 The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement .. ............................3 -1 3.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES ......................................................... ............................... 3 -2 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ..... .................................................................................. 3 -9 3.4.1 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................. ............................3-9 3.4.2 Infrastructure Improvements .................................................. ...........................3 -19 3.4.3 Fuel Modification and Fire Protection .................. ............................................. 3 -19 3.4.4 Construction and Grading ............................................ .................................... 3 -20 3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR ........................... ............................... ............................335 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................. .. ........................ ... .................. .. ...... .......4 -1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................ .................... ........................................................... 4 -1 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................ ............................4 -1 4.2.1 Regional Location ................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations ............... ...................... .............. ................... 4 -1 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................... ............................4 -2 4.3.1 Project Location ......... ......................................................................................... 4 -2 4.3.2 Existing Land Use ................................ ............... .. ................ ........... ............... .... 4 -2 4.3.3 Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................... ............................4 -2 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page i ffl Table of Contents Section page 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE .............................. ............. 4 -3 4.4.1 Biological Resources ............................................................. .............................43 4.4.2 Climate and Air Quality .......................................................... .............................43 4.4.3 Geology and Landform ........................................................... ............................4 -3 4.4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................... ............... .................... 4 -4 4.4.5 Noise ....................................................................................... ............................4 -4 4.4.6 Transportation and Traffic ....................................................... ............................4 -5 4.4.7 Public Services and Utilities .................................................... ............................4 -5 4.4.8 Applicable Local Plans ............................................................ ............................4 -5 4.5 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................... ............................4 -6 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................_........._................................... ............._............5.1 -1 5.1 AESTHETICS ....................................................................................... ..........................5.1 -1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting ................ ........................... ........................................... 5.1 -2 5.1.2 Thresholds of Signi ficance ........................................................... .................... 5.1 -9 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts .... ........................................ ......................... ............... 5.1 -9 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................... ............................... .........................5.137 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ............ ............... .................. 5.1 -37 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.1 -38 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures ...................................................... ........................... ...... 5.1 -38 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............. ...................................... .......... 5.1 -38 5.2 AIR QUALITY .................. ............................................................... ................................ 5.2 -1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.2 -1 5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................ ............................................. 5.2 -13 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.2 -15 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.2 -23 5.2.5 Existing Regulations ...................................................... ................................. 5.2 -23 5.2.6 Level of Significance Before Mit igation ................................. .........................5.2 -24 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures ........... ..................... ................................ ....................... 5.2 -24 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....... .................................... .................. 5.2 -24 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........ ................. ................................................................. 5.3 -1 5.3.1 Environmental Setting ..................... .............................. ................................... 5.3 -1 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance .................................................... .........................5.3 -18 5.3.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.3 -19 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.3 -23 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ............................ ................. 5.3 -24 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ......................... ................................. 5.3 -24 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures ........... ............. .............................. ........................... ...... 5.3 -24 5.3.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ... ............................ .... ..... .................... .5.3 -26 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........ ..................................................................................... 5.4 -1 5.4.1 Environmental Setting ............... ....................................................................... 5.4 -1 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................ ........................ ........... 5.4 -7 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts ............................ ........................................................ 5.4 -8 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... ..........................5.4 -9 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ......................................... .... 5.4 -10 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ........................ ........... ....................... 5.4 -12 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures ................ ................... .................................................... 5.4 -12 5.4.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................................... ............. ... .... 5.4 -15 Page ii • The Planning Center Pekuary 2008 1 ITable of Contents ISection 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................ ............................... ..........................5.5.1 5.5.1 Environmental Setting ............................. ............................... ..........................5.5 -1 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................... .................... 5.5 -9 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts ................................. ................................................... 5.5 -9 5.5.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.5 -13 5.5.5 Existing Regulations. .......................... ................ ........ --- ... - .... .... &5-13 5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.5 -13 5.5.7 Mitigation Measures ............. .......................................................................... 5.5 -13 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ........................................... .................. 5.5 -14 5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......... ............................... ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.6 -1 5.6.2 Thresholds of Signif icance ..................................................... ..........................5.6 -6 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts .... ... ....... ................................................................. ..... 5.6 -7 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................... .................................................................. 5.6 -12 5.6.5 Existing Regulations ............................................ ........................................... 5.6 -13 5.6.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation .................................................. ........ 5.6 -14 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures ........... ............................................................................ 5.6 -14 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mit igation ............................ ................................. 5.6 -16 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................... ............ 5.7 -1 5.7.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.7 -1 - 5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................. ......... ................................... 5.7 -24 5.7.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.7 -25 5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.7 -37 5.7.5 Existing Regulations .............................. ............................... ..........................5.737 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation . ............................... ..........................5.737 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures .............................. ............................... ..........................5.737 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .... ............................... ..........................5.737 5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................... ..........................5.8 -1 5.8.1 Environmental Setting ............................................ .......................................... 5.8 -1 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance ............................................... .............................. 5.8 -11 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.8 -12 5.8.4 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. .........................5.8 -28 5.8.5 Existing Regulations .............................................................. .........................5.8 -28 5.8.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ............... ........................................... 5.8 -29 5.8.7 Mitigation Measures ....................................... ..................... ........................... 5.8 -29 �. 5.8.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................... ...... 5.8 -29 5.9 NOISE ............ .................................................................................. .............................. 5.9 -1 5.9A Environmental Setting ............................................................ ..........................5.9 -1 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance .................................................... .........................5.9 -15 5.9.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................... .........................5.9 -19 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts ......... .............................................................................. 5.9 -26 5.9.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions ........................... .................. 5.9 -27 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ................................. .........................5.9 -28 5.9.7 Mitigation Measures .............................................................. .........................5.9 -28 5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation .................................... .........................5.9 -28 5.10 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................. ............................... ................:........5.10 -1 5.10.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services ............................. .........................5.10 -1 5.10.2 Police Protection ................................... ............................... ..........................5.103 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page iii ffl Tdble of Contents Section 5.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ..................... ............................... .........................5.11 -1 5.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................ ............................... .........................5.11 -1 5.11.2 Thresholds of Signif icance ..................... ............................... .........................5.11 -7 5.11.3 Environmental Impacts ............................................... ...................... ............. 5.11 -8 5.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................. ............................... .........................5.1131 5.11.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions .................. .........................5.1132 5.11.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ............................... .........................5.1132 5.11.7 Mitigation Measures ............................. ............................... .........................5.1133 5.11.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ... ............................... .........................5.11 -33 6. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ............................... _ ....... .. ................ 6 -1 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................. .. .... .. ...... 7 -1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ............................7 -1 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................ ............................7 -1 7.2 ALTERNATIVES OVERVIEW ..................................................... ....................................... 7 -2 7.2 1 Project Objectives ............................ ... .............. .................................................. 7 -2 7.2.2 Significant Impacts of the Project ........................................... ............................7 -2 7.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING /PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ...................................... .............................73 7.3.1 Alternative Development Areas ......................... .................................................. 7 -3 7.3.2 Alternative Land Use .............................................................. .............................73 7.3.3 Reduced Ballroom Alternative ................................................ ............................7 -4 7.3.4 Reduced Timeshare Units Alternative ............................. .................................... 7 -4 7.3.5 Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative ..................... ... ............................ 7 -4 7.3.6 Original TS -1 and TS -2 Footprint Alternative .......................... ............................7 -5 7.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS .................... ............................7 -5 7.5 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE . .................... ............................. .......... .. ....... .. .............. .....7 -6 7.5.1 Environmental Assessment ..................................................... ............................7 -6 7.5.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts ............................... ............................7 -8 7.5.3 Ability to Attain Project Objectives .......................................... ............................7 -8 7.6 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE - ELIMINATE NEW BALLROOM AND PARKINGSTRUCTURE ........................................................................ ............................7 -9 7.6.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts .............................. ...........................7 -14 7.6.3 Ability to Attain Project Objectives ......................................... ...........................7 -t5 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE. ......................................................... 7-15 8. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................... .... .............. 8 -1 9. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ... ... .. .... 9.1 10. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................ »......10 -1 11. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .........._ ...... ..... .. ... ... ................. ...._.......11 -1 12. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS PREPARING EIR ..... ... ............ .. .................................... 12 -1 13. BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. _ .................................. ................................................ 13.1 13.1 PRINTED REFERENCES ..................................................................... ...........................13 -1 13.2 WEBSITES ........................................................... ............................... ............................133 Page iv • The Planning Center February 2008 I Table of Contents Section Page IAPPENDICES* I I Hyatt Regemy Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page v A NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY B NOP RESPONSES C AIR QUALITY MODELING D BIOLOGICAL/REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS E CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT F GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY G SITE ASSESSMENT INFORMATION H FIRE PROTECTION PLAN I PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY /HYDRAULIC REPORT AND WATER QUALITY REPORT J NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING DATA K L SERVICE PROVIDER LETTERS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS * Appendices A and B are presented in Volume I of this Draft EIR and Appendices C to L are presented in Volume II. I I Hyatt Regemy Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page v List of Figures Figure Page Figure 3 -1 Figure 3 -2 Figure 33 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3 -6 Figure 3 -7 Figure 3-8 Figure 3 -9 Figure 3 -10 Figure 3 -11 Figure 3 -12 Figure 3 -13 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 5.1 -1 Figure 5.1 -2 Figure 5.13 Figure 5.1-4 Figure 5.1-5 Figure 5.1-6 Figure 5.1 -7 Figure 5.1 -8 Figure 5.1 -9 Figure 5.1 -10 Figure 5.1 -11 Figure 5.1 -12 Figure 5.3-1 Figure 5.3-2 Figure 5.33 Figure 5.3-4 Figure 5.5-1 Figure 5.6 -1 Figure 5.7 -1 Figure 5.7 -2 Figure 5.7 -3 Figure 5.7 -4 Figure 5.8 -1 Figure 5.9 -1 Figure 5.9 -2 Figure 5.11 -1 Figure 5.11 -2 Figure 5.11 -3 Figure 5.11 -4 Figure 5.11 -5 Figure 5.11 -6 RegionalLocation ......................................................................... .............................33 LocalVicinity.. ............................................................................................................ 3-5 AerialPhotograph ......... ............................................... .................. ............................3 -7 SitePlan ........................................................................................ ...........................3 -11 Demolition Plan ................................. ................................. - ...... ... ........................... 3 -13 SiteSections ... ............ ......................................................... - .................................. 3.15 Typical Timeshare Building Elevations ........................... ......................................... 3 -17 Drainage Concept Plan .......................................... .............................. ................... 3 -23 Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan .............................................. ...........................3 -25 Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan ............................................... ...........................3 -27 Conceptual Construction Management - Phase A ................ ................................. 3 -29 Conceptual Construction Management - Phase B ..................... ............................"'I Conceptual Construction Management - Phase C ..................... ............................333 Approved Projects - Traffic Phasing Ordinance ......... .. ............................................ 4 -9 CumulativeProjects ............................................... ............................................ ...... 4 -11 General Plan- Designated Coastal Views ................................................. .............. 5.1 -7 Visual Simulation 1 .............................................................. ................................. 5.1 -11 I I i I VisualSimulation 2 ........................................................ ... .................................... 5.1 -13 Visual Simulation 3 ...................................................................... .........................5.1 -15 Visual Simulation 4 ...................................................................... .........................5.1 -17 Visual Simulation 5A ..................................... ............................... .........................5.1.19 VisualSimulation 5B .................................................................... .........................5.1 -21 Visual Simulation 6 ................... .........................5.1 -23 ........................... I ..... ................. VisualSimulation 7 .............................................................. ............................... VisualSimulation 8 .............................................................. ............................... VisualSimulation 9 ........................................... ............................... LightingPlan ..................................................... ............................... CIOSA Open Space Dedication Adjacent to Hyatt Regency .......... VegetationMap ................................................. ............................... Coastal California Gnatcatcher ......................... ............................... Vegetation and Fuel Modification ..................... ............................... RegionalFaults ................................................. ............................... A........ Ue1 -1,. Gecr.i..N..., 7.,.,e Newport Bay Watershed ................................... ............................... Existing Project Site Drainage Flow ................. ............................... FloodHazards .................................................. ............................... 5.1 -25 5.1 -27 5.1 -29 ..................... 5.1 -35 -15 .......................5.3 -5, Height Limitation Zones ................................................................ ..........................5.8 .......................5.3 -7 .....................5.3 -13 ..................... 5.3 -21 5.9 -11 ....................... 5.5-5 John Wayne Airport 2005 Annual Noise Contours ...................... .........................5.9 5.6 -9 5.7 -3 5.7 -5 .................. 5.7-13 CoastalHazards .......................................................................... .........................5.7 -15 Height Limitation Zones ................................................................ ..........................5.8 -7 Noise Monitoring Locations .................. ................................................................ 5.9 -11 John Wayne Airport 2005 Annual Noise Contours ...................... .........................5.9 -17 Existing Roadways and Intersection Geometries ........................... ...................... 5.11-3 Project Trip Distribution ....................................................... ............................... 5.11 -11 Project Trips - AM Peak .............................. ............................... ........................5.11 -13 Project Trips - PM Peak .............................. ............................... ........................5.11 Future with Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - AM Peak ..........5.11 -15 -17 Future with Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak ........... 5.11 -19 L Page vi • The Planning Center February 2008 1 List of Tables Table Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation ........................................... .... ...................... .... ....... 1 -7 Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary ................................................ .... .......................... ............ 2 -5 Table 3 -1 Existing and Proposed Uses ....................................... ... .......................... ................ .3 -9 Table 3 -2 Estimated Construction Timetable ...................... ........................... ... ... ................. ..3 -20 Table 3 -3 Building Demolition Summary .................... .......................................................... ...3 -20 Table 3-4 Construction Equipment Mix ......... ......... ....................... ..... .... ..................... ..... .. ..... 3 -21 Table 4 -1 Approved Projects (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) ....... ................................ ................. 4 -7 Table 4 -2 Cumulative Projects ....................................................................... ............................4 -8 Table 5.2 -1 Greenhouse Gases and their Relative Global Warming Potential .........................5.2 -5 Table 5.2 -2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............................... .............. 5.2 -9 Table 5.2 -3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ..................5.2 -10 Table 5.2 -4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................ ........................... ..... 5.2 -12 Table 5.2 -5 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ................... ............... ..................... ............... 5.2 -14 Table 5.2-6 Localized Significance Thresholds for SRA 20 for a 5 -Acre Site at 61 Meters................................................................................... .........................5.2 -15 Table 5.2 -7 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds for Project Sites Greater thanFive Acres .................................... ...... ............................... ...................... 5.2 -15 Table 5.2 -8 Project- Generated CO2 Emissions... ................................ __ ......................... ... _5.2-16 Table 5.2 -9 Project - Related Construction Phase Emissions... .............................. ........... 5.2-18 Table 5.2 -10 Project - Related Operational Phase Emissions .......................... ........................... 5.2 -19 Table 5.2 -11 One -Hour Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis ........... ............................... .. ... 5.2 -20 Table 5.2 -12 Eight -Hour Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis ............................... ... ............ 5.2 -21 Table 5.2 -13 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Compared with the LST .........................5.2 -21 Table 5.2 -14 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LST ..... ............... ...5.2 -22 Table 5.3 -1 Sensitive Animal Species Potentially Present on or in the Vicinity of the ProjectSite ............................................................................ .........................5.3 -10 Table 5.3 -2 Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Present on or in the Vicinity of the ProjectSite ...................................................................... ............................... 5.3 -15 Table 5.4 -1 Recoded Sites within a One -Mile Radius of the Project Area ..... ..........................5.4 -4 Table 5.6 -1 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Inputs. ..... .................................... ....... ................. _ ... 5.6-11 Table 5.6 -2 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results for SCAL18 Model ............... .......... 5.6 -12 Table 5.7 -1 Water Quality Objectives for Santa Ana Region Enclosed Bays and Estuaries....................... ........... .. ..................................... .............................. .... 5.7 -9 Table 5.7 -2 Water Quality Objectives for All Groundwaters of the Santa Ana Region ............ 5.7-10 Table 5.7-3 Construction BMPs ...................................................................... .........................5.7 -26 Table 5.7 -4 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants ............................... ............................... .... ...5.7 -29 Table 5.7-5 Treatment Control BMPs ..................................... ... .............................................. 5.7 -31 Table 5.7-6 Preconstruction Flow ................................................................... .........................5.7 -35 Table 5.7 -7 Postconstruction Flow . ..... ....... ....................................... ................................. .....5.7 -36 Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ............ ___ .................................................... 5.8 -13 Table 5.9 -1 Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources ......................................................... ..... 5.9 -3 Table 5.9 -2 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels ..................................................... .. ... 5.9 -4 Table 5.9 -3 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ............. ..........................5.9 -5 Table 5.9 -4 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility ........................... ...... .. .................. 5.9 -7 Table 5.9 -5 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - SensitiveUses... ........................................... ...................................... _ ........... 5.9-8 Table 5.9-6 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards .................. ........ ........................ 5.9 -9 Table 5.9 -7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria .... ....................................... .... 5.9 -10 IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page viz �� List of Tables Table Table 5.9 -8 Noise Measurements along Local Roadways ................................ ............ --- ..... 5.9 -13 Table 5.9-9 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ..................................... ........... ................................. 5.9 -14 Table 5.9-10 Year 2012 Without Project vs. With Project Traffic Noise Modeling ..................... 5.9 -20 Table 5.9 -11 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences...................................................................... ............................... 5.9 -23 Table 5.9 -12 Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites ........... ........... .... ........... ...... .... ............ 5.9 -24 Table 5.11 -1 Intersection Level of Service ......................... ............................... .........................5.11 -5 Table 5.11 -2 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary ............................................ ....... 5.11 -6 Table 5.11 -3 Project Trip Generation ...................... ............. .............. .................. ......................5.11 -8 Table 5.11 -4 Future Without and With Project (Year 2012) Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ................... ....................................................... 5.11 -10 Table 5.11 -5 Future Without and With Project (Year 2012) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ............................ ............................................. .5.11 -10 Table 5.11 -6 Hyatt Regency Off- Street Parking Summary .............................. ........................5.11 -21 Table 5.11 -7 Hyatt Regency Hotel Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast ....... ........................5.11 -22 Table 5.11 -8 Hyatt Regency Timeshare Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast .......................5.11 -23 Table 5.11 -9 Hyatt Regency Total Off- Street Parking Demand Forecast ........ ........................5.11 -23 Table 5.11 -10 Project Construction Trip Generation .......... ............................... ........................5.11 -24 Table 5.11 -11 Future Without and With Project Construction (Year 2010) Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary . ............................... ........................5.11 -25 Table 5.11 -12 Future Without and With Project Construction (Year 2010) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary . ............................... ........................5.11 -25 Table 5.11 -13 Hyatt Regency Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast during Construction .......5.11 -26 Table 5.11 -14 Existing and Future Without and With Project (Year 2012) CMP Intersection LOS Summary ........ ............................ .................. ......... --- .... 5.11 -28 Table 5.11 -15 CIOSA Hyatt Regency Expansion Trip Generation ........... ... ... ........................... 5.11 -28 Table 7 -1 Construction Equipment Estimates Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative............................................................................. ............................... 7 -5 Table 7 -2 Construction Equipment Estimates Reduced Intensity Alternative ...........................7 -9 Table 7 -3 Construction Phase Durations Reduced Intensity Alternative ...... ...........................7 -10 Table 7 -4 Project - Related Construction Phase Emissions Reduced Intensity Alternative........................................................................... ............................... 7 -11 Table 7 -5 Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites (dBA Lq) Reduced Intensity Alternative........................................................................... ............................... 7 -13 Table 7 -6 Project Trip Generation Reduced Intensity Alternative ................ ...........................7 -14 Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not To Be Signif icant ................................................ ... ..................... 8 -1 Page viii • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I ! Abbreviations and Acronyms OF degrees Fahrenheit AAQS ambient air quality standards ACM asbestos- containing material ACWM asbestos - containing waste materials ADT average daily traffic AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APZ Accident Potential Zone AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAGN California gnatcatcher CaIARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program Cal /OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARE California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCC California Coastal Commission CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CIOSA Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement CLUP Coastal Land Use Plan CMP Congestion Management Plan CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CO, carbon dioxide CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page ix Abbreviations and Acronyms I CWA Clean Water Act cy cubic yards dB decibel dBA A- weighted decibel DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DHS California Department of Health Services EHSA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA effective projected area EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Air Regulations FOR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GCP General Construction Permit gpm gallons per minute GRS Groundwater Replenishment System Hertz Hz HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IGR Intergovernmental Review ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers JWA John Wayne Airport L.� equivalent continuous noise level Lmm minimum average noise level , L. maximum noise level LCP Local Coastal Program LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee LOS LST Level of Service Localized Significance , Threshold LUFT leaking underground fuel tank Page x • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I IAbbreviations and Acronyms IHyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page xi MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 MLD Most Likely Descendent 'ms( mean sea level Na sodium NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NBFD Newport Beach Fire Department NBPD Newport Beach Police Department NBTAM Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model NCCP /HCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NO2 nitrogen dioxide NO, nitrogen oxides NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List NROC Nature Reserve of Orange County 03 ozone OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District OHP Office of Historic Preservation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCC Panel on Climate Change PM particulate matter PM" coarse particulates, less than 10 microns PMZ.S fine particulates, less than 2.5 microns ppm parts per million RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMP Risk Management Plan ROG reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board IHyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page xi 1. Executive Summary An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full - disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An. EIR is also one of various decision- making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adoptfindings concerning the project's significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. 1.2.1 EIR Format This DEIR has been formatted as described below Section 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the proposed project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. Section 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the Notice of Preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification. Section 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, the objectives of the proposed project, the project area and location, approvals anticipated to be included as part of the project, the necessary environmental clearances for the project, and the intended uses of this EIR. Section 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting provides baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. Section 5. Environmental Analysis: For each environmental parameter analyzed, provides a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the proposed project; the level of significance of the adverse impacts of the project after mitigation is incorporated and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the project area. Each topical area (e.g., air quality, noise, land use) within this section includes subsections detailing federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, policies and guidelines applicable to the proposed project, including relevant policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. These regulations, policies, and programs typically serve to mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposed project, but they do not constitute CEQA mitigation. Therefore, if significant impacts remain after compliance with the applicable regulations, policies, and programs, mitigation measures are provided to eliminate or reduce the significance of the impact. In instances where mitigation measures are not feasible, or cannot reduce the impact to a less than significant level, the impact is identified as "Significant and Unavoidable." Page 1 -2 *The Planning Center February 2008 1. Executive Summary Section 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project. Section 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Describes the impacts of the alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative, and a Reduced Intensity Alternative. Section 8. Impacts Found Not to be Significant: Briefly describes the potential impacts of the proposed project that were determined not to be significant by the Initial Study and were therefore not discussed in detail in this DEIR. Section 9. Significant irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project: Describes the significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the proposed project. Section 10. Growth- Inducing Impacts of the Project: Describes the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. Section 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this DEIR for the proposed project. Section 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR: Lists the people who prepared this DEIR for the proposed project. Section 13. Bibliography: A bibliography of the technical reports and other documentation used in the preparation of this DEIR for the proposed project. RED, Appendices. The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the front cover) contain the following supporting documents: A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B. NOP Responses C. Air Quality Modeling D. Biological /Regulatory Constraints Analysis E. Cultural Resources Assessment Report F. Geotechnical Feasibility Study G. Site Assessment Information H. Fire Protection Plan 1. Preliminary Hydrology /Hydraulic Report and Water Quality Report J. Noise Monitoring and Modeling Data K. Service Provider Letters L. Traffic Impact Analysis Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -3 1. Executive Summary 1.2.2 Type and Purpose of This DEIR According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to "inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project." This DEIR has been prepared as a "Project EIR" as defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15161, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). This type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project would consist of improvements within the existing site boundary of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach at 1107 Jamboree Road within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The 25.7 -acre site occupies Assessor's Parcel Nos. 440 -132 -40 and 440- 132 -41 on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. 1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project would include 88 new timeshare units within seven buildings, a timeshare clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a new spa facility, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a new two - level parking garage. Implementation of the proposed project would require the demolition of 12 villas, the 3,190- square -foot Terrace Ballroom, and the engineering and maintenance building. Additionally, the existing nine -hole golf course would be removed to accommodate the new timeshare units, parking areas, drive aisles, and other hardscape and landscape. The proposed project would also require 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. 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[aj) state that an EIR must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the following impact, determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed project: Noise • Impact 5.10 -6. Construction Noise. Construction activities would substantially elevate the daytime noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and recreational uses. As described in Chapter 7 of this DEIR, two project alternatives were identified and analyzed for relative impacts as compared to the proposed project: • No- Project Alternative • Reduced Intensity Alternative - Eliminate New Ballroom and Parking Structure Page 1 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Executive Summary The following presents a summary of each of the alternatives analyzed in this DEIR. Please refer to Section 7.0 of this DEIR for a complete discussion of how the alternatives were selected and the relative impacts associated with each alternative. 1.5.2 No-Project Alternative Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the "No Project' alternative. Under the No Project alternative, existing conditions would remain. No buildings would be demolished and none of the proposed expansion improvements would be implemented. The Hyatt Regency would continue to operate as a 403 -room resort hotel with existing ballroom /conference facilities. The existing golf course would also remain. In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. It would eliminate the significant impact of the project as proposed: short-term construction- related noise. Overall, this alternative would substantially reduce environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed project. However, this alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project. 1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative Under this project alternative, expansion of the Hyatt Regency would be limited to development of 88 new timeshare units, a spa and fitness building, and a clubhouse. The new ballroom and parking structure would not be constructed under this alternative. The existing Terrace Ballroom would remain. The proposed new storm drain in Jamboree Road would be included underthis alternative, but it would connect to the existing MIND storm drain to outlet as surface flow across the parking lot. The new drain included in the proposed project v across the parking lot would not be required. Similarly, the new water and sewer lines in this portion of the site would not be required (see Figure 3 -9). The Reduced Intensity alternative would increase short-term construction - related air quality impacts and result in a new significant construction impact during grading activities primarily due to the increase in material export. This alternative would, however, substantially reduce construction- related noise impacts. Due to construction noise related to the new storm drain in Jamboree Road and noise impacts associated with timeshare unit improvements and impacts to the adjacent tennis club, construction- related noise still could not be mitigated to less than significant. Construction noise levels for the Bay View Landing residents, however, would be reduced to less than significant, and the duration of significant construction noise impacts for the Sea Island residents would be reduced substantially. Cultural resource, public services, and traffic impacts, would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. These impacts are less than significant without mitigation for both this alternative and the proposed project. Similar impacts would result for aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and land use. Overall, impacts for this alternative would be less than for the projectas proposed. The Reduced Intensity alternative, however, would not achieve the specific objective to develop a larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference needs for the City of Newport Beach (Objective No. 3). 1.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Table 1 -1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this DEIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant and for all significant impacts mitigation measures are identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -5 1. Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. , P �II lJ LJ I I Page 1 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 mom M M soon M = W W 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.1-1: The proposed project would not have a Less than significant Less than significant substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas or substantially alter the visual appearance of the project site. 6.1-2: The proposed project would generate Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant additional nighttime light and glare, Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.2-1: The proposed project is consistent with the Less than significant applicable Air Quality Management Plan. 5.2-2: The proposed project is not a regionally Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant significant project that could potentially cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. 5.2-3: Construction activities associated with the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant proposed project would not generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. 5.2-4: Long-term operation of the project would Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant not generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. 5.2-5: The proposed project would not expose Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant I concentrations. J Hyatt Regeng Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1-7 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts. Miticration Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft OR Page 1-8 *City of Newport Beach W W M Im 4W M = on M M so in W The Planning Center February 2008 M M M M Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation POOR 5.3-1: The proposed development and related fuel Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant modification would not remove any coastal sage scrub and would comply with the City's Coastal Act policies set forth to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAS). 5.3-2: Construction- related activities could have a Potentially significant 3-1 The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the NGCP/HCP, including Less than significant temporary adverse impact on coastal California construction-related minimization and mitigation measures that minimize impacts to the gnatcatchers nesting in preserved areas of coastal coastal California gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub species. These include: sage scrub adjacent to the site. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 though July 15). It is expressly understood that ibis provision and the remaining provisions of these "construction-related minimization measures" are Subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies/utilities will provide USFWS/C[)FG with the maximum practicable notice lot such notice as is specified in the NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other coastal sage scrub Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed, and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of public health and safety considerations. • Prior to commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of coastal sage scrub, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. • Following the completion of initial grading/earth movement activities, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft OR Page 1-8 *City of Newport Beach W W M Im 4W M = on M M so in W The Planning Center February 2008 M M M M 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. • In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage /Special Management areas containing significant coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut - and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent coastal sage scrub Identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. • Coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and location within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels and the birds appear to be distressed, noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to), construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. 3 -3 To ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause significant impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures shall be implemented: • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall be directed away from coastal sage scrub habitat. • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. Hyatt Regency New Beath Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -9 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Imnacts- Mitigation Measures and Levels of Sionificance After Mitigation Hyatt Regeng Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Page 1 -10 • City of Newport Beach W M M r r� The Planning Center February 2008 M W W= M W M M M r M Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation • A qualified biologist shall review lighting plans prior to construction to ensure that the proposed lighting minimizes potential impacts on the California gnatcatcher. 53.3: Development of the proposed project would Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant not impact any sensitive plant species. 5.3.4: Project development could impact Potentially significant 3.4 During project construction, all trees to be removed shall be identified. Such trees should Less than significant migratory birds and raptor foraging habitat. be removed outside the avian nesting season, which extends from March 14 to July 15. 3 -5 If for some reason it is not possible to remove all trees during the nonnesting season, then trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to removal. If no nesting birds are found, the tree may be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. 3 -6 For trees being preserved, if construction is to occur during the nesting season, preserved trees shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. 5.3 -5; The proposed project would not affect Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant wildlife movement. 5.3 -6: The proposed project would not confilct Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant with any local policies or ordinances and would comply with the provisions of the centraVcoastal HCP /NCCP. 5.3.7: The proposed project would comply with Potentially significant Mitigation Measures 3.1 through 3 -3 apply. Less than significant the provisions of the central /coastal HCPINCCP. Hyatt Regeng Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Page 1 -10 • City of Newport Beach W M M r r� The Planning Center February 2008 M W W= M W M M M r M 1. Executive Table 1-1 Surnmary of Environmental Impacts. Mittuation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Environmental impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Alter Mitigation pIE Two W`i_ 7777 5.4-1: Development of the project could impact Potentially significant 4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written Less than significant archaeological resources, evidence to the Co at Newport Beach that the project applicant has retained an Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist, The archeologist shall be retained for the duration at the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The archaeologist shall comply with the following tasks, 1 ) The archaeologist shall determine the extent of monitoring that is required during excavation and grading activities. The qualified archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. The methods of archaeological monitoring, including timing, location, types of artifacts anticipated, and procedures for additional analysis, if necessary, shall be described in an archaeological monitoring plan. The extent and duration of the monitoring program shall be dependent upon the City-approved grading plans. The construction manager shall adhere to the stipulations at the archaeological monitoring plan. 2) The archaeological Monitoring plan shall be developed prior to commencement of on-site grading activities. 3) Should any subsurface cultural resources be encountered, the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to haft grading activities until uncovered resources are evaluated and a determination of significance is made. It cultural resources are encountered, a Native American monitor with a TongvalGabrielino lineage, the project applicant, and the City of Newport Beach shall evaluate the significance of the resources and, if appropriate, shall determine appropriate treatment and mitigation of the resources. If cultural artifacts are recovered, any eligibility testing and/or determination at additional mitigation should be done in consultation with the Native American monitor. 4) During construction, if buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historical artifacts, specimens, fossils, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground - disturbing activities, the contractor shall ensure that all work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until the qualified on-call archaeologist arrives on-site and can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, Hyatt Regency Neuporr Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page I -11 * City of Newport Beach February 2008 1, Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigafion Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City. 5) Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological monitor has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). 6) A report that documents the findings of the program shall be prepared. The report shall provide an itemized inventory of the recovered specimens. Submission of the final report and inventory to the City of Newport Beach shall represent completion of the mitigation monitoring program for archeological resources. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation of each site /locafity, and Interpretation of resources recovered and shall include all specialists' reports as appendices. All project documents, including field records and the report itself, should be included on a CO in portable document format. The CO shall be included a pocket at the rear of each copy of the report. 4.2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a preconstruction testing plan for cultural resources shall be implemented. Testing may be conducted during the same period as demolition activities. However, ample time shall be allowed for the results of the testing to be evaluated and for possible redesign to avoid the findings sites or mitigation of destructive construction impacts on the sites. Testing shall be conducted as follows: • Proposals to conduct testing shall include construction fencing and warning signs to protect patrons of the Hyatt Regency and the shoring of deep units and /or trenches to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. • A trench at least 20 meters in length within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, for a total of four trenches. The depth of the trenches shall be 20 centimeters below any cultural or potential cultural levels and must be sufficient to determine site stratigraphy. Soil profiles and stratigraphic columns are required to document the site integrity or lack thereof. • It intact site deposits are demonstrated to be present within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, then a minimum of two 1- meter - square units shall be placed in intact site areas, to be determined by the principal investigator. The units shall be dug in natural stratigraphic levels if possible and in 10- centimeter Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Page 1 -12 • City of Newport Beach = W = a r M The Planning Center February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of St_4niticance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation levels otherwise. These units will document the potential of the site to contribute new information to prehistory. Documentation shall be thorough and detailed. • A minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50 test pits shall be utilized to determine the boundaries of the site. The test pits should test the limits of the site at the limits of the project along the project footprint in the vicinity of timeshare buildings 1 -7, the timeshare clubhouse, the new ballroom, and the new spa facility. • Limited testing of the new ballroom area shall be conducted to determine if resources exist in the area in order to avoid construction delays caused by unanticipated finds. • Artifacts recovered will be in the custody of the principal investigator until they are transported to the designated accredited repository and will be prepared, identified, and cataloged prior to transport. 5.4 -2: The proposed project could destroy Potentially significant 4 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written Less than significant paleontological resources or a unique geologic evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the applicant has retained an Orange County feature. Certified Professional Paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The paleontologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation plan and maintaining professional standards of work at all times. 2) The paleontologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting and shall be invited to briefly define paleontological resources, discuss cooperation with the paleontological monitor, and outline the on -call procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery when the monitor is not present. 3) The paleontologist shall prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with the City. The principle investigator shall prepare a final report to be filed with the City. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation for each locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. All specialists' reports shall be included as appendices, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -13 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitloatfon Measures and Levels of Slanlficance After Mitiaatlon Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 4) Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed surfaces and microscopic examination of matrix. 5) The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading from exposed resources in order to recover the specimens and contextual data. 6) If the discovery of paleontological resources meets the criteria for fossil locality, formal locality documentation activities shall be performed. In addition, samples shall be submitted for dating and other special analyses. 7) If microfossil localities are discovered, the monitor shall collect matrix for processing. To limit downtime, the monitor may request heavy machinery assistance to move large quantities of matrix out of the path of construction to designated stockpile areas. Testing of stockpiles shall consist of screen washing small samples (200 pounds) to determine if fossils are present. Productive tests shall result in screen washing of additional matrix from the stockpiles to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality. 8) Fossils recovered shall be prepared, identified, and cataloged before donation to the accredited repository that will maintain the collection for future scientific study and exhibition within Orange County, to be designated by the City. Such fossils shall be prepared, prior to donation, to the point of dedication. The project proponent shall be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the county or other suitable repository for long -term curation and maintenance of the donated collection. Any resources determined not to meet the significance criteria can be used in school education programs. 5.4.3: The proposed project's grading activities Potentially significant 4 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall place the following note Less than significant could result in the disturbance of human remains. on all grading plans: "If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. It the remains are determined to he prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his or her authorized representative, the MILD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Page 1 -14 • City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2008 X . Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -15 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials." This requirement shall also be discussed at the pregrade meeting(s), 'ea fit ( i �: s. l�tii i i� � [{P �Y�1 Y 1 l�li I � III i Ili j (��, .n f , 2..� •. k ,c 1 doryg �, 3 I i ". } r „�Il � ,rr � 1 �';!�i 5.5.1: Persons and existing and future structures Potentially significant 5 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate that all Less than significant within the project site would be subjected to grading operations and construction will be conducted in conformance with the City of potential seismic - related hazards. Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall include a note on all grading plans indicating that grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in Geotechnical Engineering in order to achieve proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, placement and compaction of structural fill, stability of finished slopes, and incorporation of data supplied by the engineering geologist. The geologist shall geologically map the exposed earth units during grading to verify the anticipated conditions, and ri they are different, provide findings to the geotechnical engineer for possible design modifications:. 5 -3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed design -level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and provide site - specific recommendations to address these conditions, 0 determined necessary. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. 5 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits and based upon the soil corroslviiy tests conducted for the proposed project, the project applicant shall include a note on all grading plans indicating that soils testing in the areas proposed for development shall be performed under the observation of a registered corrosion engineer specializing in soil corrosivity Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -15 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summery Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -16 • City of Newport Beach Pebruary 2008 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation for any areas proposed to be developed with structures. The corrosion engineer shall evaluate the corrosion potential of the soils on proposed improvements, recommend further testing if deemed necessary, and identify specific construction methods to address soil corrosivity, if detected. 5.5 -2: The proposed project would not result in Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 5.5 -3: Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, Potentially significant Mitigation Measures 5 -1 through 5 -4 apply. Less than significant including soil corrosivity, could result due to development of the project, 5.5-4: The project site is located on expansive soil Potentially significant Mitigation Measures 5.1 through 5 -4 apply. Less than significant that could result in substantial risks to life or property. 6;6 t{AZARif� i1ND ���u Nli1 � Vt45 e � ` t ut `�.il ! ,� R£$i' ri! F i;_ a i -� <1„�t , ul!Ift.'a^ r ., i`. ' .r; L ..: • a.3Jtil ,. ��l t� n MA: The proposed project could create a hazard Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant to the public orthe environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A possibility exists that hazardous demolition debris containing asbestos and /or lead -based paint may require remediation and off -site transportation. 5.6.2: The project site is not included on a list of Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, development would not be expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -16 • City of Newport Beach Pebruary 2008 1. Executive Summaq Fable 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.6.3: Although the project site is located within Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant the boundaries of an airport land use plan, it is 3.5 miles from the airport and project implementation would not be expected to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 5.6.4: Design measures and mitigating actions Potentially significant 6 -1 The project applicant or successor in interest shall comply with the provisions in the Fire detailed in the fire protection plan (FPP) would Protection Plan (FPP) as reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department minimize the potential risks to people and /or (NBFD), including but not limited to the following specific provisions: structures to loss, injury, or death. Water Supply and Fire Flow • Fire hydrants and fire flow capacity shall be approved by the fire Chief. A reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, may be allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Fire Access • New driveway entrance areas shall be designed to City requirements with all - weather driving surface of A.C. paving over approved base and a capacity rating of at least 75,000 pounds, to accommodate fire apparatus. Approachildeparture angles associated with development driveways shall not exceed 3 degrees. • The minimum width of fire lanes shall be 26 feet. • There are no planned traffic calming devices. • Adequate fire apparatus turnarounds shall be provided and approved by the NBFD (current plans include a minimum 28 -foot turning radius adjacent to Building TS -7 and another turnaround located adjacent to Building TS -4 /Clubhouse). • Unobstructed firefighter access to all portions of the buildings via walkways, driveways, or trails shall be provided. A minimum of 3 feet for firefighter access shall be maintained along both sides of all structures adjacent to fuel modification zones. • Roads and access components (gates, sign, etc.) shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -17 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Building Fire and ignition Resistance • The project shall include ignition - resistant construction features consistent with current fire and building codes for the proposed structures exposed to wildland vegetation (buildings TS -1, TS -2, TS -3, and TS -4). Enhanced structural requirements shall be provided for the following as detailed in the FPP: roofing, fire - resistive walls, eaves protection, venting, glazing, skylights, insulation, gutters and downspots, appendages and projections, spark arrestors, exterior doors, and detached accessory structures. Fire Protection Systems • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National fire Protection Association sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Defensible Space • The Fuel Modification Plan (see details, Section 3.42 of this Draft EIR and the FPP, Appendix H) shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the NBFD. The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD. Brush removal must be completed prior to commencing any flammable construction, and final inspection and approval must be obtained prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures adjacent to the fuel modification area. • Fuel Modification Zones shall be subject to an annual inspection conducted by a representative of the City in order to assure that zones are maintained in compliance with the applicable fuel modification requirements. The property owner shall maintain defensible space in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan as approved. Vegetation Management • The fuel modification area along the northern boundary of the project lies partially on the Hyatt Regency property, parffally on property owned by the City of Newport Beach, and partially on property owned by the Irvine Company. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Page 1 -18 • City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2008 M M W M M = M M r M= M= M 1W = M Wl M= W it W= M M M 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • The proposed landscape plan/fuel modification zone plant palette shall be reviewed and approved by the NBFD. Landscape plans shall comply with all landscaping requirements. • Defensible space vegetation management responsibility is assigned to persons /company(ies) owning buildings or structures on this property. • Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of the defensible space shall Include modifying or removing nonfire- reslstive vegetation and keeping leaves, needles, and other dead vegetative material regulady removed from roofs of buildings and structures. • Maintenance and funding for vegetation management shall be required and enforced by deed encumbrances, which are attached to the property. Such deed encumbrances shall be reviewed and approved by NBFD Chief. • An agreement with the neighboring property owners (as described above), to be conveyed with deed, for permanent maintenance of landscape area that also serves as extended Less than significant fuel modification area for Hyatt property. • Vegetation management shall be completed prior to the start of and continue throughout the construction phase. Prior to site demolition, adequate fuel breaks shall be constructed between demolition areas and existing flammable vegetation. • Vegetation maintenance includes ensuring operation of irrigation systems. Vegetation maintenance is required following wind and rain storms to remove combustible plant - related debris from fuel modification zones. • Caution must be exercised on steep slopes to minimize erosion with the removal of vegetation and the addition of irrigation. Hyatt Regency Newport Beaeb Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -19 •City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -20 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 W M W M M IM Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmentalimpact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Wk 5.7-1: The proposed project would not violate any Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant water quality standards or waste-discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality, 5.7-2: Expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Beach would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, resulting in substantial erosion or siltation, or flooding on- or Off-site. Y 5.8-1: The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion Is Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant consistent with applicable local plans, Including the City of Newport Beach General Plan, zoning code, and local coastal program land use plan. 5.8-2: Implementation of the project would be in Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant accordance with the vested entitlement for the project site under the 1993 CIOSA. 5.8-3: The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant would comply with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -20 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 W M W M M IM 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -21 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Alter Mitigation .. 5.9.1: The increase in traffic from operation of the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Hyatt Regency expansion project would not significantly increase traffic noise levels. 5.9 -2: New stationary noise sources from long- Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant term operation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion would not substantially elevate noise levels In the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. 5.9.3: Newly expanded on -site noise - Sensitive Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Uses would be compatible with the noise environment. 5.9 -4: Construction of the Hyatt Regency Newport Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Beach expansion would not generate vibration levels that exceed the FfA criterion for human annoyance at nearby residential structures. 5.9 -5: Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency Potentially significant 9 -1 Temporary sound blankets (fences typically comprised of poly - vinyl - chloride- coated Significant and unavoidable would significantly elevate the daytime and outer shells with adsorbent inner insulation) shall be placed alongside the boundary of potentially nighttime noise environment in the project - related site during construction activities that are located in the vicinity of vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and residential and recreational land uses affected by significant levels of construction noise, recreational uses, which includes the areas adjacent to the Palisades Goff Course, the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, and the Bayview Landing senior community. The temporary sound blankets shall be to prevent direct line -of -sight from construction activities occurring directly adjacent to this property. 9 -3 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. 9 -4 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -21 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 5.10 -1: The proposed project's incremental Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant increase in demand for city fire protection services would not significantly impact the Newport Beach Fire Departments ability to provide fire and emergency /medical services. POLICE PROTECTION 5.10 -2'. The proposed projects introduction of Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant new structures, workers, and visitors into the City of Newport Beach police service boundaries would not substantially increase the demand for police protection services. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -22 • City of Newport Beach Februaty 2008 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 9 -5 The Construction Contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential and recreational receptor locations as is feasible. 9 -6 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. 5.9 -6: The Hyatt Regency is located outside the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the John Wayne Airport and would not result in substantial aircraft noise exposure to future occupants and workers. , , P0, 0p0,; r „aW 1, 1I1jllMTt , ,, tEl l gin:. ,. ± A . ^ 41ji:N!pk '?YF'l ip% .x 1 k+�Mri. t '5riill, %el,rll� r tlN. r�rp{i!�l i'n�1 �:,ua {sQ:rlhlul l ? �.M{s..:IlnjlriS�Yi} ` ���pTz:p ' I l �Llg,rif��?!!tY�i¢ F lBleC1� FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 5.10 -1: The proposed project's incremental Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant increase in demand for city fire protection services would not significantly impact the Newport Beach Fire Departments ability to provide fire and emergency /medical services. POLICE PROTECTION 5.10 -2'. The proposed projects introduction of Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant new structures, workers, and visitors into the City of Newport Beach police service boundaries would not substantially increase the demand for police protection services. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1 -22 • City of Newport Beach Februaty 2008 = = W M == M = = 1W � i= M M= W = = 1. Executive Summary Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1-23 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Vz p. ii: 5.11 -1: The proposed project would generate an Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant estimated total of 661 daily vehicle trips and 51 AM and 58 PM peak hour trips. These project- related trips would not impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system. 5.11-2: The project-related WC increase of 0.001 Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant and 0.002 in the AM and PM peak hours for Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard intersection, (the only CMP intersection in the study area) would be less than the U10 WC increase that would be classified as a significant impact. The project, therefore, would not result in a designated road or highway exceeding County Congestion Management Agency service standards. 5.11-3 On-site site access and circulation to Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant accommodate the new timeshare units, ballroom facility, and ancillary uses would not increase hazards or incompatible uses. 5.11.4: A total of 912 parking spaces would be Potentially significant 11-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed ballroom facility, the project Less than significant provided to serve the proposed project. However, applicant shall submit a valet parking plan to the Planning Director and City Traffic the project's valet parking component could result Engineer for review and approval. All valet parking services provided pursuant to the In an on-site parking impact. valet parking plan shall comply with the measures outlined in the parking plan. 5.11-5: Temporary construction impacts would Potentially significant 11-2 During the construction of the Hyatt Regency expansion, no construction vehicle trips Less than significant result in a significant impact to the Jamboree shall be permitted to enter or exit the project site during the PM peak period between Road/San Joaquin Hills intersection during the PM 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Construction vehicles shall be defined as dirt haulers, material peak period. delivery trucks, construction-vehicle transport trucks, and other similar large vehicles. Construction employee trips are not included in this restriction, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center Page 1-23 • City of Newport Beach February 2008 1. Executive Summary Table 1 -T Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.11.6: Adequate on -site parking would not be Potentially significant 11 -3 The Hyatt Regency shall maintain a minimum of 467 parking spaces for use by hotel Less than significant available during some phases of project guests and visitors during the full duration of construction activities. This minimum construction. requirement of 467 may be provided through either self- parking or valet parking. In addition, the project applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan prior to the initiation of construction activities to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall clearly identify how and where the 467 necessary parking spaces would be accommodated on- site during construction. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Page 1 -24 • City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2008 2. Introduction 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority prior to taking action on those projects. This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as setforth in the Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, at seq. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects notfound to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the Lead Agency means "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." The City of Newport Beach has the principal responsibility for approval of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion project. For this reason, the City of Newport Beach is the CEQA Lead Agency for this project. The intent of the DEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) to allow the City of Newport Beach to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described later in Section 4.3.3, Project Approvals. This DEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the: • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) • State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (herein referenced as CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) The overall purpose of this DEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers and the general public of the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed project. This DEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, including effects that may be significant and adverse, evaluates a number of alternatives to the project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects. 22 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY The City of Newport Beach determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on December 17, 2006 (See Appendix A). Comments received during the public review period, which extended from December 18, 2006 to January 16, 2007, are contained in Appendix B. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newporr Beach • Page 2 -1 SO 2, Introduction The NOP process is used to help determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the DEIR. Based on this process and the Initial Study for the project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this DEIR. Issues identified as Less Than Significant or No Impact are not addressed beyond the discussion contained in the Initial Study. Refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A for discussion of how these initial determinations have been made. 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City of Newport Beach staff determined that a DEIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the DEIR was determined based upon the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. Pursuant to Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. The information contained in the Project Description establishes the basis for analyzing future project- related environmental impacts. However, further environmental review by the City may be required as more detailed information and plans are submitted on a project by project basis. 2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant Four environmental impact categories are identified here as not being significantly affected by, or affecting the proposed project and as such are not discussed in detail in this DEIR. This determination was made by the City of Newport Beach in its preparation of the Initial Study. The following topical issues are not addressed in the DEIR: • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation 2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Thirteen environmental factors have been identified as potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented. These factors are: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' i ' 2. Introduction ' 23.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This DEIR identifies one significant and unavoidable adverse impact, as defined by CEQA that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project- specific basis, cumulatively significant, and /or potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts are those that fall within the responsibility of another agency and implementation of the mitigation measures cannot feasibly be assured by the City. If the City, as the Lead Agency, determines that unavoidable significant adverse impacts will result from the project, the City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision - making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its ' unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects and, therefore, the adverse effects are considered to be acceptable. The impact that was found in the DEIR to be significant and unavoidable is: Noise Construction - related noise. Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, construction activities are limited to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The City's Code (Section 10.28.040), however, permits exceptions to these constructions hours when the maintenance, repair, or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal 1 business hours. The proposed project would comply with the City's Municipal Code, and with the exception of possible night construction for sewer and storm drain improvements in Jamboree Road (to avoid daytime lane closures), construction would occur within the limited weekday and Saturday hours as specified in the City's Code. Regardless of compliance with the ordinance, the combination of construction activities ' (ranging from 42 to 83 dBA) for approximately 23 months would result in noise levels that would be considered a nuisance to surrounding residential and recreation uses. Construction noise for the improvements in Jamboree Road that are likely to occur during nighttime hours would also be considered a significant, unavoidable impact. 24 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ' The following documents are incorporated by reference in this DEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach. • City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR. Prepared by EIP Associates. 2006. Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. Prepared by City of Newport Beach. 2005. ' 25 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION This DEIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DEIR to the City address shown on thetitle page of this document. Upon completion of the 45 -day review period, the City of Newport Beach will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final EIR (FEIR) will then be ' prepared incorporating all of the comments received, responses to the comments and any changes to the DEIR that result from the comments received. This FEIR will then be presented to the City of Newport Beach for potential certification as the environmental documentforthe project. All persons who commented on the DEIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 2 -3 co 2. Introduction The DEIR is available to the general public for review at the following locations: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 City of Newport Beach Libraries: Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mariners Branch 1300 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 26 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the Lead Agency as to the following: 1. Whether this DEIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. 2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. 4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the DEIR. 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. 2.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR shall identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. Table 2 -1 summarizes the issues identified by responses to the NOP and a reference to the section of this DEIR in which these issues are evaluated. Responsible agencies, including Caltrans, the Southern California Gas Company, South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Coastal Commission, and Native Heritage Commission have submitted comments regarding analyses that should be included in the DEIR. Potential areas of controversy are likely related to comments as submitted by surrounding residents. As summarized below, concerns include the projects potential to result in impacts to existing views, increased traffic, noise impacts, and air quality impacts. General opposition to the proposed project was also expressed in the letters that are included in Appendix B of the DEIR. Page 2-4 .The Planning Center February 2008 J 1 Imo, h I u '1 7 i I �I 1 I 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: • Recommends that traffic consultant contact the City of Irvine traffic division to ensure that appropriate version of ITAM 3.01 is used to analyze portion of Section 5.11, City of Irvine (1118107) Traffic traffic analysis that lies with Irvine Transportadon/Trafc city limits. • Requests that appropriate mitigation be identified for any impacts that may occur on Irvine arterials or intersections. • States that 2005 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) does not specifically allow limited use/fractional ownership time share units in the Visitor Serving Commercial zone. Land use and development in the coastal zone should be consistent with the CLUP. • Requests that the City of Newport Beach submit an amendment to the CLUP to permit time share units. • States that the proposed project requires a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. California Coastal Commission • Proposed project is required to Section 5.3, Biological (1/16/07) meet the City of Newport Beach Resources, and 5.8, land CLUP policies for coastal Use and Planning resource protection. • Documentation of Biological resources present should be provided to determine it the area is in an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Development within the ESHA must be resource dependerrt, and development adjacent to ESHA must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. • EIR should analyze the consistency of the proposed project with the applicable policies of the CLUP and Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and address impacts accordingly. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -5 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency/Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: • Natural gas service can be provided from an existing gas Southern California Gas Company Utilities and Service main in area. Service provision is Section 5.12 Utilities and (12/18/06) Systems contingent upon contractual Service Systems arrangements and various regulatory agency conditions. • Air Quality analysis should address potential construction and long -term operational impacts. • Analysis of local air quality impacts including comparison to localized significance thresholds (LSTs) is recommended. • A mobile source health risk South Coast Air Quality Management Air Quality assessment is recommended for projects generafing/attracting Section 5.2, Air Quality Dishict (12/21/06) vehicle trips, especially heavy - duty diesel - fueled vehicles. • All feasible mitigation measures should he utilized for significant adverse air quality impacts. • EIR preparer should reference the AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, other guidance publications, and website for assistance. • Confirmed receipt of NOP and State of California, Governor's Office Not applicable noted distribution of NOP to Not applicable of Planning and Research (12/14/06) appropriate stare agencies and departments. • Recommends record search by appropriate Caltomia Historic Resource Information Center and ,archaeological inventory survey if determined appropriate by records search Native American Heritage Cultural Resources • Recommends contacting Native Section 5.4, Cultural Commission (12119/06) American Heritage Commission Resources (NAHC) for input on potential tribal resources. • Provisions should be included for potential discovery of subsurface archaeological resources or human remains. Ll L. L I u -1 I� _i J LI Page 2 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 2. Introduction Table 2 -i NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: . EIR should evaluate potential traffic circulation and increase demand on State Transportation Facilities. State of California Department of Transportation and . Requests the use of the Highway Section 5.11, Transportation (Caltrans) (1/16107) Traffic Capacity Manual (HCM) method Transportation/Traffic for analysis of traffic impacts to State Transportation Facilities. . Any activity in Cattrans' right-of- way will require an encroachment permit Island Lagoon Homeowners Noise • Concern about increased noise Section 5.9, Noise Association (Terry Smith, Community levels Manager) (1 /10/07) . Concerned about adverse effect and the following Sea Island Aesthetics on views from Sea Island/Island Section 5.1, Aesthetics Community Residents: Lagoon Community Traffic and Air Quality Concern about increase in traffic Section 5.2, Air Ouatity Section 5.11, Donna Marie Acker Donna Albertson and air quality Transportation and Traffic C.L. Alexander Steve and Kathy Anter Aesthetics 0 Potential adverse conditions due Section 5.1, Aesthetics to additional light and glare Michael & Jeanette Artenian Martha G. Beauchang (sp ?) Richard & Rita Bembe Charles & Sylvia Berreman Robert C. Browning PP and AA Cleise (sp ?) Frank C. Buckley William J. Corkett Yvette M. _ (sp ?) Louis and Christianne D'Ambrosio A. De Vito (sp ?) Mike Fussier Robert E. George Made J. Griffith William D. Griffith . Express strong opposition to Economic issues are not K. Courtenay Hawkins, Jr. General project, and concern that project will lower property values and the purview of CEQA. Linda W. Kelly lower the quality of life for Sea Specific issues addressed Suresh A. Khemlani Island community residents as noted above. James Liberty& Tiffany Ward Liberty Karen L. Lucian Amal Malek Mervat Malek Karen and Roger Mohrhoff Geral S. Moms and Gay G. Morris James and Katherine Murphy Don M. & Cynthia S. Norman Naonia Anabtauri (sp ?) 0. Don Ostler John & Erin Patton Sam P. Ponzio Enid Rice sp? ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -7 Will 2. Introduction Table 2 -1 NOP Comment Summary Commenting Agency /Person Comment Type Comment Summary Issue Addressed In: Adrienne Rosen Anne Schopick Bruce J. Schwartz Maria and Andrew Serednycky (sp ?) Robert J. Shackleton Cynthia Ann Sills Jay Adam Sills Thomas S. Tedesco Paul & Ella tllyett Alix Vincent Michael & Sue Ellen Volpe Tong Sung Yoon & Young Ku Yoon 2.8 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion will be completed as part of the Final EIR and will be completed prior to consideration of the project by the City of Newport Beach City Council. I 1 1 1 1 1 11 n 1 1 1 11 1l 1 1 1 Page 2 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 71 ' 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ' The proposed project would consist of improvements within the existing site boundary of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach located at 1107 Jamboree Road within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange ' California. The 25.7 -acre site occupies Assessor's Parcel Nos. 440- 132 -40 and 440- 132 -41 on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Figure 3 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 3 -2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site within the regional and local contexts of Orange County and the City of Newport Beach, respectively. Figure 3 -3 is an aerial photograph of the site and surrounding land uses. ' 3.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ' 3.2,1 Existing Improvements The 25.7 -acre project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. The main improvements of the hotel were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Existing improvements include 403 hotel rooms (keys) and associated hotel lobby, restaurants, a banquetfacility that consists of a 3,190- square- foot ballroom and meeting space (Terrace Ballroom), the Plaza Ballroom, an amphitheatre, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and maintenance and housekeeping sheds. The hotel rooms are located ' throughoutfour buildings. Additionally, the site contains ornamental and native landscaping, hardscape, and surface parking to support the hotel. 3.2.2 The Circulation improvement and Open Space Agreement The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach was one of 11 projects included in a 1993 development agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. The project sites are generally located east of Newport Bay and along Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway, and within Newport Center. The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) vested development rights for the individual properties in consideration of prepaid, fair -share road improvement fees, constructed road ' improvements, an interest -free loan to the City, and conveyance of approximately 140 acres of property for open space and park purposes. The value of the traffic improvements totaled approximately $20 million. Under the agreement, the Hyatt Newport received a right to expand to 479 rooms. These vested ' development rights were conveyed to the property owner, Sunstone Hotel Investors. Under the CIOSA, the approximately 140 acres of open space were dedicated to remain as either open space or natural area. The open space areas included nearly all coastal sage scrub, all salt marsh, and 95 percent of the freshwater marsh habitat existing within the 11 project sites. Included in the dedication was the natural open space that abuts the northern border of the developed Hyatt site. The CIOSA required that The Irvine Company implement certain mitigation measures, all of which have been carried out. These measures included an advance payment of fair -share fees, performance of certain frontage improvements, right -of -way dedications, and an interest -fee advance for the amount of the circulation improvements throughout the City. As of December 1998, The Irvine Company was deemed to ' have complied with all funding, frontage improvements, and circulation improvements required by the CIOSA. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -I ao 3. Project Description ' 3.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTNES The following objectives have been established for the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: 1) Expand the hotel consistent with the CIOSA to provide a total of 479 rooms. 2) Obtain a development agreement with the City to operate the new rooms as timeshare units. 3) Develop a new, larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference needs for the City of Newport Beach. 4) Develop ancillary hotel amenities, including a spa, new pool, and parking structure, to serve future hotel guests. 5) Maximize aesthetic view opportunities from existing and proposed new hotel units and facilities. 6) Provide adequate parking and circulation for the expanded facility. 7) Minimize environmental impacts associated with construction of improvements and long -term operation of the expanded facility. S) Comply with the 2006 City General Plan, and designated Zoning District and Local Coastal Plan for the project site. 9) Create an attractive, viable project, and realize a reasonable return on investment. 1 1 11 1 1 [1 1 7 u Page 3 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Project Description Regional Location Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expantion Draft E!R The Planning Center • Figure 3 -1 j 3. Project Description ' This page intentionally left blank. 1 11 H J L. L Page 3 -4 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Project Description Local Vicinity �� NOT TO S' r Hyatt Regency Newport Beach &pansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3 -2 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1 1 3. Project Description Aerial Photograph Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR NQ The Planning Center • Figure 3 -3 I 3. Project Description I. This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1 11 1 1 n LJ 3. Project Description 3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS "Project," as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, means "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1) ... enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100- 65700" (14 Cal. Code of Reg. 15378[a]). 3.4.1 Proposed Site Plan The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) would include 88 new timeshare units within seven buildings, a timeshare clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a new spa facility, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a new two -level parking garage (see Figure 3-4, Site Plan). Implementation of the proposed project would require the demolition of 12 villas, the 3,190- square -foot Terrace Ballroom, and the engineering and maintenance building (see Figure 3 -5, Demolition Plan). The total gross square footage of the existing buildings and facilities is 242,405. Upon the demolition of 19,372 gross square feet of existing building /facilities and the addition of 151,071 gross square feet of the proposed buildings/facilities, the total gross square footage of the Hyatt Regency would be 374,104. A summary of existing and proposed land uses is included in Table 3 -1. Additionally, the existing nine -hole golf course would be removed to accommodate the new timeshare units, parking areas, drive aisles, and other hardscape and landscape. The proposed project would also require 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. Table 3 -1 Existina and ProDosed Uses include the Plaza Ballroom, which will not be modified as part of the project. The net square footage is used herein as R is the basis for impact assessment Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -9 OWARWA To Be Demolished/ Net Uses after Use Existing Proposed Removed Expansion Hotel Rooms 403 0 12 391 rooms Timeshare Units 0 88 0 88 timeshare Ballrooms' 25,740 sq. ft. 11,032 sq. ft. 800 seats 3,190 sq. ft 33,582 sq. ft Spa & Fitness Building 0 10,072 sq. ft. 0 10,072 st. ft Timeshare Clubhouse 0 4,194 sq. ft. 0 4,194 sq. it Hotel. 785 parking spaces [440 surface valet spaces, 175 standard surface spaces, and 170 parking structure spaces (includes 58 valet)] Parking Not available Timeshare Units and Clubhouse: NA 912 parking spaces 127 parking spaces (80 surface spaces and 47 subterranean spaces) Total: 912 parking spaces Golf Course 9 -hole goH 9-hole golf course None course ' Building square footage figures represem'ner ballroom and meeling space and exclude prefunction service and mechanical space and also include the Plaza Ballroom, which will not be modified as part of the project. The net square footage is used herein as R is the basis for impact assessment Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -9 OWARWA 3. Project Description The majority of the hotel expansion consists of redevelopment in the northern, northwestern, and southern portions of the project site. Other upgrades would also occur in the central portion of the project site. The total area for redevelopment is approximately 14 acres, or about 55 percent of the overall 25.7 -acre project site. Seven new buildings containing a total of 88 timeshare units are proposed to be constructed over the existing nine -hole golf course and in the area where the 12 existing villas would be demolished on the northern and northwestern portions of the project site, respectively. The height of the timeshare buildings would range between two and three stories. Four of the seven buildings would include subterranean (below - grade) parking garages. Figure 3 -6, Site Sections, depicts the height relationship of the proposed buildings and structures with existing and proposed grades. As shown on Figure 3 -6, the proposed building heights would not exceed 35 feet in height. Also as shown on Figure 3 -6, the height to the top of the architectural ballroom tower would be 57 feet 6 inches feet and 62 feet 6 inches to the top of the finial (an ornamental termination of a pinnacle), which would be located on top of the arched metal roof of the tower. Typical elevations for the timeshare unit buildings are shown in Figure 3 -7, Typical Timeshare Building Elevations. A new timeshare clubhouse and an outdoor pool and spa facility are also proposed. The clubhouse and pool and spa facility would be located adjacent to the north- central timeshare buildings. A new 10,072 - square -foot building containing the spa and fitness center would be constructed in the centerof the main hotel complex. A new pool, pool deck, cabanas, and two spas would also be located adjacent to the spa and fitness center. Additionally, a new housekeeping and engineering building is proposed south of and adjacentto the existing Plaza Ballroom. The new 800 -seat ballroom facility is proposed in the southwest portion of the site. A 25,229- square -foot two -level parking garage containing 170 parking spaces is proposed just east of the proposed ballroom. Associated parking areas in the southern project boundary and along Jamboree Road (eastern boundary) would be reconfigured and enhanced with landscaping. The project site has one main entry drive, a full- access driveway that is accessed from Jamboree Road on the eastern boundary. This entry drive would remain and would be enhanced with decorative paving. The entry drive is flanked by the existing Plaza Ballroom on the south and a parking area to the north. The parking area north of the entry drive would be redesigned and enhanced with landscaping and would be gated. The valet and hotel lobby drop - off /pick -up area would also be enhanced with landscaping, decorative paving, and 45- degree parking spaces. The existing hotel currently contains two gated entry drives that provide access from Back Bay Drive along the southern and western boundaries. The gated entry along the southern portion of the project site would be reconfigured (including the removal of the gates) and realigned with the entry drive to the Bayview Senior Apartment community south of the project site, across Back Bay Drive. This entry would serve as the primary access to the new ballroom and parking structure. Two additional vehicular site entries (non - gated) would be provided along Back Bay Drive: a direct entry to surface parking adjacent to the new ballroom and a fire access road to the new timeshare units. Surface parking areas would be reconfigured and enhanced with landscaping and would be designated for self - parking and valet parking. Page 3 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 JN�Si—> r�O a r I •. � III t I i ,� I -L I I q11 I I �I `RACKBAY I I I mr.v VIEW PARK Y II I I le I III I� i BAVMEW SENIOR HOUSING I -I .I I ll- Tf:llT4��- I '-` LLL � �Rr f— iE R UNE T J1 Q gPCK BAY . 7 C+),C U1 b T _ O nim •I y r{' 'BUSTING PLAZA loll f . BALLROGM �M 1.r J t I�^y I�QI —_ LU .`.. O� - _ _ -- JAMBOREE- ; LI _ ...... Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects (Exhibit Updated November 7, 2007) Hyatt Regency Newport Buuh Expansion Draft EIR RU , i EM.0 GAPDEj • /' / r FIREM,CE89 LANE 0 1 2 V YA� PAMNG THE IRVINE COMPANY J VPROPERTY —USnW IAND9 E ocnvrtES. - --Aer.,rm�mrs$2s asp JOHN WAYNE GULCH"' —� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPERTY MODIRD BON �y iy /A \ PAIWNG --- '�---- -- - - - - - -- of —T-- _ - -- - - - - -- LENiA� EASTNO OA7E `EASEMEM ONE® PNOFFAIY GNE —A — - - - -- - ROAD -- v 3. Project Description Site Plan LEGEND: .. „..: PROPOSED OlflC3. FFFFFFFm PROPOSED a s. VAiiI EOBIERR(JiEANPAFY(91G ORIENTATION (N, S. EBW ) ate— SHEET NUMBER SITE SUMMARY 25.70 ACRES Ex1STING USES? SGUARefOGTAUES HOTELROOMS <03 KEYS W79 ALL9WE9) 9411 -RODMI 25 7Q SF MEETING SPACE (N�'II PROPOSED AOUm NiAL USES _ TIMFSHPAE UNRT 98 VNRS BALLROOMIMEETING 1t,0325F MEf) SPACE SPA I9p7x 6F ." -- TMIESHARE UNIT SUMMARY NO, OF TOTAL UNIT BF UNITS I UNIT SF iiYANA 1288 31 1 38,NO PIANS t 1298 5O PIANC 1285 5 9300 ;MNO 1,7Q.5_ 2 a10 TIMESHARE: 6,199 1 9,1969F' CLUBHOUSE' Tara.: ae 118,x95 0 200 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 3-4 ffl I 3. Project Description 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 3 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Remove Existing Ballroom i" i i� p r E6 Rb Preserve Trees 3. Project Description Demolition Plan Remove Villas and Maintenance Building ,,,YOarve �- t w t�� r' •\ Source., Lee & Sakahera Architects -"60 Remove All Improvements Within Y Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3 -5 I 3. Project Description , This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 � b1NOUF v,E yMi IIE PROPOSED NEW GMpE I - ''NANP.N�GMDE q.ghgeiEUN! �'"� t „'� �_� i- PARFONGSTR UCTURE E_l 15^ PAW(TM sl r, pIIOI UK "PROPOSED NEW OFWDE L REFERENCE UK ONLY NATDRµ GRRDE SITE SECTION B -B 1 'INiERNy Nam ww.« v++oecwEn wuy .Fi.¢i- "-- rottDeaE 3. Project Description 2 STORY 1 STORY NIO YCPE 110UF � 2 STORY IR - _MRIdE ,F7 y` i IotDFElOOF 'Rau TS- In PPE s iS1 TS-1 m ,GPaN,.N - 1 STORY � `0'p�ON�' -- wDeEQERDDE �, r✓urt�uuE� ` _ q 'E T gppp$EO NEW GiMGE y $i -- NniuPU CPnoE BALLROOM PaI K e'n ' BOiION Of EOSTI�G IIMxaIGE SVNE.iI]' SECTION C -C (TS -4) SECTION D -D (TS-5) SCALE 1/16 P -0" SCALE. 1/16 " =1' -0" Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects (Exhibit Updated January 2, 2008) Hyatt Regency Newport Heath Expansion Draft EIR Site Sections �- AK SAY DRNE KEY MAP N.T.S. 0 120 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 3 -6 .�aaaeemc 3 STORY rDSaraRDar wwd[� 3 STORY 3 STORY 1111:11's I 'P_u1F_ iflllEUK A ♦. �RiVJE Ur,E -P qp $ - . b IIII0 �PNOPO9ED(YUCE A of N5' M6 em ♦E� a'� s «: JM190REE FONp '`FUNRPLGMDE -_ PROPoSED NEW GR,EDE P.wwND R35 - _ I _ �fPMQY.1 _ EIW�MiTBNBCQN�_ `MN_Qlii_ _ _ {� 1 Pp�JL�AC MH'.. ` - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ., - - t nnPERrrue 1DMiLq«DE• PIOM=NEw 0 PIWFD NEWBRVE IMTUw 19 FAFENENDE UK ONLY SITE SECTION A -A � b1NOUF v,E yMi IIE PROPOSED NEW GMpE I - ''NANP.N�GMDE q.ghgeiEUN! �'"� t „'� �_� i- PARFONGSTR UCTURE E_l 15^ PAW(TM sl r, pIIOI UK "PROPOSED NEW OFWDE L REFERENCE UK ONLY NATDRµ GRRDE SITE SECTION B -B 1 'INiERNy Nam ww.« v++oecwEn wuy .Fi.¢i- "-- rottDeaE 3. Project Description 2 STORY 1 STORY NIO YCPE 110UF � 2 STORY IR - _MRIdE ,F7 y` i IotDFElOOF 'Rau TS- In PPE s iS1 TS-1 m ,GPaN,.N - 1 STORY � `0'p�ON�' -- wDeEQERDDE �, r✓urt�uuE� ` _ q 'E T gppp$EO NEW GiMGE y $i -- NniuPU CPnoE BALLROOM PaI K e'n ' BOiION Of EOSTI�G IIMxaIGE SVNE.iI]' SECTION C -C (TS -4) SECTION D -D (TS-5) SCALE 1/16 P -0" SCALE. 1/16 " =1' -0" Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects (Exhibit Updated January 2, 2008) Hyatt Regency Newport Heath Expansion Draft EIR Site Sections �- AK SAY DRNE KEY MAP N.T.S. 0 120 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 3 -6 I 3. Project Description ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -16 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ,wRO , I 3. Project Description Typical Timeshare Building Elevation Source: Lee 8 Sakahare Architects (Exhibit Updated September 24, 2007) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft E(R Ell - - - -- --- - --- - -- - %-- -- - - - - -- — - - - - METAL RAIUNG (TYP) MI��I 1� 1■ TILE EAST ELEVATION L T ,EANFrR(R«, TTRM GPADE (CMU W/ PLASTER) 4 1,i RIDGE LINE �. T r-- -MID SLOPE ROOF r_ + RATE LINE 2ND FL. o (,. V 1i [ F.F.L. (EL N9.00 0 32 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center a Figure 3 -7 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -12 •The Planning Center February 2008 3. Project Description 3.4.2 Infrastructure Improvements Storm Drainage Currently, drainage for the project site is via surface flow (see Figure 5.7 -2, Existing Project Site Drainage Flow). The golf course and central portion of the site drain southerly toward Jamboree Road. The western and southwestern portions of the site drain to Back Bay Drive. Off -site flows from an existing storm drain on the south side of Jamboree Road are discharged to the site near the parking lot and surface flow to a collection drain in Back Bay Drive. As shown on Figure 3 -8, Drainage Concept Plan, upon completion of drainage improvements, there would be three primary drainage areas, designated as Drainage Areas A, B and C. As shown on Figure 3 -8, improvements would include a new storm drain on the north side of Jamboree Road, which would connect to a new storm drain that would traverse the southwestern portion of the site through the parking lot and would discharge to an existing storm drain at the northwestern cornerof the site at Back Bay Drive. A system of grated inlets and curb opening catch basins at sump locations would capture and direct flows to the new drains. Flows from the north and northeastern portion of the site would be collected in a separate storm drain system that would outletto an existing concrete ditch at the northeast corner of the site. A new storm drain would also be provided along the northern portion of Back Bay Drive and would discharge into an existing public storm drain system. The East Watershed Drainage Area would be collected in new storm drainage and directed to the existing watershed to the east of the project site. As shown on Figure 3 -8, on -site water quality measures are proposed to include several best management practices (BMPs), including various media filters, bioswales, and filtration trenches. Water and Sewer Improvements Proposed water and sewer plans are shown on Figure 3 -9, Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan. A new 250 - foot -long private sewer lateral is proposed to extend from the west side of the new ballroom and parking structure to connect to the public sewer along Back Bay Drive. In addition to the private sewer, the project proposes two new private water laterals (domestic and fire) that would extend from the public water line along Back Bay Drive to the south side of the proposed ballroom for a distance of approximately 420 feet. Portions of existing public water easements and lines would be abandoned and replaced with new ease- ments and water lines to service the timeshare units and clubhouse. Existing 10 -foot easements would be replaced with 15- foot -wide easements. Similarly, two new 15- foot -wide public sewer easements and corresponding lines would be constructed to serve the timeshare buildings. The result would be a looped public system to replace the existing looped system within the site. 3.4.3 Fuel Modification and Fire Protection The project site lies within a coastal location that is highly urbanized except for avegetated area immediately north of the property adjacent to the Newport Back Bay. A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was prepared to address potential fire hazards associated with this area pursuant to the fire safety requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD)(Dudek 2007). A field assessment of factors such as topography, vegetation, fuel loading, available setback, and general susceptibility to fire was followed by fire behavior modeling. Based on the analysis, the Hyatt Regency site is considered moderately vulnerable to wildfire. The FPP demonstrates that the project will comply with specific water supply, fire flows, access, road width, turnaround, and hydrant requirements as outlined by the NBFD. Based on the site - specific risk assessment and environmental constraints for the project site, the FPP also sets forth an alternative to the standard fuel modification zone requirements in the City of Newport Beach. The Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan is shown as Figure 3 -10. Fuel Modification Zone widths for the site vary from 50 to 70 feet compared to the standard 170 feet. Areas where 70 or more feet of on and off -site fuel modification are achievable are IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 3 -19 OW:C' 3. Project Description considered adequate based on the fire behavior modeling and ignition - resistant construction requirements specified in the FPP. The following summarizes the fuel modification zones as proposed: Special Treatment Zone. Environmentally sensitive area adjacent to coastal sage scrub habitat. Landscaping vegetation shall be limited to Carex grass species or ground cover onlyfrom the NBFD fire- resistive plant list. Ground coverto be irrigated and maintained at a height of eight inches or less and free of dead plant material. No shrubs or trees to be planted in this zone. Zone A. Defensible space zone immediately adjacent to proposed structures. This zone shall include irrigated ground cover selected from the fire - resistive plant list maintained at a height not to exceed eight inches. Any shrubs or trees proposed for planting in this zone shall be in accordance with planting guidelines and spacing standards established in the NBFD Fuel Modification Standards. All combustible plant species shall be removed and the area shall be maintained free of dead and dying plant material. • Zone B. This zone lies entirely within the existing property maintenance easement north of the property boundary. This zone shall be irrigated, surface fuels shall be maintained at a height not to exceed 18 inches, and grasses shall not exceed 8 inches. All nonnative trees and shrubs shall be removed from this zone. • Zone C /D: This zone is located offsite outside of the existing maintenance easement, primarily on land owned by the city of Newport Beach. No additional landscaping is anticipated for this zone. Treatment of this zone shall include removal of all dead and dying vegetation. 3.4.4 Construction and Grading Project construction would be phased to minimize interruption of existing hotel operations and related parking and traffic considerations. Based on the general schedule as shown on Table 3 -2, it is anticipated that the proposed project would be completed within approximately 23 months from approval. The Table 3-3 summarizes the structures that would be demolished onshe. Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Timetable Building Demolition 4 m"s Site Grading and Material Export 21/2 monft Building Construction 16 mardhs Table 3 -3 Buildina Demolition Summary Building Areas . ft Height Terrace Ballroom 3,192 1 story Villas 4,545 2 stories Maintenance Building 3,932 1 story Page 3 -20 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Project Description Pursuant to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (10.28.040), construction hours would be limited to between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction would not occur on Sundays. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. Because improvements to the sewer and storm drain utilities within the Jamboree Road right -of -way would necessitate closure of up to two southbound travel lanes, construction activities associated with these improvements would likely be conducted in the evening and late night hours when background traffic levels are lower. Construction of these utility improvements is estimated to take four to six weeks to complete. Project grading would require an estimated 40,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 16,000 cy of fill material. An estimated 24,000 cy of earth material would be exported from the site. Based on a haul truck capacity of 10 cy, 2,400 total trips would be required to transport the material. Additionally, an estimated 233 cy of building material and 8,564 cy of pavement material would also require export and offsite disposal, which would equate to approximately 980 truck haul trips. At the time of preparation of this DEIR, it is anticipated that earth materials would be exported to the Frank Bowerman Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine. With the exception of any hazardous materials (e.g., potential building materials containing asbestos), the materials can be disposed of at the Frank Bowerman Landfill. Based on approximately six truck trips per hour and an eight- hour - per -day construction schedule, 48 truck trips would be generated a day. Building- and pavement - material export would require 20 days and earth material export would require an additional 50 construction days. It is anticipated that the demolition and grading phases of the project would each require 30 construction employees, and that the building construction phase would require up to 50 construction employees. Material delivery is expected to require approximately five truck deliveries perday. Table 3-4 summarizes the anticipated equipment for construction activities. Table 3-4 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -21 3, Project Description Table 3-1 the project engineer. Conceptual Construction Management Phases A, B, and C are shown in Figures 3 -11 to 3 -13, respectively. The figures show the proposed construction areas relative to construction staging and parking areas and hotel guest site access and parking. An assessment of the available parking during each construction phase is included in Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic, of this DEIR. Page 3 -22 • The Planning Center February 2008 i I 4 I� n C a,� z a�a� I Vj- aas�. s' Source: Fuscoe Engineering (Exhibit Updated November 2007) BACK BAY DRIVE R1 S. rst�3 - J/ 3. Project Description Drainage Concept Plan LEGEND --- PROJECT BOUNDARY — — SD - -- EXISTING STORM DRAIN — PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED BIO -SWALE O BIORETENTION OPPORTUNITY AREA O PERVIOUS PAVEMENT C� FILTRATION TRENCH ■ POSSIBLE MEDIA FILTER LOCATIONS (Aaual b .l w.0 p ftte m upon final a1m. Emir dOnq ) SAND FILTER GENERAL DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY �a•� PROPOSED FLOW DIRECTION 0 120 Scale (Feet) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3-8 0 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -26 • The Planning Center February 2008 Olt' FA / A n >� i, 0 Y , L) ! Source: Fuscoe Engineering (Exhibit Updated November 2007) 3. Project Description Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan V /i I 1 I � � I � II S,- v / LEGEND PROPERTY LINE W (PRIVATE)— PROPOSED PRIVATE WATER — — IN — — — PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER -� —ss (PRNAM)— PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER 5S _ PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER NOT TO SUL r Hyatt Regenry Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3 -9 ffl I 3. Project Description ' This page intentionally left blank. ' 1 1 I 1 1 Page 3 -26 • The Planning Center February 2008 3. Project Description Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE DESCRIPTIONS Special Treatment Zone: age scrub habitat. sensitive \ \ area adjacent to coastal sage scrub habitat. u3`3IHf It Zone A: Defensible space zone located immediately 1 adjacent to proposed structures. ws to ax Zone B: Within existing maintenance easement. w Zone CID: g14sAe ' ✓,� n6 ';i rter' i ' "�� � -\� � ��\ - W., NEiAIN�NG w� 1 V 1 I \ \ TS-3 l r I I � l I, r 1 V !l l � I I -- j TSB EXISTING BUILDING i I! y TO REMAIN TS-7 TS-5 Source: Dudek Y Hyatt Regent), Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3 -10 c 3. Project Description ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -28 • The Planning Center February 2008 ¢ SIRUCr� F 213:X. PARlfi61G__ _BRACES I Source: Fuscoe Engineering (Exhibit Updated November 2007) 3. Project Description Conceptual Construction Management - Phase A 193 EX. PARKING SPACFS yl CONSTRUCTION PARKING STAGING ENTER & EXIT ON BACK BAY DRIVE HOTEL GUEST PARKING WEST PARKING LOT ENTER 8 EXIT ON JAMBOREE NOT TO ScP Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3 -11 CONSTRUCTION OF I' LL, UTILITIES. VILLA BUILDINGS, PARKING 1 i. STRUCTURE & LOT CONSTRUCTION PARKING STAGING ENTER & EXIT ON BACK BAY DRIVE HOTEL GUEST PARKING WEST PARKING LOT ENTER 8 EXIT ON JAMBOREE NOT TO ScP Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 3 -11 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -30 • The Planning Center 1 February 2008 ,1 7 Source: Fuscoe Engineering (Exhibit Updated November 2007) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR 3. Project Description Conceptual Construction Management - Phase B NOT TO SCALr �� The Planning Center • Figure 3 -12 < CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITIES, VILLA BUILDINGS, PARKING STRUCTURE B LOT CONSTRUCTION PARKING STAGING ENTER & EXIT ON BACK BAY DRIVE -`{ t HOTEL GUEST PARKING WEST PARKING LOT ENTER 8 EXIT ON �-r /l[ JAMBOREE NOT TO SCALr �� The Planning Center • Figure 3 -12 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -32 • The Planning Center February 2008 3. Project Description Conceptual Construction Management - Phase C Source: Fuscoe Engineering (Exhibit Updated November 2007) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BALLROOM CONSTRUCTION PARKING/ STAGING ENTER & EXIT ON BACK BAY DRIVE VILLA & HOTEL GUEST PARKING SOUTH PARKING LOT, STRUCTURE & NORTHEAST PARKING LOT Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Ezpau rou Draft EIR The PJannW9 Center • Figure 3-13 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-34 • The Planning Center 1 1 February 2008 3 -5 INTENDED USES OF THE OR 3. Project Description This DEIR is a Project EIR as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15161. It examines the potential t environmental impacts of a specific development project, including all phases of the project: planning, demolition, construction, and operation. This DEIR is also being prepared to address various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed expansion project. It is the intent of this DEIR to ' enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for this project are as follows: ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 3 -35 �:Mj "WWWAMO 51-7 • Use Permit-to permit the expansion of the hotel, construction of the timeshare units, and to allow proposed building heights up to 35 feet • Parcel Map • Modification Permit - to allow tandem valet parking and to permit the architectural ballroom tower and finial to exceed the height limitations within ' the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. City of Newport Beach . Development Agreement - to address tax issues relating to timeshare units and to vest the project entitlements as required by Section 20.84.050 of the City's Municipal Code • Grading permits and building permits Review and approval of project-specific Water Quality Management Plan ' (WQMP) for City compliance with MS -4 Municipal Stormwater Permitting Coastal Development Permit - required for development within the Coastal ' California Coastal Commission Zone boundary • Notice of Intent (N01) to obtain permit coverage (General Construction Permit State Water Resources Control Board regulates stormwater and nonstormwater discharges associated with ' construction activities) South Coast Air Quality Management District • Permit to Construct ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 3 -35 �:Mj 3. Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -36 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 4. Environmental Setting t4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to provide, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125, a "description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and a regional perspective." The environmental setting will provide a set of baseline physical conditions that will serve as a tool from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. 4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.21 Regional Location The project site is located in the southwestern part of Orange County in the City of Newport Beach (see previous Figure 3 -1, Regional Location). Orange County is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Los ' Angeles County to the north and northwest, San Bernardino County to the northeast, Riverside Countyto the east, and San Diego County to the south. Orange County is comprised of approximately 798 square miles; it has approximately 40 miles of coastline and extends inland approximately 20 miles. The City of Newport Beach is 13,062 acres atthe southwestern edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. Generally, ' Newport Beach is bordered by Costa Mesa to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west, Irvine to the northeast, and Laguna Beach and unincorporated portions of Orange County to the southeast. ' The natural setting of Orange County provides a combination of mountains, hills, flatlands, and shoreline. Orange County lies predominantly on an alluvial plain, which is generally less than 300 feet in elevation in the west and central sections. The western portion of the County is comprised of a series of broad sloping plains ' (Downey and Tustin Plains) formed from alluvium transported from the mountains by the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, and other local streams. Several low -lying mesas interrupt the plain along the northern coast. Orange County is semienclosed by the Puente and Chino Hills to the east. The Puente and Chino ' Hills, which identify the northern limit of the plain, extend for 22 miles and reach a peak height of 1,780 feet. To the east and southeast of the plain are the Santa Ana Mountains, which have a peak height of 5,691 feet. 4.2.2 Regional Planning Considerations ' Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ' The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SCAG is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Policies and programs adopted by SCAG to ' achieve regional objectives are expressed in its Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). Some of these polices are advisory in nature. SCAG also serves as the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development ' and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. However, this project is not a project of regionwide significance pursuant to SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) criteria (SCAG 1995) and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206). The project is not a residential development of more than 500 units and, therefore, this DEIR need not address the project's consistency with the RCPG. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -1 4. Environmental Setting Airport Environs Land Use Plan The project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the John Wayne Airport (JWA). In 1975, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) that included John Wayne Airport (formerly Orange County Airport). The AELUP is the authoritative planning document for the ALUC. The ALUC is an agency authorized under state lawto assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Primary areas of concern for ALUCs are noise, safety hazards, and airport operational integrity. ALUCs are not implementing agencies in the manner of local governments, nor do they issue permits for a project such as those required by local governments. The project site is located within the AELUP for JWA and could potentially result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The AELUP for JWA contains policies governing the land uses within the JWA area. Specifically, these policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. The proposed project would be required to implement the guidelines contained in the AELUP. The project's consistency with the AELUP for JWA is analyzed in detail in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR. 4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.3.1 Project Location The project site (APNs 440- 132-40 and 440- 132 -41) is located at 1107 Jamboree Road, on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The project site has frontage on Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Previous f=igure 3 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 3 -2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site within the regional and local contexts of Orange County and the City of Newport Beach, respectively. 4.3.2 Existing Land Use The 25.7 -acre project site is owned by Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc., and is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. The hotel is situated on a north -south trending ridge along the east side of the Newport Back Bay. Current improvements include 403 hotel rooms (keys) and associated hotel lobby, restaurants, a banquet facility that consists of a 3,190- square -foot ballroom and meeting space (Terrace Ballroom), the Plaza Ballroom, an amphitheatre, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and maintenance and housekeeping sheds. The hotel rooms are located throughout four buildings. Additionally, the site contains ornamental and native landscaping, hardscape, and surface parking associated with the existing resort hotel. 4.3.3 Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses. The Palisades Tennis Club abuts the project site along the northeastern boundary. The remainder of the site's northern boundary abuts open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, which contains various biological resource areas, including native coastal sage scrub, marsh, and riparian areas. North of the preserve is the existing gated residential community of Harbor Cove, which is located on a bluff across the preserve. Jamboree Road abuts the project site along the eastern boundary. East of Jamboree is the residential community of Sea Island. Back Bay Drive abuts the project site along the southern and western boundaries. South of Back Bay Drive is the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing. Southeast of the project site is the residential community of Villa Point. Southwest and west of Back Bay Drive are the Back Bay Science Center (Shellmaker Island), Newport Dunes, and Upper Newport Back Bay, which consists of a private beach area, vehicle and boat parking areas, docks, and boating areas. These surrounding land uses are shown in previous Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. Page 4 -2 •The Planning Center February 2008 i' 4. Environmental S Please refer to Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR for a detailed discussion of existing and planned land use policies, and an analysis of land use compatibility issues. 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 4.4.1 Biological Resources ' The project site is a 25.7 -acre parcel of developed land with on -site elevations ranging between 16 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the southwestern portion of the project site to 69 feet above ms] along the northern portion of the project site. The site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a ' resort-style hotel. Mature palm trees and other ornamental trees and shrubs are found throughoutthe project site, including the golf course area and the parking lot areas. There are no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitats on -site and no native trees occur within the confines of the project boundary. The project site is developed and does not directly support native or riparian habitat, sensitive plants, or sensitive wildlife species. However, the northern boundary of the project site abuts open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, which contains various biological resource areas, including native coastal sage scrub, marsh, and riparian areas. Please refer to Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of this DEIR for ' further information concerning existing biological resources that abut the northern boundary of the project site and an analysis of project impacts on biological resources. ' 4.4.2 Climate and Air Quality The project site is located approximately 1.25 miles inland from the Orange County coast, within the western ' portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB incorporates approximately 12,000 square miles within four counties: San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange. The climate in the SoCAB is mild, tempered by cool ocean breezes. Temperatures are normally mild (620 to 72 0F), with rare extremes above 100 °F or belowfreezing (32 0F). Precipitation is typically 9 to 15 inches annually in the SoCAB. The climate of ' Orange County is typified by warm temperatures and light winds. The average monthly high temperatures range from about 52 °F in the coastal areas in January to 72 °F in the inland areas of the coastal plain in August. The average annual rainfall across the County is 14 inches, typically occurring in the winter months. ' The County's rainfall also exhibits characteristically wide variations annually, from a low of 3.6 inches to a high of 51.94 inches during the 2004 -2005 seasons, as measured from the Santiago Peak station (County of Orange, Watershed & Coastal Resources Division). ' Pollutants originating in Orange County are transported by the daytime onshore air flow and react to form ozone some distance from where the primary pollutants are emitted. The SoCAB is a "nonattainment° area for Ozone (O,), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NOS, Total Suspended Particulates (TSP), and ' Lead (Pb). Nonattainment refers to the fact that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are Violated in the region. An air quality analysis was performed for the project and the results are discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of this DEIR. ' 4.4.3 Geology and Landform The project site is located within the Newport Mesa portion of the Orange County Coastal Plain of the Central Block of the greater Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin represents the transition between the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province on the north and the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province on the south. The Transverse Ranges province is characterized by roughly east -west trending, convergent ' (compressional) deformational structural features in contrast to the predominant northwest - southeast structural trend of the Peninsular Ranges and other geomorphic provinces in California. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 4 -3 4. Environmental Setting Holocene -age alluvium and colluvium are the dominant lithology in the gentle topography found in the southern portion of the project site. The northern portion of the project site is comprised of Pleistocene -age marine and nonmarine terrace deposits underlain by marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene -age Monterey Formation. The project site is situated on a north - south - trending ridge along the east side of the Newport Back Bay. On- site elevations range between 16 feet above msl in the southwestern portion of the project site to 69 feet above msl along the northern portion of the project site. The project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone and no known faults traverse the project site. However, the project site is located in seismically active southern California (Seismic Zone 4, encompassing most of southern California). The closest known active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. The project's impacts on soils and geology are analyzed in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of this DEIR. 4.4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed. This watershed covers 13.2 square miles along the coast of central Orange County. It includes portions of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, and San Diego Creek drains into the Upper Newport Bay. The East Costa Mesa, Santa Isabel, and other smaller channels also drain into Newport Bay. More specifically, the project indirectly discharges to the Upper Newport Bay, which ultimately discharges into the Lower Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Because Upper Newport Bay currently experiences problems regarding water quality, it is listed as water quality impaired due to nutrients and sediment, pursuant to Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. As required by Section 303(d), standards for nutrients, sediment, and fecal coliforms have already been developed for the Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed. Currently, drainage for the project site is via surface flow. The golf course and central portion of the project site drain southerly toward Jamboree Road. The western and southwestern portions of the project site drain to Back Bay Drive. Off-site flows from an existing storm drain on the south side of Jamboree Road are discharged to the site near the parking lot and surface flow to a collection drain in Back Bay Drive. The project's impacts on hydrology and water quality are analyzed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this DEIR. 4.4.5 Noise Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel" (dBA). A- weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels to the frequency response of the human ear. The noise rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time - weighted, 24 -hour average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. Noise levels in the project area are influenced primarily by motor vehicle traffic on Jamboree Road, which is a steady source of ambient noise. Takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport, a commercial airport located 3.5 miles north of the project site, contribute to the intermittent aircraft noise in the project area. Please refer to Section 5.9, Noise, in this DEIR for further information concerning existing noise conditions in the project area and an analysis of this project's impacts on the local noise environment. Page 4 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 7 L ' 4. Environmental Setting ' 4.4.6 Transportation and Traffic The project site fronts Jamboree Road along its eastern boundary and Back Bay Drive along its southern and ' western boundaries. Jamboree Road is a north -south divided major arterial with three lanes in each direction. Jamboree Road terminates 0.2 mile south of the project site at Pacific Coast Highway. Back Bay Drive is a four -lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. Primary access to the project site is provided via Jamboree Road on the east. The project site also contains two gated entry drives that provide secondary access from Back Bay Drive on the southern and western boundaries. A detailed discussion of the existing traffic conditions and the project's impacts to the circulation system is provided in Section 5.8, Traffic and Circulation, of this DEIR. ' 4.4.7 Public Services and Utilities ' The project is located in an urbanized area with existing public services and utilities available to the project site. Local utilities and service systems that serve the existing hotel are available to serve the hotel expansion. Fire protection services are provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department via eight fire ' stations. Station 3, the closest station to the project site, is located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, less than 0.6 mile northeast of the project site. Law enforcement services are provided by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. Electricity and natural gas services are provided by Southern California Edison and The Gas Company, respectively. Telephone and cable services are provided by ATT and Cox Communications, respectively. Domestic and reclaimed waterservice is provided by the City of Newport Beach. Wastewater services tothe project site are provided by the City of Newport Beach and treated bythe Orange County Sanitation District. eLON Solid waste disposal is provided by the Integrated Waste Management District and Waste Management of ►►((" Orange County. For more information concerning existing public services and utilities that could be affected by this project, please refer to Sections 5.10, Public Services, and 5.12, Utilities and Services Systems, of this DEIR. 4.4.8 Applicable Local Plans City of Newport Beach General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Newport Beach is guided by the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and approved by voters in accordance with City Charter Section 423 on November 7, 2006. City Charter Section 423 requires voter approval for amendments that exceed specific development thresholds. The General Plan consists of a series of state - mandated as well as optional "elements" to direct the City's physical, social, and economic growth. Elements within the City of Newport Beach General Plan include Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates the project site as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV). Both the existing resort use and proposed expansion are consistent with this designation, which is primarily intended to provide accommodations, goods, and services to visitors to the City of Newport Beach. A full discussion of the proposed project's relationship and consistency with the General Plan is contained in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR. Hyatt Regency NeuPort Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newpm Beach • Page 4 -5 4. Environmental Setting City of Newport Beach Zoning Classification The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code ensures consistency between the City's General Plan and proposed development. The zoning code identifies land use categories, boundaries, and development standards. The project site is designated as Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) per the City's Zoning Code. The RSC zoning classification provides for areas that are predominantly retail in character but allow some service office uses. The project's consistency with the City's Zoning Code is analyzed in detail in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR. Local Coastal Program The California Coastal Act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Sections 30000 et seq.) directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the Coastal Zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the Coastal Zone. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR (July 2006), more than 63 percent of the City is located in the coastal zone. Local Coastal Programs are used to carry out the policies and requirements of the Coastal Act by local governments. Local Coastal Programs must be reviewed and certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) before being implemented by a local government. The Local Coastal Program is divided into two components: (1) a coastal land use plan (CLUP) and (2) an implementation program. The CLUP provides a technical synopsis of the resources located within the Coastal Zone. The document discusses resources in the content of a coastal zone overview; subarea description and land use plan; shoreline and coastal resource access; public recreational and visitor- serving commercial facilities; visual resources; historical and cultural resources; water and marine resources; environmentally sensitive habitats; energy facilities; water, sewer, and drainage facilities; and hazards. Issues, goals, objectives, and policies related to each of these areas are also provided. The Implementation Program provides the mechanism to implement each of the identified policies. On February 8, 2006, the Coastal Commission certified the CLUP. The next step in the certification process is the adoption of the Implementation Plan. Once certified, the City will be able to issue most Coastal Development Permits, a process currently under the jurisdiction of the CCC. The project site is located within the Local Coastal Zone of the City of Newport Beach and is thus within the jurisdictional guidance of the CCC. Project implementation is subject to the approval of a Coastal Development Permit through the CCC. The project's consistency with the Local Coastal Program is analyzed in detail in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR. 4.5 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be "...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130 (b)(1)) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources, either: (A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or Page 4 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 4. Environmental Setting (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area -wide conditions. The cumulative impact analyses contained within Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of this DEIR uses Method A, as described above for quantified impacts such as traffic impacts, and Method B for other impacts. The City of Newport Beach compiled a list of approved and reasonably foreseeable projects that are located within the project study area. Table 4 -1 provides a list of Approved Projects" that have been included by the Cityfor analysis pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The location of these projects is shown in Figure 4-1, Approved Projects — Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As noted in Table 4 -1, some of these projects have already been built. They have been included in this table for purposes of the traffic analysis. Available City traffic counts for some intersections were conducted in 2004 and 2005, prior to completion of these projects. Trip generation for these projects, therefore, was added to baseline traffic information. Other reasonably foreseeable, cumulative projects identified by the City are listed in Table 4 -2, and mapped on Figure 4 -2, Cumulative Projects. Table 4-1 roved Pro"ects (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) Project Name City Project Number Land Use(s)/Status (February 2007) Fashion Island Expansion 148 Approx.192,846 sq. ft, remaining entitlement Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 154 Building not yet completed Ford Redevelopment 157 998 units constructed, some remaining custom lots to be built Hoag Hospital Phase 11 168 Built CIOSA -Irvine Project 555 Entitlements constructed with exception of Hyatt expansion Newport Dunes 910 275 rooms remaining 1401 Dove Street 936 26,982 sq. ft office, not yet constructed Olsen Townhome Project 938 Built Bayview Landing Senior 939 Bulk 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard 941 12,500 sq. ft office space, under construction 401 Old Newport Boulevard 942 Bulk Newport Technology Center 943 Conversion of office /R &D to medical 1901 Westcliff Surgical 944 12,628 sq. tL Hoag Hospital Phase III 945 130,000 outpatient facilities, not built Newport Lexus 946 Built Birch Medical Office 947 18,885 sq. ft., built Saafar Fine Indian Cuisine 948 Improvements completed SL Mark Presbyterian 949 26,667 sq. IL church, 5,206 sq. ft school, under construction St Andrews Presbyterian 950 15,000 sq. ft., not built Corporate Plaza West 951 42,012 sq. ft., not built Mariner's Mile Gateway 952 56,000 sq. fL, not built ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City o(Newporr Beach • Page 4 -7 00 ae 4. Environmental Setting Table 4-2 Cumulative Proiects Page 4 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Project Name No. Project Location Land Use(s) /Status (February 2007) 1 South Coast Shipyard 223 211 Street 2 Mormon Temple Church 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive 17.46 TSF Our Lady Queen of Angels ssrooms Chu 18 3 2046 Mar Vista Drive 5l 250 Students 4 Mariners Church 35 TSF Health Club 5001 Newport Coast Drive 328.5 TSF Church 48.83 TSF Hearth Club 5 Exodus Community Center 83.49 TSF Church Bonita Canyon Drive and Newport Coast Drive 320 High School Students 160 Elementary Students 27.78 TSF 6 Newport Coast Development 3,180 SF Residential (954 future) Off of Newport Coast Drive 1,880 MF Residential 564 future 7 Bonita Canyon 436 Apartments Bonita Canyon Drive Newport Ridge Development 2,107 SF Residential (632 future) 8 Newport Coast Drive and Bonita Carryon Drive 1,218 MF Residential (384 future) 102.969 TSF Commercial Page 4 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Approved Projects City Project No. Project Name 148 Fashion Island Expansion 154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 157 Ford Redevelopment 168 Hoag Hospital Phase II 555 CIOSA -Irvine Project 910 Newport Dunes 936 1401 Dove Street 938 Olsen Townhome Project 939 Bayview Landing Senior 941 494/496 Old Newport St. 942 401 Old Newport Blvd. 943 Newport Technology Center 944 1901 Westcliff Surgical 945 Hoag Hospital Phase III 946 Newport Lexus 947 Birch Medical Center 948 Saafar Fine Indian Cuisine 949 St. Mark Presbyterian 950 St. Andrews Presbyterian 951 Corporate Plaza West 952 Mariner's Mile Gateway Source; EIP Associates Hyatt Regenty Newport Beath Expansion Draft EIR 4. Environmental Setting Approved Projects - .fic Phasing Ordinance 46 ^•• % 947 154 943 944 \ 168 941 945 942 950 \ 952 910939 55 148 949 951 p Jt" T,l AR 6 MNrt M The Planning Center • Figure 41 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -10 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 0 4. Environmental Setting Cumulative Projects LEGEND Project See ❑ Related Project Souroe: 01 Group L\--LJ Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • FIgUrG 42 4. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis 5.1 AESTHETICS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) describes the existing landform and aesthetic character of the project site and surrounding area and describes views of the project site from surrounding vantage points. The potential aesthetic and visual impacts resulting from implementation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) are addressed in this section. The information presented in this section is based on field reconnaissance, review of the project site and aerial photographs, and computer - generated visual simulations prepared for the project. The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. This analysis attempts to identify and objectively examine factors that contribute to the perception of aesthetic impacts. Potential aesthetic impacts can be evaluated by considering proposed grade separations, landform alteration, building setbacks, scale, massing, typical construction materials, and landscaping features associated with the design of the proposed project. It should be noted, however, that there are no defined standards or methodologies for the assessment of aesthetic impacts. Edge conditions and viewshed alterations are considered in the context of these factors, to the extent such information is known. The aesthetic compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding area and potential impacts to sensitive viewers are examined. Sensitive viewers are generally associated with viewpoints from land uses such as residential areas and public recreational uses. The potential impacts of the proposed hotel expansion on area viewsheds are typically analyzed by three viewing distance zones. • Foreground Views. These views include elements that are seen at a close distance and that dominate the entire view. These vantage points are generally 500 feet or less from the site, depending on the scale of the project, surrounding topography, and other prominent physical features in the project vicinity. • Middleground Views. These views include elements that are seen at a moderate distance and that partially dominate the view. These vantage points are generally located between 500 feet and one mile from the project site. • Background Views. These views include elements that are seen at a long distance and typically comprise horizon -line views that are part of the overall visual composition of the area. These vantage points are generally farther than one mile from the project site. These distance zones have been used to assess the aesthetic compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding area and potential impacts to sensitive viewers. In the project area, sensitive viewers consist of residential areas to the south, east, and north of the project site. Passing motorists along Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive are also considered. Other potential effects of the juxtaposition of the existing and proposed land uses are also considered in the discussion of land use compatibility contained in Section 5.5, Land Use and Planning. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.1 -1 S. Environmental Analysis AEs- rHETICS 5.1.1 Environmental Setting Environmental Context Visual Character The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. The 25.7 -acre project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. Current improvements include 403 hotel rooms (keys) and associated hotel lobby, restaurants, a banquet facility that consists of a 3,190- square -foot ballroom and meeting space (Terrace Ballroom), the Plaza Ballroom, an amphitheatre, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and maintenance and housekeeping sheds. The hotel rooms are located throughout four buildings. Additionally, the site contains ornamental and native landscaping, hardscape, and surface parking associated with the existing resort hotel. The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses (shown on Figure 33, Aerial Photograph). The Palisades Tennis Club abuts the project site along the northeastern boundary. The remainder of the site's northern boundary abuts open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, which contains various biological resource areas, including native coastal sage scrub, marsh, and riparian areas. North of the preserve is the existing gated residential community of Harbor Cove, which is located on a bluff across the preserve. Jamboree Road abuts the project site along the eastern boundary. East of Jamboree is the residential community of Sea Island. Back Bay Drive abuts the project site along the southern and western boundaries. South of Back Bay Drive is the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing. Southeast of the project site is the residential community of Villa Point. Northwest of Back Bay Drive are the Back Bay Science Center (Shellmaker Island) and Newport Back Bay. West of Back Bay Drive is the Newport Dunes, which consists of a private beach area, vehicle and boat parking areas, docks, and boating areas. Landform /Topography The project site is located within the Newport Mesa portion of the Orange County Coastal Plain of the Central Block of the greater Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin represents the transition between the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province on the north and the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province on the south. The Transverse Ranges province is characterized by roughly east -west- trending, convergent (compressional) deformational structural features in contrast to the predominant northwest - southeast structural trend of the Peninsular Ranges and other geomorphic provinces in California. The project site is situated on a north - south- trending ridge along the east side of the Newport Back Say. The site is comprised of gentle topography. Beginning at the nine -hole golf course, which forms the project's northern boundary, the surface elevation gradually slopes down to Back Bay Drive, which forms the project's southern and western boundaries. On -site elevations range between 16 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the southwestern perimeter to 69 feet above msl in the northern perimeter. Light and Glare The existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach generates nighttime light in the project area from the lighting of the hotel structures and facilities, the on -site paths, walkways and recreational areas, and the parking lot areas. In addition, much of the project area is subject to nighttime light from surrounding uses such as roadways (Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive) and local development (Palisades Tennis Club, Harbor Cove, and Sea Island residential communities; Bayview Landing Senior Apartments; Newport Dunes; and Back Bay Science Center). None of the existing on -site facilities or structures is constructed with reflective building materials. Page 5.1 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS ' Regulatory Background Local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are ' summarized below. Local City of Newport Beach General Plan Visual resources are addressed in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan. The General ' Plan acknowledges the unique physical setting of the City, which offers views of the rolling green hills, Crystal Cove State Park, spectacular ocean views to the southwest, including ocean and bay open waters, sandy beaches, rocky shore, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. The City has historically been sensitive ' to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing areas. The City's development standards, including bulk and height limits, have helped preserve scenic views and regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the visual scale and unique character of the City. Of particular application to the proposed project are Goal LU 5.2, Commercial Districts, and Goal NR 20, Preservation of Significant Visual Resources, of the General Plan Land Use and Natural Resources Elements, ' respectively. The goals are supported by the following policies: LU 5.2.1 Architecture and Site Design (page 3 -55). Require that new development within existing ' commercial districts centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in consideration of the following principles: 93 • Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free - standing building ' • Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest • Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures ' • Treatment of the ground floor of buildings to promote pedestrian activity by avoiding long, continuous blank walls, incorporating extensive glazing for transparency, and modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest ' • Clear identification of storefront entries • Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character • Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with commercial buildings, ' including the incorporation of retail in the ground floors where the parking structure faces a public street or pedestrian way • Extensive on -site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers • Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities • Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to ' adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscape, wayfinding signage, and so on) • Integration of building design and site planning elements that reduce the ' consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -3 93 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources (page 10 -36). Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. (General Plan Figure NR3, Coastal Views, has been reproduced in this section as Figure 5.1 -1, General Plan - Designated Coastal Views) NR 20.2 New Development Requirements (page 10 -36). Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. NR 20.3 Public Views (page 10 -36). Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the future: • Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway • Back Bay Drive • Balboa Island Bridge • Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive • Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay • Coast Highway /Santa Ana River Bridge • Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange • Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bayshores) • Coast Highway /Newport Bay Bridge • Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive • Coast Highway from Pelican Point Drive to city limits • Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Backbay Drive • Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive • Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive /University Drive to Bayview Way • Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park • Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive • Lido Isle Bridge • MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway • Marguerite Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Fifth Avenue • Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido • Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive E/W to Farallon Drive /Granville Drive • Newport Coast from Pelican Hill Road North to Coast Highway • Ocean Boulevard • Pelican Hills Road South • San Joaquin Hills Road from Newport Ridge Drive to Spyglass Hill Road • San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard • State Route 73 from Bayview Way to the easterly City limit • Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway • University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana —Delhi Channel • Vista Ridge Road from Ocean Heights to Altezza Drive NR 20.4 Public View Corridor Landscaping (page 10.39). Design and site new development, including ' landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. Page 5.1 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS NR 20.5 Public View Corridor Amenities (page 10 -39). Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. Goals NR 21 through NR 23 apply to minimizing the visual impact of signs and utilities, maintaining an intensity of development consistent with the City's character, and assuring that development respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Existing regulations specifically applicable to lighting and architectural features for the proposed project include the following Chapters of the City's Zoning Code, Title 20 of the Municipal Ordinance: Chapter 20.60, Sight Regulations • Section 20.60. 050, Outdoor Lighting, includes provisions for the type of illumination of light fixtures associated with swimming pools, tennis courts, or other uses of similar nature. Chapter 20.65, Height Limits • Section 20.65.040, Height Limitation Zones, (C) 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone, includes specific requirements for the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone in which the project site is located. • Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, (A) Architectural Features, includes provisions on the allowance of architectural features to exceed the height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. 88 • Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, (1) Light Standards, includes provisions on light - standard heights associated with light fixtures for parking lots, athletic fields, and other similar outdoor areas. Local Coastal Program Chapter 4.4 of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) includes scenic and visual resources policies, including coastal view protection, bulk and height limitations, natural landform protection, and sign and utility regulations. Where feasible, the scenic and visual qualifies 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. Segments of Jamboree Road are also specified in this policy, but do not include the segment fronted by the project site (between Back Bay Drive and Newport Center Drive). Shoreline Height Limitation Zone Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970s that established more restrictive height and bulk development standards around the bay, The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the character and visual scale of Newport Beach. The Hyatt Regency site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, where new development is limited to a height of 35 feet. Residential development is limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and nonresidential development is limited to a height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights up to 32 feet are permitted within the planned community districts through the adoption of a speck plan or approval of a use permit. Additional information and a delineation of the City's Height Limitation Zones are included in Section 5.8, Land Use, of this DEIR. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1-5 5. Environmental Analysis AUsTaerres Height limitations and massing are also addressed in Section 4.4.2, Bulkand Height Limitation, of Chapter4 of the CLUP. 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. 4.4.2 -2 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Floor Area Ratios Floor areas are strictly limited citywide. In the coastal zone, residential development is limited to floor areas ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 times the buildable area of the parcel (the land minus required setback yards), which typically translates to actual floor area ratios of 0.95 to 1.35. Nonresidential development floor area ratios range from 0.30 to 1.25. The Coastal Land Use Plan Map designates the project site as Visitor- Serving Commercial B (CV -B). Development intensity for the "B" designation ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 1.25. Page 5.1 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 COM ft'. y s r Source: EIP Associates �t. _J i <t 0 EAF. r- nCIFIC 5. Environmental Analysis General Plan — Designated Coastal Views 111YIMF CRY,., COVE 2.11 PARR Legend Wlc View Point 40%0 Coastal view Road Shoreline Urnitatlon Zone Height �i City Boundary 0 County Scale (Miles) Hyatt Regenq Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.1 -1 5. Environmental Analysis AES -Hm(:S This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -8 • The Planning Center Februaty 2008 5. Environmental Analysis AFsT'mrrics 5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: AE -1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. AE -2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. AE -3 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant: AE -2. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.1.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement IMPACT 5.1 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOTHAVEASUBSTANT IALADVERSEEFFECT ON SCENIC VISTAS OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE PROJECT SITE. (THRESHOLDS AE -1 AND AE -31 Impact Analysis: The 25.7 -acre project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. Project implementation would intensify on -site land uses by removing open space (nine- hole golf course) and introducing new structures (including seven newtimeshare unit buildings, a new 800 - seat ballroom, and a two -story parking structure). The majority of the hotel expansion would consist of redevelopment in the northern, northwestern, and southern portions of the project site. Other upgrades would also occur in the central portion of the project site. Figure 3-6, Site Sections, depicts the height relationship of the proposed buildings and structures with existing and proposed grades. Typical elevations for the timeshare unit buildings are shown in Figure 3 -7, Typical Timeshare Building Elevation. As shown on Figures 3 -6 and 3 -7, the proposed building heights would not exceed 35 feet in height. Also as shown on Figure 3 -6, the height to the top of the architectural ballroom tower would be 57 feet 6 inches feet and 62 feet 6 inches to the top of the finial (an ornamental termination of a pinnacle), which would be located on top of the arched metal roof of the tower. Grading, landscaping (which includes the removal and relocation of existing trees), and lighting would also be modified. The total area for redevelopment is approximately 14 acres, or about 55 percent of the overall 25.7 -acre project site. The project site is situated on a north - south - trending ridge along the east side of the Newport Back Bay. The site is characterized by gentle topography. Beginning at the nine -hole golf course, which forms the project's northern boundary, the surface elevations gradually slope down southerly and westerly to Back Bay Drive, which forms the project's southern and western boundaries. Views of the project site from the land uses and roadways beyond the southern, northern, and western boundaries are provided due to the gentle upward sloping of the project site from the southern boundary to the northern boundary and due to the grade differences and elevations of the surrounding land uses. The visual features of the project site include the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach E: paimon Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb *Page 5.1 -9 S. Environmental Analysis AESTRETICS hotel structures and associated ancillary buildings, parking areas, the golf course, and the dense and mature landscaping. Also visible would be the architectural projections of the ballroom tower and finial. Potential viewers of the project site include residents, local travelers, and commuters on the surrounding streets. The City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program focus on the protection of public views as described above in Section 5.1.2, Applicable Plans and Regulations. Pursuantto General Plan Policy NR 20.3 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. Views of the project site from vantage points beyond residential communities such as Castaway Park and Back Bay Park are limited because of the buffer created by the dense and mature landscaping along the southern and western project perimeters and, more importantly, because of the distance between these vantage points and the project site. Visual simulations were created to illustrate pre- and postdevelopmentviews. The visual simulations shown in Figures 5.1 -2 through Figure 5.1 -11, Visual Simulation 1 through 9, demonstrate the visual impact of the proposed hotel expansion. Page 5.1 -10 •The Planning Center February 2008 Existing View 5A Proposed View 5A (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 5A (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyatt Regency Newport Bearb Expansion Draft EIR 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 5A View from Back Bay Drive o aoo Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-8 5. Environmental Analysis AasrxErics This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Existing View 1 Proposed View 1 (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 1 (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyatt Regency Natport Beach Expansion Draft EIR 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation I View from Jamboree Road o aoo Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-2 LOA, Existinq View 2 Proposed View 2 (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 2 View from walking trail o aoo Scale (Feet) Hyatt Regency Neruport Beath Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure S.1 -3 �3 5. Environmental Analysis AFSTHFTIGs This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -16 * The Planning Center February 2008 txistmg View 3 Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 3 View from Back Bay Drive o soo Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-0 r View 4 (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 4 (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering 1 Hyatt Regency Neuport Beach Expansion Draft EIR S. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 4 View from Castaways Park a 2,000 T Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1 -5 FWW L I 7 r Existing View 5A Proposed View 5A (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 5A (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineenng Hyatt Regency Newport Beaeb Expansion Draft E[R 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 5A View from Back Bay Drive o aoo Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.7 -6 5. Environmental Analysis ' AESTHETICS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -20 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Existing View 5B Proposed View 5B (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 5B (5 -year landscaping) 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 5B View from Back Bay Drive o aoo T Scale (Feet) Source: Fusco &Engineering __ -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - — - -- 1Gc Pl2nning Center • Figure 5.1 -7 Existing View 6 :d View -i aping at installation) Y: lN.:. Proposed View 6 (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyatt Reg ncy Newport Bearb Expansion Draft EIR S. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 6 View from Back Bay Drive 0 aao Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1-8 Existing View 7 Proposed View 7 (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 7 (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyatt Regency Newport Bearb Expansion Draft ETR 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 7 View from Jamboree Road o soo M Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1 -9 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -30 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 •o..+.. b�eme »mo. •• =mil /,m(^ \ \ \a IRV Exisf nq View 8 c r. "W.CnaC,ttut ZI natysis Visual Simulation S Proposed View 8: (landscaping at installation) Proposed View 8 (5 -year landscaping) Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expanrion Urafr ElR ` -_ •- .��..�- r -..-.- :Irk - - r a eta i • • .��,� L IA ­•• I will caoR Day nark =00 Scale (Feet) 7Gr Ylrnning Crruer Figure 5.1 -10 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHE ics This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -30 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Existing View 9 1; Proposed View 9 (landscaping at installation) Source: Fuscoe Engineering Hyau Regency Newport Beach Exparuion Draft ElR 5. Environmental Analysis Visual Simulation 9 View from intersection of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road 0 300 T Scale (Feel) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1 -11 FWW 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS The following is a discussion of each visual simulation and the visual change that would occur at each of the identified view locations as a result of the proposed hotel expansion. Visual Simulation 1. This visual simulation depicts a portion of the project's northeastern boundary looking west over the Palisades Tennis Club and into the project site from across Jamboree Road. Although some segments of Jamboree Road are designated as Coastal View Roads in the City's General Plan, the segment thatfronts the project site is not. As apparent in Figure 5.1 -2, there are no coastal views at this location on Jamboree Road. Upon project implementation, the visible portion of the existing golf course would be removed and replaced with multistory timeshare buildings. The landscape scheme along the Jamboree Road project edge includes existing dense and mature trees and shrubs and would include additional trees. The landscape scheme would soften the urban edge and would substantially minimize the visibility of the proposed timeshare buildings. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. Visual Simulation 2. This visual simulation depicts distant views of a portion of the project's northern boundary and middle- and foreground views of the open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area. This simulation is looking south toward the project site from the walking trail and the Harbor Cove community, on the bluff north of the project site across the Newporter North Environmental Study Area. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, the visible portion of the existing golf course would be removed and replaced with multistory timeshare buildings; however, impacts to the viewshed from these vantage points would be less than significant due to the distance. Additionally, the landscape scheme along the northern project edge includes existing dense and mature landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme AA would help soften the features and massing of the proposed timeshare buildings and would help ` minimize the visibility of the buildings. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. ' • Visual Simulation 3. This visual simulation depicts distant views of a portion of the project's northern boundary and middle- and foreground views of the open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area. This simulation is looking southeast toward the project site from Back Bay Drive. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, a small portion of the visible ridgeline would be ' developed with multistory timeshare buildings; however, impacts to the viewshed from this vantage point would be less than significant due to the substantial distance. Additionally, the landscape scheme along the northern project edge would include existing dense and mature landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme would help soften the features and massing of the proposed timeshare buildings and would help minimize the visibility of the buildings. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. ' Visual Simulation 4. This visual simulation depicts distant views of the project's western boundary, foreground views of the Newport Dunes water features and recreation areas, middleground views of urban development within Newport Beach, and background views of the Santa Ana Mountains and ' sky. This simulation is looking easttoward the project site from Castaways Park. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, existing landscaping would be removed and replaced with several multistory timeshare buildings and a new ballroom structure; however, impacts to the viewshed from this ' vantage point would be less than significant due to the substantial distance. Additionally, the landscape scheme along the western project edge includes existing dense and mature landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme would help soften the features ' and massing of the proposed timeshare buildings and ballroom structure and would help minimize the visibility of these structures. Furthermore, the hotel expansion would be introducing structures in an already urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. The project's buildings would be similar in Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newpoa Beach #Page 5.1 -31 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS size if not smaller than the buildings of the surrounding and nearby existing development. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. Visual Simulation 5A. This visual simulation depicts a portion of the project's northwestern boundary and the roadway and landscaping improvements along Back Bay Drive. This simulation is looking northeast toward the project site from across Back Bay Drive. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, existing landscaping would be removed and replaced with multistory timeshare buildings. Although the proposed buildings would be more prominent along this view shed, the buildings would be designed to complement the existing surrounding architecture, including the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing (see Figure 5.1 -10) south of the project site across Backbay Drive. Additionally, the landscape scheme along the western project edge includes existing landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme would help soften the features and massing of the proposed timeshare buildings and would help minimize the visibility of these buildings. Furthermore, the removal of mature landscaping and the height of the proposed timeshare building would provide for an increased view of the skyline in comparison to the view currently provided from this vantage point. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. Visual Simulation 5B. This visual simulation depicts a portion of the project's western boundary and the roadway and landscaping improvements along Back Bay Drive. This simulation is looking east toward the project site from across Back Bay Drive. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, existing landscaping and one of the hotel's structures would be removed and replaced with a multistory timeshare building. Although the proposed buildings would be more prominent along this view shed then the existing villas to be demolished, the buildings would be designed to complement the existing surrounding architecture, including the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing (see Figure 5.1 -10) south of the project site across Backbay Drive. Additionally, the landscape scheme along the western project edge includes existing landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme would help soften the features and massing of the new timeshare building and would help minimize the visibility of these buildings. Furthermore, the removal of mature landscaping and the height of the timeshare building would provide for an increased view of the skyline in comparison to the view currently provided from this vantage point. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. Visual Simulation 6. This visual simulation depicts a portion of the project's southwestern boundary and the roadway improvements of Back Bay Drive. This simulation is looking northeast toward the project site from across Back Bay Drive. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, minimal existing landscaping and the existing Terrace Ballroom would be removed and replaced with a new ballroom facility. Although the proposed ballroom facility and its architectural tower would be more prominent along this view shed then the existing Terrace Ballroom, the facility would be designed to complement the surrounding architecture, including the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing (see Figure 5.1 -10) south of the project site across Backbay Drive. Additionally, the landscape scheme along the southwestern project edge includes existing dense and mature landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme would help soften the features and massing of the proposed ballroom structure and would help minimize the visibility of the structure. Furthermore, the existing driveway shown in this simulation would be removed and replaced with landscaping. The additional landscaping, which includes trees, shrubs and groundcover, would help soften the urban edge. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. • Visual Simulation 7. This visual simulation depicts foreground views of Jamboree Road, middle - ground views of the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments and the southern boundary of the Hyatt Page 5.1 -32 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 -1 I I I P 1 II 1 F 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Regency Newport Beach, and background views of the mountains and sky looking north toward the project site from Jamboree Road. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, a portion of the hotel's existing surface parking area would be removed and replaced with a newtwo-story parking structure and the proposed architectural ballroom tower would also be visible from this view shed. As shown in this simulation, the top level of the parking structure would be visible from this vantage point upon its completion and the initial installation of the landscaping installation. However, after a period of five years, the landscaping installed would grow to maturity and would significantly minimize the visibility of the parking structure. The existing landscaping would also help soften the structure's Visibility. Although the architectural ballroom tower would be visible from this view shed, the tower would be designed to complement the architecture of the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing as shown in this simulation. Additionally, impacts to the viewshed from this vantage point would be less than significant due to the substantial distance and the existing height of the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. Visual Simulation 8. This visual simulation depicts foreground views of the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments; middleground views of the Newport Dunes, hillside development, and the southern boundary of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach; and background views of the sky. This simulation is looking north toward the project site from Back Bay Park. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, a portion of the hotel's existing surface parking area would be removed and replaced with a new two -story parking structure. The proposed architectural ballroom tower and the rooftop of one of the timeshare buildings would also be visible from this view shed. As shown in this simulation, the top level of the parking structure would be visible from this vantage point upon its completion and the initial installation of the landscaping installation. However, after a period of five years, the landscaping installed would grow to maturity and would significantly minimize the visibility of the parking structure as shown in the visual simulation. The existing landscaping would also help soften the structure's visibility. Impacts to the viewshed from this vantage point would be less than significant due to the substantial distance. Although the architectural ballroom tower and the rooftop of one of the timeshare buildings would be visible from this view shed, the features would be designed to complement the architecture of the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing as shown on this simulation. Additionally, the proposed parking structure would be similar in size if not smaller than the buildings of the surrounding and nearby existing development. Furthermore, impacts to the view shed from this vantage point would be less than significant due to the existing height of the Bayview Landing Senior Apartments. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. Visual Simulation 9. This visual simulation depicts a portion of the project's southeastern boundary and the roadway improvements of Back Bay Drive. This simulation is looking northwest toward the project site from across Back Bay Drive south of the project site. As demonstrated in this visual simulation, the proposed parking structure and ballroom would be introduced into the hotel's southern parking area. Additionally, a new access drive into the project site would be provided along Back Bay Drive. The landscape scheme along the southern project edge includes existing dense and mature landscaping and would include additional landscaping. The landscape scheme would help soften the features and massing of the proposed parking and ballroom structures, minimize the visibility of these structures, and soften the urban edge. As a result, no significant visual impact is anticipated. As demonstrated in the visual simulations and visual simulation analysis, expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel would not have a substantial adverse affect on scenic vistas or substantially alter the visual appearance of the project site or surrounding area. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.1 -33 evo 5. Environmental Analysis A sTxerics IMPACT 5.1 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATEADDITIONAL NIGHTTIME LIGHT AND GLARE. [THRESHOLD AE -41 Impact Analysis: The project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach and generates nighttime light and glare. Additionally, a significant amount of ambient lighting from surrounding land uses already exists. Expansion of the hotel would result in additional lighting, which would increase nighttime light and glare in the project area. The light sources proposed for the hotel expansion are similar to those of the existing hotel and the surrounding land uses. More specifically, additional lighting would be required to provide nighttime illumination for the proposed timeshare buildings, ballroom and ancillary structures, internal drive aisles and walkways, and parking areas. Nighttime illumination would also be used to highlight building design and landscape features and to create a feeling of security and safety. Other sources of light would include security lighting, minimal nighttime traffic, and light associated with the nighttime use of the timeshare units and hotel's recreational facilities, such as the timeshare clubhouse and pool and fitness center. The City of Newport Beach does not have a lighting ordinance specifying the maximum amount of light that may be generated by new projects. However, the City does have adopted policies and standards that apply to the installation and illumination of light fixtures. Land Use Policy 5.6.3 of the City's General Plan requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significant increase in the overall ambient illumination. Additionally, existing municipal code regulations require that light be shielded and confined within the site boundaries to prevent spillage. Furthermore, pursuant to existing City of Newport Beach Standard Lighting Condition 1, lighting would be required to be confined to the project site so that adjacent properties are protected from spillover light and glare. Consistent with Standard Lighting Condition 3, the applicant is required to submit an electrical engineer's photometric study prior to the issuance of building permits to demonstrate that lighting requirements are met. The lights associated with the hotel expansion would be directed toward the interior of the site so as not to create impacts to motorists on Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. All exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on -site, in accordance with Land Use Policy 5.6.3 of the City's General Plan and Standard Lighting Condition 1, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and /or roadways. The lighting plan for the proposed project is provided in Figure 5.1 -12. The existing parking area light poles shown in Figure 5.1 -12 would be removed and replaced with modern light poles. The existing light poles are not designed with cutoff features that help cast light downward; therefore, they allow light spillage. The proposed parking area light poles would be designed with full cut -off designs (downcast) and oriented in a manner that would minimize light spillage or glare off of the project site. The combination of smooth contours and sharp rear reveals allow the light fixture of the proposed light poles to change character from different viewing angles while providing excellent low -glare photometrics. These light poles would be designed with single, dual, ortriple heads (see Figure 5.1 -12) and a maximum illumination of 0.2 to 1 footcandle, would be 25 feet in height, and would have an effective projected area (EPA) of approximately two to four square feet. The proposed light poles are dark -sky compliant and would only be located within the existing and proposed parking areas. The proposed parking area light poles and their locations are illustrated in Figure 5.1 -12, and are referenced as BM2 on the lighting plan. F [1 I 1 I U C I I Page 5.1 -34 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 II II Existing light poles to be removed and replaced with BM2s ' Source: Lee 8 Sakahata Architects r ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR �Py w M4, t �. m•e 1,ira �,,., � °i.��. Y Y ..A IIII � oRNC two i a �. a {y_P' _ �i fLJ i. w �•I..r .I"� or 1 JAMBORF-L_ W� l)IW .T 1 .. tpl wi a'i r PI �3 .w h iY,W„ /s born t i i I AQAD 5. Environmental Analysis Lighting Plan 0 100 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 5.1 -12 5. Environmental Analysis AEESrtter,Cs This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.1 -36 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS ' Lighting within the project site would also consist of decorative light poles. The proposed decorative light poles would be designed with full cut -off designs (downcast) and oriented in a mannerthat would minimize light spillage or glare off of the project site. These light poles would be designed with a single head (see ' Figure 5.1 -12) and a maximum illumination of two footcandles, would be 14feet in height, and would have an EPA of approximately two square feet. These light poles are dark -sky compliant and would be located within the parking areas and along drive aisles and pedestrian walkways. The proposed tight poles and their ' locations are illustrated in Figure 5.1 -12, and are referenced as BM on the lighting plan. Athird source of lighting within the project site would consist of ground- mounted ortree - mounted accent lights. The proposed accent lights would be designed with internal and /or external glare control and would be oriented in a manner that would minimize light spillage or glare off of the project site. These light fixtures would be ' installed to highlight architectural and landscaping design features/elements throughout the project site. The proposed accent lights and their locations are illustrated in Figure 5.1 -12, and are referenced as LM1 and LM2 on the lighting plan. ' Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security, while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas. Parking area lighting would be the minimum necessary that is consistent with the City's ' Municipal Code. Additionally, since the project site is largely developed, the lighting associated with improvements and structures of the proposed hotel expansion would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the project area. ' With implementation of Land Use Policy 5.6.3 and project compliance with the municipal code regulations regarding lighting, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover of the proposed hotel expansion would be less than significant. %M"W ' Potential indirect impacts to biological resources from nighttime lighting are discussed in Section 5.3, � Biological Resources, of this DER. 5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 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 to the creation of nighttime light and glare in the project vicinity. Lighting levels would not be substantially greater than existing lighting levels at the project site. As shown in previous Figures 4.1 and 4.2, the only cumulative project in the ' immediate facility yet to be constructed is the Newport Dunes project (potentially an additional 275 rooms). Lighting from the proposed project would not combine with the potential increase in lighting associated with the future intensification of the Newport Dunes facility to substantially increase light and glare. 5.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Existing Regulations ' City of Newport Beach Zoning Code ' • Chapter 20.60, Sight Regulations, Section 20.60.050, Outdoor Lighting. • Chapter 20.65, Height Limits, Section 20.65.040, Height Limitation Zones, (C) 26135 Foot Height Limitation Zone. ' • Chapter 20.65, Height Limits, Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, (A) Architectural Features. Hyatt Regemy Newport Beach Expanrim Draft EIR City of Newport Beach 0 Page 5.1 -37 S. Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS • Chapter 20.65, Height Limits, Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, (1) Light Standards. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City standard conditions would apply to the proposed project: • Standard Lighting Condition 1. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero - cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 26 feet in height. • Standard Lighting Condition 2. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director mayorderthe dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. • Standard Lighting Condition 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. • Standard Lighting Condition 4. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 5.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant on a project- specific and cumulative basis: 5.1 -1 and 5.1 -2. 5.1.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 5.1 -38 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis 5.2 AIR QUALITY This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) to impact air quality in the local and regional context. The analysis in this section is based on air quality analysis completed by The Planning Center in November 2007.The air quality model output sheets are included in Appendix C of this DEIR. 5.2.1 Environmental Setting Meteorological Conditions The project area lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County as well as the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The air basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies Tittle throughout the 6,645- square -mile SoCAB, ranging from the low 60s to the high 80s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The rVN Western Regional Climate Center maintains historical climate information for the western U.S. The closest meteorological monitoring station to the City of Newport Beach, monitored by the Western Regional Climate Center, is the Newport Beach Harbor Monitoring Station. The average low is reported at 48 °F in December and January, and the average high is 73 °F in August (Western Regional Climate Center 2006). In contrastto avery steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 11.78 inches per year in the project area (Western Regional Climate Center 2006). Humidity Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth's surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the "ocean effect" is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent; and low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB. Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -1 5. Environmental Analysis AIR Qu uu ry Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high - pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, down -slope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting their eastward transport. Air quality in the SoCAS generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollu- tant transport, there are two types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine /subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria air pollutants are those that are regulated by federal and state law, and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NO,), sulfur dioxide (SO,) and most fine particulate matter (PM,, and PM2,J, lead (Pb), and fugitive dust are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, PM,,, and PMas are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O� and nitrogen dioxide (NOO are the principal secondary pollutants. Presented below is a description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects. Other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, a natural by- product of animal respiration that is also produced in the combustion process, have been linked to such phenomena as global warming. These emissions are unregulated and there are no thresholds for their release. These pollutants do not jeopardize the attainment status of the SoGAB. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds comprised primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROG that form secondary pollutants such as ozone. Page 5.2 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 II ' 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY ' Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), NO is a colorless, odorless gas ' formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and /or high pressure. NO, is a reddish -brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOx acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. ' Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a by- product of fuel combustion. The principal form of NO, produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO, commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At ' atmospheric concentrations, however, NO, is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO, absorbs blue light resulting in a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO, also contributes to ' the formation of PM,, (particulates having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns, or 0.0004 inch, or less in diameter) and ozone. Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. Fuel combustion is the primary source of S02. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO, may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO, may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. A primary source of SO2 emissions is high sulfur- content coal. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and hence do not release significant quantities of S02. Particulate Matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM,,, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 one - millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM,.,, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e,, 2.5 one- millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on and landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading. Both PM,, and PM,, may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptibleto breathing problems. Fugitive dust primarily poses two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that of respiratory problems attributable to the particulates suspended in the air. Diesel particulates are classified by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) as a carcinogen. The second concern is that of motor vehicle accidents caused by reduced visibility during severe wind conditions. Fugitive dust may also cause significant property damage during strong windstorms because it is an abrasive (much like sandblasting). Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling of proximate structures and vehicles. Ozone (O,), or smog, is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when ' reactive organic compounds (ROC) and NOx (both by- products of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. O, is present in relatively high concentrations in the SoCAB, and the damaging effects of photo- chemical smog are generally related to the concentrations of 03. O, poses a health threat to those who u already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people and has been tied to crop damage — typically in the form of stunted growth —and premature death. 03 can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -3 CV S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Toxic Air Contaminants The public's exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC Sec. 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics "Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an 'airborne toxics control measure" for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T -BACT) to minimize emissions. CARB has, to date, established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all of which are identified as having no safe threshold. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics "HotSpot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AS 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High - priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, 4 specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. To date, CARB has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. Additionally, it has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, one of the most important in the southern California being particulate matter from diesel - fueled engines. In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel - fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in the diesel exhaust were considered as TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 2000, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAOMD) conducted a study on ambient concen- trations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer caused by a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the risk. Global Climate Change Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Climate change refers to the variation of the Earth's climate over time, whether due to natural variability or a result of human activities. The climate system is an interactive system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, hydrosphere (ocean, rivers and lakes), cryosphere (sea ice, ice sheets, and glaciers), land surface, the biosphere (flora and fauna). The earth's atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing Page 5.2 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY . part of the system. It is composed of 78.1 percent nitrogen (N,), 20.9 percent oxygen (O,), and 0.93 percent argon (Ar). These gases have only limited interaction with the incoming solar radiation and do not interact with ' infrared (long -wave) radiation emitted by the Earth. However there are a number of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide (COQ, methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (N.0), and ozone (Oa) that absorb and emit infrared radiation and therefore have an affect on the Earth's climate, These trace gases are defined as greenhouse gases (GHG), and while they comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total volume mixing ratio in dry air, they ' play an essential role in influencing the Earth's climate (IPCC 2001). Nan -CO, GHG include those listed in the Kyoto Protocol' (CH„ N,O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFC], perfluom- ' carbons IPFC), and sulfur hexafluoride [SHJ)and those listed under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendmentsa (chlorofluorocarbons [CFC], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFC], and halons). Table 5.2 -1 lists a selection of some of the GHG and their relative global warming potential (GWP), compared to CO2. Although not included in this table, water vapor (HO) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant in the atmosphere (IPCC 2001). A brief description of the major GHG is described below. Table 5.2 -1 Greenhouse Gases and their Relative Global Warming Potential GHG Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential Relative to CO2' Carbon Dioxide CO 50 to 200 1 Methane CH z 12 ±-3 21 Nitrous Oxide (N ,O) 120 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC -23 264 11,700 HFC -32 5.6 650 HFC -125 32.6 2,800 HFC -134a 14.6 1,300 HFC -143a 48.3 3,800 HFC -152a 1.5 140 HFC -227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC -236fa 209 6,300 HFC- 4310mee 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane: GF4 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane: CF, 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane: C F 2,600 7,000 Perfluoro- 2- methylpentane: C F 3,200 7,400 Suffur Hexafluoride SF 3,200 23,900 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Global warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes, ' hnpy/ www. epa .gov /nonco2/econ= mv/table.html. '100- YearTene Horizon, x The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of G02 is not included. ' Kyoto Protocol: Established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), and signed by more than 160 countries (excluding the United States) stating that they commit to reduce their GHG emissions by 55 percent or engage in emissions trading. z Montreal Protocol and Amendments: International Treaty signed in 1987 and amended in 1990 and 1992. Stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere (CFC, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -5 ffl 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY • Carbon Dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, and trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or `sequestered ") when it is absorbed by plants. • Ozone is a gas in the atmosphere. Depending on altitude, it is created either naturally and by photochemical reactions involving gases resulting from human activities, or it is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and oxygen (Oz). Depletion of ozone due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change results in an increased ground -level flux of ultraviolet (UV -) B radiation. • Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. • Nitrous Oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. • Fluorinated Gases are synthetic, greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone - depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases. Chlorofluorocarbons are GHGs used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insula- tion, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere, CFCs drift into the atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are being replaced by other compounds, including HCFCs and HFCs. Perfluorocarbons are a group of human -made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals were introduced, along with HFCs, as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the ozone layer, but they are powerful greenhouse gases. Sulfur Hexafluoride is a colorless and very powerful greenhouse gas used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems and in electronics. U Hydrochlorofluorocarbons contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon. Although ozone - depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs. Hydrofluorocarbons contain hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by- products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the ozone layer, but they are powerful greenhouse gases. (USEPA 2007) Page 5.2 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis ASR QUALITY California's GHG Sources and Relative Contribution California is the second largest emitter of GHGs in the United States, surpassed only by Texas, and the tenth ' largest GHG emitter in the world (CEC 2005). In 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest in CO, emissions from fossil fuel consumption in the world. In 2002, California produced 493 million metric tons of COZ equivalent CO, GHG emissions a of which 81 percent were CO, ' emissions produced from the combustion of fossil fuels, 2.3 percent were from other sources of CO,, 6.4 percent were from methane, and 6.8 percent were from N20. The remaining 3.5 percent of GHG emissions were from High Global Warming Potential gases (CEC 2005). CO, emissions from human activities represent 84 percent of the total GHG emissions. California's transportation sector is the single largest category of GHG emissions, producing 41.2 percent of the state's total emissions. Industrial sources are second, at 22.8 percent; electricity consumption is the third, at 19.6 percent. While out -of -state electricity generation for use in California comprises one -fifth to one-third of the total electricity supply, out -of -state electricity generation contributes 50 percent of the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption in California. Other majorsources of GHG emissions include mineral production, waste combustion and land use, and forestry changes. Agriculture, forestry, commercial, and residential activities comprose the balance of California's GHG emissions (CEC 2005). Human Influence on Climate Change For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20"' century, scientists have observed a rapid change in the climate and climate- changing pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO, has increased wA ' by more than 30 percent since preindustrial times and is still increasing at a rate of 0.4 percent per year, ` mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (IPCC 2001). These recent changes in climate - changing pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warning at ' a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants (CAT 2006). Climate change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty (IPCC 2001). The Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate change scenarios, will range from 2.0 to 4.5 °C. While gradual changes in the earth's temperature have occurred in the past, resulting in changes in the distribution of species, availability of water, etc., human activities are speeding up this process so thatthe environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime. Potential Ckmate Change Impacts for California Climate change is not a local environmental impact —it is a global environmental impact. Unlike criteria pollutants, CO2 emissions cannot be attributed to a direct health effect. However, human - caused increases in GHGs have been shown to be highly correlated with increases in the surface and ocean temperatures (IPCC 2001). What is not clear is the extent of the impact on environmental systems. ' Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environ- mental consequences from changes in the earth's temperature are also difficult to predict. There are also varying degrees of uncertainty of environmental impact scenarios. ' 9 CO,- equivalent GHG emissions are used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potentials to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -7 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY In California and western North America, observations in the climate have shown (1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, (2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow instead of rain, (3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, (4) an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring, and (5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the blooming of spring flowers (CAT 2006). Regulatory Setting The proposed project has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air; therefore, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels. The project site is located in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD. However, the SCAQMD reports to CARB, and all criteria emissions are also governed by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) as well as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971 established national AAQS and allowed states to retain the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards forseven air pollutants. As shown in Table 5.2 -2, these pollutants -03, CO, NO,, SO, PM,o, PM2.5 and Pb. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility - reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Page 5.2 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 11 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Source: CARO2007c. ppm is parts per million; Ng/m' is micrograms per cubic meter The nitrogen dioxide ambient air quality standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establish a new annual standard of 0.030 ppm. These changes become effective after regulatory changes are submitted and approved by the Office of Administrative Law, expected later in 2007. * standard has not been established for this pollutant/duraton by this entity. Air Quality Management Planning The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) arethe agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The current comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP which was adopted on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP builds upon the approaches for attainment in the 2003 AQMP. It incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes an attainment demonstration of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -9 Averaging California Federal Primary Pollutant Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Ozone (03) 1 -hour 0.09 ppm Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and 8 -hours 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm solvents. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily 8 -hours 9 ppm 9 ppm gasoline - powered motor vehicles. Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum- refining Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) operations, industrial sources, aircraft, 1 -hour 0.018 ppm * ships, and railroads. Annual Average 0.03 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur 1 -hour 0.25 ppm * recovery plants, and metal processing. 24 -hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Annual 20 ug/m , * Dust and fume - producing construction, Suspended Particulate Arithmetic Mean industrial, and agricultural operations, Matter (PM,,) combustion, atmospheric photochemical 24 -hours 50 µg/m3 150pg/m' reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind - (PM1e) (PM10) raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual 12 m3 ug/ 15 m3 pg/ Dust and fume - producing construction, Suspended Particulate Arithmetic Mean industrial, and agricultural operations, Matter (PM,.,) combustion, atmospheric photochemical 24 -hours 35 itg/m3 reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind - raised dust and ocean sprays). Monthly 1.5 tig/m' Present source: lead smelters, battery Lead (Pb) manufacturing and recycling facilities. Past Quarterly 1.5 jug/ml source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Sulfates (SO4) 24 -hours 25 Mg/m3 Industrial processes. Source: CARO2007c. ppm is parts per million; Ng/m' is micrograms per cubic meter The nitrogen dioxide ambient air quality standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establish a new annual standard of 0.030 ppm. These changes become effective after regulatory changes are submitted and approved by the Office of Administrative Law, expected later in 2007. * standard has not been established for this pollutant/duraton by this entity. Air Quality Management Planning The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) arethe agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The current comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP which was adopted on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP builds upon the approaches for attainment in the 2003 AQMP. It incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP proposes an attainment demonstration of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -9 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY federal PM25 standards through a more focused control of SOX, directly emitted PM2.5, NO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 2015. The eight -hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional NOx and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024, assuming a bump -up (i.e., extended attainment date) is obtained. The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 5.2 -3. The SoCAB is also designated as attainment of the CAAQS for SO, lead, and sulfates. According to the 2007 AQMP, the SoCAB will have to meet the new federal PM2, standards by 2015 and the eight -hour ozone standard by 2024, and will most likely have to achieve the recently revised 24 -hour PM.., standard by 2020. Table 5.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant Stale Federal Ozone -1 -hour Extreme Nonattainment Revoked June 2005 Ozone - &hour Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Annual Standard Revoked September 2006 PM2 5 Nonatainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment' NO Attainment Attainmeal/Maintenance S02 Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment All others Attainment/Unclassitied Attainment/Unclassdied Source: Cartfomia Air Resource Board, based on 2004 State Area Designations and National Area Designations, current as of July 2007. 'The USEPA granted the request to redesignate the WAB from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS on May 11, 2007 (Federal Register Volume 71, No. 91), which became effective as of June 11, 2007. Federal and California Clean Air Act Requirements The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the creation of plans to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures, including the adoption of reasonably available control technology, for reducing emissions from existing sources. The following describes recent amendments to the FCAA and California CAA (CCAA) standards for criteria pollutants. Ozone: The USEPA has phased out and replaced the one -hour primary ozone standard with a new eight -hour standard to protect against longer exposure periods. The new ozone standard is set at a concentration of 0.08 part ppm and represents a tightening of the former one -hour ozone standard. Under the standard adopted by the USEPA, areas are allowed to disregard their three worst measurements every year and average their fourth highest measurements over three years to determine if they meet the standard. Page 5.2 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis JURQU&= Fine Particulate Matter (PM.. ,): For particulate matter, the (USEPA) established new annual and 24 -hour standards for PM,., to complement the existing PM,, standards. The new annual PM.., standard is set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug /m3), and the original 24 -hour PMZ.Sstandard was set at 65 fug /m3. In September 2006, the USEPA tightened the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard from 65 pg /m3 to 35 Ng /m3. The annual component of the standard was set to provide protection against typical day - to-day exposures as well as longer -term exposures, while the daily component protects against more extreme short-term events. For the new 24 -hour PM.., standard, the form of the standard is based on the 98'" percentile of 24 -hour PM,.sconcentrations measured in a year (averaged over three years) at the monitoring site with the highest measured values in an area. This form of the standard reduces the impact of a single high - exposure event that may be due to unusual meteorological conditions, and thus provides a more stable basis for effective control programs. • Coarse Particulate Matter (PM, J: As of September 21, 2006, the USEPA has revoked the annual PM,, standard of Sogg /m3 and replaced it with a new 24 -hour PM,, standard set at 150 /tg 1m3. More specifically, the USEPA revised the one - expected exceedance form of the current standard with a 99'" percentile form, averaged over three years. • Nitrogen Dioxide: On February 23, 2007, CARB approved new, stricter standards for NO2 that lowered the existing one -hour standard from 0.25 ppm to 18 ppm and established a new annual - average state standard at 0.030 ppm. GHG Emissions on a National Level Currently there are no adopted regulations to reduce global climate change on a national level. However, %./V recent statutory authority has been granted to the USEPA that may change the voluntary approach taken .IV under our current administration to address this issue. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the USEPA has the authority to regulate CO. emissions under the CAA. GHG Emissions on a State Level Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006. AB 32 requires the state's global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent of 1990 levels by year 2050. Pursuant to the requirements of AB 32, the state's reduction in global warming emissions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels by January 2008. By January 1, 2009, CARB must prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met or earlier. However, as immediate progress in reducing GHG can and should be made, AB 32 directed CARB and the newly created California Climate Action Team (CAT) to identify a list of "discrete early action GHG reduction measures" that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. CAT is a consortium of representatives from state agencies that have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG emission reduction programs thatfall outside of CARB's jurisdiction. To address GHG emission and global climate change in General Plans and CEQA documents, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to address global warming emissions and mitigate project - generated GHG. OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit these guidelines on or before July 1, 2009. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -11 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site and the City of Newport Beach area are best documented by measurements made by the SCAOMD. The City of Newport Beach is located within the central portion of Source Receptor Area (SRA) 20 (Central Orange County Coastal). The SCAOMD air quality monitoring station in the SRA 20 that is closest to the proposed project site is the Costa Mesa monitoring station, located at Mesa Verde Drive, Costa Mesa. As this monitoring station does not monitor PM,, and PM2,5, data was supplemented from the Mission Viejo Station for these criteria pollutants. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 5.2-4. Table 5.2-4 Ambient Air Pollutant/Standard Were !Such State 1 -Hour 2:0.09 ppm U 4 2 u u Federal 8 -Hour > 0.08 ppm 0 1 1 0 0 Max 1 -Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.087 0.107 0.104 0.085 0.074 Max. 8-Hour Cone. fonml 0.070 0.088 0.087 0.072 0.062 State 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 Federal 8 -Hour? 9.5 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 8 -Hour Cone. fooml 4.29 5.90 4.07 3.16 3.01 Max. 1 -Hour Cons 5loomm I 0.106 I 0.107 I 0.097 I 0.085 0.101 State 24 -Hour > 0.04 ppm I 0 0 0 0 I 0 Federal 24- Hour >_ 0.14 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max 24 -Hour Cone. (nnml- 0.011 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.005 State 24 -Hour > 50 pg/m' 1 4 1 2 1 0 U 1 1 Federal 24 -Hour > 150 Ng/m3 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 24 -Hour Cone. Walmi) 80 64 47 41 57 federal 24- Hour >ti9',UWM` U U 4 i u Max. 24 -Hour Cone. Wn/m31 58.5 50.5 49.4 35.3 46.9 ppm: parts per million; pg/e, or micrograms per cubic meter I Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 2 The NO„ standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.18 ppm. This standard will not take effect until later in 2007. 3 Data obtained from the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station. 4 The USEPA recently revised the 24 -how PM,standard from 65 pWnm0 to 35 Nglm3. Haxever, this standard did not take affect until December 2006. The data show occasional violations of both the state and federal ozone standards. The data also indicate that the area occasionally exceeds the state PM,, standard and federal PM,, standard. Neither the CO nor NO2 standard has been violated in the last five years at this station. Page 5.2 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and ' intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. 11 CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction activities and project operation, as shown in Table 5.2 -5. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -13 5.22 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the 1 environment if the project would: AQ -1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. ' AQ-2 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality � 1�� violation. //VV�� AQ-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project ' region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). ' AQ-4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ -5 Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant: AQ -5. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds Regional Signficance Thresholds 11 CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction activities and project operation, as shown in Table 5.2 -5. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -13 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -5 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 Ibs /day 55 Ibs /day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Ibs /day 550 Ibs/day Nitrogen Oxides (N%) 100 Ibs /day 55 Ibs /day Sulfur Oxides (S0.) 150 Ibs /day 150lbs /day Coarse Parbculates (PM,,) 150 Ibs /day 150 Ibs/day Fine Particulates (PM,.,) 55 Ibs /day 55lbs /day CO Hotspots In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts. The California one -hour and eight -hour CO standards are: • 1 hour = 20 parts per million • 8 hour = 9 parts per million The significance of localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below state and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. The SCAQMD defines a measurable amount as 1.0 ppm or more for the one -hour CO concentration or 0.45 ppm or more for the eight -hour CO concentration. Localized Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM,, and PM,., generated at the project site (off -site mobile-source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTanalysis for construction is applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. The construction LSTs for afive -acre project site within SRA 20 for sensitive receptors located 200 feet (61 meters) from the project site are shown in Table 5.2 -6. If emissions exceed the LST for a five -acre site, then dispersion modeling needs to be conducted. Use of a five -acre site model for the project site would result in more stringent LST because emissions would occur in a more concentrated area closer to the nearest sensitive receptors than would occur in reality, due to the project site being much larger than five acres. Projects larger than five acres can determine the localized significance for construction by performing dispersion modeling for emissions that exceed the localized air quality standards shown in Table 5.2 -7. Page 5.2 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -6 Localized Significance Thresholds for SRA 20 for a 5 -Acre Site at 61 Meters Air Pollutant Threshold (lbslday) Construction Operation Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1,293 1,293 Nitrogen 0xides (NOS 339 339 Coarse Particulates (PM,,) 58 14 Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 13 14 Snumer SCAOMIl iwAlbad Sinnificanrs AM.Mndnlnw .hme 9nnA fnr a 5 -acre sRe at fit rrwrers and Adnendix B PM,., Localized Significance Threshold Look -up Tables Table 5.2 -7 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds for Project Sites Greater than Five Acres Air Pollutant Concentration 1 -hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm 8 -hour CO Standard (CAAGS) 9.0 ppm 1 -hour NO2 Standard (CAAGS) 0.18 ppm 24 -Hour PM,eConstruction Standard (SCAQMD) 10.4 jig/ma 24 -Hour PM,oOperational Standard (SCAQMD) 2.5 pg/m' 24 -Hour PM2,5 Construction Standard (SCAQMD) 10.4 pg/m' 24 -Hour PM2.5 Operational Standard (SCAOMD) 2.5 pg/m' ppm is parts per million; pgtm' is micrograms per cubic meter Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 5.2.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analyses address thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement IMPACT 5.2 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEAPPLICABLEA/R QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. [THRESHOLD AQ -11 Impact Analysis: CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the AQMP. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and major projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans. Projects that are consistent with the local General Plan are considered consistent with the air - quality- related Regional Plan. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -I5 o S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY The key to determining consistency with the AQMP is to evaluate the project's consistency with the applicable General Plan. As described in more detail in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, of this DEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's General Plan. The land use designation for the site specifically entitles the hotel to expand to 479 rooms as proposed by the project. Ancillary uses, such as the new 800 -seat ballroom, are considered to be included in this existing entitlement. In addition, the proposed hotel uses would not exceed the SCAQMD operational emission thresholds (as analyzed under Impact 5.2- 4). The SCAQMD does not consider projects that result in emissions below the daily operational phase thresholds to be a substantial source of air pollutant emissions. Consequently, it would not significantly interfere with the goals of the AQMP. Because the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and would not result in substantial quantities of air pollution, the project would therefore be considered consistent with the AQMP. IMPACT 5.2 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT A REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CUMULATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN CALIFORNIA. [THRESHOLD AQ -11 Impact Analysis: Pursuant to Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007), the OPR is currently in the process of developing CEGA guidelines on how to address global warming emissions and mitigation of project - specific GHG. OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit the guidelines on or before July 1, 2009. However, interim guidelines on how to compare the magnitude of project - related CO, emissions and their contribution to global climate change have yet to be established by either of these agencies. In the short term, the SCAQMD recommends that GHG emissions from the project be quantified for regionally significant projects. Although the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project, the proposed project would contribute to global warming through direct emissions of GHG and indirectly through removal of existing vegetation and replacement of the surface area with paved parking lots, sidewalks, and structures. Project - related CO, emissions from operation and construction activities were calculated by URBEMIS2007 with the exception of CO2, emissions from off -site energy use from on -site energy production, which were calculated based on average energy demand for commercial lodgings and GHG emission rates by region from the United States Department of Energy (USDOE). CO. emissions associated with the project are shown in Table 5.2 -8. Table 5.2 -8 Source TonsiYear State Emissions Operational Emissions 2,056 0.0005% 1990 California State CO2- Equivalent GHG Emissions' 452,300,000 tons Source: URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.2, 2003 USDOE, Energy Infonnabon Administration's 2003 Commercial8uildings Energy Consumption Survey, and Updated State -and Regional4evel Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Electricity. ' CEC 2005. Based on 1997 CEC emissions inventory of GHG emissions for the State of California for 1990 of 452.3 million short tans of COz, (410.3 million metric tons of CO.) of in state emissions. While California alone cannot stabilize the climate, the state's actions set an example and drive global Progress toward reduction of GHG. If the industrialized world were to follow the emission reduction targets established by California, and industrializing nations reduced emissions according to the lower emissions path (lower emissions IPPC scenario 131), medium or higher warming ranges of global temperature increases Page 5.2 -16 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 I L ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach •Page 5.2 -17 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY may be avoided and thus the most severe consequences of global warming would also be avoided. Currently, CARE has until January 1, 2009, to adopt a plan that establishes how California will meet the Year I 1990 GHG emissions target. As this plan has not been drafted, it is unclear if the project would be consistent with the emissions reductions required within the proposed plan. However, CARB has recently adopted, as of June 2007, the Early Action Plan under AB 32 to identify early action measures to reduce GHG emissions within the state. As described previously, it is speculative to determine how project - related GHG emissions would contribute to global climate change and how global climate change may impact California. Furthermore, it is unclear what percentage of project- generated CO, emissions are existing emissions within the state. As described in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, the land use designation for the site entitles the hotel to expand to 479 rooms, as proposed by the project. Ancillary uses, such as the new 800 -seat ballroom, are considered to be included in this existing entitlement. In the absence of adopted thresholds, and because the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project by SCAG and criteria pollutant emissions shown in Impact 5.2 -3 and Impact 5.2 -4 would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, project- related CO2 emissions and their contribution to global climate change impacts in the State of California are considered less than ' cumulatively considerable. IMPACT 5.2 -3: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SHORT -TERM EMISSIONS IN EXCEEDANCE OF SCAQMD'S THRESHOLD CRITERIA. (THRESHOLDS AQ -2 AND AQ41 Impact Analysis: Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on -site heavy -duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on -site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with new development occurring in the project area would temporarily increase localized PM,,, ROG, N%, SOx, and CO concentrations in the project Vicinity. The primary source of construction - related ROC and NOx emissions is gasoline- and diesel - powered heavy -duty mobile construction equipment. Primary sources of PM, emissions would be clearing and demolition activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traff ic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. ' Emissions generated from project - related construction activities would be anticipated to cause temporary increases in pollutant concentrations that could contribute to violations of federal and state maximum ' concentration standards. The frequency and concentration of such violations would depend on several factors, including soil composition on -site, the amount of soil disturbed, wind speed, the number and types of machinery used, the construction schedule, and the proximity of other construction and demolition projects. A list of construction equipment provided by the project engineer can be found in Table 3 -4, Construction Equipment Mix, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this DEIR. The included analysis is based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model. The results of the URBEMIS2007 computer modeling are included in Table 5.2 -9. The URSEMIS2007 model runs are included in Appendix C. As shown this table, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD standards. Consequently, no significant regional air quality ' construction- related impacts would occur. I L ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach •Page 5.2 -17 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -9 Project- Related Construction Phase Emissions (in pounds per day) Construction Phase' CO NOx I ROG SOT PMraT 1 PMZ51 COTa Demolition 23 42 5 <1 11 4 4,383 Site Grading 39 76 9 <1 17 7 7,701 Building Construction 46 65 22 <1 5 5 7,151 SCAQMD Standard 550 100 75 150 150 55 NA Significant? No No No No No No NA Source: URBEM182007 Version 9.2.2. ' Construction equipment mu based on preliminary construction information from the project engineer. T Fugitive dust emissions assume one- quarter of the appruzimately 14 acres site would be graded at any one time. Fugitive dust emissions assume Implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, including: watering disturbed soils a minimum of two times daily, reestablishing disturbed groundcover as quicldy as possible, reducing speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour, and securing haul loads (covering with tarp or leaving a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard). ' GOAmissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD or CARE have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this air pollutant. IMPACT 5.2 -4: LONG -TERM OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND ASSOCIATED EMISSIONS IN EXCEEDANCE OF SCAQMD'S THRESHOLD CRITERIA. (THRESHOLDS AQ -2 AND AQ -31 Impact Analysis: Long -term air emission impacts are those associated with changes in stationary and mobile sources related to the proposed project. Based on the traffic study dated January 3, 2008, which was prepared for this project by IBI Group (see Appendix L of this DEIR), the proposed project would generate 661 average daily trips (ADT). Using the default emission factors included in URBEMIS2007, emissions associated with project- related vehicular trips were calculated and are included in Table 5.2 -10. As shown, project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions for all the analyzed pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project's impact to air quality is considered less than significant. Page 5.2 -18 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 IMPACT 5.2 -5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. (THRESHOLD AQ -41 Impact Analysis: The proposed project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations 4 it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels or place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the mass of emissions shown in Table 5.2 -5 (described in pounds per day), localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or Ng /m) and can be correlated to potential health effects. CO Hotspot Analysis An impact is also potentially significant if emission levels exceed the state or federal AAQS, thereby exposing receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the state t -hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on one- and eight -hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition will occur based on the state standards prior to exceedance of the federal standard. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 5.2 -79 5. Environmental Analysis Arx Quat.rr'v Table 5.2 -10 Project - Related Operational Phase Emissions (in pounds per day) < rq. - .�., .I. a . " ... _ was ME Stationary Sources 4 1 5 0 <1 <1 1,250 Mobile Sources 57 6 5 <1 12 2 6,824 CO, Emissions from Energy Use 3,361 Total 61 7 9 <1 12 2 11,435 SCAQMD Standard 550 55 55 1 150 150 r 55 NA Significant? No No No No No No NA Stationary Sources 34 2 16 <1 5 5 2,463 Mobile Sources 54 7 5 <1 12 2 6,165 ' COZ, Emissions from Energy Use 3,361 Total 88 9 21 <1 17 7 11,949 SCAQMD Standard 550 55 55 1 150 150 55 NA Significant? No No No I No No No NA Source: URBEMIS2W7, Version 1,1,2,2M3 USDOE, Energy Irfrormabon Administration's 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surrey, and Updated SWOarMRegionaHevel Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors forRedwity. ' CO2 emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD or CARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutard. r IMPACT 5.2 -5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. (THRESHOLD AQ -41 Impact Analysis: The proposed project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations 4 it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels or place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the mass of emissions shown in Table 5.2 -5 (described in pounds per day), localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or Ng /m) and can be correlated to potential health effects. CO Hotspot Analysis An impact is also potentially significant if emission levels exceed the state or federal AAQS, thereby exposing receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the state t -hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on one- and eight -hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition will occur based on the state standards prior to exceedance of the federal standard. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 5.2 -79 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections, these hot spots are usually produced at intersection locations. Typically, for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) D or worse. The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or worse upon opening year: • Coast Highway and Dover Drive • Coast Highway and Jamboree Road • Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard • Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Intersections that are most conducive to the formation of CO hot spots were modeled. Tables 5.2 -11 and 5.2- 12 list the one -hour and eight -hour project- related CO concentrations, respectively, that would occur at the study area intersections, with the proposed project, at opening year plus cumulative growth (2012) conditions for all intersections that would operate under an LOS D or worse. Based on the CALINE4 analyses, project- related traff ic is not anticipated to exceed any of the state one -hour oreight -hour CO AAQS at the study area intersections. Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly adversely affected by CO emissions generated by operation of the proposed project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions would therefore be less than significant for the proposed project. Table 5.2 -11 One -Hour Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis Page 5.2 -20 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I .I I r I I I I U i I I 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Table 5.2 -12 Eight -Hour Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Analysis 0.7, in accordance with SCAM methodology. Based on the Caltrans'traffic emission dispersion model CALINE4, November 2007. Operational LSTs To estimate concentrations of air pollutants generated from operation of the project at nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors, the project's maximum daily emissions were compared to the operational LSTs. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only on -site stationary sources and mobile equipment are included in the analysis. Project- related vehicles traveling off-site are not included in the analysis. To account for on -site vehicle travel within the parking lots, it is assumed that each vehicle would travel approximately a half of a mile on -site (round trip). Table 5.2 -13 shows maximum daily operational emissions generated by the project compared to the air pollutant threshold (LST). Table 5.2 -13 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Compared with the 1ST Source' Pollutants Ibs /day) Co No, PMro PMzs Stationary Source 34 2 5 5 Mobile Source 3 <1 1 <1 Total Onsite Operational Emissions 37 2 6 5 SCAQMD LST Threshold for SRA 20 1,293 339 14 14 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -21 000 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY Thresholds for dispersion modeling are based on the CAAQS, which represent the most stringentAAOS that has been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. As shown in this table, project emissions would not exceed LSTs for CO, NO2, PM, and PM2.5. Because the project's operational emissions would not exceed the LSTs for a 5 -acre site, air pollutant concentrations from project - related operational activities would not exceed the California or federal AAQS and no significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Construction LSTs LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD to identify whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state AAQS and were developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutantfor each SRA. LSTs are applicable only to the following pollutants: NO2, CO, PM,,, and PM..,. Because pollutants emitted during construction greatly depend on the proximity of the source to the receptor, LSTs are based on the location of the emission source relative to the sensitive receptors as well as the quantity of emission. Table 5.2 -14 shows construction emission rates and LSTs for SRA 20 based on a distance of 61 meters from the nearest receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses along Sea Cove Lane. As shown in this table, project emissions would not exceed LSTs for CO, NO2, PM,,, and PM2, for a five -acre site. Because the project's construction emissions would not exceed the stringent LSTfor a five -acre site, no air pollutant concentrations from project related construction activities would exceed the California orfederal AAQS and no significant air quality impact would occurfrom exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Table 5.2 -14 Maximum Daisy Construction Emissions Compared with the LST Source' Pollutants Ibslday) CO NOx PM10 PMzs Demolition 23 42 11 4 Site Grading' 39 76 17 7 Building Construction 46 65 5 5 SCAQMD LST Threshold for SRA 20 1,293 339 58 13 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: llRBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2, and the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Construction equipment mix based on preliminary construction information from the project engineer. ' Fugitive dust emissions assume one - quarter of the approximately 14-acre site would be graded at any one time. Fugitive dust emissions assume implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, including: watering disturbed soils a minimum of two times daily, reestablishing disWrbed groundcover as quic'dy as possible, reducing speeds on unpaved Toads to no more than 15 miles per hour, and securing haul loads (covering with tarp or leaving a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard). Page 5.2 -22 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY 5.2.4 Cumulative Impacts In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant air quality impact in an area that is out of attainment adds to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well outside the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and, when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project's air quality must be generic by nature. Construction The SoCAB is in a state of nonattainment for 03, PM,,. and PM,.,. Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the SoCAB. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. URBMEIS modeling demonstrates that construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project does not add significantly to any cumulative impact for 0, or PM,o and PM,,, Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would result in cumulative increases in criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. Operation Any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values is not considered by the SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. URBEMIS modeling demonstrates that operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds for long -term operation, and therefore, the proposed project does not add significantly to any cumulative impact for 03 or PM,, and PM2,5. Operation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would result in cumulative increases in criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. Global Warming As described under Impact 5.2 -2, project - related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how project - related GHG emissions would contribute to global climate change and how global climate change may impact California. Therefore, impacts identif ied under Impact 5.2 -2 are not project - specific impacts to global warming but the project's contribution to this cumulative impact. As stated previously, because the proposed project is notconsidered a regionally significant project by SCAG and long -term project - related emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds (see Impact 5.2 -3 and 5.2 -4), project - related CO, emissions and their contribution to global climate change impacts in the State of California are considered less than cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant. 5.2.5 Existing Regulations Future development projects within the project area shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.2 -23 5. Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITY SCAQMD Rules and Regulations The City of Newport Beach is located in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD. All emissions within the City of Newport Beach are governed by the CAAQS as well as the NAAQS. New pollution sources within the City of Newport Beach would be subject to a new source review by the SCAQMD. Any equipment that emits or controls air contaminants (such as NOx or ROGs) requires a permit from SCAQMD prior to construction, installation, or operation unless it is specifically exempted from the permit requirement by SCAQMD Rule 219, Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit. A list of SCAQMD rules and regulations applicable to the proposed project can be found in Appendix C. SCAQMD Rule 402 SCAQMD Rule 402 states, "A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property." SCAQMD Rule 403 SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SoCAB. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction or other sources such that (1) the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source or, (2) dust emissions exceed 20 percent opacity (as determined by the appropriate test method included in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook) if the dust emission is the result of movement of a motorized vehicle. No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the applicable best available control measures (BAC) to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source within the active operation. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PM,o concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM,, high - volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM,o sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented. 5.26 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of project design features and regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.2 -1, 5.2 -2, 5.23, 5.2-4, and 5.2 -5. 5.27 Mitigation Measures No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary 5.2.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts were identified. With adherence to existing regulations, air quality impacts of the project would be less than significant. Page 5.2 -24 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) to impact biological resources in the local and regional context of the City of Newport Beach and Orange County, respectively. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports: • Results of Biological Surveys and Impact Analysis Conducted for the Newport Hyatt Regency Golf Course, Glenn Lukos Associates, November 3, 2007. • Fire Protection Plan -Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, Dudek, October 18, 2007. A copy of the biological survey is included in its entirety in Appendix D of this DEIR. The Fire Protection Plan is included as Appendix H of this DEIR. 5.3.1 Environmental Setting Applicable Plans and Regulations Federal and State Regulations Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, was promulgated to protect and conserve any species of plant or animal that is endangered or threatened with extinction and the habitats in QQQ which these species are found. "Take" of endangered species is prohibited under Section 9 of the FESA. "Take," as defined under the FESA, means to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) on proposed federal actions that may affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed (for listing) species or critical habitat that may support the species. Section 4(a) of the FESA requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered orthreatened." Critical habitat is formally designated by USFWS to provide guidancefor planners /managers and biologists with an indication of where 1 suitable habitat may occur and where high priority of preservation for a particular species should be given. Section 10 of the FESA provides the regulatory mechanism that allows the incidental take of a listed species by private interests and nonfederal government agencies during lawful activities. Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for the impacted species must be developed in support of incidental take permits for nonfederal projects to minimize impacts to the species and develop viable mitigation measures to offsetthe unavoidable impacts. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) is the domestic law that affirms and implements the United States' commitment to four international conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, trans- portation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the MBTA. I Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -1 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Clean Water Act, Section 404 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into "waters of the U.S. "' pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), a permit is required for any filling or dredging within waters of the U.S. The permit review process entails an assessment of potential adverse impacts to USACE wetlands and jurisdictional waters, wherein the USACE may require mitigation measures. Where a federally listed species may be affected, a Section 7 consultation with USFWS may be required. If there is potential for cultural resources to be present, Section 106 review may be required. Also, where a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would also be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Clean Water Act, Section 401and 402 Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA specifies that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall provide the federal permitting agency a certification, issued by the state in which the discharge originates, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA. In California, the applicable RWQCB must certify that the project will comply with water quality standards. Permits requiring Section 401 certification include USACE Section 404 permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued bythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 402 of the CWA. NPDES permits are issued by the applicable RWQCB. The City of Newport Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8). California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code requires that a project proponent notify the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) of any proposed aReration of streambeds, rivers, and lakes. The intent is to protect habitats that are important to fish and wildlife. CDFG may review a project and place conditions on the project as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). The conditions are intended to address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFG's jurisdictional limits. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFG. Its intent is to prohibit take and protect state-listed endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates). At the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission, candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though theywere already listed as threatened or endangered. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions, CESA has provisions for take through a 2081 permit or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Species. California Species of Special Concern are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and /or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFG's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) project, which maintains a database of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed taxa are not protected per se, but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments. ' "Waters of the United States," as It applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, includes: all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including Intermittent streams), mudtlats, sandtlats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce; water impoundments; tributaries of waters; territorial seas; wetlands adjacent to waters. The terminology used by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act includes "navigable waters," which is defined at Section 5020 of the Act as 'waters of the United States including the territorial seas." Page 5.3 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL REsouRCEs California Coastal Act Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act contains policies to protect water quality and the biological productivity of coastal waters; avoid and minimize dredging, diking, and filling sediments; and mitigate wetland impacts. Under the California Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive area means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or I role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP is typically prepared and adopted by a municipality or county, then it is reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission. A LCP typically consists of a land use plan and an imple- mentation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. The city's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains extensive policy language addressing biological, habitat, and resource protection. The CLUP policies are applicable only in the Coastal Zone, which includes the Hyatt Regency project site. Regional Resource Planning The preparation of a comprehensive natural resources management conservation plan for central and ^, coastal Orange County was completed in 1996. The Central and Coastal Orange County Natural l . Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and the associated Implementation /M_C Agreement (IA) covers thirteen cities. In July 1996, the city of Newport Beach became a signatory agency in v'CJ the NCCP /HCP. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multispecies, mukihabitat reserve system and to implement a long -term management program. It was developed to satisfy the requirements for both the FESA and CESA. The NCCP /HCP generally addresses vegetation communities and species associated with upland coastal sage scrub habitat. It is intended to focus on multiple species and habitats and address conservation of these species on a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange - throated whiptail. There are 26 other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP /HCP. An additional 10 species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as d they were listed according to FESA Section t 0(a) are addressed within the NCCP /HCP. The measures incorporated in the NCCP /HCP are intended to address the federal, state, and local project - specific mitigation requirements for the species and habitats addressed in the NCCP /HCP under FESA, CESA, CEQA, NEPA, and the MBTA. The NCCP /HCP is intended to streamline review of individual projects with respect to the species and habitats addressed in the NCCP/HCP, and to provide for an overall Habitat Reserve System. CIOSA Development Agreement In 1993, the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company entered into the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). The CIOSA pertains to 12 parcels and grants vested development rights for 11 projects. The Hyatt Regency was one of the 11 projects that received vested entitlements. The Irvine Company prepaid "fair share" road improvement fees, constructed road improvements, and granted the City ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -3 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES of Newport Beach an interest -free loan. In consideration of the vested right, approximately 140 acres of property were also conveyed to the City for open space and parks. As shown in Figure 5.3 -1, CIOSA Open Space Dedication Adjacent to Hyatt Regency, the natural open space directly north and northeast of the project site was part of the open space dedication included in the CIOSA. The Newporter Knoll site (as shown on this exhibit) was also designated for open space. Local Ordinances Newport Beach Tree Ordinance The City of Newport Beach has several ordinances and policies that relate tothe protection and preservation of trees. Regulations for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees are included in Chapter 13.0, Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property, of the City's Municipal Code. In addition, City Council Policy G -3 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) was adopted with the intent to preserve views and to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits provided by trees. Both the tree ordinance and the City's policies relating to trees are applicable only to City trees, i.e., those on City property and within public parkways. Site Reconnaissance A site reconnaissance by Glenn Lukos and Associates was performed February 14 and 15, 2006, as well as January 10, February 17, March 1, May 3, May 10, and May 21, 2007, to identify the presence of special - status species or habitats capable of supporting special- status species on the site or adjacent to the site in areas that could be adversely affected by the project. The three surveys in May 2007 were protocol surveys for the California gnatcatcher. Site reconnaissance was conducted to allow inspection of the entire site by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. The site was inspected to determine whether any sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or potential jurisdictional areas (subjecito USACE or CDFG jurisdiction) are present on -site as well as determine whether such resources are present on surrounding adjacent open space. In addition to the site reconnaissance and focused surveys, evaluation of the property included a review of the CNDDB and a review of the 2001 California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) inventory. Habitat The Hyatt Regency golf course, on the northern portion of the Hyatt Regency property, is comprised of open green space consisting of turf grass interspersed with mostly ornamental landscaping. The golf course is bordered by off -site open space that includes coastal sage scrub, emergent marsh, and ruderal areas associated with Newport Back Bay to the north and west, and ornamental vegetation associated with the neighboring tennis club to the east. Figure 5.3 -2, Vegetation Map, depicts existing habitat types. The golf course consists of well - manicured turfgrass with various ornamental plantings, including jelly palm (Butia capitata), fish tail palm (Caryota mitis), Mediterranean fan palm (Chamaerops humilis), windmill palm (Trachycarpus fortunes), Calabrian pine (Pins brutia), Aleppo pine (Pins halepensis), Canary Island pine (Pins canariensis), plumeria ( Plumeria spp.), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spectabilis), bird of paradise (Strelitzia reginae), and Nile lily (Agapanthus africanus). Page 5.3 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis Newporter North PC Text Map Source: Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement - City of Newport Beach, ASS Planning, Vail Speck Assoc. L-/ I Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.3 -1 yt 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. ' 1 I I I 1 I I 1 -1 I I 1 1 Page 5.3 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Vegetation Map Source: Glenn Lukos Associates, November 2007 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft E!R I 6 � i � f Scale (Feet) Legend Silo Plan VY6c <aM1M CS$ - Dmaab M (ksarrbed Welland - Goll Course/Ornananlal Ruaoral ® RuderaVOmamanlal "L'he Planning Genter • Figure 5.3 -2 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.3 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Off -site of the golf course to the north and west are open space areas. Immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the golf course is a steep, descending slope that supports a mixture of native and exotic species. Nonnative species include castor bean (Ricinus communis), horehound (Marrumbium vulgare), Asian mustard (Brassica tourneforth), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), tacalote (Centaurea melitensis), ice plant (Carpobrotus eduffs), African daily (Osteospemum fruticosum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. Ruben). Native vegetation occurring on the slope is a mixture of coastal sage scrub species and riparian /marsh species, including California coastal sagebrush (Artemesia califomica), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), buckwheat (Erigonum fasiculatum), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), and arroyo willow (Safix lasiolepis). Immediately adjacentto the northwestern boundary of the golf course is a bluff supporting dense coastal sage scrub dominated by California coastal sagebrush, deerweed, coastal encelia (EnceUa califomica), and buckwheat. Wildfffe Birds observed within the property include American crow (Corvus brachyrhnchos), American kestrel (Falco sparvedus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), marsh wren ((Cistothorus palustris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Allen's hummingbird (Melanerpes formicivorus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), yellow - rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), bushfit (Psaltriparus aminimus), red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), white- crowned sparrow (Zonottichia leucophrys), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polygloffos). Birds observed within the adjacent open space include the above- mentioned birds in addition to turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), sharp - shinned hawk (Accipter striatus), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica). Reptiles observed on -site include side- blotch lizard (Uta stansbudana). Mammals either observed by direct observation or by the presence of diagnostic sign (i.e., tracks, scat, etc.) within the property include Audobon's cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and Beechey ground squirrel (Spermophylus beecheyi). Mammals observed within the adjacent open space include coyote (Canis latrans), meadow vole (Microtus califomicus), Audobon's cottontail, and dusky- footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes). Sensitive Resources Sensitive Wildlife Table 5.3 -1 provides a summary of all animal species considered for the biological resources constraints analysis. Species listed were considered according to several factors, including: (1) species identified by the September 2005 CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the property, and (2) any other special- status species that are known to occur within the vicinity of the property, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the site. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -9 95? 5. Environmental Analysis BioLoGtcAL REsouRCEs Table 5.3 -1 , Sensitive Animal Snecies Potentialtv Present on or in the Vicinity of the Protect Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence On Site Occurs in drier shrub, forest, and American badger Federal: None herbaceous habitats. Needs open, Not expected to occur on -site Taxidea Taxus State: None uncultivated ground and friable soils due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CSC for digging burrows. Preys on habitat. burrowing rodents. Belding's savannah sparrow Federal: None Not expected to occur on -she Passerculus sandwichensis State: SE Coastal marshes. due to a lack of suitable beldingi CDFG: None habitat Big free - tailed bat Federal: None Occurs in low -tying areas in Not expected to occur on -site Nyc6nomops mactoos State: None southern California. Roosts in high due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CSC cliffs or rocky outcrops. habitat California black rail Federal: None Coastal spartna marshes, inland in Not expected to occur on -site laterallusiamaicensis coturniculus State: ST dense, shortgrass, shallow due to a lack of suitable CDFG: None marshes. habitat California least hem Federal: FE Flat vegetated substrates near the Not expected to occur on -site Stoma antillarum brown State: SE coast Occurs near estuaries, bays, due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CFP or harbors where fish are abundant habitat Not expected to occur on -si cher Coastal California gnatcatcher Federal: FT Low - elevation coastal sage scrub due to a lack of suitable Poliop6la californca valet State: None and coastal bluff scrub. habitat occurs in coastal sage CDFG: CSC scrub habitat directly adjacent to project site. Primarily occurs in riparian areas Federal: None and oak woodlands, most Coopers hawk (nesting) State: None commonly in montane canyons. May occur on -site for foraging Accipiter cooperi CDFG: CSC Known to use urban areas, only. occupying trees among residential and commercial. Globose dune beetle Federal: None Not expected to occur on -site Coelus globosus State: SE Coastal sand dunes. due to a lack of suitable CDFG: None habitat Light- footed clapper rail Federal: FE Marsh vegetation of coastal Not expected to occur on -site Rallus longirostris levipes State: SE wetlands. due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CFP habitat Roosts in winter in wind - protected Not expected to occur on -site Monarch butterfly (wintering) Federal: None tree groves along the California due to a lack of suitable Danaus plexippus State: None coast from northern Mendocino to habitat Baja California, Mexico. Federal: None A variety of habitats, including open Northern harder (nesting) State: None wetlands, grasslands, wet pasture. May occur as rare visitor for Circus cyaneus CDFG: CSC old fields, dry uplands, and foraging only. croplands. San Diego fairy shrimp Federal: FE Not expected to occur on -site Branchfnecta sandiegonensis State: None Seasonal vernal pools. due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CSC habitat San Diego homed lizard Federal: None Occurs in a variety of vegetation types including coastal sage scrub, Not expected to occur to Phrynosoma coronatum blaimillei State: None chaparral, annual grassland, oak able due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CSC woodland, and riparian woodlands. habitat Southern California saltinarsh Federal: None Not expected to occur on -site shrew Sorex omatus saffcornicus Stare: None Presumed to be coastal marshes. due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CCSC habitat Page 5.3 -10 *The Planning Center February 2008 , II l S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL Rssovxcss Table 5.3 -1 Sensitive Animal Species Potentially Present on or in the Vicinity of the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence On Site Western snowy plover Federal: FT Sandy or gravelly beaches along Not expected to occur on -site Charaddus alexandrinus nivosus State: None the coast, estuarine salt ponds, due to a lack of suitable CDFG: CSC alkali lakes, and at the Salton Sea. habitat Low - elevation open grasslands, White- tailed kite (nesting) Federal: FSC savannah -like habitats, agricultural May occur as rare visitor for Elanus leucurus State: None areas, wetlands, and oak foraging only. CDFG: CFP woodlands. Dense canopies used for nesting and cover. Source: Glen Lukos Associates, 2006 CDFG Federal classifications CSC — Calfornia Species of Concern FE — Federally Endangered CFP — California Fully- Protected Species FT — Federally Threatened State classifications FPT — Federally Proposed Threatened SE — State Endangered FSC — Federal Species of Concern ST — State Threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher The coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) is a federally listed threatened species and a CDFG- designated species of concern. This small songbird is a year- round, obligate resident of coastal sage scrub (CSS) communities in southern California and northwestern Baja Caflfomia, Mexico. CAGN is insectivorous, and nests and forages in moderately dense stands of sage scrub on and hillsides, mesas, and in washes. CAGN generally occur below 1,200 feet in elevation. Coastal sage scrub communities dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), California buckwheat (Edogonum fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana), and black sage (Salvia mellifera) are preferred by this species. Loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat due to expanding development have been major factors in the decline of this bird in southern California. Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans and /or Natural Community Conservation Plans throughout most of the range in southern California, however, have ensured the long -term persistence of this species in the United States. As shown on Figure 5.3 -3, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Observed Locations, three individuals of this species were observed in the coastal sage scrub to the northwest of the site during site visits in early 2007. However, because only individual gnatcatchers were detected, (outside of the nesting season when gnatcatchers are still dispersing and potentially finding mates), it was determined that nesting season surveys would be appropriate to determine whether nesting individuals were using CSS within the areas that could be subject to direct or indirect impacts. Protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher were conducted during May 2007 by GLA biologists with section 10(a)(1)(A) permits. ' During the May 2007 surveys, paired gnatcatchers were detected on two occasions many hundreds of feet from the project site near Back Bay Road, confirming that the better habitat is well removed from the golf course edge. On one occasion, a pair of gnatcatchers was observed approximately 30 feet beyond the limits of the proposed fuel modification zone, as depicted on Figure 3 -10, Conceptual Fuel Modification. Based on these sightings, these off -site areas could be considered "potentially occupied" by the gnatcatcher and potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) in accordance with the City's Coastal Land Use Policies, as discussed below (Sensitive Habitats /ESHA). ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.3 -11 9101 5. Environmental Analysis 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This intentionally left blank. 1 page 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Page 5.3 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Coastal California Gnatcatcber, Observed Locations Legend oP,oecteo M.ry M O 1w G GN IMwH lF fly 2" of fury 20M� CgwrveE CAGN P�ua 1MeY 200)1 Source: Glenn Lukos Associates, November 2007 0 200 r9 Scale (Feet) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center a Figure 5.3 -3 I S. Environmental Analysis ' BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. I 11 1 I rl I L� I J I 7 J I Page 5.3 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Special - Status Plants No special- status plants were observed during the site reconnaissance. There is no potential for special status plants to occur within the project boundary, as the entire site is landscaped. Table 5.3 -2 provides a summary of all plants considered for the biological resources constraints analysis. Species were considered based on a number of factors, including: (1) species identified by the September 2005 CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the project site, and (2) any other special- status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the property or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the site. Table 5.3 -2 Sensitive Plant Species Potentially Present on or in the Vicinity of the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence On -Site Federal: None On south- facing slopes above coastal Aphanisma sah marsh. Occurs with Calgomia Does not occur on -site due to Aphanisma blitoides State: None sagebrush, California buckwheat and lack of suitable habitat. CNPS: List 1 B bladderpod in clay soils. Chaparral sand verbena Federal: None Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal sage Does not occur on -site due to Abronia Wilma var. Audta State: None scrub. lack of suitable habitat CNPS: List 1 B Coast woolly-heads Federal: None Does not occur on -site due to Neemacaulis denudate var. State: None Coastal dunes. lack of suitable habitat denudate CNPS: List 1 B Coutt er's goldfields Federal: None Playas, vernal pools, marshes, and Does not occur an -site due to Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulted State: None CNPS: List 1 BC swamps (coastal salt). lack of suitable habitat Federal: None Coastal bluff scrub, coast dunes, Couhers salters State: None coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill Does not occur on site due to Ahiplex coulters CNPS: List 1 B grassland. Occurring on alkaline or lack of suitable habltat clay soils. Davidson's saltscale Federal: None Alkaline soils in coastal sage scrub, Does not occur on -site due to Atriplexserenana var. State: None coastal bluff scrub. lack of suitable habitat dawdsonit CNPS: List 16 Estuary seablite Federal: None Coastal march and swamps. Does not occur on -site due to Suaeda esteroa State: None Occurring in sandy soils. lack of suitable habitat CNPS: List 1B Federal: None Sall and freshwater marshes, Los Angeles Sunflower historically in Los Angeles, Orange, Does not occur on -site due to Helianthus nuhallll ssp. Parishii State: None Riverside, and San Bernardino lack of suitable habitat CNPS: List 1A counties. Marry- stemmed dudleya Federal: None Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley Does not occur on -site due to Dudleya muRicaulis State: None and foothill grassland. Often occurring lack of suitable habitat CNPS: List 1 B in clay soils. Mud nam Federal: one None Does not occur on -site due to Nama stenocarpum State: None Marshes and swamps. lack of suitable habitat CNPS: List 2 Prostrate a Federal: None Coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill Does not occur on-site due to Navarreba prosfiate prostrate State: None grassland (alkaline), vernal pools. lack of suitable habitat. CNPS: List 1 B Occurring in mesic soils. Salt marsh bird's -beak Federal: None Coastal dune, coastal sah marshes, Does not occur on -site due to cordylanthus maritimus ssp. State: None and swamps. lack of suitable habitat Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -15 �� I 5, Environmental Analysis 1 BIOLOGICAL RHSOURCHs Table 5.3 -2 Sensitive Plant S ties Potential) Present on or in the Vicinity of the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence On -Site Madimus CLAPS: List 1 B San Fernando Valley Federal: None spineflower Sate: None Coastal sage scrub, occurring on Does not occur on -site due to Chorizanthe parryi var. CNPS: List 1B sandy soils. lack of suitable habitat Fernandina Southern tarplant Federal: None Disturbed habitats, margins of Centromadia parri ssp. State: None marshes and swamps, vernally mesic Does not occur on -site due to AusUalus CNPS: List 1B valley and foothill grassland, vernal lack of suitable habitat pools. South coast saltscale Federal: None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Does not occur on -site due to Atriplex pacifica State: None CNPS: List 1 B coastal sage scrub, playas. lack of suitable habitat. Source: Glen Lukos Associates,2006 State Classifications Federal Classifications SE - State Endangered FE - Federally Endangered ST - State Threatened _ FT - Federally Threatened CNPS List 1 B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 - Plards rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. List 3 - Plants about which more information is needed. Sensitive Habitats /ESHA A review of the September 2005 CNDDB identified the following special - status habitats occurring within the Newport Beach Quadrangle: southern coastal salt marsh, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern dune scrub, and southern foredunes. None of these special- status habitats occurs within the golf course project area. Moreover, the property does not occur within any USFWS critical habitat units. Coastal sage scrub, however, does occur immediately adjacent to the site along the northern and northwesterly boundary. This habitat is identified as a potential ESHA by the City of Newport Beach (pursuant to the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Planl. Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines "environmentally sensitive habitat area" as "any area in which plant or animal fife or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." The coastal sage scrub immediately north of the site was evaluated in accordance with the policies set forth below under Coastal Land Use Policies. The following criteria were used to determine whether the CSS would be considered ESHA under Section 4.1.1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan: • The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and Game. • The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal Law. • The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not listed under State or Federal law, but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as designation as a 1 B or 2 species by the California Native Plant Society. 'Coastal Land Use Policies, Section 4.0 Coastal Resource Protection, Section 4.1 Biological Resources Page 5.3 -16 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • The presence of coastal streams. The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas. In addition, in accordance with Section 4.1.1, CSS is specifically identified by the City as potential ESHA as follows: Another important habitat within the Newport Beach is coastal sage scrub (CSS). Although CSS has suffered enormous losses in California (estimates are as high as 85 %), there are 1 still thousands of acres in existence and this community type is no longer listed as rare by CDFG. Nevertheless, where CSS occurs adjacent to coastal salt marsh or other wetlands, or where it is documented to support or known to have the potential to support rare species ' such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, it meets the definition of ESHA because of its especially valuable role in the ecosystem. CSS is important transitional or "edge" habitat adjacent to saltmarsh, providing important function such as supporting pollinators for wetland plants and essential habitat for edge- dependent animals like several species of butterflies that nectar on upland plants but whose caterpillars require wetland vegetation. CSS also provides essential nesting and foraging habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a rare species designated threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. [Areas of CSS] are presumed to be ESHA unless there are strong site - specific reasons to rebut that presumption. Factors that should be considered when making site - specific assessments include: • Patch size and connectivity. Very small patches of habitat that are effectively isolated from other natural areas may lose many of their natural ecological functions. Functional patch size is dependent upon both the ecological needs of the species of importance supported by the habitat and the spatial scale of the habitat. For example, what is isolated for a small ' mammal may not be for a bird and what is small for a coyote may not be for some insects. • Dominance by invasive, non - native species. Non - native species often provide poorer habitat for wildlife than native vegetation and proliferation of exotic plant species alters ecosystem ' processes and may threaten certain native species with extirpation. However, there are probably no habitats in southern California that have not been invaded by exotic species, and the remaining stands of native grassland are almost always dominated by non - native annual species. Only where exotic species are so overwhelmingly dominant that the native community can no longer perform its functions in the ecosystem should the presence of exotic species rebut the presumption of ESHA. • Disturbance and proximity to development. Disturbance is the negative effect of human activities such as dumping, vegetation removal, development, pollution, etc. Habitat areas bordering development may be subject to impacts from negative edge effects, such as .� lighting, non - native invasive plant species, domestic animals, and human activity. The negative effects of disturbance are strongest immediately adjacent to development and decline with distance from the edge. However, where very small patches of habitat are ' effectively surrounded by development, these impacts may be severe. In general, disturbance by itself is not enough to rebut the finding of ESHA. Disturbance that is clearly reversible (e.g., presence of trash or illegal dumping) is not determinative. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -17 S. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL REsouRcEs Fragmentation and isolation. Where there are large areas of more -or -less continuous development, native communities maybe reduced to small islands of habitat that are distant from other natural habitats. This fragmentation and isolation can create barriers to migration, reduce wildlife food and water resources and generally compress territory size to reduce existing wildlife populations to non - viability. This smaller a particular habitat patch is, the greater the proportion of its area that experiences negative edge effects. Based on the gnatcatcher sightings (including a pair that was observed approximately 30 feet beyond the limits of the proposed fuel modification zone), the off -site area could be considered "potentially occupied" by the gnatcatcher and potential ESHA in accordance with the City's coastal Land Use Policies. Furthermore, application of the criteria that would allow rebutting of the presumed ESHA status does not lead to a conclusion that the subject CSS is not ESHA: Patch size and connectivity. The subject off -site CSS is part of a large natural area that consists of CSS and wetland habitats that are connected to the larger adjacent reserve area. The subject CSS is of sufficient size to support at least one and potentially two pairs of breeding coastal California gnatcatchers and the patch is within dispersal distance of other gnatcatcher pairs in the reserve. Dominance by invasive nonnative species /disturbance. The subject CSS is not dominated by nonnative invasive species and is not significantly disturbed and would not be considered as non -ESHA based on dominance by nonnative invasive species or other types of disturbance. Fragmentation and isolation. The subject CSS is not fragmented or isolated; rather, as described above, is connected to a mosaic of other habitat types as well as CSS within a larger reserve area. 5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: B -1 Have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. B -2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. B3 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. B-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. B -5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ' preservation policy or ordinance. i Page 5.3 -18 • The Planning Center February 2008 I t5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL REsoDRCES B -6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant: Threshold B -3. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis r5.3.3 Environmental Impacts The following discussion examines the potential impacts to wildlife resources that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Project- related impacts can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of plant communities. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations, thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability. Other impacts, such as loss of foraging habitat, can occur as indirect impacts even if they are not directly removed by project development. Indirect impacts can also involve the effects of increased ambient noise or light, unnatural predators (domestic cats and other nonnative animals), competition with exotic plants and animals, and increased human disturbance such as hiking and dumping of green waste. Short- and long- term indirect impacts may result from the day -to -day activities associated with project buildout, such as increased traffic use, permanent concrete barrier walls or chain -link fences, exotic ornamental plantings that provide a local source of seed, etc. These impacts are commonly referred to as "edge effects" and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by exotics, and changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to the project site. ' Impact Analysis The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. ' IMPACT 5.3 -1: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED FUEL MODIFICATION WOULD NOT REMOVE ANY COASTAL SAGE SCRUB AND WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ' COASTAL ACT POLICIES SET FORTH TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITATAREAS (ESHAS). [THRESHOLD B -2] Impact Analysis: As detailed in Section 5.3.1, Environmental Setting, the coastal sage scrub habitat ' adjacent to the project site is assumed ESHA. In addition to the policies reviewed in that section to determine ESHA, Chapter 4, Coastal Resource Protection, of the Coastal Land Use Plan includes the following policies to protect ESHAs: 4.1.1.3 Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in ESHA. ' 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. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.3 -19 tro 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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. 4.1.1. -10 Require buffer areas of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the hati bat they are desitged to protect. Terrestrial ESHA shall have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet wherever possible. Smaller ESHA buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 50 -foot -wide buffer is not possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply ptotective of the biological integrity of the ESHA given the site - specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and sensitivity of disturbance. 4.1.1. -11 Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provde distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion. 4.1.1. -12 Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas. 4.1.1. -13 Shield and direct exterior lighting away from ESHAs to minimize impacts to wildlife. The project design would result in complete avoidance of off -site CSS. As shown on Figure 5.3 -4, 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 areas and off -site CSS to assure full compliance with the City's Coastal Land Use Policies. IMPACT 5.3 -2: CONSTRUCTION - RELATED ACTIVITIES COULD HAVE A TEMPORARY ADVERSE IMPACT ON COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHERS NESTING IN PRESERVED AREAS OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ADJACENT TO THE SITE. [THRESHOLDS B -11 Impact Analysis: Construction of the project could have a temporary adverse impact on CAGN nesting within preserved areas of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site due to construction noise, which could disrupt breeding activities. Potential impacts due to construction noise could be considered harassment under the FESA and would be addressed through coordination with USFWS. Such impacts could potentially require authorization through the Section 7 or Section 10 process. IMPACT 5.3 -3: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPACT ANY SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES. (THRESHOLD B -11 The majority of the project site includes existing golf course, which is predominantly turf grass with ornamental landscaping. The conversion of turf and ornamental landscaping to hotel uses would not be considered a significant impact on biological resources. No special status plants were observed during site reconnaissance, and none have the potential to occur, as the entire site is landscaped. Page 5.3 -20 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 r S Y f t Source: Glenn Lukos Associates, November 2007 S. Environmental Analysis Vegetation & Fuel Modification �j rp ` K � a it 46' i �m Fuel Modification Zones .. a+wwwar.a.rr.r.Y.»w,r. YNf NwnirY ._NrF 4evl.vw Yw.O»wwMYP+�Y+w6 w a «uww«In.w+Y+Yr Yu.�..F pw rw4rYTY "L,Mw Sao Scale (Feet) rw•rr. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft E[R The Planning Coact • Figure 5.3-0 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.3 -22 *The Planning Center February 2008 1 I d LJ 1 1 lJ I I 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT 5.3 -4: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COULD IMPACT MIGRATORY BIRDS AND RAPTOR FORAGING HABITAT. (THRESHOLD 9-21 The Hyatt Regency golf course property currently contains ornamental trees and shrubs that have the potential to support nesting birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The property is an open golf course adjacent to open space that supports, at best, moderate - quality foraging habitat for common raptor species. Impacts to potential foraging area would not be considered significant. However, to assure protection of potential foraging habitat, mitigation has been provided at the end of this section. IMPACT 5.3 -5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT AFFECT WILDLIFE MOVEMENT. [THRESHOLD B-41 Impact Analysis: The existing golf course does not function as a wildlife movement corridor and the proposed project would not impact wildlife movement. IMPACT 5.3 -6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES AND WOULD COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CENTRAL /COASTAL HCP /NCCP. [THRESHOLD B -51 Impact Analysis: As discussed under Impact 5.3 -1, project development would completely avoid CSS and would comply with ESHA policies as detailed in the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Also, as indicated in the previous discussion of the Newport Beach Tree Ordinance, the City's local tree ordinance and tree policies only apply to City trees, i.e., those located on public property and within public parkways. There are numerous palm trees located on the project site, and although these trees are not protected by any of the City's local ordinances or policies regarding trees, the majority of the trees would be retained in place or transplanted within the property boundaries. IMPACT 5.3 -7. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CENTRAL /COASTAL HCP /NCCP. [THRESHOLD B -61 ImpactAnalysis: Although the proposed project would not be required to comply with the NCCP the project applicant would voluntarily adopt the NCCP Construction Minimization Measures outlined in Mitigation Measure 3 -3, as they have been vetted and approved and as such represent a highly acceptable approach to minimizing construction- related impacts. 5.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Related cumulative projects are described and mapped in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of this DEIR Potential impacts to coastal sage scrub and the sensitive species associated with this habitat would be addressed in a regional context through the NCCP /HCP or through existing regulatory permitting for nonparticipating landowners. Several areas of the City are already within the reserve system of the NCCP /HCP. Additionally, the CIOSA development agreement assured the preservation of undisturbed open space adjacent to the project site. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.3 -23 C� 5. Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.3.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Existing Regulations • Federal Endangered Species Act • California Endangered Species Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Clean Water Act, Sections 401, 402, and 404 • California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 • California Endangered Species Act • California Coastal Act City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions Refer to Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, and 5.9, Noise, forstandard conditions related to lighting and construction noise, respectively, that could result in indirect impacts to wildlife. 5.3.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard condtons of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.3 -1, 5.3-3, 5.3 -5, and 5.3 -6. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: • Impact 5.3 -2 Construction - related activities could have a temporary adverse impact on coastal California gnatcatchers nesting in preserved areas of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site. • Impact 5.3 -4 Project development could impact migratory birds. • Impact 5.3 -7 The proposed project would comply with the provisions of the Central /Coastal HCP /NCCP. 5.3.7 Mitigation Measures Impacts 5.3 -2 and 5.3 -7 3 -1 The applicant shall comply with requirements of the NCCP/ HCP, including construction- related minimization and mitigation measures that minimize impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub species. These include: To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 though 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. These considerations could require unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies /utilities will provide USFWS /CDFG with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP /HCP) to allowfor capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any Page 5.3 -24 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 E 5. Environmental Analysis • Following the completion of initial grading /earth- moving activities, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. • In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System orSpecial Linkage /Special Management areas containing significant coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protec- tion, vehicle transportation routes between cut -and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction require- , ments. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators shall be ' conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. • Coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and location within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. ' 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and ' where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels and the birds appear to be distressed, noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to) construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. 3-3 To ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause significant impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures shall be implemented: • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall be directed away from coastal sage scrub habitat. ' • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -25 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES other coastal sage scrub Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed, and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of public ' health and safety considerations. • Prior to commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided under the provi- sions of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of coastal sage scrub, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of ' the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction /grading plans. • Following the completion of initial grading /earth- moving activities, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. • In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System orSpecial Linkage /Special Management areas containing significant coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protec- tion, vehicle transportation routes between cut -and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction require- , ments. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators shall be ' conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. • Coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and location within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. ' 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and ' where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels and the birds appear to be distressed, noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to) construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. 3-3 To ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause significant impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures shall be implemented: • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall be directed away from coastal sage scrub habitat. ' • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.3 -25 5. Environmental Analysis 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • A qualified biologist shall review lighting plans prior to construction to ensure that the , proposed lighting minimizes potential impacts on the California gnatcatcher. Impact 5.3 -4 ' 3 -4 During project construction, all trees to be removed shall be identified. Such trees should be removed outside the avian nesting season, which extends from March 14 to July 15. 3 -5 If for some reason it is not possible to remove all trees during the nonnesting season, then trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to , removal. If no nesting birds are found, the tree may be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate , buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. 3 -6 For trees being preserved, if construction is to occur during the nesting season, preserved trees , shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. , 5.3.8 Level of Signircance After Mitigation The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with biological , resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to biological resources would result on a project-specific or cumulative basis. [l 11 I I Page 5.3 -26 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' S. Environmental Analysis ' 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ' Cultural resources include places, object, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Hyatt Regency ' Newport Beach (proposed project) to impact cultural resources in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the following report: ' Cultural Resources Assessment Report for Hyatt Regency Addition, Cogstone Resource Management, December 2006. ' A copy of this report in its entirety is included in Appendix E of this DEIR. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting Study Methodology A literature search and reviewfor archaeological and historical records were completed at the South Central ' Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. The research included a review of site maps, site records, survey reports, mitigation reports, historical maps, California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historic Places, the National Register of Historic ' Places, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory. A search of in -house vertebrate paleontology collection records was conducted by Cogstone Resource Management personnel at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Research included a review of the locality and specimen data for the proposed project area. A cultural resources reconnaissance survey of the proposed project area was ' conducted by Cogstone Resource Management on November 6, 2006. Environmental Context Natural Setting Geology The proposed project area lies within the Los Angeles Basin. The basin is formed by the Santa Monica Mountains on the northwest, the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains on the north and east, and the San Joaquin Hills on the south. The north coastal area of Orange County was an ocean bottom until the Santa Ana River area uplifted, forming the Santa Ana Canyon. As it fanned out, the river isolated Newport Mesa, cutting it off from the San ' Joaquin Hills to the south. Heavy clays, silts, and shell deposits are evidence of that ancient ocean bottom. Surface deposits in the proposed project area consist of exposures of Quaternary terrace deposits, both ' marine and terrestrial, in the low -lying areas to the west and south. In the east - central area of the project, there are exposures of the marine Miocene Monterey Formations that underlie the Quaternary terrace deposits. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft Ell? City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -1 S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Vegetation In the San Joaquin Hills to the southeast, a southern Oak Woodland Community exists. To the north is the Upper Newport Bay, which is comprised of approximately 1,000 acres of tidelands and salt white marsh, bordered by steep cliffs and cliffs at heights of up to 100 feet above the waterway. The marshes are inhabited by various species, including amphibians and birds. To the north of the project area is a valley grassland environment. Cultural Setting Three prehistoric periods are defined. Milling Stone Period. This period dates from 6,000 to 2,000 BC. Sites from this period appear to be part of a settlement expansion to take advantage of new habitats and resources that became available as sea levels stabilized between about six and five thousand years ago. Gores were used for fishing and mans /metate pairs were used to process plant materials. Most sites were in coastal areas. Intermediate Period. This period dates from 2000 BC to AD 600. The first circular fish hooks appear in the tool kit in this period and use of plant - grinding tools increases. Hunting tools consist of the atlatl and dart. Most sites were in coastal areas. Late Prehistoric Period. The period dates from AD 600to 1769. In this period the atlatl and dart hunting tools are replaced by the bow and arrow. Manos(metates were gradually replaced by pestle /mortars. Use of other traditional tools continues. Settlement was expanded inland into the hills and canyons. Ethnography Orange County is within the ethnographic territory that was occupied, at the influx of Spanish missionaries, by the Native American group who called themselves the Tongva and were renamed the Gabrielino by missionaries. Their settlement and subsistence systems may extend back to the beginning of the Late Prehistoric period, about AD 750. The Gabrielino were semisedentary hunters and gatherers. One of the most important food resources for inland groups was acorns gathered from oak groves in canyons, drainages, and foothills. The nuts were pounded into flour using stone mortars and pestles, and then cooked as soup or gruel. Seeds from sage, grasses, goosefoot, and buckwheat were collected and ground with stone manos and metates. Protein was supplied by hunting deer, rabbits, and other animals using the bow and arrow, and various traps and snares. Coastal Gabrielino collected shellfish and fished for estuary, near - shore, and kelp -bed species. Dried fish and shellfish were exchanged for inland products such as acorns. The Gabrielino lived in villages of up to 150 people near permanent water sources and a range of food resources. The village acted as the center of a territory from which resources were gathered. Small groups left the village for short periods to hunt, fish, and gather plants for food, as well as collect raw materials for tools, housing, and other needs. While away from the village, they established temporary camps and resource processing locations. Archaeologically, such locations are marked by bedrock mortars for acorn processing, manos and metates for seed processing, and flaked lithic scatters indicating the manufacturing or maintenance of stone tools (usually chert) used in hunting or butchering. Overnight stays in these field camps are indicated by fire- accented rock resulting from hearths. Page 5.4 -2 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES ' Historic Period In 1769, Spanish settlers began to enter and colonize Alta California. Thus began the Spanish Period (1760- ' 1821). These settlers introduced missions, presidios, pueblos, and ranchos. Starting in 1784, the government of New Spain (as California was called at the time) began handing out private land grants called "ranchos." This land was assigned to the colonists regardless of the presence of Native Americans. ' The Mexican Period (1821 -1848) included the retention of many Spanish institutions and laws. The mission system was secularized in 1834, which dispossessed many Native Americans and increased Mexican settlement. After secularization, mission lands were granted to individuals and families in large tracts, greatly ' enlarging the rancho system. Cattle ranching dominated other agricultural activities and the development of the hide and tallow trade with the United States to the east increased during the early part of this period. The Mexican Period ended when Mexico ceded California to the United States after the Mexican- American War of ' 1846 -48. Soon after American control was established, gold was discovered in California. The tremendous influx of Americans and Europeans that resulted quickly drowned out much of the Spanish and Mexican cultural influence and eliminated the last vestiges of de facto Native American control. Few Mexican ranchos remained intact due to land claim disputes. ' City of Newport Beach Newport Bay was named Bolsa de San Joaquin in early historic times and the Lower Bay was the estuary of ' the Santa Ana River. In the 1870s a landing was established for offloading supplies from boats and the place was officially renamed Newport. Navigation was difficult in the shallow waters and in 1888 a wharf was built out into the bay so that large ships could dock. There were only a few residents of Newport until the turn of the century when the railroad and its Red Cars made Newport a beach destination. The communities of West ' Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, and Balboa were laid out. In 1906 these communities were incorporated as the City of Newport Beach with a combined total population of 205. The reclamation of lower Newport Bay, a large -scale municipal project of the 1930s, gave the City its present contours. Fishing and canning were the major industries until World War II when Newport became an important center for repairing and refurbishing Navy vessels. The building of the Santa Ana Freeway in the 1950s opened up Newport Beach and other areas of Orange County for permanent residents ratherthan just summer beachgoers. The 1970s ' saw explosive growth and the development of Newport Beach as a prestige address for residents and businesses. Archaeological and Historical Resources ' Recorded Archaeological Sites As indicated in the cultural resources assessment report (see Appendix E of this DEIR) and shown in table 5.4-1, two archaeological sites are known within the project boundaries, CA- ORA -99 (Shell Scatter) and CA- ORA-50 (Shell Midden). Only the Shell Midden site would be impacted by the proposed project. The shell ' midden was observed in a roadway near the existing ballroom and in the landscape areas and rodent holes in the areas of the proposed timeshare buildings 1 -4. Shell middens are places where the debris from eating shellfish and other food has accumulated over time and are the result of a clearly recognizable single - activity event. They can contain: ' • Shellfish remains Bones of fish, birds, and land and sea mammals used for food ' • Tools made from stone, shell, and bone Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -3 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL. RHSOURus There are also 38 recorded archaeological sites located within a one -mile radius of the project area. These sites are listed in Table 5.4 -1. The literature search of projects completed within a one -mile radius of the project site yielded 46 previous archaeological/historical studies. Table 5.47 Recoded Sites within a One -Mile Radius of the Project Area Trinomial Site Type Date CA- ORA -46 Shell Midden 1949 CA- ORA -47 Shell Midden 1949 CA- ORA -48 Shell Midden 1949 CA- ORA-49 Shell Midden 1949 CA- ORA -50 Shell Midden 1949 CA- ORA -51 Shell Midden 1949 CA- ORA -52 Shell Midden 1949 CA- DRA -64 Habitation Site 1965 CA- DRA -65 Historic and Prehistoric Artifact Scatter 1980 CA- ORA -66 Shell Scatter 1985 CA- ORA -68 Shell Midden 1966 CA- ORA -70 Shell Midden 1966 CA- ORA -89 Shell Midden 1965 CA- ORA -99 Shell Scatter 1965 CA- DRA -IDD Shell Scatter 1965 CA -ORA -137 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -138 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -139 Shell and Artifacts Scatter 1965 CA -ORA -140 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -141 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -146 Habitation Site 1965 CA -ORA -150 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -151 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -152 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -153 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -154 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -155 Shell Midden 1965 CA -ORA -156 Shell Scatter 1965 CA -ORA -158 Shell Midden 1966 CA -ORA -186 Shell Scatter 1965 CA -ORA -187 Shell Scatter 1965 CA -ORA -518 Shell Midden 1976 CA -DRA -1098 Shell Midden 1985 CA -ORA -1117 Shell Midden 1980 CA -ORA -1451 Artifact Scatter 1995 Source: Guttural Resources Assessment Report, 2006 Shell midden was also observed during the cultural resource reconnaissance survey for the proposed project. Shell midden, indicative of a potential archaeological site, was observed in a roadway near the existing ballroom and in landscape areas and rodent holes on the future sites of timeshare Buildings 1-4. No other types of archaeological resources were observed during the survey. Page 5.4 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RFsouRCFS Historical Resources Based on the cultural resources reconnaissance survey conducted by Cogstone Resource Management, none of the existing structures slated for demolition meet significance criteria under CEQA and there are no known historical resources in the project area. Native American Consultation The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was consulted to determine if any known sacred lands exist in or near the project area. The NAHC responded that no sacred lands are known in the vicinity of the project site. Letters were then sent to each tribe or person recommended by the NAHC. Ms. Joyce Perry, a Juaneno, responded that she believed the area to be sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources and to state that the tribe has a reburial area nearby. No other responses were received. Paleontological Resources Paleontological Setting Surface deposits in the proposed project area consist of exposures of Quaternary terrace deposits, both marine and terrestrial, in the low -lying areas to the west and south. In the east-central area of the project site, there are exposures of the marine Miocene Monterey Formations that underlie the Quaternary terrace deposits. Quaternary Terraces Quaternary Terrace deposits date from 1.8 million to 10,000 years before present and contain Pleistocene fossils. In Orange County these sediments yield marine mammals and fishes plus terrestrial fossils such as sloth, bison, horse, camel, and mammoth. These sediments generally contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources and are considered to have high paleontological significance. Monterey Formation The Miocene (17 to 13.5 million years before present) Monterey Formation is mapped as the deep sediments in the project area. The Monterey Formation is well known for its rich fossil assemblage of marine algae, plankton, leaves, invertebrates, bony fish, marine turtles, birds, and marine mammals. These sediments generally contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources and are considered to have high paleontological significance. Reconnaissance Survey No paleontological resources were observed during the site survey conducted by Cogstone Resource Management. Regulatory Background Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Draft ELR City of Neqort Beach • Page 5 .4 -5 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Federal National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the National Register of Historic Places and coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation's historical and archaeo- logical resources. The National Register includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 Review refers to the federal review process designed to ensure that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process, with assistance from state historic preservation offices. Archaeological Resources Protection Act The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal and Indian lands. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is afederal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. state California Public Resources Code Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of state policies and regulations enumerated under the California Public Resources Code. In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. • California Public Resources Code Sections 5020-5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the State Historical Resources Commission. The Commission oversees the administration of the California Register of Historical Resources and is responsible for the designation of State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest. • California Public Resources Code Sections 5079 - 5079.65 define the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The OHP is responsible for the administration of federally and state - mandated historic preservation programs in California and the California Heritage Fund. • California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9. - 5097.998 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites and identlties the powers and duties of the NAHC. They also require notification of descendants regarding discoveries of Native American human remains, and provide for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods. Page 5.4 -6 •The Planning Center February 2008 ' S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Local City of Newport Beach General Plan Cultural resources are addressed in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan. Of particular application to the proposed project is Goal NR 18, Protection and Preservation of Important Paleontological and Archaeological Resources, of this element. The goal is supported by the following policies: NR 18.1 New Development (page 10 -34). Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources (page 10.34). Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and /or excavation of development sites. NR 18A New Development Requirements (page 10 -34). Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are notfeasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. ' 5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides direction for determining significance of impacts to archaeo- logical and historical resources. Typically, a resource shall be considered "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing, including the following: ' . Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 1 • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or ' • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or is not included in a local register of historical resources, does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource. ' According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: ' C-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -7 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES C -2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. C -3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. C -4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant: C -1. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.43 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.4-1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD IMPACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. [THRESHOLD C -2] ImpactAnalysis: Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on archaeological resources. However, given the potential to unearth archaeological resources in the project area during excavation and grading activities, the proposed project could impact significant prehistoric resources. Additionally, as mentioned under Section 5.4.1, Environmental Setting, two archeological sites are known within the project boundaries. However, the project site has previously been disturbed and is developed with the existing Hyatt Regency Hotel and its ancillary uses. Additionally, in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a qualified archaeologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find, as indicated in Mitigation Measure 4 -1. IMPACT 5.4 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD DESTROY PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR A UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE. [THRESHOLD C -3] Impact Analysis: Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. While no paleontological resources were observed during the survey performed as a part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, the sediments that underlie the project site are well known to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Excavations anywhere in the proposed project area could encounter significant fossil vertebrates from the marine (and terrestrial) quaternary Terrace deposits. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a quali ied paleontologist would be brought into assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find, as indicated in Mitigation Measure 4 -3, Page 5.4 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 J 1 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 1 IMPACT 5.4-3. THE PROPOSED PROJECTS GRADING ACTIVITIES COULD RESULT IN THE DISTURBANCE OF HUMAN REMAINS. [THRESHOLD C -4] 1 Impact Analysis: The project site has been previously disturbed and has not been identified for a high likelihood of containing human remains. No known human burial sites have been reported on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on human 1 remains. However, the excavation and grading activities of the proposed project could result on impacts to human remains. 1 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. The Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states: 1 In the event of discovery and recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the 1 human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, 1 and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the 1 discovery or recognition of the human remains... If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner 1 recognized the human remains to be those of a Native American, or had reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, 1 To ensure that Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 is implemented during all project- related excavation and grading activities, a mitigation measure has been provided at the end of this section. Compliance with the above- stated regulation and Mitigation Measure 4-4 would ensure that any impacts from disturbance of 1 human remains as a result of the proposed project would not occur. 5.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 1 Future construction projects in the City of Newport Beach, as identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, could lead to accelerated degradation of the cultural and paleontological resources. However, each 1 development proposal received by the City is required to undergo environmental review. If there is a potential for significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources, an investigation will be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Neither the proposed project nor cumulative development in accordance with the City's General Plan is expected to 1 result in significant impacts to cultural or paleontological resources, provided site-specific surveys and test and evaluation excavations are conducted to determine whether the resources are unique archaeological resources or historical resources, and appropriate mitigation including are implemented prior to grading. 1 Implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures would reduce cumulative impacts to a level of less than significant. 1 ' Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.4 -9 �:1, 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.4.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Existing Regulations California Public Resources Code 5097.98 Notification of discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated grave goods: (a) Whenever the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendents may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendents shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. (b) Upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section, with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations,'rf applicable, taking into accountthe possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendents all reasonable options regarding the descendents' preferences for treatment. (1) The descendents preferences for treatment may include the following: (A) The nondestructive removal and analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American human remains. (B) Preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place. (C) Relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendents for treatment. (D) Other culturally appropriate treatment. (2) The parties may also mutually agree to extend discussions, taking into account the possibility that additional or multiple Native American human remains, as defined in this section, are located in the project area providing a basis for additional treatment measures. (c) For the purposes of this section, "conferral" or "discuss and confer' means the meaningful and timely discussion and careful consideration of the views of each party, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties' cultural values, and where feasible, seeking agreement. Each parry shall recognize the other's needs and concerns for confidentiality of information provided to the other. Page 5.4 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 (d) S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL REsoURC&s (1) Human remains of a Native American may be an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. (2) Any items associated with the human remains that are placed or buried with the Native American human remains are to be treated in the same manner as the remains, but do not by themselves constitute human remains. (e) Whenever the commission is unable to identify a descendent, or the descendents identified fail to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendents and the mediation provided for in subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, 9 invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject tof urther and future subsurface disturbance. To protect these sites, the landowner shall do one or more of the following: (1) Record the site with the commission or the appropriate Information Center. (2) Utilize an open -space or conservation zoning designation or easement. (3) Record a document with the county in which the property is located (f) Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with the descendents is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from a review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree on the appropriate treatment measures the human remains and items associated and buried with Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity, pursuant to subdivision (e). (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5097.9, this section, including those actions taken by the landowner or his or her authorized representative to implement this section and any action taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (1) of Section 5097.94, shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)). (h) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30244, this section, including those actions taken by the landowner or his or her authorized representative to implement this section, and any action taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision([) of Section 5097.94 shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000)). City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions • The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4 -11 W 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES been prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures. 5.4.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: 5.4 -1, 5.4-2, and 5.4 -3. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures Impacts 5.4 -1 4 -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicantshall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the project applicant has retained an Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist. The archeologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The archaeologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The archaeologist shall determine the extent of monitoring that is required during excavation and grading activities. The qualified archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. The methods of archaeological monitoring, including timing, location, types of artifacts anticipated, and procedures for additional analysis, if necessary, shall be described in an archaeological monitoring plan. The extent and duration of the monitoring program shall be dependent upon the City - approved grading plans. The construction manager shall adhere to the stipulations of the archaeological monitoring plan. 2) The archaeological monitoring plan shall be developed prior to commencement of on- site grading activities. 3) Should any subsurface cultural resources be encountered, the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to halt grading activities until uncovered resources are evaluated and a determination of significance is made. If cultural resources are encountered, a Native American monitor with a Tongva/Gabrielino lineage, the project applicant, and the City of Newport Beach shall evaluate the significance of the resources and, 9 appropriate, shall determine appropriate treatment and mitigation of the resources. If cultural artifacts are recovered, any eligibility testing and/or determination of additional mitigation should be done in consultation with the Native American monitor. 4) During construction, if buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historical art'rfacts, specimens, fossils, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground - disturbing activities, the contractor shall ensure that all work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until the qualified on -call archaeologist arrives on -site and can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City. 5) Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological monitor has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page 5.4 -12 *The Planning Center February 2008 1 r-, �J I S. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES 6) A report that documents the findings of the program shall be prepared. The report shall provide an itemized inventory of the recovered specimens. Submission of the final report and inventory to the City of Newport Beach shall represent completion of the mitigation monitoring program for archeological resources. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation of each site locality, and interpretation of resources recovered and shall include all specialists' reports as appendices. All project documents, including field records and the report itself, should be included on a CD in portable document format. The CD shall be included a pocket at the rear of each copy of the report. 4 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a preconstruction testing plan for cultural resources shall be implemented. Testing may be conducted during the same period as demolition activities. However, ample time shall be allowed for the results of the testing to be evaluated and for possible redesign to avoid the findings sites or mitigation of destructive construction impacts on the sites. Testing shall be conducted as follows: • Proposals to conduct testing shall include construction fencing and warning signs to protect patrons of the Hyatt Regency and the shoring of deep units and /or trenches to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. • A trench at least 20 meters in length within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, for a total of four trenches. The depth of the trenches shall be 20 centimeters below any cultural or potential cultural levels and must be sufficient to determine site stratigraphy. Soil profiles and stratigraphic columns are required to document the site integrity or lack thereof. tro ' If intact site deposits are demonstrated to be present within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, then a minimum of two 1- meter - square units shall be placed in intact site areas, to be determined by the principal investigator. The units shall be dug in natural stratigraphic levels if possible and in 10centimeter levels otherwise. These units will document the potential of the site to contribute new information to prehistory. Documentation shall be thorough and detailed. A minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50 test pits shall be utilized to determine the boundaries of the site. The test pits should test the limits of the site at the limits of the project along the project footprint in the vicinity of timeshare buildings 1 -7, the timeshare clubhouse, the new ballroom, and the new spa facility. • Limited testing of the new ballroom area shall be conducted to determine if resources exist in the area in order to avoid construction delays caused by unanticipated finds. • Artifacts recovered will be in the custody of the principal investigator until they are transported to the designated accredited repository and will be prepared, identified, and cataloged prior to transport. ' Hyatt Regency Neuport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Page 5.4 -13 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.42 4 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the applicant has retained an Orange County Certified Professional Paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The paleontologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation plan and maintaining professional standards of work at all times. 2) The paleontologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting and shall be invited to briefly define paleontological resources, discuss cooperation with the paleontological monitor, and outline the on -call procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery when the monitor is not present. 3) The paleontologist shall prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with the City. The principle investigator shall prepare a final report to be filed with the City. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation for each locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. All specialists' reports shall be included as appendices. 4) Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed surfaces and microscopic examination of matrix. 5) The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading from exposed resources in order to recover the specimens and contextual data. 6) If the discovery of paleontological resources meets the criteria for fossil locality, formal locality documentation activities shall be performed. In addition, samples shall be submitted for dating and other special analyses. 7) If microfossil localities are discovered, the monitor shall collect matrix for processing. To limit downtime, the monitor may request heavy machinery assistance to move large quantities of matrix out of the path of construction to designated stockpile areas. Testing of stockpiles shall consist of screen washing small samples (200 pounds) to determine ff fossils are present. Productive tests shall result in screen washing of additional matrix from the stockpiles to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality. 8) Fossils recovered shall be prepared, identified, and cataloged before donation to the accredited repository that will maintain the collection for future scientific study and exhibition within Orange County, to be designated by the City. Such fossils shall be prepared, prior to donation, to the point of dedication. The project proponent shall be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the county or other suitable repository for long -term curation and maintenance of the donated collection. Any resources determined not to meet the significance criteria can be used in school education programs. Page 5.4 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 7 ' 5. Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES ' Impact 5.43 ' 4 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall place the following note on all grading plans: "If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. ' The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner ' or his or her authorized representative, the MILD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MILD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items t associated with Native American burials." This requirement shall also be discussed at the pregrade meeting(s). 5.4 8 Level of Significance After Mitigation ' The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to ' cultural resources have been identified on either a project - specific or cumulative basis. I I 1 L_�1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.4-15 88) 5. Environmental CULTURAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.4 -16 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 5. Environmental Analysis 1 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ' This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) to impact geology and soil resources in the City of Newport Beach. This section also evaluates the potential physical environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, slope stability, and erosion within the project site from ' implementation of the hotel expansion. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report: • Geotechnical FeasibiW Study, Proposed Additions, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, 1107Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California, Kleinfelder, November 29, 2005. ' A copy of this report is included in its entirety in Appendix F of this DEIR. 5.5. f Environmental Setting Regional Geologic Setting The City of Newport Beach is located in an area of widely diverse terrain at the southern margin of the Los ' Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin represents the transition between the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province on the north and the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province on the south. The Transverse Ranges province is characterized by roughly east -west trending, convergent (compressional) deformational structural features in contrast to the predominant northwest-southeast structural trend of the Peninsular ' Ranges and other geomorphic provinces in California. The City's landscape can best be described by geographic.area, each reflective of its distinct topographic ' features. The central and northwestern portions of the City are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills. Commonly known as Newport Mesa, this upland has been deeply dissected by stream erosion, resulting in moderate to steep bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary, one of the most biologically diverse natural features in Orange County. The nearly flat-topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above msl in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff areas. ' Along the southwestern margin of the City, sediments flowing from the two major drainage courses that transect the mesa have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. These lowland areas were significantly modified during the last century in order to deepen channels for ' navigation and form habitable islands. Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was once the site of extensive low sand dunes. In the southern part of the City, the San Joaquin Hills rise abruptly from the sea, separated from the present shoreline by a relatively flat, narrow shelf. Originally formed by wave abra- sion, this platform (also called a terrace) is now elevated well above the water and is bounded by steep bluffs ' along the shoreline. The coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet above msl, and the San Joaquin Hills, site of the Newport Coast development area, rise to an elevation of 1,164 feet at Signal Peak. ' The two major drainages that have contributed greatly to the development of the City's landforms are the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. North of the City, numerous streams draining the foothills -- including ' Peters Canyon Wash, Rattlesnake Wash, Hicks Canyon, Agua Chinon, and Serrano Creek —merge with San Diego Creek and collectively cut a wide channel through the mesa, later filling it with sediment (Upper Newport Bay and the harbor area). The collected drainages are now contained in the man -made San Diego Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Neuport Beach • Page 5.5 -1 rLON 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND $OILS Creek Channel and directed into Upper Newport Bay near the intersection of Jamboree Road and University Drive. The Bay also receives water from the Santa Ana Delhi Channel near Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. Project Site Geology and Geologic Structure The project site is located within the Newport Mesa portion of the Orange County Coastal Plain of the Central Block of the greater Los Angeles Basin. The project site is situated on a north - south- trending ridge along the east side of the Newport Back Bay. The site is characterized by gentle topography. Beginning at the nine- hole golf course, which forms the project's northern boundary, the surface elevation gradually slopes down to Back Bay Drive, which forms the project's southern and western boundaries. On -site elevations range between 16 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the southwestern perimeter to 69 feet above msl on the northern perimeter. Prior to development, the site appears to have been a north - south- trending bedrock ridge along the east side of Newport Back Bay separated from east Newport Mesa. The ridge may have been an island in Newport Back Bay surrounded by locally derived Holocene (youngerthan 10,000 years) alluvium /colluvium and shallow marine deposits. These Holocene deposits thin against the ridge slope and thicken away from the ridge. The local bedrock geology of the project site is mapped as Monterey Formation (Miocene, 10 to 15 million years old) that is capped by undifferentiated nonmarine or marine terrace deposits of Late Quarternary age (Pleistocene, 10,000 to 500,000 years). Holocene alluvium and colluvium are the dominant lithology in the gentle topography found in the southern portion of the project site. The northern portion of the project site is comprised of Pleistocene marine and nonmarne terrace deposits underlain by marine sedimentary deposits of the Monterey Formation. Soil /Geologic Units Numerous bedrock formations and surficial units are located within the project site: structural and nonstructural fill; surficial native materials, including alluvium and colluvium; and bedrock of the Monterey Formation underlie the project site. These geologic units are listed and discussed below. Holocene Sediments Holocene sediments within the project site consist of alluvium /colluvium, shallow marine deposits of the Newport Back Bay, and some man -made fills. The majority of the Holocene sediments occur along the southwestern portion of the project site underlying the hotel's existing surface parking areas. The sediments appear to consist of clayey alluvium and possibly limited colluvium overlain by marine origin sand, which is most likely fill but may include some marine sand deposits. Historically, the hotel's main surface parking area along the southern perimeter appears level with the Newport Back Bay area, especially along the west side of the parking area. The eastern side of the parking area appears more elevated reflecting the local alluvium/ colluvium landform from the higher bluffs to the north. The depth of the bedrock from existing ground surface of the parking area ranges from approximately 7 feet near the center cut slope to over 30 feet south of the cut -slope and on the east and west flanks of the bed- rock ridge. The materials above the bedrock are assigned a Holocene age based on their location, elevation, and superposition above the bedrock. Page 5.5 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 1 I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Terrace Deposits The project site contains coarse - grained fluvial sand and gravel overlying the bedrock at the site. The sand terrace deposits are crudely bedded with some evidence of cross - bedding. A thick bed of very fine grained sand and silty sand is also present, which appears to be beach or marine sand. Thus, the terrace consists of both nonmarine and marine sediments. This suggests that the dominantly fluvial origin of the coarser sands and gravels sometimes gave way to shallow marine deposits of finer grained sand, indicating a near coastal sedimentary environment. The base of the terrace deposits is marked by a basal cobble layer with some broken shells contained within the sand near the contact. This represents an erosional unconformity between the terrace deposits and the underlying bedrock that ranges in elevation between 38 and 45 feet above msl. Monterey Formation /Capistrano Formation Bedrock underlying the project site consists of dark to very dark brown siltstone that weathers to reddish brown and dark grayish brown. The siltstone is thinly bedded and parts along the bedding. Bedding surfaces are often micaceous. Some bedding is highly disturbed and sheared, displaying distortions and folding between undisturbed bedding. There are abundant fractures in the siltstone that are lined with iron oxides ' and manganese. The siltstone contains frequent (approximately six inches apart) interbeds of fine- to medium - grained sandstone that are typically one - quarter inch in thickness. Published literature identifies the project site's local bedrock as Monterey Formation, although the published description of the Monterey Formation differs significantly from the siltstone observed in the field during the geotechnical investigation of the project site. In general, the Monterey Formation is a light gray to gray -brown diatomaceous and siliceous siltstone, whereas the siltstone within the project site is dark brown with no ' appearance of the diatomaceous or siliceous characteristics of the Monterey Formation. Based on the field observations, the project site's bedrock is most similar to the Pliocene Capistrano Formation (five million years old); however, published sources indicate that microfossils correlate in age to the older Monterey Formation. It is possible that local faulting mapped across the bay juxtaposes the Monterey and Capistrano Formations locally and brings the Capistrano Formation beneath the terrace deposits of the project site. Artificial Fill Holocene sediments within the project site consist of alluvium /colluvium, shallow marine deposits of the Newport Back Bay, and some manmadefills. Historical aerials showthe introduction of fill, especially in 1967 ' when the parking lot and the adjacent slope were being graded for hotel expansion. Faulting and Seismicity The faulting and seismicity of southern California is dominated by the San Andreas fault system. The zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth's crust. The Pacific Plate on the west moves in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American Plate on the east. The relative movement between the two plates is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. The San Andreas fault system generally trends northwest - southeast; however, north of the Transverse Ranges Province, the fault trends more in an east -west direction, causing a north -south compression between the two plates. North - south compression in southern California has been estimated from 5 to 20 millimeters per year. This compression has produced rapid uplift of many of the mountain ranges in southern California and is responsible for most of the seismic activity in the region. There are numerous faults in southern California, which are categorized by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as active, potentially active, or inactive. A fault is classified as active by the state if it has moved during the Holocene epoch (during the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone ' (as established by the CGS). A fault is classified as potentially active if it last experienced movement during Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.5 -3 S. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS the Quaternary period (the last 1.6 million years). Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive. Surface displacement can be recognized by the existence of cliffs in alluvium, terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Figure 5.5 -1 illustrates the regional faults in the vicinity of Newport Beach. The project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone and no known faults traverse the project site (Kleinfelder 2005). The Newport- Inglewood fault is considered to be the most significant active fault with respect to the project site. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. Seismic Hazards The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This, along with sea -level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards. Geologic hazards are generally defined as surficial earth processes that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community or the environment. Earthquake- triggered geologic effects also include surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also lead to urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases, all human - related hazards. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking A number of earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking in Newport Beach, including the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, which caused significant damage in the City. Seismic shaking is the geological hazard with the greatest potential to severely impactthe City of Newport Beach, including the project site, because it is located on or near several significant faults that have the potential for moderate to large earthquakes (see Figure 5.5-1, Regional Faults). Some of the faults caused moderate -sized earthquakes in the last century and, given their length, they are thought capable of generating even larger earthquakes in the future, which would cause strong ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby areas. Numerous other active faults, both onshore and offshore, have the potential to generate earthquakes that would cause strong ground shaking in Newport Beach. The Newport Beach area has a 10 percent chance of experiencing ground acceleration greater than 43 to 52 percent the force of gravity in 50 years. These probabilistic ground motion values for the City of Newport Beach are in the high to very high range for southern California and are the result of the City's proximity to major fault systems with high earthquake recurrence rates. These levels of shaking can be expected to cause damage particularly to older and poorly constructed buildings. Similar to the rest of City of Newport Beach, the project site is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of seismic activity. The most likely source of strong seismic ground shaking within the project site would be a major earthquake along the Newport- Inglewood Fault, which is located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. The fault is classified as active with a seismic capability over magnitude 7.0. Page 5.5 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I I I I� I J I I] I I I I I I I I I I 5. Environmental Analysis Regional Faults - • . SARq • ROR� F ♦ • q�LTZpR `� • E ♦ ♦♦� CM a va.aon IW[n `� ♦ •. • �; a111Me18 Nesswo . •.• • � .•: r ` k9 •R .iT $ 0 `, ,pp4Wolana Hills Bu nk O � EFAZON ,y1 ...:_ , . ' is ♦ • ��. '�• _ „wpmi t:... ♦♦ •, �: oArxowv wucAUSi ... +.s pBL • a Los ++• -• ♦♦ HA �BUF CULT '��•- Angeles • -♦1 Meet =iAMTA `p�anla Mantra • i ♦• �• • Sawfa•... ♦ ♦ MonteaeMO 0 ♦ . r R', Was ♦• tn��� ��+a WNtuer •. ♦ ♦` ,,' ♦• t`��a ♦” •• '•t` L `S i• ; ♦ � � ' .� • ry� •♦ F• �.' RED �L < ♦ ♦♦ ."M1Yg .•Iyr�• r•E •R .E O , ♦ Ot d OLYnwa farMlon LK ANON •CarsanG•. rma ,0♦ Westhanster • • ~ ♦qG�r 0 •♦ Beach A O Beal Santa Ana ` F ♦ ` !q s.- •♦ `Beach C, tt• `fir O,'. y '�q.. o��i*ln Ina NEWORT ' ♦. P�J7c Ono. Yp 4 ♦ ".�••..'?., `� BEACH ♦� . ^x • ` et4 `h • • ♦♦ �'• tOana Point ♦ Santa ` ♦♦ • Catalina ,. Islam ♦♦ < <�` l ZOM/E It e. e \ Source: EIP Associates NOT To SCAR T IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expamion Draft EIR The Planning Center a Figure 5.5 -1 :I 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND Sous This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.5 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis Gr,oLOGY AND Soms Seismically Induced Slope Failure /Landslides Strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people, or property; sever utility lines; and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. Much of the area in eastern Newport Beach has been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. Rupture along the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone and otherfautts in southern California could reactivate existing landslides and cause new slope failures. Slope failures can also be expected to occur along stream banks and coastal bluffs, such as Big Canyon, around San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar. Liquefaction and Related Ground Failure Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction, which occurs when there is a loss of strength or stiffness in the soils, resulting in the settling of buildings, ground failures, or other hazards. Liquefaction generally occurs as a 'quicksand" type of ground failure. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Areas of Newport susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline such as Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of majorstreams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in numerous borings excavated during the geotechnical investigation of the project site. According to the geotechnical investigation, the historical depth to groundwater in the project area is approximately 10 feet below grade surface (bgs). Groundwater was encountered in one of the boring excavations at a depth of approximately 7 feet bgs in the western portion of the hotel's main parking area, corresponding to a surface elevation of approximately 13.5 feet above msl. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season or periods of locally intense rainfall or stormwater runoff. Irrigation of landscaped areas can also cause fluctuation of local groundwater levels. Regulatory Background State laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. California Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was signed into state law in 1972, as amended, to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy on an active fault. The Act requires the State Geologist to delineate "Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." The Act also requires that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting. Pursuant to this Act, structures for human occupancy are not allowed within 50 feet of the trace of an active fault. The City of Newport Beach is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Neuport Beacb • Page 5.5 -7 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismic Hazard Mapping Act The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the state in 1990 for the purpose of protecting public safety from the effects of (nonsurface fault rupture) earthquake hazards. The CGS prepares and provides local governments with seismic hazard zones maps that identify areas susceptible to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake - induced landslides, and other ground failures. The seismic hazards zones are referred to as "zones of required investigation" because site - specific geological investigations are required for construction projects located within these areas. Before a project can be permitted, a geologic investigation, evaluation, and written report must be prepared by a licensed geologist to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet). In addition, sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped Seismic Hazard Zone must disclose that the property lies within such a zone at the time of sale. Unflorm Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is published by the International Conference of Building Officials. It forms the basis of about half the state building codes in the United States, including California's, and has been adopted by the state legislature, together with Additions, Amendments, and Repeals to address the specific building conditions and structural requirements in California. California Building Code California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the Califomia Building Code (CBC), provides minimum standards for building design in the state, consistent with or more stringent than UBC requirements. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but not less restrictive. The procedures and limitations for the design of structures are based on site characteristics, occupancy type, configuration, structural system height, and seismic zoning. Seismic ratings are derived from UBC specifications, which divide the U.S. into four geographical zones, of which Zone 4—comprising most of central and coastal California—is rated the most prone to earthquake activity. Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in Cal /OSHA regulations (CCR, Title 8). Unreinforced Masonry Law In California, unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are generally brick buildings constructed prior to 1933 and predating modern earthquake - resistant design. In earthquakes, the brick walls (especially parapets) tend to disconnect from the building and fall outward, creating a hazard for people below and sometimes causing the building to collapse. The Unreinforced Masonry Law, enacted bythe state in 1986, requires cities and counties within Seismic Zone 4 to identify hazardous URM buildings and to consider local regulations to abate potentially dangerous buildings through retrofitting or demolition, as outlined in the State Office of Planning and Research Guidelines. No URM buildings are shown to be located within the project site. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) NPDES Phase 1 Permit (General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Permit describes erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of postconstruction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non - stormwater management controls. Dischargers are also required to inspect construction sites before and I I Page 5.5 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND Sous after storms to identify stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identify and implement controls where necessary. Additionally, Newport Beach operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit under the NPDES. MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices, and the use of best management practices (BMPs) in many development- related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. MS4 permits also require local agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to inform people about what they can do to protect water quality. 5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: G -1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides. G -2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. G3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. G -4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. 0-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: G -5 This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath •Page 5.5 -9 �� 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT 5.5 -1: PERSONS AND EXISTING AND FUTURE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO POTENTIAL SEISMIC - RELATED HAZARDS. (THRESHOLD G -11 Impact Analysis.- The project site is located in a seismically active region. Existing and future structures within the project site can be expected to be subject to strong seismic shaking during the design life of the structures. Potential seismic hazards include ground failure due to seismic activity, ground shaking, landslides, and localized liquefaction. The following is a discussion of these potential seismic hazards with respect to the project site. Seismic - Related Ground Failure The project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone and no known faults traverse the project site (Kleinfelder 2005). However, the project site is located within seismically active southern California (Seismic Zone 4). Regional active faults are typical of southern California, so it is reasonable to expect a moderately strong seismic event to occur in the City of Newport Beach in the future. The Newport- Inglewood fault, approximately two miles southwest of the project site, is considered to be the most significant active fault with respect to the City and the project site. Measures outlined in the Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Appendix F) for the project site, relative to site preparation, excavation, fill placement and compaction, foundation design, site drainage, and retaining wall designs, would be incorporated intothe structural design of the project and would minimize the potential for significant seismic- related impacts. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking As with other developments in southern California, development associated with the proposed project may be exposed to impacts from strong seismic ground shaking caused by earthquakes. The project site is located in Seismic Zone 4, one of five zones (0-4) mapped in the CBC to identify areas subject to varying degrees of potential impact and frequency of large earthquakes. Seismic Zone 4 is potentially subject to the greatest seismic shaking and frequency of large earthquakes. The state regulates development in California through a variety of tools that reduce potential hazards from earthquakes and other geologic hazards. The CBC contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. Landslides Landslides are the downslope movement of soil and /or rock under the influence of gravity. Landslide processes are influenced by factors such as thickness of soil or fill over bedrock, steepness, and height of slope, physical properties of the fill, amount of soil or bedrock materials, and moisture content. Thesefactors may increase the effective force of gravity on a slope, decrease the ability of the slope to resist gravitational influence, or a combination of the two, which can lead to landslides and mudflows. Strong ground motions can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Slope failures in the form of landslides are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of significant relief. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people, or property; sever utility lines; and block roads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. According to Figure S2, Seismic Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is not located in an area with landslide potential. However, the geotechnical feasibility study performed for the project site found that the slopes in the northern portion of the project site (along the golf course) are located within a state - designated Seismic Hazard Zone for Earthquake4nduced Landsliding (Kleinfelder 2005). Page 5.5 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS Based on the geologic conditions observed in the boring excavations performed by Kleindelder as a part of the geotechnical feasibility study, the potential for slope instability is considered low. However, based on additional subsurface data, slope stability analysis should be performed during the design -level geotechnical study. Liquefaction ' According to Figure S2, Seismic Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is located in an area considered to have a potential for ground failure in the form of liquefaction. More specifically, the areas surrounding the main hotel complex to the south, east, and west (parking lots) are located within a designated seismic hazard zone for liquefaction potential (Kleinfelder 2005). The proposed improvements within the designated liquefaction hazard zone consist of the parking structure and the new 800 -seat ballroom. Additionally, groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately seven feet below grade surface in the western portion of the hotel's main parking area (Kleinfelder 2005). As encountered in one of the boring excavations of the geotechnical feasibility study performed by Kleinfelder, the soils below the groundwater level consist of medium stiff to very stiff sandy clay and siltstone/ claystone of the Monterey /Capistrano formations. These soils are not considered liquefiable and, therefore, the potential for liquefaction and its adverse affects, such as seismic settlement and lateral spreading, are considered low within the project site. IMPACT 5.5 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL [THRESHOLD G -21 ImpactAnalysis: Soil erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen materials are loosened, worn away, decomposed, or dissolved, and removed from one place and transported to another. Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Ordinarily, erosion proceeds so slowly as to be imperceptible, but when the natural equilibrium of the environment is disturbed, the rate of erosion can be greatly accelerated. This can create aesthetic as well as engineering problems. Accelerated erosion within an urban area can cause damage by undermining structures, blocking storm sewers, and depositing silt, sand, or mud in roads and tunnels. Eroded materials are eventually deposited into our coastal waters, where the carried silt remains suspended in the water for some time, constituting a pollutant and altering the normal balance of plant and animal life. In Newport Beach, erosion is a significant concern, especially along the shoreline (beach sediments and coastal bluffs are susceptible to erosion by wave action) and including the bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay and the slopes and canyons within the San Joaquin Hills. Substantial soil erosion is not expected to occur during the operational phase of the proposed project. However, construction of the proposed project would involve grading, excavation, and hauling of materials ' (including dirt, demolition debris, etc.) off the site. These activities may result in the loss of topsoil or substan- tial soil erosion impacts on off -site areas, such as nearby streets and storm drains, which could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ' Mitigation for erosion potential includes capping areas with a more cohesive fill material, providing replace- ment fills with more cohesive materials on planned cut slopes, and /or placing erosion protection on the surface of the soils (such as polymer coatings, jute matting, geotextiles, or gunite V- ditches). Proper control of surface drainage also helps to mitigate against soil erosion. The drainage systems of the proposed project would be designed and maintained to collect surface waters and direct flows away from slopes. IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of NewPw Beach • Page 5.5 -11 8 01,13 5. Environmental Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5 -3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed design -level geotechnical investigation report , shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and to provide site-specific ' recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading ' plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. 5-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits and based upon the soil corrosivity tests conducted for the proposed project, the project applicant shall include a note on all grading plans indicating that site - specific soils testing shall be performed under the observation of a registered corrosion engineer specializing in soil corrosivity for any areas proposed to be developed with structures. j The corrosion engineer shall evaluate the corrosion potential of the soils on proposed improvements, recommend further testing if deemed necessary, and identify specific construction methods to address soil corrosivity, it detected. 5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Compliance with existing rules, regulations and codes, and the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils to a level of less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to geology and soils have been identified. L I 1 1 1 1 pi I I Page 5.5 -14 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 5. Environmental Analysis '5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ' This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach (proposed project) to result in hazardous impacts in the projectarea and the City of Newport Beach. The analysis in this section is based in large part on the following information: ' • Radius Report, Hyatt Site, Newport Beach, California, GeoSearch, November 30, 2006. • Historical Aerial Photographs, Hyatt Site, Newport Beach, California, GeoSearch, November 29, 2006. • Historical Topographic Maps, Hyatt Site, Newport Beach, California, GeoSearch, November 29, 2006. • Fire Protection Plan, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, Dudek, October 18, 2007. Copies of this information are included in Appendix G of this DEIR. The Fire Protection Plan is included as Appendix H of this DEIR. 5.6 1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Various federal and state regulations and programs regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. Several of the existing federal and state laws and programs are summarized in the following paragraphs. Hazardous Materials Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) protects water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by former chemical - disposal practices. This law is also referred to as the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List (NPL), which are referred to as "Superfund Sites." ' Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act The primary purpose of the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act ( EPCRA) of 1986 is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. Section 311 and 312 of EPCRA require businesses to report the location and quantities of chemicals stored on -site to state and local agencies. Under section 313 of EPCRA, manufacturers are required to report chemical releases for more ' than 600 designated chemicals. In addition to chemical releases, regulated facilities are also required to report off -site transfers of waste for treatment or disposal at separate facilities, and implement pollution prevention measures and chemical recycling activities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database which documents the information that regulated facilities are required to report annually. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ' The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the principal federal law that regulates generation, management, and transportation of hazardous waste. Hazardous -waste management includes the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6-1 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND H A7 ARDous MATERLtLs Hazardous Materials Release Notification Many state statutes require emergency notification of a hazardous chemical release. These statutes include: • Health and Safety Codes §§ 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507 Vehicle Code § 23112.5 • Public Utilities Code § 7673 (PUC General Orders #22 -13, 161) • Government Code §§ 51018, 8670.25.5 (a) Water Codes §§ 13271, 13272 • California Labor Code § 6409.1 (b) 10 Requirements for immediate notification of all significant spills or threatened releases cover owners, operators, persons in charge, and employers. Notification is required regarding significant releases from facilities, vehicles, vessels, pipelines, and railroads. In addition, all releases that result in injuries or harmful exposure to workers, must be immediately reported to the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal /OSHA) pursuant to the California Labor Code § 6409.1(b). Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs The Unified Program administered bythe State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs, which include: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans), the California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program, and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). The CUPA with responsibility for the Newport Beach area is the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). The OCHCA is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the CUPAforthe County of Orange in order to focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level. The CUPA is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections for regulated facilities in Orange County. These facilities handle hazardous material, generate or treat a hazardous waste, and /or operate a UST. The CUPA provides a comprehensive environmental management approach to resolve environmental issues. Hazardous Materials Business Plans Both the federal government (Code of Federal Regulations) and the State of California (Health and Safety Code) require businesses that handle more than a specified amount (reporting quantity) of hazardous material or extremely hazardous material to submit a Hazardous Material Business Plan to its CUPA. Business plans must include an inventory of the hazardous materials at the facility. Businesses are required to update their plans at least once every three years and the chemical portion of their plans every year. Business plans are required to include emergency response plans and proceduresto be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. These plans need to identify the procedures to follow for immediate notification to all appropriate agencies and personnel in the event of a release. Also required are identification of local emergency medical facilities, contact information for all company emergency coordinators of the business, a listing and location of emergency equipment at the business, an evacuation plan, and a training program for business personnel. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are required by law to provide an immediate verbal report of any release or threatened release of hazardous materials f there is a reasonable belief that the release or threatened release poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, property, or Page 5.6-2 •The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERULS the environment. The CUPA is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections of regulated facilities in Orange County. California Accidental Release Prevention Program CaIARP became effective on January 1, 1997, in response to Senate Bill 1689. CaIARP aims to be proactive and therefore requires businesses to prepare Risk Management Plans (RMPs), which are detailed engineering analyses of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. This requirement is coupled with the requirements for preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plans under the UnKled Program, implemented by the CUPA. ff leaking Underground Fuel Tanks Leaking USTs have been recognized since the early 1980s as the primary cause of groundwater contamination from gasoline compounds and solvents. In California, regulations aimed at protecting against UST leaks have been in place since 1983 (Health and Safety Code). This occurred one year before RCRA was amended to add Subtitle I, requiring UST systems to be installed in accordance with standards that address the prevention of future leaks. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has been designated the lead California regulatory agency in the development of UST regulations and policy. Older tanks are typically single - walled steel tanks. Many of these have leaked as a result of corrosion, punctures, and detached fittings. As a result, the State of California required the replacement of older tanks with new double - walled fiberglass tanks with flexible connections and monitoring systems. UST owners were given a ten -year period to comply with the new requirements. The deadline for compliance was December 22, 1998. However, many UST owners did not act by the deadline, so the state granted an extension for their replacement ending January 1, 2002. The SWRCB, in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Services, do maintains an inventory of leaking underground fuel tanks in a statewide database. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title 5 of this regulation requires that each community establish a Local Emergency Planning Committee that is responsible for developing an emergency plan for preparing for and responding to a chemical emergency. The emergency plan is required to include the following information: • An identification of local facilities and transportation routes where hazardous materials are present, • The procedures for immediate response in case of an accident (this must include a community-wide evacuation plan), • A plan for notifying the community that an incident has occurred, • The names of response coordinators at local facilities, and • A plan for conducting drills to test the plan. The emergency plan is reviewed by the State Emergency Response Commission and publicized throughout the community. The CUPA is responsible for coordinating hazardous material and disaster preparedness planning and appropriate response efforts with city departments, as well as local and state agencies. The goal is to improve public- and private - sector readiness, and to mitigate local impacts resulting from natural or man -made emergencies. South Coast Air Quality Management District South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6-3 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos - containing material ( ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, storage, and disposal requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5 Title 22, Division 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets forth the requirements for hazardous - waste generators, transporters, and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. The regulations also specify the requirements fortransporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation. Airport Planning and Regulations Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport The State Aeronautics Act (California Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.) establishes statewide requirements for airport land use compatibility planning. The AELUP for John Wayne Airport is one of several prepared for each of the airports in Orange County. It is a 20 -year land use compatibility plan to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation of the airport. Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. The California Department of Transportation's California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook is a technical resource providing guidelines, in part, to define aircraft noise standards and criteria, accident potential zones, building height zones, and designated planning areas. Planning areas are based on the following criteria: • Areas that are within the 60 dB CNEL contour • Areas that are within the Clear Zones /Runway Protection Zones or Accident Potential Zones • Areas subject to building height restrictions Additionally, other areas within the County are deemed to be within the airport planning area based on various criteria (large proposed populations, proposed structures exceeding 200feet above ground level that may pose an adverse effect, and /or projects that could interfere with visual or electronic navigation systems). Federal Air Regulations, Part 77 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is charged with the review of construction activities that occur in the vicinity of airports. Their role in reviewing these activities is to ensure that new structures do not result in a hazard to navigation. The regulations in Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 77 are designed to ensure that no hazards are allowed to exist that would endanger the public. Proposed structures are also evaluated against Terminal En Route Procedures which ensure that a structure does not adversely impact flight procedures. Tall structures, including buildings, construction cranes, and cell towers, in the vicinity of an airport can be hazardous to the navigation of airplanes. FAR 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 tall- structure impacts can extend miles from an airport facility. In addition, Part 77 establishes standards for determining whether objects constructed near airports will be considered Page 5.6 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERL4,Ls obstructions in navigable airspace, sets forth notice requirements of certain types of proposed construction or alterations, and provides for aeronautical studies to determine the potential impacts of a structure an the flight of aircraft through navigable airspace. Fire Risk Setting The following site characteristics were excerpted from the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared by Dudek for the proposed project. The purpose of the plan is to generate the fire safety requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) and to serve as an implementation plan for preparation of final construction documents that shall incorporate detailed fire protection requirements. Additional detail regarding fire behavior modeling and inputs is included in the full FPP in Appendix H. Site Characteristics The 25.7-acre property is located northwest of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, just north of Pacific Coast Highway. Primary access to the project site is from Jamboree Road, north of its intersection with Back Bay Drive. Secondary access through the hotel parking lot is from Back Bay Drive, west of Jamboree Road. The project lies within a coastal location that is highly urbanized except for a vegetated area immediately north of the property adjacent to the Newport Back Bay. The fire authority with ' jurisdiction over this project site is the NBFD. Topography ' The developed project site is located atop a small bluff east of the Newport Back Bay. The site has varied topography, but generally drops in elevation from the east to the west. Steeper slopes are located along the western and northern edges of the property with slope gradients averaging between 20 and 25 percent. Of note are the slopes immediately north of the project site, dropping westward toward Back Bay Drive (22 percent) and northward toward undeveloped open space (25 percent). Elevations on -site range from 17feet to approximately 70 feet (above mean sea level). Vegetation Site vegetation consists of nonnative ornamental vegetation associated with the existing hotel grounds and golf course, including numerous tree and shrub species and a significant area covered with irrigated turf. Immediately north of the project boundary lies undeveloped land characterized by coastal sage scrub (CSS), ruderal, and emergent wetland vegetation cover types. Climate The climate in the project area is a Mediterranean; that is, warm, dry summers and wetter winters. Precipitation typically occurs between December and March. The prevailing wind is an onshoreflowwith fall Santa Ana winds from the northeast that may gust to 50 mph or higher inland from this location. Because the project site is adjacent to the Back Bay and approximately 1.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, higher humidity and subsequently higher vegetation moisture content than would be found inland are typical. The project area's climate has a large influence on the fire risk as drying vegetation (fuel moisture for one -hour fuels of less than 5 percent is possible) during the summer months becomes available fuel. Fire Services Initial response to the Hyatt Regency property is from Fire Station No. 3 at 868 Santa Barbara Drive. The fire station is approximately 0.75 mile from the Hyatt Regency project site. Apparatus includes a Type I fire Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath •Page 5.6-5 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERLu s engine, a medic unit, and a responding truck. Backup response would be provided by Station No 2. at 124 Marine Avenue on Balboa Island, approximately 0.9 mile from the project site. Based on the linear distance of roughly 4,000 feet from Station No. 3 to the midpoint of the Hyatt Regency project site, and an average response speed of 25 mph due to the in -City driving and intersections, the calculated response time would be approximately two minutes from Fire No. 3 and approximately 2.5 minutes from Fire Station No. 2. Ideal response time for most jurisdictions in urban areas is within four minutes. 5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: H -1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. H -2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involvingthe release of hazardous materials intothe environment H -3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. H -4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. H -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. H -6 For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. H -7 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. H -8 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. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: H -1, H -3, H -6, and H -7. The Initial Study also concluded that impacts associated with Threshold H -8 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 fire hazards have been reconsidered, however, particularly since conventional fuel modification cannot be implemented without impacting the adjacent Environmental- Sensitive Habitat Area (see Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of this DEIR). Threshold H -8, therefore, is evaluated in the following section. Page 5.6-6 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAIS 5.6.3 Environmental Impacts The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would include 88 new timeshare units, a timeshare clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a new spa, and a new two -level parking garage (see Figure 3-4, Site Plan). Implementation of the project would require the demolition of 12 villas and the existing 3,190 - square -foot Terrace Ballroom. Additionally, the existing nine -hole golf course would be removed to accommodate the ' new timeshare units, parking areas, drive aisles, and other hardscape and landscape. The project would also require removal and reconfiguration of a recreational courtyard in the center of the main hotel complex, and associated hotel parking areas, hardscape, and landscape. The volume of debris that is anticipated from demolition activities is estimated to be 233 cubic yards of structural debris and 9,500 cubic yards of concrete, asphalt, and base material from hardscaped areas. Debris from the structures would require an evaluation for lead -based paint and ACM. These materials would be characterized and classified for disposal purposes. It is anticipated that asbestos waste would be transported to the Azusa Land Reclamation Landfill in Azusa, Los Angeles County, California. The facility is permitted for direct land filling of ACWM, both friable and nonfriable, into a fully lined, RCRA Subpart D landfill unit. Lead waste that is classified as hazardous waste may be transported to the Chemical Waste Management, Inc., facility in Kettleman Hills, California. This facility is a CERCLA- approved, TSCA and RCRA permitted, Class I, 11, and III landfill. The majority of the hotel expansion project consists of redevelopment in the northern, northwestern, and southern portions of the project site. Other upgrades would also occur in the central portion of the project site. The total areafor redevelopment is approximately 14 acres, or about 55 percent of the overall 25.7 -acre '�` ' project site. V. ♦i) Impact Analysis The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.6 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD CREATE A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. A POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT HAZARDOUS DEMOLITION DEBRIS CONTAINING ASBESTOS AND/OR LEAD -BASED PAINT MAY REQUIRE REMEDIATION AND OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION. [THRESHOLD H -21 ' Impact Analysis: Implementation of the project would require the demolition of 12 villas, the 3,190- square- foot Terrace Ballroom, and hardscape materials such as concrete and asphalt. Based on the type and age of the buildings, there is a potential for hazards involving the release of asbestos and lead -based paint as a ' result of the demolition of these structures. Without proper monitoring, removal, and disposal, lead -based paint chips and friable asbestos may be released to the environment, causing potential exposure to humans. ' IMPACT 5.6 -2: THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5 AND, AS A RESULT, DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO CREATEA SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT. [THRESHOLD H -41 Impact Analysis: Based on a review of the GeoSearch environmental database report, historical aerial photographs, and historical topographic maps, the project is not located on a site that is included on a list of Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newpoi Beacb *Page 5.6-7 S. Environmental Analysis HA7..ARDs AND HAzARDOus Mnrex[Ars hazardous materials sites. Based on the aerial photograph analysis, the project site was historically vacant, undeveloped land prior to hotel construction in the 1970s. In addition, a 1938 aerial photograph appears to indicate dry- farming activities on and in the vicinity of the project site. Dry- farming activities do not typically require the use of pesticides. Furthermore, the farming activities in the site vicinity ceased sometime prior to 1947; that is, prior to the era of widespread organochlorine pesticide production and application. Based on these facts, it is unlikely that the property has been affected by the historical application of pesticides. The database search did not identify any hazardous substance releases on- or off -site that would be expected to have an impact on the project site. IMPACT 5.6-3: ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN, IT IS 3.5 MILES FROM THE AIRPORT AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECTAREA. [THRESHOLD H -51 ImpactAnalysis: The project site is approximately 3.5 miles south of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is overseen by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Accident Potential Zones have not been established in the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport. However, Clear Zones (also known as Runway Protection Zones) have been established at each end of the airport's runway. The project site is located well outside these zones. The project site is located within both the height restriction and the airport obstruction imaginary- surface overlay zones of the AELUP for JWA. The project is required to comply with all standards and requirements as set forth by ALUC. Additionally, the project is required to comply with all standards and requirements as set forth by the FAA. This includes building height restrictions set forth by FAR Part 77. Potential Hazards to Aircraft in Flight The AELUP incorporates FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures in terms of an "imaginary surface." This area is also known as the horizontal surface area. Structures should not exceed the elevations defined in FAR Part 77.25 unless, upon completion of an aeronautical study conducted by the FAA, the ALUC finds that the structure will not adversely affect aeronautical operations, including interference with navigational aids or published flight paths and procedures. The project site is within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone for JWA, as depicted in Figure 5.6- 1, John Wayne Airport Height Restriction Zone. In addition, the project site is located within the FAR Part 77 JWA Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Zone. These zones trigger speck notification requirements for buildings exceeding 200 feet above ground level, and for construction of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 from a distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway. Potential Hazards to People and Structures on the Ground AELUP has not established Accident Potential Zones for JWA. However, Clear Zones (or Runway Protection Zones) have been established at each end of JWA's runway. The project site is located well outside of these zones. The project site is located within Safety Zone 6 Traffic Pattern Zone, as indicated in Caltrans, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002). Riskfactors associated with Zone 6 generally include a low likelihood of accident occurrence. The main concern in Safety Zone 6 is related to uses for which potential consequences from a collision are severe, such as with outdoor stadiums, children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Allowed uses within this safety zone include residential and most nonresidential uses. The proposed project would create vacation dwellings that are intermittently occupied and would be expected to fall within the allowable nonresidential use category. Page 5.6 -8 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis John Wayne Airport Height Restriction Zone ' Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white. LEGEND 20.000'Rad� -• CRY BOUNDARIES AIRPORT BOUNDARIES ' 0500 Scale (Feet) Source: Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expan ion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.6-1 Ful S. Environmental Analysis I IAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.6 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1 5. Environmental Analysis t-IAZARDS AND HAzARDous MATERIALS ' The project is located within an Airport Influence Area, which is defined as the space surrounding an airport that can be affected by airport operations. Airport Influence Areas are based on airport flight patterns that generate noise and safety issues associated with aircraft overflights. Projects that are located an Airport Influence Area are required to comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 2776. The proposed project shall comply with AB 2776, which notifies prospective buyer /renters of the existence of an airport in the area. IMPACT 5.6 -4 DESIGN MEASURES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS DETAILED IN THE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN (FPP) WOULD MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL RISKS TO PEOPLE AND /OR STRUCTURES TO LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH. Impact Analysis: The primary focus of the FPP was the building area atop the bluff in the northern portion of the property that drops down toward the Back Bay. Fire behavior modeling was conducted to document the type and intensity of fire given the topography, vegetation, and weather characteristics of this site. To objectively predict flame lengths and intensities, the BehavePlus 3.02fire behavior fuel modeling system was applied using predominant fuel characteristics, slope percentages, and representative fuels observed on- site. Table 5.6 -1 provides a detailed description of the input variables used in the BehavePlus calculations. �J I Table 5.6-1 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Inputs Input Name Input Values 1 -hour Fuel Moisture 3% 10 -hour Fuel Moisture 4% 100 -hour Fuel Moisture 5% Live Herbaceous Moisture 30% Live woody Moisture 60% 20 -feet Wind Speed (mph) 10 mph (gusts to 20 mph) Slope ( %) Variable (0, 22, 25 %) source: Fire Protection Plan, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, Table 1,Dudek, October 18, 2007. Note: Weather data used in model inputs was derived from Las Flores RAWS (elevation 100 feet above mean sea level). The results from BehavePlus fire behavior modeling are presented in Table 5.6 -2. Modeling resultsfor fire on the slopes represented by scrub vegetation (Fuel Model SCAL18) indicate flame lengths between 27.6 and 37.2 feet, depending on slope and wind speed. Spread rates in these areas ranged from 1.3 to 2.5 mph (depending on slope and wind speed). ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Neupw Beach • Page 5.6 -11 88 S. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATIRLU S Table 5.6-2 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modelino Results for SCAL18 Model fMindspeed BehavePlus Output Slope Values 0% 22% 25% Surface Rate of Spread 1.29 mph 1.33 mph 1.34 mph 10 mph Flame Length 27.6 feet 28.0 feet 28.1 feet Flreline Intensity 7,673 BhMs 7,914 Btu/ff/s 7,984 Btw'ff/s Surface Rate of Spread 2.41 mph 2.45 mph 2.47 mph 20 mph Flame Length 36.8 feet 37.1 feet 37.2 feet Flreline Intensity 14,390 Btu/It/s 14,631 Btu/Ws 14,701 Btyfl/s Source: Frce Protection Plan, Hyait Regency Newport Beach, Dudek, Table 2, October 18, 2007. Given the climatic, vegetation, and topographic characteristics, along with the general lack of periodic fires in the area and fire behavior modeling results previously discussed in this FPP, the Hyatt Regency site is considered moderately vulnerable to wildfire. Under fall weather conditions, fire can move rapidly through sage scrub vegetation. The most likely type of fire anticipated in the vicinity of the project area is a wind - driven brush fire originating north of the project site and pushed southward by Santa Ana winds. Flame lengths in some areas could be over 35 feet. The rate of spread is moderate due to volatile fuels, wind, and moderately low fuel moisture. A typical cause is related to roadways, such as Back Bay Drive (tossed cigarette, vehicle accidents, or car fire). 5.6.4 Cumulative Impacts The project is not anticipated to result in the storage or release of any significant amount of hazardous materials /waste. Likewise, surrounding properties were not identified as storing or releasing any significant amount of hazardous materials /waste. Furthermore, the use of hazardous material is controlled and permitted by the OCHCA, a state - recognized CUPA, whose responsibilities include, but are not limited to: inspecting hazardous material handlers and hazardous -waste generators to ensure compliance with laws and regulations; implementing CUPA programs for the development of accident prevention and emergency plans, proper installation, monitoring, and closure of underground tanks, and the handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes; providing 24 -hour response to emergency incidents involving hazardous materials or wastes; and conducting investigations and taking enforcement action as necessary against anyone who disposes of hazardous waste illegally or otherwise manages hazardous materials or wastes in violation of federal, state, or local laws and regulations. The hazardous materials control and safety programs and available emergency response resources of the OCHCA, along with periodic inspections to ensure regulatory compliance, reduce the potential risk of upset and exposure to hazardous materials associated with nearby businesses. Moreover, the proposed project would not resuft in an airport- related safety hazard and would not combine with other projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to potential airport hazards. No adverse cumulative impacts related to hazardous substances or the creation of any health hazards are anticipated as a result of this project. The project site is within an urban, developed area and the potential increase in fire hazard is limited to the northwestern portion of the site. Based on compliance with the FPP design measures and mitigation, project implementation would not result in cumulatively considerable fire hazard impacts. Page 5.6 -12 •The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.6.5 Existing Regulations Hazardous Materials • SCAQMD Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACMs. The require- ments for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfill disposal requirements for ACWM. Prior to demolition of the site, building materials will be carefully assessed for the presence of ACMs and removal, where necessary, will need to comply with state and federal regulations, including with Rule 1403. Prior to demolition of the site, building materials will also be carefully assessed for the presence of lead -based paint, and its removal, where necessary, will need to comply with state and federal regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rule 29, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1926. The OSHA rule establishes standards for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure. The standard also includes requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation of monitoring. Because 29 CFR Part 1926 is an existing regulation, federal law requires compliance with 29 CFR Part 1926 whether it is included in this EIR or not. Furthermore, Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8, identifies procedures for accreditation, certif ication, and work practices for lead -based paint and lead hazards. Section 36100 specifically sets forth requirements for lead -based paint abatement of public and residential buildings. • Title 22, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 12, identifies the standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. • Title 22, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 12, identifies the standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations include the requirements for transportation of hazardous waste. Manifesting and registration requirements are included in these regulations. Also included are procedures in case of accidental discharges during transportation. ■ Fire Hazard • City of Newport Beach Fire Code (Chapter 9.04), among other requirements, specifies water supply, fire flow and hydrant requirements, fire department site access requirements, and fuel modification and maintenance conditions. ' • 2007 California Building Code specifies structural requirements for buildings exposed to wildland vegetation. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6-13 OWMWA I 5. Environmental Analysis ' HA7eRDs AND HAZ.ARDous MATERIALS 5.6 6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of project design features, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval, these impacts would be less than significant: 5.6 -1, 5.6 -2, and 5.6 -3. Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant: Impact 5.6 -4 The Hyatt Regency site is considered moderately vulnerable to wildfire and could expose people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. 5.6.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.6-4 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 the following specific provisions: Water Supply and Fire Flow • Fire hydrants and fire flow capacity shall be approved by the fire Chief. A reduction in required fire flow of upto 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, may be allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Fire Access • New driveway entrance areas shall be designed to City requirements with all- weather driving surface of A.C. paving over approved base and a capacity rating of at least 75,000 pounds, to accommodate fire apparatus. Approach /departure angles associated with development driveways shall not exceed 3 degrees. • The minimum width of fire lanes shall be 26 feet. • There are no planned traffic calming devices • Adequate fire apparatus turnarounds shall be provided and approved by the NBFD (current plans include a minimum 28 -foot turning radius adjacent to Building TS -7 and another turnaround located adjacent to Building TS -4 /Clubhouse). • Unobstructed firefighter access to all portions of the buildings via walkways, driveways, or trails shall be provided. A minimum of 3 feet for firefighter access shall be maintained along both sides of all structures adjacent to fuel modification zones. • Roads and access components (gates, sign, etc.) shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Page 5.6-14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 [1 Fire Protection Systems • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National Fire Protection Association ' sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Defensible Space ' 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDous MATERIALS Building Fire and Ignition Resistance • The project shall include ignition- resistant construction features consistent with current fire and building codes for the proposed structures exposed to wildland vegetation (buildings TS -1, TS- 2, TS -3, and TS -4). Enhanced structural requirements shall be provided for the following as detailed in the FPP: roofing, fire- resistive walls, eaves protection, venting, glazing, skylights, insulation, gutters and downspots, appendages and projections, spark arrestors, exterior doors, and detached accessory structures. Fire Protection Systems • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National Fire Protection Association ' sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Defensible Space ' • The Fuel Modification Plan (see details, Section 3.4.3 of this Draft EIR and the FPP, Appendix H) shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the NBFD. The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD. Brush removal must be completed prior to commencing any flammable construction, and final inspection and approval must be obtained prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures adjacent to the fuel modification area. • Fuel Modification Zones shall be subject to an annual inspection conducted by a representative of the City in order to assure that zones are maintained in compliance with the applicable fuel modification requirements. The property owner shall maintain defensible space in accordance ' with the Fuel Modification Plan as approved. Vegetation Management ' The fuel modification area along the northern boundary of the project lies partially on the Hyatt Regency property, partially on property owned by the City of Newport Beach, and partially on property owned by the Irvine Company. • The proposed landscape plan/fuel modification zone plant palette shall be reviewed and approved by the NBFD. Landscape plans shall comply with all landscaping requirements. t• Defensible space vegetation management responsibility is assigned to persons /company(ies) owning buildings or structures on this property. ' • Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of the defensible space shall include modifying or removing nonfire - resistive vegetation and keeping leaves, needles, and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from roofs of buildings and structures. • Maintenance and funding for vegetation management shall be required and enforced by deed encumbrances, which are attached to the property. Such deed encumbrances shall be reviewed and approved by NBFD Chief. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.6-15 5. Environmental Analysis HAZARDS AND HAzARnous MATrRrAm • An agreement with the neighboring property owners (as described above), to be conveyed with deed, for permanent maintenance of landscape area that also serves as extended fuel modification area for Hyatt property. • Vegetation management shall be completed prior to the start of and continue throughout the construction phase. Priorto site demolition, adequate fuel breaks shall be constructed between demolition areas and existing flammable vegetation. • Vegetation maintenance includes ensuring operation of irrigation systems. • Vegetation maintenance is required following wind and rain storms to remove combustible plant- related debris from fuel modification zones. • Caution must be exercised on steep slopes to minimize erosion with the removal of vegetation and the addition of irrigation. 5.6.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures outlined above would reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hazards have been identified. I u I I I I LJ I I Page 5.6-16 • The Planning Center February 2008 5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY S. Environmental Analysis ' This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality conditions in the City of Newport Beach from implementation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project). Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water, both on land and underground. Water quality deals with the quality of surface and groundwater, Surface ' water is water on the surface of the land and includes lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks. Groundwater is water below the surface of the earth. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports: Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraulic Report, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, Fuscoe Engineering, January 2007. • Water Quality Report, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, Fuscoe Engineering, January 24, 2007. • Geotechnical Feasibility Study, ProposedAdditions, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, I I 07Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California, Kleinfelder, November 29, 2005. Copies of these reports are included in Appendix I of this DEIR. The Geotechnical Feasibility Study is included in Appendix F of this DEIR. 5.7.1 Environmental Setting Climate and Precipitation Climate in the City of Newport Beach is Mediterranean, characterized by warm summers, cool winters, and seasonal rainfall. Nearly all rain falls from late autumn to early spring; virtually no precipitation falls during the summer. The average annual rainfall in Newport Beach is approximately 12 inches. Potential evapotranspiration in the region exceeds precipitation on an annual basis, and, under natural conditions, the lower reaches of rivers that drain the watersheds are dry during the summer (Newport Beach 2006a). Hydrologic Conditions Watershed A watershed is the geographic area draining into a river system, ocean, or other body of water through a single outlet and includes the receiving waters. Watersheds are usually bordered and separated from other watersheds by mountain ridges or other naturally elevated areas (OCWCRD 2006). In Orange County there are 13 watersheds. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Newport Bay Watershed, which contains an interconnected system of surface water resources that feed into the underlying groundwater or drain into the ocean. The Newport Bay Watershed covers 13.2 square miles along the coast of central Orange County. This watershed encompasses most of the western portion of the City of ' Newport Beach and the eastern portion of Costa Mesa (see Figure 5.7 -1, Newport Bay Watershed), The San Diego Creek drains into Upper Newport Bay. The East Costa Mesa and Santa Isabel channels, and other smaller channels of this watershed, drain into Newport Bay (OCWCRD 2006). ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.7 -1 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Regional Drainage Generally, the City of Newport Beach provides storm drain service to the entire City. The Orange County Resources and Development Management Department maintains the regional drainage facilities in the City, including the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek, and is described further in Flood Hazards, below. The existing storm drain system owned and operated by the City consists of pipelines, catch basins, manholes, tide valves, open channels, and retention basins located throughout the system. Pipelines range from 3 to 120 inches in diameter, and are constructed of materials such as reinforced concrete, corrugated metal, plastic, ductile iron, steel, clay, and asbestos cement. Some segments of the system are over 50 years old, while other segments have been recently constructed (Newport Beach 2000b). Overall, urban street flooding is rarely considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach 2003). The City's storm drain system also includes retarding basins. These include the Koll Center retarding basin, located north of State Route 73 (SR -73), the Farallon/El Paseo retarding basin, located between Avocado Street and MacArthur Boulevard, near Fashion Island, and the Harbor View retarding basin, located between Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. The purpose of these retarding basins is to reducethe flow rate within the respective downstream storm drain systems so that older, possibly undersized, downstream facilities will be able to carry the discharge from new development areas upstream (Newport Beach 2000b). Project -Area Drainage Currently, drainage for the project site is via surface flow. The golf course and central portion of the site drain toward the southern portion of the main hotel parking area into an existing collection drain in Jamboree Road. The northern, western, and southwestern portions of the site drain toward the northwestern portion of the main hotel parking area and into an existing collection drain in Back Bay Drive. Figure 5.7 -2, Existing Project Site Drainage Flow, illustrates the existing drainage flow within the project site. Off -site flows from an existing storm drain on the south side of Jamboree Road are discharged to the project site near the parking lot and flow to a collection drain in Back Bay Drive. Water Resources Water resources for the City of Newport Beach are comprised of surface and groundwater sources. Surface -Water Sources The City of Newport Beach has over 30 miles of bay and ocean waterfront. Over 63 percent of the City is in the coastal zone. Surface -water resources such as freshwater wetlands, estuaries, tideland and submerged lands, reservoirs, and waterways are located within the City. Upper Newport Bay extends south of SR -73 to the Pacific Ocean, virtually dividing the City into east and west sides. This bay area makes up many of the tidelands and submerged lands in the City, and connects with the estuary waters south of it, including Newport Dunes, Lido Channel, and Newport Channel. An additional estuary is also located in the northern portion of the City, east of Upper Newport Bay and south of SR -73. Small amounts of freshwater wetlands are scattered throughout the central portion of the City east of Upper Newport Bay and North Star Beach (Newport Beach 2006a). The City contains two aboveground reservoirs, Big Canyon and San Joaquin Reservoirs, which are located in the eastern portion of the City. Big Canyon Reservoir is about 0.25 mile north of San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Joaquin Reservoir is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of Big Canyon Reservoir. The main tributaries within the City are the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and Big Canyon Wash. Page 5.7 -2 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 7 H 1 5. Environmental Analysis Newport Bay Watershed Source: Orange County Resources and Development Management Development NOT TO SCALE r Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.7 -1 [%:I Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. �I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 5.7 -4 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Project Site Drainage Flow r Soume: Fuscoe Englneedng Hyatt Regemry Nmpo i Beach E%paxfmn Draft EIR GOLF COURSE LEGEND --- PROJECTBOUNDARY — —W— METING STORM DRAIN f/ UISTING FLOW DIRECTION GRAPHIC SCALE 120 0 60 120 240 (INFFEr) 16M-/20 R z The Planning Center • Figure &7 -2 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Santa Ana River Flowing over 100 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Ana River traverses portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. The river drains an area of over 2,700 square miles before flowing into the Pacific Ocean between Newport and Huntington Beaches (USGS 2003). The Santa Ana River transports more than 125 million gallons per day of reclaimed water from Riverside and San Bernardino Counties for recharge into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This satisfies approximately 40 percent of the county's water demand (OCWCRD 2006b). The Santa Ana River is the receiving waters of the urban, industrial, and agricultural runoff from the inland cities that ittraverses, such as Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. Receiving water is defined as a river, lake, ocean, stream, or other body of water into which wastewater or treated effluent is discharged. The river also provides water for recreation and for aquatic and wildlife habitat in the inland cities. Three components make up the flow of the water in the Santa Ana River, and the ratio of these components varies throughout the year. The first component is storm flows, directly resulting from rainfall, usually between the months of December and April. The rainfall and surface water runoff from the storms is captured and percolated into the groundwater basins. The baseflow makes up the second componentof water supply, a large portion of which comes from the discharges of treated wastewater into the river, in addition to rising groundwater in the basin. This baseflow includes the non - point- source discharges, as well as the uncontrolled and unregulated agricultural and urban runoff. The third component of the water supply is imported water, which is characterized by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) as nontributary flow (Newport Beach 2006a). San Diego Creek San Diego Creek is the main tributary to Newport Bay, has a drainage area of 118 miles, and drains all or portions of the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin (Newport Beach 2003). Its headwaters lie about one mile east of the Interstate 5 /Interstate 405 intersection, at an elevation of about 500 feet. The creek flows westerly from its headwaters and empties into Newport Bay in the vicinity of Jamboree Road, one mile west of the University of California at Irvine campus. Flooding on this creek has historically caused significant damage. Portions of San Diego Creek were channelized in 1968 for flood protection purposes. However, channelization of the creek also resulted in increased sediment flow into Upper Newport Bay, requiring extensive dredging projects to restore the ecosystem. Big Canyon Wash Big Canyon Wash drains from the Big Canyon Reservoir area in a northwesterly direction toward Upper Newport Bay. A wash is a dry riverbed, area, or channel that only contains water during the rainy season. These riverbeds are completely dry throughout most of the year. Washes are formed when flooding occurs on a desert plain. The ground does not easily absorb water, generating a large amount of runoff that collects in the wash area. While providing rich habitat for a variety of wildlife species, rainstorms in remote locations can result in flash flooding of local washes (Newport Beach 2006a). Groundwater Sources The Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) underlies the northwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach and provides groundwater for much of central and northern Orange County, including the City of Newport Beach (CDWR 2003). The Basin underlies a coastal alluvial plain in the northwestern portion of Orange County, and is bounded by consolidated rocks exposed on the north in the Puente and Chino Hills. On the east are the Santa Ana Mountains, and on the south are the San Joaquin Hills. The Basin Hyatt IZegenry New Beach Expansion Draft EIIZ City of Newport Beath Page 5.7 -7 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QuAL3Ty is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and by a low topographic divide approximated by the Orange County Los Angeles County line on the northwest. In addition, the Basin underlies the lower Santa Ana River watershed. Shallow groundwater levels (less than 50 feet from the ground surface) are known to occur along the coast, around Newport Bay, and along the major drainages in the Newport Beach area. Shallow groundwater perched on bedrock may also be present seasonally in the canyons draining the San Joaquin Hills. Upper, middle, and lower aquifer systems are recognized in the Basin. Well yields range from 500 to 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm), but are generally 2,000 to 3,000 gpm. The total capacity of the Basin is approximately 38,000,000 acre -feet (Newport Beach 2006a). Recharge to the Basin is derived from percolation of Santa Ana River flow, infiltration of precipitation, and injection into wells. The Santa Ana River flow contains natural flow, reclaimed water, and imported water that is spread in the Basin forebay, which is the upper region of the Basin. Infiltration primarily occurs in this area; the City of Newport Beach is in the pressure area of the Basin, which is an area that is not used for recharge (OCWD). There are no designated recharge areas in the City. The Groundwater Replenishment System (GAS), a joint venture by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), will help reduce Orange County and Newport Beach's reliance on imported surface water by taking treated wastewater and returning it into the Basin via injection or passive settling. Sewer water will be purified using a state -of- the -art, three -step process-- microfittration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet lightwith hydrogen peroxide disinfection. Roughly half of the water from the GAS will be injected into Orange County's seawater barrier. The remaining water will be piped to recharge lakes in Anaheim, where the water will take the natural path of rainwater as it filters through clay, sand, and rock to the deep aquifers of the groundwater basin. The GRS- purified water will exceed all state and federal drinking -water standards and have water quality similar to, or better than, bottled water. The GAS will be online by 2007, and will produce approximately 70,000 acre -feet of water per year (OCWD 2006). Water Quality Surface Water Quality As previously stated, the project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed. More specifically, the proposed project would indirectly discharge to the Upper Newport Bay, which ultimately discharges into the Lower Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The beneficial uses of the downstream receiving water bodies of the proposed project include but are not limited to commercial and sport fishing, noncontact water recreation, and estuarine, marine, and wildlife habitat. General water quality objectives have been prescribed in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for all enclosed bays and estuaries within the Santa Ana Region. Brief summaries of these objectives are provided in Table 5.7 -1. Page 5.7 -8 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -1 Water Quality Objectives for Santa Ana Region Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Element Objective Algae Waste discharges shall not contribute to excessive algal growth. Bacteria, Colitorm Due to SHEL designation, fecal coliform median concentration shall riot be more than 14 MPN/100ml. Chlorine Chlorine residual shall not be present in discharges that exceed 0.1 mgtL. Color Waters shall be free of coloration that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. Floating Material Waters shall not contain floating materials including solids, liquids, foam, or scum in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Oil and Grease Waters shall not contain oils and greases in concentrations that result in visible film or coating on the surface of the water, that cause nuisance, or that otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. Oxygen, Dissolved DO The dissolved oxygen content shall not be depressed to levels that adversely affect beneficial uses PH The pH shall not be depressed below 7.0 or raised above 8.6 as a result of controllable water quality factors: ambient pH levels shall not be changed more than 0.2 units. Radioactive Substances Radioactive materials shall not be present in concentrations that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or aquatic fife. Solid, Suspended, or Waters shall not contain solid, suspended, or settleable materials that cause nuisance or adversely Settleable Materials affect beneficial uses as a result of controllable water quality factors. SuHides Dissolved sulfide content shall not be increased as a result of controllable water quality factors. Surfactants Waste discharges shall not contain concentrations that will result in foam that would adversely affect aquatic fife. Taste and Odor Waters shall not contain taste- or odor - producing substances in concentrations that cause nuisance or otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. Temperature All bay and estuary waters shall meet the objective specified in the Thermal Plan. Toxicity Waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Turbidity Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Source. Fuscoe Engineering, Water Ouafily Report, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, January 2007. Based on the 2002 section 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited Segments, the Upper Newport Bay is an impaired water body for metals and pesticides, and the Lower Newport Bay is listed as an impaired water body for metals, pesticides, and priority organics. The sources of these pollutant stressors include urban runoff, agriculture, and unknown sources (SWRCB 2003a). Currently, there are Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) allocations for the Upper and Lower Newport Bay. In compliance with the TMDL requirements, routine monitoring programs have been developed to determine compliance with the water quality objectives and the TMDL requirements (Fuscoe 2007a). Ground Water Quality The proposed project is situated within the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone of the Lower Santa Ana River Basin. The Irvine Groundwater Management Zone was identified in the Basin Plan as having three beneficial uses. They are: • MUM — municipal and domestic supply • IND — industrial service supply • AGR — agricultural supply Specific water quality objectives have been established for the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone to maintain its three beneficial uses. In addition to specific water quality objectives, narrative objectives for all Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -9 ffl Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY groundwaters in the Santa Ana Region also apply to the Irvine Groundwater Management Zone. Brief summaries of these objectives are summarized in Table 5.7 -2. Table 5.7 -2 Water Quality Objectives for All Grounetwaters of the Santa Ana Region Elemeol Objective Arsenic Not to exceed 0.05 mg/L. Bacteria Concentration of coliform organisms shall be less than 2.2 / 100 mL over any seven -day period. Barium Not to exceed 1.0 mg/L. Boron Not to exceed 0.75 mg/L. Color Waste discharges shall not result in coloration of receiving waters that causes a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Cyanide Not to exceed 0.2 mg/L. Fluoride Not to exceed 1.0 mg/L. Metal CmrcerNraSon mg/L Metal Concentration Cadmium 0.01 Lead 0.05 Metals Chromium 0.05 Manganese 0.05 Cobalt 0.2 Mercury 0.002 Copper 1.0 Selenium 0.01 Iron 0.3 Silver 0.05 MBAS Not to exceed 0.05 mg/L. Oil and Grease Waste discharges shall not result in deposition of oil, grease, wax, or other materials in concentrations that cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. H The pH shall not be depressed below 6 or raised above 9 as a result of controllable water quality factors. Radioactivity Radioactive materials shall not be present in concentrations that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life, and shag meet the limits specified Title 22 California Code of Regulations. Taste and Odor Groundwaters shall not contain taste- or odor - producing substances that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Toxicity Waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to human, plant, animal, or aquatic fife, Source: Fuscoe Engineedng, Water Oua!dyReport, HyaftRegemyNewpo#Beach, January 2007. Although the Orange County Water District administers a water quality monitoring program throughout Orange County, there are no monitoring wells within the vicinity of the project site (Fuscoe 2007a). It is generally acknowledged thatthere are typically high sodium (Na) concentrations for groundwater within the area, which is due to saltwater intrusion from the Pacific Ocean. The GRS specifically tackles this issue of saltwater intrusion. As part of the ORS project, treated water is injected into groundwater basins within northern and central Orange County, which will expand the seawater intrusion barrier that keeps the Pacific Ocean out of the geologically connected basins near the coast. Ultimately, the GRS will aid in the reduction of Na concentrations in Orange County's groundwater basins and help the region meet groundwater quality objectives established in the Santa Ana Basin Plan. Drinking Water Quality The drinking water supply for the City is a blend of mostly groundwater from the Basin and surface water imported by MWD (Newport Beach 2006a). Page 5.7 -10 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 ' 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Flood Hazards Flood Zones Storm - induced flood hazards in Newport Beach can be classified into two general categories: flash flooding from small, natural channels, and more moderate and sustained flooding from the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. The 100- and 500 -year flood zones have been identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ' (FEMA), and include the low -lying areas in West Newport at the base of the bluffs, the coastal areas which surround Newport Bay, and all low -lying areas adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. 100 -and 500 -year flooding is also anticipated to occur along the lower reaches of Coyote Canyon, in the lower reaches of San Diego ' Creek and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, and in a portion of Buck Gully. Most flooding along these second - and third -order streams is not expected to impact significant development. However, flooding in the coastal areas of the City will impact residential and commercial zones along West Newport, the Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island, and the seaward side of Pack Coast Highway. Figure 5.73, Flood Hazards, shows the ' 100- and 500 -year flood zones and the project location as it relates to the flood zones (Newport Beach 2006b). As this figure shows, the project site is not located within a designated flood zone. ' Coastal Flood Hazards Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability but high -risk events such as tsunamis, and more common hazards such as storm surges and coastal erosion. Each of these has a potential to significantly impact ///��I� ' Newport Beach residents and the built environment. Figure 5.7-4, Coastal Hazards, shows the tsunami 110w" inundation areas, and areas subject to coastal erosion. As this figure shows, the project site is not located ``(��.,�•�VVV11 Within a coastal flood -hazard area. ' Tsunamis and Rogue Waves Newport Beach is generally protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and ' Point Arguello, exceptfor those generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. Nevertheless, since the early 1800s, more than 30 tsunamis have been recorded in southern California, and at least 6 of these caused damage in the area, although not necessarily in Newport ' Beach. Tsunamis generated in the Alaskan region take approximately 6 hours to arrive in the southern California area, while tsunamis generated off the Chilean coast take 12 to 15 hours. Given those timeframes, coastal communities in southern California can receive adequate warning, allowing them to implement evacuation procedures (Newport Beach 2006b). ' Alternatively, very little warning time, if any, can be expected from locally generated tsunamis caused by faulting or landsliding immediately offshore from Newport Beach. These tsunamis have the potential to be ' worst -case scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. Modeling off the Santa Barbara coast suggests that locally generated tsunamis can cause waves between 6 to 60 feet high, and that these could impact the coastline with almost no warning, within minutes of the causative earthquake or slump. Areas ' within Newport Beach that are most likely to be impacted by a tsunami include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay (Newport Beach 2006b). Rogue waves are very high waves that arise unexpectedly in the open ocean. These waves are difficult to ' plan for as they are unpredictable. Rogue waves have historically impacted the Orange County coast and have the potential to impact Newport Beach in the future. Hyatt Regemry Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newpon Beach • Page 5.7 -II Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Storm Surges Unlike tsunamis, which can occur anytime, storm surges are associated with inclement weather. Given that fewer people are expected to be at the beach during inclement weather, storm surges are more likely to impact residents than tourists, and the potential number of casualties can be expected to be significantly less than tsunamis. The most common problem associated with storm surges is flooding of low -lying areas, including structures. This is often compounded by intense rainfall and strong winds. If a storm surge occurs during high tide, the flooded area can be significant. Coastal flooding in Newport Beach has occurred in the past when major storms, many of these El Nino Southern Oscillation events, impacted the area. Storm surging associated with a tropical storm has been reported only once in the history of Newport Beach, in 1939. This suggests that the hazard of cyclone - induced storm surges has a low probability of occurrence (Newport Beach 2006b). Coastal Erosion Newport Beach has a variety of coastal features ranging from replenished beach sands in West Newport to steep bluffs comprised of sandstone and siftstone to the south of Corona del Mar. Significant coastal -bluff retreat, bluff -top erosion, gullying, and beach erosion are occurring along the eastern Newport shoreline, and the rates of erosion are dependent on the underlying geologic units and their different responses to the weathering effects of water (including rain and waves), gravity, and wind. Coastal erosion occurs as a result of natural processes such as long -shore drift, storm surge, and sea level rise. Sea -bluff erosion occurs as a result of processes that impact both the bottom and top of the cliffs. Pounding of the waves during high tide and storm surges causes considerable damage to the bottom of the bluffs. If the sediments exposed in this zone are soft and highly erodible, eventual collapse of the bluff can occur as it is undercut by wave action. Uncontrolled surface runoff, if allowed to flow over the top of the bluffs, can cause extensive erosion in the form of rills and gullies. During wet years, large canyons can develop quickly, often as a result of a single storm. Unchecked foot and vehicular traffic and rodent burrowing can also cause significant damage atthe top of the bluffs. Increased irrigation associated with agricultural and residential watering can lubricate fine - grained layers in the sediments or bedrock forming the cliffs, leading to failure as a result of landsliding. The protection of the beaches from coastal erosion, through effective structural devices and sand replenishment, provides more than just a wider beach; it serves as a buffer zone that provides protection from tsunami run -up or storm surges, especially in areas where there are no dune deposits in front of residential or commercial development. Page 5.7 -12 *The Planning Center Feruary 2008 COSTA N.M Project Site 1 I.- I I C..Sf.L S. Environmental Analysis Flood Hazards LejWnd -III dSW'ye - feon.R. OI too Y. i .tl aV oQ. aeafte of 1 ewn t loot or wrtn aarxw area I efm sgwto mYe: arw areos worectetl by levaes tmrn tp0 -year lbm zone K. C.1a hood =one wXt1 velocM nosed (wwe ocflan): ame Iloaa ebwlgns GeternWea. Souxe: EIP Associates M Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center a Figure 5.7 -3 Environmental Analysis I IYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -14 • The Planning Center Feruaq ?008 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 7 P 5 Project Site Source: EIP Associates Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Nµ I 1 0 1.1NF r< t nr 11 1 Covt 51.11 1A.. S. Environmental Analysis Coastal Hazards Legend Coastal Emlon Mmords - 5aldttwle ,wnbo, of Monterey F «motion most resnlant bluff- famelg Urtll. Prase to landsh hng IX rnpi5 wasting wtlere Wtlercut by w aclbrt especially al mm Falls os fa, eblocla - slltatorre member of Monterey lamotlan: very fi q and fractured: ti r to form an apron of taka at the base of s opes - gebtocene morirx, 1w oce dspoels: pare to lor cl- Aung a" steep cu15 (Le. Mlghwoy I). ono to erosion by filling and gMytng a" blumops - Beach and eotian sand savoring the gently sloping to level pooches Conknuou9y reworked by wwe arx'l wind action Tsunanf fntnldation of ExifelM High Tide log -yea Zane Qrxsntlohon Elevation -13.64 feel) - wo yea Zone OMIKIallon Elayanan -15.24 fW) 6 05 t Miley M Ybe Planning Center • Figure 5.7-4 1 I t nr 11 1 Covt 51.11 1A.. S. Environmental Analysis Coastal Hazards Legend Coastal Emlon Mmords - 5aldttwle ,wnbo, of Monterey F «motion most resnlant bluff- famelg Urtll. Prase to landsh hng IX rnpi5 wasting wtlere Wtlercut by w aclbrt especially al mm Falls os fa, eblocla - slltatorre member of Monterey lamotlan: very fi q and fractured: ti r to form an apron of taka at the base of s opes - gebtocene morirx, 1w oce dspoels: pare to lor cl- Aung a" steep cu15 (Le. Mlghwoy I). ono to erosion by filling and gMytng a" blumops - Beach and eotian sand savoring the gently sloping to level pooches Conknuou9y reworked by wwe arx'l wind action Tsunanf fntnldation of ExifelM High Tide log -yea Zane Qrxsntlohon Elevation -13.64 feel) - wo yea Zone OMIKIallon Elayanan -15.24 fW) 6 05 t Miley M Ybe Planning Center • Figure 5.7-4 1 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7-16 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Seismically Induced Inundation Seismically induced inundation, which refers to flooding that results when water retention structures fail due to an earthquake, can also occur in the City. Portions of Newport Beach are threatened by flooding from Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. Seismically induced inundation can also occur if strong ground shaking causes structural damage to aboveground water tanks. Currently, there are no existing or planned aboveground water tanks in the City (Newport Beach 2006a). L Reservoirs, lakes, ponds, swimming pools, and other enclosed bodies of water are subject to potentially damaging oscillations (sloshing) called seiches. This hazard is dependent upon specific earthquake parameters (e.g., frequency of the seismic waves, distance and direction from the epicenter), as well as site- specific design of the enclosed bodies of water, and thus is difficult to predict. Areas of the City that may be vulnerable to this hazard are primarily improvements located next to waterways, such as Newport Harbor and the southern part of Upper Newport Bay. However, the probability that damaging seiches would develop in these bodies of water was considered low in the 1975 Newport Beach Safety Element. The Hazards Assessment Study within the 2004 Technical Background Report concludes that no new information has been found to indicate otherwise (Newport Beach 2003). Various flood - control measures have helped mitigate flood damage in the City, including reservoirs in the San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountain foothills and channel alterations for the Santa Ana River. These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller streams, and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall periods that could otherwise overwhelm the storm drain system in Newport Beach (Newport Beach 2006b). In addition, the City's storm drain system includes mechanisms that minimize flood hazards resulting from high -tide events. Regulatory Background Local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. They designed to achieve regional water quality objectives and thereby protect the beneficial uses of the region's surface and groundwater. Federal Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The CWA is the principal statute governing water quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States' and gives the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution - control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for industry. The statute's goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the nation's waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes It unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires states to establish site- specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address 'Waters of the United States, generally include surface waters-- fakes, rivers streams, bays, the ocean, drystreambeds, ' wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Bearb • Page 5.7 -17 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY nonpoint sources of pollution. The following CWA Sections assist in ensuring water quality in surrounding water bodies. • Section 208 of the CWA requires the use of best management practices (BMPs) to control discharge of pollutants in stormwater during construction. • Section 303(d) requires creation of a list of impaired water bodies by states, territories, and authorized tribes; evaluation of lawful activities that may impact impaired water bodies;2 and preparation of plans to improve the quality of these water bodies. Water bodies on the list do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution- control technology. • Section 401 of the CWA requires any project that needs a federal permit (such as a Section 404 permit) to allow discharge to waters of the U.S. to also obtain state certification that the activity would not violate water quality standards. • Section 402(p) establishes a framework to control water pollution by regulating point- source discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Point - source discharges are readily identifiable, discrete inputs where waste is discharged to the receiving waters from a pipe or drain. Nonpoint discharges occur over a wide area and are associated with particular land uses (such as urban runoff from streets and stormwater from construction sites). • Section 404 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to require permits for projects that will discharge dredge or fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. State California Coastal Act (1976) The California Coastal Act established a permanent Coastal Commission whose mandate is to protect and enhance the resources of the coastal zone mapped by the State Legislature. The goals of the Coastal Act are as follows: • Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. • Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the State. • Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistentwith sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. • Assure priority for coastal- dependent and coastal- related development over other development on the coast. • Encourage State and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. 2 Impaired water bodies, and water bodies that do not meet, or are not expected to meet, water quality standards. Page 5.7 -18 •The Planning Center Feruary 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Implementation of Coastal Act policies designed to achieve the above goals is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission. An LCP typically consists of a land use plan and an implementation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource- protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. Any amendments to the certified LCP would require review and approval by the Coastal Commission prior to becoming effective. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) prepared as part of the City's LCP is described further in Local Regulations, below. SARWQCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Industrial facilities and construction sites are regulated by the SWRCB through general stormwater permits. Cities and counties are regulated through permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Since 1990, operators of large storm drain systems such as the City of Newport Beach's have been required to do the following: • Develop a stormwater management program designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being dumped or washed by stormwater runoff, into the stormwater system, then discharged into local waterbodies • Obtain a NPDES permit The NPDES permit programs in California are administered by the SWRCB and by nine regional boards that issue NPDES permits and enforce regulations within their respective region. Newport Beach lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Region. This regional board issues permits to the Orange County Permittees, which includes the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and incorporated cities of Orange County. Since the program's inception, the County of Orange has served as the principal pennittee. The City of Newport Beach is listed as a co- permittee for the SARWQCB's NPDES permit and is bound to comply with all the aspects of the permit requirements. Therefore, the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach is under the jurisdiction of the SARWQCB. The City holds a NPDES permit to operate its municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Newport Beach's MS4 permit (adopted January 2002) directs it to keep pollutants out of its M84s to the maximum extent practicable and to ensure that dry- weather flows entering recreational waters from the MS4s do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. The permit requires the City to do the following: • Control contaminants into storm drain systems • Educate the public about stormwater impacts • Detect and eliminate illicit discharges • Control runoff from construction sites • Implement BMPs and site - specific runoff controls and treatments for new development and redevelopment • Prevent pollution from municipal operations, including fixed facilities and field activities • Inspect industrial and commercial sites for compliance with NPDES regulations In addition to managing municipal stormwater discharges, the NPDES permit program requires permitting of construction- related stormwater discharges. Specifically, development that is greater than one acre in size is required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted bythe Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of NetJort Beath • Page 5.7 -19 88 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SWRCB. Under this permit, applicants are required to prepare, retain, and implement atthe construction site a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In addition, the permit would require the employment of BMPs to limit the extent of eroded materials from discharging into the City's drainage system and affecting water quality. BMPs would consist of any activity, prohibition, practice, procedure, program, or other measure designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into the City's drainage system. Under these regulations, implementation of programs and practices to control polluted stormwater runoff are required, including the inspection of construction sites and enforcement actions againstviolators. Furthermore, Provision C.3 of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requires local munici- palities to evaluate water quality effects and identify appropriate mitigation measures when they conduct environmental review of proposed projects. In order to implement Clean Water Act provisions governing discharges to municipal storm drains, Provision C.3 requires new and redevelopment projects that would modify hydrographs (i.e., create or replace impervious area) to treat and /or detain stormwater runoff before it is discharged to creeks or storm drains. The primary goals of Provision C.3 are to protect water quality by minimizing sediment and other pollutants in site runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by ensuring that postproject runoff and volume do not exceed preproject runoff and volume. General Construction Permit According tothe USEPA, construction sites without proper sediment and erosion controls can discharge 10 to 20 times the sediment load of agricultural lands and 1,000 to 2,000 times that of forest lands (US EPA 1999b). The General Construction Permit (GCP), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order 99- 08 -DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002, regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities disturbing one acre or greater of soil. Construction sites that qualify must submit a Notice of Intent (NO[) to file for permit coverage or otherwise be in violation of the CWA. The General Construction Permit 'requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, Stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) [that will achieve BCT and BAT performance standards] the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for'non- visible' pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP" (SWRCB 2003b). The proposed project redevelopment area encompasses approximately 15 acres, and is therefore subjectto the stormwater discharge requirements of the GCP. The proposed project would require NPDES permit coverage prior to the commencement of soil- disturbing activities. In the Santa Ana Region, where the proposed project resides, the SWRCB is the permitting authority, while the SARWQCB provides local oversight and enforcement of the GCP. De Minimus Permit for San Diego Creek /Newport Bay Watershed The Santa Ana RWQCB requires a permit for short-term (intermittent and/ or one year or less duration) , discharges from activities involving groundwater extraction and discharge within the Newport Bay Watersheds. Under Order No. R8- 2004 -0021, NPDES No. CA1399W02, permittees shall be required to monitor their discharges from groundwater dewatering activities during construction to ensure that proposed effluent limitations for constituents, such as selenium, are not exceeded. Page 5.7 -20 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Due to its relative proximity to Upper Newport Bay and its groundwater quality concerns referenced in the tentative De Minimus Permit, the proposed project may encounter groundwater during construction activities and may require dewatering. The proposed project is, therefore, subject to the requirements of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Short-Term Groundwater Related Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Creek/ Newport Bay Watershed (Order No. R8 -2004 -0021, NPDES No. CAG998002) it groundwater dewatering is required at any time during the construction of the project. Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The document for each region of the SWRCB's jurisdiction is the Basin Plan. It is the foundation for the regulatory programs of each of the nine RWQCBs. The Basin Plan documents the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface waters, existing water quality conditions, problems, and goals, and actions by the regional board and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards. The RWQCBs implement the SWRCB's Guidelines for Regulation of Water Reclamation and issue waste discharge permits that serve to regulate the quality of reclaimed water based on stringent water quality requirements. The State Department of Health Services develops policies protecting human health and comments and advises on RWQCB permits. Local Orange County MS4 Permit (Santa Ana Region) In January 2002, the SARWQCB issued an MS4 stormwater permit, WDRs Order No. R8 -2002 -0010, NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, to the County of Orange and the incorporated cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Whereas the General Industrial Permit and GCP are issued statewide, MS4 permits are issued by local RWQCBs in order to provide the permits with the means to address stormwater quality issues specific to the local watershed or region. As a result, MS4 permits are a more prescriptive level of regulation, requiring permittees to develop and implement a stormwater - management program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The MEP standard is a more stringent performance standard than BCT/ BAT established for both the General industrial Permit and GCP- The stormwater management program or Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), as it is referred to in the Orange County MS4 Permit, must specify SARWQCB- approved BMPs to address the following program areas: public education and outreach, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction and postconstruction, and good housekeeping for municipal operations (SWRCB 2003c). The proposed project and its facilities would discharge into the MS4 within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Pursuant to the Orange County MS4 Permit, the City is responsible for controlling or limiting urban pollutants generated by construction and postconstruction activities from reaching their MS4s. The proposed project is, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit (Santa Ana Region) as it is applied by the permittee and its co- permittees. Coastal Land Use Plan The CLUP of the City of Newport Beach LCP was prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, approved by the California Coastal Commission in October 2005, and adopted in December 2005. The CI-UP sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water and the protection of coastal resources in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its Sphere of Influence. The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Neapoti Beach • Page 5.7 -21 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY policies contained in the CLUP address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and residential and commercial development. City of Newport Beach General Plan Water quality is addressed in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan. Of particular application to the proposed project are Goal NR 3 and NR 4 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element. The goals are supported by the following policies: Goal NR 3 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal wafers, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit (page 10 -19). Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan (page 10 -20). Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post- construction. NR 3.10 Best Management Practices (page 10 -20). Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control (page 10 -20). Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property (page 10 -20). Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems (page 10 -20). Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way (page 10 -21). Require that parking lots and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems (page 10 -21). Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and , feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces (page 10 -21). Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Page 5.7 -22 The Planning Center Feruary 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY Goal NR 4 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (fMDLs) standards. NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization (page 10 -22). Require grading /erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. City of Newport Beach Council Policies City Council Policy L -18: This policy, along with Policy L -22, is intended to minimize dry- weather runoff and runoff from small rain events (collectively referred to as "runoff" in this Policy) in an effort to improve water quality of Newport Bay, water quality- limited receiving waters (like Buck Gully) and the near -shore ocean environment. The motivation for this Policy, in addition to the community's interest in clean water, is in part the adoption of new regulations upon the City of Newport Beach by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( "Regional Board ") contained in the Regional Board's Order # RS -2002- 0010, NPDES No. CAS618030. Whenever possible, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the transport of these pollutants. Reduction, retention or diversion of runoff can benefit property owners through water conservation and reuse of water that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and our harbors, bays, and ocean (Newport Beach 2002a). City Council Policy L -22: This policy, along with Policy L -18, is intended to minimize dry- weather runoff and runoff from small rain events (collectively referred to as "runoff" in this Policy) in an effort to improve water quality of Newport Bay, water quality- limited receiving waters (like Buck Gully) and the near -shore ocean environment. The motivation for this Policy, in addition to the community's interest in clean water, is in part C the adoption of new regulations upon the City of Newport Beach by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( "Regional Board ") contained in the Regional Board's Order # 88 -2002- 0010, NPDES No. CAS618030. New development or redevelopment presents the City and the public with the opportunity to reduce the impacts of runoff that would otherwise drain to the City's street drainage system and the harbors, bays, and ocean. At the time of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment project, an applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City. The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff and runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) during construction and postconstruction from the property (Newport Beach 2002a). i City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.34 (Water Well Standards): The purpose of the water -well standards contained in Chapter 14.34 of ' the City's Municipal Code is to control the construction and reconstruction of water wells such that the City s groundwater quality will not be impaired. Chapter 14.34 also provides for the destruction of abandoned or nuisance wells so that they will not impair the quality of groundwater. Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality): Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code requires the Cityto participate as a co- permittee underthe NPDES permits in the development and adoption of an ordinance to accomplishthe requirements of the CWA. The purpose of this chapter is for the City to participate in the improvement of water quality and comply with federal requirements for the control of urban pollutants to stormwater runoff, which enters the network of storm drains throughout Orange County. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Nnvport Beach • Page 5.7 -23 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code): As required by the City's Municipal Code, grading activities shall obtain a grading permit from the City's Building Official. The Building Official also issues drainage permits as appropriate. Chapter 15.10 contains grading, fill, drainage, and erosion - control standards that shall be applied to the corresponding construction activity. The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life, limb, property, and the public welfare by regulating grading, drainage, and hillside construction on private property, and for similar improvement proposed by private interests on City right -of -way where regulations are not otherwise exercised. Chapter 15.50 (Flood Damage Prevention): The purpose of Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due toflood conditions. To accomplish this purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions to do the following: • Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities • Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction • Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters • Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage • Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design): Chapter 19.24 of the City's Municipal Code contains slope, grading, drainage, and flood - protection provisions specific to the development of subdivisions. 5,7.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEGA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: HYD -1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. HYD -3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. HYD -4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site. HYD -5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. HYD -6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with thefollowing thresholds would be less than significant: HYD -2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a Page 5.7 -24 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). HYD -7 Place housing wfthin a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. HYD -8 Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. HYD -9 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. HYD -10 Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.7.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.7 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE - DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF POLLUTED RUNOFF, OR OTHERWISE DEGRADE WATER QUALITY. (THRESHOLDS HYD-1, HYD -5, AND HYD -61 Impact Analysis: Urban runoff resulting from storms or nuisance flows (runoff during dry periods) from development projects can carry pollutants to receiving waters. Runoff can contain pollutants such as oil, fertilizers, pesticides, trash, soil, and animal waste. This runoff can flow directly into local streams or lakes or into storm drains and continue through pipes until it is released untreated into a local waterway and eventually the ocean. Untreated stormwater runoff degrades water quality in surface waters and groundwater and can affect drinking water, human health, and plant and animal habitats. Additionally, increased runoff from urban surfaces can increase the intensity of flooding and erosion. The construction and operational phases of the proposed project could have the potential to impact water quality. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils. The operational phase would alter the existing land uses of the project site and would, consequently, alter the anticipated and potential pollutant sources generated at the site. The following is a discussion of the potential impacts thatthe construction and operational phases of the proposed project could have on water resources and quality. ' Construction Phase Clearing, grading, excavation and construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. Grading activities, in particular, lead to exposed areas of loose soil, as well as sediment stockpiles, that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. The use of materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints also present a risk to surface -water quality due to an increased potential for nonvisible pollutants entering the storm drain system. Hyatt Regency Netuport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -25 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY If uncontrolled, these materials could lead to water quality impacts including the discharge of sediment -laden runoff, prohibited non- stormwater discharges, and ultimately the degradation of downstream receiving water bodies, such as the Upper and Lower Newport Bay, of which sedimentation is a majorwater quality concern. The soil- disturbing activities associated with the proposed project necessitate the implementation of an SWPPP and related construction BMPs, with the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the Statewide General Construction NPDES Permit No. CAS000002 (Order 99- 08 -DWO), the project proponent is required to submit an NOI to the SWRCB prior to the commencement of construction activities. In addition, an SWPPP must be prepared and implemented at the project site, and revised as necessary as administrative or physical conditions change. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City, project applicants are required to provide proof of filing for an NOI with the SWRCB and prepare an SWPPP thatwill describe the BMPs to be implemented during the project's construction activities. Construction contractors are required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site at all times and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. The general categories of construction BMPs are outlined in Table 5.7 -3. Table 5.7 -3 Construction BMPs BMP Category BMP Description EC-1 Scheduling EC-8 Wood Mulching EC -2 Preservation of Existing Vegetation EC -9 Eadh Dikes and Swales EC -3 Hydraulic Mulch EC -10 Velocity Dissipation Devices Erosion Controls EC -4 Hydroseeding EC -11 Slope Drains EC -5 Soil Binders EC -12 Streambank Stabilization EC -6 Straw Mulch EC -13 Polyacrylamide EC -7 Geotexbles and Mats SE -1 Sift Fence SE -7 Street Sweeping SE -2 Desiltiag Basin SE -8 Sandbag Barrier Sediment Controls SE -3 Sediment Trap SE -9 Straw Bale Bamer SE -4 Check Dam SE -10 Chemical Treatment SE -5 Fiber Rolls 5E -11 Chemical Treatment SE -6 Gravel Bag Berm Wind Erosion Controls WE -1 Wind Erosion Control TC -1 Stabilized Construction Entrance / But Tracking Controls TC -2 Stabilized Cohstruction Roadway TC -3 Entrance /Outlet Tire Wash NS -1 Water Conservation Practices NS-9 Vehicle & Equipment Fueling NS-2 Dewatering Operations NS -10 Vehicle & Equipment Mainten. NS -3 Paving and Grinding Operations NS -11 Pile Driving Operations Non- Stomnvater Management NS -4 Temporary Stream Crossing NS -12 Concrete Curing Controls NS -5 Clear Water Diversion NS -13 Concrete Finishing NS -6 IC/ID Detection and Reporting NS -14 Material Use Over Water NS -7 Potable Water! Irrigation NS -15 Demolition Over Water NS -8 Vehicle & Equipment Cleaning NS -16 Temporary Batch Plants WM -1 Material Delivery & Storage WM -6 Hazardous Waste Waster Management and Controls WM -2 Material Use WM -7 Contaminated Soil (i.e., good housekeeping practices) WM -3 Stockpile Management WM -8 Concrete Waste WM -4 Spill Prevention and Control WM -9 Sanitary / Septic Waste WM -5 Solid Waste Management Source: FuscoeEngineering, Water Ouafay Report, Hyatt RegencyNewpottBeach , January 2007. Page 5.7 -26 •The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY ANO WATER QUALITY The SWPPP is required to identify construction BMPs necessary to mitigate project impacts, including but not limited to the following. • Sediment from areas disturbed by construction shall be retained on -site using structural controls (erosion and sediment controls) and sediment debris basins (firstflush basin will serve this function during construction activities) to the maximum extent practicable. Streets adjacent to the site entrance and exits shall be free of sediment and debris from the project site and shall be swept as directed by the City. Stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to minimize sediment transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities, or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking, wind, or water. • Appropriate BMPs for construction - related materials, wastes, and spills shall be implemented to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities, or adjoining properties by wind or runoff. • Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction sites unless treated to reduce or remove sediment and other pollutants. • All construction contractor and subcontractor personnel are to be made aware of the required BMPs and good housekeeping measures for the project site and any associated construction staging areas. • At the end of each day of construction activity all construction debris and waste materials shall be collected and properly disposed in trash or recycle bins. 88 i • Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Discharges of material other than stormwater can occur only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable underfederal regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302. • Potential pollutants include but are not limited to solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives, and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle /equipment wash water, and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine /equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and super - chlorinated potable water -line flushing. During construction, the permittee shall dispose of such materials in a specified and controlled temporary area on -site, physically separated from potential stormwater runoff, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. • Dewatering of contaminated groundwater or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of noncontaminated groundwater requires an NPDES permit from the local RWQCB. • The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion - control work to ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -27 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY • The permittee shall notify all general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, lessees, and property owners that dumping of chemicals into the storm drain system is prohibited. • Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on -site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. Implementation of the SWPPP and its associated BMPs throughout the construction phase of the proposed project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities. Operational Phase The operational phase of the proposed project may result in long -term impacts to the quality of stormwater and urban runoff, subsequently impacting downstream water quality. Although the existing on -site drainage facilities would be substantially improved as a result of the proposed project, the proposed land uses and site features nevertheless pose a significant water quality threat to downstream receiving waters —Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Development projects, such as the proposed hotel expansion, can after the existing drainage course and can potentially create new sources for runoff contamination. Consequently, the proposed project has the potential to increase the postconstruction pollutant loadings of certain constituent pollutants associated with the proposed hotel expansion and its project features, such as parking lots and drive aisles. As proposed, the project would indirectly discharge into the Upper Newport Bay via the MS4 at Back Bay Drive, which is owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach. Under the current Orange County MS4 permit, no numeric effluent limitations are required for stormwater discharges and no sampling or monitoring programs are required by the owner /developer. However, the long -term operation of the proposed project necessitates the implementation of postconstruction BMPs to the maximum extent practicable to mitigate and abate pollutants that may compromise the Newport Bay's beneficial uses and water quality objectives. Pollutants of Concern As a result of the proposed alteration of existing site conditions, the proposed project would create new pollutant sources, and in turn, change the makeup of pollutant constituents generated by the proposed land uses. Because stormwater -runoff pollution is diffuse in nature, the composition, level, and cumulative effects of specif ic pollutant levels generated by the proposed project cannot be appropriately quantified. However, based on the proposed land uses, the anticipated and potential pollutants generally associated with the project's postconstruction operations can be predicted. Primary pollutants of concern are those that have already been identified as causing impairment of receiving waters, and are described in Section 5.7.1. Table 5.7-4, Anticipated and Potential Pollutants, summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them. Page 5.7 -28 •The Planning Center Feruary 2008 S. Environmental Ar HYDROLOGY AND WATER Table 5.7-4 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Source: County of Orange Flood Control District, 2003 Drainage Area Master Plan, Table 7 -1.3, July 1, 2003. X = anticipated. P = potential ' A potential pollutant d landscaping or open areas exist on -site. z A potential pollute t'dthe project includes uncovered parting areas. ' A potential pollutant if land use invokes food or animal waste products. Including petroleum hydrocarbons. 5 Including solvents. As required by City of Newport Beach water quality ordinances and City Council Policies L -18 and L -22, at the time of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment, project applicants are required to submit a WQMP— utilizing the Model WQMP (dated September 26,2003)—to the City of Newport Beach that outlines approved postconstruction BMPs including site- design and source and treatment control BMPs selected for the project to reduce pollutants in postdevelopment runoff to the BAT / BCT performance standard. The following is a discussion of site- design, source control, and treatment control BMPs that would be incorporated as a part of the proposed project. Site- Design BMPs Site- design considerations to reduce the potential impacts on surface and groundwater quality would be incorporated into the project's design. These include, but are not limited to, maximizing pervious areas, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, use of on -site ponding areas, constructing hadscape with permeable materials, and implementing on -lot hydrologically functional landscape design. Specific details and guidelines for the implementation of site design BMPs are provided in the City's Model WQMP. The proposed project would, at minimum, incorporate the following site- design BMPs, where feasible. • Overflow parking areas and other low traffic areas would incorporate the use of open - jointed paving materials or permeable surfaces. • Rooftop drainage would be designed to drain to adjacent landscaping or to areas that can facilitate some form of filtration /infiltration of roof runoff prior to discharging to the storm drain. An urban curb /swale system would be provided for surface parking areas that drain towards landscaping, whereby biot'rltration can be facilitated for parking lot runoff. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -29 General Pollutant Categories `° � A- o y Project Features Of Wafer e v oo m •bw �c a g Quality Concern w ca a x ; x a c o v co @ .- o o e y o Commercial/ Industrial P' P P' P1 P5 P' X P' X Development >100,000 If Attached Residential p X X X X P' Pz Parking Lots P X P1 P1 RUT— P' X P1 X Streets P X P' P' X° X X P' X Source: County of Orange Flood Control District, 2003 Drainage Area Master Plan, Table 7 -1.3, July 1, 2003. X = anticipated. P = potential ' A potential pollutant d landscaping or open areas exist on -site. z A potential pollute t'dthe project includes uncovered parting areas. ' A potential pollutant if land use invokes food or animal waste products. Including petroleum hydrocarbons. 5 Including solvents. As required by City of Newport Beach water quality ordinances and City Council Policies L -18 and L -22, at the time of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment, project applicants are required to submit a WQMP— utilizing the Model WQMP (dated September 26,2003)—to the City of Newport Beach that outlines approved postconstruction BMPs including site- design and source and treatment control BMPs selected for the project to reduce pollutants in postdevelopment runoff to the BAT / BCT performance standard. The following is a discussion of site- design, source control, and treatment control BMPs that would be incorporated as a part of the proposed project. Site- Design BMPs Site- design considerations to reduce the potential impacts on surface and groundwater quality would be incorporated into the project's design. These include, but are not limited to, maximizing pervious areas, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, use of on -site ponding areas, constructing hadscape with permeable materials, and implementing on -lot hydrologically functional landscape design. Specific details and guidelines for the implementation of site design BMPs are provided in the City's Model WQMP. The proposed project would, at minimum, incorporate the following site- design BMPs, where feasible. • Overflow parking areas and other low traffic areas would incorporate the use of open - jointed paving materials or permeable surfaces. • Rooftop drainage would be designed to drain to adjacent landscaping or to areas that can facilitate some form of filtration /infiltration of roof runoff prior to discharging to the storm drain. An urban curb /swale system would be provided for surface parking areas that drain towards landscaping, whereby biot'rltration can be facilitated for parking lot runoff. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -29 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Source - Control BMPs Source - control BMPs effectively minimize the potential for typical urban pollutants to come irrto contact with stormwater, thereby limiting water quality impacts downstream. Numerous source - control BMPs would be incorporated into the proposed project. • Educational materials related to urban runoff would be provided to all employees and tenants upon occupancy. • Activity restrictions would be developed to prevent additional pollutants to stormwater. • Common -area landscape management that includes minimizing fertilizer and pesticide application, maintenance activities, and proper education and training for employees. • Regular litter control for the entire project area, including trash pick up and sweeping of littered common areas, as performed by the maintenance crew. • Routine maintenance of all catch basins, grate inlets, etc., for debris and litter removal. • Street sweeping of all impervious streets and parking lots performed at a frequency that reduces or prevents sediment and debris from entering receiving waters and prior to the rainy season. • Storm drain stenciling or signage on all catch basins with highly visible source - control messages (e.g., "no dumping—drains to ocean "). • Properly designed trash enclosures to minimize contact with stormwater. • Proper landscaping design incorporating native drought - tolerant species, protection of slopes, and efficient irrigation design. Treatment - Control BMPs In addition to source - control BMPs, the proposed project requires treatment - control BMPs (single or in combination) to remove anticipated pollutants of concern from on -site runoff. Treatment - control BMPs can range from natural treatment systems such as vegetated swales, detention basins, and constructed wetlands, to proprietary control measures. Since no single treatment BMP can effectively remove all contaminants that can pollute stormwater runoff, the treatment - control BMP(s) required for the proposed project would be high to moderately efficient in removing the target pollutants. Table 5.7 -5, Treatment Control BMPs, demonstrates the variation in pollutant- removal efficiencies of several treatment - control BMPs. Page 5.7 -30 • The Planning Center Feruary 2008 I I I i I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -5 Treatment Control BMPs Sources: JLC Engineering 2007. Notes: L: Low removal efficiency M: Medium removal efficiency H: High removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency 1. Project proponents should base BMP designs on the Riverside County Stormwater Duality Best Management Practice Design Handbook. However, project proponents may also wish to reference the California Stomiwate BMP Handbook- New Development and Redevelopment (www.cabmphandbooks.com). The Handbook contains additional information on BMP operation and maintenance. Moreover, the treatment - control BMPs selected for the proposed project would be required to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) either: The volume of runoff produced from a 24 -hour 85"' percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record; or The volume of runoff produced by the 24 -hour 85"' percentile runoff event, determined as the maximized capture urban -runoff volume for the area, from the formula recommended in the Urban Runoff Quality Management, Water Environment Federation (WEF) Manual of Practice No. 23/ American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage volume, to achieve 90 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook— Industrial/ Commercial, (1993); or The volume of runoff, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads and flows as achieved by mitigation of the 24- hour 85" percentile runoff event; or The maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hourfor each hour of a storm event; or Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIK City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -31 'AR Treatment Control BMP Categories' a y W .J O G :� t a i d •� V � Pollutant Of Concern m o m , m 3 3 u 3; r� y �; a e Sediment/Turbidity, H/M M H/M H/M H/M L H/M H/M Nutrients L M H/M H/M UM L L H/M Organic Compounds U U U U H/M L I L U Trash and Debris L M U M H/M U Oxygen Demanding Substances L M H/M L L U Bacteria and Viruses U U H/M L L H/M Oil and Grease HIM M U tUH/M M L/M U Pesticides non -soil bound U U U L L H/M Metals H/M H L L U Sources: JLC Engineering 2007. Notes: L: Low removal efficiency M: Medium removal efficiency H: High removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency 1. Project proponents should base BMP designs on the Riverside County Stormwater Duality Best Management Practice Design Handbook. However, project proponents may also wish to reference the California Stomiwate BMP Handbook- New Development and Redevelopment (www.cabmphandbooks.com). The Handbook contains additional information on BMP operation and maintenance. Moreover, the treatment - control BMPs selected for the proposed project would be required to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) either: The volume of runoff produced from a 24 -hour 85"' percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record; or The volume of runoff produced by the 24 -hour 85"' percentile runoff event, determined as the maximized capture urban -runoff volume for the area, from the formula recommended in the Urban Runoff Quality Management, Water Environment Federation (WEF) Manual of Practice No. 23/ American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage volume, to achieve 90 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook— Industrial/ Commercial, (1993); or The volume of runoff, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads and flows as achieved by mitigation of the 24- hour 85" percentile runoff event; or The maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hourfor each hour of a storm event; or Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIK City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -31 'AR Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 85"' percentile hourly rainfall intensity, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, multiplied by a factor of two; or • The maximum flow rate of runoff, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, which achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads and flows as achieved by mitigation of the W percentile hourly rainfall intensity, multiplied by a factor of two. Based on the proposed drainage and hydrologic conditions, several feasible treatment - control BMP alternatives within the project site could fulfill the above mitigation requirements (Fuscoe 2007a). The project site is considered a priority project since it is a redevelopment of 5,000 square feet or greater. Since the proposed redevelopment encompasses greater than 50 percent of the total project site, the treatment control BMPs would be designed to treat runoff from the entire project site, where possible. The project site can be divided into three general drainage areas, based on the proposed grading and general drainage characteristics. Drainage Area A encompasses the development in the southern portion of the project site, and includes the proposed ballroom and associated parking, as well as the proposed parking structure. Drainage Area B encompasses the western portion of the timeshare development area, closestto Back Bay Drive, including the existing amphitheatre area and the proposed housekeeping building in the main hotel complex. Drainage Area C encompasses the eastern portion of the timeshare development area, the proposed fitness center, and parking lot adjacent to the existing tennis courts. Figure 3-8, Conceptual Drainage Plan, illustrates the three drainage areas. Several treatment - control BMP options were developed for each drainage area, as discussed below. These treatment alternatives would be used in conjunction with one another to treat each drainage area or to provide additional pretreatment opportunities. Figure 3 -8 illustrates the opportunity areas within the project site where these treatment - control BMPs would be implemented. Drainage Area A Drainage Area A encompasses approximately 12.37 acres of the project site, of which 9.42 acres would be developed with a new ballroom, two -level parking structure, and new fitness center. The following treatment - control BMPs would be incorporated within this drainage area to mitigate anticipated and potential pollutants of concern. • Vegetated swale and sand filter treatment train • Media filtration • Permeable paving • Filtration trench The water quality "treatmenttrain" consisting of avegetated swale and sand filterwould provide treatmentof sediment, metals, oil and grease, and organic constituents, and further treatment of bacteria and dissolved metals from the development area of Drainage Area A as well as adjacent buildings associated with the main hotel complex. The media - filtration alternative would provide treatment by removing sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, oil and grease, and organics, depending on the type of media filter used. The filtration trenches alternative would provide pretreatment of flows priorto discharging into the vegetated swale, or be utilized as stand -alone BMPs treating flows from the parking structure and adjacent parking lot. Page 5.7 -32 • The Planting Center Feruary 2008 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Porous pavement may also provide pretreatment of particulates if used in series with the vegetated swale primarily as a detention device, or can be used as a stand -alone treatment BMP if it can be determined that it does not impact groundwater or adjacent slopes, if any. Together or in combination, these treatment - control BMPs could provide treatment of the anticipated and potential pollutants associated with the development within Drainage Area A. Drainage Area B Drainage Area B encompasses approximately 7.7 acres of the project site, of which 3.35 acres would be developed as timeshare units. This area currently consists primarily of landscaped slopes associated with the golf course. Due to space limitations, land- intensive treatment- control BMPs could not be effectively integrated into this drainage area. The following treatment- control BMP would be incorporated within this drainage area to mitigate anticipated and potential pollutants of concern. • Underground media filtration Due to sizing limitations, natural treatment - control BMPs cannot be sized to treat the entire drainage area. The underground media filtration would provide treatment of sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, oil and grease, and organics, depending on the type of media filter used, as well as have the capacity to treat the required Storm Quality Design Flow (SQDF) for Drainage Area B. The underground media filtration would provide the necessary treatment of the anticipated and potential pollutants associated with DrainageArea B. Drainage Area C y Drainage Area C encompasses approximately 5.62 acres of the project site. Within this drainage area, the \ak" existing golf course would be developed with timeshare units on approximately 3.66 acres. The following l� treatment- control BMPs would be incorporated within this drainage area to mitigate anticipated and potential pollutants of concern. • Underground media filtration • Bioretention (rain garden) Due to site constraints, natural treatment - control BMPs cannot be implemented to treat the entire drainage area. However, the rain garden /bioretention area would provide pretreatment by removing sediment, trash, metals, bacterial, oil and grease, and organics pollutants in stormwater from a portion of the timeshare development area. The media - filter unit would provide treatment of sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, oil and grease, and organics, depending on the type of media filter used, as well as have the capacity to treat the required SQDF for Drainage Area C. Together or in combination, these BMPs would provide the necessary treatment of the anticipated and potential pollutants associated with Drainage Area C. Conclusion Collectively, the site- design and source, and treatment - control project design features would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational phase of the proposed project. Additionally, through the development- review process, the City of Newport Beach complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the project's impact on water quality. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.7 -33 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT 5.7 -2: EXPANSION OF THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE SITE OR AREA, RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL EROSION OR SILTATION, OR FLOODING ON- OR OFF -SITE. (THRESHOLD HYD -3 AND HYD -41 Impact Analysis: Increased runoff from urban surfaces can increase the intensity of flooding and erosion. The following is a discussion of the potential erosion, siltation, and flooding impacts that could occur as a result of the project development. Erosion and Siltation The majority of the potential erosion and siltation impacts would occur during the construction phase (e.g., grading, clearing, and excavating) of the proposed project. During construction, the project site would be cleared of vegetation and existing facilities and structures in preparation for grading, which would expose loose soil to potential wind and water erosion. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways would temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles into local waterways. As previously stated, the project proponent is required to submit an NOI and SWPPP prior to the commencement of construction activities. The SWPPP would describe the BMPs to be implemented during the project's construction activities. The operational phase of the proposed project would include extensive landscaping, impervious surface coverage, and the project - related water quality design features. The permanent erosion and siltation treatment - control BMP features would include the following: • Underground media filtration • Bioretention (rain garden) • Vegetated swale and sand filter treatment train • Mediafiltration Permeable paving • Filtration trench Collectively, implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and the project's proposed water quality design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion and siltation impacts during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. Flooding The proposed on -site storm drain system for the project would consist of grated inlets and curb - opening catch basins at sump locations. The proposed project can be categorized into three drainage areas. The drainage pattern and improvements within each drainage area under the pre- and postconstruction phases of the proposed project are as shown in Figure 3 -8 and as described below. Drainage Area A (Jamboree Road) Under existing conditions, surface runoff from the existing parking lot area and adjacent buildings is , conveyed west and northwest through a v-g utter along the northern side of the parking lot (see Figure 5.7 -2) . The runoff then discharges to a concrete drainage ditch prior to discharging into the existing MS4 at Back Bay Drive. The flow travels west from this point. Under proposed conditions, flows from Drainage Area A r Page 5.7 -34 • T'be Planning Center Femary 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY would be collected by a proposed storm drain beginning at Jamboree Road and traversing west throughthe project site along the southern parking lot and eventually discharging into the existing MS4 at Back Bay Drive (see Figure 3 -8). The flow would travel west from this point. Drainage Area B (Back Bay Drive) Under existing conditions, flows from Drainage Area B are collected by local -area drains and conveyed west along Back Bay Drive and are discharged into the existing MS4 at Back Bay Drive (see Figure 5.7 -2, Existing Project Site Drainage Flow). Under proposed conditions, a storm drain system would be constructed to collect flows from the development area and connect directly to the MS4 at Back Bay Drive (see Figure 3 -8). Drainage Area C (East Watershed) Under existing conditions, flows from Drainage Area C discharges into the watershed east of the project site (see Figure 5.7 -2). Under proposed conditions, a storm drain system would be constructed to collect flows from this drainage area and discharge them directly into the existing watershed to the east of the project site (see Figure 3 -8). Table 5.7 -6 summarizes the findings of preconstruction flow. The results are a direct sum of all the subareas within each drainage area. Table 5.7 -7 summarizes the findings of postconstruction flow. The total is a direct sum of the flow rate generated by the subareas within each major division. The adjusted total accounts for the friction loss for flow within a pipe. Table 5.7-6 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.7 -35 Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Table 5.7 -7 Postconstruction Flow Drainage Pattern Postconstruction Flow cubic feef per second YSubarea A -1 �a s 7.78 r Subarea A -2 3.92 Subarea A -3 6.43 Subarea A -4 96.90 Subarea A -5 6.97 Subarea A -6 0.52 Subarea A -7 6.91 Subarea A -8 3.33 Subarea A -9 2.45 Total 135.21 Adjusted Total 132.48 Subarea C -1 5.35 Subarea C -2 3.59 Subarea C -3 0.56 Subarea CA 0.64 Subarea C -5 0.85 Subarea C -6 9.52 Subarea D 1.73 Subarea E 2.03 Subarea F 5.89 Total 30.16 Adjusted Total 2934 Subarea B -1 0.43 Subarea B -2 4.65 Subarea B -3 10.02 Subarea H 4.93 Total 20.03 Adjusted Total 19.44 As shown in these tables, the postconstruction flows would be slightly less than the preconstruction flows. Additionally, as discussed above in the drainage -area descriptions, the drainage flows would remain the same. Collectively, implementation of the project's proposed drainage improvements would ensure that flooding on- or off -site would not occur. Page 5.7 -36 •The Planning Center Feruary 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.7.4 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with related projects located within the Newport Bay Watershed, would result in increased flows that ultimately discharge to the Pacific Ocean. Related projects that would direct stormwater flows to channels that drain to the Upper and Lower Newport Bay include projects located within the Newport Bay Watershed. Ultimate development of the proposed project and other development within the area would potentially impact water quality. Without controls, both short-term construction - related impacts and long -term operational impacts could substantially impactwater quality. The impacts of the proposed project to the watershed and groundwater would be minimal, but would incrementally contribute to the increase in impervious surfaces and discharge of pollutants and sedimentto receiving waters and groundwater within the region. As with the proposed project, related projects would be required to mitigate impacts through implementation of a project - specific WQMP. The WQMP is required to demonstrate that the project in question would implement operational BMPs to the maximum extent practicable in order to mitigate and abate anticipated and potential pollutants generated at the project site that may compromise the beneficial uses and water quality objectives of downstream receiving water bodies. In consideration of the preceding factors, cumulative water quality impacts would be rendered less than considerable, and therefore less than cumulatively significant. 5.7.5 Existing Regulations • General Construction Permit (GCP), WDRs Order 99- 08 -DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002 • SARWQCB MS4 stormwater permit, WDRs Order No. 118- 2002 -0010, NPDES Permit No. CAS618030 • City of Newport Beach Council Policies L -18 and L -22 • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.34 (Water Well Standards) oChapter 14.36 (Water Quality) Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design) Chapter 15.50 (Flood Damage Prevention) o Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code) 5.7.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation ' Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.7 -1 and 5.7 -2 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. ' 5.7.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. IHyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.7 -37 �:C Environmental Analysis i HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.7 -38 • The Planning Center Ferualy 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis 5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential impacts to land use in the City of Newport Beach from implementation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project). Land use impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts are those that result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. This section focuses on direct land use impacts. Indirect impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services, or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other sections of this DEIR. 5.8.1 Environmental Setting 5.8.1.1 Existing Land Use Project Site The 25.7 -acre project site is currently developed with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. Current improvements include 403 hotel rooms (keys) and associated hotel lobby, restaurants, a banquet facility that consists of a 3,190- square -foot ballroom and meeting space (Terrace Ballroom), the Plaza Ballroom, an amphitheatre, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and maintenance and housekeeping sheds, The hotel rooms are located throughout four buildings. The site is has extensive landscaping, including a broad assortment of palm tree species. The existing buildings are one and two stories. The maximum structure height, exclusive of the ornamental tower of the main building, is 26 feet. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses. The Palisades Tennis Club abuts the project site ' along the northeastern boundary. The remainder of the site's northern boundary abuts open space within the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, which contains various biological resource areas, including native coastal sage scrub, marsh, and riparian areas. North of the preserve is the existing gated residential ' community of Harbor Cove, which is on a bluff across the preserve. Jamboree Road abuts the project site along the eastern boundary. East of Jamboree is the residential community of Sea Island. Back Bay Drive abuts the project site along the southern and western boundaries. South of Back Bay Drive is the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing. Southeast of the project site is the residential community of Villa Point. Southwest and west of Back Bay Drive are the Back Bay Science Center (Shellmaker Island), Newport Dunes, and Upper Newport Back Bay, which consist of a private beach area, vehicle and boat parking areas, docks, and boating areas. These surrounding land uses are shown in previous Figure 3 -3, Aerial Photograph. 5.8.1.2 Applicable Plans Regional and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expanrion Draft EIR City ofNeaport Beach •Page 5.8 -1 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Local Plans City of Newport Beach General Plan Future development of all land in the City of Newport Beach is guided by the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and approved by voters in accordance with City Charter Section 423 on November 7, 2006. City Charter Section 423 requires voter approval for amendments that exceed specific development thresholds. The General Plan consists of a series of state - mandated and optional elements to direct the City's physical, social, and economic growth. Elements within the City of Newport Beach General Plan include Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. Land Use Element The land use element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of developmentfor Newport Beach at buildout. It is based on and correlates the policies from all elements into a set of coherent development policies, which serve as the central organizing element for the City's General Plan as a whole. Cumulatively, the Land Use Element's policies directly affect the establishment and maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and open spaces that distinguish and contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Policies related to urban form are also contained in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates the project site as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV). The existing resort use is consistent with this designation, which is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services to primarily service visitors to the City of Newport Beach. As shown on Figure LU -1, General Plan Overview Map, of the Newport Beach General Plan, the project site is within General Plan Statistical Area K1 and is designated as anomaly location No. 52, which identifies precise development limits for the project site. General Plan Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, specifies that the project site has a development limit of 479 hotel rooms. Harbor and Say Element The goals and policies pertaining to harbor issues are intended to guide the content of regulations related to development of and the activities conducted on the water. Additional goals and policies recognize the important component of land use decisions related to waterfront property around Newport Harbor. The aim of the Harbor and Bay Element goals and policies is preserve the diversity and charm of existing uses without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Goals and policies within the Harbor and Bay Element have been organized to address both water- and land- related issues, provision of public access, water quality and environmental issues, visual characteristics, and the administration of the Harbor and Bay. Housing Element Development of housing in the City of Newport Beach is guided by the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. The 2000 -2008 Housing Element is an update and revision of the 1992 Element, and consists of new technical data, revised goals, updated policies, and a series of programs and implementing measures. The Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and to foster the availability of housing affordable to all income levels to the extent possible, given Newport Beach's constraints. Page 5.8 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING �! Historical Resources Element This Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's historical and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within this element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archeological sites and structures. Preserving and maintaining these resources helps to create an awareness and appreciation of the City's rich history. Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the General Plan governs the long -term mobility system of the City of Newport Beach. The goals and policies in this element are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traff ic service levels, and community character. The Circulation Element of the General Plan ' also contains new policies related to water transportation services and waterfront walkways. The project site is located in the vicinity of two major roadways: Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. L According to the General Plan, Jamboree Road is a north -south divided major arterial with three lanes in each direction. Pacific Coast Highway, which is located 0.2 mile south of the project site, runs east -west with a raised median and three lanes in each direction between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Between Jamboree Road and Dover Drive, Pacific Coast Highway is an eight -lane roadway. Back Bay Drive, which forms the project's southern and western boundaries, is a four -lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. Recreation Element The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the provision of parks and recreation facilities is appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in the Recreation Element include: parks and recreation facilities, recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The Recreation Element also contains policies that encourage the provision and maintenance of marine- recreation- related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources and the provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. Arts and Cultural Element The goals and policies of the Arts and Cultural Element are intended to be a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. Future challenges in Newport Beach require maximizing the community's cultural arts potential by coordinating with various community groups, businesses, agencies, citizens, and the City to create active and cohesive cultural and arts programs. The goals and policies in this element are intended to serve as a mechanism for integrating these resources to provide improved and expanded arts and cultural facilities and programs to the community. ' Natural Resources Element The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies Newport Beach's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses: water supply (as a resource) and water quality (includes bay and ocean quality, and potable drinking water), air quality, terrestrial and marine biological resources, open space, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb * Page 5.8 -3 ao 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Safety Element The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting form natural and human- induced hazards. The Safety Element recognizes and responds to public health and safety risks. The element specifically addresses coastal hazards, geologic hazards, seismic hazards, flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster planning. The element also includes policies and programs that minimize potential impacts from hazards. The project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone and no known faults traverse the project site (Kleinfelder 2005). However, the project site is located within seismically active southern California (Seismic Zone 4, encompassing most of Southern California). The Newport- Inglewood fault is considered to be the most significant active fault with respectto the project site. Additionally, the project site is located within the height restriction overlay zone of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan is a tool for including noise control in the planning process to maintain compatible land use with environmental noise levels. This Noise Element identifies noise - sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing policies to ensure that Newport Beach residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The major noise sources in the project area include traffic from Jamboree Road and takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, ensures consistency between the City's General Plan and proposed development. The Zoning Code identifies land use categories, boundaries, and development standards. Existing regulations specifically applicable to the proposed project include the following chapters of the City s Zoning Code: Chapter 20.15 Commercial Districts This chapter includes provisions for the Retail and Service (RSC) District. The project site is designated as RSC. The RSC zoning classification provides areas that are predominantly retail in character but that allow some service office uses. The RSC zone identifies "hotels, motels and time-shares" as allowed land uses requiring a Use Permit. Chapter 20.65 Height Limits This chapter includes the methodology to measure building height, a map of height limitation zones, and exceptions to height limits. As shown on Figure 5.1 -1, General —Plan Designated Coastal Views, the project site is located within an area designated as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. The following height limitations apply to the proposed project: Section 20.65.040, Height Limitation Zones, (C) 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone, the height limit for any structure shall be 26 feet; however, a structure may exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a planned community district specific plan, orthrough the approval of a Use Permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to ail zoning districts other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MRF and OS Districts, within the area known as the Page 5.8 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established by Ordinance 92 -3, and shown on Figure 5.8 -1, Height Limitation Zones. Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, (A) Architectural Features. Architectural features such as, but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for stairways, and other decorative roof -top features of an open nature, and solar equipment, but excluding parapet walls, may be permitted in excess of permitted height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit. Chapter 20.84 Time Share Developments This chapter stipulates the provisions for the development of timeshare units. The Time Share Development ordinance concludes that timeshare projects differ from other transient visitor facilities in types of construction, forms of ownership, patterns of use and occupancy, and commercial management. The specific ordinance for these was adopted to protect the health, safety, peace, and welfare of the public by providing additional land use and property development regulations for timeshare developments. The ' ordinance specifies the application process and requirements for a Use Permit, including the submittal of a Sales Plan, Management Plan, and Contingency Plan for actions to be taken if the timeshare fails to sell 50 percent within two years of receiving a permit to occupy the first unit. Section 20.84.060, Development and Operation Regulations, of the Zoning Code stipulates that timeshare projects shall (1) comply with the property development regulations for the zoning district in which they are located, (2) require a minimum of 100 units unless they are converted in conjunction with a resort hotel complex of 300 or more units, (3) require parking at a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit plus 1 per 50 square feet of banquet seating or meeting areas, and (4) be developed with substantial recreational amenities such as golf course, tennis courts, and /m" swimming pools. v ' Chapter 20.93 Modification Permits This chapter provides administrative relief through a Modification Permit for certain development proposals where there is a practical difficulty or physical hardship. This article achieves the purposes of the Zoning ' Code by establishing procedures for approval, conditional approval, and disapproval for a Modification Permit. Provisions for tandem parking only apply for residential districts. In commercial districts, tandem parking requires the approval of a Modification Permit via the provision of Section 20.93.015(A), Modification ' Permits. The proposed project would require the approval of a modification permit for the proposed tandem valet parking that would serve the new 800 -seat ballroom. Additionally, the proposed projectwould require a Modification Permit to exceed the allowed building- height limit for the ballroom tower feature and finial architectural element. I Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 5.8 -5 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Height Limitation Zones Project Site LEGEND = Highrise 375 Feet IM 32/50 Feet 26/35 Feet Note: All R -1, R -1.5, R -2 Districts: 24/28 Feet MFR District: 28/32 Feet Shoreline Height Limitation Zone Boundary City Boundary ••• -• Project Site Boundary Source: City or Newport Beach Zoning Code Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR r ti i Scale (Miles) The Planning Center Figure 5.8 -1 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Local Coastal Plan Overview The California Coastal Act (California State Public Resources Code, Division 20, Sections 30000 et seq.) directs each local government lying wholly or partly within the Coastal Zone, as defined by the Coastal Act, to prepare a Local Coastal Program for its portion of the Coastal Zone. More than 63 percent of the City of Newport Beach, including the project site, is located in the Coastal Zone. Local Coastal Programs are used by local governments to carry out the policies and requirements of the Coastal Act. Local Coastal Programs must be reviewed and certified by the California Coastal Commission before being implemented by a local government. The Local Coastal Program is divided into two components: a coastal land use plan (CLUP) and an Implementation Program. The CLUP provides a technical synopsis of the resources located within the Coastal Zone. The document discusses resources in the context of a coastal zone overview-, subarea description and land use plan; shoreline and coastal resource access; public recreational and visitor serving commercial facilities; visual resources; historic and cultural resources; water and marine resources; environmentally sensitive habitat; energy facilities; water, sewer and drainage facilities; and hazards. Issues, goals, objectives, and policies related to each of these areas are also provided. The Implementation Program provides the mechanism to implement each of the identified policies. The Coastal Commission certified the City's CLUP on February 8, 2006. The next step in the certification process is the completion and adoption of the Implementation Plan. The City is preparing the �^ Implementation Plan in conjunction with a comprehensive update of the Zoning Code. It is anticipated that it do will be completed for City Council review by early 2008. Since the General Plan was prepared in consideration of the approved CLUP, many of its policies were directly incorporated into the Land Use, Natural Resources, Recreation, and Public Safety Elements. The CLUP organizes the coastal resources planning and management policies under the following chapters: Land Use and Development, Public Access and Recreation, and Coastal Resource Protection. A brief summary of these CLUP components and their relationship to the Hyatt Regency project site follows. Chapter 2, Land Use and Development Chapter 2 of the CLUP was derived from the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. It provides the Land Use Map, coastal development review process, and specific policies by development category. The Coastal Land Use Plan Map designates the project site as Visitor - Serving Commercial B (CV -B). This designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services for visitors to Newport Beach. Development intensity for the "B" designation ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 1.25. Development policies in this chapter include policies that encourage new overnight visitor accommodations development to provide a range of rooms and room prices to serve all incomes. Chapter 3, Public Access and Recreation Chapter 3 of the CLUP addresses policies for shoreline and coastal access, and information and policies related to recreation programs and events. Access to Upper Newport Bay (across Back Bay Drive west ofthe project site) is described. As noted, due to the steep coastal bluffs and high number of sensitive environmental resources within the marine park, access is more restricted than to other coastal areas. Access to and along Upper Newport Bay is provided by Back Bay Drive. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR Cary of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -9 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Provisions for temporary events are detailed in Section 3.1.7 of the CLUP. The City regulates temporary events by requiring special -event permits. Special -event applications are required to provide detail on event characteristics, including duration, event hours, estimated daily attendance, parking arrangements, traffic control, noise control, waste removal, etc. Chapter 4, Coastal Resource Protection Chapter 4 of the CLUP addresses biological resources, wetlands and deepwater areas, water quality, scenic and visual resources, and paleontological and cultural resources. The Coastal Act requires that Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. The Coastal Act criteria for determining whether an area qualifies as an ESHA are based on ecological importance, including the rarity or function of the habitat and the habitat's sensitivity. Terrestrial natural communities known to occur in the coastal zone of Newport Beach include dune, scrub, chaparral, riparian, and marsh habitats; southern coastal needlegrass grassland; vernal pools; freshwater seeps; and alkali meadows. Section 4.4 of the CLUP includes scenic and visual resources policies, including coastal view protection, bulk and height limitations, natural landform protection, and sign and utility regulations. Where feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor, are to be protected. Coastal views from designated roadway segments are to be protected pursuant to Policy 4.4.1 -6. Relative to the project site, public coastal views are to be protected from Back Bay Drive. Segments of Jamboree Road are also specified in this policy, but do not include the segment on which the project site fronts (between Back Bay Drive and Newport Center Drive). Height limitations and massing are also addressed in Section 4.4.2, Sulkand Height Limitation, of Chapter 4 of the CLUP. Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970s that established more restrictive height and bulk development standards around the bay. The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As shown on Figure 5.8-1, Height Limitation Zones, the Hyatt Regency site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, where new development is limited to a height of 35 feet. Residential development is limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and nonresidential development is limited to a height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights up to 32 feet are permitted within the planned community districts through the adoption of a specific plan or approval of a use permit. 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. 4.4.2 -2 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. CIOSA Development Agreement In 1993, the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company entered into the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). CIOSA pertains to 12 parcels and grants vested development rights for 11 projects. In consideration of the vested rights granted, The Irvine Company prepaid "fair share" road improvement fees, constructed road improvements, and granted the City of Newport Beach an interest -free loan. The value of these traffic improvement benefits totaled approximately $20 million. In consideration of the vested right, approximately 140 acres of property were also conveyed to the City for open space and park purposes. Page 5.8 -10 a The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING The Hyatt Regency site was one of the 11 sites that received vested entitlements under CIOSA. Specifically, it received the right to expand to 479 rooms, an increase in 68 rooms from the baseline 1992 condition (411 rooms). Other than the reference to additional rooms, the CIOSA did not specify provisions for expansion of the hotel use. Although CIOSA remains in effect, and full consideration for the vested rights granted (including the performance of required CIOSA mitigation measures) has been conveyed, the Hyatt Regency expansion has yet to be implemented. In addition, since approval of CIOSA, the number of rooms at the hotel was reduced by eight (bringing the current room count at the hotel to 403) through their conversion to other ancillary hotel uses, such as a fitness room. Under the proposed project, the demolition of 12 villas and construction of 88 new timeshare units, would result in expanding the hotel to the permitted 479 units. Regional Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide SCAG, which is the designated metropolitan planning organization for six Southern California counties (Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and Los Angeles), is federally mandated to develop plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) in conjunction with its constituent members and other regional planning agencies. The RCPG is intended as aframeworkto guide decision making with respect to the growth and changes that can be anticipated through the year 2015. The Plan consists of five core chapters that contain goals, policies, implementation strategies, and technical data that support three overarching objectives for the region: (1) improving the standard of living for all, (2) improving the quality of life for all, and (3) enhancing equity and access to government. Local governments are required to use the RCPG as the basis for their own plans and are required to discuss the consistency of projects of "regional significance" with the RCPG. Specific growth management, regional mobility, and air quality policies of the RCPG are discussed in the Impacts section of this chapter. Only projects of potentially regionwide significance are subject to review of consistency with the RCPG. The criteriafor projects of regional significance are outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15125 and 15206. Regionally significant projects include residential projects of more than 500 units, shopping centers or businesses with 500,000 square feet or more of floor area, and hotel /motels with 500 rooms or more. The proposed project is not a project of regionwide significance and therefore does not require this DEIR to address the project's consistency with the RCPG. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan The project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of John Wayne Airport (JWA). In accordance with airport land use law, the AELUP for JWA regulates orderly growth for a 20 -year span and for the airport and provides height and noise restrictions to minimize land use conflicts with the surrounding area. The project site is located within both the height restriction and the airport obstruction imaginary surface overlay zone of the AELUP for JWA. 5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment it the project would: LU -1 Physically divide an established community. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft E1R City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -11 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING LU -2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LU-3 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: LU -1 and LU -3. These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 5.8.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.8 -1: THE PROPOSED HYATir REGENCY EXPANSION IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLI- CABLE LOCAL PLANS, INCLUDING THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, ZONING CODE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN. [THRESHOLD LU -21 Impact Analysis: City of Newport Beach General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan's Visitor Servicing Commercial (CV) designation for the project site. As proposed, the project would provide a total of 479 rooms, which is consistent with the number of hotel rooms stipulated for the project site. under General Plan Table LU2, Anomaly Locations. The proposed project would also comply with the specific policies outlined in the General Plan for commercial districts. As demonstrated in more detail in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this DEIR, the proposed project would be characterized by high - quality architectural design. Building masses, elevations, and rooflines would be modulated to promote visual interest and to compliment the existing architecture of the surrounding area. The proposed project would also be characterized by an extensive landscaping plan, which would include existing mature and proposed landscaping. A detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable policies of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan is provided in Table 5.8 -1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan policies. Page 5.8 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 5, Environmental Analysis Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Citv of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies I Protect Consistencv Goal LU 2 — A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect Its imoortani environmental settlna. resources. and nuality of life. LU 2.4 Economic Development (page 3 -7). Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents. The proposed project would enhance the City's fiscal health through the expansion of the existing hotel uses, including a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, 88 new timeshare units, and other ancillary amenities such as a new spa, fitness and swim facility, and a timeshare clubhouse. The proposed uses would attract additional visitors to the City by expanding the destination services and uses currently provided on -site and in the coastal areas of Newport. For example, the expansion of the hotel's destination services and uses would provide a great means for visitors to take advantage of the hotel's adjacency (south and southwest of the project site across Back Bay Drive) to the Upper Newport Bay and Newport Dunes. The proposed expansion would ensure that the quality of life for surrounding residents would be maintained and/or improved through the provision of high - quality architecture (see Figure 3.7, Typical Timeshare Building Elevation), a comprehensive landscape and lighting plan (see Figures 5.1 -2 to 5.1.11, Visual Simulations, and Figure 5.1 -12, Lighting Plan, respectively), and an on -stte parking and circulation plan that would adequately serve the existing and proposed hotel uses (see Figure 3 -4, Site Plan). For example, as discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this DEIR, the existing parking area light poles shown on Figure 5.1 -12, Lighting Plan, would be removed and replaced with modem light poles. The existing light poles are not designed with cutoff features that help cast light downward: therefore, they allow light spillage on- and off -site. The proposed parking area light poles would be designed with full cut -off designs (downcast) and oriented in a manner that would minimize light spillage or glare off of the project site. Additionally, the proposed light poles are dark -sky compliant and would only be located within the existing and LU 2.6 Visitor Serving Uses (page 3 -8). Provide uses that serve visitors See response to Policy LU 2.4. to Newport Beach's ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while integrating them to protect neighborhoods and residents. Goal LU 5.2 — Commercial centers and districts that are well designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and LU 5.2,1 Architecture and Site Design (page 3.55). Require that new The proposed project would be designed and developed in a manner that would exhibit high - quality architecture development within existing commercial district centers and corridors and site design. For example, as shown on Figure 3.7, Typical Timeshare Building Elevation, and on the visual complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and simulations provided on Figures 5.1 -6 to 5.1 -8, the timeshare buildings and ballroom facility would include she design in consideration of the following principles: modulated building masses and rooflines that would provide visual relief and aesthetically - pleasing building • Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, facades. The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower features (ballroom only), and ornamental except where developed as a free - standing building windows and the variation in building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the visual quality of the • Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to buildings. The proposed lighting scheme would also provide a means for highlighting building details (see Figure Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -13 5. Environmental LAND USE AND PLANNING • Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures • Extensive on -site landscaping, Including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers • Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscape, wayfinding signage, and so on) • Integration of building design and site planning elements that reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources LU 522 Buffering Residential Areas (page 3 -56). Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: • Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements • Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood • Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy Page 5.8 -14 • The Planning Center Table 5.8 -1 5.1 -12, Lighting Plan). The proposed project would also include a comprehensive landscaping plan that would include existing mature and proposed trees, shrubs, and ornamental ground cover and a lighting plan for the highlighting of prominent landscape elements such as palm trees (see the visual simulation provided on Figures 5.1 -1 to 5,1 -11 and Figure 5.1 -12, Lighting Plan, respectively). The proposed project would Include a comprehensive pedestrian walkway system that would not only provide access between the various uses and areas within the project site, but also to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses. All pedestrian walkways and connections would be developed in accordance with Title 24 and all applicable City requirements and standards. The proposed project would utilize site - design measures such as the recycling of construction and demolition waste, the installation of water - efficient irrigation systems, the use of reclaimed water for irrigating landscape, and the installation of weather - signal or moisture - sensor irrigation controllers. Building - design measures would include the exceedance of Title 24 requirements by at least 5 percent (ballroom facility only), the use of roof products certified by Energy Star'" or the Cool Roof Rating Council (ballroom facility only), the installation of low- consumption water - efficient plumbing fixtures, the Installation Energy Star appliances and fixtures, the use of low -E glazing systems in the timeshare buildings, interior paints and wood finishes with low volatile organic compounds, and the use of selective- recycled or rapidly - renewable construction materials. The proposed project would be designed and developed in a manner that would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north, east, and south. This would occur through the provision of high - quality architecture (see Figure 3 -7, Typical Timeshare Building Elevation), a comprehensive landscape and lighting plan (see Figures 5.1 -2 to 5.1 -11, Visual Simulations, and Figure 5.1.12, Lighting Plan), and an access and circulation plan that would adequately serve the existing and proposed hotel uses on- and off -site (see Figure 3 -4, Site Plan). As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this DEIR, the existing parking area light poles shown on Figure 5.1.12, Lighting Plan, would be removed and replaced with modem light poles. The existing light poles are not designed with cutoff features that help cast light downward; therefore, they allow light spillage on- and off -site. The proposed parking area light poles would be designed with full cut -off designs (downcast) and oriented in a manner that would minimize light spillage or glare off of the project site. Additionally, the proposed architecture would not only be of high - quality, but would also compliment the surrounding architecture, Including the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing south of the project site across Backbay Drive (see visual simulations on Figures 5.1 -6 to 5.1- 10). Refer to Impact 5,1 -1 of Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this DEIR for a detailed analysis of the proposed project's compatibility with and less -than significant visual impacts on surrounding uses. Furthermore, as illustrated in the visual simulations provided on Figures 5.1 -1 to 5.1.11, the proposed project would provide a comprehensive landscape plan that would include existing mature and proposed trees and shrubs. The dense landscaping components would adequately buffer buildings, structures, and parking areas from surrounding areas and February 2008 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies I Project Consistency Goal LU 5.3 — Districts where residents and businesses are Intermixed that are designed and planned to assure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and LU 5.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location (page 3.59). Require that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. As discussed in Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic, of this DEIR, and as shown in Table b,1I -b. the provision of 912 parking spaces, including surface and structure parking, would meet the City's standards for parking for the uses of the proposed project. However, the valet parking component of the proposed project could result in an an- site parking impact More specifically, parking impacts could occur on -site during special events such as conferences or weddings. Therefore, further review would be required by the City under a valet parking plan to determine the adequacy of the proposed valet parking component, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.11 -4. As illustrated on Figure 3 -4, Site Plan, the parking areas and new parking structure would be located in a manner that would be convenient to employees and patrons of the hotel. The main parking areas located in the southern and eastern project boundaries would provide easy and convenient access to the various hotel uses and areas. In addition to standard parking areas, the proposed hotel expansion would also include a tandem valet parking area that would serve special functions and events held in the new 800 -seat ballroom facility. Furthermore, the timeshare units would exclusively be served by convenient on- street and subterranean parking areas. As illustrated In the visual simulations on Figures 5.1 -8, 5.1 -9, and 5.1.11, the proposed project would provide a comprehensive landscape plan that would Include existing mature and proposed trees and shrubs. The dense landsnanlnn emmnnnents would ademintely buffer the narkina areas from surroundho areas and roadways. Goal LU 5.5 — Nel hborhoons, mstrlcts, ano comoors containing a erverSlf or uses arm ounnin s mar are mutuany cum aurae ano ennance me quainy m we wr y s cnvnumnom. LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting (page 3 -62). Require that outdoor lighting be As discussed under Impact 5.1.2 of Chapter 51, Aesthetics, of this DEIR, the lights associated with the hotel located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or expansion would be directed toward the interior of the site so as not to create offsite impacts. All exterior lighting significantly Increase the overall ambient illumination of their location, would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on -site, in accordance with Land Use Policy 5.6.3 of the City's General Plan and Standard Lighting Condition 1, thereby nreventinn excess illumination and liaht spillover onto adioinina land uses and /or roadways. Goal HR 2 — Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the Di NR 2.1 New Development Activities (page 6.12). Require that, in As detailed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant accordance with CEGA, new development protect and preserve impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources. However, given the potential to unearth either type of paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid resources In the project area during excavation and grading activities, mitigation measures have been provided that and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist that would assess any finds and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and develop a course of action to preserve the finds. Refer to Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of this DEIR for a paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any detailed analysis of the proposed project's potential Impacts to archeological and paleontological resources and develooment be mitioated In accordance with CEGA. applicable mitigation measures. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -15 5. Environmental LAND Us& AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistent Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistent HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities (page 6.13). Require a See response to Policy HR 2.1, qualified paleontologisVarcheologlst to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologisVarcheologist, subject to the a royal of the City Planning Department HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations (page 6 -13). Notify cultural organizations, As detailed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, , the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that impacts on cultural resources. However, given the potential to unearth cultural resources In the project area during have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow excavation and grading activities, Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1 provides the archaeological monitor the authority to halt representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of grading activities until uncovered resources are evaluated and a determination of significance is made. It cultural development sites. resources are encountered, the mitigation measure states that a Native American monitor with a Tongva/Gabrielino lineage, the project applicant, and the City of Newport Beach shall evaluate the significance of the resources and, if appropriate, shall determine appropriate treatment and mitigation of the resources. If cultural artifacts are recovered, any eligibility testing and/or determination of additional mitigation should be done in consultation with the Native American monitor. HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials (page 6.13). See responses to Policies HR 2.1 and HR 2.3. Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange Coun , whenever possible. Goal 7.1— An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City, CE 7. 1.1 Required Parking (page 7.29). Require that new development See response to Policy LU 5.3.6. provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business atrons, and visitors. CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration (page 7.30). Site and design new See response to Policy LU 5.3.6. development to avoid use of parking configurations or management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. Goal NR 3 — Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, In luding coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit (page 10 -19). Require all As discussed in Section in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, the City of Newport Beach is listed as a co- developmentto comply with the regulations under the City's municipal permittee for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SARWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPOES) permit and is bound to comply with all the aspects of the permit requirements. Elimination System. Therefore, the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the SARWQCB. The City holds an NPDES permit to operate its munlcipal separate storm sewer systems 1MS4s). Newport Beach's MS4 permit Wooled January Page 5.8 -16 • The Planning Center February 2008 r = = M = =1 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 Genera / Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Cily of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistent 2002) directs it to keep pollutants out of its MS4s to the maximum extent practicable and to ensure that dry- weather flows entering recreational waters from the MS4s do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City's NPDES permit requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices BMPs . NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan (page 10 -20). Require new As required by City of Newport Beach water quality ordinances and City Council Policies L -1 B and L -22, at the time development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment, project applicants are required to submit a (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and Water Quality Management Plan to the City of Newport Beach that outlines approved postconstruction BMPs post - construction. including site - design and source- and treatment- control BMPs selected for the project to reduce pollutants in postdevelopment runoff to the best available technology economically achievable /best conventional pollutant control technology performance standards. Additionally, prior to the Issuance of a grading permit by the City, project applicants are required to prepare a SWPPP that describes the BMPs to be implemented during the project's construction activities. As discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project applicant prepared a Water Quality Report (see Appendix I of this DEIR), which outlined a number of site - design, and source- and treatment - control BMPs (see Figure 3 -8, Drainage Concept Plan). Refer to Section 5.7 for a detailed list of the proposed BMPs. Collectively, the BMPs outlined in the Water Quality Report and the required preparation of a SWPPP would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational and construction phases of the proposed project. Additionally, through the development -review process, the City of Newport Beach complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the project's impact on water quality. NR 3.10 Best Management Practices (page 10 -20). Implement and See response to Policy NR 3.9. improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control (page 10 -20). Include site See response to Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9. design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of she design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -17 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable PY of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistent NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property (page 10 -20). Retain See responses to Policies 3.9 and 3.19. runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems (page 10 -20). Require all street See response to Policy 3.9. drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize Impacts to water bodies. NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -ol -Way (page 10 -21). Require that The hotel personnel would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations regarding the parking lots and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and maintenance and keeping of public and private rights -of -way. For example, Section 6.04.220, Persons Required to cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. Clean Sidewalks, of the city's Municipal Code states that the occupant or tenant, or in the absence of an occupant or tenant, the owner, lessee, or proprietor of any real estate in the City in front of which there is a paved sidewalk shall cause Bald sidewalk to be swept or otherwise cleaned as frequently as necessary to maintain said sidewalks reasonably free of leaves, dirt, paper, litter, or rubbish of any kind. Sweepings from said sidewalk shall not be swept, or otherwise made or allowed to go into the street or gutter, but shall be disposed of by being placed in a refuse container by the person responsible for the cleanliness of said sidewalk. NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems (page 10 -21). Require incorporation As discussed in section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this DEIR, the operational phase of the proposed of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new project would include extensive landscaping, Impervious surface coverage, and water quality design features developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in including: order to increase groundwater recharge. Underground media filtration • Bioretention (rain garden) • Vegetated swale and sand filter treatmenttrain • Media filtration • Permeable paving • Filtration trench Implementation of these hydraullc and drainage design features would assist in the retention of stormwater and the recharge of groundwater. NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces (page 10 -21). Require new development See response to Policy NR 3.19. and public Improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in Impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Page 5.8 -18 • The Planning Center February 2008 IM = IM 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 NR 4.4 erosion minimization (page 10 -22). Require grading/erosion As discussed in section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this DEIR, the operational phase of the proposed control plans with structural BMPS that prevent or minimize erosion during project would Include extensive landscaping, impervious surface coverage, and the project - related water quality and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or design features. The permanent erosion and siltation treatment - control BMP features would include: disturbed areas. Underground media filtration Bioretention (rain garden) Vegetated swale and sand filter treatment train • Media filtration Permeable paving • Filtration trench Collectively, Implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and the project's proposed water quality design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion impacts during the construction and operational Goal RR 1G - Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development, NR 10.2 Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan (page As discussed under Impact 5.3 -6 of Chapter 5.3, Biological Resources, of this DEIR, the proposed project would 10.26). Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County not conflict with any local policies or ordinances and would comply with the provisions of the Central/Coastal NN 76.3 Analysis or Brvironmenlat Study Areas (page 10.261. Require a + As a part of the proposed project, the project applicant's biological consultant prepared a fire protec site - specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a I biological survey and impact analysis (see Appendix D of this DEIR). See response to Policy S 6.3. filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or contiguous to areas identified as NR 10.4 New Development Siting and Design (page 10.26). Require See response to Policies 5 6.3 that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -19 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan ConsfstenevAnalvsis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Pro ect Consistency NR 10.5 Development in Areas Containing Significant or Rare See response to Policies S 6.3 and 6.4. Biological Resources (page 10.26). Limit uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, except where application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property. If application of this policy would likely constitute a taking of private property, then a non- resource- dependent use shall be allowed on the property, provided development is limited to the minimum amount necessary to avoid a taking and the development is consistent with all other applicable resource protection policies. Public access Improvements and educational, interpretative and research facilities are considered resource dependent uses. NR 10.6 Use of Butlers (page 10.27). Maintain a buffer of sufficient size See response to Policies S 6.3 and 6.4. around significant or rare biological resources, it present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. NR 10.7 Exterior Lighting (page 10.27). Shield and direct exterior lighting As discussed in Section 5.9, Biological Resources, of this DEIR, all exterior lighting would be required to be away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to shielded and directed away from environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) to minimize impacts to wildlife, in wildlife. accordance with Policy 4.1.1 -13 of Chapter 4, Coastal Resource Protection, of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Additionally, as outlined in Mitigation Measure 3.3, to ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause significant impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures shall be implemented: All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub (CSS) shall be directed away from CSS habitat. All Ilghting within 100 feet of CSS shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. A qualified biologist shall review lighting plans prior to construction to ensure that the proposed lighting minimizes potential impacts on the California gnatcatcher. Furthermore, as discussed under Impact 5.1 -2 of Chapter 51, Aesthetics, of this DER, the lights associated with the hotel expansion would be directed toward the interior of the site so as not to create off -site impacts. All exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on- site, in accordance with Land Use Policy 5.6.3 of the City's General Plan and Standard Lighting Condition 1, thereby preventing excess illumination and light s Mover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Page 5.8 -20 aThe Planning Center February 2008 Table 5.8 -1 and preservation of NR 18.7 New Development (page 70.34). Require new development to See response protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEDA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources (pag 10 -34). Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of NR 18.4 Donation of Materials (page 10 -34). Require new developmen where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located from the risks of wildfires response response to 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING S 6.3 New Development Design (page 17 -27). Site and design new As a part of the proposed project, the project applicant's biological consultant prepared a fire protection plan (see development to avoid the need to extend fuel modification zones into DEIR, Appendix D ). As outlined in the fire protection plan and as discussed in Impact 5.3 -1, the proposed project sensitive habitats. and related fuel modification would not remove any CSS, which is considered an ESHA, and would comply with the City's Coastal Act policies set forth to protect ESHAs. The project design would result in complete avoidance of off - site CSS. As shown on Figure 5.3 -4, Vegetation and Fuel Modification, neither grading nor fuel modification activities would remove any CSS. In addition, project design includes a minimum 50 -foot buffer between developed areas and off -site CSS to assure full compliance with the Citv's Coastal Land Use Policies. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach + Page 5.8 -21 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Plan Goals and S6.4 Use of City - Approved Plant List (page 11 -27). Use fire - resistive, native plant species from the City- approved plant list in fuel mod'dication zones abutting sensitive habitats. invasive ornamental plant species in fuel modification zones abutting Table 5.8 -1 Plan Consistei As outlined in the fire protection plan (see Appendix D of this DER), fuel modification zones were created to provide a means for the installation and maintenance of landscaping along the projects northern boundary, which abuts CSS and other sensitive habhats(see Appendix C, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan, of the Fire Protection Plan). The Special Treatment Zone for example would include the following provisions: Allow 50 feet of fuel modification adjacent to the sensitive CSS habitat immediately north of the project site. Maintained, irrigated landscaping is limited to ground cover material chosen from the approved Newport Beach Fire Department fire- resistive plant list. Ground cover is to be irrigated and maintained at a height of 8 inches or less and free of dead plant material. Native Carex grass species ( Carex spp.) are to be planted exclusively in the Special Treatment Zone and maintained at a height of 8 inches or less. Plant material shall be irrigated to maintain adequate fuel moistures. Fuel Modification Zones A to D would include requirements such as: Irrigated ground cover selected from the fire - resistive plant list shall be maintained at a height not to exceed Birches. • Shrubs or trees proposed for planting In this zone shall be in accordance with planting guidelines and spacing standards established in the NBFD Fuel Modification Standards. All combustible plant species shall be removed and the area shall be maintained free of dead and dying plant material Maintenance shall include ongoing removal and /or thinning of undesirable combustible vegetation, replacement of dead/dying fire - resistant plantings, maintenance of the operations Integrity, and programming of the irrigation system, and regular trimming to prevent ladder fuels. • Nonnative trees shall be treated to remove dead and dying limbs and trees and to create vertical See response to Policy S 6.4. N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development (page 12 -25). Require As discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Noise, of this DER, the noise analysis demonstrates that the proposed that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City of Newport Beach's noise standards. Refer to through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise Section 5.9 for a detailed analysis on compatibility and compliance with noise standards. standards shown In Table N3, Page 5.8 -22 • The Planning Center February 2008 r S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistent N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts (page 12.26). Require the employment As discussed in detail under Impact 5.9 -1 of Section 5.9, Noise, of this DEIR, the increase in traffic from operation of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant of the proposed project would not significantly increase noise levels for surrounding noise - sensitive receptors. noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting As discussed in detail under Impact 5.9 -2 of Section 5.9, Noise, of this DEIR, new stationary noise sources from existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. long -term operation of the proposed project would flat substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise- sensitive land uses. Noise - sensitive residential uses within the vicinity of the proposed noise - generating uses are located a significant distance (greater than 340 feet) and therefore would not be exposed to noticeable levels of CNEL dBA dBA increase stationary noise generated at the project site. Additionally, as outlined in Chapter 10.28, Loud and Unreasonable Noise, of the City's Municipal Code, stationary equipment or on -site facilities used in a manner that violates the 55 3 City's noise standards is defined as a public nuisance and is not permitted within the City. 60 2 65 1 75 1 Over 75 Any increase considered significant Goal N 2 — Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive nolsa receptors. N2.1 New Development (page 12 -26). Require that proposed noise- As discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Noise, of this DEIR, the noise analysis demonstrates that the proposed sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses timeshare units would meet the city's Interior and exterior noise - compatibility policies. Refer to Section 5.9 for a stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and eMedor detailed analysis on compatibility and compliance with noise standards. noise levels. — Minimized As new exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal conditioning (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive tested in the field after installation. According to Section 10.26.045 of the City's Municipal Code, new permits for noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed and air conditioning equipment. equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Also see resoonse to Policies N 1.8 and 2.1. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -23 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Table 5.8 -1 General Plan Consistencv Anaivsls Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Pro ect Consistency 114.2 New Uses (page 12 -29). Require that new uses such as As noted in Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR, of Chapter 3 of this DEIR, the proposed project would require a restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial use permit to allow proposed building heights up to 35 feet, to permit the expansion of the hotel, and to allow the uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive construction of the timeshare units. No other ancillary, recreational, or entertainment facilities or uses are proposed noise receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the as a part of the hotel expansion that would require the approval of a use permit. If in the future a particular use or noise standards in Table N3 and the City's Municipal Code. facility is proposed that would require the approval of a use permit as outlined in this policy, the project applicant would be required to submit and process such a permit In accordance with all applicable City standards, including the noise standards outlined in Table N3 and the City's Municipal Code. Additionally, as outlined Under Impact 5.9- 2 of Section 5.9, Noise, of this DEIR, the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hosts an annual outdoor jazz event. Operation of the annual jazz event requires a Special Events Permit in accordance with Chapter 11.03, Special Events, of the city's Municipal Code. Future jazz events and other similar events held within the expanded ballroom facilities would also require the approval of this type of permit. Furthermore, use of sound - amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM. Also see response to Policy N 1.8. N 4.3 New Commercial Developments (page 12 -29). Require that new See response to Policies N 1.8, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.6. commercial developments abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities (page 12.39). Enforce the As noted in Section 5.9, Noise, of Chapter 3 of this DEIR, the City realizes that the control of construction noise is Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that Code Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, results from in -home hobby or work related activities. or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 5.9 -4 of Section 5.9. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair, or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. All construction activities proposed within the project site would be required to adhere to these standards. Additionally, any project - related maintenance activities would be required to adhere to the standard outlined in Section 10.28.045, Real Property Maintenance -Noise Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code. Also see response to Policy N 4.2. N 5.7 Limiting Hours or Activity (page 12 -30). Enforce the limits on See response to Policy N 4.6. hours of construction activity. Page 5.8 -24 •The Planning Center M = M M = = M = = = = i r M February 2008 ' 5. Environmental Analysis Zoning Code Land Use ' The project site is designated as RSC per the City's Zoning Code. As outlined in Chapter 20.15, Commercial Districts, of the Zoning Code, the RSC zoning classification provides areas that are predominantly retail in character but that allow some service office uses. The RSC zone identifies "hotels, motels and time - shares" as allowed land uses requiring a Use Permit. The proposed project would be consistent with the RSC zoning classification for the project site, as it would provide for the expansion and modification of the existing hotel ' uses, including 88 new timeshare units through the submittal and approval of a Use Permit. Timeshare Uses ' Per the provisions outlined in Chapter 20.84, Time Share Developments, of the Zoning Code, the proposed development of 88 timeshare units would require the submittal and approval of a Use Permit. As outlined in the ordinance, the project applicant would also be required to submit Sales, Management, and Contingency ' Plans for actions to be taken if the timeshare fails to sell 50 percent within two years of receiving a permit to occupy the first unit. Additionally, the ordinance requires a minimum of 100 timeshare units unless they are converted in conjunction with a resort or hotel complex of more than 300 units, as is the case with the Hyatt Regency, which has an existing 403 rooms. Furthermore, Section 20.84.060, Development and Operation Regulations, of the ordinance stipulates that timeshare projects shall be developed with substantial recreational amenities, such as golf courses, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The proposed project would provide sufficient recreational amenities, which include an existing tennis facility; a new timeshare ' clubhouse; two existing pools (Bay and Lido); a new spa, fitness, and pool facility in the central hotel area; and a new pool and spa adjacent to the timeshare clubhouse. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the specific requirements of Chapter 20.84 of the Zoning Code. Height limits The Use Permit is also required for the proposed building heights of up to 35 feet within the 26/35 foot height ' limitation that applies to the project site. Figure 3 -6, Site Sections, depicts the height relationship of the proposed buildings and structures with existing and proposed grades. As shown on Figure 3 -6, the proposed building heights would be in compliance with the 35 -foot building height limit. Also as shown on ' Figure 3 -6, the height to the top of the architectural ballroom tower would be 57 feet 6 inches feet and 62 feet 6 inches to the top of the finial (an ornamental termination of a pinnacle), which would be located on top of the arched metal roof of the tower. In addition to a Use Permit for the building heights of up to 35 feet, the height of the proposed ballroom tower and finial would require the approval of a Modification Permit to ' exceed the permitted 35 foot height limit, as outlined in Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, of the Zoning Code. This section of the code includes provisions on the allowance of architectural features to exceed the height limits subject to the approval of a Modification Permit. Therefore, the proposed project ' would comply with the specific requirements of Chapter 20.65, Height Limits. Parking ' As detailed in Table 5.11 -6, Hyatt Regency Off- Street Parking Summary, of Section 5.11 of this DEIR, the proposed project, including existing uses, would require a total of 336 parking spaces to comply with specific hotel, timeshare units, and timeshare clubhouse /meeting facility parking requirements of the City's ' Zoning Code. The proposed project would provide a total of 912 parking spaces, and therefore, would provide parking that exceeds the minimum requirement. Additionally, Section 20.84.060, Development and Operation Regulations, of Chapter 20.84 of the Zoning Code stipulates that timeshare projects shall require Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -25 S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING parking at a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit plus t per 50 square feet of banquet seating or meeting areas. As shown in Table 3 -1, Existing and Proposed Uses, of Chapter 3 of this DEIR, the proposed project would provide the required parking spaces for the timeshare uses as outlined in the ordinance. However, the proposed tandem valet parking to serve the 800 -seat ballroom facility would require the approval of a Modification Permit to allow tandem valet parking. Provisions for tandem parking only apply for residential districts. In commercial districts, tandem parking requires the approval of a Modification Permit via the provision of Section 20.93.015(A), Modification Permits, of the Zoning Code. Coastal Land Use Plan Below is an analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the various components of the CLUP. Land Use and Development As stated above, the CLUP Map designates the project site as Visitor- Serving Commercial B (CV -B). This designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended for visitors to Newport Beach. Development policies in the Land Use and Development chapter of the CLUP include policies that encourage new development that would provide overnight visitor accommodations. The proposed project would provide expanded hotel accommodations and services to Newport Beach. Expansion of the Hyatt Regency would include new ballroom facilities, 88 new timeshare units, and a new spa and fitness facility. Additionally, as noted in Section 3.4.1, Proposed Site Plan, of Chapter 3 of this DEIR, upon all demolition and expansion activities, the total gross square footage of the Hyatt Regency would be 374,104. The project site totals 25.7 gross acres, or 1,093,729 gross square feet. This would equate to a .34 floor are to land area ratio, which would be below the 0.50 to 1.25 ratio permitted under CLUP's CV -B designation of the project site. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with CLUP's land use designation of the project site. Public Access and Recreation Chapter 3, Public Access and Recreation, of the CLUP addresses policies for shoreline and coastal access, and information and policies related to recreation programs and events. Access to and along Upper Newport Bay is provided by Back Bay Drive, which forms the projects southern and western boundaries. Development of the proposed project would not impede any vehicular or pedestrian access to and from the recreation areas within Upper Newport Bay. Additionally, no encroachments into the bay or shoreline would occur As such, no impacts to and along the Upper Newport Bay would occur. Provisions for temporary events are detailed in Section 3.1.7 of the CLUP. Any special events proposed within the Hyatt Regency facilities would require the issuance of a special -event permit per City requirements, which require detail on event characteristics, including duration, event hours, estimated daily attendance, parking arrangements, traffic control, noise control, waste removal, etc. Coastal Resource Protection Chapter 4, Coastal Resource Protection, of the CLUP addresses biolDgical resources, wetlands and deepwater areas, water quality, scenic and visual resources, and paleontological and cultural resources. Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of this DEIR analyzes the proposed project's potential impacts on biological resources. As discussed in Section 5.3, the proposed project and related fuel modification plan would not impact any sensitive plant species or wildlife movement, and would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. The proposed project could impact migratory birds and raptor foraging habitat and construction- related activities could have a temporary adverse impact on coastal California gnatcatchers Page 5.8 -26 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PIANNING ' nesting in preserved areas of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site. However, the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.3 would reduce potential impacts associated with biological resources to a level that is ' less than significant. Section 5.7, Hydrologyand Water Quality, of this DEIR analyzes the proposed project's potential impacts on water quality. As discussed in Section 5.7, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste - discharge requirements, provided substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this DEIR analyzes the proposed project's potential impacts on scenic and visual resources. As discussed in Section 5.1, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas or substantially alter the visual appearance of the project site. tSection 5.4, Cultural Resources, of this DEIR analyzes the proposed project's potential impacts on cultural resources, including paleontological, historical and archeological resources. As discussed in Section 5.1, ' development of the proposed project could impact archaeological resources and paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. Additionally, grading activities could result in the disturbance of human remains. However, the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.1 would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. ' IMPACT 5.8 -2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VESTED ENTITLEMENT FOR THE PROJECT SITE UNDER THE 1993 CIOSA. ' (THRESHOLD LU -21 Impact Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the existing development entitlement for the ' project site under the 1993 CIOSA. The proposed agreement authorizes the operation of additional hotel rooms, which the project applicant proposes to operate as timeshare units. Upon development, there will be atotal of 479 rooms on the property. The CIOSA agreement is silent with respect to development of ancillary hotel facilities. The traffic study supporting the CIOSA, however, did utilize trip generation rates for the Hyatt ' Regency from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) that are comparable to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) trip rate for hotels (Trip Code 310), which by definition included supporting facilities such as banquet/meeting rooms, recreational facilities and retail shops. IMPACT 5.8 -3: THE PROPOSED HYATT REGENCY EXPANSION WOULD COMPLY WITH THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AELUP. (THRESHOLD LU -21 ' Impact Analysis: The project site is located within the Height Restriction Zone and the Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surface Overlay Zone as designated in the AELUP for JWA (see Figure 5.6 -2, Height Restriction Zone), which is overseen by the Orange County Airport Land se Commission (ALUC). These zones trigger ' specific notification requirements for buildings exceeding 200 feet in height above ground level, and for construction of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 from a distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway. ' As of November 17, 2006, the City of Newport Beach was designated as a consistent agency per the ALUC (ALUC 2007). In accordance with the ALUC's Referral Requirements forConsistent Cities, which only apply to cities that have been found to be consistent with the AELUP, the criteria for submitting projects to the ALUC 1 for consistency review include: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.8 -27 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING Projects within an AELUP Airport Planning Area that require a general plan or specific plan amendment or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation. • Development projects that would exceed 200 feet above ground level. Although the project site is included in the Height Restriction and Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surface Overlay Zones as designated in the AELUP, the proposed project does not include a general plan or specific plan amendment or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation. As detailed in Section 3.5, Intended Uses of the EIR, of Chapter 3 of this DEIR, the proposed project would involve the approval of a Parcel Map, Use Permit, Modification Permit, and Development Agreement. Additionally, the proposed project's tallest structures would be the architectural ballroom tower and finial of the new 800 -seat ballroom, at 57 feet 6 inches to the top of the tower and 62 feet 6 inches to the top of the finial (see Figure 3- 6, Site Sections). The elevation of the site ranges from 7 -20 feet above mean sea level. Based on this information, the proposed project would be consistent with the building height limitations set forth under the current civilian airport standards of the AELUP and would not require submittal to ALUC for consistency review. 5.8,4 Cumulative Impacts Related projects that would potentially combine with the proposed project to result in land use impacts are listed and graphically depicted in Table 4 -1 and Figure 4 -1, respectively. The Hyatt Regency is the only land use approved in the CIOSA project that remains to be fully developed. As detailed in Chapter 4 of this DEIR, related projects proximate to the project site that have been approved but not built include an additional 275 hotel rooms at the Newport Dunes and 192,846 square feet of additional commercial square footage at Fashion Island. Land use compatibility is a combination of other impacts, including potential air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetic impacts. Potential cumulative impacts associated with traffic generation and related air quality and noise impacts are addressed in those topical sections of this DEIR and include the cumulative projects detailed in Chapter 4. Potential project - related aesthetic impacts would not combine with any of the identified cumulative projects to restrict public views or otherwise result in significant cumulative aesthetic impacts. As with the proposed project, cumulative projects would be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans reviewed in this section. Implementation of these projects, therefore, would not combine with the Hyatt Regency expansion to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 5 -8.5 Existing Regulations Existing regulations specifically applicable to land use and planning for the proposed project include the following chapters of the City's Zoning Code, Title 20 of the Municipal Ordinance, as discussed above. • Chapter 20.15, Commercial Districts, includes provisions for the Retail and Service (RSC) District. • Chapter 20.65, Height Limits, Section 20.65.040, Height Limitation Zones, (C) 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone, includes specific requirements for the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone in which the project site is located. • Chapter 20.65, Height Limits, Section 20.65.070, Exceptions to Height Limits, (A) Architectural Features, includes a provision for architectural features to exceed permitted height limits subjectto the approval of a modification permit. Page 5.8 -28 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I S. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING 1 • Chapter 20.84, Time Share Developments, includes specific definitions and requirements for proposed timeshare developments. ' • Chapter 20.93, Modification Permits, includes procedures for approval, conditional approval and disapproval for a Modification Permit. 5 -&6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, project - related and cumulative Land Use and Planning impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. SA7 Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning impacts would be less than significant and would not require mitigation measures. ' 5 -&8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Project - related and cumulative Land Use and Planning impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. vm�" Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach •Page 5.8 -29 5. Environmental Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.8 -30 *The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 5. Environmental Analysis ' 5.9 NOISE This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) discusses the fundamentals of sound; ' examines federal, state, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; and evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project). This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The noise calculations and modeling on which this analysis is based are included in Appendix I of this DEIR. 5.9.1 Environmental Setting Characteristics of Sound ' Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the ' decibel (dB). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the ' sound. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and A are felt more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high ` XIN ' as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all ' frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. ' Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Measurement of Sound Sound intensity is measured through the A- weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A- weighted noise level deemphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ears deemphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expanrion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 5.9 -I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as "spreading loss." For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop -off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on -site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance. Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called L.), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L. noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L,,.LB and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These L values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city's noise ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the L,,,; „and Lm.. These values representthe minimum and maximum root - mean - square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and the City of Newport Beach require that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day -Night Noise Level (Ld„). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. The L d. descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7 PM and 10 PM. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24 -hour level with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher). Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. See Table 9 -1, Typical Noise Levels from Noise Sources. Page 5.9 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 S 1 S. Environmental NOISE Table 5.9-1 Tvaical Noise Levels from Noise Sources Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level M Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas Lawn Mower at three feet 90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area, Daytime 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 BroadcasURecording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing source: California Deparhnent of Transponaton. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Table 9- 2136.2, October 1998. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Exparzrion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.9 -3 5. Environmental Analysis No[SE Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can either be natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, and landslides; or manmade, as from explosions, heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains. Both natural and manmade vibration may be continuous, such as operating machinery, or transient, as an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be charac- terized in three ways: displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and /or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table 5. &2 presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity. Table 5.9-2 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels Vibration Level Peak Particle Velocity in /sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type intrusion 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins Virtually no risk of "architectural" (i.e., not structural) to annoy people damage to normal buildings Threshold at which there is a risk to "architectural" 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings damage to normal dwellings — houses with ptastered walls and ceilings Vibrations considered unpleasant by people Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from 0.4 t1.6 subjected to continuous vibrations and traffic, but would cause "architectural" damage and unacceptable to some people walking on possibly minor structural damage bridges Source: CaRmns 2002. Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies; however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is less common to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earthbome vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression and shear waves. Surface waves, or Raleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P- waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave Page 5.9 -4 - The Planning Center February 2008 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a push -pull fashion). P -waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S- waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P- waves, the particle motion is transverse or side -to -side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever - increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave. Regulatory Framework To limit population exposure to physically and /or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. Federal Regulations California State Regulations The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. The State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are shown in Table 5.9 -3. These noise standards are incorporated as part of the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 25, California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. Table 5.9 -3 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use CNEL dBd Categories Uses Interior' Exterior? Residential Single and multifamily, tlu lex 453 65 Mobile homes - 65' Hotel, motel, transient housing 45 - Commercial retail, bank restaurant 55 - Office building, research and development, professional offices 50 - Commercial Am hitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater 45 - Gymnasium (multipurpose) 50 - Sports Club 55 - Manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale, utilities 65 - Movie Theaters 45 - Institutional/ Hos ital, school classrooms1playground 45 65 Public Church, library 45 - Open 5 ace Parks - 65 n yuwuwia. ' Indoor environment excluding., bathrooms, kitchens, toilets, closets, and corridors. 2 Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single -family dwellings, multifamily private patios or balconies accessed from within the dwelling (balconies 6 feet deep or less are exempt), mobile home parks, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, and hospital patios. 3 Noise level requirement with closed windows, mechanical ventilation, or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Exterior noise levels shmild he surh that intarfnr nntoo mvole wni nar av,.eon nc fan rust Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.9 -5 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Noise Compatibility The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element discusses the effects of noise exposure on the population and sets goals aimed at protecting its residents from undue noise. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise thresholds for developments located adjacent to mobile or transportation noise sources and thresholds for stationary noise sources. The City applies the state's Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility standards, summarized in Table 5.9-4, to assess the compatibility of new development with existing noise sources, such as vehicles and trains. Page 5.9 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I A II S. Environmental Analysis NofsE Table 5.9-4 Cnmmunifv aln7.n .nd 1 .nd Ilea Cmm"wfihility Clearly Compatible: With no special noise reduction requirements assuming standard construction. Normally Compatible: New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features Normally Incompramle: New construction is discouraged. If new construction does emceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Incompatible: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -7 Residential — Single-Family, Two-Family, Multiple-Family ;\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� dam--■■ s> Residential — Mixed Use \\\\\\ \\\\\\ Residential — II r ■■HOH-- Commercial (Regional, 1 Motel, III I Commercial (Regional, Village, 1' 1 Special) 1 Restaurant, Movie \\\\m Z\\\\V k\\\\ 'N & \\\N,RN NONE Commercial 1 II Office Building, R I Development Pr1' 1 Offices, Office Building EMEMMII 046lEiti'llHti @Hdl Commercial Institutional Concert 1 1 Meeting Hall S; \0 A N11159l1610E91I Commercial •.II Children's Park, I Go-cart I I ■■■9�-(BfEM Commercial (General, Special), Industrial, & finsthstional —Automobile Service Station, Auto t'. I Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale Utilities OMEN Institutional l, Church, Library, School'Classroom � !M Open Space Parks ■■■Ma 011=N7 M Open Space — Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserve Wildlife Habitat OMEN=- ' I O\ \ N \ \\\` \O \\O� \O\ Clearly Compatible: With no special noise reduction requirements assuming standard construction. Normally Compatible: New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features Normally Incompramle: New construction is discouraged. If new construction does emceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Incompatible: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -7 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.9-4 identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. A normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) incremental traffic noise impact criteria, which becomes progressively more stringent as the baseline traffic noise levels increase. The City's incremental thresholds are shown in Table 5.9 -5. Table 5.9 -5 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses WRA CNEL) Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Combined Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment 55 58 3 60 62 2 65 66 1 70 71 1 75 75 0 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan and General Plan EIR. Adopted November 2006. Stationary ( Nontransportation) Noise The City applies the Noise Control Ordinance standards (Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.025), summarized in Table 5.9 -6, to nontransportation, stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic, because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. The City's noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, machinery, pumps, and air conditioners. Page 5.9 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 I I LJ I 1 1 I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.9 -6 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards (L„) Noise Zone Time Interval Maximum Daytime Noise Levels dBA L25 L Zone I - Single -, two-, or murdple4amily residential 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone II - Commercial 7 AM to 10 PM 65 85 10 PM to 7 AM 60 80 Zone III - Residential portions of mixed use properties 7 AM to 10 PM 60 80 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone N- Industrial or manufacturing 7 AM to 10 PM 70 90 10 PM to 7 AM 70 90 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards. Notes: • These noise standards do not apply to heating ventilation and air conditioning (WAG) systems or construction pursuant to Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. According to Section 10.26.045 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 1O PMto7AM. Sound- Amplifying Equipment The City of Newport Beach requires that use of any sound - amplifying equipment used within the City apply for and obtain a permit from the Finance Director (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound Amplifying Equipment). According to the City's Municipal Code, the volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of 100 feet from the sound - amplifying device, and so that the volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, or a nuisance to persons within the range of allowed audibility. Furthermore, use of sound - amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM. Construction Noise The City realizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolftion, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 5.9-4 above. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity -Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or anyfederal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Page 5.9 -9 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. Vibration Standards The City of Newport Beach does not have specific limits orthresholds for vibration. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration. These criteria were used for this analysis. The human reaction to various levels of vibration varies. The upper end of the range shown for the threshold of perception, or roughly 65 VdB, may be considered annoying by some people. Vibration below 65 VdB may also cause secondary audible effects such as a slight rattling of doors, suspended ceilings/fixtures, windows, and dishes, any of which may result in additional annoyance. Table 5.9 -7 shows the FTA groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria. Table 5.9 -7 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Source: United States 0epartment of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, April 1995. ' More than 70 vibration events per day. ' Fewer than 70 vibration events per day. 3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration - sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. ° vibration - sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundbome noise. Existing Noise Environment The project site and neighboring land uses in the vicinity of the project site are subject to noise from many sources. The majority of noise within the vicinity of the Hyatt Regency is from mobile sources and most specifically, traffic traveling through the City on Jamboree Road. Aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport also contribute to the ambient noise environment. To characterize the existing noise environment, noise measurements were taken during the morning peak traffic period on roadways within the vicinity of the project site that contribute to the ambient noise environment. Table 5.9 -8 presents the minimum (LmI,), average (L,,), and maximum (Lm„) noise levels that were monitored. Figure 5.9 -1 shows the noise monitoring locations. Page 5.9 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 I I I .1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I Groundbome Vibration Impact Groundborne Noise Impact Levels Levels dB re 1 microinch /sec dB re 20 micro ascals Frequent Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Land Use Category Events' Events' Events' Events2 Category 1: Buildings where low ambient 65 Vd83 65 VdB3 NA° NA° vibration is essential for interior o eradons. Category 2: Residences and buildings 72 Vd8 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA where people normally sleep. Category 3: Institutional land uses with 75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA primadly daytime use. Source: United States 0epartment of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, April 1995. ' More than 70 vibration events per day. ' Fewer than 70 vibration events per day. 3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration - sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. ° vibration - sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundbome noise. Existing Noise Environment The project site and neighboring land uses in the vicinity of the project site are subject to noise from many sources. The majority of noise within the vicinity of the Hyatt Regency is from mobile sources and most specifically, traffic traveling through the City on Jamboree Road. Aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport also contribute to the ambient noise environment. To characterize the existing noise environment, noise measurements were taken during the morning peak traffic period on roadways within the vicinity of the project site that contribute to the ambient noise environment. Table 5.9 -8 presents the minimum (LmI,), average (L,,), and maximum (Lm„) noise levels that were monitored. Figure 5.9 -1 shows the noise monitoring locations. Page 5.9 -10 • The Planning Center February 2008 I I I .1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I , 13ack�ga ' ' I ,CScience Y , center NOWPort Bay ✓f - `r� Ecological Preserve' - jw r 1 J \ =1 f I � cF► 1i > 1 f�a f SC.3 lGiat cl _Ir7 Ne �unes ♦. Ji 3 Rl Monitoring Lo,ation n�Poff Beare Ezpaarrod D''ah EI(j r ` xo *V ■ \ 1 I S. Environmental Analysis 1 NOISE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.9 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Table 5.9 -8 Noise Measurements along Local Roadways Monitoring Site L - L L Monitoring Site No.1 - Jamboree Road, eastern project boundary 49.1 67.7 76.8 Monitoring Site No. 2 - Back Bay Drive, southern project boundary 47.9 59.4 77.3 Monitoring Site No. 3 - Back Bay Drive, western project boundary 45.1 58.9 711 Monitoring Site No. 4 - Back Bay Drive, northwest of project boundary 39.3 58.2 71.1 Noise monitoring conducted for 15-20 minutes at each site on January 3, 2007, during morning peak hours of hours of 7 AM to 9 AM with a Larson Davis 820 sound level meter. Monitoring Site 1. West side of Jamboree Road on the eastern boundary of the project site, just south of the Palisades Tennis Club, eight feet from the roadway. Jamboree Road is a six -lane roadway with a divided center median (120 feet wide). The speed limit on Jamboree Road is 50 miles per hour (mph). Surrounding land uses include the Hyatt Regency hotel parking lot, the Palisades Tennis Club, and the Sea Island residential community across the street. The primary noise source at this monitoring location was traffic on Jamboree Road and occasional aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport. Secondary noise sources included birds. Traffic counts during noise monitoring included 343 light duty autos, 2 medium duty trucks, and 2 heavy duty trucks. There were five overflights from departing aircraft at the John Wayne Airport. Monitoring Site 2. North side of Back Bay Drive on the southern boundary of the project site, three feetfrom the roadway. Back Bay Drive is a four -lane roadway with bike lanes on both sides of the street (61 feet wide) at the monitoring site. Surrounding land uses include the Hyatt Regency hotel parking lot, the Bayview Landing senior community, and the Newport Dunes to the west of the noise monitoring location. The primary noise source was traffic on Back Bay Drive and occasional aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport. Secondary noise sources included birds and distant traffic on Jamboree Road. Traffic counts during noise monitoring included 33 light duty autos, 2 medium duty trucks, and 1 heavy duty truck. There was one aircraft overflight from the John Wayne Airport. Monitoring Site 3. West side of Back Bay Drive on the western boundary of the project site. Surrounding land uses include the Hyatt Regency hotel rooms, a boat storage facility, and the Newport Dunes to the southwest of the noise monitoring location. The noise meter was placed one foot from the roadway. Back Bay Drive is a two-lane roadway with on- street parking and bike lanes on both sides of the street (62 feet wide). The primary noise source was traffic on Back Bay Drive and occasional aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport. Secondary noise sources included birds and distant sirens and car horns. Traffic counts during noise monitoring included four light duty autos. There were seven overflights from departing aircraft at the John Wayne Airport. Monitoring Site 4. East side of Back Bay Drive northwest of the project site. Surrounding land uses include the Hyatt Regency golf course, a boat storage facility, and the Newporter North Environmental Study Area to the north of the noise monitoring location. The noise meter was placed two feet from the roadway. At the noise- monitoring location, Back Bay Drive is a two -lane roadway with parking on the west side of the street and bike lanes of both side of the street (51 feet wide). The primary noise source was traffic on Back Bay Drive Road and occasional aircraft overflights from the John Wayne Airport. Secondary noise sources included birds. Traffic counts during noise monitoring included six light duty autos and one medium duty truck. There were five overflights from departing aircraft at the John Wayne Airport. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -13 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE On -Road Vehicles Noise from motorvehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1.3 dBA. To assess the potential for mobile - source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided by IN Group in October 2006. The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 49 dBA to 76 dBA CNEL as calculated at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 5.9-9. Table 5.9 -9 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Source: Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model. The Planning Center. Based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by IBI Group, Revised January 2008. e /o: east of; w /o: west of: No: north of; s/o: south of. Note: Noise - sensitive residential uses are located approximately 100 feet from the centedine. Page 5.9 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 WIA UNEL) segment Existfng Year 2006 ADT Volumes CNEL (dBA @100 it No San Joaquin Hills Road 38,502 74.1 No Santa Barbara Drive 34,000 73.7 No Hyatt Regency Entrance 34,000 73.6 s/o Hyatt Regency Entrance 34,000 73.7 s/o Back Bay Drive 34,000 73.5 w/o Dover Drive 1 51,515 �... ff 71.7 w/o Bayside Drive 56,667 75.9 w/o Jamboree Road 46,364 75.1 e/o Jamboree Road 37,091 72.4 e/o Newport Center Drive 37,091 72.3 e/o Avocado Avenue 37,091 72.2 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 37,091 69.1 aw > e/o Jamboree Road ., �. to 18,000 69.4 "' �: e/o Jamboree Road I> ., 14,524 - I 65.5 No Pacrfic Coast Highway 10,000 65.9 n/o Pack Coast Highway 35,030 65.9 r pn" _: d _... o/o Pacific Coast Highway 32,000 68.7 e/o Jamboree Road !� 997 48.8 Source: Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model. The Planning Center. Based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by IBI Group, Revised January 2008. e /o: east of; w /o: west of: No: north of; s/o: south of. Note: Noise - sensitive residential uses are located approximately 100 feet from the centedine. Page 5.9 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis NOISE Aircraft Noise The John Wayne Airport is approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site. The California Public Resources Code, Section 21096, requires that when preparing an Environmental Impact Report for any project located within an airport influence area as defined by an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC), the lead agency shall utilize the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource with respect ' to airport noise and safety compatibility issues. The basis for compatibility zone delineation for airports is the CNEL contours created with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Integrated Noise Model for private and public airports. Noise from aircrafts at the John Wayne Airport is produced from takeoffs, flyovers /overflights, approaches, and landings. Each of these events results in noise exposure to noise - sensitive receptors within close proximity to the airport. Figure 5.9 -2 shows that the project site is located outside both the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for the John Wayne Airport. 5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would result in: N -1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Based on local noise criteria as established in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Municipal Code the following would be considered significant: Based on Policy N 1.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan, project- related traffic increases the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount of: (1) 3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, (2) 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, (3) 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or (4) any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors (see Table 5.9 -5). • Noise generated by buildout of the Hyatt Regency would result in stationary (non - transportation) noise that exceeds the standards of the City's Municipal Code (see Table 5.9-6) on noise - sensitive receptors. • It is the Policy of the City of Newport Beach to require Commercial (Regional, District) — Hotel, Motel, and Transient Lodging to mitigate to achieve an exterior noise environment of 70 dBA CNEL. Future development associated with the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion would place on -site noise - sensitive uses in a noise environment that exceeds 70 dBA CNEL N -2 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Based on the noise criteria as established by the FTA, the following would be considered significant: • Construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the FTA's criterion for human annoyance for infrequent events (80 VdB) at off -site vibration - sensitive structures. Hyatt Regency Neroport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 5.9 -15 1 0V 5. Environmental Analysis NoisE N -3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Based on local noise criteria as established in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Municipal Code the following would be considered significant: Based on Policy N 1.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan, project - related traffic increases the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount of: (1) 3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, (2) 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, (3) 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or (4) any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors (see Table 5.9 -5) • Noise generated by buildout of the Hyatt Regency would result in stationary (nontransportation) noise that exceeds the standards of the City's Municipal Code (see Table 5.9 -6) on noise - sensitive receptors. N-4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. N -5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Based on noise criteria as established by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program the following would be considered significant: • If the project would be located within the Noise Impacted Area of John Wayne Airport and thus be exposed to noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL N -6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels. The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: N -6. This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis. Page 5.9 -16 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis John Wayne Airport 2005 Annual Noise Contours Flyatt Regency Newport Beach Expanrion Draft EIR The Planning Center- • Figure 5.9-2 ewN OD I S. Environmental Analysis NoisE This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.9 -18 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 5.9.3 Environmental Impacts I I 1 I G 1 1 I I 5. Environmental Analysis NoisE The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets afterthe impact statement. IMPACT 5.9 -1: THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FROM OPERATION OF THE HYATT REGENCY EXPANSION PROJECT WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLYINCREASE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS. [THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -31 Impact Analysis: The operations phase of the project would generate noise primarily associated with vehicular trips. According to the Traffic Analysis conducted by IBI Group, Inc. (January 2008), the proposed project would generate 661 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) with 51 trips in the morning peak hour and 58 trips in the evening peak hour. Traffic noise modeling was compiled for buildout year (2012) No Project and With Project conditions, as shown in Table 5.9 -10. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 5.9 -19 WITJ I 5. Environmental Analysis r Nois& Table 5.9-10 Year 2012 Without Pro'ect vs. With Pro "ect Traffic Noise Modelin Location Existing CNEL (dBA @ 100 feet from centerline) Year 2012 w/o Pro ect Year 2012 with Project Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing Increase in CNEL (dBA) Due to Pmiect ADT CNEL (dBA @ 100 feet from centerline) ADT CNEL (dBA @ 100 feet from centerline) comparison to Without Project conditions. As shown in Table 5.9 -10, the project would increase traffic noise levels by a maximum of 0.1 dBA on Jamboree Road, north of Santa Barbara Drive and south of the Hyatt Regency entrance. At these locations, future noise levels at the residences would be less than 75 dBA. Consequently, a project - related noise increase of less than 1 dBA at Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara n/o San Joaquin Hills Road 74.1 48,058 75.0 48,322 75.0 1 0.9 0.0 rho Santa Barbara Drive 73.7 42,381 74.6 42,679 74.7 1 1.0 0.1 n/o Hyatt Regency Entrance 73.6 42,215 74.6 42,545 74.6 1 1.0 0.0 s/o Hyatt Regency Entrance 73.7 42,275 74.6 42,605 74.7 1.0 0.1 s/o Back Ba Drive 73.5 42,415 74.4 42,745 0.9 0.0 2y74.4 w/o Dover Drive 71.7 63,056 72.6 63,188 72.6 1 0.9 0.0 w/o Bayside Drive 75.9 69,359 76.8 69,525 76.8 0.9 0.0 w/o Jamboree Road 75.1 59,132 76.1 59,298 761 1.0 0.0 e/o Jamboree Road 72.4 50,423 73.7 50,589 73.7 1.3 0.0 e/o Newport Center Drive 72.3 50,355 73.6 50,521 73.6 1.3 0.0 e/o Avocado Avenue 72.2 49,927 73.5 50,059 73.5 1.3 0.0 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 69.1 49,937 70.4 50,069 70.44 1.3 0.0 y �.�sR.M:.^tl: Yrr �N9['FrR'i'i'M.. �Jamboree �; .P �k 2'.�'S i � 0 � t`.;i�^� �•Y�� "y e/o Royad,yY 69.4 19,350 69.7 19,384 69.7 0.3 0.0 e/o Jamboree Road 65.5 14,648 65.6 14,682 65.6 1 0.1 0.0 r .d No Pacif ic Coast Highway 65.9 10,538 66.2 10,572 1 0.3 1 0.0 No Pacific Coast Highway 65.9 43,056 74.1 43,122 74.1 8.2 0.0 No Pacific Coast Highway 68.7 34,750 69.1 1 34,784 1 0.4 1 0.0 e/o Jamboree Road 48.8 1,107 49.3 1 1,107 49.3 0.5 0.0 Source: The Planning Center, federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model. Based on traffic volumes and speed limits obtained in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by IBI Group dated October 2006- a/c: east of; w /o: west of; No: north of, s /o: south ot. Note: Noise - sensitive residential uses are located approximately 100 feet from the centedine. i I I I I I I 11 �I The difference in traffic noise between the No Project and With Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to project- related traffic. In accordance with General Plan Policy N1.8, project- related noise impacts may occur If there are substantial noise increases (3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between , 65 and 75, or any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors) in comparison to Without Project conditions. As shown in Table 5.9 -10, the project would increase traffic noise levels by a maximum of 0.1 dBA on Jamboree Road, north of Santa Barbara Drive and south of the Hyatt Regency entrance. At these locations, future noise levels at the residences would be less than 75 dBA. Consequently, a project - related noise increase of less than 1 dBA at Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara Page 5.9 -20 • The Planning Center February 2008 I I I I I 1 1 I i U I I 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Drive and south of the Hyatt Regency entrance would not significantly contribute to the impacted noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive receptors. IMPACT 5.9-2: NEW STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES FROM LONG -TERM OPERATION OF THE HYATT REGENCYNEWPORT BEACH EXPANSION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ELEVATE NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF NOISE - SENSITIVE LAND USES. (THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -31 Impact Analysis: Operation of the Hyatt Regency project would include the following improvements: 88 new timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ball room, a new 10,072- square -foot spa and pool, and a new two -level parking garage. Use of these newfacilities would generate stationary noise at the Hyatt Regency in Newport Beach. Currently, stationary noise sources at the project site include noise sources associated with landscaping, maintenance, recreation (golf and pool), deliveries, parking, and events (conferences, weddings, etc). Use of the new facilities would generate similar types of stationary noise on -site. As the adjacent land uses are commercial /recreational in nature, the project is required to abide by the City of Newport Beach maximum noise limits for Zone II, which require noise levels from stationary equipmentto not exceed a daytime maximum of 65 dBA L. for a period of 15 minutes during an hour (or 85 dBA L J and a nighttime maximum of 60 dBA L., for a period of 15 minutes in an hour (or 80 dBA L, . Noise - sensitive residential uses within the vicinity of the proposed noise - generating uses are located a significant distance (greater than 340 feet) and therefore would not be exposed to noticeable levels of stationary noise generated at the project site. Stationary equipment or on -site facilities used in a manner that violates these standards is defined as a public nuisance by the City of Newport Beach and is not permitted within the City. The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hosts an annual outdoor jazz event. Operation of the annual jazz event requires a Special Events Permit by the City of Newport Beach. Future jazz events and other similar events held within the expanded ballroom facilities would also require the approval of this type of permit. Under the Special Events Permit, the City of Newport Beach cites the City's noise ordinance for use of amplified sound at Special Events. It is specifically stated in the permit that having a Special Events Permit does not give the permit holder permission to violate the City's ordinances. A citation can be issued if the special event is not in compliance with the noise ordinance. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code for sound - amplifying equipment, noise levels from such devices are required to be controlled so they are not audible in excess of 100 feet. Consequently, the project would be required to abide by the mandatory noise limits of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Furthermore, due to the current levels of activity on -site, the expansion of the on -site facilities would not substantially increase noise levels when located in the vicinity of similar facilities at the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, including the ballroom facilities. Perceptible changes in the ambient noise environment from on -site stationary sources would be a result of replacement or relocation of on -site uses with different types of noise - generating activities and not necessarily a result of an increase in noise levels. For example, the existing golf course is located in the northern portion of the project site. Noise - generating activities associated with the golf course include landscape maintenance (lawnmowers, edgers, blowers, etc.). Project implementation would replace the existing golf course with new residential timeshare facilities, parking lots, and pool recreational facilities. While the new timeshare units would provide a barrier for noise transmission along portions of the northeastern boundary of the site from the pool area, pool recreational uses tend to be louder than golf activities. In contrast, the new parking lot would eliminate the need for landscape maintenance at the boundary of the project site, but would introduce a new type of noise source (car horns, car alarms, beeps, door slamming) along the northeastern boundary. Additional noise sources from operation of the Hyatt Regency expansion would not generate noise levels that exceed the City's noise standards or substantially elevate existing noise levels in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 5.9 -21 o I 5. Environmental Analysis , NOISE IMPACT 5.9-3: NEWLY EXPANDED ON -SITE NOISE- SENSITfVE USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE , WITH THE NOISE ENVIRONMENT. (THRESHOLDS N -1 AND N -31 ImpactAnalysis: Noise maybe a significant impact if the project constructs a noise - sensitive land use in an , area that is incompatible due to excessive noise. The City of Newport Beach has adopted land use compatibility criteria for the siting of new noise - sensitive land uses within the City (see Table 5.9 -4). Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, new Commercial (Regional, District) -Hotel, Motel, and Transient Lodging land uses are considered noise impacted if they are located in a noise environment that exceeds 70 dBA CNEL. Operation of the proposed project would include the following noise - sensitive uses: 88 new timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom, and a new 10,072- square -foot spa and pool. As shown in Table 5.9 -10, Jamboree Road generates noise levels of 74.6 dBA CNEL at 100feet from the centerline. The closest proposed noise - sensitive uses to Jamboree Road would be the timeshares, which would be set back at least 350 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road. Consequently, exterior noise levels at these noise - sensitive land uses are calculated at 66.4 dBA CNEL, and would be within the normally compatible noise environment. Exterior noise levels at other proposed facilities of the Hyatt Regency expansion would be at even greater distances, and therefore would also be within a normally compatible noise environment. ' For interior noise environments associated with the proposed project, the state of California requires that new construction achieve a noise environment of 45 dBA CNEL. Standard windows and doors in a warm - weather climate typically achieve a minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction with windows open and a minimum of 24 dBA reduction with windows closed (Society of Automotive Engineers 1971). Consequently, interior , noise environments at the nearest noise - sensitive structures to Jamboree Road are calculated at 54.4 dBA CNEL with windows open and 42.4 dBA CNEL with windows closed. Therefore, standard building construction would be sufficient to meet the California Building Code noise -level requirements. IMPACT 5.9-4: CONSTRUCTION OF THE HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH EXPANSION WOULD NOTGENERATE VIBRATION LEVELS THAT EXCEED THE FTA CRITERION FOR HUMAN ANNOYANCE AT NEARBY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. (THRESHOLD N -21 ImpactAnalysis: Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment. However, construction equipment used during project development would produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and building activities. However, no pile driving, blasting, or other vibration - intensive activity would be required in the construction effort. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Hence, the communities of Harbor Cove and Villa Point would not be affected by construction vibration generated at the project site, as these communities are significantly elevated above the project site on a bluff and are located at a significant distance from project - related construction activities. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors and therefore groundborne vibration is evaluated in terms of indoor receivers (FTA 1995). Vibration is typically sensed at nearby structures when objects within the structure generate noise from the vibration, such as rattling windows or picture frames. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. I Page 5.9 -22 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis NoisE The nearest vibration - sensitive off -site uses are the communities of Bayview Landing, the senior community south of Back Bay Drive, and the Sea Island residential community east of Jamboree Road. The majority of heavy construction equipment would be used during grading operations. Construction of the newstructures would require use of heavy construction grading equipment to partially underground the parking structures under the new timeshare units. The highest levels of vibration would be experienced when a heavy piece of construction equipment is operating or passes in close proximity to the nearby vibration - sensitive structures. Table 5.9 -11 lists the maximum levels of vibration from heavy construction equipment that would be experienced at the nearest vibration - sensitive structures at Bayview Landing and Sea Island. Table 5.9-11 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences Source: Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 1995. Note: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second. Distance based on construction activities associated with storm drain and sewer improvements. on -site construction activities would occur at distances of 215 feet or farmer and vibration levels would be lower than shown above. Determined based on use of jackhammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feet. The FTA has established thresholds forvibration levels that would cause annoyanceto a substantial number of people or damage to building structures. The FTA criterion for vibration- induced structural damage is 0.20 inch per second for the peak particle velocity (PPV). Project construction activities would result in PPV levels that are below the FTA's criterion for vibration- induced structural damage. The ETA's criterion for vibration - induced annoyance is 80 Vibration Velocity (VdB) for residential uses. As shown in Table 5.9 -11, construction of the project would not generate levels of vibration that exceed the FTA criterion for nuisance for existing residential uses. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft E1R City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -23 Velocity Level at 90 Feel Velocity Level (VdB) - Significance Exceeds at 125 Feet 7Threshold Exceeds Bayview Threshold Significance (VdB) - Significance Equipment Landing (VdB) Threshold? Sea Island' Threshold? Large bulldozer 76 80 No 73 No Small bulldozer 47 80 No 44 No Jackhammer' 68 80 No 65 80 No Loaded trucks 75 80 No 72 80 No x Approximate RMS Velocity Approximate at 90 Feet RMS Velocity (in /sec) - Significance Exceeds at 125 Feet Significance Exceeds Bayview Threshold Significance (tn)sec) - Threshold Significance Equipment Landing in /sec Threshold? Sea Island in /sec Threshold? Large bulklozer 0.0130 012 No 0.0080 0.2 No Small bulldozer 0.0004 0.2 No 0.0003 0.2 No Jackhammers 0.0051 0.2 No 0.0031 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.0111 0.2 No 0.0068 0.2 No Source: Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 1995. Note: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second. Distance based on construction activities associated with storm drain and sewer improvements. on -site construction activities would occur at distances of 215 feet or farmer and vibration levels would be lower than shown above. Determined based on use of jackhammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feet. The FTA has established thresholds forvibration levels that would cause annoyanceto a substantial number of people or damage to building structures. The FTA criterion for vibration- induced structural damage is 0.20 inch per second for the peak particle velocity (PPV). Project construction activities would result in PPV levels that are below the FTA's criterion for vibration- induced structural damage. The ETA's criterion for vibration - induced annoyance is 80 Vibration Velocity (VdB) for residential uses. As shown in Table 5.9 -11, construction of the project would not generate levels of vibration that exceed the FTA criterion for nuisance for existing residential uses. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft E1R City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -23 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE IMPACT 5.9-5: CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES AT THE HYATTREGENCY WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ELEVATE THE DAYTIME NOISE ENVIRONMENT IN THE VICINITY OF NOISE- SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATIONAL USES. [THRESHOLD N -31 Impact Analysis: Short-term noise can be associated with site preparation, grading, and building construction of the proposed land uses. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads; second, short-term noise impacts during demolition, site preparation, grading, and /or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction - related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Composite construction noise is best characterized by Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances (Bolt et al. 1971). Noise levels represent the documented average noise levels for each construction phase for typical residential construction. Table 5.9 -12 shows typical noise levels from each construction phase at the closest off -site noise - sensitive uses. Noise levels were calculated as if all construction equipment were operating adjacent to the property line. These values take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of the heavy equipment used in the construction effort. in later phases, during building assembly, noise levels are typically reduced from these values and the physical structures further break up line -of -sight noise propagation. Table 5.9 -12 Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites (dBA Lam) Based on Batt et al. 1971. Based on the An*sis for residential construction. z Distance based on construction activities associated with storm drain and sewer improvements. On -site construction activities would occur at distances of 215 feet or farther and would be approximately 5 dBA lower than noise levels shown. a Based on monitored noise levels on Jamboree Road for the Villa Point residences, the Sea Island residences, and the Harbor Cove residences and monitored noise levels on Back Bay Drive for the Newporter North Environmental Study Area and Palisades Tennis Club (northwest of project site) and the Bayview Landing residences and Newport Dunes recreational area (south of project site). Page 5.9 -24 • The Planning Center February 2008 Noise Levels from All Applicable E ui ment in Use:' Newporter North Environmental Study Areal Bayview Palisades Landing/ Tennis Club Newport Dunes Villa Point Sea Island Harbor Cove Construction Phase (within 50 Feet (90 Feet) (150 Feet ) (125 Feet )2 (675 Feet Ground Clearing/Demolition 83 78 73 75 60 Excavation/Grading 88 83 78 80 65 Foundation Construction 81 76 71 73 58 Building Construction 81 76 71 73 58 Finishing and Site Cleanup 88 83 78 80 65 Existing Ambient Noise 58 59 68 68 68 Levels' Maximum Projected dBA 24 10 12 Ambient Not over Ambient Level Exceeded Based on Batt et al. 1971. Based on the An*sis for residential construction. z Distance based on construction activities associated with storm drain and sewer improvements. On -site construction activities would occur at distances of 215 feet or farther and would be approximately 5 dBA lower than noise levels shown. a Based on monitored noise levels on Jamboree Road for the Villa Point residences, the Sea Island residences, and the Harbor Cove residences and monitored noise levels on Back Bay Drive for the Newporter North Environmental Study Area and Palisades Tennis Club (northwest of project site) and the Bayview Landing residences and Newport Dunes recreational area (south of project site). Page 5.9 -24 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE Grading of the project would involve the heaviest pieces of construction equipment. Consequently, this phase of development would result in the loudest noise levels at the existing noise - sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. However, all project - related construction activities would occur within the least noise - sensitive portion of the day, as specified in Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity— Noise Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code As shown in Table 5.9 -12, noise levels generated by construction activities would cause the existing ambient noise levels atthe closest residential developments (Sea Island, Villa Points and Bayview Landing) to be exceeded by up to 24 dBA ( Bayview Landing) during the noisiest construction periods. Ambient noise levels at Harbor Cove, approximately 675 feet from the project, would not be exceeded. The adjacent Palisades Tennis Club would experience noise levels up to 30 dBA in excess of ambient noise levels during some construction phases. While the City of Newport Beach does not specifically designate this type of use as noise - sensitive, recreational uses require a degree of quietness for enjoyment. Many of these noise - sensitive uses lie at elevations higher than the project site, and therefore would have an unobstructed view of construction activities. Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 23 months) and level of noise from the combination of construction activities (ranging from 58 to 88 dBA), project - related construction noise at the nearby residential and recreational receivers would be significant. Construction Noise Impacts to Biological Resources In addition, the biological surveys and impact analysis conducted by Glen Lukos and Associates, dated February 2007, indicated the presence of coastal California gnatcatcher adjacentto the northwestern corner of the site, in the Ecological Preserve. As described in Chapter 5.2, Biological Resources, construction noise could affect gnatcatchers if construction occurs within the breeding season. However, if gnatcatchers are located within 300 feet of construction activities, Mitigation Measure 3 -2, as outlined in Chapter 5.3, Biological Resources, of this DER, would require installation of temporary noise barriers and a change in grading arrays if noise levels cannot be reduced below 60 dBA hourly L.. With the implementation of this mitigation, noise levels from construction activities would not negatively affect this adjoining land use. IMPACT 5.9.6: THE HYATT REGENCY IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE 60 AND 65 dBA CNEL NOISE CONTOUR OF THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE TO FUTURE OCCUPANTS AND WORKERS. (THRESHOLDS N -51 Impact Analysis: The project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the John Wayne international Airport, underthe primary departure corridor. Noise from takeoffs and occasionally landings contribute to the ambient noise environment at the project site. The John Wayne Airport maintains a network to monitor aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of the airport. The project site is in close proximity to the airport's noise monitor No. 7. As shown in Figure 5.9 -2, the Hyatt Regency is located outside the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for the airport. Therefore the project would not expose future occupants and workers to excessive noise levels from the John Wayne Airport. In addition to daily CNEL noise contours, the noise - monitoring network also measures average single -event noise exposure from a single aircraft passing over the noise monitoring location. At Monitoring Site 7, single - event noise levels from all aircraft ranged from 78.1 to 90.6 dBA L., , as shown in the 40 Quarter Noise Abatement Report (John Wayne Airport 2006). Single -event noise disturbance impacts primarily affect school classrooms, where loud disruptions severely impair the learning environment, and residential users, where nighttime noise events can be invasive. The project site proposes new timeshare units within the vicinity of the airport and therefore, single -event noise exposure is only relevant in an indoor environment during the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -25 5. Environmental Analysis NOISE late night hours. Operation of the John Wayne Airport is restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM. Therefore, nighttime disturbance at the project site from aircraft overflights would be highly limited - Furthermore, standard windows and doors in a warm - weather climate typically achieve a minimum of 24 dBA reduction with windows- closed (Society of Automotive Engineers 1971). Consequently, interior single -event noise levels from aircrafts at the John Wayne Airport would range from 54.1 dBA to 66.6 dBA. Based on a single noise event level of 81 dBA (the threshold at which 10 percent of the population would be awakened based on the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise Effects ofAviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep), noise from aircraft overflights would not disrupt the sleep of residents of the timeshare units with windows closed. Upgraded windows and doors would therefore not be necessary to prevent nighttime awakenings from aircraft overflights. 5.9.4 Cumulative Impacts Mobile Source Noise Traffic noise increases on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site were shown previously in Table 5.9 -10. The difference in traffic noise between the existing environment and 2008 conditions represents cumulative noise impacts, whereas the difference between the 2012 No Project and With Project conditions represents the project's contribution to cumulative noise increases. Project - related cumulative noise impacts may occur if the project's contribution to cumulative noise increases results in a substantial noise increase in comparison to existing conditions (3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors). Thus, where individual project - related impacts are identified, the project would also significantly contribute to cumulative traffic noise increases on local roadways. However, as shown in Table 5.9 -10, the project would result in a maximum traffic noise increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL at Jamboree Road, north of Santa Barbara drive and south of the Hyatt Regency entrance. At these locations, the future noise environment at the residences would be less than 75 dBA CNEL. Consequently, project - related traffic noise increases would not be cumulatively considerable and no significant cumulative noise impacts would occur. Stationary Source Noise Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generated by the project is limited to impacts to noise- sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. Stationary noise sources are confined to the immediate area of noise generation. As no significant stationary noise impacts from project implementation were identified and the City of Newport Beach restricts stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other noise - sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary source noise generation would also be less than significant. Construction Noise and Vibration Like stationary source noise, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized area of impact. Consequently, cumulative impacts would only occur if other projects are being constructed in the local vicinity of the project at the same time construction activities associated with the project would occur. Because the adjacent land uses are developed and no remaining vacant parcels lie within the immediate vicinity of the project site, no cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would occur. Impacts to nearby noise- and vibration - sensitive land uses would be limited to project - related impacts only. Page 5.9 -26 • The Planning Center February 2008 5. Environmental Analysis NoisE 5.9.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Existing Regulations • Section 10.26.025, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Exterior Noise Standards • Section 10.28.040, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Construction Noise: Construction Activity - Noise Regulations. • Chapter 11.03, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Special Events. • State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are incorporated into the California Building Code (Title 24 and Title 25, California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. • Community noise standards adopted by the City of Newport Beach in the General Plan, Noise Element. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval The project must comply with the exterior noise standards for commercial uses of the Noise Ordinance. The exterior noise level standard is 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. An acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise Ordinance. QQk This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to the City Planning Department prior to occupancy of the project. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards, additional mitigation shall be required, which may include the installation of additional sound attenuation devices as recommended bythe acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be Iimfted to no more than noise limits specified in Table 5.9-6 for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher. + The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted in Table 5.9-6 for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound - attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. • No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Ezpantion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.9 -27 5. Environmental Analysis 1 NOISE 5.9.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 5.9 -1, 5.9 -2, 5.9 -3, 5.9-4, and 5.9-6. Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant: Impact 5.9 -5 Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency would significantly elevate the daytime noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and recreational uses. 5.9.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.9 -5 9 -1 Temporary sound blankets (fences typically comprised of poly - vinyl - chloride- coated outer shells with adsorbent inner insulation) shall be placed alongside the boundary of the project site during construction activities that occur in the vicinity of residential and recreational land uses, which includes the areas adjacent to the Palisades Golf Course, the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, and the Bayview landing senior community. The temporary sound blankets shall be to prevent direct line -of -sight from active construction areas. 9 -2 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. 9 -3 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 9-4 The Construction Contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential and recreational receptor locations as is feasible. 9-5 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. 5.9.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures 9 -1 through 9 -5 described above would reduce noise levels from construction activities to the extent feasible. Placement of temporary sound walls along the project boundaries would reduce noise levels approximately 5 to 6 dBA where sound walls block line of sight between construction activities and nearby noise - sensitive receptors. Because many of the residential areas overlook proposed construction activities, sound walls would not be effective at these locations. However, despite the application of mitigation measures, nearby noise - sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels during construction activities and Impact 5.9 -5 would remain Significant and Unavoidable. Page 5.9 -28 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 5. Environmental Analysis 1 5.10 PUBLIC SERV ICES This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) addresses fire protection and emergency services, and police protection. The analysis in this section is based in part on the service provider correspondence contained in Appendix K of this DEIR. The Initial Study, included in Appendix A of this DEIR, substantiates that impacts associated with public services, including school and park services would be less than significant. These topics are not addressed in the following analysis. 5.10.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services 5.10.1.1 Environmental Setting The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. In addition to fire suppression, NBFD also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's planning, public works, and building departments to ensure that all new construction and remodels are built in compliance with local and State building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and on -site fire protection measures. The NBFD currently employs 146 full -time and 170 seasonal employees to provide 24 -hour protection and ' response to the City's residents and visitors. NBFD is divided into four divisions: operations, fire prevention, training, and administrative. NBFD divides its staff into three shifts per day, with approximately 40 personnel working each shift. An overall total of 112 fire suppression and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are divided up among the eight NBFD stations. The NBFD also handles incidents associated with hazardous materials. The NBFD's goal is to protect the public health and the environment throughout the City from accidental releases and improper handling, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials through coordinated efforts of regulation, management, emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight. The hazardous materials personnel are responsible for in- house training and education, and do not respond to emergencies. In case ' of a hazardous materials emergency, Huntington Beach Fire Department or Orange County Fire Department is called. Fire stations are strategically located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents. Station No. 3 would serve the proposed project site. This station is at 868 Santa Barbara Drive and serves the Newport Center area of the City. This station is staffed by one battalion chief, two captains, two engineers, two firefighters, and two firefighter paramedics. Equipment at this station includes one fire engine, one ladder truck, one paramedic van, and one battalion chief. The average response time for Station No. 3 is approximately four and a half minutes. (Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2006). 5.10.1.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the ' environment if the project would: FP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Bearh • Page 5.10 -1 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.10.1.3 Environmental Impacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.10 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECTS INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR CITY FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENTS ABILITY TO PROVIDE FIRE AND EMERGENCY /MEDICAL SERVICES. (THRESHOLD FP -11 Impact Analysis: Increased usage generated by the expansion of the Hyatt Newport Beach may increase the need for fire protections services, emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations. Provision of additional fire facilities are added incrementally as the need arises. The NBFD indicated that no additional fire equipment or personnel would be needed to maintain the necessary level of service. The public service correspondence can be found in Appendix J of this DEIR. 5.10.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The April 2006 EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update concluded that upon compliance with applicable federal,' state, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services — including the California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the City, and policies adopted in the General Plan —the increased demand for fire protection services would be a less than significant impact, According to NBFD, the proposed project would not significantly impact the department's ability to provide fire and emergency /medical services. Project - related impacts would therefore not combine with impacts of other development projects in the City to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to fire protection services. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 5.10.1.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions California Building Code • All elevators shall accommodate gurneys in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code • Title 9, Fire Code, of the City's Municipal Code, contains provisions that deal with a range of issues, including articulating fire flow requirements, the provision of automatic sprinkler systems in public buildings, requiring an accurate occupant count in public places, and the provision of emergency power in public assembly places. • Plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have fire sprinklers installed by the property ownerldeveloper in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final Building and Zone inspection. Page 5.10 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions • Fire hydrants shall be placed every 300 feet on the main road. • Porte cochere on the new ballroom building shall be a minimum height of 13 feel 6 inches. • The fire access road shall not exceed a grade of 10 percent. • All gates to the property shall open automatically and be provided with a knox key switch and approved strobe. • The fire alarm system in all buildings shall be tied into the main panel in the Catalina Building. • Smoke detectors in all sleeping areas shall be powered through the fire alarm panel. • Class I standpipes in all stairwells of the timeshare buildings shall be provided. • A 20 -foot minimum fire access road between the Lido and Catalina Buildings shall be provided. 5.10.1.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: • Impact 5.10 -1 The proposed projects incremental increase in demand for City fire protection WNJ services would not significantly impact the Newport Beach Fire Department's ability to provide fire and emergency /medical services. 5.10.1.7 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.10.1.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to fire protection and services remain. 5.10.2 Police Protection 5.10.2.1 Environmental Setting Police Services The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) provides police service to the proposed project site. The police department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive and provides services in crime prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and other services, such as traffic control. I According the service questionnaire returned by NBPD and the EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update, the NBPD employs a total of 280 personnel, including 1 chief, 3 captains, 7 lieutenants, 22 sergeants, 109 sworn officers, 85 civilian personnel, and 53 seasonal and part-time personnel. The NBPD is divided into three divisions, including support services, patrol /traffic, and detectives. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -3 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES NBPD currently has authorization for 148 sworn officers. With a population of 85,120 residents, the ratio of officers per 1,000 residents is currently 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 2006). On average, 2,000 emergency calls are received per month, with an average answertime of five seconds. Averages of 60,000 calls per year are dispatched. In 2005, the average police response time to emergency calls was just under four minutes, while the average response time for nonemergency calls was seven minutes. (General Plan EIR 2006) 5.10.2.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: PP -1 Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. 5.10.2.3 Environmental Impacts IMPACT 5.10 -2: THE PROPOSED PROJECTS INTRODUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURES, WORKERS AND VISITORS INTO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE SERVICE BOUNDARIES WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE DEMAND FOR POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES. (THRESHOLD PP -11 Impact Analysis: According to the service correspondence received from NBPD (see Appendix J of this DEIR), the proposed project would add to the number of service calls received to serve the area, and the department has no immediate or near future plans to expand police facilities, staff, or equipment. However, NBPD indicated that they have adequate staffing levels to serve the proposed project. 5.10.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Based on the EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update, to maintain the current ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents, NBPD would need to provide an additional 53 officers upon buildout of the General Plan. The additional police personnel would also require that the NBPD construct additional police facilities. As noted above, there are no immediate or near future plans to expand facilities or services. Future projects, however, would be subject to project- specific environmental review. As required by the General Plan policies, the City would be required to adequately serve all areas with appropriate police services. Cumulative police protection services for the General Plan were therefore concluded to be less than significant. The minimal increase in police protection service demand due to the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would not combine with future demand to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 5.10.2.5 Existing Regulations There are no federal, state, or local police policies that are directly applicable to police services within the project area. Page 5.10-4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 S. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES 5.10.26 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, the following impacts would be less than significant: Impact 5.10 -2 The proposed project would not increase the demand for police protection services. 5.10.27 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.10 -2 No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.10.28 Level of Significance After Mitigation No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to police protection remain. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expanr ion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.10 -5 5. Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.10 -6 *The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis 5.11 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project) to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report: • Hyatt Regency Traffic Impact Analysis, IBI Group, January 3, 2008. • Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis, IBI Group, January 10, 2008. Complete copies of these reports are included in Appendix L of this DEIR. 5.11.1 Environmental Setting Traffic Analysis Methodology The traffic impact analysis was performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach standards. The analysis examines weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project. Traffic operations at signalized intersections are analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Capacity analysis is a set of procedures for estimating the traffic- carrying ability of facilities � based on operational conditions. The City of Newport Beach has established 1,600 vehicles per lane per ^V% l hour as the capacity standard for analysis. The efficiency of traffic operations is commonly measured by traffic engineers and planners with a grading system called Level of Service (LOS). Evaluation of roadways and intersections involves the assignment of grades from A to F, with A representing the highest level of operating conditions and F representing extremely congested and restricted operations. The level of service analysis for signalized intersections is performed using TRAFFIX, a network -based interactive computer program that enables calculation of levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections for multiple locations and scenarios. Existing Roadway Network The existing roadway network contained in the study area is described in this section and shown in Figure 5 -11 -1, Existing Roadways and Intersection Geometries. • Jamboree Road is a north -south divided major arterial roadway with three lanes in each direction. • Coast Highway runs east -west with a raised median and three lanes in each direction between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Between Jamboree Road and Dover Drive, Coast Highway is an eight -lane roadway. • Dover Drive is a north -south four -lane divided primary arterial roadway. • Bayside Drive is a four -lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. • Newport Center Drive is a divided, six -lane major arterial roadway. IHyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -1 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC • Avocado Avenue is a four -lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. • MacArthur Boulevard is a north -south divided major arterial roadway with three lanes in each direction. • Back Bay Drive is a collector roadway providing one lane in each direction adjacent to the project site. • Santa Barbara Road is a four -lane undivided secondary road connecting Jamboree Road and Fashion Island. • San Joaquin Hills Road is a major arterial roadway with a raised median, providing three lanes in each direction. The signalized intersections selected for evaluation in consultation with the City of Newport Beach included: 1) Coast Highway and Dover Drive 2) Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 3) Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 4) Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 5) Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 6) Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard (CMP Intersection) 7) Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 8) Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 9) Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Entrance /Island Lagoon 10) Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Figure 5.11 -1 shows the study intersections with existing lane geometries. Existing Traffic Conditions With the exception of the Jamboree Road /Hyatt Regency Entrance intersection (No. 9) and the Jamboree Road/Back Bay Drive intersection (No. 10), intersection turning movement counts were available from the City of Newport Beach. City- provided traffic counts were conducted in 2004 and 2005. To estimate Year 2006 traffic conditions at these intersections, a 1 percent per year traffic growth rate was applied to designated roadways, consistent with City of Newport Beach standards. Intersection turning movement counts were performed at the remaining two project study intersections in April 2006. Counts were conducted from 7 AM to 9 AM to capture the AM peak hour and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM for the PM peak hour. Because these traffic counts were completed in 2006, the application of an annual growth factor is not necessary. Vehicle counts byturning movement at all 10 project intersections for AM and PM peak hour are included in the traffic study (DEIR Appendix K, Figures 3 -3 and 3-4). I i Page 5.11 -2 & The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Roadways and Intersection Geometries 1444 r 2�14 r 3 J114 € 4 J44 � 5 J�4 r \� hfF �� ti�� s htfi y Y hiP Nc OPreny Ne ORreay r✓ewoRrany 6 d 44 � J11144 r v "T hPY LEGEND Project site Study Intersection Q Signalized Intersection - -•+- Intersection Lane Geometry Source: Ml Group 6 1144 r g «1114 � ,0�dlt4 r httt� � httt� -' hiff' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.11 -1 5. Environmental Analysis , TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.11 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ' Existing Traffic Level of Service Level of Service Methodology Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the ICU analysis methodology, which evaluates capacity in terms of the volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio. The LOS is determined by measuring the ratio of volume to capacity for each roadway and intersection. Each letter grade corresponds to a range of V/C values, as described in Table 5.11 -1. The City of Newport Beach standard for the minimum acceptable intersection LOS is D. Mitigation is required when the project trips cause an intersection 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 0.010 or greater due to project traffic is also considered a signif icant impact. Cl I 7 JI 1 �I r, �I Table 5.11 -1 Intersection Level of Service LOS Interpretation Volume to Capacity Ratio There are no stables that are fully loaded, and few are close to loaded. No approach phase is A fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the 0.00 -0.60 approach appears quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operator. Represents stable operation. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial B number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within 0.61 -0.70 platoons of vehicles. Stable operation continues. Full signal cycle loading is still intermittent, but more frequent C Occasional drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal intersection, and 0.71 -0.80 backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability. Delays to approaching D vehicles may be substantial during short peaks with the peak period, but enough cycles with 0.81 -0.90 lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. Represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. At E capacity (V /C = 1.00), there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the 0.90 -1.00 intersection and delays may be great up to several signal cycles). Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street F may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration; >1.D0 hence, volumes carried are not predictable. V/C values are highly variable because full utilization of the approach may be prevented by outside conditions. Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40 of the City's Municipal Code Existing Intersection Levels of Service Table 5.11 -2 shows existing levels of service for the 10 study intersections for AM and PM peak hours. As shown, all study intersections currently operate at satisfactory levels of service. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -5 QIQ 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.11 -2 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summa No. Intersection AM Peak PM Peak V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.736 C 0.779 C 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.775 C 0.650 B 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.740 C 0.771 C 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.371 A 0.506 A 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.459 A 0.544 A 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.570 A 0.756 C 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.763 C 0.828 D 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.564 A 0.659 B 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport EntranceAsland Lagoon 0.374 A 0.477 A 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.389 A 0.485 A Applicable Plans and Regulations City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.62, Temporary Street Closure, of the Municipal Code, outlines the permit requirements and process for the temporary closure of public streets within the City. For example, the provisions outlined in Section 12.62.030, Issuance of Permit, of this chapter, state that the City Manager may issue a permit 'd he /she determines that the granting of the application for the time and location requested will not unreasonably inconvenience the public, create unusual traffic or policing problems, or interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood. Chapter 13.01, Street Construction Permits, outlines the provisions for street construction permits. Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, of the Municipal Code has been established by the City Council to establish a fee —based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways —to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance sets forth procedures for calculating the fair -share amounts for residential projects, hotel /motels, and office /retail /commercial uses, which are adopted by City Council resolution. Chapter 20.66, Oft Street Parking and Loading, of the Municipal Code, details the number of parking spaces required by various land uses. For hotels, one space for every two guest rooms is required. Specific parking requirements are also set forth for timeshare units in Chapter 20.84. This ordinance stipulates that parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1.2 spaces per timeshare unit, plus 1 per 50 square feet of banquet seating or meeting area. Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, of the Municipal Code, has been established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically the ordinance was established to: • Provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and /or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; 1 I I LJ 1 Page 5.11 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ' To identify the specific and near -term impacts of project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; • To ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and • To provide a mechanism for ensuring that project proponents' cost of complying with traffic - related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. ' The ordinance also clarifies the standards and required findings for project approvals. In accordance with Section 15.40.030 of the Municipal Code, there are provisions for Comprehensive Phase Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plans such as the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) (see DEIR Section 5.8, Land Use). Orange County Congestion Management Plan ' The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP highway System. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that comprise 3 percent or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities' capacity. The CMP highway system includes specific roadways, which include state highways and super streets, which are now known as smart streets, and CMP arterial monitoring locationsliintersections. Therefore, the CMP traffic impact ' analysis (TIA) requirements relate only to the designated CMP highwaysystem. The CMP system in Newport Beach consists of the following roadways: ' MacArthur Boulevard (Jamboree Road to Coast Highway) • Jamboree Road (between city limit and MacArthur Boulevard) • Coast Highway (throughout) • Newport Boulevard (from north city limit to Coast Highway) Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement In 1993, the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company entered into the CIOSA, which pertains to 12 parcels and grants vested development rights for 11 projects. The Hyatt Regency' was one of the 11 sites that received vested entitlements under the CIOSA. Specifically, the Hyatt Regency received a right to expand to 479 rooms. In consideration of the vested rights granted, The Irvine Company prepaid "fairshare" road improvement fees, constructed road improvements, and granted the City of Newport Beach an interest - free loan. The value of these traffic - improvement benefits totaled approximately $20 million. In consideration of the vested right, approximately 140 acres of property were also conveyed to the City for open space and parks. 5.11.2 Thresholds of Signiricance ' According to Appendix G of the CEOA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project could: ' At the time of CIOSA, the Hyatt Regency was known as the Hyatt Newporter Resort. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -7 =C I S. Environmental Analysis ' TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC T -1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). T -2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T -3 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). T -5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T-6 Result in inadequate parking capacity. T -7 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: T3, T -5, and T -7. These impacts are addressed in the following analysis. 5.11.3 Environmental Impacts Project Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation for the expansion of the Hyatt Regency was estimated using trip generation rates from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model ( NBTAM). The proposed project includes 88 new timeshare units, an 800 -seat ballroom facility, a 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness facility, a two -level parking garage, and removal of an existing nine -hole golf course and 12 villas (rooms). The proposed project results in a net increase of 76 rooms/timeshare units. With the proposed expansion, the Hyatt Regency would have a total of 479 rooms. Table 5.11 -3 summarizes the net trip generation for the proposed hotel expansion. For the purposes of trip generation, timeshare units and hotel rooms are considered to be equivalent. It should also be noted that the NBTAM trip generation rate for hotel rooms is higher than the average trip generation rate published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (r ed.). The ITE hotel rate is assumed to include trips generated by hotel rooms and ancillary hotel facilities, including ballrooms, restaurants, and spas. Table 5.11 -3 Protect Trip Generation Code Land Use Unit Qty. Time Period Enter Exit Total Rate Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips Hotel Timeshare Un'RS/Rooms ROOM 76 AM 0.40 30 0.27 21 0.67 51 PM 0.41 31 0.35 27 0.76 5B Dairy — 331 — 330 8.70 661 BaBrCe: NB I AM, Newport Beach ADT and Peak Rate Summary. Page 5.11 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I C] 11 1 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Figure 5.11 -2, Project Trip Distribution, shows the distribution of project - generated trips. Project trips at the study intersections are shown in Figures 5.11 -3 and 5.11 -4 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. It should be noted that the project trip distribution includes the reassignment of existing trips entering and exiting the project site. In the existing condition, the main entrance off Jamboree Road provides exclusive vehicular access to the project site (Study Intersection 9). In the Future With Project condition, project access would also be provided from Back Bay Drive, resulting in vehicle trips accessing the project site through Study Intersection 10. The project trip distribution assumes that 60 percent of vehicle trips to and from the site would use the primary access driveway on Jamboree Road and the remaining 40 percent of project trips would access the project site via Back Bay Drive. Approved and Cumulative Projects Table 4-1, Approved Projects, and Table 4 -2, Cumulative Projects, list the approved and cumulative projects that are located within the project study area. The locations of the approved and cumulative projects are shown on Figures 4 -1, Approved Projects, and 4 -2, Cumulative Projects, respectively. Approved projects are included in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Trip generation rates and trip distribution patterns for these projects were provided bythe City of Newport Beach. Cumulative projects, that is, reasonably foreseeable projects, were also incorporated into the future conditions analysis. The City of Newport Beach provided trip generation rates and trip distribution patterns for each of the cumulative projects. Additional details for the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions used for the approved and cumulative projects are provided in the traffic study (Appendix Fn. Future With and Without Project Condition (Year 2012) The level of service for the 10 study intersections was analyzed for future conditions (2012) with and without the proposed project. The opening year for the proposed project was assumed to be 2011. However, the traffic impact analysis performed the future with and without project conditions analysis one year after the project opening year, consistent with the City of Newport Beach traffic study guidelines. In addition to the cumulative projects described above, the analysis includes an ambient traffic growth rate of 1 percent per year on specific roadways identified by the City. The results for the AM and PM peak hour analyses are presented in Tables 5.11 -4 and 5.11 -5, respectively. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11-9 a S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFic Table 5.11 -4 Future Without and With Project (Year 2012) Weekdav AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Table 5.11 -5 Future Without and With Project (Year 2012) Weekdav PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Existing Without Project With Project Increase VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS No. Intersection in VIC Impact 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.736 C 0.811 D 0.813 D 0.002 No 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.775 C 0.865 D 0.867 D 0.002 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.740 C 0.895 D 0.900 D 0.005 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center 0.371 A 0.514 A 0.515 A 0.001 No Drive 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.459 A 0.573 A 0.574 A 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur 0.570 A 0.736 C 0 "737 C 0.001 No Boulevard 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills 0.763 C 0.885 D 0.887 D 0.002 No Road 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara 0.564 A 0.663 B 0.665 B 0.002 No Road 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency 0.374 A 0.461 A 0.461 A 0.000 No Newport Entrance/island Lagoon 10 1 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 1 0389 A 0.481 A 0.485 A 0.004 No Table 5.11 -5 Future Without and With Project (Year 2012) Weekdav PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary As shown in Table 5.11 -4, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour underfuture conditions (year 2012) with and withoutthe proposed project. Study intersections 1, 3, 6, and 7 would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or worse) in the future conditions (year 2012) with or without the proposed project. However, the increase in V/C resulting at these intersections from project - related traffic would not exceed the 0.010 impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. Resultant trip distribution in 2012 with cumulative conditions, including the proposed project, for AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 5.11 -5 and 5.11 -6, respectively. J I 1 11 1 1 r1 J 1 it J u Page 5.11 -10 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 Existing Without Project With Project Increase No. Intersection in VIC Impact VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.779 C 0.914 E 0.916 E 0.002 No 2 Coast Highway and Ba side Drive 0.650 B 0.781 C 0.782 C 0.001 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.771 C 1.026 F 1.032 F 0.006 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center 0.506 A 0.618 B 0.619 B 0.001 No Drive 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.544 A 0.651 B 0.652 B 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur 0.756 C 0.945 E 0.946 E 0.001 No Boulevard 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills 0.828 D 0.958 E 0.961 E 0.003 No Road 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara 0.659 B 0.742 C 0.745 C 0.003 No Road 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency 0.477 A 0.559 A 0.573 A 0.014 No Newport Entrance /Island Lagoon 10 1 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.485 A 0.601 B 0.611 --B--T0.010 No As shown in Table 5.11 -4, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour underfuture conditions (year 2012) with and withoutthe proposed project. Study intersections 1, 3, 6, and 7 would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or worse) in the future conditions (year 2012) with or without the proposed project. However, the increase in V/C resulting at these intersections from project - related traffic would not exceed the 0.010 impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. Resultant trip distribution in 2012 with cumulative conditions, including the proposed project, for AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 5.11 -5 and 5.11 -6, respectively. J I 1 11 1 1 r1 J 1 it J u Page 5.11 -10 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 1 1 1 1 1 iliy6 41rr� zo% zo% Source: IBI Group Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR S. Environmental Analysis Project Trip Distribution NOT TO SCALE L The Planning Center • Figure 5.11 -2 I 5. Environmental Analysis ' TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.11 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Project Trips - AM Peak Seume: IBI Group NOTTO SCALE r Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Bxpantion Draft BIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.11 -3 Cv 5. Environmental Analysis ' TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 1 1 1 'I u LJ t I 1 Page 5.11 -14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Project Trips - PM Peak Source: IBI Group Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.11 -4 Cv S. Environmental Analysis ' TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.11 -16 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis Future with Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - AM Peak / 24 203 _1093 29, 2430 - -. O «....1202 32 ,• i-2° 50 j 63 55 / 1 \ roJ 26 3126 - --. © . -- -1928 33[ i ev 36' 110 2f Source: 191 Group Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR / 31s 6491 '� ' 3C6 t32B R . t 432 32 3 © ! 1d0 \ 291 :174 431 � The Planning Center • Figure 5.11 -5 ffl 5. Environmental TRANSPORTATION AND This page intentionally left blank. I Page 5.11 -18 v The Planning Center February 2008 , S. Environmental Analysis Future with Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak / W 239, 1 0]5 214. 1363 2236 • O . 2755 29 i L S[ 21 i'd5 63 6 ]] 160 13 2516 © 3]39 Y6 63 262) 21 6 / / ]45 \ 146: J !'� 491 loss-2 t366 2P, © ._. 2 %3 28 1 1% v6 )zai� r iW \ 46 1931 © 19:7 51 1 i 74 iW •,164 24 NOT TO SME Source: IBI Group Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expantian Draft EIR The Planning Center • Figure 5.11 -6 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.11 -20 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 5. Environmental Analysis ' TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ' Off - Street Parking A parking analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The findings and conclusions of the parking analysis were included in the traffic impact analysis prepared by IBI Group (see Appendix K), and are provided in this section. Table 5.11 -6 summarizes the land uses, minimum parking requirements, and provided parking identified in the parking analysis. 1 Table 5,11 -6 Hyatt Regency Off - Street Parking Summary Use Zoning Code Parking Requirement Units Parking Spaces Required by City Code Parking Spaces Provided Hotel (includes guest rooms and banquet facilities) 1 space per 2 rooms 391 rooms 196 785 Timeshare Units 1.2 spaces per room 88 units 106 Timeshare Clubhouse /Meeting Facilities 1 space per 50 sq. ft 1,702 sq. ft.' 34 127 Overall Site Total I 1 1 336 1 912 Sources: City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Chapters 20.66 and 20.84. I The 1,702 square feet only included the square footage of the assembly area, consistent with the City of Newport Beach parking requirements. As shown in Table 5.11 -6, the proposed project would provide a total of 912 parking spaces for the hotel facilities and timeshare units. The Hyatt Regency hotel rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities would be served by 785 parking spaces, consisting of 345 standard parking spaces and 440 tandem/valet spaces. The parking analysis notes that several hotels in the City of Newport Beach and other cities operate exclusively with valet parking, and allocating a majority of the provided hotel parking to valet service is not uncommon in the hotel industry. The parking analysis also acknowledges the recent approval of exclusively valet parking at the Island Hotel in Newport Beach (formerly Four Seasons hotel). The timeshare units and clubhouse would be served by 127 standard parking spaces that would be reserved for use by timeshare unit guests only. The parking analysis and the project's site plan call for one parking space per five occupants for the proposed hotel banquet facilities. This assumption is aggressive in that it assumes a higher than average vehicle occupancy rate. The average vehicle occupancy rate in Southern California is 1.2 occupants per vehicle. While it is reasonable to assume that some conference /banquet attendees would be guests at the hotel, some events in the ballroom facilities would attract significant numbers of visitors who are not staying at the hotel. It is likely that the average vehicle occupancy rate for the ballroom /banquet facilities would fall between the standard 1.2 occupant figure and the 5 occupants per vehicle figure cited in the applicant's parking study. Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code identifies minimum parking requirements for hotels atone space per two hotel rooms. Banquet facilities are assumed to be included within this requirement. As a point of comparison, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) manual, Shared Parking (2nd Ed.), was also reviewed to ' compare the hotel and conference faciflty parking demand data included in this publication with the parking proposed for the Hyatt Regency. The ULI manual has compiled parking data from land uses throughout the United States and identif ies typical peak parking rates for specific land uses and opportunities for shared parking between adjacent land uses. 1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Ezpamion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -21 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of facility space for hotels with ballroom /banquet facilities that exceed 50 square feet per guest room. The Hyatt Regency would provide 63.5 square feet of ballroom /banquet facility space per guest room if the proposed expansion is approved. This ratio results in a forecast peak demand of 608 parking spaces for the ballroom/ banquet facilities. Together, the hotel guest rooms and banquet facilities would be anticipated to have a combined parking demand of 804 spaces, allocated as 608 spaces for the banquet facility and 196 spaces for the hotel guest rooms. However, this assumes that the peak time periods for parking demand for each use overlap. Shared Parking also forecasts peak parking demand time periods based on actual parking surveys of specific land uses. Table 5.11 -7 summarizes parking demand for the Hyatt Regency on an hourly basis for a typical weekday. Table 5.11 -7 rr Kelyency sorer urr- arreer rar►an 7 uemana rorecasr Time Period Hotel Guest Room Demand Banquet /Meeting Facility Demand Total Demand Available Parting 8 AM 176 304 480 305 9 AM 157 608 765 20 10 AM 137 608 745 40 11 AM 137 608 745 40 12 PM 127 608 735 50 1 PM 127 608 735 50 2 PM 137 608 745 40 3 PM 137 608 745 40 4 PM 147 608 755 30 5 PM 157 608 765 20 6 PM 167 304 471 314 7 PM 167 182 349 436 8 PM 176 182 359 426 9 PM 186 61 247 538 10 PM 186 0 186 599 Based on these forecast parking demand rates, at no time would the Hyatt Regency exceed the current project development plan for 785 parking spaces for use by the hotel guest rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities. Additional analysis of the timeshare parking facilities is also necessary, because 140 parking spaces for the timeshare units and clubhouse area would be required per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. As shown in the Table 5-11-6,127 parking spaces would be reserved for the exclusive use of the timeshare units and clubhouse. Possible timeshare overflow parking demand could be accommodated in the general hotel parking. Hourly parking demand forecasts from Shared Parking were used to estimate the peak parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated clubhouse facility. The results of this forecast are summarized in Table 5.11 -8. Page 5.11 -22 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.11 -8 Watt Reaencv Timeshare Of/- Street Parkin Demand Forecast Time Period Timeshare Unit Demand Clubhouse /Lounge Demand Total Demand Available Parking 8:00 AM 95 10 106 21 9:00 AM 85 3 88 39 10:00 AM 74 3 78 49 11:00 AM 74 2 76 51 12:00 PM 69 34 103 24 1:00 PM 69 34 103 24 2:00 PM 74 11 85 42 3:00 PM 74 3 78 49 4:D0 PM 80 3 83 44 5:00 PM 85 10 95 32 6:00 PM 90 19 109 18 7:00 PM 90 20 110 17 8:00 PM 95 24 119 8 9:00 PM 101 23 123 4 10:00 PM 101 20 121 6 Table 5.11 -8 shows that the anticipated parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated clubhouse facility would not exceed the exclusive parking designated for the timeshare facilities. /�, Additionally, overflow- parking demand from the timeshare units and facilities could be accommodated in the `IMW general hotel parking facilities. Table 5.11 -9 summarizes parking demand for the overall Hyatt Regency hotel 44p4ii expansion uses. 5.11 -9 n as Kegency rorar vrr- srreer t-arging uemana rorecasc Time Period Hotel Demand Timeshare Demand Total Demand Available Parking 8:00 AM 480 106 586 326 9:00 AM 765 88 853 59 10:00 AM 745 78 823 89 11:00 AM 745 76 821 91 12:00 PM 735 103 838 74 1:00 PM 735 103 838 74 2:00 PM 745 85 831 81 3:00 PM 745 78 823 89 4:00 PM 755 83 838 74 5:00 PM 765 95 860 52 6:00 PM 471 109 579 333 7:00 PM 349 111 460 453 8:00 PM 359 119 478 434 9:00 PM 247 123 370 542 10:00 PM 186 121 307 605 Based on the forecast parking demand summarized in Table 5.11 -9, the proposed project would provide sufficient parking facilities to meet parking demand generated by the hotel and timeshare facilities. However, without an approved valet parking plan, parking could be a significant impact. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -23 1 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Construction - Related Impacts Traffic Impacts Forecast traffic conditions during the construction phase of the proposed project in the year 2010 are presented in this section. The traffic analysis for the year 2010 project construction condition includes trips generated by the construction vehicles accessing the project site as well as 2010 ambient traffic volumes and trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. The project construction analysis also factors in anticipated lane closures on Jamboree Road during construction of the hotel and upgraded sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to serve the hotel expansion. The installation of the improved sewer and storm drain facilities would require construction within the Jamboree Road right -of -way for an approximate 4 to 6 week period. The project applicant's civil engineer has indicated that one lane of southbound Jamboree Road would need to be closed during construction from a point approximately 250 feet north of Back Bay Drive to a point approximately 850 feet north of the Hyatt Entrance /Island Lagoon intersection. The traffic impact analysis for the With Project Construction conditions assumes the closure of one southbound lane on Jamboree Road within the limits described above during the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Construction Trips Construction trip generation for the expansion of the Hyatt Regency was estimated using construction vehicle estimates provided by the project applicant's civil engineer. Trip generation estimates include both construction employee trips to the project site and construction vehicle trips. As is the case in the project analysis, the traffic analysis is focused on the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5.11.10 summarizes the net trip generation during hotel construction. The assumed distribution of these construction trips is provided in the Traffic Analysis, Appendix K (Figures 6 -1 and 6 -2). Table 5.11 -10 Project Construction Trip Generation Source: IBI. Intersection LOS during Construction Future Without Project Construction and Future With Project Construction conditions were analyzed at the same 10 study intersections. Tables 5.11 -11 and 5.11 -2 summarize the traffic conditions at each project study intersection for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Page 5.11 -24 • The Planning Center February 2008 Truck Em loyee Time Period Enter Exit Enter Exit Total Trips AM 12 4 50 0 66 PM 4 12 0 50 66 Daily 48 48 50 50 196 Source: IBI. Intersection LOS during Construction Future Without Project Construction and Future With Project Construction conditions were analyzed at the same 10 study intersections. Tables 5.11 -11 and 5.11 -2 summarize the traffic conditions at each project study intersection for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Page 5.11 -24 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.11 -11 Future Without and With Project Construction (Year 2010) Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary No. Intersection Without Construction With Construction increase in VIC Impact V/C LOS VIC LOS 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.801 D 0.803 D 0.002 No 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.851 D 0.853 D 0.002 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.884 D 0.886 D 0.002 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.506 A 0.507 A 0.001 No 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.566 A 0.567 A 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.723 C 0.724 C 0.001 No 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.875 D 0.876 D 0.001 No 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.654 B 0.654 B 0.000 No 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance/Island Lagoon 0.457 A 0.450 A -0.007 No 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.470 A 0.473 A 0.003 No Table 5.11 -12 Future Without and With Project Construction (Year 2010) Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summa No. Intersection Without Construction With Construction Increase in V/C Impact V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.902 E 0.904 D 0.002 No 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.770 C 0.771 C 0.001 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 1.102 F 1.102 E 0.000 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.608 B 0.608 B 0.000 No 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.645 B 0.646 B 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.929 E 0.930 E 0.001 No 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.949 E 0.960 E 0.011 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.736 C 0.746 C 0.010 No 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance/Island Lagoon 0.565 B 0.824 D 0.259 No 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.577 B 0.609 A 0.032 No As shown in Table 5.11 -12, one significant traffic impact is identified for the With Project Construction Condition at the Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road intersection during the PM peak hour. The project's contribution to trips at this intersection would result in an increase of greater than 0.10, which is considered significant for the city's LOS standards. However, this temporary traffic impact would only occur during the construction phase of the proposed project and would not impose a long -term traffic impact. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to prepare and submit a traffic - management plan and acquire a street - closure permit prior to the commencement of any construction activities in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapters 12.62, Temporary Street Closure, and 13.01, Street Construction Permits, of the City's Municipal Code. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11-25 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Parking Impacts Construction of the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would result in some temporary loss of existing off - street parking for hotel visitors. The project applicant submitted a Conceptual Construction Management Plan, (February 28, 2007) outlining the number of parking spaces that would be available for use by hotel guests and visitors during construction. It is estimated that a minimum of 406 parking spaces would be available during both the timeshare /spa construction phase and the new ballroom construction phase. During construction, 391 guestrooms would be available for use, resulting in a minimum parking requirement of 196 spaces per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. Additionally, 15,538 square feet of banquet and meeting room space would also be available for use during construction. ULI's Shared Parking methodology was used to determine the parking demand forthe Hyatt Regency during construction activities. Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of facility space for hotels with ballroom/banquet facilities. This ratio results in aforecast peak demand of 310 parking spaces for the 15,538 square feet of ballroom/banquet facilities that will remain in operation during construction. Together, the hotel guest rooms and banquet facilities would be anticipated to have a combined parking demand of 506 spaces, allocated as 310 spaces for the banquet facility and 196 spaces for the hotel guest rooms. However, this assumes that the peak time periods for parking demand for each use overlap. Shared Parking also forecasts peak parking demand time periods based on actual parking surveys of specific land uses. Table 5.11 -13 summarizes parking demand for a typical weekday and the net parking available, assuming the provision of 406 spaces. Table 5.11 -13 Hyatt Regency Off - Street Parkins Demand Forecast during Construction Time Period Hotel Guest Room Demand Banquet /Meeting Facility Demand Total Demand Available Parking 8:00 am 176 155 331 75 9:00 am 157 310 467 -61 10:00 am 137 310 447 -41 11:00 am 137 310 447 -41 12:00 pm 127 310 437 -31 1:00 pm 127 310 437 -31 2:00 pm 137 310 447 41 3:00 pm 137 310 447 41 4:00 pm 147 310 457 -51 5:00 pm 157 310 467 -61 6:00 pm 167 155 322 84 7:00 lim 167 93 260 146 8:00 pm 176 93 269 137 9:00 m 186 31 217 189 10:00 PM 186 0 1 186 220 Based on these forecast parking demand rates, the interim off - street parking configuration during construction would not provide a sufficient number of parking spaces. The anticipated peak parking demand is forecast to exceed off - street parking supply by as many as 61 spaces. A minimum of 467 parking spaces would need to be provided to meet demand. Page 5.11 -26 a The Planning Center February 2008 I I 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Applicable Plan Consistency City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance The expansion of the Hyatt Regency as planned is within the entitled improvements for the hotel as detailed in the CIOSA development agreement (City Ordinance 92 -35). As discussed in previous Section 5.8.1.2, Applicable Plans, under CIOSA, The Irvine Company (Hyatt's predecessor in interest) prepaid its fair -share road impact fees and constructed road improvements totaling approximately $20 million. The proposed project is therefore not subject to additional fair -share fees under this ordinance. Parking Requirements As detailed above and summarized in Table 5.11 -9, the proposed project would provide adequate parking pursuant to Chapter 20.66, Off Street Parking and Loading, of the City's Municipal Code. City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance Under this ordinance, the City typically requires preparation of atraffic impact analysis that is consistent with the traffic phasing ordinance (TPO). The proposed expansion of the Hyatt Regency, however, was previously analyzed under the TPO as part of the CIOSA project. The CIOSA and its associated traffic study were approved by the City in 1992. The traffic analysis conducted for this DEIR, therefore, has been completed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and is consistent with the traffic study guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach. City of Newport Beach General Plan As mentioned above, the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion was previously analyzed under the TPO as part of the CIOSA agreement. Approved projects are included in the City's TPO. The CIOSA and its associated traffic study were approved by the City in 1992. Included among the 11 approved projects under CIOSA, was the expansion of the Hyatt Regency to 479 hotel rooms consistent with the maximum hotel rooms allowed by the City's General Plan Land Use Element for the project site. As outlined in the CIOSA development agreement (City Ordinance 92 -35), the agreement implements the City's General Plan goals and policies by enabling the City to fund and complete circulation system improvements prior to the construction of the 11 projects identified in the CIOSA agreement. As discussed in previous Section 5.8.1.2, Applicable Plans, under CIOSA, The Irvine Company (Hyatt's predecessor in interest) prepaid its fair -share road impact fees and constructed road improvements for the CIOSA project totaling approximately $20 million. The traffic analysis conducted for this DEIR, therefore, has been completed in accordance with CIOSA and as such, a General Plan build -out analysis was not required. Orange County Congestion Management Plan The MacArthur Boulevard /Coast Highway intersection is the only CMP- designated intersection in the project's study area. The CMP defines a significant impact as an increase in V/C of 0.010 or greater during either the AM or PM peak hour. As shown in Table 5.11.14, project - related traffic would not result in a significant impact to this intersection. Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -27 S. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Table 5.11 -14 Existing and Future Without and With Project (year 2012) CMP Intersection LOS Summary Time Land Use Existing Without Project With Project Increase Exit Trips VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS Period Intersection in VIC Impact AM Coast Highway and MacArthur 0.57 A 0.72 C 0.72 C 0.001 No Boulevard PM Coast Highway and MacArthur 0.76 C 0.92 E 0.92 E 0.002 No Boulevard CIOSA Consistency The CIOSA project included the expansion of the Hyatt Regency to 479 rooms, an increase in 68 rooms from the baseline 1992 condition. Other than the reference to additional rooms, CIOSA did not specify provisions for expansion of the hotel use. Although CIOSA remains in effect, and full consideration for the vested rights granted (including the performance of required CIOSA mitigation measures) has been conveyed, the Hyatt Regency expansion had yet to be implemented. In addition, since approval of CIOSA, the number of rooms of the Hyatt Regency has been reduced by 88 (bringing the current room count to 403). The traffic study includes a detailed comparison of the previously approved trips and the currently proposed project and estimated traffic generation. AM peak, PM peak, and total daily trips that were estimated in the CIOSA traffic study for the hotel expansion are shown in Table 5.11 -15. A comparison to Table 5.11 -3, Project Trip Generation, suggests that a similar number of vehicle trips would be generated by the current proposed expansion project during the AM and PM peak hours when compared to the CIOSA 1992 expansion even with an additional eight rooms included. This refinement likely reflects updated information regarding hotel trip generation rates that have been incorporated into NBTAM during the intervening 14 years between the CIOSA approval and current analysis. Also included in the traffic study (Appendix K) is a comparison of NBTAM hotel trip generation rates and trip generation rates for existing hotel facilities in the City of Newport Beach. The comparison illustrates that while the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would increase the size of the ballroom /banquet facilities at the hotel, the ratio of facility space to the total number of hotel rooms would remain below the industry average for comparable hotels in the Newport Beach area. Table 5.11 -15 CIOSA Hyatt Reuencv Expansion Trip Generation Code Land Use Unit Oly Time Period Enter Trips Exit Trips Total Trips Hotel Hotel Room 68 AM 41 20 61 PM 27 27 54 Daily 357 357 714 Page 5.11 -28 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. Environmental A TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Impact Threshold Analysis The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. IMPACT 5.11 -1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE AN ESTIMATED TOTAL OF 661 DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS AND 51 AM AND 58 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS. THESE PROJECT - RELATED TRIPS WOULD NOT IMPACT LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM. (THRESHOLD T-11 Impact Analysis: The City of Newport Beach standard for the minimum acceptable intersection LOS is D. As shown in Table 5.11 -2, the 10 study intersections are all currently operating at acceptable levels of service per the City's standard (LOS D or better). Operational Phase As shown in Table 5.11 -5, under future conditions (year 2012), the following study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or worse) with or without the proposed project during the PM peak hour: • Coast Highway /Dover Drive • Jamboree Road /Coast Highway • Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard • Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road 9� However, the increase in V/C resulting at these intersections from project - related traffic would not exceed the 0.010 impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Construction Phase As shown in Table 5.11 -12, under future conditions (year 2010), the following study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or worse) with or without the proposed project during the PM peak hour: • Jamboree Road /Coast Highway • Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard • Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road The contribution of project - related trips to the Jamboree Road /Coast Highway and Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard intersections would be less than significant. Project - related trips would result in a V/C increase of less than 0.010 at these intersections and therefore would not exceed the impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. As shown in Table 5.11 -12, a significant traffic impact would occur at the Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road intersection during the PM peak hour under the with project condition. However, this traffic impact would be temporary, as it would only occur during the construction phase of the proposed project and would not impose a long -term traffic impact. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -29 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT5.11 -2: THE PROJECT- RELATED V /C INCREASE OF0 .001 AND 0.002INTHEAMANDPM PEAKHOURS FOR COAST HIGHWAY /MACARTHUR BOULEVARD INTERSECTION, (THE ONLY CMP INTERSECTION IN THE STUDY AREA) WOULD BE LESS THAN THE 0.010 VIC INCREASE THAT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. THE PROJECT, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DESIGNATED ROAD OR HIGHWAY EXCEEDING COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY SERVICE STANDARDS. (THRESHOLD T -21 Impact Analysis: The assessment of CMP intersection impacts for the proposed project is included as Table 5.11 -14. Under future conditions (Year 2012) with and without the proposed project, the Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS C and LOSE, respectively, for AM and PM peak hour conditions. The CMP defines a significant impact as an increase in V/C of 0.010 or greater during either the AM or PM peak hour. The project's contribution to trips at this intersection is less than significant as it would not exceed this impact threshold. IMPACT 5.11 -3 ON -SITE SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW TIMESHARE UNITS, BALLROOM FACILITY, AND ANCILLARY USES WOULD NOT INCREASE HAZARDS OR INCOMPATIBLE USES. [THRESHOLD T -41 ImpactAnalysis: The proposed project's site plan and associated access driveways are shown on Figure 3- 4, Site Plan. With the proposed expansion, the project site would include four access driveways, as shown on Figure 3-4. The primary access driveway would remain on Jamboree Road at the existing signalized intersection with Island Lagoon Road (Driveway 1). This driveway would continue to serve as the primary access point for hotel guests and visitors. A second main access driveway would be created on Back Bay Drive by enhancing an existing, rarely used gated driveway approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive (Driveway 2). This driveway would be an upgrade of the existing driveway and would serve as the primary access for visitors and guests attending conferences and functions at the hotel. Additionally, this access driveway would be modified from a gated to an ungated entry. Two additional secondary access driveways are proposed farther west on Back Bay Drive. One driveway would provide secondary access to the main parking lot (Driveway 3). The driveway furthest to the west would provide emergency vehicle access to the new timeshare units and the hotel (Driveway 4). In the existing condition, visitor and guest access to the Hyatt Regency is provided exclusively from the main entrance driveway off Jamboree Road. The existing driveways along Back Bay Drive are typically closed to hotel guest vehicles and are reserved for emergency vehicles and employees. After completion of the proposed hotel expansion, it is anticipated that the main access driveway off Jamboree Road would remain the primary access point for hotel guests to access the hotel rooms and timeshare units. Consistent with the existing on -site circulation, hotel guests would access the main parking facility located south of the main access driveway (Driveway 1). The new timeshare units would be north of the main access driveway and the existing hotel structures. Vehicles traveling to and from the timeshare units would use Driveway 1 as the main access point to the Hyatt Regency property. Parking facilities for these timeshare units would be adjacent to the units. Vehicles accessing the timeshare units would circulate to the north of the project site, away from the main parking facilities in the southern portion of the project site. With the separation of on -site vehicle traffic for the hotel and traffic for the timeshare units, no significant impacts to on -site traffic circulation are anticipated to be caused by the proposed timeshare units. Page 5.11 -30 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 II 5. Environmental Analysis TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT 5.11 -4: A TOTAL OF 912 PARKING SPACES WOULD BE PROVIDED TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE PROJECTS VALET PARKING COMPONENT COULD RESULT IN AN ON -SITE PARKING IMPACT. [THRESHOLD T -61 Impact Analysis: As shown in Table 5.11 -6, the provision of 912 parking spaces, including surface and structure parking, would meet the City's standards for parking for the uses of the proposed project. However, the valet parking component of the proposed project could result in an on -site parking impact. More specifically, parking impacts could occur on -site during special events such as conferences or weddings. Therefore, further review would be required by the City under a valet parking plan to determine the adequacy of the proposed valet parking component. IMPACT 5.11 -5: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE JAMBOREE ROAD /SAN JOAQUIN HILLS INTERSECTION DURING THE PM PEAK PERIOD. [THRESHOLD T -11 Impact Analysis: Based on project construction- related vehicle trips (employee and construction equipment), all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills intersection during the PM peak period. With or without construction activities, this intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS E. Project - related construction trips 1 would contribute to a V/C increase of 0.01, resulting in a project - specific impact to this intersection. IMPACT 5.11 -6: ADEQUATE ON -SITE PARKING WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING SOME PHASES OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. [THRESHOLD T-61 It is estimated that a minimum of 406 parking spaces would be available during both the timeshare /spa construction phase and the new ballroom construction phase. During construction, 391 guestrooms would be available for use, resulting in a minimum parking requirement of 196 spaces, per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. Additionally, 15,538 square feet of banquet and meeting room space would also be available for use during construction. Based on the analysis above, a minimum of 467 parking spaces would be required during construction (see Table 5.11 -13). Based on the construction management plan, 406 spaces would be provided, resulting in a deficit during peak periods. 5.11.4 Cumulative Impacts The analysis in this section includes approved and cumulative projects. As quantified in Tables 5.11 -4 and 5.11-5 for AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative intersection impacts results in less than the 0.010 increase in V/C considered significant by the City. The three study intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels of service in the future would operate at the same unacceptable levels with or without implementation of the proposed project. Trip generation from the proposed project would not add to these impacts to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Site access is adequately designed and would not combine with other area traffic impacts to result in significant circulation impacts. Similarly, short-term and long -term parking would be managed on -site and ' not combine with other area projects to result in cumulative parking impacts. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 5.11 -31 5. Environmental Analysis 1 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This page intentionally left blank. 11 I I I I Page 5.11 -34 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1, Executive Summary, contains Table 1 -1, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. While mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, the following impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied: Noise Impact 5.9- 5.Significant. Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency would significantly elevate the daytime and nighttime noise environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive residential and recreational uses. Mitigation Measures 9 -1 through 9 -6 would reduce noise levels from construction activities to the extent feasible. However, despite the application of these mitigation measures, nearby noise - sensitive uses would be temporarily exposed to elevated noise levels throughout the duration of construction activities. Consequently, Impact 9.5 -5 would be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Consideration would be required. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 6 -1 6. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.1.1 Purpose and Scope The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). This chapter identifies potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. ' Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[aj through [tj) are summarized ' below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR. The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these 1 alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. (15126.6[b)) I Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -I • The specific alternative of no project shall also be evaluated along with its impact. (15126.6[e][1 ]) • The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation 1 (NOP) is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (15126.6[e] [21) • The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. (15126.6[f]) • Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). (15126.6[f][t]) • [For alternative locations,] only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the I significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. (15126.6[f][2] [A]) • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. (15126.6[f](31) I Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -I 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.3.3 Reduced Ballroom Alternative A project alternative that would reduce the size of the new ballroom structure by approximately 4,000 square feet in order to eliminate the need for a parking structure was considered but rejected for further analysis. The primary objective of this alternative would be to reduce significant noise impacts during construction. Although eliminating the parking structure would slightly reduce noise impacts to sensitive residential receptors (particularly Bay View Landing Senior Apartments and Sea Island residences), this reduction would be nominal, since ballroom construction and related infrastructure improvements would still result in significant noise impacts to surrounding residents. Moreover, this alternative would not substantially reduce the duration of construction activities. 7.3.4 Reduced Timeshare Units Alternative A project alternative that would reduce the number of timeshare units was considered but rejected for further analysis. Reducing or eliminating construction in this area of the project site would not eliminate the significant noise impact to the most sensitive receptors, the Bay View Landing and Sea Island residential uses. Moreover, a reduction or elimination of the timeshare units would not achieve the entitlement for the Hyatt Regency granted under the CIOSA development agreement. 7.3.5 Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative An alternative that reduced the construction equipment by extending the construction schedule was considered for its potential ability to reduce or eliminate the significant construction - related noise impact of the proposed project. Assumed construction equipment is shown in Table 7 -1. Since fewer pieces of construction equipment would be used under this alternative, noise levels during construction would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. The reduction, however, would likely be minimal, since construction noise is dominated by the loudest piece of equipment (in comparison to the number of pieces of equipment). Moreover, construction noise that could impact sensitive residential and recreation receptors would be extended from an overall 221/2 months for the proposed project to 321/2 months for this alternative. Considering the substantial increase in duration of activities, construction- related noise would be considered to be greater than for the proposed project. Page 7 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 [1 1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 7 -1 Construction Equipment Estimates Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative Vehicle Type Proposed Project Number of Vehicles per Daayt Reduced Construction Alternative Number of Vehicles er Day ' j iijh� �r t4;! tY3tnii —"i.il�Ee t,t r ,_h.'+.'I(i; :Wti . B �i r' ill1i� k. VU.�r, Excavator 2 1 Bulldozer 2 1 Backhoe with Concrete Breaker 2 2 10- Wheeler Dump Truck 2 2 Street Sweeper 1 1 Water Truck 1 1 Subtotal for Demolition Phase 10 8 Oman Backhoe 2 1 Reach Forklift 2 2 Tmck Cranes 2 1 Air Compressors 2 2 CementTmcks 2 1 Cement Pumps 2 1 Bob Cat Tractors 1 1 Power Floats for concrete finishing 1 1 Subtotal for Construction Phase 10 4 1 7.3.6 Original IS- I and TS -2 Footprint Alternative The original design for the proposed project located two of the timeshare buildings (TS -1 and TS -2) closer to the northern edge of the property. Although the original site plan for these two buildings would have located them in an area currently developed with the existing golf course, it would have placed the structures closer to areas of coastal sage scrub vegetation and to a location where a coastal California gnatcatcher was sighted. Fuel modification requirements would have impacted a portion of the coastal sage scrub vegetation. As a result, the original design for TS -1 and TS -2 would have resulted in greater direct and indirect impacts on the coastal sage scrub vegetation and the area where a gnatcatcher was sited. In order to avoid impacts to coastal sage scrub vegetation altogether, buildings TS -1 and TS -2 were moved further away from the property's northern boundary such that the proposed project avoids all impacts to coastal sage scrub vegetation. Because the original footprint of TS -1 and TS -2 would have had greater biological impacts, this alternative was rejected in favor of the current site plan, and no further consideration of this alternative is required. 7.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Based on the criteria listed above, the following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. • No Project • Reduced Intensity Alternative— Eliminate New Ballroom and Parking Structure Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -5 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative and, where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Only the impacts involving construction - related and noise were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.7 identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Preferred Land Use Alternative (proposed Hyatt Regency expansion improvements) is analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 of this DEIR. 7.5 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, existing conditions would remain. No buildings would be demolished and none of the proposed expansion improvements would be implemented. The Hyatt Regency would continue to operate as a 403 -room resort hotel with existing ballroom /conference facilities. The existing golf course would also remain. 7.5.1 Environmental Assessment Aesthetics Views from surrounding roadways and land uses would not be impacted by this alternative. Existing views would remain as depicted in previous Figures 5.1 -2 through 5.1 -11. Therefore, aesthetic impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. However, the existing parking area light poles shown in Figure 5.1 -12 would not be removed and replaced with modern light poles. The existing light poles are not designed with cutoff features that help cast light downward; therefore, they allow light spillage. The proposed parking area light poles would be designed with full cut -off designs (downcast) and oriented in a manner that would minimize light spillage or glare off of the project site. Therefore, in comparison to the proposed project, off -site light spillage from the existing parking area light fixtures would continue to occur under this alternative. Air Quality This alternative would eliminate both construction- related and long-term vehicle trip emissions associated with the proposed project. Since these impacts are less than significant for the proposed project, this alternative would not eliminate a significant air quality impact. Biological Resources Under this alternative, additional lighting that could potentially affect sensitive wildlife species would not be introduced. The reduction in biological resource impacts in comparison to the proposed project, however, would not eliminate a significant impact, because these impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level under the proposed project by applicant participation and compliance with the conditions of the Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP/HCP. Page 7 -6 • The Planning Center February 2008 I l7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Cultural Resources Since this alternative would not involve any site disturbance, it would not have the potential to adversely affect any archaeological or paleontological resources at the project site. Although it would reduce this impact in comparison to the proposed project, it would not eliminate a significant impact since cultural resources would be mitigated to less than significant for the proposed project. Geology and Soils Grading and excavation of the site would not occur under this project alternative. Also, no additional structures or persons would be introduced to the potential seismic - related hazards associated with a southern California project site. Geologic and soil impacts for this project alternative, therefore, would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Since geologic and soils - related impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level for the proposed project, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact in comparison to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under the No Project alternative, no building would be demolished and result in the potential for release of hazardous building materials, including asbestos and lead -based paint. Additionally, this alternative would not increase the population at the site, which is located approximately 3.5 miles from the John Wayne Airport. This alternative would not introduce additional people and structures to potential wildland fire hazards related to the project site. Potential hazard - related impacts, therefore, would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Since hazard impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level for (RA the proposed project, however, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Under the No Project alternative, existing drainage patterns and water quality conditions would not change. New storm drains, including a storm drain in Jamboree Road that would capture and control off -site flows, would not be constructed. These improvements would be considered a beneficial impact of the proposed project. Potential water quality impacts, of the proposed project, including short-term construction - related impacts and long -term operational impacts would be mitigated by best management practices required under the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Although mitigated to a less than significant level, the proposed project does have the potential to adversely impact water quality. Balancing the beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed project relative to hydrology and water quality impacts, the No Project alternative impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning ' Under this alternative, existing land uses would remain unchanged. As with the proposed project, existing land uses are consistent with applicable local plans, including the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. However, under this alternative, the entitlements granted under the CIOSA development agreement for 88 additional hotel rooms would not be realized. As with the proposed project, the No Project alternative would comply with the John Wayne Airport Environment Land Use Plan. Land use impacts, therefore, would be similar to the proposed project, and would be less than significant. it E IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 7 -7 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project Noise Noise conditions under the No Project alternative would not change from existing conditions. In comparison to the proposed project, demolition and construction activities would not occur and this significant impact would be eliminated. Long -term noise impacts associated with an increase in traffic would be nominally reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Long -term operational noise impacts for the proposed project, however, are less than significant. Public Services Under the No Project alternative, there would be no increase in demand for fire and emergency protection services or police protection services. This impact would therefore be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. This impact, however, would be less than significant for the proposed project. Transportation and Traffic No additional construction- related or long -term operational vehicle trips would be generated by the No Project alternative. No temporary lane closure and related potential for congestion would occur. In the long term, an estimated 661 daily trips would be eliminated in comparison to the proposed project. As shown in previous DER Tables 5.11 -4 and 5.11 -5, all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A through D) under existing conditions. By 2012, however, the following intersections would fall below acceptable levels of service (to E or F): Coast Highway and Dover Drive, Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Although the proposed project's contribution to average daily traffic would result in less than significant impacts (increase of less than 0.010 volume /capacity ratio), traffic impacts of the No Project alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. 7.5.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts With the exception of hydrology and water quality impacts, the environmental impacts associated with each category analyzed in this DEIR would be reduced under this alternative. Although the proposed project would slightly increase stormwater runoff from the site and introduce potential water quality impacts, lt would also provide upgraded drainage facilities and water quality best management practices (BMPs). Overall, therefore, hydrology and water impacts would be similar to the proposed project. The No Project alternative would also eliminate the significant environmental impact associated with the proposed project (short -term, construction- related noise impacts). Overall, this alternative would reduce environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed project. 7.5.3 Ability to Attain Project Objectives The No Project alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Buildout of the Hyatt Regency in accordance with the increased development permitted by the City's General Plan and the CIOSA development agreement would not be realized. An expanded new ballroom facility, which could assist in meeting some of the tourism objectives of the City, would also not be realized. The Hyatt Regency would continue to operate at existing levels. Page 7 -8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.6 REDUCED INTENSITYALTERNATIVE— ELIMINATE NEW BALLROOM AND PARKING STRUCTURE Under this project alternative, expansion of the Hyatt Regency would be limited to development of 88 new timeshare units, a spa and fitness building, and a clubhouse. The new ballroom and parking structure would not be constructed under this alternative. The existing Terrace Ballroom would remain. The proposed new storm drain in Jamboree Road would be included under this alternative, but it would connect to the existing storm drain to outlet as surface flow across the parking lot. The new drain included in the proposed project across the parking lot would not be required. Similarly, the new water and sewer lines in this portion of the site would not be required (see Figure 3 -9). This alternative was specifically selected for its potential abilityto eliminate significant construction- related noise impacts (see Table 7 -2). Elimination of the ballroom and parking structure have the most potential to reduce the significant noise impact (in comparison to the timeshare units and related facilities) because of the proximity of these structures to sensitive residential receptors. Table 7 -2 Construction Equipment Reduced in Estimates insity Alternative Reduced Intensity Alternative Number of Vehicles per Day 1 C070 2 1 3 1 t 9 -:. ' 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 12 Vehicle Type Proposed Project Number of Vehicles per Day r 2 2 w0h Concrete Breaker 2 ler Dump Truck 2 ieeper 1 ick 1 for Demolition Phase 10 WON— 2 Will: 2 Wes 2 ressors 2 'rucks 2 'umps 2 rractors 1 3ats for concrete finishing 1 for Construction Phase 14 It is anticipated that the duration of demolition and building activities would be reduced under this project alternative. Table 7-3 provides an estimate of the construction phase durations for both the proposed project and the Reduced Intensity alternative. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -9 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project I Table 7 -3 Construction Phase Durations Reduced Intensity Alternative Phase Proposed Project Reduced Intensity Alternative Demolition 4 mordhs A 2 months Grading months 2 months Building Construction 16 months 12 months As shown on Table 7 -3, the demolition and building construction phases would be reduced substantially in comparison to the proposed project. The grading phase, however, would onty be reduced slightly because of the increase in the amount of material export. Under this project alternative, there would be 37,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net export of 33,000 cubic yards of material. In comparison to the proposed project, which would result in 24,000 cubic yards of export, the Reduced Intensity alternative would require an additional 9,000 cubic yards of export. The net export increase would occur because the bulk of the cut material generated from the timeshares portion of the project site would no longer be utilized for the fill required to develop proposed ballroom and parking structure. Therefore, if the ballroom and parking structure are eliminated, there would no longer be a place to put the fill. An estimated 3,300 truck trips would be required to export this material in comparison to 2,400 trips for the project as proposed. Aesthetics View impacts from the north and northwest associated with this project alternative would be similar to the proposed project. In comparison to the proposed project, the elimination of the new ballroom and parking structure under this alternative would remove the more prominent views of these new structures from Back Bay Drive locations (as shown in Figure 5.1 -8, Visual Simulation 6). The view of the new parking structure from northbound Jamboree Road would also be eliminated. Under the proposed project, the views of the ballroom, particularly with the growth of proposed landscaping, would be aesthetically pleasing. With maturation of landscaping, the parking structure would barely be visible. Therefore, the aesthetic impacts of this project alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Air Quality This alternative would slightly reduce emissions associated with the demolition phase because the existing ballroom structure would remain. However, this alternative would have higher emissions compared to the proposed project as a result of an increase in soil haul volumes and a shorter time period to conduct grading activities. Construction phase emissions for the Reduced Intensity alternative would therefore be higher in comparison to the proposed project and would result in a new significant NO„ impact. Since construction- related emissions are less than significant for the proposed project, this would not eliminate a significant impact but would introduce a new significant impact. Overall, therefore, this alternative would not reduce construction- related air quality impacts in comparison to the proposed project. Page 7 -10 •The Planning Center Februaty 2008 1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 7 -4 Project- Related Construction Phase Emissions Reduced Intensity Alternative (in pounds per day) Source' CO NO, ROG S02 PM ,a2 PMZ52 CO Demolition 18 33 4 <1 10 3 3,523 Grading, Utilities and Street Improvements' 48 100 11 <1 18 8 10,732 Building Construction 42 60 17 <1 5 4 6,121 SCAOMD Standard 550 100 75 150 150 55 NA Significant? No Yes No No No No NA Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. ' Construction equipment mix based on preliminary construction information from the project engineer. s Fugitive dust emissions assume one - quarter of the approximately 14-acm site would be graded at any one time. Fugitive dust emissions assume implementation of SCAOMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, including: watering disturbed soils a minimum of two times daily, reestablishing disturbed groundcover as quicldy as possible, reducing speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour, and securing haul loads (covering with tarp or leaving a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard). ' CO2emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAOMD or CARE have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this air pollutant I Long -term air quality emissions would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project due to a reduction in stationary source emissions associated with the new ballroom facility. Project - related trips that we associated with the ballroom (local conferences, etc.) and associated air emissions would also be eliminated in comparison to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, long -term air quality impacts ^� would be less than significant. Overall, long -term air quality impacts would be slightly reduced in comparison l • to the proposed project. Biological Resources Biological resources impacts for this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The area on which the new ballroom and parking structure would be located is currently developed and not characterized by any native vegetation or habitat Therefore, the elimination of these structures under this alternative would not reduce biological resource impacts. Potential impacts to sensitive resources proximate to the proposed timeshare units would remain the same. As with the proposed project, biological resource impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Cultural Resources ' Under this alternative, disturbance to the project site would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Construction of the proposed storm drain in the southwestern portion of the site, however, would still be included. The overall reduction in potential impacts to cultural resources would be nominal, and be I considered similarto the proposed project. As with the proposed project, these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Geology and Soils Site grading would entail 37,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net export of 33,000 cubic yards of material. Earthwork more closely balances with the inclusion of the new ballroom and parking structure for the proposed project, which would require 9,000 fewer yards of export. Under this alternative the ballroom use would not be expanded and fewer people would be subject to potential seismic Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -11 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project risks associated with southern California project sites. Overall, geologic and soils impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and as with the proposed project, would be mitigated to less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Reduced Intensity alternative would not require demolition of the existing 3,190- square -foot Terrace Ballroom. This would reduce the quantity of potentially hazardous materials that could be released during demolition activities. Under this alternative, however, existing villas (4,545 square feet), the maintenance building (3,932 square feet), and hardscape landscape improvements as shown on Figure 3 -5, Demolition Plan, would still require demolition and material removal. Hazards would be minimally reduced in compari- son to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, compliance with applicable regulations, including those to control potential releases of asbestos and lead -based paint due to building demolition, would assure these impacts would be less than significant. Project - related impacts associated with wildland fire hazards would be similar to the proposed project, and would be mitigated to less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, the new storm drain improvements in Jamboree Road would be constructed and would connect to the existing storm drain in this roadway. The storm drain as designed for the proposed project across the parking structure /new ballroom portion of the site would not be required. Storm flows would continue to flow across the surface of the parking lot. As for the proposed project, water quality BMPs would be implemented in accordance with SWPPP and MS4 permit conditions. Overall drainage impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Land Use and Planning This Reduced Intensity alternative would comply with applicable local land use plans, including the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Development of 88 timeshare units under this alternative would maximize the existing entitlement under both the General Plan and CIOSA development agreement to provide up to 479 rooms at the Hyatt Regency. The development of expanded ancillary uses would be limited to the timeshare clubhouse and spa. Additional ballroom area would not be provided. The development of the project would also be in compliance with the AELUP. Overall land use impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. Noise This project was defined for its potential to eliminate the significant construction noise impact. Elimination of the new ballroom and parking structure under this alternative would substantially reduce construction activities near sensitive residential receptors. In particular, minimal construction would occur proximate to the Bay View Landing Senior Apartments and Newport Dunes recreation area (across Back Bay Drive) and Sea Island residences (across Jamboree Road). Water, sewer, and storm drain improvements in the parking lot adjacent to Back Bay Drive across from the Bay View Landing residence would not be required under this alternative. The substantial reduction in demolition, grading, and construction activities would minimize both the level and duration of the noise impact to sensitive receptors. Table 7 -5 shows noise levels at the nearby noise - sensitive receptors during construction activities associated with the Reduced Intensity alternative. Page 7 -12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 II '1 II 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 7 -5 Noise Levels at Project Construction Sites (dBA L,,v,) Reduced Intensity Alternative ' Based on Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, prepared for the EPA, December 31, 1971. Based on the Analysis for residential construction. 2 Based on monitored noise levels on Jamboree Road for the Villa Point residences, the Sea Island residences, and the Harbor Cove residences and monitored noise levels on Back Bay Dnve for the Newporter North Environmental Study Area and Palisades Tennis Club (northwest of project site) and the Bayview Landing residences and Newport Dunes recreational area (south of project site). As shown in Table 7 -5, due to the increased distance between the timeshare units, clubhouse, and new spa and sensitive residential receptors in Bay View Landing Senior Apartments and Newport Dunes recreation area, noise impacts associated with grading and construction at these land uses would not exceed 64 dBA L,, during construction. Mitigation Measures 9 -1 through 9-6 would reduce noise levels from construction ' activities to the extent feasible. Placement of sound walls along the project boundaries would reduce noise levels approximately 5 to 6 dBA where sound walls block line of sight between construction activities and nearby noise - sensitive receptors. Because sound walls placed during construction of the new spa building and timeshare units would completely block line of sight from the exterior areas of the Bay View Senior Apartments and Newport Dunes, construction noise levels would be a maximum of 59 dBA L,q and would not exceed the ambient noise levels. Therefore, with mitigation, this alternative would reduce significant construction noise impacts at these sensitive land uses. Due to the distance between the timeshare units, clubhouse, and new spa and the sensitive residential receptors at the Sea Island residential community, noise impacts associated with grading and construction of these land uses would not exceed 63 dBA L. during construction, and would not exceed the ambient noise levels. Therefore, this alternative would reduce significant construction noise impacts atthe Sea Island residential community. However, noise levels associated with construction activities on- and off -site would occur at distances as close as 150 feet to the residential community of Villa Point and even closer (approximately 50 feet) to the Newporter North Environmental Study Area and Palisades Tennis Club. Therefore, as with the proposed project, noise impacts associated with these improvements would be significant under this alternative. However, they would be substantially reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Sensitive residential receptors would only experience noise levels in excess of the City's acceptable standards for approximately 16 months in comparison to approximately 22 1/2 months for the proposed project. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -13 Noise Levels from All Applicable Equipment in Use:' Newporter North Environmental Study Area/ Bayview Palisades Landingl Tennis Club Newport Dunes Villa Point Sea Island Harbor Cove Construction Phase (Within 50 Feet) (800 Feet) (150 Feet) (915 Feet (675 Feet) Ground Clearing/Demolition 83 59 73 58 60 Excavation/Grading 88 64 78 63 65 Foundation Construction 81 57 71 56 58 Building Construction 81 57 71 56 58 Finishing and Site Cleanup 72 64 78 63 65 Existing Ambient Noise 58 59 68 68 68 Levels Maximum Projected dBA Ambient not Ambient not over Ambient Level 30 5 10 Exceeded Exceeded ' Based on Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, prepared for the EPA, December 31, 1971. Based on the Analysis for residential construction. 2 Based on monitored noise levels on Jamboree Road for the Villa Point residences, the Sea Island residences, and the Harbor Cove residences and monitored noise levels on Back Bay Dnve for the Newporter North Environmental Study Area and Palisades Tennis Club (northwest of project site) and the Bayview Landing residences and Newport Dunes recreational area (south of project site). As shown in Table 7 -5, due to the increased distance between the timeshare units, clubhouse, and new spa and sensitive residential receptors in Bay View Landing Senior Apartments and Newport Dunes recreation area, noise impacts associated with grading and construction at these land uses would not exceed 64 dBA L,, during construction. Mitigation Measures 9 -1 through 9-6 would reduce noise levels from construction ' activities to the extent feasible. Placement of sound walls along the project boundaries would reduce noise levels approximately 5 to 6 dBA where sound walls block line of sight between construction activities and nearby noise - sensitive receptors. Because sound walls placed during construction of the new spa building and timeshare units would completely block line of sight from the exterior areas of the Bay View Senior Apartments and Newport Dunes, construction noise levels would be a maximum of 59 dBA L,q and would not exceed the ambient noise levels. Therefore, with mitigation, this alternative would reduce significant construction noise impacts at these sensitive land uses. Due to the distance between the timeshare units, clubhouse, and new spa and the sensitive residential receptors at the Sea Island residential community, noise impacts associated with grading and construction of these land uses would not exceed 63 dBA L. during construction, and would not exceed the ambient noise levels. Therefore, this alternative would reduce significant construction noise impacts atthe Sea Island residential community. However, noise levels associated with construction activities on- and off -site would occur at distances as close as 150 feet to the residential community of Villa Point and even closer (approximately 50 feet) to the Newporter North Environmental Study Area and Palisades Tennis Club. Therefore, as with the proposed project, noise impacts associated with these improvements would be significant under this alternative. However, they would be substantially reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Sensitive residential receptors would only experience noise levels in excess of the City's acceptable standards for approximately 16 months in comparison to approximately 22 1/2 months for the proposed project. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7 -13 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Long -term noise impacts for this alternative would also be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Average daily traffic trips would be reduced by approximately 30 percent with the elimination of the new ballroom (see Transportation and Traffic discussion below). As with the proposed project, this impact would be less than significant. Therefore, although this alternative would reduce both the short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with the proposed project, the short-term construction- related noise impact would still be significant. Public Services With the elimination of the new ballroom, this alternative would reduce public services relative to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Transportation and Traffic Under the Reduced Intensity alternative, long -term transportation and traffic impacts of this projectwould be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. To estimate traffic trips for a hotel without the ballroom facilities, a resort hotel trip generation rate was used instead of a standard hotel generation rate to include ancillary uses such as the proposed ballroom. As shown in Table 7 -6, an estimated 456 average daily trips would be generated for this alternative, a reduction of approximately 30 percent in comparison to the proposed project. Short-term construction - related trips and potential on -site parking conflicts would also be reduced relative to the proposed project. To minimize lane closure on Jamboree Road, it is anticipated that under this alternative, the same schedule would be maintained for the storm -drain improvement along this alignment. Overall transportation and traffic impacts for this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project and would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Table 7 -6 Project Trip Generation Reduced Intensity Alternative Code Land Use Unit Quanilly Time Period Enter Exit Total Rate Rate Trips Rafe Trips Rate Trips AM 0.2 15 0.1 8 0.3 23 PM 0.2 15 0.3 23 0.5 88 Hotel Timeshare Units/Rooms Room 76 Dairy 228 228 6.00 456 7.6.2 Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts The Reduced Intensity alternative would increase short-term construction - related air quality impacts and result in a new significant construction impact during grading activities primarily due to the increase in material export. This alternative would, however, substantially reduce construction- related noise impacts. Due to construction noise related to the new storm drain in Jamboree Road and noise impacts associated with timeshare unit improvements and impacts to the adjacent tennis club, construction - related noise still could not be mitigated to less than significant. Construction noise levels for the Bay View Landing residents, however, would be reduced to less than significant, and the duration of significant construction noise impacts for the Sea Island residents would be reduced substantially. Cultural resource, public services, and traffic impacts, would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. These impacts are less than significant without mitigation for both this alternative and the proposed project. Similar impacts would result for aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, and land use. Overall, impacts for this alternative would be less than for the project as proposed. Page 7 -14 •The Planning Center February 2008 1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 7.6.3 Ability to Attain Project Objectives (Note: the reference numbers in this section refer to the project objectives as listed by number in Section 7.2 -1) The Reduced Intensity alternative would allow the project applicant to expand the Hyatt Regency to 479 rooms as provided in the CIOSA agreement (Objective No. 1) and to obtain a development agreement with the City to operate new units as timeshare units (Objective No. 2). Aesthetic view opportunities (Objective No. 5) could be realized and some of the hotel amenities as described in Objective No. 5 could be realized. Adequate parking and circulation for the facility, as expanded, could be achieved (Objective No. 6) and the project would comply with applicable local plans (Objective No. 8). The Reduced Intensity alternative, however, would not achieve the speGific objective to develop a larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference needs for the City of Newport Beach (Objective No. 3). The City has determined a need for additional conference facilities and has recognized this use as essential to increasing tourism. A 1997 study commissioned by the City to determine the potential market demand for a conference or convention center found that there was sufficient demand for a convention center (PKF Consulting 1997). The study, however, concluded that such a development would not be self- supporting from its own operations and would not be the most cost - effective manner of achieving an objective to increase revenues from transient occupancy taxes. The study recommended that the City encourage development of new and /or expanded ballroom/ conference facilities at hotels to stimulate the demand for additional hotel rooms. The report also identified opportunities to attract larger convention groups, noting that the largest contiguous meeting space in the City was an 8,000- square -foot ballroom located at the Marriott Hotel and Tennis Club. To accommodate banquets in excess of 700 persons or groups requiring more than 300 rooms in a block, additional facilities would be needed. The elimination of the new ballroom would jeopardize the economic viability of the project (Objective 9). The substantial cost of site infrastructure improvements and grading could not be amortized over the potential additional revenue associated with the development of the new timeshare units. Moreover, the occupancy rates for existing hotel rooms, which could be expected to increase with development of expanded conference facilities, would not increase and might suffer due to an inability to compete with other hotels offering larger conference facilities. 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" and, in cases where the "No Project" alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as "environmentally superior" to the proposed project: Reduced Intensity Alternative The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as environmentally superior, although it would result in a new significant construction- related impact because additional soil haul would be necessary. Construction noise would be reduced to below significance for Bay View landing residences. It would also reduce the noise level for Sea Island residences across Jamboree Road and reduce the overall construction schedule from approximately 221/z months to 16 months. It would also reduce cultural resource, public services, and traffic impacts. These impacts, however, are also less than significant for the project as proposed. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, biological resources, and hydrology and water quality. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 7-15 17 L-1 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 7 -16 • The Planning Center February 2008 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant California Public Resources Code Section 21003 (f) states "...it is the policy of the state that ... all persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." This policy is reflected in the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162.2(a), which states that "a[n] EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project" and Section 15143, which states that "the EIR shall focus on the signif icant effects on the environment." The Guidelines allow use of an Initial Study to document project effects that are less than significant (Guidelines Section 15063[a]). Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in this Draft EIR (DEIR). ASSESSMENT IN THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project in December 2006 determined that impacts listed below would be less than significant. Consequently, they have not been further analyzed in this DEIR. Please refer to Appendix A for an explanation of the basis of these conclusions. Impact categories and questions below /� are summarized directly from the CEQA Environmental Checklist, as contained in the Initial Study. M� Table 8 -1 !V� Impacts Found Not To Be Si niticant Environmental Issues initial Studv Determination Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, bees, rock outcmooinas. and historic buildings within a state srenir, hinhwav7 Less Than Significant Impact n1r Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 8 -1 a) Gonven Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ' Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the No Impact Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act No Impact contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non - No Impact agricultural use? " n1r Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 8 -1 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 8 -i Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, Less Than Significant Impact vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical menrrma ac rl I Less Than Significant Impact orinari in 81 gnrF S7 g Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for I No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the Less Than Significant Impact g p routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or No Impact proposed school? For a project within the vicinity of a private airship, would the project result No Impact in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency No Ira act p response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized No Impact areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the Less Than Significant Impact production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard No Impact delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving Hooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or Less Than Significant Impact dam? j Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudllow? Less Than Si 2 nificant Impact any Less Than Significant Impact Page 8 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 II 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Table 8 -1 Impacts Found Not To Be Sianirreant c Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination d Parks? No Impact e Other ublic facilities? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a No Impact value to the region and the residents of the state? ?e �ua Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical Less Than Significant Impact recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land No Impact use plan? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or �n expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical Less Than Significant Impact effect on the environment? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose No Impact peo le residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in No Impact traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, Less Than Significant Impact g) by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, Less Than Significant Impact through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the No Impact a) construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of No Impact b) replacement housing elsewhere? c Schools? No Impact d Parks? No Impact e Other ublic facilities? No Impact MINE a) ?e �ua Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical Less Than Significant Impact deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical Less Than Significant Impact effect on the environment? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in No Impact traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? e Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting aftemative No Impact transportation e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 91"Ma—MM—MORPM MAR-l" a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional No Impact Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could Less Than Significant Impact cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause Less Than Significant Impact significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing Less Than Significant Impact entitlements and resources or am new or expanded entitlements needed? Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 8 -3 1 �w I 8. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant , Table 8-1 Impacts Found Not To Be Slanificant Environmental Issues Initial Study Determination e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Less Than Significant Impact project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate Less Than Significant Impact the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid Less Than Significant Impact waste? Page 8 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I 1 9. Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. In the case of the proposed project, implementation would involve construction and operation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion (proposed project). Improvements to the existing hotel facilities would permanently remove 12 villas, the 3,190- square -foot Terrace Ballroom, the engineering and maintenance building, and the nine -hole golf course. Additions to the existing hotel facilities would include 88 new timeshare units, a new 11,032- square -foot ballroom, a new 10,072 - square -foot spa and fitness building, anew 4,194- square -foot timeshare clubhouse, and anew 25,229 - square -foot parking structure. The following lists the significant irreversible changes due to the proposed project: 1 1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 9 -1 1 • Construction of the new hotel facilities and associated infrastructure improvements would entail commitment of nonrenewable energy resources and natural resources, such as lumber, steel, copper, lead, other metals, sand and gravel, asphalt, and water. ' • Construction the the course. While of proposed project would permanently replace nine -hole golf the on -site golf course is a private recreational facility, removal of this open -space recreational facility would decrease the number of recreational facilities available within the City of Newport Beach. ` 11 l Furthermore, replacement of the nine -hole golf course with 88 new timeshare units would result in a long -term irreversible commitment of the land, as it is improbable that the land would return to its original condition once it were developed. 1 1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 9 -1 1 11 9, Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ■ This page intentionally left blank. 11 II 11 LI II I I I I I Page 9 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 10. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also required is an assess- ment of other projects that would foster other activities that could affect the environment, individually or cumulatively. To address this issue, potential growth- inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions: • Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? • Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? • Would approval of this project involve some precedent - setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth- inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of Tittle significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? The proposed project involves additions and renovations to the existing hotel facilities. Consequently, the proposed project would not foster population growth, nor would it alter local land uses or zoning designa- tions, such that growth patterns would be expected to change in the project area. While the proposed project would modify the existing storm drainage, sewer, and water infrastructure, improvements are proposed solely to accommodate the proposed project and would not significantly remove obstacles to growth. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? As described in Section 5.10, Public Services, none of the public service agencies consulted during prepara- tion of this DEIR have indicated that the proposed project would necessitate the immediate expansion of their service and facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. Therefore, the projectwould not have significant growth- inducing consequences with respect to public services. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 10 -1 1 D. Growth - Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction- related jobs would be created. This would be a temporary situation, lasting until project construction is completed. This would be a direct, growth - inducing effect of this project. Once complete, the proposed project would not significantly increase employment opportunities in Newport Beach. However, newly renovated ballroom and spa facilities would attract new business to the Hyatt Regency at Newport Beach. In addition, the project would expand on -site facilities, including the ballroom. Expanded facilities would accommodate more people, and therefore attract larger events, such as conferences and weddings. Larger events hosted at the hotel facilities would result in an increased demand for economic goods and services, and therefore encourage the creation of new businesses and /or the expansion of existing businesses to address these economic needs. Therefore, the proposed project would have a direct growth- inducing effect. Would approval of this project involve some precedent- setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The proposed project consists of the expansion of the existing hotel facilities. As described in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, the project is consistent with the existing zoning designations of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve a precedent- setting action that would encourage and /or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Page 10 -2 •The Planning Center February 2008 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department David Lepo, Planning Director James W. Campbell, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner David Keely, Associate Civil Engineer Fire Department Kim Lerch, Fire Prevention Specialist Steve Buntin, Fire Marshal Police Department Jim Kaminsky, Lieutenant Steve Shulman, Lieutenant PROJECT APPLICANT Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. Ken Cruse, Project Manager COMMUNITY OUTREACH /GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Government Solutions, Inc. Cora Newman, Principal Marice H. White, Vice President SERVICE/UTILITY PROVIDERS AT &T Becky Brandon, Right of Way Administrator Cox Communications Marty Zupancic, Construction Services Supervisor Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Neu port Beach • Page 11 -1 88 11. Organizations and Persons Consulted Southern California Edison Jason Cartaya, Customer Service Planner Southern California Gas Company Mike Harriel, Technical Supervisor Page 11 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR 1 EIR CONSULTANT The Planning Center William Halligan, Esq. • JD, Chapman University School of Law, 1999 Vice President, Environmental Services • BA University of California, Irvine, Social Ecology, 1988 JoAnn Hadfield • San Diego State University, Civil Engineering, Director, Environmental Services BS coursework completion, 1982, Engineer -in- Training (Ell) ' • BS, University of Utah, Urban Planning, 1976 Laurie Litwin • MS, California State University Fullerton, ' Environmental Planner Environmental Studies, 2000 • BS, Santa Clara University, Political Science, 1996 Jorge Estrada • BS, California State University Polytechnic, �! Associate Planner Pomona, Urban and Regional Planning, 2000 Tin Cheung • BA, Environmental Studies and Geography, Senior Environmental Scientist University of California, Santa Barbara, 1993 ' Nicole Krause MURP, University of California, Irvine, 2005 Assistant Planner BA, Environmental Studies and BS, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2002 TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Lee & Sakahara Architects AIA Architecture Ronald I. Sakahara, AIA President ' Yenny Ng, RIBA Senior Designer Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 12 -1 12. Qualifications of Persons Preparing EIR Lifescapes Int'l., Inc. Landscape Architect Don Brinkerhoff Chairman & CEO Fuscoe Engineering Civil Engineering /Hydrology/Water Quality(Visual Simulations Cal Woolsey Principal Mike Ijams GIS Manager IBI Group Traffic /Parking Bill Delo, AICP Associate Deepab Chausalkar Transportation Engineer/ Planner Cogstone Resources Management, Inc. Cultural Resources Sherri Gust Project Manager Klelnfelder, Inc. Geotechnical Resources Brian E. Crystal, PE, GE Project Manager Page 12 -2 •The Planning Center February 2008 13. Bibliography 13.1 PRINTED REFERENCES Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2007, May 17. ALUC memo to City of Newport Beach regarding the Citys designation as a Consistent agency with the AEL UP. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2002, December 19. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board (GARB). URBEMIS2002 Computer Model. Version 8.7.0. CARE. 1990. CAL /NE4 Computer Model. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2003. California's Groundwater — Bulletin 118. Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. 2006, December. Cultural Resources Assessment Report for M? Hyatt Regency Addition. Dudek. 2007, October 18. Fire Protection Plan -Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Traffic Noise Model. Version 2.5. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN). 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation. FTA- VA -90- 1003 -06. Fuscoe Engineering. 2007a, January. Water Quality Report, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. Fuscoe Engineering. 2007b, January. Hydrology /Hydraulic Report, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. Glen Lukos Associates. 2007, November 3. Results of Biological Survey and Impact Analysis for Hyatt Regency Golf Course. IBI Group. 2008, January 3. Hyatt Regency Traffic Impact Analysis. IBI Group. 2008, January 10. Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis. IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 13 -1 13. Bibliography Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaminsky, Jim. 2006. Letter dated November 21. Newport Beach Police Department. Kleinfelder. 2005, November 29. Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed Additions Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, 1107 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California. Lerch, Kim, 2006. Letter dated December 15. Newport Beach Fire Department. Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). 2004. Fuel Modification Plan and Maintenance Standards. Newport Beach, City of. 2006a. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR. Newport Beach, City of. 2005. Draft Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. Newport Beach, City of. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study. Newport Beach, City of. 2000a. City of Newport Beach Policies G -1 and G -3. Newport Beach, City of. 2000b. Storm Drain Master Plan. Newport Beach, City of. 1993. Tree Ordinance. In City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2004. Groundwater Management Plan. PKF Consulting. 1997, February. Analysis of Potential Means of Enhancement of Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for the City of Newport Beach. Shulman, Steve. 2007. Letter dated February 13. Newport Beach Police Department. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 1971. House Noise: Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2006. Final Methodology to Calculate PM2x and PM, Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD. 2003a. Final 2003 AQMP. SCAQMD. 2003b. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. SCAQMD. 1997. Draft 1997 Air Quality Management Plan. SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2003a. Revisions of the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments. Staff Report 2003. California Environmental Protection Agency. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Page 13 -2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 13. Bibliography 13.2 WEBSITES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006a. Ambient Air Quality Standards, hftp://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf. CARB. 2006b. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http: / /www.arb.ca.govfdesig /desig.htm. CARB. 2006c. South Coast AQMD List of Current Rules. http: // www.arb.ca.gov /drdb /sc /cur.htm. Newport Beach, City of. 2006b. General Plan. http://www.city.newport- beach.ca.us/PLN/General—Plan.htm. Newport Beach, City of. 2002a, April 23. Council Policy L -18 — Protection of Water Quality- Drainage — Public Rights -of -Way. http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us / councilpolicies/L-1B.pdf. Newport Beach, City of. 2002b, April 23. Council Policy L -22 — Protection of Water Quality: Water Quality Management Plans for New Development and Redevelopment. http://www.city.newpotl- beach.ca.us/councilpolicies/L-22.pdf. Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health (HCA). 2003. 2002 Annual Ocean and Bay Water Quality Report. http:/ /www.ocbeachinfo.com/ downloads /reports /2002oceanreport.pdf. Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD). 2006a. Newport Bay Watershed. http:/Iwww.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/newportbay—intro.asp. Orange County Watershed & Coastal Resources Division (OCWCRD). 2006b. Regional Board Boundaries. hftp: / /Www.ocwatersheds. com / watersheds / intro _regionaljurisdictions.asp. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2006. Groundwater Replenishment System. hftp://www.gwrsystem,com. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2003b. Construction Storm Water Program. hftp://www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/construcbon.htmi. SWRCB. 2003c. Municipal Program. http: / /www.swrcb.ca.gov /stormwtr /municipal.htm]. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. National Water - Quality Assessment Program Santa Ana Basin. http://ca.water,usgs.gov/sana nawqa. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (USEPA). 1999b, April. Storm Water Phase /1 Proposed Rule Fact Sheet Series, Fact Sheet 3.0. http: /Iwww.stormwaterauthority.org /assets/ EPA%20Phase% 2011 %20Rule %20Smal I% 20Construction %20Program %20Overview. pdf. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Ezpanrion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 13 -3 HIV 13. Bibliography 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 13 -4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Appendices Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Hyatt Regeng Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page left blank intentionally. 1 LI I 1 L J L] 1 11 The Planning Center January 2008 , s� NOTICE OF PREPARATION ' TO: Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties FROM: David Lepo, City of Newport Beach Planning Director SUBJECT: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach NOP REVIEW PERIOD: December 18, 2006 to January 16, 2006 ' The purpose of this notice is (1) to serve as the Notice of Preparation to potential "Responsible Agencies" as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15062 and (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR, and any related issues from interested parties other than ' potential "Responsible Agencies," including interested or affected members of the public. The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency, requests that any Responsible or Trustee Agency responding to this notice respond in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). ' Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.4, responsible agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt. The City will accept comments from others regarding this notice through the close of business January 16, 2006. All comments or other responses to this notice should be submitted in writing to: ' David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' The City of Newport Beach will also accept responses to this notice by e-mail received through the close of business, January 16, 2006. If e-mail comments are submitted with attachment, it is recommended that the ' attachments be delivered in writing to the address specified above. Virus protection measures and the variety of formats for attachments can limit the ability for the attachments to be delivered. E -mail response to this notice may be sent to: dlepo @city.newport- beach.ca.us. Project Location: The 25.7 -acre project site is located at 1107 Jamboree Road, on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. ' Project Description: The proposed project is an expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. Proposed improvements include the addition of 88 new timeshare units; a 24,387 square -foot, 800 - seat ballroom /meeting building; a 10,072 square -foot spa and new pool; and a two -level parking garage. As proposed, implementation would require demolition of 12 existing villas (rooms), the existing 3,190- square- ' foot terrace ballroom, and removal of the existing nine -hole golf course. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code and is also consistent with the 1993 Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company (the project 7 applicant's predecessor -in- interest for the property). The Hyatt Regency was one of 11 properties included in this agreement for which vested development rights were granted inconsideration of prepaid, fair -share road improvement fees, constructed road improvements, an interest free loan to the City, and conveyance of approximately 140 acres of property for open space and park purposes. Under this agreement, the Hyatt Regency received the right to expand to a total of 479 rooms from the existing 403 rooms. Environmental Analysis: The attached Initial Study for the proposed project indicates that there may be significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this project in the areas of: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, T2nsportationlTraff c, and Utilities and Service Systems. These issues will be addressed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR will also describe and evaluate project alternatives that may reduce any identified significant impacts. Anticipated Project Approvals: • City of Newport Beach Use Permit. To allow proposed building heights up to 35 feet within the 26/35 -foot Coastal Height Limitation Zone. Development Agreement. To operate hotel rooms as timeshare units. • California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit. Required for development within the Coastal Zone boundary. Future implementation of the project would require review, permits, and /or approvals from the following agencies: • Federal Aviation Administration -compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Pall 77 (FAR Part 77). Compliance with building height restrictions as set forth in Part 77 entitled, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." • State Water Resources Control Board - NPDES Permits • South Coast Air Quality Management District INITIAL STUDY FOR: HYATT REGENCY NEWPORTBEACH EXPANSION prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: James Campbell Senior Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: JoAnn Hadfield Director, Environmental Services DECEMBER 2006 INITIAL STUDY ' FOR: , HYATTREGENCY NEWPORTBEACH ' EXPANSION I' ' prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT ' BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact. PO Box 1768 James Campbell ' Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Senior Planner 949.644.3231 ' prepared by: THE PLANNING 1 CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: ' Costa Mesa, CA 92626 JoAnn Hadfield Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Director, Environmental E -mail: costamesa @ptanningcenter.com Services , Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -09.OE ' DECEMBER 2006 1 Table of Contents ' 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................... .............................21 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................... .............................21 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................. .............................22 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) .... .............................22 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..... ... ...................................... ......... 23 2.5 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... .............................32 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. .............................33 3.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................ .............................33 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................. .............................34 3.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................ .............................35 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................. .............................36 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... .............................38 Section Page .............................39 ' 3.7 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................1 ....... 41 ' ......................................................................................... 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION... ........................................................................ ..............................1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. .............................43 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................ ..............................1 3.9 ' 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................. ............................... ....................9 1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN .......................................... .............................19 3.10 1.5 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ........................................................... .............................19 .............................47 ' 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................... .............................21 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................... .............................21 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................. .............................22 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) .... .............................22 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..... ... ...................................... ......... 23 2.5 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... .............................32 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. .............................33 3.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................ .............................33 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................. .............................34 3.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................ .............................35 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................. .............................36 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... .............................38 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page i Mn m 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................ .............................39 ' 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.. .... - .................................... ....... 41 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. .............................43 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................. .............................46 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... .............................47 3.11 NOISE ................................................................................................... .............................48 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................. .............................49 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................... .............................50 ' 3.14 RECREATION ....................................................................................... .............................51 3.15 TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC .............................................................. .............................51 ' 3.16 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................... MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.. .............................53 .............................................................. —56 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page i Mn m Table of Contents List of Figures Fioure Page Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................. ..............................3 Figure2 Local Vicinity .......................................................................................... ..............................5 Figure3 Aerial Photograph ............................ .................................................. ..............................7 Figure4 Site Plan ............................................................................................... .............................11 Figure Demolition Plan ............................... .................................................. .............................13 Figure6 Site Section .......................................................................................... .............................15 Figure 7 Typical Timeshare Building Elevations ...................................:............ .............................17 List of Tables Figure Page Table1 Proposed Uses ...................................................................................... ..............................9 Table 2 Estimated Construction Timetable ....................................................... .............................19 Table 3 Estimated Increase of Solid Waste Generation ................................... .............................55 Page ii • The Planning Center December 2006 1 I 1. Introduction ' Sunstone Hotel Investors (Sunstone), the project applicant, proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel (Hyatt Regency Newport) located on a 25.7 -acre site at 1107 Jamboree Road in the ' City of Newport Beach. The project would encompass the addition of 88 new timeshare units; a 24,387 - square -foot, 800 -seat ballroom; a 10,072- square -foot spa and new pool; and a two -level parking garage. As proposed, project implementation would require demolition of 12 existing villas (rooms), the existing 3,190- ' square -foot terrace ballroom, and removal of the nine -hole golf course. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, but will require a Use Permit for proposed building heights up to 35 feet within the 26/35 -foot Coastal Height Limitation Zone, a Development Agreementfor the timeshare units, and a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. ' The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended, to deter- ' mine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment. This Initial Study will provide the City of Newport Beach with information to document potential impacts of the proposed project. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site (APNs 440 - 132 -40 and 440- 132 -41) is located at 1107 Jamboree Road, on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The project site has frontage on Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site within the regional and local contexts of Orange County ON;? and the City of Newport Beach, respectively. COO ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.2.1 Project Background The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach is one of 11 projects included in a 1993 development agreement ' between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. The project sites are generally located east of Newport Bay and along Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway, and within Newport Center. The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) vested development rights for the individual properties in consideration of pre -paid, fair share road improvement fees, constructed road ' improvements, an interest -free loan to the City, and conveyance of approximately 140 acres of property for open space and park purposes. The value of the traffic improvements totaled approximately $20 million. Under the agreement, the Hyatt Newport received a right to expand to 479 rooms. These vested ' development rights were conveyed to the property owner, Sunstone Hotel Investors. Under the CIOSA, the approximately 140 acres of open space was dedicated to remain in either open space ' or natural area. The open space areas included nearly all coastal sage scrub, all salt marsh and 95 percent of the freshwater marsh habitat existing within the 11 project sites. Included in the dedication was the natural open space that abuts the developed Hyatt site along its northern border. ' 1.2.2 Existing Land Use The 25.7 -acre project site is owned by Sunstone Hotel Investors, and is currently developed with the Hyatt ' Regency Newport Beach, a resort-style hotel. The hotel is situated on a north - south - trending ridge along the east side of the Newport Back Bay. Current improvements include 403 hotel rooms (keys) and associated hotel lobby, restaurants, a banquet facility that consists of a 3,190- square -foot ballroom and meeting space ' (Terrace Ballroom), the Plaza Ballroom, an amphitheatre, a nine -hole golf course, three swimming pools, and Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 1 1 I 1. Introduction ' maintenance and housekeeping sheds. The hotel rooms are located throughout four buildings. Additionally, ' the site contains ornamental and native landscaping, hardscape and surface parking that are associated with the existing resort hotel. 1.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ' The project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses. The Palisades Tennis Club abuts the project site ' along the northeastern boundary. The remainder of the site's northern boundary abuts open space within the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, which contains various biological resource areas, including native coastal sage scrub, marsh, and riparian areas. North of the preserve is the existing gated residential community of ' Harbor Cove, which is located on a bluff across the preserve. Jamboree Road abuts the project site along the eastern boundary. East of Jamboree is the residential community of Sea Island. Back Bay Drive abuts the project site along the southern and western boundaries. South of Back Bay Drive is the senior apartment community of Bayview Landing. Southeast of the project site is the residential community of Villa Point. ' Southwest and west of Back Bay Drive are the Back Bay Science Center (Shellmaker Island), Newport Dunes, and Upper Newport Back Bay, which consist of a private beach area, vehicle and boat parking areas, docks, and boating areas. These surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph. ' 1 �J r LJ LI r� Page 2 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 55 73 1. Introduction ' This page intentionally left blank. 1 I 1 I L ■ I 1 Page 4 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 55 .4nnirir�!�� .rH a ^eeei 73 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 ..,fie 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 1. Introduction 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.3.1 Proposed Improvements The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would include 88 new timeshare units, a timeshare clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a new spa facility, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a new two - level parking garage (see Figure 4, Site Plan). Implementation of the project would require the demolition of 12 villas, the existing 3,190- square -foot Terrace Ballroom, and the engineering and maintenance building (see Figure 5, Demolition Plan). A summary of existing and proposed land uses is included as Table 1. Additionally, the existing nine -hole golf course would be removed to accommodate the new timeshare units, parking areas, drive aisles, and other hardscape and landscape. The project would also require removal and reconfiguration of a recreational courtyard located in the center of the main hotel complex, and associated Hotel parking areas, hardscape, and landscape. Table 1 Proposed Uses Use Existing Proposed To be Demolished/ Removed Net Uses After Expansion Hotel Rooms 403 0 12 391 rooms Timeshare Units 0 88 0 88 timeshare Ballroom* 22,590 sq. it, 11,032 sq. ft. 800 seats 3,190 sq. ft 30,432 sq. ft. Spa & Fitness Building 0 10,072 sq. ft. 0 10,072 sf. ft. Time Share Clubhouse 0 3,837 sq. ft 0 3,837 sq. ft. Parking Not Available 170 spaces within 25,229 sq. f . parking structure 734 spaces, surface parking Total: 904 parking spaces NA 904 parking spaces Golf Course 9 -hole golf course 9 -hole golf course None * Building square footage figures represent'Ner ballmom and meeting space and exclude prefunction, service, and mechanical space. Total square footage of new ballroom building is 24,387 sq. ft. The majority of the hotel expansion project consists of redevelopment in the northern, northwestern, and southern portions of the project site. Other upgrades would also occur in the central portion of the project site. The total area for redevelopment is approximately 14 acres, or about 55 percent of the overall 25.7 -acre project site. Seven new buildings containing a total of 88 timeshare units are proposed to be constructed over the existing nine -hole golf course and in the area where the 12 existing villas would be demolished on the northern and northwestern portions of the project site, respectively. The height of the timeshare buildings would range between two and three stories and would not exceed 35 feet in height. Four of the seven buildings would include subterranean (below - grade) parking garages. Figure 6, Site Section, depicts the height relationship of the proposed buildings with existing and proposed grades. Typical elevations for the timeshare unit buildings are shown in Figure 7, Timeshare Building Elevations. A new timeshare clubhouse and an outdoor pool and spafablity are also proposed. The clubhouse and pool and spa facility would be located adjacentto the north- central timeshare buildings. A new 10,072- square -foot building containing the spa and fitness center would be constructed in the center of the main hotel complex. A new pool, pool deck, cabanas, and two spas would also be located adjacent to the spa and fitness center. Additionally, a new Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 9 1. Introduction housekeeping and engineering building is proposed south of and adjacent to the existing Plaza Ballroom. The new 24,387- square -foot ballroom is proposed in the southwest portion of the site. A 25,229- square -foot two -level parking garage containing 170 parking spaces is also proposed just east of the proposed ballroom. Associated parking areas in the southern project boundary and along Jamboree Road (eastern boundary) would be reconfigured and enhanced with landscaping. The project has one main entry drive, a full- access driveway, which is accessed from Jamboree Road on the eastern boundary. This entry drive would remain and would be enhanced with decorative paving. The entry drive is flanked by the Plaza Ballroom on the south and a parking area to the north. The parking area north of the entry drive would be redesigned and enhanced with landscaping. The valet and hotel lobby drop -off/ pick -up area would also be enhanced with landscaping, decorative paving, and 45- degree parking spaces. The project currently contains two gated entry drives that provide access from Back Bay Drive on the southern and western boundaries. The gated entry along the southern portion of the project site would be reconfigured and realigned with the entry drive to the Bayview Senior Apartment project on the opposite side of Back Bay Drive. This controlled entry would serve as the primary ballroom access and parking structure access. Three additional site entries would be provided along Back Bay Drive; two entries direct to surface parking adjacent to the new ballroom, and one access road to the new timeshare units. Surface parking areas would be reconfigured and enhanced with landscaping and would be designated for both self - parking and valet parking. 1.3.2 Infrastructure Improvements Storm Drainage Currently, drainage for the project site is via surface flow. The golf course and central portion of the site drain southerly toward Jamboree Road. The western and southwestern portions of the site drain to Back Bay Drive. Off -site flows from an existing storm drain on the south side of Jamboree Road are discharged to the site near the parking lot and surface flow to a collection drain in Back Bay Drive. Improvements would include a new storm drain to capture the off -site flows. On -site water quality measures are proposed to include several best management practices (BMPs), including various media filters, bioswales, and filtration trenches. Water and Sewer Improvements A new 250 -foot -long private sewer lateral is proposed to extend from the west side of the new ballroom and parking structure to connect to the public sewer along Back Bay Drive. In addition to the private sewer, the project proposes two new private water laterals (domestic and fire) that would extend from the public water line along Back Bay Drive to the south side of the proposed ballroom for a distance of approximately 420 feet. Portions of existing public water easements and lines would be abandoned and replaced with new easements and water lines to service the timeshare units and clubhouse. Existing 10 -foot easements would be replaced with 15- foot -wide easements. Similarly, two new 15- foot -wide public sewer easements and corresponding lines would be constructed to serve the timeshare buildings. The result would be a looped public system to replace the existing looped system within the site. Page 10 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 � �� R ¢; ,- �:,:_: ;. '�. .- , ����� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 Remove Existing Remove Hardscape Preserve Trees Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects 1. Introduction Demolition Plan Remove Villas and Maintenance Building Remove All Improvements Within Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion The Planning Center • Figure 5 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 14 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank Page 16 • The Planning Center December 2006 I ;a dnlLNy � � xam divan � � i -. 18 »e P 4888 a8 ezlen at B ac 4:::aa _ _ csv e FPY99 � PCSdk Y � >Ri� .PCE' db9E sn m W t¢sn Y s asn anau' �, 3 U a% ®aa sa a "� xma z aoln s LE SIR ``. ia�L00 ). JE K _rm Y &fi SIR ``. 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 18 • The Planning Center December 2006 I 1 1.3.3 Construction 1. Introduction Project construction would be phased to minimize interruption of existing hotel operations and related L parking and traffic considerations. Based on the following general schedule, it is anticipated that the project would be completed within approximately 23 months from approval: Table 2 Estimated Construction Timetable Building Demolition 4 months Site Grading and Material Export 2%z months Building Construction 16 months �J 1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The proposed hotel expansion is consistent with the City's recently adopted General Plan 2006 Update. The General Plan was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and by the electorate in the November 7, 2006, election (as required by City Charter Section 423, which requires voter approval for amendments that exceed specific development thresholds). The General Plan designates the project site as Visitor Serving Commercial (CV) and also specifies the development limit of 479 hotel rooms. The project site is located within the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) zoning district. Proposed uses are MO O% with this zone. 1.5 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS I I The intent of this Initial Study and subsequent CEQA documentation is to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and the interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements listed below. The proposed project would require the following discretionary permits: • City of Newport Beach • Use Permit. To allow proposed building heights up to 35 feet within the 26135 -foot Coastal Height Limitation Zone. • Development Agreement. To operate hotel rooms as timeshare units. • California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit. Required for development within the Coastal Zone boundary. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 19 1. Introduction Future implementation of the project would require permits and/or approvals from the following agencies: • Federal Aviation Administration - compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77); compliance with building height restrictions as set forth in Part 77 entitled, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." • State Water Resources Control Board - NPDES permits • South Coast Air Quality Management District Page 20 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 I LJ I 1 i I 2. Environmental Checklist 2.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning and Building 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell (949) 644 -3231 4. Project Location: The project is located at 1107 Jamboree Road, on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Sunstone Hotel Investors 903 Calle Amanecer San Clemente, CA 92673 6. General Plan Designation: Adopted General Plan: Retail and Service Commercial (RSC); City Council— Approved General Plan Update (July 2006): Visitor Serving Commercial (CV) 7. Zoning: Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) 8. Development Agreement: The project is consistent with the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) approved in 1993 between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company (Sunstone's prececessor- in- interest with respect to the Hyatt Newporter). The CIOSA grants a vested right to expand the hotel to 479 rooms. 9. Description of Project: A detailed description of the project is provided in Section 1.3, Project Description. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: A detailed description of the surrounding land uses is provided in Section 1.2.2, Surrounding Land Uses. 11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: • California Coastal Commission (CCC) • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 21 �� 2. Environmental Checklist 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ED Aesthetics ❑ Agncultura) Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Geology /Soils ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ® Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ® Public Services ❑ Recreation ® TtansporlaftVTrattic ® Utilities /Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F1I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect f) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. nI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuantto that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed Name Date For Page 22 • The Planning Center December 2006 I 1 2.4 M I 2. Environmental Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 23 9� 2. Environmental Checklist 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Page 24 • The Planning Censer December 2006 1 2. Environmental Checklist II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Less Than X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps Significant prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Potentially With Less Than X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a Have a substantial adverse eff ect on a scenic vista? X X Williamson Act contract? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? X Farmland, to non - agricultural use? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X concentrations? of the site and its surroundings? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X of people? would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non - agricultural use? X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proiect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or througt habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 25 rMn 2. Environmental Checklist V. - CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Less Than X historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Significant b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of Potentially With Less Than an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or X regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including, but not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal, X etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological X interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. - CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? VI: GEOLOGY AND SOILS. would the oroiect: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or X based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv Landslides? X b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Page 26 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 2. Environmental Checklist VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.- would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X Less Than through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous Significant X materials? Potentially With Less Than b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks X to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or aftemative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.) X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.- would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident X X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. would theoroiect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of X pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 27 �� 2. Environmental Checklist IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. would the oroiect: a Physically divide an established community? Less Than X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X Significant X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project Potentially With Less Than (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X X stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. would the oroiect: a Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. would the proiect a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the X X residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general X plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NUISE. would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? Page 28 • The Planning Center December 2006 2. Environmental Checklist X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would The project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X Less Than directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X Significant X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of Potentially With Less Than X roads or other infrastructure)? Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Im act c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X X the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would The project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of X roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing X X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, (he construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance obiectives for any of the mrhlic services a! Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X X C) Schools? X d Parks? X el Other public facilities? X XIV. REGREATIUN. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC, would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of X vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion atintersectionsl? Hyatt Regeng Newport Bearb Expansion City of Newport Beads Page 29 2. Environmental Checklist Page 30 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 Less Than j Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results X in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses e.g., farm equipment ? e Result in inadequate emergency access? X Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, X the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. _ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Page 30 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 2. Environmental Checklist �� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beath • Page 31 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly? �� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beath • Page 31 2. Environmental Checklist 2.5 REFERENCES Arnau, John (Administrative Manager 1). 2006, October 10. E -mail. Integrated Waste Management Department. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2005. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Newport Beach: Household Disposal Rates (2000). http: / /www.ciwrnb.ca.gov /Profiles /Juris/ JurProfilel .asp ?RG = C &JURID= 340 &JUR = Newport+Beach. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1999, October. Seismic Hazards Zones Maps. EIP Associates. 2006, April. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2006011119. FEMA. 2004. Map Service Center. http: / /mse.fema.gov /webapp /wcs /stores /servieV MapSearchResult?storeld =10001 &catalogld =10001 &langld = -1 &userType= G &paneIIDs =0605 9C0382H &Type = pbp &no nprinted = & u n mapped = . Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2005, September. Water Quality Report, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. Glen Lukos Associates. 2006, March. Biological/ Regulatory Constraints Analysis, Newport Hyatt Regency Golf Course. Kleinfelder. 2005, November 29. Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed Additions Hyatt Regency Newport Beach, 1107 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California. Newport Beach, City of. 2006, July. General Plan Update. Newport Beach, City of. 2004, July. Emergency Management Plan. Newport Beach, City of. 2001. Zoning Code. Newport Beach, City of. 1995. Municipal Code. Newport Beach, City of. 1992a, August. Ordinance No. 92 -35, Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement. Newport Beach, City of. 1992b, June. Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement, Newport Beach, California, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Newport Beach, City of. 1989, July. General Plan. Page 32 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 1 3. Environmental Analysis Section 2.3 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. 3.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? +� Potentially Significant Impact. Project development is not anticipated to affect any public views of scenic vistas. Possible scenic view impacts are more likely to be associated with views from the hotel property. Private views, such as views from the hotel, are not protected by City policy. Additionally, potential view impacts to recreational users of the Upper Newport Back Bay may be a concern. Since uses directly adjacent to Back Bay Drive are not particularly scenic (dry boat storage, etc.), these impacts are not anticipated to be significant. The potential impact to scenic vistas, however, will be reviewed in the EIR to assure that this issue is adequately evaluated. Mitigation measures will be recommended, if needed. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the ' California Department of Transportation, the project site is not located on or near a major state- designated scenic highway. The closest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site is State Route 1 (SR -1), also known as Pacific Coast Highway, which is located approximately one - quarter mile south of the project site. There are no known scenic resources, including native or heritage trees, and no rock outcroppings or historic buildings are located within the project site. The main hotel structure was completed in 1967 and is not considered historically significant because it is not over 50 years old. There are, however, over 600 ornamental trees on -site, including a diverse range of unusual palm tree species. Most of these trees will be retained in place or relocated within the project site. No adverse impacts to scenic resources would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Potentially Significant Impact. As mentioned above, potential impacts to existing views are likely to be of concern to some surrounding property owners, particularly Harbor Cove residents situated on a bluff north of the project site and across the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. Potential view impacts to recreational users of the Back Bay and senior housing residents of the Bayview Landing may also be an issue. Project implementation would intensify on -site land uses by removing open space (nine -hole golf course), introducing new structures (including a two -story parking structure), and increasing the maximum height of structures on -site. Grading, landscaping, and lighting would be modified. The removal and relocation of existing palm trees would also represent a noticeable change to the visual resources of the project site. For these reasons, further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located adjacent to sensitive open space areas to the north (biological resources associated with the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve) and is visible from adjacent residential neighborhoods such as the Harbor Cove, which is situated ata higher elevation than the project on a bluff north of the project site. Project implementation would introduce additional sources of nighttime lighting in the project area that could potentially impact receptors sensitive to nighttime lighting. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 33 llroLn 3. Environmental Analysis Typical residential lighting uses, security lighting, and parking lot lighting would include nighttime lighting in the project area. The impact of light will be further analyzed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (t 997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. According to California Resource Agency's Department of Conservation Important Farmland Maps for Orange County (2004), the project site is not designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach and is developed with a resort-style hotel. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As mentioned above, the project site is not used or designated for agricultural use. The project site is not zoned for agricultural purposes and does not fall under a Williamson Act Contract. The project site is zoned Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) per the City's Zoning Code and is designated as Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) per the City's existing General Plan, and Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC) per the City's General Plan Update, which has been approved by the City Council and is pending voter approval in November 2006. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could , result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The project site is developed with a resort-style hotel; therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impacts to farmland would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 34 • The Planning Center December 2006 3. Environmental Analysis 3.3 AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Emissions projections for the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are based on land use designations in adopted General Plans. The proposed project is consistent with both the adopted City of Newport Beach General Plan and the General Plan Update anticipated to be approved by voters in November 2006. Project - related emissions, therefore, were anticipated in the development of the AQMP and would not obstruct implementation of AQMP goals. Impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact. Project construction and increased vehicular traffic generated by future tourist and conference facility use have the potential to generate fugitive dust, various stationary source emissions, and mobile emissions. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short term for site preparation and construction activities to support the proposed land use. In addition, emissions could result from the long -term operation of the completed project. An air quality analysis is required to determine if the resulting project's short- or long -term emissions would violate any air quality standard. Further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. As mentioned above, air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short term for site preparation and construction activities to support the proposed land use. In addition, emissions could resultfrom the long -term operation of the completed project. An air quality analysis is required to determine if the project will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant. Further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. An impact is also potentially significant if emission levels exceed the state or federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, thereby exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors refer to locations where uses and/or activities result in increased exposure of persons more sensitive to the unhealthful effects of emissions (such as children and the elderly). Short-term impacts related to construction could potentially expose sensitive receptors —such as the residents of the Bayview Landings senior housing south of the project site across Back Bay Drive —to substantial pollutant concentrations. An air quality analysis is required to determine if sensitive receptors would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 35 �� 3, Environmental Analysis e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general pub - fic. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can cause agitation, anger, and concern to the general public. Most people consider an odor objectionable if it is sensed longer than the duration of a human breath, typically 2 to 5 seconds. A minimal amount of objectionable odors, such as diesel exhaust from demolition activities, construction equipment, and laying asphalt, would be created during the demolition of the existing building, grading, and construction of the proposed project. However, construction would occur at limited locations for short periods of time, and daytime dispersion conditions are generally good in southern California because of prevailing winds and sea breeze conditions. No long -term odors would be created with implementation of the proposed hotel expansion. Therefore, any odor impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed development would not have any direct effect on sensitive habitat or any direct impact on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project site is currently developed and there are no candidate, sensitive, or special status species located on the site. The project site, however, abuts the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve along the northern project boundary. As discussed under Section 1.2.1, Project Background, the dedication of this undisturbed natural area for permanent open space was part of the 1993 CIOSA approved between the City and The Irvine Company (Sunstone's predecessor -in- interest for the Hyatt property). Sensitive species are known to occur within this preserve. Potential indirect impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species could occur as a result of the proposed project due to construction activities and increased levels of lighting, air pollution, and noise. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the site is currently developed with urban uses and there are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the confines of the project site. However, the project site abuts the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve along the northern project boundary. Potential impacts on riparian or other sensitive natural communities could occur as a result of the proposed project due to construction and increased levels of lighting, air pollution, and noise. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. Page 36 • The Planning Center December 2006 3. Environmental Analysis c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact. A biological/regulatory constraints analysis was prepared for the project by Glenn Lukos Associates on February 14 and 15, 2006. The report concluded that there are no U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) designated blueline drainages within the site and that the property does not contain any U.S. Corps of Engineers or California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction. Moreover, project implementation would not involve direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other direct or indirect impact to adjacent wetlands under jurisdiction of regulatory agencies. The project would not adversely affect protected wetlands and this issue will not be addressed in the EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the project site is currently developed with a resort- style hotel. The project site does not serve as a wildlife dispersal or migration corridor. However, the project site abuts the Newport Bay Ecological Preserve along the northern project boundary. Impacts on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher) or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors as a result of the proposed project could result due to construction activities and increased levels of lighting, air pollution, and noise. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree IVVV� preservation policy or ordinance? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site currently contains ornamental trees and shrubs. There are no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitats on -site and no native trees occur within the golf course. However, project development will be reviewed for consistency with the City of Newport Beach tree policy. City Council Policy G -1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) was created to establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes, to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and nonhazardous condition. This issue will be addressed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant impact. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. As described under Response 3.4 b, however, the potential project impacts on adjacent, sensitive habitat areas will be analyzed in the EIR. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beadi • Page 37 3, Environmental Analysis 3.5 CULTURAL a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. Section 10564.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria: is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Figure HR1, Historic Resources, of the Historic Resources Element of the City's General Plan update does not identify any historic resources within or adjacent to the project site. The project site consists of numerous buildings and structures. The main hotel structure of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach was completed in 1967 and is not considered historically significant because it is not over 50 years old. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is developed with a resort-style hotel and is located within an urbanized area. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to archaeological resources. However, due to the potential to unearth unknown archaeological resources during ground- disturbing activities (grading and excavation) of the project site, a cultural resources investigation will be conducted for the EIR analysis. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is developed with a resort-style hotel and is located within an urbanized area. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. However, due to the potential to unearth unknown paleontological resources during ground- disturbing activities (grading and excavation) of the project site, a cultural resources investigation will be conducted for the EIR analysis. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is developed with a resort-style hotel and is located within an urbanized area. The site has been previously disturbed and has not been identified for a high likelihood of containing human remains. Additionally, there is no visible evidence that the project site or the surrounding areas are former burial sites. However, due to the potential to unearth unknown human remains during Page 38 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 I 3. Environmental Analysis ground- disturbing activities (grading and excavation) of the project site, a cultural resources investigation will be conducted for the EIR analysis. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, ' injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ' Potentially Significant Impact. Fault rupture occurs when a building sits on top of an active fault that displaces in two separate directions during an earthquake. Fault rupture hazards can be characterized by a site's proximity to an active or potentially active fault and the designation of the site as being within an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone. The project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone and no known faults traverse the project site (Kleinfelder 2005). However, the project site is located within seismically active southern ' California (Seismic Zone 4, encompassing most of southern California). The Newport- Inglewood fault is considered to be the most significant active fault with respectto the project site. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. The proximity of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone to the subject property could subject it to moderate and possibly strong ground motion, which could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. This issue will be addressed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures ' will be recommended, as needed. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? ' Potentially Significant Impact. One of the predominant effects of an earthquake is ground shaking. Similar to the rest of southern California, the project site is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of seismic activity. As mentioned above, the project site is located within seismically active southern California (Seismic Zone 4, encompassing most of southern California). The most likely source of strong seismic ground shaking within the region would be a major earthquake along the Newport- Inglewood Fault, which is located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. The fault is classified as active, with a seismic capability over magnitude 7.0. The proximity of the Newport- ' Inglewood fault zone to the subject property could subject it to moderate and possibly strong ground motion, which could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. This issue will be addressed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended, as needed. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs where there is a loss of strength or stiffness in the soils, which can result in the settlement of buildings, ground failures, or other hazards. Liquefaction generally occurs as a "quicksand" type of ground failure caused by strong ground ' shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 39 %1JW I 3. Environmental Analysis ' According to Figure S2, Seismic Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan Update, the , project site is located in an area considered to have a potential for ground failure in the form of lique- faction. More specifically, the areas surrounding the main hotel complex to the south, east, and west (parking lots) are located within a designated seismic hazard zone for liquefaction potential (Kleinfelder ' 2005). For this reason, the potential for liquefaction on the project site could expose people orstructures to potential substantial adverse effects. This issue will be addressed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures recommended, as needed. ' iv) Landslides? Potentially Significant Impact. Slope failures in the form of landslides are common during strong , seismic shaking in areas of significant relief. According to Figure S2, Seismic Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan Update, the project site is not located in an area with landslide potential. However, a Geotechnical Feasibility Study of the project site found that the slopes in the , northern portion of the project site (along the golf course) are located within a state - designated Seismic Hazard Zone for Earthquake - Induced Landsliding (Kleinfelder 2005). The study also evaluated the potential for earthquake- induced landslides. Based on the geological conditions of the boring tests, the , potential for slope instability along the projects northern boundary is considered low. However, slope stability analysis based on additional subsurface data is required during the design -level geotechnical study. This issue will be addressed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures will be , recommended, as needed. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact. Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen materials are loosened, warn away, decomposed, or dissolved, removed from one place and transported to another. Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Ordinarily, erosion proceeds so slowly as to be imperceptible, but when the natural equilibrium of the environment is changed, the rate of erosion can be greatly accelerated. This can create aesthetic as well as engineering problems. Accelerated erosion within an urban area can cause damage by undermining structures, blocking storm sewers, and depositing silt, sand, or mud in roads and tunnels. Eroded materials are eventually deposited into our coastal , waters, where the carried silt remains suspended in the water for some time, constituting a pollutant and altering the normal balance of plant and animal fife. The project's construction - related activities may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, which ' could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. This topic will be included in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended, as needed. , c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? , Potentially Significant Impact. Building improvements founded on collapsible soils may be damaged by sudden and often induced settlement when these soils are saturated after construction. Collapsible soils are typified by low values of dry unit weight and natural water content. The amount of settlement depends on the ' applied vertical stresses and the extent of wetting and available water. The Geotechnical Feasibility Study of the project site evaluated the potential for earthquake- induced ' landslides. Based on the geological conditions of the boring tests, the potential for slope instability along the projects northern boundary is considered low (Kleinfelder 2005). However, slope stability analysis based on Page 40 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 ' 3. Environmental Analysis additional subsurface data is required during the design -level geotechnical study. This issue will be addressed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures recommended, as needed. ' d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact. Expansive soil, with respect to engineering properties, refers to those soils that, upon wetting and drying, will alternately expand and contract, causing problems for foundations of buildings and other structures. The Geotechnical Feasibility Study evaluated the potential for expansive soils. Based on the soil classification (sands) encountered, the potential for expansion of the fill soils and terrace deposit is very low. However, based on laboratory testing, the potential for expansion of the alluvium and bedrock is high (Weintelder ' 2005). This topic will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation measures will be recommended, as needed. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. The project would be served by the City's sewer system and would not involve the use of septic systems or alternative ' wastewater disposal systems. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? ■ Less Than Significant Impact. Routine operation of the proposed hotel expansion would not involve use of hazardous materials beyond normal cleaning solvents and landscaping products. Use of these substances ' would be minimal and would be subject to established federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines and to approval by the Newport Beach Fire Department. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Asbestos is the name given to a group of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals, typically those of the serpentine group. Over the years, asbestos - containing products have been classified as both cementitious and dry- applied materials. Cementitious products are less likely to release ' fibers because they are bonded into nonasbestos materials. Dry- applied materials are not well bonded into other materials. As a result, they can have a higher potential for fiber release when disturbed. However, even such friable materials would not normally release fibers in significant numbers if they are undamaged, well ' maintained, or wrapped in protective coverings. Although asbestos is hazardous, the risk of asbestos - related diseases depends on exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In other words, an individual must breathe asbestos fibers to incur any chance of developing ' an asbestos - related disease. How many fibers a person must breathe to develop a disease is uncertain. However, at very low exposure levels, the risk may be negligible or zero. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 41 �� 3. Environmental Analysis There is a potential for asbestos to be released during the project's demolition stage. The project involves the demolition of 12 villas located along the northwestern portion of the project site and the Tenace Ballroom located along the central portion of the western project boundary. There is a potential for hazards involving the release of asbestos as a result of the demolition of these structures due to their age, as they were built in 1967. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is Corona Del Mar High School, located at 2101 Eastbluff Drive, approximately one mile northeast of the project site. As a result, no impacts to school sites would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. An environmental site assessment is required to perform a search of local, federal and state environmental database records regarding the site and vicinity for known or suspected contaminated sites and for sites that store, generate, or use hazardous materials. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result Ina safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 3.5 miles south of the John Wayne Airport (JWA). In accordance with the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, which is overseen by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), potentially significant safety hazards from aircraft activity at JWA is not an issue because the project site is located outside of the airport impact zones. However, the project site is located within the height restriction overlay zone of the AELUP for JWA. The project will be required to comply with all standards and requirements as setforth by ALUC. Additionally, the project will also be required to comply with all standards and requirements as set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), especially building height restrictions as set forth by Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77) entitled, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." Because the project is located within the AELUP for JWA and could potentially result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project implementation would not result in any private airport- related safety hazards for anyone residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 42 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Emergency Services Office published the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan in 2004. The Emergency Management Plan provides guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations in both war and peacetime. The plan concentrates on management concepts and response procedures relative to large -scale disasters. Such disasters pose major threats to life, the environment and property, and can impactthe well -being of a large number of people. The basic plan is updated every three years. In addition, the Newport Beach City ' Manager, with assistance from the NBFD, is responsible for ensuring that necessary changes and revisions to this plan are prepared, coordinated, published, and distributed. The proposed project is not expected to interfere with City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. Project review by the NBFD is required. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's Planning, Public Works, and Building Departments to ensure that all new construction and remodels are built ' in compliance with local and state building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and on -site fire protection measures. Additionally, the City requires all businesses to be inspected annually for adherence to the fire and life safety codes. The project would incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the Uniform Building Code, Fire Code, and NPFD standards and requirements. Uninterrupted access to the project site for emergency response vehicles is provided via Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. A fire lane along the AA western boundary of the project site would be accessed off of Back Bay Drive. Furthermore, all construction activities would be performed per City and NBFD standards and codes, thereby avoiding any interference �IV with emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts to adopted emergency response plans are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed ' with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area and is not immediately adjacent to any wildland ' fire areas. According to Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan update, the project site is designated as an area of low -to -no fire hazard. Additionally, although Newport Beach has a number of areas designated as Special Fire Protection Areas (SFPAs), the project site does not fall within one of these SFPAs. Areas in SFPAs require fuel modification and a 100 -toot setback between the structure ' and the wildland areas. For these reasons, the project site would not constitute a wildland fire risk. No impacts from wildland fires would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ' Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed and the receiving water is Lower Newport Bay, which is identified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as impaired due to metals and pesticides. Construction of the proposed project could potentially ' discharge sediment and pollutants to Lower Newport Bay and result in a potential significant impact to water quality. Grading and excavation of the site would expose and disturb soils. The storage and use of hazar- dous materials on -site, including treated wood, paints, solvents, fuels, etc., would be potential sources of Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Exparuian City of Newport Beach • Page 43 3, Environmental Analysis pollutants during construction. Further analysis in the EIR is necessary to determine if construction - related activities of the project would violate any water quality standard. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. Project development would increase the impervious area within the property. Upon development, the site will be approximately 95 percent impervious. In particular, development of the timeshare units within the existing golf course area will increase impervious areas and reduce the opportunity for groundwater recharge in comparison to existing conditions. Approximately 3.1 acres of the golf course area would be developed with impervious surfaces. This change, however, would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of impervious surface area and runoff draining to the Newport Bay and would not appreciably reduce groundwater recharge. Based on the Orange County Water District's (OCWD) location mapping of groundwater monitoring sites, there are no wells located within an approximate one -mile radius of the project site. Project development, therefore, would not substantially impact groundwater supplies and this impacts will therefore not be addressed in the EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the project as proposed would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern. On -site drainage areas would remain essentially the same. Storm drain improvements, however, would be installed to capture runoff in Jamboree Road, and also to control existing run -on drainage from off -site to the east. This water would be conveyed via a new east - west - trending storm drain traversing the southwestern portion of the site and discharging to an existing drain in Back Bay Drive. Excavation and other construction activities would have the potential to result in erosion on- or off -site. To reduce impacts associated with construction activities, the project would be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which details BMPs during construction activities and ways to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Further analysis is necessary in the EIR to evaluate impacts of sedimentation and erosion from on -site and off -site construction activities and project operation. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is developed as a resort-style hotel and the existing on -site drainage pattern would not be appreciably altered as a result of project development. Proposed improvements, however, would increase the amount of on -site impervious surfaces, resulting in an increase in stormwater runoff. The EIR will review proposed drainage improvements to control on- and off -site stormwater runoff. Mitigation measures will be recommended as needed. Page 44 • The Planning Center December 2006 I 1 [1 1 d I 1 I 'I J 3, Environmental Analysis e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Significant Impact. Although the project site is currently developed, project implementation could potentially increase the amount of runoff from the site. The amount of impermeable surface would decrease due to the replacement of the nine -hole golf course and other landscaped areas with seven timeshare buildings and other hardscape improvements (e.g., driveways, sidewalk). Additionally, construction and operation of the proposed on -site improvements have the potential to exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system and provide additional sources of polluted stormwater runoff. For these reasons, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Impact. As previously stated, construction activities and activities associated with operation of the hotel expansion have the potential to degrade water quality through an increase in water pollutants, including sediments. Further analysis in the EIR is necessary to evaluate the potential of the proposed project to degrade water quality within the study area. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as necessary. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100- or 500 -year flood zone as indicated on the Federal //��� Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). According to FIRM Number 961 06059C0382H, revised February 18, 2004, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a special flood ((C hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood event. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As mentioned above, the project site is not located within a 100- or 500 -year flood zone, as indicated on the FIRM map. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not place any structures within a 100 -year flood zone. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. The dams located nearest the project site are the Harbor View Dam, a flood control dam; the Bonita Canyon Dam, an irrigation dam; the Big Canyon dam, a water supply dam; and the San Joaquin Reservoir. These dams are located between four and six miles from the project site in a generally south - southeast direction from the project site. According to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan, the only dam that poses a flooding risk to the City of Newport Beach is the Prado Dam, which is located northeast of the City of Newport Beach in the Santa Ana River. In the event of a dam failure, floodwaters from Prado Dam could inundate large portions of the City of Newport Beach, including the project area. However, the City of Newport Beach updated its Emergency Management Plan in 2004, which identified emergency evacuation procedures in the event of dam failure. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beacb • Page 45 3. Environmental Analysis j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern reiaWe to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the project site, as mentioned above, the Prado Dam could inundate large portions of the City of Newport Beach, including the projectarea. However, as discussed above, impacts from the Prado Dam would be less than significant as the City of Newport Beach updated its Emergency Management Plan in 2004, which identified emergency evacuation procedures in the event of dam failure. Additionally, the Safety Element of the City's General Plan does not identify any dam inundation hazard. Similarly, based on the Geotechnical Study prepared for the project, the project site is not located within mapped dam inundation hazard zone (Kleinfelder 2005). Muciflows are landslide events in which a mass of saturated soil flows downhill as a very thick liquid. The project site is flat and is not located along steep slopes or hillsides. The project would be required to submit grading plans to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval. The potential for mudflow and landslide events is considered low. Implementation of the project would not expose people orstructures to inundation by seiche or mudflows. The City of Newport Beach has southwestern- facing beaches and is vulnerable to tsunamis, or more likely tidal surges, from the south and west. However, the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan indicates that local earthquakes would not generate a tsunami in this area, and no known tsunami has ever hit the Orange County coast. Therefore, the tsunami threat to the City of Newport Beach is considered low to moderate. Additionally, according to Figure S1, CoastalHazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan Update, the project site is not located within a tsunami inundation area. Furthermore, atsunami warning system is currently in effect as a function of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service. The Emergency Management Plan identifies suggested evacuation routes and evacuation sites in the case of a tsunami incident. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area of the City of Newport Beach. The project would involve the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel within the confines of an approximately 25.7 -acre site and would not divide established communities. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. Locally- adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations that would be applicable to the proposed project include the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) far John Wayne Airport (JWA). The project site is zoned Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) and is designated Visitor Service Commercial (VSC) per the City's adopted General Plan (July 2006). The hotel expansion project is compatible with Page 46 • The Planning Censer December 2006 � 1 3. Environmental Analysis existing zoning and the land use designations of the General Plan. The project area does not fall within any specific plans or other special land use overlays or areas. However, the project site is located within the LCP of the City of Newport Beach and is thus within the jurisdictional guidance of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Project implementation is subject to the approval of a Coastal Development Permit through the CCC. The project site is also located within the AELUP for JWA and could potentially result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The AELUP for JWA contains policies governing the land uses within the JWA area. Specifically, these policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. The proposed project would be required to implement the guidelines contained in the AELUP. For these reasons, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The project site is developed with a resort-style hotel. According to the Natural Resources ' Element of the City's General Plan Update, Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) within the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ -1), or the significance of mineral deposits has IVVV� not been determined (MRZ -3). According to Figure 4.5 -4, MineralResourceZones, of the City's General Plan ' Update EIR, the project site is located within MRZ -3. The project site and surrounding areas are not recognized as sources of important mineral resources. No significant impacts would occur to mineral resources of regional or statewide importance as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. Designation of a site as a mineral resource recovery site is a process limited to the identification of significant mineral resources within existing MRZ•2s only. MRZ -2s are areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits. The project site is not located in an MRZ -2. As mentioned above, the project site is located within MRZ- 3.Therefore, the project site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site, as indicated by the Department of Conservation Mineral Resource Maps, and does not contain any mineral resource recovery areas. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 47 3. Environmental Analysis 3.11 NOISE a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities. Vehicular traffic on Jamboree Road is a steady source of ambient noise. Takeoffs and landings at John Wayne Airport, a commercial airport located 3.5 miles north of the project site, contribute to the intermittent aircraft noise in the project area. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition, excavation, grading, and erecting of buildings on -site during construction of the proposed project. Construction - related, short-term noise levels could be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area. Construction- related noise impacts from the proposed project could potentially impact neighboring land uses, such as the Bayview Landings senior housing located south of the project site across Back Bay Drive. Further evaluation in the EIR is required to determine if the project will exceed noise standards or expose people to excessive noise levels. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. Vibration impacts are generally associated with project construction activities such as heavy construction equipment (e.g., bulldozer). Construction equipment utilized during project development would produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and building construction activities. Further analysis in the EIR is necessary to determine the potential for construction related activities resulting in groundborne vibration impacts. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase in traffic levels in the project vicinity, which could result in a permanent increase in the ambient noise environment. Further evaluation in the EIR is required to determine potential on- and off -site impacts of the project on sensitive receptors (e.g., residents of the Bayview Landings senior housing south of the project site across Back Bay Drive) in the vicinity. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact. As stated above, during the construction phase of the proposed project, noise levels associated with construction activities may result in a substantial increase in the ambient noise environment throughout the duration of construction activities. Further evaluation in the EIR is necessary to determine the noise impacts on sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site from on- and off -site construction activities. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is not located within an airport or within two miles of a public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the John Wayne Airport (JWA), a commercial airport located Page 48 • The Planning Center December 2006 3. Environmental Analysis approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site. However, as previously mentioned, the project site is located within the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. Although the site is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the airport, takeoffs and landings at JWA contribute to intermittent aircraft noise in the project area, as the site is directly under the flight path of JWA. For this reason, potential significant noise from JWA activity could be an issue at the project site. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airstrip is located within John Wayne Airport, approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. The project does not propose the development of permanent residences. The project involves the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. More specifically, the ///���. project would demolish 12 existing hotel villas and construct 7 new timeshare buildings consisting of a total QQ) of 88 units within the hotel property. Because of the temporary nature of the timeshare units (e.g., vacation !V� units), no significant impacts to population growth are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would not displace existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As mentioned above, the proposed project involves the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expamion City of Newport Beath • Page 49 3. Environmental Analysis 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: d) Fire protection? Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is served by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates eight stations in the City. Station 3, the closest station to the project site, is located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, less than 0.6 mile northeast of the project site. The fire department's average response time to any area in the City is five minutes. Consultation with the NBFD is required to estimate the level and type of demand associated with the proposed land use plan, to determine the type and significance of impacts to existing and planned levels of service. Further evaluation in the EIR is necessary to determine the impact on fire services. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. e) Police protection? Potentially Significant Impact. Law enforcement services for the City of Newport Beach are provided bythe Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. As of November 2005, the NBPD employed a total of 280 personnel, including 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 7 Lieutenants, 22 Sergeants, 109 sworn officers, 85 civilian personnel, and 53 seasonal and part-time personnel. The NBPD is currently separated into three divisions (Support Services, Patrol/Traffic, and Detectives), all of which are overseen by the Office of the Chief of Police. As well as providing frontline police protection services, the department is involved in a wide range of community programs. Consultation with the NBPD is required to estimate the level and type of demand associated with the proposed land use plan, to determine the type and significance of impacts to existing and planned levels of service. Further evaluation in the EIR is necessary to determine the impact on police services. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. f) Schools? No Impact. The project does not propose permanent residences. The project involves the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. More specifically, the project would demolish 12 existing hotel villas and construct 7 new timeshare buildings consisting of a total of 88 units, and other site improvements within the hotel property. Because the use of the timeshare units is short term (i.e., vacation units), no impacts to schools are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Parks? No Impact. The project does not propose permanent residences. The project involves the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. More specifically, the project would demolish 12 existing hotel Villas and construct 7 new timeshare buildings consisting of a total of 88 units, and other site improvements within the hotel property. The short-term nature of the 88 timeshare units (i.e., vacation units) would not significantly impact neighborhood and regional parks. Therefore, no impacts to parks are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 50 • The Planning Center December 2006 3. Environmental Analysis h) Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed hotel expansion would not result in substantial adverse impacts to other public facilities such as libraries. No mitigation is necessary. 3.14 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. More specifically, the project would demolish 12 existing hotel villas and construct 7 new timeshare buildings consisting of a total of 88 units, and other site improvements within the hotel property. The timeshare units are short-term vacation units: the project does not propose permanent residences. ' The following recreational areas /facilities are located in the vicinity of the project and would likely accommodate recreational demands from the 88 timeshare units: North Star Beach, Newport Dunes, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve, Back Bay Golf Course, and Big Canyon Country Golf Course. However, because of the short-term nature of the 88 timeshare units (i.e., vacation units), they are not anticipated to ' have a significant impact on neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves the expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. More specifically, the project would demolish 12 existing hotel villas and construct 7 new timeshare buildings consisting of a total of 88 units, and other site improvements within the hotel property. The use of the timeshare units is short term by nature, as they are vacation units. The project does not pro- , pose permanent residences. The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ' of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Potentially Significant Impact. Expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel is anticipated to result in an increase in vehicle trips within the vicinity of the project site. A traff ic impact analysis will be conducted as part of the EIR to determine project - related impacts on traffic. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. Expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel is anticipated to result in an increase in vehicle trips within the vicinity of the project site. A traffic impact analysis will be conducted Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion City of Newport Beath • Page 51 �D 3. Environmental Analysis as part of the EIR to determine project - related impacts on a level of service standard. Potential impacts to designated congestion management roadways will be addressed. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of any major airports, nor would it conflict with any air traffic patterns. John Wayne Airport is the nearest airport to the project site, located approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact. The project has one main entry drive, a full- access driveway, which is accessed from Jamboree Road on the eastern boundary. This entry drive would remain and would be enhanced with decorative paving. The project also contains two gated entry drives that provide access from Back Bay Drive on the southern and western boundaries. The entry drive along the western project boundary would remain at its current location and would be enhanced with landscaping. The gated entry along the southern portion of the project site would be reconfigured and relocated closer to the Jamboree Road /Back Bay Drive intersection. The traffic study prepared for the EIR will evaluate potential safety hazards related to revised circulation plans. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as necessary. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Project review by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is required. The project would incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the Uniform Building Code, Fire Code, and NBFD standards and requirements. Uninterrupted access to the project site for emergency response vehicles is provided via Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. A fire lane along the western boundary of the project site would be accessed off of Back Bay Drive. Additionally, construction activities would be performed per City and NBFD standards and codes, thereby avoiding any interference with emergency access. No significant impacts to emergency access are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Q Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would require the removal of and recon- figuration of the hotel's parking areas in the southern project boundary and along Jamboree Road (eastern boundary). Seven new buildings containing a total of 88 timeshare units are proposed to be constructed. The three timeshare buildings proposed for the northwestern portion of the project site would be served by two subterranean (below grade) parking garages. The four timeshare buildings proposed for the north central portion of the project site would be served by one subterranean parking garage. A two -level parking garage containing 86 parking spaces is also proposed just east of the proposed ballroom, which would serve the hotel uses. Upon completion, the proposed project would provide the required number of parking spaces on -site, in accordance with the City's Zoning Code. However, temporary parking impacts on hotel and conference uses could result due to on -site construction activities. Therefore, further analysis in the EIR is necessary to determine if project construction activities will result in a temporary inadequate parking capacity. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as needed. Page 52 • The Planning Center December 2006 11 I� 3. Environmental Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Public transportation is readily available in and around the project area. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact The City of Newport Beach is the wastewater service provider for the project site. Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Wastewater treatment at the OCSD facility is required to meet applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and this issue will not be ' addressed in the EIR. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing water services and waster water treatment are already provided to the project site by the City of Newport Beach. The proposed hotel expansion would incrementally increase wastewater and water treatment needs. The General Plan Update EIR (April 2006) includes an analysis of both wastewater and water treatment demands for build -out of designated land uses. The EIR concludes that the increased water supply and treatment demand resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update ' would result in a less than significant impact. The General Plan Update EIR also concludes that development associated with the plan could increase sewer demand but would not exceed the capacity of existing wastewater treatment facilities. The two OCSD treatment plants are currently operating at 52 percent and 55 percent capacity, respectively. The proposed hotel expansion and increase in hotel rooms are consistent ' with the General Plan Update and therefore accommodated within existing plans to increase water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity for the City. This topic, therefore, will not be addressed in the EIR. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed, on0slte drainage areas of the proposed project would remain ' essentially the same. The proposed project would require minor modifications to the existing stormwater drainage system. Storm drain improvements would be installed to capture runoff in Jamboree Road, and also to control existing run -on drainage from off -site to the east. This water would be conveyed via a new east - west - trending storm drain traversing the southwestern portion of the project site and discharging to an existing drain in Back Bay Drive. The proposed drainage plan and tie -in to existing infrastructure will be addressed in the Hydrology section of the EIR. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Existing water services and wastewater treatment are already provided tothe project site. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan update EIR, water services for the project site are provided by the City of Newport Beach. Domestic water for the project site is supplied by both Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 53 �� r, 3. Environmental Analysis ' groundwater and imported surface water. Local wells are not a source of water supply for the areas serviced ' by the City's water services, which includes the project site. Currently, a majority of water supplied to the City, including the project site, is supplied by groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana Basin (Basin). ' Specifically, approximately 75 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area, including the project site, is supplied by groundwater from the Basin, and the remaining 25 percent of water is imported and purchased from the Municipal Water District (MWD). According the General Plan update EIR, build -out of the City's General Plan update indicates that adequate existing and planned imported water supplies are ' available to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed General Plan update. The General Plan build -out would include the hotel expansion. Therefore, the increase in water supply required by the expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel is negligible and impacts on water supply are ' less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the ' provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response 3.16b above, adequate wastewater treatment ' capacity would be available for the proposed hotel expansion and land uses, as designated in the General Plan Update. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. Q Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ' disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is under contract with Waste Management of Orange County for solid waste hauling and disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine, is the closest facility for solid waste disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which is owned and operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste ' Management Department (IWMD), opened in 1990 and is scheduled to operate until approximately 2022. The current rate of disposal for the landfill is a maximum of 8,500 tons of solid waste per day, except for 36 days per year that a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed (annual acceptance of approximately 3.2 million tons.) As of June 30, 2006, the landfill had a remaining airspace capacity estimated at 71.5 million ' cubic yards (Arnau 2006). IWMD is planning for the future expansion of the landfill until 2053, for which an EIR has been prepared. The Orange County Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR for the project on August 15, 2006. Once all required permits have been obtained for the landfill expansion, the landfill will have ' the ability to accept up to 11,500 tons of solid waste per day, which equates to 3,000 tons more than the current maximum rate of disposal allowed for this landfill. Table 3 shows the estimated increase of solid waste generation of the proposed project, utilizing the City of Newport Beach's solid waste generation rates. , 1 Page 54 • The Planning Center Derernber 2006 1 I I i 1 Li 1 3. Environmental Analysis Table 3 Estimated Increase of Solid Waste Generation integrated Waste Management Board 1 ton [short, US] = 2.000 pounds A different commercial solid waste generation rate was used (compared to the City's) because the proposed Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel expansion project is based on permitted square footage, not anticipated employees. As shown in Table 3, expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel would result in an additional 62.05 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, representing approximately 0.002 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill is allowed to accept annually. With the remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons, as well as a 16 -year I'Ifespan at the Frank R. Bower- man Sanitary Landfill without the proposed landfill expansion, the increase in solid waste generated by the hotel expansion would not exceed the capacity of the landfill. No deficiencies currently exist at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, as there is adequate daily surplus capacity to accept the additional solid waste generated from the proposed project. Additionally, expansion of the hotel will not significantly change the amount of solid waste generated from that of existing conditions. Therefore, as the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel expansion, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than Significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Public Resources Code §§ 40000 at seq. required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. In order to fulfill the state mandate on solid waste, the City of Newport Beach has a number of City ordinances related to solid waste management. The City Municipal Code, Section 12.63.030, requires businesses that provide commercial solid waste handling services in City limits to obtain a franchise. The ordinance states that, because state law requires the City to substantially reduce the amount of solid waste it sends to landfills, and the City is required to report to the state the amount of materials diverted from landfills in compliance with state law, the City must be able to regulate the collection of solid waste from residential and commercial premises through the requirements of a franchise. The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach operates under a franchise, as required per Section 12.63.030 of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed hotel expansion would continue to operate under a franchise and would thus comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 55 �� Solid Waste Generation Land Use Proposed development I Solid Waste Generation Rate (Ibs /day Commercial 24,944 sf 5lbs /1,000 sf /da ' 124.72 Visitor Serving 88 rooms keys 2.5 Ibs /rooMday 220 344.72 Ibs /day Total (0.17 tons /day) (62.05 tons/year) integrated Waste Management Board 1 ton [short, US] = 2.000 pounds A different commercial solid waste generation rate was used (compared to the City's) because the proposed Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel expansion project is based on permitted square footage, not anticipated employees. As shown in Table 3, expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel would result in an additional 62.05 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, representing approximately 0.002 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill is allowed to accept annually. With the remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons, as well as a 16 -year I'Ifespan at the Frank R. Bower- man Sanitary Landfill without the proposed landfill expansion, the increase in solid waste generated by the hotel expansion would not exceed the capacity of the landfill. No deficiencies currently exist at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, as there is adequate daily surplus capacity to accept the additional solid waste generated from the proposed project. Additionally, expansion of the hotel will not significantly change the amount of solid waste generated from that of existing conditions. Therefore, as the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel expansion, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than Significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Public Resources Code §§ 40000 at seq. required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. In order to fulfill the state mandate on solid waste, the City of Newport Beach has a number of City ordinances related to solid waste management. The City Municipal Code, Section 12.63.030, requires businesses that provide commercial solid waste handling services in City limits to obtain a franchise. The ordinance states that, because state law requires the City to substantially reduce the amount of solid waste it sends to landfills, and the City is required to report to the state the amount of materials diverted from landfills in compliance with state law, the City must be able to regulate the collection of solid waste from residential and commercial premises through the requirements of a franchise. The Hyatt Regency Newport Beach operates under a franchise, as required per Section 12.63.030 of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed hotel expansion would continue to operate under a franchise and would thus comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion City of Newport Beach • Page 55 �� 3. Environmental Analysis 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, and could indirectly impact the important habitat of a wildlife species (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher). The EIR will analyze these topics in greater detail to determine whether the project would generate any significant impacts. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment through impacts involving aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use /planning, noise, public services, transportation /traffic, and utilities /service systems. The EIR will analyze these topics in greater detail to determine whether the project would generate any cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project has the potential to create direct and indirect adverse effects on humans. The proposed project has the potential to affect humans through impacts such as aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use /planning, noise, public services, transportation /traffic, and utilities and service systems. The significance of these impacts will be analyzed in the EIR. Page 56 • The Planning Center December 2006 1 Appendix B NOP Responses I I I [l I I I I 11 I I I I I Appendices 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page left blank intentionally. The Planning Center January 2008 F South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4182 (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear W. Lepo: December 21, 2006 RECENED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEC 28 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above- mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the Draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. Air O ality Analysis ' The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are ' available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396 -3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved URBEMIS 2002 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.agm . og v/gNa/models.htmi. 11 The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment from grading, earth- loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation - related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g,, boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document, Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD Mr. David Lepo -2- December 21, 2006 or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for perfonning a localized air quality analysis can be found at ho:// www. agmd. pov /ceaathandbgok/LSTtLST.htmi. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel - fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ( "Health .Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following internet address: hgp• /Iwww acmd ogy/gqga/handbooklmobile toxic/mobile tonic html. An analysis of all tonic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitisation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimue or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter I I of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA wehpages at the following internet address: www aamd.go a/handbook/mitigation/MM intro.html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction - related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address: htti)://www.agavd.ggv/prdas/MgLmde/aaguide.html. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and land Use Handbook A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following tnteret address: hn://www.mb.mp-ov/cb/handbook.W Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(1)), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homcpage aMp: / /www.agmd.Sov). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the lead Agency to ensure that project - related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated Please call Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:CB:li LAC061220 -3LI Control Number I 11 11 11 H [] I d i 1 1 1 I sTnt' G,E 'n 7 d-- St1CJf✓&1'S.7RO,(vSPORTn710N Amt jj(1U$INSLdF,1 L7C.. AR 5CN14bH2ENV;rt N GA—_F DEPARTMENT OV TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92672_8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2267 Fax: (949) 7242592 FAX & MAIL January 16, 2007 David Lepo City of Nmpnrt ]:leach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion .Project Dear Mr. Lopo, File: ICRICSQA 50I 4: 200oa2I052 Log #: 1808 PCH ;! 19 \y r� Flex yaarpoiwr! Ra ~rm' gffi ""d Thank you for the oppnrhtnity to review and continent on the Initial Study ror the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion ]Project. The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would include 88 new timeshare units. a timeshare clubhouse, a now 800 -seat ballroom, a new spa faciIity, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a new two-level parldrig garage. The project site is located at 1107 Jamboree Road, on the northwest comer of Jamboree Road and Back BayDrive.1'be nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the City of Newport Beach. Caltrans District 12 status is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The issues of greatest concern. to Caltrans are those that may impart traffic circulation and increase demand on State Transportation Facilities. For all new developing areas, major Dew developments, redevelopment areas that may require new or improved access, new signals or any improvements to State Transportation Facilities will require close coordination with Caltrans. This requirement should be included in Final EIR. 2. Traffic Operations requests all applicants to use the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method mitlined in the latest version when analyftV traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities, The use of HCM is preferred by Caltrans because it is an operational analysis as opposed to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method, which is a p1ming analysis. In the case of projects that have direct impacts on the state's facilities Caltrans recommend$ that the traffic impact analysis be based on HCM method. Should the project require an encroachment permit, tmttic operations may find the Traffic impact Study based on ICU methodology inadequate resulting in possible delay or denial of a permit by Caltrans. All input sheets, awtmiptions and volumes on Stale Facilities including ramps and intersection analysis should be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. 3. In the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of- -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could 1 potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questtbns or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. ' Sinecrel , Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C. Terry Roberts, Office of Plamling a ud Research , "C Frans iawrovrs inobOlN across Cnlifornfa" I 1 I I 1 I I I I Southern California Gas Company A �Sempra Energy utility- December 18, 2006 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention! David Lepo, Planning Director Subject: E.I.R. for Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806 -6114 Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if ' hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non- residential projects are developed on an individual basis and 1 are obtained from the Commercial- IndustriaYResidential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, ' ' Michael R. Harriel Technical Services Supervisor f yt-1 Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim lvaw„v .1,oa.ax NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE 915 CAMOL MALF4 ROOM $64 SACR"SMP0, CA 95814 (916) 6536251 Fa (916) 657 -53" ds_mhc®p•cnelLnd December 19, 2006 Mr. Bill Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Y PtANNtNf3 �PpgY(JtEldl DEC 28 2006 CIT,of�%poMPCP Re: SCH# 20061210527 CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach FZDanslom City of Newoprt Beach: Orange County Dear Mr. Lepo: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above - referenced document The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change In the significance of an historical resource, that includes archeological resources, is a'signifioant effect' requiring the preparation of an Errvhonmemal Impact Report (EIR per CEQA guidelines § 15064.5(b)(c). In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project win have an adverse impact on these resources within the `area of potential effect (APE),' and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the pmJeet- related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: 4 Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS). The record search will detennine_ • If a part or the entire (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is tow, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located In the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources am present If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage Is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site farms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted Immediately to the planning department All infomhatfon regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • - The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. d Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity who may have Information on cultural resources in or near the APE. Please provide us site Identification as follows: UUSGS 7.5-minute guadranale citation with name township range and section. This will assist us with the SLF. • Also, we recommend that you contact the Native American contacts on the attached list to get their input on the effect of potential project (e.g. APE) impact J Lack of surtace evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the Identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15004.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a cedified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground - disturbing activities. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with cutturatty affiliated Native Americans. Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. * CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. J lead agencies should consider avoidance as defined In s 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines when significant cultural IPlease feel free to contact me at (916) 653 -6251 ff you have Cc: State Clearinghouse Attachment: List of Native American Contacts Native American Contacts Orange County December 19, 2006 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians David Belardes, Chairperson Sonia Johnston, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 Santa Ana , CA 92799 ajuaneno@verizon. (949) 493 -0959 (949) 462 -0710 (714) 323 -8312 (Cell) (949) 493 -1601 Fax (949) 462 -9451 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim CA 92807 (714) 779 -8832 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675-2674 arivera@juaneno.com 949 - 488 -3484 949 -488 -3294 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources Alfred Cruz, Culurai Resources Coordinator 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno S n Juan Capftwo CA 92675 Santa Ana CA 92799 (949) 493 -0959 714 -998 -0721 (949) 493 -1601 Fax This list is current only as of the date of this document I Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibiliday as defined in Sec. 7050,5 of the Health & Safety Code, Sec. 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Sec. 5097.98 of the ' Publi Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed I SCH#2006121052; CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion; City of Newport Beach,; Orange County, California. Native American Contacts ' Orange County December 19, 2006 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians toe Ocampo, Environmental Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno 1anta Ana CA 92799 ` x(949) 462 -0710 (949) 462 -9451 Fax I I I I I I j i1 IJ IThis list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibrlitiey as defined in Sec. 7050,5 'of the Health & Safety Code, Sec. 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Sec. 5097.98 of the Publi Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2006121052; CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion; C ty of Newport Beach,; Orange County, California_ I I RECEIVED BY w W.Ci.irvine.ca.us EPARTMET Ciiy of Irvine, One CMG Center Plaza. 20. Box 19575. Irvine, alilornia 92626 -9575 (949) 724 -6000 JAN 212007 January 18, 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT OFACH Sent via U.S. Mail and email: dlepo @city.newport- beach.ca.us David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project NOP Dear Mr. Lepo: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion project NOP. Below are the City of Irvine comments: COMMENT 1 Prior to commencement of the traffic impact analysis for the EIR, the City of Newport Beach's traffic consultant should contact Peter Anderson at (949) 724- 73707 to-det6fti ie the appropriate version of ITAM 3.-01 to utilize for the portion of the traffic analysis that ties within Irvine city limits. COMMENT 2 If impacts are identified on City of Irvine arterials or intersections based on City of Irvine performance criteria, appropriate mitigations should be identified in the findings of the EIR for all of the potentially impacted locations. We look forward to receiving the draft EIR for review. If you have questions, please contact me directly at biacobsaci.irvine.ca.us or (949) 724 -6521. Si erely BILL JACOBS Principal Planner PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office -w 200 Oceargate. Suite 1000 Long Beach. CA 90002 -0302 (562) 5945071 RECEIVED W PLANNING 01PAWENT January 16, 2007 JAN 19 2007 Iftp Bill Lepo, Planning Director ietli City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project, SCH# 2006121052 Dear Mr. Lepo: In response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project, California Coastal Commission ' (CCC) staff concurs that a full EIR study is necessary for the proposed expansion project. Following are issues of concern that staff suggests should be addressed in the ' project EIR: • The recently updated and certified 2005 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) does not specifically allow for limited use /fractional ownership - -- -- - -- "time'shaW_ unifs'in thevisifor Berving Commercial zone.—Please be reminded that the CCC recognizes the certified Coastal Land Use Plan and not the City's General Plan for land use planning guidance within the coastal zone. Land uses and new development in the coastal zone should be consistent with the Coastal LUP. In the absence of specific LUP provisions allowing for 'lime share" hotel proposals, if such a proposal could be found consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, the local government should prepare and submit an LUP amendment for Commission review and action. The proposed project will also require a coastal development permit from the Commission. Furthermore, please refer to the attached December 26, 2006 memo from Peter Douglas, the Commission's Executive Director, to local governments regarding specific concerns that condominium -hotel and other limited use /fractional ownership "time share" projects raise in the coastal zone. • The proposed project is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and would be required to meet the City of Newport Beach Coastal LUP policies ' for coastal resource protection (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 Page 2 of 2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), etc.). Primarily, documentation of biological resources present should be provided to determine if the area is an ESHA. Development within ESHA must be resource dependent, and development adjacent to ESHA must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. The City's 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan also contains a variety of other policies aimed at the protection of coastal resources, including but not limited to public access, protection, enhancement and provision of lower cost visitor serving and recreational development, water quality protection and enhancement, visual resources, avoidance of geologic hazards,.and the protection of archeological ' resources, among others. The Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act will remain the standard of review for any coastal development permit until the City has a fully certified Local Coastal Program, although, the Coastal Land Use Plan will provide strong guidance.. The EIR should analyze the consistency of the proposed development with applicable policies in the certified Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal. Act and identify and address impacts accordingly. r These are some of our initial concerns; I hope these issues will be addressed in the , project Draft EIR. Please note that the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when it is submitted to the Commission for formal review. , We request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Additionally, the comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion — of- the- Goastai- Gommission- itself. -Thank you- for - the - opportunity to-comment - ony-lnitiai- , Study for the proposed Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project. Sincerely, 4i�R J Liliana Roman Coastal Program Analyst S. Attachment: Memorandum from Peter Douglas, California to Local Governments and Interested Person regarding Development in the Coastal Zone dated December 26, 2006 cc: State Clearinghouse (without attachments) Coastal Commission Condominimum -Hotel i 11 I I STATE OF CALIFOR AA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENRGGRR, GOVEANOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 1000 ' SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 -1219 - N VOICE AND TOD (415) 9065200 FA% ( 415) 909.5400 MEMORANDUM December 26, 2006 r _ TO: Local Government$ Interested Persons. FROM:. Peter M: Douglas; i ' RE:. Condominium -Hote Development in a Coastal zone` This memorandum provides information to local governments concem(ng the review of new condominium hotel (condo - hotels) projects and other interval/restricted hotel developments for consistency with land use policies in app cail� ble'Lo�al..Coastal Programs (LCPs) and the California Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission conducted a workshop on this topic at its August,2006 meeting in San Pedro. It provided the Commission with a better understanding of state and national trends and issues relating to condo-hotels versus traditional hotel projects, and identifies potential adverse impacts of such developments on public accessibility to coastal overnight visitor - serving - ....._ -- -_-------aocommodations._ -The-w workshop _cove�_legal- issues,-zuppty -- and- demandrhotel_ :-- ___...::. _._. -... financing, and operations and management of condo-hotels, as well as an.overview of past Commission actions and general concerns related to public access to the coast and the diminishing affordability of ovemight accommodations in the coastal zone. A condo -hotel is a development that has the outward appearance and amenities of a traditional hotel but whose rooms ( "units") may be sold as individual condominium ownerships. Owners of these. condo units can use them for varying lengths of time or allow hotel management to rent the units to the general public. Owners receive a share of the rental proceeds. Because hotel condominium units are individually owned and subject to no or, varying length -of -stay restrictions, they are essentially residential investments and constitute a quasi - residential land use, with the possibility of functioning part time as ovemight visitor serving accommodations. The Coastal Act establishes visitor - serving uses, including overnight accommodations, as a higher priority land use than residential land uses. It also establishes a preference for lower cost visitor - serving accommodations. Because condo-hotels are quasi -. .residential and may not.be subject'to length =of -stay restrictions forthe owners of Individual units, concerns are raised about the extent to which-they actually constitute visitor -serving land uses. The burden is often placed on the Commission and local governments to devise enforceable restrictions that limit the private residential use of 1 Memorandum Local Government Manning Directors Page 2 I I units that are also represented as "visitor serving," to ensure that the condo - hotels are in fact visitor - serving: in addition, condo- hotels generally do not offer accommodations . at what can be considered "lower-cost," raising .questions about the adequacy of supply of lower -cost visitor - serving accommodations in the coastal zone. staff to ' At the conclusbn of the August, 2006 workshop the Commission.di.rected. prepare additional analysis for discussion at a subsequent meeting. Commission staff continues to work on preparing this-information and anticipates that the subject of condo- hotels will be scheduled for further Commission deliberations in the spring of 2007. Although the Commission has not yet adopted any recommendations to local government as to how to deal with new condo -hotel projects, this memorandum focuses on two important points. —_- , First, condo -hotel projects and other lir ' ed uWmgtiAAnal,ownership hotel proposals should not be considered unless the applicable LCP specifically allows such development. In the absence of specific LCP provisions allowing such "projects, the local government should prepare and submit on. LCP amendment for Commission review. god, - - '. action. Second,,in order to perform'tho necessary analysis to evaluate an LCP amendment that would provide for condo -hotel projects, the following information will be necessary: ' • A report evaluating the demand and supply of coastal overnight accommodations in the region that includes: 1 _ . A breakdown of demand and supply by type and cost of accommodations; - - - - -- - ----- 2 -.-;am- oval uationofwhetherthe- regiomhas -an-adequate- supply-ofovernighY .._.._..__.__.:_ ' accommodation to meet its current and projected demand; 3. A specific evaluation of supply and demand for lower cost visitor accommodations; • An analysis of proposed LCP policies and standards, including mitigation requirements, for condo- hotels and fractional ownership or "time share" projects, and:. • An analysis of potential mitigation, including contributions to funding lower cost visitor accommodations if there is evidence of deficiencies in the availability of such facilities in the region. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Attached is a report prepared for Commission consideration when reviewing condo =hotel projects. In addition, the workshop was recorded, and DVDs can be purchased from the Commission's San Francisco office. Please contact our District Manager for your region should you have any questions. Attachment: Addendum Condominium -hotel Workshop, August 7, 2006 I I I I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOVRCFS AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZE_NSCGER CommoR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, EOITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9¢105 -2219 ' VOICE AND TOD (415) %L 5200 ' FAk (415) 904 -5400 .. ADDENDUM To: Commissioners From: Deborah Lee, Senior Deputy Director Rebecca Roth, Federal Programs Manager RE: Condominium -Hotel L Overview August 8, 2006 . W3 ' In May 2006, the Commission directed staff to organize a workshop on the topic of condominium -hotel (cpndo-hotels). A hotel -condo is a development that has the outward appearance and amenities of a hotel but whose rooms Cl units") its ") may be sold as condominiums to . private individuals. The 'owners of these condo units may live in them or allow hotel . management to rent the units to the public and receive a share of the rental proceeds. Because of the individual ownership component, and because the condo - hotels are proposed without use restrictions in place, the developments are considered quasi - residential with the possibility of unetioning for- part-of the aswisitor- serying. -T-he- Coastal Actprovides'for - year visitor= serving use as a higher priority land use than residential, and also states a preference for lower cost ' visitor- serving accommodations. This is the key public policy issue presented by these development proposals. Because hotel condos are proposed without restrictions on the owners' ' use of the units, the burden is phwW on the Commission to devise enforceable conditions that insure that the hotel condos are truly visitor - serving and that limit private residential use of the units. The Commission raised many questions for the workshop to address that dealt with legal authority, supply and demand, financing, hotel operations, past commission actions, public access, and relative affordability of overnight accommodations. This report contaim.general background information to provide a context for the Commission's hotel -condo decisions. While the Commission 96crally makes decisions on a case- by­Case basis, this workshop is intended to provide the Commission a better understanding of the national and state trend, and scope the context and public impact, of these developments. The workshop obj ective is -for the Commission to be better informed about individual and cumulative impacts when it considers future hotel -condo projects and LCP amendments. Staff notes, however, that much information about short and long tern effects of condo--hotels on, overnight accommodations and public access is not available, nor is it being researched per se by public policylland use institutions. Thus, staff has made recommendations about additional analysis and research that would benefit the Commission in its future decision - making processes. Hotel- Condominium Workshop August 8, 2066 Page 4 What is the Potential for Increased Demand for. Coastal Owrnighl Accommodations? Staff was unable to find statistics on demand for coastal ovcmight accommodations. "Absent a ' wetted study that quantifies the demand of visitors to stay overnight along the coast, population statistics that show increased population, also suggest an increase in demand to stay overnight somewhere along the California coast. In 2000, 77% of California's population, or just over 26 ' million people, lived in coastal counties, which represent 25% of the land (NOEP).. California's ' population continues to grow, with 36 million people statewide in 2005 and it projected growth rate of another 7 to 11 million people by 2025 (CA. PPIC, 2005). Detwecu 2005 and 2025" ' populations are projected to increase by 45% in inland counties, compared to 17% in coastal counties. Despite these uneven growth rates, even by 2040, 60 percent ofthe state's residents will still live in coastal counties. In order to put the. ability to pay for overnight accommodations in perspective, the median household income for California residents in 2003 was $48,440. Nine of the 16 coastal counties have median household incomes that are higher than the state median household income, ' Figure 1: Population and Median Household Incomo by Coastal County Hotel- Condominium Workshop August 8, 2006 Page 5 0%,al is the National Trend of Overnight Accommodations as Compared to California? There are more than 12,000 hotels, RV parks, and campgrounds in coastal counties nationwide, including the Great Lakes coast, available. for residents and visitors seeking overnight accommodations along the coast (NOEP). Florida and California offer the most properties, with 2,178 and 1,742 respectively. Table 2: 2005 Coastal County Accommodations for Florida, California and Nation -wide 2004 Coastal Comiti, Accommodations Hotels/ . ". Lodging RV Parks/ Cam sites Total Properties Coastal County Population Florida 2,063 115 2178 17,347,161 - California 1,678 64 1742 27 61,347 Nationwide 11,381 667 12048 110,888,430. Source; National Ocean Economics Project Hotel- Condominium Workshop August 8, 2006 Page 6 What are the Cawornia- Specific, overnightAccommodations and Their Relative e A,fJ`ordabdity? Staff reviewed the total number of properties in the coastal counties and found information relative to the state's nine most sought after coastal visitor serving destinations. Out of more than 1,600 hotels, RV parks and campgrounds in California's coastal counties, only 134, or 7.9 %, are low cost accommodations within the coastal zone (NOEP; Coastal Access Guide). The 134 low cost overnight accommodations include not only RV parks and campsites, but also lower cost hotels and hostels whose room rates are, less than $100 a night. The below Table 2 shows the average occupancy and room cost by county. On average all coastal counties exceed the $100 per night affordable rate. Unfortunately data relative to.overnight accommodations within the coastal zone, as opposed to the entire county, was not available. Table 3: Low Cost Visitor Accommodations for Nine Coastal Counties In 2005 2005 Low Cost Visitor Accommodations py tag for Nine e� Coastal }� og Counties tl 4P py y g .. �+UN EeUtV c$ry Coastal countv 0, San Diego 452 53,584 72% $123 12 8.995 2-,9-3-3,46-2- $48,63.4 Los An eles 980 95,681 76% $103 14 10.4% 9.935.475 ' $41,486 Santa Barbara 123 . 8,764 12 8.9% 400,7 62 $45,7 13 Mon"' 412,104 (Ivi) $45,542 (AR) c_ Sanist4az.... _.___.- ....... _....._:.-.._._ ..... 68° As.._.._$ 1. 18 ___.__..19._._._. ---- 14.2°ta_24 tr66 SH. __$50$90 S ) 739,426 (SF) San Francisco 699,610 $51,302 (SF) & San Mateo 399 51,021 73% - $125 3 2.2% (S M) $64,998 S Humboldt 128,376 (li). $32,123 (H) & Del Norte 69 3,023 63% $65 4 3.00/6 28,705 S29,901 Statewide *add '1 counties included 70% $102 134 - 36132,147 $48,440 Source: VisitCA What are the Low Cost Visitor Serving Accommodations Along the Coast? ' The California Coastal Guide lists 134 low cost accommodations within California's coastal zone. Low cost accommodations are those with costs of less than or equal to $100 per night and include hostels, campsites, RV parks, and low cost hotels. Attachment 2 is table depicfutg low cost visitor serving accommodations. Also attached as exhibits are maps depicting where these lower cost accommodations are located in Southern California (see maps 2 and 1) and in most of the Central Coast (see reap 1). Hotel- Condominium Workshop August 8, 2006 Page 7 What is the Demand for Low Cost Overnight AccommodationgA long "the Coast as Evidenced ... by Hostel Use and State Park Demand? I I I 1 Hostels There are 10.hostels along the coast between the Marin Headlands and San Diego,'offering accommodations for approximately $14 per person. Hostel locations include popular tourist destinations such as Kp in, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Long Beach and San Diego. In Santa Monica, the average occupancy rate in 2005 was 96 %, with the hostel completely full about halfoftheyear. California State Parks California State Parks owns 1.5 million acres of land, with over 295 miles of ocean front property. Coastal state parks provide half of the total coastal land open to the public in California. 77 million people visited California State Parks in the 2004 -2005 fiscal year. _Nine of the 10 most visited parks. in 2004 were along the coast. Table 4:16 Most Visited California State Parks in 2004 -2005 *Bold Type Indicate the Park is Wltbin the Coastal Zme I. Old Town San Diego State Historic Park 2. Huntington State Beach 3. Sonoma Coast State Beach 4. Seacliff State Beach 6. San Onofre State Beach 7. Doheny State Beach 8.Oceano Danes State Vehicular Recreation Area 9. New Brighton State Beach 10. Malibu Lasoon State Beach_ State Parks Caninsite Demand ' The demand for campsites at California State Parks grew by approximately 13% between the years 2000 and 2005. Table 5: California State Parks Family Campsite Reservations Hotel Condominium Workshop August 8; 2006 Page 8 State Park Campsites There are over 6,000 campsites within California's coastal zone. 25% of the campsites are -in San Luis Obispo and 1411/a in San Diego. In 2005, camping fees in the California State Park system ranged from $9 to $25 per night for a campsite (CAA Parks). Table 6: Number of Campsites by County County county # Campsites Del Norte San Francisco 16 Humboldt 7444 San Luis Obis 1,488 Los Angeles San Mateo 205 Marin Santa Barhara 377 Mendocino Santa Cruz 396 Montme 276. Sonoma 201 Orange 373 Ventura 610 San Diego 864 Total Campsites within Coastal Zone: 6,173 Source: CA Parks 4cn- 4_;=pslre Low 4osr uyermgnr Accommonaugns: Lrvstai cove maw rm The Crystal Cove State Park, located between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, provides 13 _..- lout- cQst_: beach -side ettages for. o_vernight_visitors....There arall indi�ridual..cottagesAhat.skxP between 4 and 9 people and range in price from $115 to $325 per night, or $29 to $36 per person per night. Rooms in the two dorm style cottages cost approximately $25 per person per night. Clear pent up demand for low cost beach -side accommodations in this area is seen in the reservation demand for Crystal Cove, 16,000 people tried to reserve a oottxge on the: first day for. reservations, and within just a few hours the cottages were sold out for seven months (OC Register). The majority of visitors staying overnight at Crystal Cove came from Orange County and a few came front places such as Alabama and Chicago.. What are Region Specific Case Studies? San Diego Countv San Diego County has an overall population of 2,933,462 WS Census, 2005). The City of San' , Diego is California's second largest city with a city population of nearly 1.3 million in 2005. In 2005, more than 27 million people visited San Diego County, of which nearly 16 million stayed. overnight (SDVCB)- Approximately400/o of overnight visitors im 2005 were from California. San Diego County has over 70 miles of coastline along the Pacific with 11 public beaches.. ' 1 I Hotel-.Condominium Workshop August 8, 2006 Page 9 rii San Diego County, there are 452 hotels and lodging accommodations, with casinos and health spas adding mother 82. (VisitCA). According to the 2003 California Coastal Access Guide, -only 12 properfies were low-.cost accommodations. The average daily room rate in.San.Diegq County for 2005 was $122, with a peak rate of $136 in July (SDVCB). The av&ago occupancy rate for the same year . was 72.3%, with a peak rate of 86% in July. *Note, as a general rule of thumb, properties need an annual occupancy rate of between 60% and 70% to break even. Table 7. Sao Diego County Accommodations Summary for 205 Newport Beach, Q=ge County hi 2003; there were just over 7 million visitors to Newport Beach, of which less than 1*million stayed overnight at Newport Beach accommodations. in Newport Beach, there are 16 hotel and motel properties, providing a total of 2800 guest rooms. Three of the 16 properties are classified as "Low. Coe' accommodations (<$100 per night), four are classified as "Mid - market", and mine are classified as Luxury". The average occupancy rate in 2000 was 74.5%, with peak occupancy rates of over 80% in July and August. Orange County overall had an occupancy .. . .......... ---- Orange -- .............. -- ---- Table 7. Newport Beach Accommodations Summary for 2000 Newport Beach Accommodations Suinniai-v for 2000 2003 Avg 2003 Overnight Occupancy Room Total Low Cost Visitors Visitors Rate Rate Properties Properties 7,058,4401 869,440 74.5% $148 16 3 Source; Wewport Beach Gemal Phu Up&te The results of a 1998 Newport Beach visitor use survey revealed an average of 1.57 million visitors per beach-mile between the Santa Ana River and Newport Harbor (Chapman, Hanemann. 4; Ruud). For 1998, that means 'approximately 7.8 million people (residents and visitors combined) visited this stretch of beach. Also, in 2003, 63.5% of all visitors to Newport Beach made a trip to its beaches to enjoy beach-related activities. Hotel- Condon -drdum Wo&hop - August % 2006 Page 10 . Figure 2'4 Beach- Related Newport Visitor Activities in 2001 r 11 Hotel-Condominium Workshop . August 8, 2006 Page 11 VI. Information Gaps and Next Steps This workshop will be an important first step in educating the Commission, staff and public about condo - hotels. Yet limited information was available to answer the many questions relative to the broader public policy idsues invoked in this discussion. The below listed questions focus on areas where there are information gaps that have not been addressed by the workshop. Staff' recommends that the Commission seek additional information on this important policy matter. . Information Gans • What is the supply /demand of coastal overnight accommodations by region and by cogt? • What will the cumulative effect be on the average Californian wishing to stay on coast for vacation in terms of available and affordable overnight accommodations? • What has been the effect over time on visitor use of the coast with less than eight percent of all coastal accommodations meeting the $100 or less criteria of affordable? • How should the Commission and local governments evaluate whether a region.has adequate overnight accommodation supply to meet its current and projected demand? • What is'the demand for coastal access versus overnight accommodations, access along the shore, and visual access? (Could information be provided from an 4ndependcnt- survey?) _. • Region by region and statewide, is 'there a mix of economic levels of visitor serving uses throughout the coast? • How can the Commission encourage and promote the development of lower cost 'visitor accommodations.and other high priority uses? • What kinds of partnerships are needed to address the apparent deficit in lower cost accommodations? j Should LCPs provisions be amended to reflect standards requirements and mitigation needs for condo - hotels, given that they are not currently recognized as high priority visitor- serving uses in most LCPs? RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerel RECEP/M BY "L""NG DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 C11Y OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. . I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, MV � Sao RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 1007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ti As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several, areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, El RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2001 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that ' has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to ' the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, I I 1 C .4 A5 �tA/ 9 1/11/07 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, Steve & Kathy Ant 2 Sea Cove Lane. Newport Beach, Ca: E, I I 1 I I I I I I [I RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, ?& David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECENED gY PLANNINo DEPARi'8(tgw Y iI, aa, i '3ti'i4i m.a svdl 11 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare - -_ __ -m stressed -that ese ck es- wlliWot onT lower flYe " "ro _� value ofm home; bu# __- ....._- - y p ._per.... y also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. JO r ' Murillo, Jaime From: Lepo, David ' Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:46 PM To: Murillo, Jaime ' Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project For the project file ... Who maintains a mailing list of these folks for subsequent notification when hearing date is set? From: Dick Berube fmailto:rberube @cox.netj ' Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:18 PM To: Lepo, David Subject: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project ' David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, Ca 92663 ' My wife and I have been resident's of Sea Island for sixteen years. The expansion of the Hotel will have a major negative effect on our quality of life. The proposed Maintenance Building will be 263 Feet from our Condominium. Currently we are subject to noise, bright lights and excessive noise emanating from the Special Events. If the Proposed Expansion is approved, please move the Maintenance Building to the west side of the property. Sincerely ' Richard & Rita Berube 15 Sea Cove Lane ' Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 949 - 760 -8323 1 I I I 1� 02/06/2007 Berube comment.txt From: "Murillo, Jaime' <JMurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us> To: "7oAnn Hadfield" <JHadfiel @planningcenter.com >, "Marice white" <marice @g... Date: 216/2007 10:18 Am subject: Fw: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project From: Dick Berube Emailto :rberube @cox.net] sent: Monday, ]anuary 15, 2007 4:18 PM To: Lepo, David subject: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, ca 92663 My wife and I have been resident's of sea Island for sixteen years. The expansion of the Hotel will have a major negative effect on our quality of life. The proposed Maintenance Building will be 263 Feet from our condominium. Currently we are subject to noise, bright lights and excessive noise emanating from the special Events. if the Proposed Expansion is approved, please move the Maintenance Building to the west side of the property. sincerely Richard & Rita Berube 15 sea Cove Lane Newport Beach, ca. 92660 949- 760 -8323 Page 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o) a,... 16, 'Q'0'0 7 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach _ -- _3300 Neupon 8ouie_yard., ....._ _.. .. Newport Beach, Ca: '926b3' As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located, directly. across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotei, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare ' i am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that 1 has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allow'° -d to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the- Hyatt's proposed expansion. . Since //rely, ' (ft�US�,,,4 a,�lJLt�/�iav , RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 7, 2007 JAN 12 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Reach, CA 92663 Re. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project Dear Mr. Lepo: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH# My wife and I live directly across Jamboree from the Hyatt, in the Sea Island complex. We oppose the Hyatt expansion project for a number of reasons. One is the noise factor. Currently the annual "Breakers" tennis matches are held there, and the crowd and commentators "noise" is extreme. We cannot sit on our balcony and 'carry on a conversation while the matches are in progress. We have complained to the Hyatt and they accept no responsibility, claiming that it is an outside event. We fear that the addition of the 24,387 square foot ballroom /meeting building could easily contribute to the noise factor as well as horribly increased vehicle traffic. We currently have a view of the coastline and Catalina Island, weather permitting. We very strongly oppose any construction that would exceed two stories with fear of losing the view that we bought with our condominium purchase. And we vehemently oppose any change to the city's building codes to allow for taller buildings as was allegedly the case with the Balboa Bay Club. In Robert C. Browning 93.1 Oman Vista, Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 / (949) 644 -7611 tic C. """ay Crcaarr Vista. tt BEach, CA 91660 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY QE NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any, development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the HyatV-. proposed expansion. Sincerely, i2 ^2�Z� David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 u ' RECEIVED BY ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, -Wffi= J. Corkett g9 ocean Vista NeWgottBeack,CA 92660 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to, the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, W94-:, /L� David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2001 C" T it 1 ^ s AVVIXIDT J i. As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glaze I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, /3 OtGA� lJ��rfl - -si=A 1wnc( Ca qd"o i 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 LJ 1 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Lov'c,I D'Ambrosio 26 ote3q vista llewpo"je.h. Calf. 92666 t 11 -r'rk As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. -6.� Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • nrraaes+ in 4raffir anA air nnahYv Adverse of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that i be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, (7_. o c L R N V c s T— q. (J, 13, i 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I �J Mike Fossier 9 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 10, 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 12 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' I am writing to protest the proposed expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Hotel, as described in your recent Notice of Preparation to interested parties. Since 19941 have been an owner and resident in the Island Lagoon/Sea Island Condominium complex, which is located directly across Jamboree from the hotel. I am not opposed to commercial activities as such, but I found the specs of the expansion, as described in a recent meeting of Condo owners, to be completely inconsistent with the predominantly residential neighborhood around the hotel. I believe that such a massive expansion will of necessity lead to difficult traffic problems and noise that will change the nature of the area. The most blatant example of this is the proposed ballroom which, i was told, will hold 800 people! This is so out of keeping with this part of Newport Beach that I find it hard to express my outrage. My wife and I chose to move to Newport Beach because of its large residential areas near great shopping districts. Our particular complex is a quiet neighborhood of mature residents who appreciate the quiet of the current situation, which I feel would be totally changed by the ridiculous magnitude of the proposed expansion. I would appreciate being kept informed about the approval process, and of opportunities for me to express my feelings in person. Thank you very much for your consideration, Yours Truly, David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECEKO BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2001 CITY OF NEWPOr �UCN As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. .Sincerely, �S N, (S- R266o /f ' Marie J Griffith 33 Seabrook Cove ' Newport Beach, California 92660 January 11, 2007 1 7 L RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CiTy Cif NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach ' .- .___.... 3300 N. ewport Boulevard -._ Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 11 1 1 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely,] �7 William D. Griffith 33 Seabrook Cove Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 January I t, 2007 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach _._ 3300 Newport Boulevard_ _ . Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECENED BY ENT pLAN141NG DEPART I�I JAN 17 200' cp Of WORI qkc As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, 1 I I I 1 I I [l 1 1 1 i RECEIVED BY 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT H. COURTENAY UArtXMS, dR. 73 Ocean Vista 1 JAN 19 2007 Newport Beach, California 92660 / 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i A4U A(al 619r f�l% We 1 V� OWL date- 1� f � ' j. 1. � � t � y7 � L+ / ����� � � � i� .d � f �; � ' i i � � r., / //'r ! i s ,� _ ._ �a, ,, : � � �� /, , i� y ,, �� � � -. y! „mil . i ; ,�': ' i . � � �� i � ,1 ,, �� i �/��- `vZ�v4 -ate. `idU���.��1C.. . r ��:��. I 1 1 1 1 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 P1Mgil ; /ihKC�C (d) coy, ne-7- ' As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. ' Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare 1 I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that 1 has become so enjoyable for me and my family, I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to 1 protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to 1 the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, �7 Idle 1 rb r s alu `fie CdAS �� a Oka °11-1 ca-40 pl("" JO Suresh A KkemCani January 12, 2007 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 Register Mail/US Mail As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincer Suresh A. Khemlani Cc: Terry Smith Gold Coast Enterprises, Inc. 34 Ocean q)Vsm, 91(e 4vaBeack CA 92660 • Bkone (949) 759 -33W • YaX(949) 759 -3387 • T,-mai1n4fskGaoU= Thursday, January 11, 2007 David Lepo City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Reach, CA 92660 Dear Dear Mr. Lepo, RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As residents of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, we strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, we would like to address several areas of concern: 1. Increased noise levels 2. Adverse effect on views from my community and from my home 3. increase in traffic 4. decrease in air quality 5. adverse conditions because of additional light and glare We are distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable to the two of us and our family. I ask that we be advised and allowed to participate In any development changes so as to Protect our community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, ✓cSj IC:rr�'J � k���� f � �'`rJ'J James Liberty and Tiffany Ward Uberty 8 Sea Cove Lane Newport Beach, ca. 92660 949-640 -9230 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 lat 9-111) f As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerelyy,,/ f I A C_l I 1 1 1 ,I 1 RECEM BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3 300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, A-,,., ,, L McO e- v 1{ 1 S-e�6coo K Co ve lore + t ° +Iaev,\,N GA - 92. 6b a RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, 1 would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area'much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion, Sincerely, cA - iz66 o January 12, 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, Roger A. Mohrhoff, Trustee MOHRHOFF FAMILY TRUST 77 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, Ca6fomia 92660 949121.7700 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose this proposed expansion for the noise it will generate. We have fought, yet been forced to endure the noise from the amphitheater on the grounds of the Hotel for years. We have also been kept awake until well after midnight by, the live band in the bar following those jazz nights. We have also tried, unsuccessfully, to have the hotel keep the side door of the bar closed on those nights so we can sleep with our window open as we did before all that jazz. Now we learn that the hotel will build a new ballroom that will seat 800 plus people at a time. How much more noise will we have to listen to at all of those events. How much is enough. This was a quite boutique hotel when we moved into Sea Island. Please don't allow The Hyatt Regency to disrupt our quality of life with more noise. Sincere) Karen & Roger Mohrhoff Mr. and Mrs. Gerald S. Morris 22 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 721 -8223 ieroLzLndmav@cox.net January 10, 2007 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo; RECENED By NL4NNINg rjFpApTMENT aVtii As residents of the community of Sea Island, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency, we strongly oppose the proposed expansion. We feel that the expansion will have a negative impact on our quality of life and our property values. The areas of the expansion that will have the greatest negative impact include; Loss of view Additional noise (already an issue) Increased traffic Increased lighting Please keep us informed of any decisions and public forums to be held regarding the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion. Sincerely, Gerald S Morris and Gay G. Moms i 1 RFGFIVED 1 .januavy (h.2oa7 217 jkN 16 An 9= 46 22 Ocean Vista Newport Beach CA 92660 11 949 721 -8223 T� "� `;I Y U EI ", 1 Ierrwandgay(d)cox net CI Steven Rosansky, Mayor 1 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Rosansky; As residents of the community of Sea Island, located directly across the street from the Hyatt 1 Regency, we strongly oppose the proposed expansion. We feel the expansion will have a negative impact on our quality of life and our property values. The areas of expansion that will have the greatest negative impact include: 1 Loss of view Additional noise (already an issue) Increased traffic 1 Increased lighting We are requesting that the city council review this expansion prior to allowing the planning ' commission to move forward. Please keep us abreast of any meetings or further information. Si cerely, Gerald S and Ga Morrisr 1 Date t 1 1 � r l? ' ,C/opies Sent To: /� 0, Mayor ' Council Member Manager a. 17aaid Bepa, Wanning Dixectac e7q of Nmpoxt Xeack. 3300 Sewpod iWead Newpoxt JET. eacht, ea 92663 Dean .Ntc Bepa, jameaaq 12, 2007 RECEIVED BY PL WNG DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH We axe w4Ueats 4 Me Sea 3oeand emu(arreiniurn a omnu pity acwoo ffw ofxeet f wm f m Matt Xegencq .7Eo&- ffl& we be aduised NEat we axe itirwng # oppased to tAe pwpaoed expansion of ffce Xvatt ` ecq NOW fox tfw f of fouW g' wwom 9aexeaaed noise &e,& ♦ ' I ' I I � I ' ' I a ' 1 t / / ' We, axe dietxeooed lkat dwe changes Wd not oa# &w" the pwpat% va&w of am Nome, 6uut apse incxeam te?e comowwadization, of &e awa. Aio of cauwe wouM demeaoe ffw quaPitq of tip that am family. Peas came to en joq in Me awa. We aok dint we 6e advieed w4auUngs any development Mangza to the Ayo t Segeneq Motet a hiat we can actawf paxtieipate in ffw aeview pwceos. 5'&me contact as as to the tune and date of any public f oxum wa %egaxds to the gtyati'o pwpaoed expansion. J &MA qeu. .Newpoxt `✓3eacA, pa 92660 (949) 760 -0156 January 11, 2007 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Hyatt Regency Hotel Expansion Plans Dear Mr. Lelm: PLAN By �NAffNG DEPARTMENT JAN 171007 CIIYOFNEWp®RTNCH As almost 17 year residents of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, we strongly oppose the referenced proposed expansion. Specifically, we would like to address these potential areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from our Community and our home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional lights and glare We are distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of our home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for us and our family and friends. We ask that we be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact us and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, Don M. Norman 57 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 721 -9874 ynthia S. Normans RECENED By P ANNNO WARN" JAN 17 2007 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect, on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, 0% qa�� O. Don Ostler 2892 Kennedy Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 January 13, 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca, 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RECEMI) BY PLANNING DEPARTMENY JAN 19 2007 OF N WAM" -� nay CU E I am writing this letter to oppose the proposed expansion of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. My primary residence is in Utah, but our family spends considerable time each year in Newport Beach. We purchased our condo to provide a retreat where we could enjoy ourselves in your beautiful city. We have stayed previously at the Hyatt, but want our increasing time in California to be at a residential community that would be peaceful, free from noise. We are concerned that the proposed expansion would increase traffic and noise. It would likely increase light and diminish the quality of air. While I may not be able to attend public forums where Hyatt's proposal will be discussed, I hope that you will give full consideration to the input and concerns of the residence of the Sea Island Community. Sincerely, i I� � RECEIVED BY PIANMNG DEPARTMENT JAN 17 29V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, 2s P ING D p� BY '? JAN 1910 4I cftO Oo f BucH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, —�—igAi P /03 O VLf A pb/�p E3£ 4C 4 CA RECEM by PIANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 19 2001 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, �Y V/ RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion, Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, L5? 6%WX 4" - ���u�''� �Paci� a2 67 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 08 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,.Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, Page 1 of 1 Murillo, Jaime From: Lepo, David Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:45 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Hyatt Regency expansion project For the project file ... Who maintains a mailing list of these folks for subsequent notification when hearing date is set? From: Bruce J. Schwartz [mailto:paparocks @cox.netj Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 11:32 AM To: Lepo, David Subject: Hyatt Regency expansion project Mr. Lepo, as a resident of Sea Island Community, t would like to express my feelings about the Hyatt Regency project right across the street. I've been a resident at Sea Island for 18 years and when we moved in ,the hotel was known as the Newporter Inn, a boutique hotel that projected the intimate atmosphere of Newport Beach, a small warm community. the project of expansion that you propose is exactly what my wife and I MOVED AWAY from years ago. I understand the need for improvement but disagree with the timeshare villas along Jamboree road and especilly the 2 story garage and the maintenance building along Jamboree. the garage and maintenance building should be located at the back of the existing parking lot which I'm sure the hotel doesn't want because it will block the view of some weekend customer that might not come back to hotel again, all the time blocking the view of the residents of Sea Island. I would also like to bring to your attention the front driveway. In the event that you are going to create double the congestion at that driveway, which in the past on a Mothers day luncheon has created a backup which has caused many a rearend car acciden (check the police dept. records) withe the addition of a 800 person ballroom, can I say more, many accidents and injuries created by this expansion. After saying all this,l'm strongly opposed to this project and hope for a different solution. I really don't have the time to inform all the victims of accidents that you exnored my advse leading to their injuries. I really hope that you have been a resident of this community for years and share my feelings of keeping the Newport the great city that attracted us here. thank you for your time and interest to this passionate e -mail. Bruce J. Schwartz #13 Sea Cove Lane. 02/06/2007 Schwartz comment.txt From: "Murillo, Jaime" <Jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us> To: "JOAnn Hadfield" <JHadfiel @planningcenter.com>, "Cora Newman" <cora@govs... Date: 2/6/2007 10:17 AM Subject: FW: Hyatt Regency expansion project From: Bruce J. Schwartz (mailto:paparocks @cox.net] sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 11:32 AM To: Lepo, David subject: Hyatt Regency expansion project Mr. Le o, as a resident of sea island community, I would like to express my feelings about the Hyatt Regency project right across the street. I've been a resident at Sea Island for 18 years and when we moved in ,the hotel was known as the Newporter inn, a boutique hotel that projected the intimate atmosphere of Newport Beach, a small warm community. the project of expansion that you propose is exactly what my wife and I MOVED AWAY from years ago. I understand the need for improvement but disagree with the timeshare villas along Jamboree road and especilly the 2 story garage and the maintenance building along Jamboree. the garage and maintenance building should be located at the back of the existing parking lot which I'm sure the hotel doesn't want because it will block the view of some weekend customer that might not come back to hotel again, all the time blocking the view of the residents of sea island. I would also like to bring to your attention the front driveway. in the event that you are going to create double the congestion at that driveway, which in the past on a Mothers day luncheon has created a backup which has caused many a rearend car acciden (check the police dept. records) withe the addition of a Boo person ballroom, can I say more, many accidents and injuries created by this expansion. After saying all this,i'm strongly opposed to this project and hope for a different solution. I really don't have the time to inform all the victims of accidents that you exnored my advse leading to their injuries. I really hope that you have been a resident of this community for years and share my feelings of keeping the Newport the great city that attracted us here. thank you for your time and interest to this passionate e-mail. Bruce J. Schwartz #13 sea cove Lane. Page 1 PLANNINGEDEPARBY TMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, i`, —Ak, k r,,- -s"') V,:J `J i - � gj_-7 d �� Robert I Shackleton 87 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, Ca 92660 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 January 31, 2007 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 05 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Cy hia Ann Sills 5 Bay Cove Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 January 31, 2007 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 05 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum mith regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincere Jay Adam ills, Esq. 5 Bay Cove Lane Newport'Beach, CA 92660 Island Lagoon Homeowners Association January 10, 2006 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 C1TY OF NEWPORT BEACH The Sea Island/ Island Lagoon Homeowners Association, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, has received a copy of the proposed expansion for the facility. The Association strongly opposes the expansion. Specifically we would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • . Adverse effect on views from our community • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare Our Community members are distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of their homes, but also make the area much more commercialized, thereby lowering the ' quality of life that has become so enjoyable for our members. We ask that we be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community and our Members. Please contact our Community Manager, Mr. Terry Smith at 714/ 279 -1122 and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, At the Direct the Board f Directors Terry S th, AMS, CCAM Comm ity Manager ' c/o Gold Coast Enterprises, Inc., 1518 W. Taft Avenue, Orange, CA 92865 ' 714- 279 -1122 * 714 -279 -1130 Fax www.goldcoastent.com RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 08 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, dCeA— i 76 1 1 RECEMD BY P"NING DEPARTMENT 1 JAN 17 2001 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 David Lepo, Planning Director 1 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 1 ! ,4ui � ��tA (�G7 is c�C� lJi s A�r'w1a,&'-� I //2/o7 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the 1 Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home 1 • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare 1 I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that 1 has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to 1 protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to 1 the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, 1 � F U 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 17 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, 114 Cl -�( RECEIVED BY MANNING DEPAtl1MENT JAN 17 2007 David Lepo, Planning Director ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 y As a resident of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from the Hyatt Regency Hotel, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion. Specifically, I would like to address several areas of concern: • Increased noise levels • Adverse effect on views from my community and my home • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare I am distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of my home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for me and my family. I ask that I be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact me and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely, / 1"2,12i� 2,t ec January 11, 20079 NNG DEPARTMENT David Lepo, Planning Director JAN 17 2001 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 OF NEWPORT Mu As residents of the Sea Island Community, located directly across the street from Cl the Hyatt Regency Hotel, we strongly oppose the proposed expansion. We would like to address several areas of concern, specifically, as follows: • Increase in traffic and air quality • Adverse effect on views from our community and our home • Increased noise levels • Adverse conditions because of additional light and glare We are distressed that these changes will not only lower the property value of our home, but also make the area much more commercialized thereby lowering the quality of life that has become so enjoyable for us. We ask that we be advised and allowed to participate in any development changes so as to protect our Community. Please contact us and advise as to the time and date of any public forum with regards to the Hyatt's proposed expansion. Sincerely yours, PbniSung Y o ;7 Young Ku Yoon 61 Ocean Vista, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT 7 Final EIR, including response to comments and revisions (under separate cover) ,�q� ATTACHMENT 7 Final EIR, including response to comments and revisions FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORTFOR HYATT REGENCY NEWPORTBEACH EXPANSION SCH NO. 2006121052 prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Jaime Murillo Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: JoAnn Hadfield Director, Environmental Services REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 filusU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR HYATTREGENCY NEWPORTBEACH EXPANSION SCH NO. 2006121052 �� prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact: PO Box 1768 Jaime Murillo Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Associate Planner 949.644.3231 CNB -09.OE REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 JoAnn Hadfield Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Director, Environmental E -mail: costamesa @planningcenter.com Services Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -09.OE REVISED FEBRUARY 2009 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ ............................1 -1 APPENDICES A. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance after Mitigation B. Newport Beach Fire Department C. Green Building Program D. Harbor Cove Community HOA Meeting Minutes on May 1, 2008 E. Sea Island Community HOA Meeting Minutes on March 26, 2008 F. Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis by IBI Group, August 15, 2008 G. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report by IBI Group, September 22, 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page i RoortL) 8 11 INTRODUCTION ..................... .................................................................... ............... ....... 1 -1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR ............................................................... .............................. ....... 1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .......................1 -2 ' 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................... ............................2 -1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ....... ... .............. . ........... . ....... . ..... ............ ............................3 -1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 DEIR UPDATES AND CLARIFICATION ................ ............................................................ 3 -1 3.3 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ............ ............................3 -7 3.4 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES ............. ......................................................................... 3 -19 Figure 1 Imaginary Surface Analysis ........... ............................................................... 3 -21 Figure 2 Vegetation and Fuel Modif ication ...................................... ...........................3 -23 Figure 2a Vegetation and Fuel Modification —Plant Palette Detail .. ...........................3 -25 Figure 3 Lighting Plan ...................................................................... ...........................3 -27 Figure 4 Parking Structure Elevations ............................... ......................................... 3 -29 Figure 5 Construction Traffic Access ................................. ......................................... 3 -31 Figure 6 Proposed Storm Water BMPs ........................................................... ........... 3 -33 Figure 7 Ballroom El evations ........................ ___ ....... ... ... ......... ................................. 3 -35 Figure8 Landscape Plan ................................................................. ...........................3 -37 Figure 9 Hyatt Site Pfan /Grading Plan ..................... .............................. ..................... 3 -39 Figure 10 Earthwork Cut / Fill . .................................................. .................................... 3 -41 Figure11 Parking Plan . ......................................................................... ..................... 3 -43 Figure 12 View Simulation 2 ............................................................ ...........................3 -45 Figure 13 View Simulation 3 ............................................................ ...........................3 -47 Figure 14 Site Sections .................................................................... ...........................3 -49 Figure 15 Existing Building Setbacks .............................................. ...........................3 -51 Figure 16 Visual Simulation from Newport Dunes ................ ................................ ...... 3 -53 Figure17 Land Use Map ................................................................. ...........................3 -55 Figure 18 Subwatersheds and Monitoring Location ....................... ...........................3 -57 Figure 19 Newport Bay Watershed. ..... ............ ...................... .................................. 3-59 Figure 20 Flood Insurance Rate Map ..... .................................................................... 3 -61 Figure 21 Existing Hydrology .......................... ........................................................... 3 -63 r Figure 22 Proposed Hydrology ....................... ............... .............................. .............. 3 -65 APPENDICES A. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance after Mitigation B. Newport Beach Fire Department C. Green Building Program D. Harbor Cove Community HOA Meeting Minutes on May 1, 2008 E. Sea Island Community HOA Meeting Minutes on March 26, 2008 F. Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis by IBI Group, August 15, 2008 G. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report by IBI Group, September 22, 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page i RoortL) 8 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1 Imaginary Surface Analysis,.. ................ ......................................................... ........... _.3-21 Figure 2 Vegetation and Fuel Modification ......... ......... ......................................... ....................... 3 -23 Figure 2a Vegetation and Fuel Modification —Plant Palette Detail ............... ....................... .. ........ 3 -25 Figure3 Lighting Plan.. ..................................................................... ........ ................................. 3-27 Figure 4 Parking Structure Elevations ................. .......... .......... ............... .................. .................... 3 -29 Figure 5 Construction Traffic Access ................................. ............... ........................................... 3 -31 Figure 6 Proposed Storm Water BMPs . .... ..... ..... ......................................................................... 3 -33 Figure 7 Ballroom Elevations . .............. ......................... ............................................................... 3 -35 Figure8 Landscape Plan ................................................... ............................... ...........................3.37 -177 Figure 9 Hyatt Site Plan /Grading Plan . ....................... .. ...... ..... ........... ......................................... 3 -39 Figure 10 Earthwork Cut / Fill ................................................................................ ...........................3 -41 Figure11 Parking Plan ......................................................... ............................... ...........................3 -43 Figure 12 View Simulation 2 ................................................. ............................... ...........................3 -45 Figure 13 View Simulation 3 ................................................................................ ...........................3 -47 Figure14 Site Sections ................................. .................................... ............................................. 3 -49 Figure 15 Existing Building Setbacks ................................... ............................... ...........................3 -51 Figure 16 Visual Simulation from Newport Dunes .............................................. ...........................3 -53 Figure17 Land Use Map ......................................................... ... .......... ............... .. .................. ....... 3 -55 Figure 18 Subwatersheds and Monitoring Location ............................................................... ....... 3 -57 Figure 19 Newport Bay Watershed .................................................... ............................................ 3 -59 Figure 20 Flood Insurance Rate Map .................................................................. ...........................3 -61 Figure21 Existing Hydrology ............................................................... ............... .................... ....... 3 -63 Figure 22 Proposed Hydrology .............................................................. ........ ..... .................... ....... 3 -65 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Comparison of NBTAM and ITE Trip Generation Rates for Hotel Land Use .................2 -21 Table 2 Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary .................................................. .2 -22 Table 3 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ..................... .............. ................. 2 -22 Table 4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Hotel- Generated Vehicle Trips ......................2 -114 Table 5 Accident History for 2005 through 2007 ............................................ .. ... .... .... .. .... .......2 -124 Table 6 Table 5.7 -6 from the DEIR ................................... ............................... ..........................2 -172 Table 7 AM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison ................................. ..............................2 -177 Table 8 PM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison ................................. ..............................2 -177 Table 9 Comparison of Existing Hyatt Newport Hotel Traffic Counts and Anticipated Trip GenerationRate ............................................................................. ..............................2 -178 Table 5.11 -6 Hyatt Regency Off - Street Parking Summary ....................................... ............................3 -3 Table 5.11 -7 Hyatt Regency Hotel Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast ................. ............................3 -5 Table 5.11 -8 Hyatt Regency Timeshare Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast ..... ___ ........ ....... .... ....3 -6 Table 5.11 -9 Hyatt Regency Total Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast ....... ...................................... 3 -6 Table 5.2 -9 Project - Related Construction Phase Emissions .................................. ............................3 -8 Table 5.7 -3 Construction BMPs ............................ .......... ............................................. ............... ...... 3 -13 Page ii • The Planning Center February 2009 1 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FOR shall consist of: (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. //�� This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Hyatt Regency Newport QD Beach Expansion project during the public review period, which began February 12, 2006, and closed c March 27, 2008. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and contents of this FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of this comment letters received during the public review period and submitted at the public hearing(s) and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A1 through A6 for letters received from agencies, .O1 through 04 for letters from organizations, and RI through Ri 1 for letters received from residents). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. Section 3 Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, andlor errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Newport Beach staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page I -I 1. Introduction comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204(d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15204(e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. Page 1 -2 • The Planning Center February 2009 I I i I I i 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City of Newport Beach's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in Bold Text for additions and strikesu for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Agencies Al Native American Heritage Commission March 3, 2008 2 -3 A2 California Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office March 25, 2008 2 -9 A3 Department of Conservation; Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources March 25, 2008 2 -15 A4 Department of Transportation, District 12 March 26, 2008 2 -19 A5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County March 28, 2008 2 -23 A6 Department of Toxic Substances Control April 3, 2008 2 -27 A7 City of Irvine October 22, 2008 2 -33 Residents R1 Gerard Adhoute MD, FACS March 1, 2008 2 -81 R2 Winnie Jay March 8, 2008 2 -85 R3 Jan D. Vandersloot March 26, 2008 2 -89 R4 Peter S. Bordas March 26, 2006 2 -93 R5 Gerald S. Morris and Gay G. Morris March 27, 2008 2 -97 R6 Yvette Alexander April 1, 2008 2 -101 R7 Jean C. Browning April 2, 2008 2 -105 R8 James & Katherine Murphy April 2, 2008 2.111 R9 Karen Lucian April 3, 2008 2 -115 R10 Dolores Otting Ail 4, 2008 2 -127 R71 Sandra Genis April 4, 2008 2 -135 This section also includes formal responses and a copy of a comment letter submitted by Robert A. Hamilton at the November 6, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed project. The I Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -1 i 80ro UQ 2. Response to Comments letter, prepared on behalf of, and addressed to "Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON)" reviewed potential biological resources issues associated with the proposed project and has been included as Letter 04. Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter Al — Native American Heritage Commission (4 pages) NATIYE:AME9IGAN HEWAGE 66MMISSION YISCMIaI.MK1.110aM2F. . 8r!aaAarArtalG agM• yaxiweJasliadg Y/?O SiM1yopepY.,Capm[ .mom a�wncape a:u.r MaM113, 2008. W..Jelme MuiAo. Associate Planner OTT OFNEWPOHT BEACH 3300NewPOrt Beu'evsrd . Newport eeacn, en gzsseags Re: 721x52 CEQ NNcedCamok�don draRF menmt hwactR rI(08Mto C mermel. ixaelownamrlbatt Renner CtO diNIMMrrBearhO GQ=Cel�ia Dear Mr. Morita: The Native Arnefloan Hedbeg& Commlagion to the sale agency designated to Protect Cetilornla's NaWo Amadtsn CimuslResoumes. The Ca9imma bwaenmerrmiauaft Act(CraAi mquhss twtarry praj�tNa[ causes a autwtaiitial arNenechanpa m the sigdfioartce den itetacal resource, Mgt indudea amh'amlogicaF . resources;isa'signitcaM eHed iogainng Ne Preperebon gran Fmiro of ft 1. 07CE AGui effnes de&M alitomia. ('Adel Regubtlmrt §15t184.5(b}(e(CEQA guMegrceaj.*i pde 7$3824 nUal, aCEDA diang In dethwoa: condtona iron the emected tdm•aedowijw :ar Inclu og.,. biiar�tialr hitoo maeE ehairyntprryslim In onJ orw redyn an area atWeba tit the proposed !Propd,.lrrdudirg....obJerffi dhisOie pr �kw"I a wa, inaadyete inordertg' —'o a Nta provMfan.Nof,adegenpyM reµdladlo dsamavdtetwylhe pmJeawglfaJeadedveray hnpeamNesa teaaurmavttliafita 'arsaaf.pptarttlel egeutJApq; and Hsreco m�gam Net egaJ. g a li equaSely assess tha'p(geC- rela{adaripecctoan MaDZitel regoumea; tits Corrmisaioh retommerlds Nerdiapac;a6 d J C4ntaFtttm appropdate,Cardopye btlaNric Reaoar«a mtormeam Cai986 (CHgJ$)ror poesrLle,'mwrdedama' in 1,_6 sMeratlte deveioph (eM-vriµarmightoxpr, CoriNd'adormaliontwllreJMormatlon Cgnmr nearAStYwis': evmfedetmm Ane',Staze Qface'dHntoric Preaorre'top (A1&653 -727ey hate: /hvww.ohamrb.o ove. Theiecord . . searchvdp deeartriine: Ha'pertorthb entire APE'luabem pleilauely,'surreyedfekaWtirrel resources. Harry Imowii'adWmi resources nave alrea�r,b¢ert recorded in odJaeenttothe APE., • Htne pmbab9dy is tow, modereto:ahigh Natculiuml reaoutwe'am loratud in the APE. H e survey rpiredto dabrinirte whathmpreviausy unrecoided nANrel reeourcea are preeent the eulopical uwenfory aurvaYM requiraA; +.Ihe feiy aBge is the d a pmeeelonal reWrt wanfing At_I_ MM" Ne Mdrgs erM moanfitendarone'.dNareC,adg searca':arrd3eld survey.. The Gnat re port containing-eft forms, a Na gnitcmme, and m7dgatlon.measum WwLid t suWAINd (mmeda, to- Me-Tianning:depaft AtI Infomwtion regerdlrtg "dk.Wcegons, Native Amelltaneamah remeina, and aacedakd knerary ohfecb elrould be '.In a eapemle confidential addendum. and not be made avalW" for pulrc diubeara. • The 4rml mipm re ponshaetd be oubfnjted'Hdtn a morMS.arwiwak boa; been c,,,00tad In ono, pralalato regana arcltaeob2cal Infwmallon Confab J Contact the Native AmeikanNen'mge romofts on (NAHC) for. . A Sacred Lands �Fto (SLn search of the prgodarea'and Infounation'on tribal contact, In Ne.prejeot vmrvly.I ito mayhevo:addfional:6ftrol,oisou lnfonnadon Please mmee Nla crricewith a4lbbMrg witil the SaSted citation eYemllaUe. fo•Mnb Iiaiwe aMSeendiLends We pearchYrr': t>SOS 7.S�rninrte auaUariak� • The NAFiC ad,dsae Me use d.Nawe Amokpn Moidlors tweipare proem ideetlfication and ca,epNen witurel reeourtm Biatmaycedwaavared The NAHC: recwmetrde 'NdtoTdactbamadewMft(gAmgJ�Il CanscmmineaHatn ,repogatthorayn .e on pomm toa1etmpaa-tAFEy In soma deaev, Ne md&emeaf a Natlye,ArrrencmtoWWonrdtoogi aIr geifalown aMy to 'a IomltrBa(s} al Lacfcdsutac'g:avieaitce ofarctieobgicalreeamee edoe%notpreclude NeinumMurtaca.edstence. ,. L,aedagenc(ea'6imalQhiUWe.M 41dr at faitlt3caoa anseand tlgad' eonlnm naw M*oaadeokrae mOuaY Efls. S N$15 115084.5(f). Jn areas d idertbrred anNaeNagiwl aerwltivily. a ceNGad archaeologist aM a,Narmy aHdkOed Nativp Amencan, aith faroNtNge M:pttlural remurtts, shadd • • Gta N ;lmtpm bibarnay po Ne orarrlwy Some gdouMima SSbknbirgactvi5es.. $IIWNae Atnencan cusiWrel n oaoe. Lead agendas aotild mdude`Mtheir midgaion plan'proWone for rM Crapaeifion Wiecovered aWacb. in 'conautpton "M aftrellyaffdluted NatlyeAmedwrw,.. Hyatt Regerrry Newport Beach Expansion Frnal EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -3 i 2. Response to Comments i Page 2-4 • The Planning Center February 2009 I ■ 2. Response to Comments I I I I I I I I I Native 4TOOM qPrItatft,� 0,0490 COO* WrOv 3, P , , AiuieowSakidbf&S Yi 5 'AqIIim"A0*, David Wardes; CWITemn 3.1742 Via BelmtWs JL*006, CA 92675 DavIdBelaMeSO-hoftafl.cmn ,")493-M" (948),493-1'601 Fu NOW Anflimy. F%Aarb Glrtiirrrian ,314 T'" JuanenD TI@hQri 31742 Y!q Bel*q" Juarterio Aah� - k 1 0 - I po� "GA WS 04104113 = 1001.. Fax PEi:Box25628 S'"� Aria CA JuWam CA VM PW , V I Tdbaf&i*ICufturei Rewumm Juamfiosawfussion, Ird", 0 W '!OjM f, �� Juaneftb C CA Soft.Anai s tA,*7WW , aQ_veflmmnet. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-5 OvWIN"- 2. Response to Comments Native American Contacts Orange County March 3, 2(!08 Juaneno Band at Mission Indiana - Anita Espinoza. 1740C060ertdVdiV6 Juaneno Anaheim CA 92807`; (714) 779852. Juanenosam o. Mission Indians, . Joe .Ocamp 0, bhalrparWn 1168 E,4ft6treet.... Santa Ana . CA; 92701 (714) 547 -9676 (714):623 -07(19.ceii This tbnsEMwitary wUiediboe �" Dt-WNU nwtlHn Iht mos'�gr,eyavrapy a�+w ?;Rreunm�;�wp�. nb ae nenrwS,m somon 7"= Nmm.m axi�uoUwT .9ama+rwwcnesdui®HCaec.na Secua�sW'�9earule riwrtcNwuuc:.C6tic. Page 2 -6 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments I Al i L� I I ,1 i E a I I Response to Comments from the Native American Heritage Commission, Dave Singleton, dated March 3, 2008. Al -1 Pursuant to the December 12, 2006, letter in response to the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by Cogstone Resource Management (DEIR Appendix, E). As documented in DEIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, this study included a literature search of archaeological and historical records and a reconnaissance survey of the proposed project area (conducted on November 6, 2006). A summary of recorded sites within a one -mile radius of the project area is included as DEIR Table 5.4 -1. Cogstone also consulted with the NAHC to determine if there are any known sacred lands in or near the project area. NAHC responded that no sacred lands are known in the vicinity of the project site. As recommended by NAHC, Cogstone also contacted each tribe or person recommended by the NAHC. The findings of these contacts are detailed in the DEIR. As recommended in this letter and the previous NOP response letter from NAHC, the DEIR includes provisions for the potential discovery of subsurface archaeological resources (Mitigation Measures 4 -1 and 4 -2) and for the potential discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries (Mitigation Measure 4 -4). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -7 �� 2. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. I I I .11 11 1 I Page 2 -8 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter A2 — California Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office (2 pages) F MiFMNIA Tf1EHESOIlflCEe AGENCY wREC �' ARNOI.OSpNiAP�NfiG6ER Gc.nirim. FORMA COASTAL COMMISSION q MAR ? 7 MR iyac[ swb +mo _ �cnsoanrsoz March 25, Z CI11' OF NEWRORT BEACI{ Jaime MuMo;. AssodatbTianw City of Nevep aeaeh PlenrM9 Department 3300 Nev45or6'SmIb and Newport geadi;eCA 82663; RE:.HyaN Regehc/'Newpo'it;Beach Expansion bratt:Environmental°Impact izep«I'($0f* 2006121052) Dear Mr: I uq P Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR A2�2. City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -9 2. Response to Comments 1 Page 2.of -2 :General Plan for land use planning within the coastal zone. The Coastal LUP would need' to be amended to change the land use designation of the project sde.or specifically auow for time share units in the Vsftor Serving 06mmereial Zone for this site (i such a proposal could be found consistent with Cha'pter.8 polydes of ft Coastal Act). Any LUP - -amendment(s) that are necessary for this project should be sought by the City prior to the'pt"uft of development entittementsr(e;g..coastal development permit) by the:project_ .proponent Only the local - govemmeht can prepare and submit an LUP amendment application for Commission: review and action. . r The.proposed Project is adjacent to the.t)pper Newpwt Bay: Ecological.Reserve.fihe! City of Newport 9eaeh Coastal LUP contains policies' requiring coastal resource' protection (i.e., provide *00priata buffer areaseand setbacks, shield and direct extericr fighting -away to minimize Impacts ,to, life. prohibit new develooment that would design,_ would result. in complete ovoklahee of'adjaeent- offsite coastal sage -scrub ESHA with a�� 50 -foot minimum buffet area between developed areas and off -site CSS.- However, .it appears that vegetation and fuel modification is proposed i n, the 50 -foot. ESHA.buffer- .area. Development adjacent to £SHIA must be Compatible,wih. the continuanoe .. of the ESiW Coastal LUP!policy calls. for buffer areas tobe- maintained w¢h: exclusively, native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat, nos .as a -.fuel ri+od'rffeation Zone. Fuel modification t'equir @itiettts t4 address'RCe Hazard stwuld, beset llreir- intended function of protecting ES"' from the disruption of hatmat values: The Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act will remain the standard, of review for any, coastal .developmen,:permit until t he City has. a Putty cergfieu Local Coastal Pt?JgtaRt, although, -'the .Coastal )and Use Plan will provide strong guidance, lease note that the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Addi foriai� and wrote oommenis will be provided d - the - Alty pursues. a. Land use Plan amendment to accommodate theproject and if his submitted to the Commission for a coastal development permit. We request notiftcetion of any future activity . associated with this project or related. projects- Additionally, the comments contained herein are preliminary and. those of. Coastal Commission staff only and should not be constnied'as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. Once : again; thank you for -the opportunity to commerit on the Hyatt Reganoy Newport i3eaar Drag' €IR. _ _. Sincerely! Ef'. Mena Roman Coasta(Pmgrarn Analyst A2 =2 (oont'd) jig'3 A2-1 Page 2-10 • The Planning Center Febmary 2009 1 I 1 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments from the California Coastal Commission, Liliana Roman, Coastal Program Analyst, dated March 25, 2008. A2 -1 The City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies regarding the protection, encouragement, and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving and recreational facilities are: Policy 2.3.3 -1 Protect, encourage and provide lower -cost visitor accommodations, including campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, hostels, and lower -cost hotels and motels. Policy 2.3.3 -2 Encourage new overnight visitor accommodation developments to provide a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income ranges. Consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, the City shall in no event (1) require that overnight room rental be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor- serving facility located on either public or private land; nor (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities. Policy 2.3.3 -3 Identify, protect, encourage and provide lower -cost visitor - serving and recreation facilities, including museums and interpretative centers. In the comment, the California Coastal Commission suggests that the development will result in a net loss of 12 existing hotel rooms and the potential loss of 76 future hotel rooms that provide lower-cost accommodations. The existing 403 -room, resort- style hotel, however, does not currently provide any lower -cost accommodations or recreational facilities. Average room rates for guest rooms are $298 a night and it is expected that any future hotel rooms on the site would have similar charges. In addition, the 12 hotel rooms proposed to be demolished are in four separate villas with three rooms each, where each room can be booked individually or in combinations. These rooms are booked through the hotel directly and are not available on -line or through the Hyatt's general reservation number. The rooms range in price from $850 to $1,100 a night individually, or $2,500 a night to book an entire villa. These accommodations are not considered lower -cost, and therefore, their elimination would not impact existing lower -cost visitor accommodations within the City. ` The comment also provides that the City should consider requiring the provision of lower-cost accommodations rather than the proposed timeshare component of the project and that Section 30213 of the Coastal Act provides that lower -cost accommodations are a priority in the Coastal Zone. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states, "Lower Cost visitor and recreation facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred." Section 30213 does not prioritize lower -cost accommodations, but identifies public recreational opportunities as the preferred priority. In addition, as stated above, there are no current lower -cost accommodations to be protected because the hotel rooms to be demolished for the project are not lower -cost accommodations. I Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -11 �l �� 2. Response to Comments In regard to whether the lower -cost accommodations are feasible, as provided in Section 30213, the City and applicant have examined the possibility of providing lower -cost accommodations within the project; however, the applicant has indicated that providing overnight accommodations at what might be considered lower cost is not financially feasible. The proposed project is privately owned and operated and CLUP Policy 2.3.3 -2 and Coastal Act Section 30213 prohibit the City and Coastal Commission from fixing the overnight room rental rate. Therefore, requiring the project to provide overnight accommodations to be lower cost would be contrary to the CLUP and Coastal Act. However, the City and the applicant have agreed in principle to the following public benefit as a component of a proposed Development Agreement, based on the priority for public recreational opportunities established by Section 30213 of the Coastal Act: Visitor and Recreational Facilities - Marina Park. Landowner shall pay to City the sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) at the time of issuance of the first time -share building permit, to be used for improvements that provide visitor and recreational facilities at Marina Park or at any other site designated by the City in its discretion (Visitor and Recreational Facilities Fee). The Visitor and Recreational Facilities Fee may be used by the City to provide public access to Newport Bay, public parking, picnic areas, playground equipment, basketball and tennis courts, lower -cost concessions, and recreational programs. Furthermore, consistent with CLUP Policy 2.3.3 -1, the City has provided an opportunity for economical overnight accommodations, subject to any applicable approvals, in the form of a 275 -room family inn to be constructed at the Newport Dunes. The comment also suggests that timeshare developments are not appropriate at sites designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV) by the CLUP as they are only "quasi" visitor- serving when compared to hotel rooms. The comment is inaccurate in that 100 percent of the proposed timeshare units are visitor - serving uses because they provide overnight lodging accommodations and other services to visitors to the coastal zone. Owners of the timeshare units, owners of other timeshares who exchange their interest for a period of time at the proposed project, and members of the public who rent non - owner - occupied timeshare units, are all visitors to the coastal zone. Timeshares are not residential uses because owners cannot reside at the site permanently and their visit is limited to the period of time they purchased, typically one to two weeks. The applicant's timeshare plan includes a limit of ownership to nine weeks total per individual while also limiting owners' visits to no more than four consecutive weeks per visit, thereby maintaining a constant turnover of visitors to the coastal zone. A2 -2 The comment suggests timeshare developments are not allowed on sites designated Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) by the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) as they are not specifically allowed, and therefore, the project would require an amendment of the CLUP to be approved. This suggested interpretation can only be valid if timeshares were viewed as not providing lodging accommodations or not providing those services to visitors. As discussed in Response A2 -1, the proposed project, including timeshares, provides overnight lodging accommodations and other services to visitors of the coastal zone. Although the CLUP does not define Page 2 -12 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I 1 1 I 11 I i I I I 1 I 2. Response to Comments "accommodations" or describe any specific uses that are permitted under the CV designation, timeshares are described as a visitor- serving use in the narrative within Section 2.3.1 (Visitor- Serving and Recreational Development) of the CLUP which states, "Visitor- serving and recreational activities are an important part of the character and economy of Newport Beach. In 2003, Newport Beach had 14 hotels, motels, timeshares and bed & breakfast inns in the coastal zone and 18 citywide." Section 20.05.050(EE)(2) of the Municipal Code also defines Visitor Accommodations as, "Hotels, Motels, and Time Share Facilities. Establishments offering commercial lodging for less than thirty (30) days. This classification includes incidental eating, drinking, and banquet service intended for the convenience of guests." Timeshares are also considered visitor- serving accommodations in the certified Newport Coast Local Coastal Program ( NCLCP). In the Tourist Commercial Planning Area of the NCLCP, timeshares are specifically listed as a permitted type of visitor - serving use. Although the NCLCP is not a part of the City's CLUP, the Newport Coast area has been annexed to the City. The CV designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended primarily to serve the needs of visitors to Newport Beach. The proposed project, including timeshares, provides overnight lodging accommodations and other services to visitors of the coastal zone, and therefore the proposed project is consistent with the CV land use designation and no amendment of the CLUP is necessary for project approval. @8 A2 -3 The CLUP policies referenced by this commenter are: Policy 4.1.1 -11 Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion. Policy 4.4.4 -12 Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas. The CLUP also specifies: Policy 4.4.4 -4 Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in ESHA. None of the +three policies specifically prohibit fuel modification within the required buffer areas; if it can be accomplished with the use of native plant species. The project design proposes the use of native, fire - resistant species, planted exclusively in the Special Treatment Zone, which is the 50 -foot buffer between the environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) and the proposed buildings. The native vegetation would be low- growing grasses and (orbs that, while occurring within an area that may occasionally be subject to fuel modification, would require only periodic minor maintenance that would not result in any degradation of the adjacent ESHA. The species selected are native to the coastal ecosystem of Central Orange County and would provide transitional habitat for foraging for a wide suite of native species that also utilize the adjacent Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA. Furthermore, Hyatt Regency New Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -13 1 2. Response to Comments any required maintenance would occur outside of the avian nesting season to ensure that the values of the adjacent ESHA are not disrupted, including potential breeding by the California gnatcatcher. The project design, therefore, would ensure full compliance with the City's CLUP policies. Also note that this type of fuel modification— whereby native fire - resistant plants provide the first zone of fuel modification —was determined to be consistent with Coastal Act policies and has been previously permitted by the Coastal Commission and its biological staff in two projects —the Brightwater project and the Marblehead development —both of which abutted natural open space areas and both of which were permitted through Coastal Commission- approved coastal development permits after a finding that the developments were consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. By utilizing native plant material, the traditional fuel modification techniques, which require continued maintenance of the zone closest to the occupied structures, can be avoided. A2 -4 Comment acknowledged. As noted above, the City concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the CLUP and that an amendment is not required. As requested, the Coastal Commission will be notified of future activities associated with this project. Page 2 -14 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I i 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I i 2. Response to Comments Letter A3 — Department of Conservation: Division Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (2 pages) STATEOF CMIFORNW RESOURCES AGENCY ARROW- SCHWAMNEGGER. GOVEji 16R DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEO.WERMAL RESOURCES W6.CapbpN Arm s. SWte tab:cjF= G 904�ir31 - IHDH[ 714MIb 7 . fAX 714ffll ;3 . M9 L[F a s? g ? aocw p BY March °25; M08 - PIANIdHGDEPAR'IMENr pjpjj 27 20118 Mr. Jaime Murillo, I�mt r�[ t,�p� T pfftl.t7 City of Newport Beach tr111 Vf I�p1t 3390 tl9_,oit Boulevard. Nawport�Beach, Carrfomia -02680 Subject Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion DrattEnvirOnmemaLimpacE Report -SCH# 2006,1121,052 Deer'Mr:duiurillo:._ Tf Dapartment ofConservariws (Department) Division of C64 Gas,.and Ceothermal,:Resources (Drursi ©n) has reViewed'the above referenced project The D'mswn supervises the drilling; maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of otl, gas and weds in California, The proposed project is located outside.the administrative houndaiiaaof any oil and gas fceW. HOWBVOr, there is one idle well within or in proWmity to the;project °bbuhdarids: The Well is identified oall-vrells within oW -6 and in D imitpoto records as:Santa A.011 C?o'l, The Division recommends that r dprox project: boundaries' tiezicxuratety plotted on•future project Wisps:. (Section 3208.1 of the: Bubric neoessarv, the cost of -ooera an adequate gas venting if to perform remedial operations. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 1 be avoided if at all gltrrebt Division wreabandonment:of AXI :lenity of wefls could. - tlant or owner of the property oned well is - or uncovered .during . damage or discovery the City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -15 rMIN 2. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo; City of Newport. p#ach March 25„ 2p08 page 2 To ensure proper review of building projects; the Division has published an informational packet entitled, "Construction Project Ste - Review and: Well Abaodortment Procedure that tines the information a'project devebpeF rsust Wu and tq tfie Divrston for review: The :Daepadment of Transportation should contaot theDivision Cypress district office for a copy ofthe =site - review packet, The bowl planning department shoulki verifythaf,frnal quilling plans have undergone Division review - priorto the start ofconstruetion. Sancarety >: _ Paul Frost Associate Oil S Gas Engineer Qivisiomof'Oil, Gas and Geothermal k6sources Distrial, Page 2 -16 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 A3. 2. Response to Comments Response to Comments from the Department of Conservation, Paul Frost, dated March 25, 2008. A3 -1 The plugged and abandoned dry hole identified on Division map W1 -6 as Santa Ana Oil Company 1 was drilled to a depth of 1,235 feet below ground surface (bgs) in 1989, and appears to be approximately 800 feet southeast of the intersection of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road. This well is not on the project site, and project implementation would not impact it. &*m?� Hyatt Regency Newport Be wb Bxpanrion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -17 2. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-18 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter A4 - Department of Transportation (2 pages) AEYARTMkNT OF TRANSPORTATION MUia 12 31P Mdmbm Ddva;SWW 380 6viuq CA9361M. M Pa -.- Ta!(9i9j7Z4-2597 Y: (949k77A -3593 Akalanomib! eaianoN March 26, 2008 ]Ai=N1WiuQ F;Jwj iRAWQA C, it yofNewportDcwhPlanu4j),*artmet 'SCH#.20MP-24 52. 33001 Newport8oelevmd - _Log #: naLk, NewpariHeach„(;atit ' omiA 92443 SR -1 subject: 11yatt.RegencY NeWp6rt86"A92parisfon 1? tiject Pw Mr_Muritle, CAMS Dbtrtet 12 SUtil is a cdmW=ft ageGiey`oa Wsrprgjeet aid has the fdlluwings 4. 2 the DER sfc s imda which the Please explain wl Cover the cumulal 31 4, fs;sratcd in our 44-3 JCMA) r nw a 42 I A4-3 Rjgliw,eY Ir .hg # Pc. I. A4=4 'V1nmi. nnwa� ?.na_Liuna?v'r[Stywnrc" Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of New port Beach Page 2 -19 Igo 2. Response to Comments Please continue,ta keep us fi fummd of tWs project and any future developments, which ooWd potentany impact the &taw 2Ymaportatien r=htum. if you have any questioaa ac Heal to AM5 ooivact us,glea9e do notl[esitWAo call 7hongpm9 (John} Xu at (949) 729-2338. 3i�icantY., Ryan Ch mbetiairy,l3iatrcti.Gltief LOCO Develop at review 1:; T- an'r Moo of'Pianning and Resew uh •.crtrn.:mc.a,.+. maar4.nw. CW:�a.nd.•. Page 2 -20 •The Planning Center February 2009 I ■ 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from the California Department of Transportation, Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief, dated March 26, 2008. A4 -1 The City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines has established the significance threshold of 0.01 (1 percent) or greater as the standard for the identification of traffic impacts for projects proposed within the City. The traffic study was prepared consistent with these guidelines. The analysis of future year traffic conditions with the project includes ambient traffic growth on major arterial streets and traffic generated by approved and cumulative projects within the City of Newport Beach. tA4 -2 The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) project and the associated traffic study were approved by the City of Newport Beach in 1992. The CIOSA project included the implementation of several traffic improvements within the City of Newport Beach as a condition of the proposed development to mitigate identified traffic impacts. All of the required traffic improvements have been completed. The proposed expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Hotel to a total of 479 rooms was a component of the CIOSA project. Therefore, the currently proposed Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion project, which would provide a total of 479 rooms, is consistent with the approved CIOSA project. The current traffic study was completed as part of an analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if the environmental baseline conditions have changed since the original 1992 traffic analysis. I A4 -3 Although the City of Newport Beach currently requires ITE trip generation rates, prior to July of 2007, the City required the use of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) trip generation rates for projects proposed within the City. The table below provides a comparison of NBTAM trip generation rates for a hotel to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for the same land use. Prior to July 2007, the NBTAM trip generation rates are higher.than ITE rates, resulting in a I I I I more conservative forecast of project trip generation. Consistent with the ITE land use definition for a hotel, ancillary uses on the hotel property; including ballrooms, spas, and fitness centers, are accounted for in the standard per -room trip generation rate. Table 7 Comparison of NBTAM and ITE Trip Generation Rates for Hotel Land Use Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 2 -21 ab 2. Response to Comments A4-4 Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology was used in the traffic impact analysis to be consistent with the City of Newport Beach standards. An analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology has been completed for two intersections currently controlled by Caltrans: Coast Highway /Dover Drive and Coast Highway /Bayside Drive. Table 2 Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Table 3 Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Caltrans has a target level of service (LOS) between LOS C and LOS D for state highway facilities. If an existing state highway facility or intersection is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing measure of effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained. The MOE is the existing LOS without the proposed project. As shown in the tables above, both the intersection of Coast Highway /Dover Drive and of Coast Highway /Bayside Drive are forecast to exceed the Caltrans target level of service in the Year 2012 Without Project condition. The increase in average vehicle delay forecast at each intersection with the Hyatt Newport project does not result in a change to the MOE at either intersection. Also, the change in control delay is insignificant (less than 1 second). No significant traffic impacts are identified at either intersection based on Caltrans guidelines. A4 -5 Comment acknowledged. The City of Newport Beach will continue to notify the Department of Transportation of projects that have the potential to impact State Transportation Facilities. I 11 11 I_J I I 11 I I I 11 I Page 2 -22 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter A5 — Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (1 page) OkANa COUNTY AIRPORT LAND U$E COMMISSION ORANGE C'QgNTY _..lLUC� 3f60 A1ewag'AVenue•:COStz Mesa, Califomia WS26449,2525779 W; 944:2526012 Mara 23, 2009 tatmo M1Lih1b,.Assacwlg,plauatx C*yofNeM`POftBeath Qlaon lJepei6ncnt'. 3�0R.Newpoit Eoufnslgid., . YNC: PO",Bcacb; CA -`9&` S0bJena,7lEl)t CQOU'feuls':oa [6e Rya!�R?Z S`wewporro.W bxzpaYiw D.0,Mf INbuAUp' llftl,Youfoc 16 pcop=d:p. sect P6Swx txri;ea,Jm at_ 944bi2� ,f33;5rt.viasmaiflumneyei� �mctim i{you tegmit atld�}ronal tpt`9m�atioa. Smcemlyl. ASS 1 A5-2. I Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -23 WO 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -24 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I A5. I I 1 1 I 1 I I J 2. Response to Comments Response to Comments from the Airport Land Use Commission, Karl A. Rigoni, Executive Officer, dated March 28, 2008. A5 -1 As shown on Figure 1, Imaginary Surface Analysis, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, the John Wayne Airport (JWA) Imaginary Surface Zone is established by extending an imaginary surface outward and upward at a slope of 100:1 for 20,000 feet from the nearest runway. As shown, the project site is approximately 18,170 linear feet from the south end of the runway. The imaginary surface over the project site is 237.8 feet above mean sea level (amsl). As noted in this comment, the finial of the proposed ballroom would be the tallest structure on the site, at 62.5 feet above ground level. Due to the topographic contours of the site, however, Timeshare Building TS -3 would be the highest structure on the site, at a height of 102.3 feet amsl. Project improvements, therefore, would not penetrate the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surface of 237.8 feet and proposed improvements would not require notification to the Airport Land Use Commission. A5 -2 The reference to JWA as an "international" airport is deleted by means of this Final EIR. Please also see Section 3.2 of this Final EIR, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments. A5 -3 Comment acknowledged. The project would not require a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment, or any change to a zoning or building regulation. Also, as detailed in Response A5 -1, proposed improvements would not penetrate the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surface. Project implementation therefore would not require referral to the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency review. @8 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -25 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -26 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter A6 — Department of Toxic Substances Control (4 pages) March.28,.2060 Mr. Jaime Murilto Associate Planner City of NewportlBeseh Planning Departm ant 3304 Newport Boulevard Newport Beacb, Cabfomia 92663 jmudlloQcity: newport- beach, ca.us SI1'E,8PIDClF10,STUDY OF A DRAFT EWIRONMENTAL IMPAGT REPORT (EIR) FOR H7lA7T REGENCY NEWPDRT BEACR LXPANStOhI (SCH{f 20064210.54) Dear Mt: Munifo The Depattrnentof Toxic Substances Control (DISC }'Fi'as;Teceived your.Reviseif' -Dr EIR docament for the above- mentioned project:.�As statetl in your tlocumeiit: °the proposal pro' would include,8'8 new timeshare unit within sevonbtfildrhgs, a timeshare clubhouse, anew 8Q4 -seat ballroom,a.new spa`faciltty- ttew�lrpusekeep and etigineering building, and a new twovel pa king garage..lmplerrteritation of the -fe to landscape." "DTSC: has comments as follows: 1. The draff.EIR shouid.contaima list identified. A6-7 2. The diaft EIR sli uld Identifythe mechanism to rndrate4ry requited. investigation - j and/or remediation for any site. that may "be ..cantamimated ;and the governiient. I AB'2 agency to provide appropriate - regulatory oversight Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -27 C-�� Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F. Gursen,.Daeet" r SZ:aaerto $786 Corporate My Ue. M dd3draarsa WMr SeoeYgry far' Cypress, Celdwniz- fi813ae^10f' Em4wMwnbl.RUfei.Ewi March.28,.2060 Mr. Jaime Murilto Associate Planner City of NewportlBeseh Planning Departm ant 3304 Newport Boulevard Newport Beacb, Cabfomia 92663 jmudlloQcity: newport- beach, ca.us SI1'E,8PIDClF10,STUDY OF A DRAFT EWIRONMENTAL IMPAGT REPORT (EIR) FOR H7lA7T REGENCY NEWPDRT BEACR LXPANStOhI (SCH{f 20064210.54) Dear Mt: Munifo The Depattrnentof Toxic Substances Control (DISC }'Fi'as;Teceived your.Reviseif' -Dr EIR docament for the above- mentioned project:.�As statetl in your tlocumeiit: °the proposal pro' would include,8'8 new timeshare unit within sevonbtfildrhgs, a timeshare clubhouse, anew 8Q4 -seat ballroom,a.new spa`faciltty- ttew�lrpusekeep and etigineering building, and a new twovel pa king garage..lmplerrteritation of the -fe to landscape." "DTSC: has comments as follows: 1. The draff.EIR shouid.contaima list identified. A6-7 2. The diaft EIR sli uld Identifythe mechanism to rndrate4ry requited. investigation - j and/or remediation for any site. that may "be ..cantamimated ;and the governiient. I AB'2 agency to provide appropriate - regulatory oversight Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -27 C-�� 2. Response to Comments MF;;Mu'i"o AQareh�28, 2008 Page: =2 3, if the,sAed property was previously used for agriculture or 1 weetl abatement occurred, onsite soils could contain pesticide or herbieide residues:. Proper A63 investigation and remedial action play be necessary to ensure she site does not pose,a risk to theluture residents. 8: Properiirvestigation, sampliN and remedial actions, 1i shonfd'bee` conducted -at the site prior to the new developmentnr any.consbuGtwn, aril overseen by a regulatory agency. 6. 7. 8: a /6:4 A6-5 A" Hum,an.heatth_ and ` the4fivironmentof sensitive receptof s,-shiaflrib .protected dudngiheconstructlon or- 46molkion activities A study:Rf Qje sd�b+�een by the appropriate government agency might have to be i onducted'to' detemtinedf A6-7 there are, have beery, or will be'; any releases of ha2*d6 s-r t*dWs that may pose.a risk td human health "e environment. A" A69 Page 2 -28 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Mr. Mun7lo March 28, 2008 Page 3 40. Certain hazardous >waste treatment pmbspsasmay require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA). Information about the AG-10 requirement for authorization :can be obtained,hy eontaatjiag your Iota! CUPA 1 "i. If the project plans include discharging wastewat r•to a -storm drain; you may be- required to obtain a wastewater drscharge pefniifrom "dI overseeing Regional I Arr11 "Water quality, Control Board.. 12, The project construction may require sail exc 0,ah'on and soiffiiting in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is require&pdorta disposai of the excavated:sv 1. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose x t f k ratherihan placing k ih another location: Land Disposal Restrictions (Li1Rs1 may bs_appltcabletq these sails. A612 Also, if the project proposes>to import, t soil to beddi(I ffie areas excavated,. proper sampling should be conducted to matte sure,, thattha: imported so11,is free of contamination.. 18 W'dui�ing construction /demolition of ih2 prtzjem soilendfargrourtdwater contamma6or is suspected, constru@ on/dBmofrtion in the e , , , , . cease and appropiiatd, earth and s'afetyprocadtires should be;implemerited If itis determined that contaminated ,sorl'aridlorgrpundwate_eadst, the EIR should A6-13' identify Crow any .requifed "fnvestigalion anNarramedratuzri wrll be eenductad, andthe apprtrpriate government agencyto'praWde'regulatory Oversight; 14: WetrueWres on the Project Site contain poterdially hazardous materials, such asi asbestos - containing material, lead- based - palm, and mercury- or PCB- rantaining material, such materials should be moved - ' 'rly'pi'or to demol t on, and W,1a disposed of at appropriate landfills or recycled, Wac cordance with the regulatory guidance provided in Cal%mia Code of,Regulatkah$ (CCR) andfallawing the: requirements offTie Universal Wasie Rule (44 CFR.part gj If you trave any questions regarding this letter,;p)ease confacflUts. Tong uiao, Project Manager; at (714) 4845470 or at °tgiao @dtsc.caigov , Sincerely, Greg Holmes 'Unit Chief Southem,C61 fornia Cleanup Operations Brartch.- Cypress; Office cc 'See neat page Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 2 -29 %Q 2. Response to Comments Mr. Murillo March 26; 2008 Page 4 cc: Gqwmoes,' ceof Planning and Research StatetClearinghouge P.O., Eipx 3044 Sacramento, California 9581 , V3W Mr. GuenOwS. Moskati Chief Panningzan d Envjronmental Ar*"iq.Sedti6n C5QA.TraOdng Center DopAr,t,—mOnt,df'T'6)dq?§�n COW !'A: 6ox- 866. SacrAfi*nto, Cb.tioniia 958120806 ,-CEQA.if00,7.S Page 2-30 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments ' A6. Response to Comments from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Greg Holmes, dated March 28, 2008. A6 -1 As referenced on page 5.6 -7 of the DEIR, based on an environmental database report prepared by GeoSearch, the project is not on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The complete GeoSearch Radius Report (dated 11120106) ' is included as DEIR Appendix G, and includes a list of the databases searched and the search radii used. A6 -2 No releases of hazardous substances that would require investigation and /or remediation have been identified at the site. A6 -3 DTSC's agricultural guidance document applies only to school sites. In addition, as described in the DEIR, agricultural operations at the project site ceased prior to 1947, and DTSC guidance does not require sampling for organochlorine pesticides at sites that ceased operations prior to 1953. Based on the nature of the historical agricultural operations as described in the DEIR, no significant impact is anticipated. 1 A6-4 Please see Response A6 -2. A6 -5 Please see Response A6 -2. A6 -6 Based on the environmental databases consulted (as described in the DEIR and /� detailed in DEIR Appendix G), no hazardous waste disposal sites were identified f %n within 2,000 feet of the project site. (v' A6 -7 The project shall comply with applicable regulations to protect human health and the ' environment during construction activities. Applicable hazardous materials regulations are summarized in DEIR Section 5.6.5. Please also see response A6 -2. A6 -8 Comment acknowledged. A6 -9 Should hazardous wastes be generated, they would not be stored in tanks or containers for more than 90 days. In addition, they would not be treated or disposed of on -site. ' A6 -14 The DEIR acknowledges the potential for release of hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead -based paint (see Impact 5.6 -1, DEIR page 5.6 -7). Regulatory requirements for hazardous materials with which the project applicant must comply are detailed under DEIR Section 5.6.5, Existing Regulations. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -31 A6 -10 Please see Response A6 -9. A6 -11 Project plans do not include wastewater discharges to storm drains. ' A6 -12 Please see Response A6 -2. A6 -13 Please see Response A6 -2. ' A6 -14 The DEIR acknowledges the potential for release of hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead -based paint (see Impact 5.6 -1, DEIR page 5.6 -7). Regulatory requirements for hazardous materials with which the project applicant must comply are detailed under DEIR Section 5.6.5, Existing Regulations. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -31 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -32 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter A7— City of Irvine (3 pages) David Lapp, Planning Director Cdy of Newport Bea`"O 3300 New port�lou1everd -- Newport 'Beach:GA -926W Subject;. Draft Environmental . impact tkro rt for the Pro"10 -6d Expansion of the KYaik Regency Newpoi{ Bedsll Dear PAS: Lepo The. following are, the, City of Irwit61 Comments on Chapter 541.. TraliSportation and Appendlxl to thedrakEav rrVenfai Impact Report 1' A7 -f Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -33 fowlll Cwnmuntry pevebpme t wwt .cS:nvrta.ucv� a, �f k�fi�. Me Civic: Cecder Dual P..�.. (L�k' ta�r5.{ 6j�.A��+,zj,(�jf��..�v�i]44ra 7Ffi23 �fi75 �J9i >2C.t�CtF> d5l Zzz 00 04;toher:22, zeaa almKrtata David Lapp, Planning Director Cdy of Newport Bea`"O 3300 New port�lou1everd -- Newport 'Beach:GA -926W Subject;. Draft Environmental . impact tkro rt for the Pro"10 -6d Expansion of the KYaik Regency Newpoi{ Bedsll Dear PAS: Lepo The. following are, the, City of Irwit61 Comments on Chapter 541.. TraliSportation and Appendlxl to thedrakEav rrVenfai Impact Report 1' A7 -f Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -33 fowlll I 2. Response to Comments I Mr. David Lepo October 22, 2008 Paget miles from this intersection. This intersection has been forecast to oparate, at unacceptaNe levels of service in future :horizon years in other studies! Newport Beach has identified physical improvements for the irildrse(*on of A71 Jaml5ciree/MacArdhur, however, I I hey are not yet fully funded. The study area (Cchfd-k b6tundary will need be e4ande'd to include the intersection of JamboreetMacArthur. ;2. Explain whywas TRAFFLX used to�provide the ICU`§Onstead of NBTAM:tD forecast the A7�2 traffic"volumes, -3. This , traffic study was done with methodology that compares the trip generation of OW Hyatt from the Orevibqsly �db,-OfoVed 1992 Circulation Improvement and Op6ft Airw3 Space Agreement (CIOSA) that included an expansion of 68 rooms, with the trip generation of this projisrtthatis I a'n'etincrease of76 rooms. a comments between of the 76. net by to the- -City of e taken issue fled uses was ,Beach needs inits (88 new, id not prorA& in-bullf. 14me I A74 4, T1te•City Understands that.the- Hyatt has previously contributed its fair share'to: thE CIOSA w E)OaJn why�an.e;.Wnmiqn to any ofthle 11 CIOSA projects would not. be subject. to a proportional increase to their fair share: to clo$*. 5. Revise the traffic analysis to pro4,ida an existing plus proje4 scenario e.yeluiktiqn for. CEOA compliance purposes. t 11avisa, the traffic 'analysis to provide a separate evaluation of •the pr6jjct!& contribution, without considering the cumulative�61ose ap p uaved and . rWyEi obilsOuoted projects an , d hejeasonably,fdeseeable unapoWed projects) to IN- A74 the projects impact to intersection ICU's can be isolated from these other developments. 7z Even though a small expansion at this. hotel impact; the cumulative. projects Aq contAW! 8. ' Page I of the Traffic Study. Table ESA: The year 2012 should be provided on the I 'without project" and 'With protect" columns to correspond,to those shown in Table: 4.4- and .to-explain Why the ICU's arehigherthanthe existing year. Page 2-34 e The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Mr. David Lope October22,;2008. Page 3 In addition: to these, comments, K, there was a Response'to Comments document prepared as>a component of the Craft Environmental Impddti'Repott for.ttris project; we would appreciate receiving a copy.af'thaf document etectronically. The City looks forward to a complete and comprehansive, response to the comments contalned in the letter; The City also ezpecls that the draft .Environmental Impact Report.wlll be dutifulry and responsibly update4.and revised to address these•issues in order to achieve sornwhieasuteAof ;compliance vMh CE QA. We are happy to make �ourseNes available fo�fiorthercon'si tiation on:tt ese matte s.should you ,require further clarification.. .Smgerely, , �,-- nom" -- TIWGEHRICH: AICP Mahaolrof.Development 40*0 ce C,ty +offiewport Beach Pfanriu,1�sCommr� ion Ddulas Williford, Dvectono :'Gom'tnuFailyArwebpnient MantfelaGgmez'Direcforof Public W�Its, Kerwin tau! Project Development Administrator Sun -Sun Filurillo ,:Superyrsing£7rans�sdation Analyst' Timor Rafiq, Rafigsand Associates Diane,Jaktibowslii Rate and;Associeties Stays Weiss, Prinwpal Pl�nr�er ltitictiael Phitbrick: Senior F.dapner Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -35 W 2. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. I 1, I 11 1] I I Page 2 -36 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 ' 2. Response to Comments A7. Response to Comments from the City of Irvine, Tim Gehrich, dated October 22, 2008. Although this letter dated October 22, 2008 was received after the close of the public review period, the City of Newport has decided to respond to their comments. A7 -1 The City of Newport Beach has received approximately $ 2.8 million from Measure M and GMA 8 for the construction of improvements to the intersection of Jamboree @ ' MacArthur. These planned, and fully funded, improvements will provide for an acceptable level of service at the intersection. If the assumed project trip distribution is carried out to the Jamboree /MacArthur intersection, it is anticipated that ' approximately 25% of project trips would approach the intersection via Jamboree Road and 5% of project trips would approach via MacArthur Boulevard. In the AM peak period, these percentages would result in a forecast of nine inbound trips and ' six outbound trips. In the PM peak period, these percentages would result in a forecast of nine inbound trips and eight outbound trips. This is a minimal number of trips that would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact at this intersection, given the implementation of the fully funded, planned improvements. ' A7 -2 TRAFFIX is a computer program used to calculate ICU values. It is not a traffic forecast model, and was not used as one in this study. NBTAM is the City of Newport Beach's traffic model used to forecast future traffic volumes. However, NBTAM was not used to determine the volumes because the project has a short term future horizon year (Year 2011) for completion. Consistent with City of Newport Beach standards, the traffic analysis was completed for one year after project completion, Year 2012. The use of an annual growth factor of 1% for traffic volumes was determined to be a reasonable methodology to forecast Year 2012 ambient traffic volumes. This methodology is permitted under the City of Newport Beach ' Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, A7 -3 The traffic study does provide a comparison of the proposed project's trip generation with the trip generation of the previously approved 1992 CIOSA project. ' However, this comparison is only provided to show consistency between the currently proposed project and the proposed CIOSA project under the City of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The consistency analysis was completed to compare the previously approved CIOSA project (68 rooms) with the proposed project (76 rooms). While there is a difference in the total number of rooms, there is a similar number of trips between the two projects because there have been refinements and updates in the trip generation rates in NBTAM during the ' last 14 years. The traffic impact study analyzes the full impact of the proposed project using the full trip generation information presented in Table 5.1 (page 28) of the traffic study. ' A7 -4 As noted in the previous response, the traffic impact study includes a comparison of the trip generation for the current proposed project with the project approved as part of CIOSA. Because the proposed project does not generate new additional trips, the ' Hyatt project is not conditioned for an increase in their fair share fee. If any of the 11 CIOSA projects were to propose an expansion, and if that project generated new trips beyond the previously approved amount, that project could be conditioned to pay the appropriate additional fair share fees Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 11 City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -37 =C 2. Response to Comments A7 -5 The traffic study analyzes existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. Future conditions include both approved projects and reasonably foreseeable projects in the baseline. The analysis clearly quantifies the project - specific impact on each study intersection. As shown on Table ES -1 and ES -2 for AM and PM peak conditions, respectively, the increase in V/C due to project implementation is shown for each intersection. As shown, none of these increases result in changing the level of service of the subject intersection in the year 2012. Moreover, as explained in the traffic report (Section 4.0, page 15), the analysis assumed that the lane geometries for each of the 10 study intersections in Year 2012 will be the same as existing conditions. Therefore, analysis of the future year does not assume any improvements that are not in place under existing conditions. As shown in Table ES -1, none of the intersections fall to an unacceptable LOS in the AM peak hour in 2012. Four intersections, however, would decline to an unacceptable LOS during the peak hour due to cumulative traffic in 2012 (see Table ES -2). The following table shows the impact of project- related trips only (no cumulative growth) on the existing condition level of service for the subject intersections in the PM peak: As shown by the Existing plus Project results in the above table, the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the study intersections. A7 -6 The traffic impact study analyzes and quantifies the project's impact to intersection ICU's as shown in Table ES -1. Analyzing a future condition without the cumulative projects would not be consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and would not provide a realistic assessment of future traffic conditions. As noted in Response A7 -5, the analysis does isolate the specific increase in V/C due to the proposed project. Moreover, the analysis summarized in the table provided in Response No. 5 confirms that project - related traffic alone would not lower the level of service of any of the study intersections to an unacceptable LOS. A7 -7 The City of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance sets forth a methodology for projects to contribute their fair share to the construction of identified traffic mitigation measures. A7 -8 This change will be incorporated into Table ES -1 r- IJ 1 i 1 1 Page 2 -38 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Increas e in V/C Edsung + Due to Project Existing Project Conditions VIC LOS VIC VIC LOS Impact No. Intersection 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.779 C 0.001 0.780 C No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.771 C 0.006 0.777 C No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.756 C 0.001 0.757 C No 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.828 D 0.002 0.830 D No As shown by the Existing plus Project results in the above table, the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the study intersections. A7 -6 The traffic impact study analyzes and quantifies the project's impact to intersection ICU's as shown in Table ES -1. Analyzing a future condition without the cumulative projects would not be consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and would not provide a realistic assessment of future traffic conditions. As noted in Response A7 -5, the analysis does isolate the specific increase in V/C due to the proposed project. Moreover, the analysis summarized in the table provided in Response No. 5 confirms that project - related traffic alone would not lower the level of service of any of the study intersections to an unacceptable LOS. A7 -7 The City of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance sets forth a methodology for projects to contribute their fair share to the construction of identified traffic mitigation measures. A7 -8 This change will be incorporated into Table ES -1 r- IJ 1 i 1 1 Page 2 -38 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 I 2. Response to Comments Letter 01 — Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (9 pages) 18 March 2005 To:. Jaime Muffllo Associate Planner City of Newport Beach -Plan ung.Department From: Envuonrnental'Quality Affairs : Committee SubjcW Comments on Hyatt Regency DEIIt•: Refefeace: HyaftRegency Noiijvrt Beach expnitsidn Eavima nental'bupact ReportrSCH-NO,; ,20ti6l21052, February 200$: EQAC is pleased. to submit the following comments on the refetencod DEIR m hopes that these ounce is witl belp to make the final EIR -as complcte and responsive as'pos tile. Our comments arepresented iu the order that items appouin theDEIR withappfoptude paragraph `aud page: - referenda: 1. Exeeutive Summary Pg. Y X1!3, Tnblel I, ihm 5A -1 states that Mimtked testing of the new ballroom ehall :1 conducted roavaid•consbnction&jays caused byvnanticipate6fiiuds Latliis, pt• -t addihon,to the test plts'.dtscu5sed ear)ei7 Whyclam the `ballroomatsahavc'So'Izatreatefl diffeiEtt}lythaa the'restof the ,pmjetKl Pg, 1 -24; Table l 1; items 5.71 anises that the °PaikmgAVlanagementPlan sliall:oleady identify howand wherethe 467 neeessary parking places vslliie accnunorlated.onaibi dining cnsttvchon ^. However, there is no mention'ofhow then 9,Matagatow! Flan will deal with, the eonsmu Lion eta+' parkmg..Hdw will,this beaccgmmodated� 2..latruduction Pg. 2-2. Section 2.3.2 lists 73 enviromnental factors thatbave bees- identified as potentially significant: However only 10 of these have been surarpenzed to Tayls, (pp. 7-T;to l 24) It appearsthat 5 9; 7oise, va,pmbablyonPg 12i which ism ' tssr, Df , Theoiher2 AgriEUl[ure and Utilidesaod Service Systems have beegleftom completely Pleascprovide pg 1- 21'arid explain�t7te;29.thor deletions. 3. Project.Bescriptiou Pg. 3.9, Tabla�M does: not show any reduction of available parking �t'ththotel (785 spaces. Tlusmay Uequeatconipleyon bpi astgniZCant mm�ber:ofihcae spaoearyti}I1+e rendered unavailableloRwbieduring%a demolU+on?wnsbur:tioaphases (equipment 01-4 stmage, construction packing; material storage ea;.). What praYitons areincludedto 11 asame.contmuous availability of"the needed 735 hottil parksng spaced Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -39 �D 2. Response to Comments Pg. 3 -21 Para:. l- desai4es;lhe construction hours and- discusses that -there will;herriglittime wristructidh:for approx.446'wedm,- Does .that time include rain days? Is there a way,to da'the work during the day so the noise aad'nighmme glare do not disturb the ='g'hbors? Why? Will _ 01 75 the nigbttiate- coastnrctipO oceursirggltaneously with the daytime cottsiruction? 'SVrllthatmean 1. thatf}te_area may have noisc,airquatity:problcros, glare and traffic for 18+hourvof ;the day? "kg. 3 -27, Fig: .:3-1P, Qmcclitual Fuel Modification, Plan, shows TS =I (timeshare 6ldg:l)143A comer of thehidgittouding; iotothe btue: zone - Special Treatment Zone -. environmeut8[ly 'sensitive area adlace¢Cto ooa :it stal'sage scrub habitat.Is allowable to build:the hulking that close 01-6 ) to the protected habitat? How large a buffw zone trneeded to comply with the Coastal Comunssiori? P age 33$ Thehthteleadathe reader tq„bElicecdtab4hem is only one issue ilmti]itCpastal Goumussioahsa to aetom The DEIR needs to address.the issue of the:timeshares'rtitTiifrthc 1 01:7 Coastal zoneaud ffie'stelrs ii'ekdEd foz approval. 6.1 Aes[tietics Has thePotennalofpa *Iotlights.ortall levels oftheproposed parkingstuctorobe w Wnsidered 'from the vtew�poi¢tof Sea:Island residential commuarly and�.tlre;E,�� Ii seems possible drat the elevation ofthe proposed parkingleyet tnayeate at 01=8 . mghttune nuisance €or fhe`residents'af Sea Island: The,EIR should inalyzeptitential light 'and gjare impacts from:aighttime cgirsfrirchou'in 1 01 -8 Jamboree Road. X5.2:A r,Quality _ Page 5 2- lU,_Patagtaph }; Tits Sle�noljtion and sob5,equent canstmctiowgf a mi jo. r portion of the existiitgs to has thegd Mart to cause'.8 iignificant.amormt of "F7ip�ifive:. Dust,' °including dust ind.patltgilates,&ipm demolition of butldingsand remaval ofgtass frouitho 8tr} €coltrse tfltismattermay ndode asbestos, kiiremicahi, allergens or'other har;cifplsut stanees. EspugtalAy at t?asl<;are setriar c tizeris living atftI3ayysesY Lnndirig apnrhnonf troinpleX,.:wlro are sensi4ve'zeaeirtors- In:addi6on to this alatge.number'of rrrdtviduals7g<ottpsrouniedye tFrctscverycloseto' tiie 'projectatea;vla, Back Bay'Diiye (walkers,;la gels, btk�ri3ets,, etc.). 0¢= srteYemusmurts,local'walking traiis, k'ikE,patlts. - 0.1A0 .andthel3ack Bay Waterway are also busy with people exercising:: Depgntiing qn wind direa6o¢ and witrd;speecl: Ehe":P.ugitive Dttsi" and other,ail'6ome:debrisf inaner coaldhaYeanegahye nup "act on $roseuidtwdual "s. Resldeuq.ofBay Vtew'I aod"' Sek Island,.I4ar arCovesV{ latPoint, dad.. gnestsatrd /or- vtsitorsat The Durim- could'be subdeet fo these artljskaiti';`es. The EIR siiotild anal}ze the rmpacts=of khe2eleasd of#k* .substances and lsropose initigatinvirimsures, as apf"nate ltt addition, tireose�g€ diesel. powered. c© nstructionetluipmentatornearUteprojedis ;a son z V?mt is he lmiatn on idlin m 0.1 -11 2 Page 2 -40 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Page 5,2 -16, Paragraph 4. tfyatt will -6ecemnving a large zmouat of grass (removal of the golfcourne), and other mature. vegetation- Concrete and buildings will be taking the p1 -12 place of a large section of the golf coarse; ibis will result in ulaek of vegetation and will - have an increase ofthe global wamung footptint:ofthe project The EIR should analyze -the effect of removing vegetation and.replacingit with new buildings. Page 5.2 -18 Table 5;2 -9; Footnote 2 Imt hmcketed sentence: The EIR should explain 1 01.13 how 24•inolies of fieeboard'is equivalent to covering an loads. Page 5 2 -18 Section Impact 524: Tae EIR should identify routes foringress and egress ofall demolition. and consttuctioarelated trafSc, assessthe impacts and identify I OI 14 mitigation.measpres asp necessary, yokparucular emphasis on miturnizingFmpapts on 'Baci tay Rifle. No mention is maderigarding the emissionskeomml firm the vew,90", cut .ballmom.Is thesmoking area-near thebalh- oomgomg.to.have�suffidentfiltmtion to prevent second I q1 -1$ $and smoke from escaping to the suyt'uonding area? -.5 rPiologimi Resources 5.3 -7, Figures 53-2 to 4 would be`more'ea¢tly read if the y w:eretraiispareot ovedays to the-site map It appears that the new tunesharebuildmgs (fig 5.34) Invade- smitive I Ot -1& ecoIESRA areas (as shown in Fig 5.3 -3 (htatcatcber Observed I;ncations) line EIR should analyzethe biotogtcal impacispf,,prgposed buildmgdocapyps , Prg 5,34;�does not.identify specific plantingsthat will he placed;;in`tlie;area;tnor does ii; adequately describe what thearea. wiilebataid .aSer:completion;uftheprojert It appears ^that sensitive ace areas were,dist tubed -with the or' sonsnucti on of the hotel and Solf ccurse: The outline: for deal in. with the area and apating_the buffer ".with sensitive ageas >$ tt_ot. specific enough. If one, were' tousemagnifrngglasson b1-47 .modiScation zones description, it would appear that the applicant doesnot'intend to-do an effective job in, this, area at all. Too broad ,non- spec fic and irteffective:ate words that Would adequately descfbe the .entire plan for dealitlgwith biological cohceri a -on the project -The 134,shouid explain why a.hioloest.should mot be:engagedlto design, momtot and impi ment�4=tigation and resto atien p[an, orat least design an effective" buffer." between constmctianandl nature. - - Distutbi the costal'sage is notYhe only issue. Much of theopen space`v ill .be lost to I 'the increaved size oCt$e_buildinga afu}hardseape,e bibbagist (not abidogealmonitor) Ii Ot 18 Should beanrntegraLp attofthe design audmontonngt4ihortaaongomgbasisduring the project: J The appheanthas a mal opportumtyto create and rnamtainan effective ecolggical zone, - res[ arc nattyespecies i9 this areg and mitigate the Offectso"fthe inereaspdsquare footage: I,, of thvhdtel and timeshare buildings:; This would not only bevoSt the local coinumnity, butthe $utef�ould emphasze�to its guests, the operatcr% sensitivity to, the locpl;coology, 3' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -41 2. Response to Comments 54 Geology, and-Soils tattered in nurnmus borings incmated pruject site- According, ,to? the.geogrgkiem. ect area is approxintately10,fiefbelow grade I in one of the borinateeavattons:at' wd7epth of thebotel's main park-mgmrea, ax 0.5 feet above trial; Aictuatious of the A water, :ason or,pmods oflocatly.itfterse- rainfall or areas can also eause.fluctqatiwxlow� be Aredthqrq , Te W . i strq 'Op, tec ,hm qucs �that will be utilized i in "the bui ding ofte hotel's. :mama -# "kifigadeffw ' 'thdyhavesiteady dnwmtered groundd':ater at 7 feet -b . -they implernent for this,.4w;ana others? W-rhremgp , ., -Iffi� S� OM42 VWO* 'be fi" the :uupact Waau =led th d the use would be. "Subject t . o appro-M, by'fbb thaefote is is no risk (leap. 4, -, of-In i S mpr - no y5a#tnetply. someone's ppruim more impoilantl y,N& analysis addresses'dri 11 lypostKicindlitLoh anal poSt-d641qpmcftt--yondi beregularhandfing 4 01-20 01.121 01-22 Page 2-42 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 1 1 2. Response to Comments and hanspoR,'ofhazardous materials: Thereis.no discussion of the potential impact,: end, I 01p22 thereforewd ,i;e=ionofWtigationmeasurea. - (Ocihfd) $egarding H -] the jmtial:Study afates =Hat the ctesest:school is "approximately "..one mile away:: from,-the site and tlteeFOrc "no mttigatian tneaSU,rts :are necessary. "' Aldmugh :this pedtcnlsr CEQA, example is llmfed.ta conccsns 5egarding schools, i6e conditions dtirlttg demohtion -. consWCtion will not only affect children They will;afiect all-people•in aad mound the stte'.ifi•1.- that 1 /¢inilcpammet" T7terefore, one. must ask the:;jiiestioP; what'is being done to address'thC: intoCt,of- "Hazardous eatii"s'stona" w the handling of "hazudous or acutely hazardous materials. substattees, or waste - within that; 1(4 mile radius: The other "CMA thresholds," 4os, mrattaws that'wotud utieutlp'attnet, .emergency res)tonse and emergency Again, moreitifolmationis- weeded. On Imoacts:Ft =2 anttH:g. theDEIR49 :160cmnlete siid needs�more:data. the and .9,iSM Cubdc of will he "evaluated" =u'r, Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR 5 GI -24 Dd':25 City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -43 I 2. Response to Comments I Iii; I * Initial Study status that, "no impact from wild land Imss would occur and'un i.measures we accessary." The basis for that conclusion is that the City's Gereml Plan assifies this.aaee, as a.rlow-m-no fire hazard." By the tim6ofAm drafting of the OR, "Moderate hninidi of wildfires were recognized. Despite ibis aci*wledsometit, the C 01-26 lysis is deficient maafw as it consists simply of a series of qqo!o passa ges liv m,,* Plan and iclift on thentas satisfying anyipepci ni for mitigation. But does not affirmatively state that the FPP passages comprise everything the City eTures .5,7 Aydroloff quo—Witter Quality P9- 53-17, Para 4 the I>EIR states that the Ci y's storm d a n system includes 01-27 dmiil"systemFiemg proposed? Para ,7 stat=,77haCLUP of mociy of liewport Beach I)CFIwzvprrj" i n aZcurdauee=withthc California Coastal Actof 1974, approVed by the Califorria.Cuastal 4616pission;iu Out. Z)6,and adopted in: Dec. 2005"- This statement rqaa=cojqrqry to the I I alfiActu fbehow "Itiadeb y the Coastal Coinihissidivoii January 16, 2007 and dIcads the reader to -c becria(c Please ype q4fted�dthat,theproo��,ils,potnptete ,P P I Z: 53,-26 Table 5;7-3 Construction BN9's (Best -Management Practicus) under Erosion Control EC-13 PolAirrylamide- $Kacfly:what.is this product? How will it be used? Shoudri it be usWdn an area that i6 notoWy close fo but also an ESlfAwne7 (WilcipediastaiftihA"Sorrie research itafficate,546t,polyacry'lamide can degrade I under normal erivrrournuantal aritidc; 4 lcnown nenve t.0iin") 01-28 01-29 ,ZnIO=PcI necessitates the impicnentaton.of post-fthibWitan BMP's to 01-30 =.uM hzlt .rntigateahi abatepollutantsi that may compibmiseahe Newport BR"s benr5cial Wft and water quality cbj6cfivft. Does this meant that .noconstruction mitigation messu,ft.arc planned- only post-construction? it seems thiit:,derholitiofVc=tmetion phase tiitigatioilisrieeda Pg'S,7,-33:, Undergroarrud rue*,fijitation will be used in this.pMectin Drainage Areas A. B,& 01-31 oill e, etc.. since t P= wis is ",the only 6 Page 2-44 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 � ■ I I 7 L I I I I I I I I I 2. Response to Comments project of ffiis,mx� is it not thae:kr the City to set up a schedule, for inspection,crfauc h,'ffitersto 1,01-31 ensure they are beingnataintamed properly? D� the City already have such A.Program? I (Oontd) 'T,hedm—crjtfi6edsto state that t*t .wglbc w *k asphalt used. 01-32 5A Linid K k a0d: Plooning the NO asks-the followingqtestiona: L"thep,MPOSM h0jWt ,p ir, jW kh e.wWa eityCLupol aorths,rea TentaiiCIA, ""b)-wtw3Q4SA,.' (*tcoess.of ambient noise'duting PAisme§ ib (PW�C - 7 SA 1 u ,01-33 Ovu Z017,3§7 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2-45 1 tr®r I 2. Response to Comments i The soundmalls proposed as mitigation are really only sound blankets on_ fmces. Are other more effective physical sound barriers being considered?'What abourmultiple blarikebeO focei? Considering: the magnitude of this problem and the long duration of dmolition/construction phases, more effective sound bartiers.should be sought. 014e (coned) The-mitigotionsin 5.9,7 are general, considering potential impact on suqu _,touling.midents, PTC, users of Back Bay and Newportpunics. VAA it"tional plowing measures.bave been considered, of demolition/ Oqashrtictiw wont, 'toofifi gate th, ese , invacts? 5.110 Nblic Services Pg, 5-l0-L,- Para 2-ThcNBFD currently employs 146-fiAj5jjTw and - ,1,70 seasonal wilijoyces to provide i4 -hour protection and response to iiie City's residerusiiairvisitors. More'dascrip Lim of the additional 170 seasonal employees would be hFIjU to determine their 01-37 effodryenessin response times. :Para 3�- Thepzmgraph starts with stating „” The NB FDAlso handles incideras associated with hazakdouslmateriala"'.DJKIR needs to explain more"lYwhat-this statcarient means intheconfmt of a hazardous material incident vs. enatergmey as stated bdbw: 01-38 It*',en,eud§ with "In *e of a hiciarilms materials emmgmzy, Huntirigim,beach • Fire :Department rxige County Fire Department is cidleV (Itj qjfj�� . , , :ppQ - UV caged Orange Cinuty TimAuthority,pot Departmenty 'Smite :the D;aWcIoprri ig adjacent to the Bay.th;�rec6uld-W�ink noormadeffir . the - necessity of,aAdOW164plan ofexactly what would happ ! en if there wisis , 16 4 , oci it I enO;Val of - a-hazardous --no., th -1 somewhere j , R!hcbRl)�:sioqe all the' 011-39 inaDenal into the 'y, if not in this s mitigation measure; arevo, be made available. to the public. I ThMIni" Study', IS, done De slier 2006,1arings up, oupage 29 FnvivirroemalUiceldist: rued police.. truck trips x 3.1fTranspo lion and Traffic Page &41-22,Paragopfi 2, Lost sentence: The DEIR mustrevi&�the parltingund I review :the quening demand for events held at thonew banqueYballeTcom., Page 2-46 - The Planning Center 01-40 I 01-4i February 2009 1 I 1 2, Response to Comments = 7 5.11-ATW'65J.1- 7,8 Pro line item- Mould read M8 and,nbtI59, and should and notAI& Page 5:11 m22, Paragraph-& Hyattritedsto address tbe •iside 9£'127 p the, mbb-9 sp Ad spaces re4 hy city jGhm. Page 5A W2a3, TableI 11681 -9 amhnei�i6 sianid�lic, 105 &,22 10 Arb lia6iternslib Wd'b ' e,77 50 pin in should bre 77 &50 pm IiiieJtem_ should bO 24 & 3 Page511-22;3 'TableUT-Y-, 6 pmlirreitein.shauidbe580 &332 The 9. b ainteiu ueIq*a Proposed Pi•pjecf Thank yon.1 brfhke -�srmity to comment on this iTh pprtani ,pr o ject. di the s mell as the surrounding bonmtunity, 0, 01AI (cord) 0.142 0144 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -47 trim OU 2. Response to Comments I This page intentionally left blank. I i 1 1 I -1, I 1 F1 r 1 Page 2 -48 • The Planning Center February 2009 I ' 2. Response to Comments I 01. Response to Comments from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, dated March 18, 2008. 01 -1 As described in Mitigation Measure 4 -2, the preconstruction testing plan for cultural resources shall be implemented prior to the issuance of grading permits, but testing can be conducted during the same period as demolition activities. Since the existing ballroom would be demolished, the limited testing referenced for the ballroom to determine the potential for unanticipated finds is recommended to avoid delays. This is in addition to the test pits identified in the rest of this mitigation measure. 01 -2 As detailed in DEIR Mitigation Measures 11 -3 (see page 5.11 -33), the City of Newport Beach will require the project applicant to submit to the City for approval a Parking Management Plan (PMP) that specifies the number and location of parking stalls that would be provided for hotel guests, employees, and construction employees during the construction of the proposed hotel improvements. The PMP will be required to demonstrate that sufficient parking (467 spaces) would be available on -site for all users during construction. 01-3 As noted by this commenter, the summary for Section 5.9, Noise, had a missing page (1 -21) that was inadvertently left out of some of the DEIR copies during printing. Agricultural Resources and Utilities and Service Systems were topics that were determined not to have the potential for significant impacts in the Initial Study and therefore closed out from further study. These topics were erroneously listed under DEIR Section 2.3.2. Also note that the checkbox in the Initial Study checklist (DEIR Appendix A) for question XVI b) is erroneously checked as Potentially Significant, although the text correctly concludes and supports that this impact would be less than significant. For reference, the complete Summary Table (fable 1- 1) is reproduced in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Additionally, this section includes a correct list for DEIR Section 2.3.2 and a corrected Initial Study checklist for question XVI b). ' 01-4 Please see Response 01 -2. 01 -5 No construction activities would occur at night. A DEIR reference to potential nighttime construction on page 3 -21 has been deleted (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). 01 -6 Figure 3 -10 on page 3 -27 in the DEIR depicted a small corner of the building within the environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). This has been corrected. See Figure 2, Vegetation and Fuel Modification, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, as the building has been located a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of the coastal sage scrub habitat that is presumed to be an ESHA. The minimum 50 -foot setback complies with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) for minimum buffer distances between development and potential ESHA areas. The Special Treatment Zone would be planted with native vegetation that meets fire - protection goals and would serve as an appropriate buffer and transition zone to ensure the long -term functioning of any potential ESHA areas. The 50 -foot setback from the building edge is the important requirement. Extension of the Special Treatment Zone around the margins of the building would only further enhance the overall functioning of the habitat and is consistent with the City's CLUP and therefore consistent with the Coastal Act. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-49 &6vu 2. Response to Comments 01 -7 The table on DEIR page 3 -35 is a summary of discretionary approvals by responsible agencies required for the project. DEIR Section 4.4.8, Applicable Local Plans, includes a description of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Additionally, DEIR Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, includes a more detailed description of the City's CLOP and a consistency evaluation with its policies. Please also refer to the responses to the Coastal Commission's comment letter on the DEIR (Letter A2). As noted in response to that letter, an amendment to the CLUP would not be required for implementation of this project. 01 -8 The proposed lighting plan and the parking structure elevations are shown in Figures 3 and 4 of this FEIR, respectively. Lighting is subject to stringent City requirements and review as detailed under City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions on DEIR page 5.1 -35. To clarify the maximum light spillage that would be allowed, the standard condition for this project has been refined to specify that spillage would not exceed one foot - candle at the property line. This refinement is included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. A detailed photometric study has been prepared. As shown in this study, because the light fixtures have been designed as full cut -off fixtures, there would be no horizontal light spillage as a result of project implementation. Any revisions to the photometric study will be included with the final lighting plan, required prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, prior to occupancy, the lighting improvements would be inspected by City enforcement personnel to confirm that lighting levels do not_ exceed requirements and the approved lighting plan. The project lighting has been designed to ensure that spillage into areas of adjacent open space, including ESHAs would be minimized or eliminated. Mitigation Measure 3 -3 requires that lighting be directed away from sensitive habitat areas and be of the lowest intensities possible while still providing for public safety, and that a qualified biologist review the lighting plan prior to construction to ensure that potential impacts on ESHAs and the California gnatcatcher are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 01 -9 No construction activities would occur at night. A DEIR reference to potential nighttime construction on page 3 -21 has been deleted (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). 01 -10 Impact 5.2 -5 on page 5.2 -22 of the DEIR evaluates the potential for sensitive receptors 200 feet from the project site — including the residents of the Bay View Landing community, Sea Island community, Harbor Cove, and Villa Point, and guests and visitors at The Dunes —to be exposed to substantial concentration of air pollutants from construction activities in accordance with the modeling methodology established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air pollutants from demolition activities are regulated by the SCAQMD. For buildings that contain asbestos, the SCAQMD requires additional measures to be taken to ensure that asbestos is contained on -site under SCAOMD Rule 1403. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying and notification; asbestos removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos handling and cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials. 11 Page 2 -50 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Thresholds for localized air pollutant modeling are based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which represent the most stringent ambient air quality standards that have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Because air pollutant emissions generated during all construction activities, including demolition and grading activities, do not exceed the localized significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD, concentrations of air pollutants generated by project- related construction activities would not be substantial at the nearby sensitive uses. 01 -11 On July 26, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted the regulation for In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicles. Under Section 2440(d)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, vehicles and engines subject to this rule, which include off -road diesel construction equipment, are prohibited from nonessential idling for more than five minutes. 01 -12 As stated in Impact 5.2 -2 on pages 5.2 -16 through 5.2 -17 of the DEIR, the project would contribute to global warming through direct emissions of greenhouse gas emissions and indirectly through removal of existing vegetation and replacement of the surface area with paved parking lots, sidewalks, and structures. Table 5.2 -8 quantified project - related operational emissions from on -site mobile and stationary sources. However, as described in Impact 5.2 -2, the project's contribution to global climate change impacts was less than significant. 01 -13 Appendix C to the DEIR includes the SCAQMD's Rule 403 requirements to reduce fugitive dust during construction activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires measures to be taken by construction contractors during importing and exporting of bulk materials. As part of Rule 403, construction contractors are required to use tarps or other suitable materials on haul trucks and maintain a specified minimum freeboard in accordance with Vehicle Code Section 23114. Both these measures would reduce fugitive dust emissions associated with import/export of bulk materials. The DEIR references the existing SCAQMD requirements under Rule 403 that must be met. Also note that the footnote referenced in this comment (Table 5.2 -9, footnote 2) is incorrect. Vehicle Code Section 23114 requires a minimum six -inch freeboard. This correction is included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, in this FEIR. 01 -14 Potential construction traffic- related impacts were analyzed in a separate technical study included in DEIR Appendix D. Upon implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the DEIR, construction traffic impacts would be less than significant. In addition, new mitigation measures have been added to the FOR in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The construction traffic for the project, as shown on Figure 5, Construction Traffic Access in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, would be directed from the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. For the demolition of the maintenance building and adjacent structure, the logical point of ingresslegress is a current emergency access point on Back Bay Drive, Point "A." This access point is Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -51 88 2. Response to Comments near the buildings to be razed. Construction traffic for the demolition of the circular ballroom should use the existing driveway on Back Bay Drive north of the entrance to the Newport Dunes Point "B." In fact, this driveway may be the best point of ingress /egress for all construction on the lower parking field, including the construction traffic for the new ballroom. For the timeshare construction phase, the emergency access point on Back Bay Drive, either as existing point "B" or as proposed Point "C" (Proposed Driveway 4), would be the logical point for construction access. Construction traffic would not occur north of the proposed emergency access to the timeshare units, eliminating impacts to the one -way portion of Back Bay Drive north of the Hyatt Regency, Newport Beach, which is used primarily for recreational purposes. A Construction Management Plan will be prepared prior to any construction activities. This plan will demonstrate how construction traffic would be routed onto and off of the site during all phases of the construction. A preliminary Construction Traffic Routing Plan is shown in Figure 5, Construction Traffic Access in the Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The Construction Management Plan will follow the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to ensure that vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is not adversely impacted during construction. Where necessary, the appropriate signage, traffic cones, barricades, and other traffic control devices will be utilized to maintain existing traffic, bicycle and pedestrian operations along Back Bay Drive. The Construction Management Plan will be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that current usage of Back Bay Drive is not adversely affected during any phase of construction. The Construction Management Plan will address in detail each phase of construction for the project. In addition to the Construction Management Plan, the following measures would be Conditions of Approval that the City will implement to ensure that Back Bay Drive would not be adversely affected during the construction: 1) Staging /queuing of construction vehicles shall occur on -site, not within the public right -of -way. 2) Any road closures will require a temporary street closure permit that must be reviewed and approved by Public Works Traffic Engineering Division. 3) Any work within the public right -of -way will require an encroachment permit that must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 01 -15 The commenter's concern is unclear. No smoking would be allowed inside of the facility, so the ability of the filtration system of the building to contain smoke within a specified area is not relevant. Smoking would be limited to designated outdoor areas only. Due to the distance between the facility and off-site receptors, concentrations of secondhand smoke that could affect off -site receptors would be negligible. 01 -16 The impacts of the proposed project on adjacent sensitive vegetation communities, such as coastal sage scrub (CSS), were addressed in the EIR. The timeshare buildings have been designed and would be more than 50 feet from existing CSS. Furthermore, a 50400t buffer area that would be planted with native vegetation and designed to protect the CSS would separate the proposed structures from the CSS, consistent with CLUP policies to protect ESHAs. Page 2 -52 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments 01 -17 For clarification, the text of the Fuel Modification Zone description on Figure 5.34 of the DEIR is reproduced in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The designated Special Treatment Zone would serve two functions: fire protection and provision of suitable native habitat for purposes of buffering the CSS /ESHA from the development. To meet both of these goals, a site - specific plant palette has been selected that will optimize both functions. The proposed plant palette, consisting entirely of grasses, forbs, and some succulents native to central coastal Orange County and on the approved Newport Beach Fire Department list of fire - resistive plants includes but is not limited to: • Foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida) • Purple needlegrass (Nassel /a pulchra) Lance- leaved dudleya (Dudleya lanceolata) • Alkali heath (Frankenia Salina) • Seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) Woolly lotus (Lotus hermannir) • Coast cholla (Opuntia prolifera) • Prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) 01 -18 This comment states that "disturbing the coastal sage is not the only issue." It should be noted that this statement is incorrect since project implementation would not impact coastal sage scrub. Buildings would be a minimum of 50 feet from the CSS, which would in turn be buffered by native vegetation, as described above. The "open space" that would be lost consists of very-low value turf and areas with ornamental landscaping and, as discussed in the DEIR, these impacts are not significant. A biologist has been an integral part of the project team, and was responsible for reviewing the design, landscaping, fuel modification, and lighting plans for the project. Specific roles of the biological monitor (also a qualified biologist), are outlined in the DEIR mitigation measures, listed on pages 5.3 -24 through 5.3 -26. 01 -19 As specified in Response 01 -17, native plants would be introduced into the Fuel Modification Zone. As designed, the proposed project would not result in significant biological resource impacts and would protect existing resources through the use of native vegetation. Additional mitigation is not required. ' 01 -20 TS -4, TS -5, and TS -2 require excavation for subterranean parking. According to the geotechnical report by Kleinfelder, Boring B -1 did not encounter any groundwater or seepage extending to a depth of 21 feet below ground surface (bgs), 30 feet above mean seal level (amsl). TS -4 and TS -5 are nearest B -1, with a finish floor of 42 feet. Boring B -2 did encounter seepage at depths of 34 feet bgs, or approximately 32.5 feet amsl. TS -2 is the structure nearest Boring B -2 and would have a finish floor I elevation of 58 feet. Given that the timeshare buildings are at a higher elevation on the development site, it does not appear that the excavation required for the structures would encounter groundwater. 01 -21 The commenter is correct in noting that the Thresholds of Significance provided on page 5.6 -6 of the DEIR are directly from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The introduction to the list also references Appendix G as the source of the thresholds. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -53 ao 2. Response to Comments The City of Newport Beach has not adopted CEQA significance thresholds, and therefore the CEQA Appendix Guidelines are appropriate and typical significance thresholds. 01-22 As described in DEIR Section 5.6, hazardous wastes are controlled through many of regulations. These are detailed in DEIR pages 5.6 -1 through 5.6 -3. As noted, businesses that handle more than a specified amount (reporting quantity) of hazardous materials are subject to preparation, submittal, and regular updates of a Hazardous Material Business Plan. It would not be meaningful for the DEIR to evaluate the potential chemical uses of a standard commercial operation such as the hotel when, as stated in the Initial Study, regulatory compliance would assure that related hazards would be less than significant. Cleaning and landscaping products used by hotels do not typically pose a risk to public health due to very small volumes that are used and the slim likelihood of a significant exposure to these chemicals. Similarly, any hazardous materials used during construction would be subject to similar local, state, and federal regulations regarding the storage, use, and disposal. Moreover, the transport of hazardous materials is governed by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation and compliance should protect the public from any significant impact from transportation activities. In the event of an accident, local emergency response teams would be deployed. 01 -23 The commenter is correct in noting that hazardous emissions would not only affect school children. Significance Threshold H -2 addresses the potential release of hazardous materials during demolition and construction (see Impact 5.6 -1). New sources of hazardous emissions are regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials are regulated by the local Certified Unified Program Agency, which is the Orange County Health Care Agency for the City of Newport Beach. Compliance with the rules and regulations of these agencies, as detailed in Section 5.6 -5, Existing Regulations, would reduce this impact to less than significant. 01 -24 The commenter is correct in noting that the DEIR does not address Significance Threshold H -7 regarding whether the proposed project could impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. Issues that are adequately addressed in the Initial Study are not further analyzed in the DEIR. As noted in the Initial Study, the Emergency Management Plan provides guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations in both war and peacetime. The plan focuses on management concepts and responsibilities during an emergency and includes numerous "functional matrices," which detail City, county, state, and federal responsibilities by individual positions and /or departments in the event of a major emergency. City departments and other local entities identified as having either a primary or support responsibility shall prepare Department Standard Operating Procedures and checklists detailing personnel assignment, policies, notification rosters, and resource lists. The management plan also details various emergency preparedness and response phases. The City's 2004 Emergency Management Plan includes a review of potential City hazards that could result in a major emergency (earthquake, hazard chemical spills, firelexplosion, dam failure, aircraft accident, war/terrorism, nuclear accidents) and Page 2 -54 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' I 1 2. Response to Comments comprehensive, functional organizational information that would be implemented to respond to such emergencies. The plan does not include measures that specifically relate to the Hyatt project site. It does, however, include a Tsunami Evacuation Map (Figure 1.8.10.1) which designates Jamboree Road as an evacuation route. As summarized in DEIR Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic, the project- related trips would not impact levels of service for the existing area roadway system, including Jamboree Road (see Impact 5.11 -1). Project - related construction activities would result in a short-term impact to one intersection, Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road, during the PM peak hour. This intersection currently operates at an unacceptable LOS E and would continue to operate at LOS E with project implementation. During construction the project- related impact is considered significant because the increase in the intersection volume /capacity ratio would exceed 0.01, the City's significance traffic threshold for intersections already at an unacceptable level of service. This impact would only occur during the construction phase of the project. In addition, Mitigation Measure 11 -2 in the DEIR, permits construction traffic during the PM peak period between 4pm and 6pm to lessen the impact. Given that the impact would not be permanent, that the level of service for the intersection would not change, Mitigation Measure 11 -2, and the unlikelihood that a tsunami would occur during the construction of this project, this impact is not considered significant. 01 -25 As noted, the DEIR acknowledges the potential release of asbestos and /or lead - based paint during demolition activities. Due to the age and type of the structures, 1 these materials could be present. These are common materials requiring abatement and specific regulatory procedures are in place to conduct the work. As described in Section 5.6.5, Existing Regulations, SCAQMD Rule 1403 governs procedures for demolition of buildings with asbestos materials including requirements for asbestos surveying and notification; asbestos - containing material (ACM) removal procedures and time schedules; ACM handling and cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfill disposal requirements for ACM. Similarly, DEIR Section 5.6.5 describes the regulatory requirements for environmental control of lead -based paints, including exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation of monitoring. Specific references for each of the regulations are included in this section of the DEIR. These standard operating procedures are mandated and, contrary to this commenter's assertions, the DEIR is ' therefore not presuming the potential impacts and /or control measures for hazardous substances. 01 -26 The potential fire hazard assessment for the proposed project is based on a comprehensive, custom assessment of the project site and state -of- the -art fire behavior modeling for specific site and surrounding area characteristics, including topography, vegetation, and climate. The referenced Fire Protection Plan (FPP) is included in its entirety as DEIR Appendix H. Moreover, the FPP was prepared in consultation with, and reviewed by, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. 01 -27 There would be no mechanisms located on the project site for the purpose of high tide events. i Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -55 8000D I 2. Response to Comments I 01 -28 The referenced DEIR quotation in this comment does not contradict the comments referenced in Coastal Commission's response to the Notice of Preparation dated January 16, 2007. Please refer to responses A2 -1 and A2 -2 in this FOR in response to the Coastal Commission's DEIR comment letter and interpretation of allowed uses in the Visitor - Serving Commercial zone. The project would not require an amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). Moreover, the statement does not imply that all necessary permits have been acquired. Because the City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program, a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission will be required, as noted in the Coastal Commission's comment letter. 01 -29 Polyacrylamide is one of the best management practices (BMP) options on a list approved by the state. It has been removed from the list of BMPs proposed for this project. The revision to the DEIR text for Table 5.7 -3 is included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. 01 -30 Construction phase control of stormwater runoff pollution is addressed in the DEIR on pages 5.7 -25 to 5.7 -28. As discussed, the project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, which identifies BMPs to address water quality and runoff during construction activities. 01 -31 The regulatory requirements for controlling water quality and assuring implementation of BMPs is summarized in the DEIR and described in additional detail in the Water Quality Control Report (DEIR, Appendix 1). The specific water pollutant control program elements of the Orange County Stormwater Program are documented in the Drainage Area Management Plan and corresponding Local Implementation Plans (LIPs). In accordance with the City of Newport Beach's adopted LIP (Section A.7.7), the City is required to verify that ongoing operations and maintenance of the Water Quality Management Plan's approved BMPs are being performed by project owners. This would be no different for the proposed project. 01 -32 A refined plan for proposed BMPs is shown in Figure 6, Proposed Storm Water BMPs Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. As shown, the proposed project would incorporate areas of pervious pavement. Final parking lot and driveway surfacing, however, would be determined during the final design phase of the project and approved by the City. There are no current restrictions that govern the use of black asphalt by the City. 01 -33 Please refer to Responses A2 -1 and A2 -2 in response to the Coastal Commission's comment letter on the DEIR. The CLUP is drafted to provide a wide range of visitor uses and does not specifically identify those uses that are allowed. Timeshares would provide accommodations to serve City visitors and have historically been considered visitor serving by the City, and the proposed project has been , determined to be consistent with the existing CV designation. As noted by the commenter, and documented in the DEIR (see page 3 -35), the project will require a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission. 01-34 Please refer to Response A2 -3 regarding consistency of this project with the CLUP policies regarding ESHAs and sensitive habitat areas. Impact 5.3 -1, DEIR page 5.3- 1. Page 2 -56 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 [1 1 2. Response to Comments 10, evaluates the potential impact of the development and related fuel modification on designated ESHAs. Figure 5.3 -4 in the DEIR provides additional detail on the fuel modification zones and designated buffer areas (please also see the updated version of this exhibit, Figure 2 in this FEIR, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Within Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, Coastal Resource Protection under the CLUP is discussed on page 5.8-10 and page 5.8 -26. 0135 Please refer to responses A2 -1 through A2-4 in response to Coastal Commission comments on the DEIR. The City concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the CLOP and that an amendment would not be required. Noise Comments 01 -36 The commenter is correct, the DEIR concludes that construction - related activities would significantly impact the Palisades Tennis Club, Reduction from temporary sound walls are based on the Federal Highway Administration's best practices for calculating estimated shielding. Based on these generalized sound level reductions for temporary sound walls, maximum noise levels generated by the construction equipment would continue to exceed ambient noise levels by a maximum of 18 to 24 dBA over the course of project construction. Consequently, even with mitigation incorporated, this was considered a significant unavoidable project impact. It should be noted that noise levels shown in the DEIR /^l'�-• were calculated as if all construction equipment were operating adjacent to the property line, and therefore, the analysis is conservative. Average noise levels from !V� construction activities can be expected to be substantially lower. Sound walls are not sound blankets on fences. Mitigation measure 9 -1 describes the sound blankets as fences typically comprised of poly - vinyl - chloride- coated outershells with adsorbent insulation. Temporary construction sound blankets or panels, such as those described in Mitigation Measure 9 -1, have sound transmission class (STC) ratings that are associated with reductions in noise levels at the receiver. The actual noise attenuation from the sound blankets or panels is based on the STC- rating of the temporary structure, the distance and height of the source to the structure, and distance and height of the receiver to the structure. In general, the higher the STC rating, the more attenuation is provided. Likewise, the higher the wall, the less noise is transmitted over the wall. ' Subsequent to distribution of the DEIR, additional research was conducted to determine the height and STC rating that would be suitable for the proposed project. ' To ensure the most effective barrier is used during construction activities so that noise level reductions from the sound wall exceed the generalized 5 dB used by the FHWA, Mitigation Measure 9 -1 has been revised as follows (revisions shown in stfikeeti#bold text: 9 -1 Temporary sound blankets (fences typically comprised of poly-vinyl - chloride- coated outer shells with adsorbent inner insulation) shall be placed alongside the boundary of the project site during construction activities that occur in the vicinity of residential and recreational land uses, which includes the areas adjacent to the Palisades Golf Course, the Newporter North 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -57 �J 2. Response to Comments Environmental Study Area, and the Bayview Landing senior community. The temporary sound blankets shall bete prevent direct line -of -sight from active construction areas and shall be a minimum of 14 feet tall with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. This revision is also included in Section 3 of this FEIR, Revisions to the Draft ElR. Potential alternatives to reduce construction - related project impacts were evaluated in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The potential for reducing construction equipment and extending the phasing schedule was considered. The , magnitude of construction noise is dependent on the proximity of the construction activity to the sensitive receptors. Because residential and recreational land uses are in close proximity to the project site, it was concluded that modifying the construction phasing could not eliminate a significant noise impact. 01 -37 An updated statistical summary of the Newport Beach Fire Department is included in Appendix B. Staff includes 117 regular full -time suppression staff and 225 seasonal lifeguards. The lifeguards are fire department staff but do not work in fire suppression and do not affect response times. 01 -38 A discussion of existing, comprehensive regulatory programs to address the , potential for hazardous materials is included in DEIR Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (see page 5.6 -2). Chemical emergency planning is addressed in Chapter 6.95, Section 25502, California Health and Safety Code, and Title 19, California Code of Regulations. As described in the City's Emergency Management Plan (July 2004), in Newport Beach, the fire department is the agency designated to administer the hazardous chemical emergency planning and community right -to- know program. Businesses that handle hazardous materials in specified quantities (reporting quantities) are required to file business plans with the fire department. In the event of a hazardous materials incident in Newport Beach, the Newport Beach Fire Department will act as lead agency and will provide an Incident Commander, and the police department and the Public Works Department will provide incident support. Since regulatory requirements and emergency plans are in place, it is not necessary for a detailed plan to be prepared for the proposed project. The erroneous reference to the Orange County Fire Authority as "Department" is noted and corrected by means of this Final EIR. , 01 -39 See Response 01 -38. 01-40 Under CEQA, the Initial Study is used to determine the potential environmental ' issues that need to be further addressed in an Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, as noted in this comment, the Initial Study determined the proposed project could potentially impact both fire and police protection services, and that these should be evaluated further. Upon research and analysis, as included in DEIR Section 5.10, Public Services, the DEIR substantiates that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to either the police or fire departments and no mitigation is required. , I Page 2 -58 • The Planning Center February 2009 I i I I LJ I I I I LI r i I 2. Response to Comments Construction- related traffic impacts are evaluated in the DEIR Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic, pages 5.11 -24, 25, and 5.11 - 29-31. As concluded, without mitigation, temporary construction impacts would contribute to an unacceptable level of service at Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection and inadequate lane capacity along Jamboree Road during the PM peak period. Mitigation Measure 11 -2, restricting construction vehicle trips during the PM peak hour (4 PM to 6 PM), reduces the impacts to less than significant. Moreover, no construction activities would occur at night. A DEIR reference to potential nighttime construction on page 3 -21 has been deleted (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Fire and police response times would therefore not be hampered by project - related construction activities. Transportation and Traffic Comments 01-41 The parking and queuing demand for the banquet /ballroom have been adequately addressed in the DEIR. The proposed project site plan includes two primary access points to the guest and employee parking facility for the hotel. One vehicle access point would be provided from the existing main hotel entrance on Jamboree Road. A second vehicle access. point would be provided through an enhanced access driveway off of Back Bay Drive. These two points of access are anticipated to be sufficient to serve automobile traffic entering and exiting the project site. Additionally, no form of access control is currently proposed for the project, allowing for more efficient access and egress. The required corrections in this comment to Tables 5.11 -7. 5.11 -8 and 5.11 -9 are noted and included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and shown in strike out/bold format for clarity. Regarding DEIR page 5.11 -22, the commenter suggests that the issue of 127 parking spaces versus the 140 spaces required by the City of Newport Beach needs to be addressed. The DEIR and traffic technical report include a shared parking analysis of the timeshare units and clubhouse to determine the anticipated peak parking demand forecast for the timeshare units and clubhouse facility. As shown in DEIR Table 5.11 -9, parking demand would not exceed the 127 parking spaces designated for the proposed timeshare facilities. Peak demand is anticipated to be 124 parking spaces. 01 -42 The DEIR includes the analysis of traffic conditions on Jamboree Road in the weekday AM and PM peak hours during construction. This analysis corresponds to the peak time periods for traffic volumes along Jamboree Road, and therefore represents the worst -case scenario. 01-43 As detailed in DEIR Mitigation Measures 11 -3 (see page 5.11 -33) the City of Newport Beach will require the project applicant to submit to the City for approval a Parking Management Plan (PMP), which that will specify the number and location of parking stalls that would be provided for hotel guests, employees, and construction employees during the construction of the proposed hotel improvements. The PMP would be required to demonstrate that sufficient parking (467 spaces) will be available on -site for all users during construction. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -59 I �� 2. Response to Comments I 01 -44 Although, the buildings would not be LEED certified, the Hyatt Regency has committed to a Green Building Program for the proposed project, which includes energy- eff icient and conservation- related building measures, landscaping, plumbing, lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, etc. The outline for the program is included as Appendix C of this FOR. .L I I I I I I I Page 2 -60 •1"he Planning Center February 2009 1 L ,11 I I I I k I I I I Letter 02 - The Irvine Company (1 page) 9 t® Marlin 26;.2006 Ms. Jaime Munlio�,A;spc W planner CITYr3FN , 1PO TBEACH pfanning Departrd'erit 3300 Newport Boulevard NeWpcet S06, pv 02.663 Subject:: , Hyp# Regene b aft EIR Dear Ms. Murillo: 2. Response to Comments IzEC� r� sr 'PIANIVDEPAIYR�NT 028208 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. During our revleW of the Draft. f7R for the; lryatt Regency. Newport Beach Expansioir (SOi #'2666b210SR) a couple of puesdom arose relative to•Infonnatfon Within the Transportation and Traffic dfsdrssldn: Thefe(one,, the Oc4 ling comments are submided. so that thedocumentation cafbe,dafffied. 1. The recently approved North Newport:Cent r project:did not appear In either the.AppidVed projects Iist (Table 4.1) or the CuMblawe projects Itst (Table 02 -1 2. ,T-he determinatkm of Whether the•propbsed project Would have a significant impach on aff oted interSKGmrs (as.. portrayed in Table 5.11 -5) dM not 102 -2 appearta'cort;ider rounding the V/c d,Wabons to the second dermal plate We appredate the oppq*Aky'to comment and took forward m darification regarding these g4RSdom. Very truly yours, 1, Daniel T. Miller Senior Vice.president Entitlement _& Puhtie A'airs 656 Wa wGamer Drxgtg San 6370, N�+nw Basal: Gailfmda 925. 66a7o • (716)726iflOp. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -61 0� J 2. Response to Comments I This page intentionally left blank. 1 I I I I I rl Page 2 -62 • The Planning Center February 2009 , I it I I I I [1 I I 1 I 02. 2. Response to Comments Response to Comments from The Irvine Company, Daniel T. Miller, Senior Vice President, dated March 26, 2008. 02 -1 The traffic analysis includes Approved and Cumulative Projects as identified by the City of Newport Beach at the initiation of the traffic study and environmental analysis of the project in 2006. The North Newport Center project was submitted to the City for review and approval after the initiation of the traffic analysis for the Hyatt Newport Project, and is therefore not included in the Approved and Cumulative project list. 02 -2 The traffic analysis presents the intersection volume to capacity ratios to three decimal places, consistent with the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. The City requires rounding to two decimal places as part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis only, which was previously completed for this project. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -63 =C I 2. Response to Comments , This page intentionally left blank. 1 I -1 J d LI I I I I I I I [1 I I Page 2 -64 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter 03 — Unite Here!, Local 11 (3 pages) UN lT:E HERE 4e it efarc00 2008 Hfc,- faiutpIGfurillo CrTy ofNewport &eailcALmning Depar''niient 3'300. NcavpaFt.Eoale'VBZii. i`70wporK;E9c}i, =.f.`A�93,6'63 i1e A g(ist,of CemPI'otiau & Avadahiil ty of Drat'h pronmeq.4wt inipoctReport:(SC-YIN ZOA121110) for the.ibad$egeucy Nk"ort Bea K"' ion STeBg�Iy1f;;Mutilto;: Th &jou,fur the Qpportuniiyto comment onthe dmftEIovimmpepta % fimp ct Report'(Ellt)for tha'P1opOSed aapausion o [the'fiyattRegencyNewport.Bcai&: UNITE 1# E(2E.represents- Note },OpPloyees tlxouphbutCalafaa it. l#f -would hkezo. mice sevard: issueaselated tb the,dcatt•:EEt ffiat we fee�shouTda7 ettisdlved'ptionto _eerh6eatidn.of tie final E1R+ a6i4pica 'rtltngofoti�tiriapprovals by the CityafNewjpok.. . Tuaeshareaan'dthe coasiel Act 'Manyvf 7fJY'f'E{IEI(E=smemhets wor§*.- in. hotel saloogthe ,4"ahiatnie;ooasthnG,and their tq fa®#tesu(f551�tve tu,Iteactryebostal neigti'borhooda As Partfiapants in -:}irn _!e's tourism - utdustt�, w�xrsogri've-the vslue of$e coastiiae .as'areaburcaalulaurzet[ott'dor visitors. Weatg Wucemedwnh tfii 03-1 Yylusranof88 newtmeshateunjt$1L the sedPro}ei;F'We. aoncwwtlli'.ihe rssUes raisedtn fj ete 7gbywry l Cry 2fIt1Z leiter$mmt;,aasfal Program Analyst 7 .7.ana Roman, rc; pond ng rote EIR Notib!- f ASepa i Cion.7yfa,Romanaotes that Newport - Hea.cl� ,s Go,9s{AI Land;T7se:Plen ( CT5 i7P) Sloesnat. sps .E "cellyaufholry`?etitMasha{esin the Visitor Serving Cammeroiw ione and notes tltg uee fv[ a,4't t?P amendmentata allow them.. WeaLso.- wAut <to raieeuh- addtttonai ia"s�ie:7l+ebelreve'ttiat�Ehe ;project ?s -timeiliaze,wmponeul mayvrol2taSoetion 3f}2'13"dtthe Stale.Ci sstai Act wh'iih states thSt:"lowercost visitoraod recryaprfnai`/- hoes shaYl!tieiprateclFd, encouraged, mn_d, vihao•feaseYtfe, provj(dcd " VJedo.not helievtthat 6meshazes fy(fiIl i ,7tS19tte.Fnenl.� Timeshares:MegWrcgi:towards a =,s5tw]];selhneotaf tilt poPWA&R- e:fugtd "y affluent cosfomer 03-2 lease [list earl payltuudtetls'of dunrsaridsi0i•dd)lars fdr =snch assets. Altliough 7 iiidtistand ttiat Myatt Regeo4y owner 9unstonehas nat'su3mitted detaiieAvnfdimatinh.aliout its p)anne3 umeshares;;it is hkelylhst ffie umesltare 'uf ed atsuch-an up, cal_e:liotel will he eyenmore _ e,peeisrv, }l su th4 average timeshare.,&veo,themost modestlypnged`timesharts, however, a re oul= of- reach "fnrou tntrn trs andutha Workin&.,mpte. NAei OMMX] n ApfROriT:OtiICE. 4.4 S. Luc' -Va. Suite 201. 4034 W, Impede! Hwy LosAngetas;yCA -90017 I� In cA 90304 TEL (213) 96.1- FAX (210),481-036-2 1310) 671 -082[1 r Faz (310) fi7l -5021 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -65 EQv 2. Response to Comments We'also question whether hotels actually issue: qualify as the disc» s"sedinthe bnlysaceessibleio s who nee seeld" coa6;Ya1 CeIDnllssiog 03-3 ciliates and ds cotteerns on;`ttis 1 034 03-5 Finally, we•concur with po tttiFraised iu.s;itumberof letters by Sea is }and residents regarding I.03-6 ao�se eicd tinE"ic .Weheheud t406 issues musk_be a$dre5sediaitd }esolved in the final EIR,for this project. Please keep ma utfarmed about aay.pubhc hearings where thts:prolect and EiR will be discessed. Ylease I 03'7 al¢n mntart #no-at tA13'1 dllft:d9Ri�iiv.,,, .v�..r to r7.amed,ihwrP.a��.x. Page 2 -66 • The Planning Center February 2009 Thank you for your attention,tb ibis matter Sinceaety,- And Resewch.Analyst- 1)IJtTE HEtiE. tifi4:Solrth -Lucas Avenue, #101 40mgeles, CA 90017 anj4*4 83 2. Response to Comments 3 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beath • Page 2 -67 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -68 • The Planning Center Februaty 2009 1 I 1 2. Response to Comment. I 03. Response to Comments from Unite Here!, Local 11, Andy Lee, Research Analyst, dated March 26, 2008. 7 _-J l 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -69 03 -1 Please refer to Responses A2 -1 and A2 -2 in response to the Coastal Commission's comment letter on the DEIR. ' 03 -2 Please refer to Response A2 -1. 03 -3 Please refer to Responses A2 -1 and 03 -1. 03 -4 Please refer to Response A2 -1. The City's goals and objectives in its General Plan and CLUP are to provide a wide variety of accommodations for all visitors. Hotels, motels, timeshares, weekly and monthly rentals of homes, and overnight mooring areas all provide visitor serving accommodations in the City. 03 -5 The parking analysis summarized in the DEIR does assume a more conservative ' parking ratio for the ballroom facilities. The analysis summarized in Table 5.11 -7 is based on a demand assumption of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. 03 -6 The commenter's concurrence with noise and traffic points raised by a number of Sea Island residents is acknowledged. Please refer to response to these issues in the following responses to resident letters. 03 -7 As requested, Unite Here! will be notified of future activities, including public hearings, associated this ^^.. l.� 0Iu with project. 7 _-J l 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -69 11 2. Response to Comments I This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -70 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter 04 - Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) (8 pages) Robert A. Hv,,ho, November 6, 2006 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Subject., Review of Biological Issues Associated with Proposed Conversion of the Hyatt Regency Golf Course to Timeshares Dear SPON, At your request, I have 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 (see Figure 1). The land adjacent to the Hyatt Regency is natural open space owned by the City of Newport Beach (City) that is open to public access. The proposed actions include fuel modification and landscaping within the City-owned open space. My qualifications to conduct this evaluation are provided in the attached Curriculum Vitae. 1. Aerial photograph from Google [ ro showing the area of biological .t. along the northern boundary of van Regency property, in light 316Monrovia Avenue 'rr' Long Beach,CA90803 --* 562 -477-2181 '-- F=562-33 -5292 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -71 �� I 2. Response to Comments ' Review' ofafolggi llsswc, Hysa Regency Project, Newport Rnch, CA RoB Hamilton., Coosolung Bioloo Nomnbcr 6.2008 Page.2 af8 Methods As part of this review, I reviewed a biological technical report dated 7 November 2007 that G1ennLukosAssociates,(GLA) prepared for$unstoneHotel Properties, Inc. I also reviewed the relevant portions of Diaft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR, FEIR) that The Plannng.Center prepared in support of this project in 2008, with GLA serving as the biological consultant. Plantcommunity mappingww provided as Exhibit 3 of GLA's biological technical report, which was ripro4liced. - as- F.igur 5.32 of the DEIR. I visited the Gty's public open space area during afternoon hours on 24.0ctober and 3 November 200 in orderto field -check GLA:s plant,eommunity mapping and to view the resources preseht along�the interface between theopen space and the Hyatt: Regency golf course. I took into the field printouts of aerial photos frclm Google Earth Pro in order to create my own map of the plant communities present4n the area of interest.,I took numerous photographs during the second visit in order todocument the conditions I encountered: I determined the :area of native:plant communities Using GoogleFar(h IPrd: rcemingpotendal impacts to cgastal mg the northern edSe of the existing; buffer proposed between proposed . tt.Areas identified under the CiWs off -site fuel' modification north of the Hyatt Regency property, which.GLA, biologists contend wi➢ not adversely affect FSHA, the federally RsW Cil foniiaGnatcatcher, orany bther'sensitive: resources. In response to comments, the Ft(Wincluded "Revised DEIR Figure 5:3.4;" a modified plan for fuel modification ami-landwapfng along the northern propertylinepieparedl,y Lee Sc Sakahara Ardiltects. My�egrnments on fuel modification issues refeire, usfvelyto�, cartmtplan. Results the plant community 5.3 2 of the DEIRlemt 14 in lvi GLA's technical report {California Gnatcateher Location ap), Since it 1 linesratherthan screens,butExhibit4 shcwsonly- tbemappedextentofcoast not wetlands or other communities My own plant community MOOS provi 2 on the following page:. .Since -the City has not:prepaced a. certified Implementation Plan to accompany its CLUP, any proposed development at the.Hyatl Regency site will require a Coastal Development Pcxmirfrom: the Califoenia Coastal'Commission peimant to the Califomia Coastal Act. 1 I i I 1 I 1 I F Page 2 -72 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I ' 2. Response to Comments Review ofl3iologca1 Issues, Hnn Regency PtgcR Newporille h.CA Robert A Hamilmo. Comulrng Biologist Nawmba G 2008 Page 3 oF8 Figure 2. Plant Communities. This photo shows the approximate property boundary in light blue. Of par- ticular note are (1) the 0.05 -acre eat -tail marsh shown in dark blue if could not map the limits of the cat -rails with precision beneath overhanging vegetation, so this polygon should be regarded as approximate), (2) the limits of coastal sage scrub, which extend across the property boundary in the northwestern parr of the site. and (3) the occurrence of native herbs and grasses in the roderal area northeast of the properly boundary. The following sections discuss three aspects of GLA's plant community mapping that I disagree with. Maooi�of Cat -tail Marsh. Impacts to Freshwater Wetland ESIIACat -tail Marsh. Impacts to Freshwater Wetland ESIIA I delineated approximately 2,050 square feet (0.05 acre) of freshwater marsh near the northwestern project boundary. This marsh, some of which is obscured under the canopy of tall- growing non - native trees, is dominated by native Narrow - leaved Cat -tail (Typho angushfolia). Narrow-leaved Cat-tail has a wetland indicatorstatusof "OBL; arankingthat applies to plants that "Occur almost always (estimated probability 99 %) under natural conditions in wetlands' (Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88). During both visits, I noted Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 7 L 04 -1 City of Newport Beach a Page 2 -73 2. Response to Comments ' Rtvicw of Biologd lenes, Hyan Regrnty Pmiat Ntavpon Bnch, G Rtbm A Hamilom, r-omultmg Biologist November 6, 2DOB Page 4 of B that the soils were moist in the cat -tail marsh area, and that this area is fed by runoff from Back Bay Drive as well as from the Hyatt Regency property. Figures 3-5 show the cat -tail 04-1 marsh area. I caned o taken on 3 November 2008 cat -tail marsh northwest of the property line. The large palm '.ground is located just north of u. Figure 4. Photo to showing the proxim to the Hyatt Regent toward Back Bay D the background are also various non. crass (cortaderia sal u.rrufato), as well Pear (opuntia litters Figure S. Photo taken on 3 November 20DB showing contrast between dark, wet soil and lightercolored, dry soil, at the base of the narrow palm tree shown in Figure 2,above. The presence of moist soil in this area suggests that irrigation runoff from the Hyatt Regency prop- erty probably contributes to supporting the cat. tail marsh that exists just north of the property Line. The marsh area is also supported by runoff From Back Bay Drive. Page 2 -74 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I I 1 I I i L� 2. Response to Comments Re. irw of Biologidtsucs, [iyanRegercy Pro, NmI..Beuh,CA RobcnA Hamilton, Conulting Biologist Nacmber 6,1IX18 Page 5 o1`8 I have not conducted a formal wetland delineation at this cat -tail marsh area, but the existence of dense cat -tails and moist soil both strongly suggest that the entire cat -tail marsh area would be delineated as a wetland using any state or federal government criteria. Under Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations, the following criteria determine -the, precise�boundaries of the jurisdictional areas described in the applicable provisions of the Coastal 'A ' 1. theiboundary between land- with predominantly hydrophytic cover and.landwth predominantly mewphytic"or xerophytic cover; 2. the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and s6d.'.that is pre 4omf- nantly nonhydric; or 3. in the case of: wetlands without vegetation" or soils,the boundary between landthat is flooded or saturated afsome time during.years:of normal precipitation, and land that is not. This isknown as the "one- paiarnetermethod" of delineatirigwetlands. Underthis method;. the cat -tail marsh area'cleaily qualifies as a wetland that isunderthe CoastilComrriissiori s' jurisdiction. Under Section 4.1.1 of the City's COUP, coastal freshwater margh,;areas, (includingcat -tail marshes) arepmsumed tobe`ESHAvn{essthepmperty owner or project. ­ Proponent that this presumption is rebutted bysitespecific evidence -. The: to wfthirs.10 feet rof.t}ie property boundary and '.lies within the,area proposed for' °fuel modification,, Policy 4.12 of the City's CLUP specifies that all wetland ESHA shall have a Orninimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible." Given that ihissmQ area.of fie5hwatermarah is adjacent to coastai sage scrub ESHA within the natural open space of'Upper Newport-_ Biy;'there does not appear to be a strong argument to b'e.rnade for waiving the CLUP"s wedarld'buffer:standard in.'this instance. Mapping of Coastal Saes Sertib.Impacts- to.Coastal Sage Scrub ESHA Page 5.3-20 of the DEIR states: The project design.wouid resuif in complete i¢oidance.of GIPS to CSB'. As:shosv,n'ou Figure'. 5$ -0, Vegefah'oh and FuatA7odificirfion, neftheograding nbrfuelmoHIIica tiori acFvities would remove any;CSSan d o tdeaig_igdudes a m ihimnm,50- fooPbdEEe tetweetl ad de¢eldpedaieas and'dff -site CSS'tb asetue full'comphanrewsth'i}ie Gsty'aCoastal [and�USe Policies. of scrub extending, southward across the Hyatt Regency property lure (i:e., into the area proposed for fuel modification; even,under the revised plaq). As noted in'the DEIR, this area .of:coastal sage scrub is occupied liy the federally threatened.California Gnatcatcher; 04-1 coned 04 -2 043 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -75 LI 2. Response to Comments 1 Renew of Bwkgcal Issues. Hyan Regency project. Newport Brach, CA Robert A. Hamilmn. Comulong BiokV. Nmrmbe, 6, 20n8 Page 6 af8 Figure 6, below, shows the coastal sage scrub on the south side of the property line. 6. photograph taken on 3 ,bet 2008 showing coastal Sagebrush (Artemisia calrfor. ). The view is M the southeast n the barbed wire fence that rks the approximate northern ndary of the Hyatt Regency perry. Approximately 1,150 are feet of coastal sage scrub 3 acre) occurs on the Hyatt in the DEIR, this area of 1 sage scrub ESHA is pro- 04 -3 Cont'd Under Section 4.1 of the City's CLUP, areas of coastal sage scrub occupied by California Gnatcatchers satisfy ESHA criteria, yet the revised fuel modification plan by Lee & Sakahara Architects shows that sage scrub would be subject to fuelmodificatian impacts along both sides of the property boundary in the northwestern part of the site. Furthermore, the DEIR and FEIR both claim that fuel modification in the coastal sage scrub buffer zone (as well as in coastal sage scrub itself) would be "environmentally sensitive." According to both the DEIR and FEIIL this means: Landscaping vegetation shall be limited to came grass species or ground cover only from the NBFD fire resistive plant list. Ground cover W be irrigated and maintained at a height of 8 inches or less and free of dead plant material. No shrubs or trees M be planted in this zone. Examining the plant palette for the Special Treatment Zone set forth in the latest fuel modification plan the species proposed are Car" mica'Snowline," Horkeiia cuneata, Lotus hermannii [= Lotus heermannii), Mimulus species, Nassella lepida, Nassella pulchm, Rhus ovata, and Sisyrhynchium Belli. Carex conica is a sedge native to Japan. Rhus ovata is not found at Upper Newport Bay or anywhere that I'm aware of along the coast of Orange County, and it is not thought to be valuable to the California Gmtcatrher. The species of Mimulus is unspecified, so cannot be evaluated for potential value to gnatcatchers. Since the species called for in the "special treatment" zone are not typical of coastal sage scrub, and most of them are not native to the site, I do not agree with the biologists of GLA that this treatment would be "environmentally sensitive" or useful to California Gnatcatchers, particularly when the groundcover would be maintained at a height of 8 inches or less. l would regard Page 2 -76 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 ' 2. Response to Comments I I n I L 1 1 RtviewafBidogid lssms.11ynt Regauy Project, Newpotr Beads, CA RubenA Ham:lam, Cansuhing Biologist Navraeber 6, 200a Page 7 of S this treatment as inappropriate in a coastal sage scrub ESHA buffer, let alone within areas that currently support coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers- Considering that Coastal Prickly -pear cactus does occur in the scrub adjacent to the site, i would advocate development of aprickly- pear -based fuel modificationtreatment within the ESHA buffer (with no direct fuel modification impacts to extant coastal sage scrub). Mapping ofRuderal Vegetation Biologists from GLA identified a larger area of "tuderal" (weedy) vegetation in the northeastern part of their plant community map than I did. .I found that reasonably intact coastal sage scrub, (i.e., areas dominated by native scrub species, but mixed in with ruderal species) covers a fairly large part of the area that GLA mapped as "ruderal." I also found that most of the remaining area that GLA called 'ruderal" had a considerable amount of native grasses and herbaceous species in the understory, including Salt Grass (Distichtis spicata), neediegrass (Nassella sp.), White Everlasting (Gnaphalium canescens ssp- mfcrocepMum), and Deer Weed (Lotus scvparius). As it appears that no impacts are, proposed for the'ruderal" area In question, the mis- mapping of this area may not be of any importance at this time. 04 -3 Coned F;fl Dumping of Green WastA1. into Natural Open Space During my visits .I noted that trash consisting of landscape plants had apparently been 1 04-5 dumped into the natural: open space, seePigrtres 7 and 8. Figures 7. a. Photos taken on 3 November 2808 showing green waste that has been dumped in the natuxa: open space adjacent to the Hyatt Regency SaHcourse. Such activftiea degrade natural open space areas and may help to explain why same of the coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the Solt course has been invaded by ruderal species. Planting of Additional Trees in Off-site Areas The revised fuel modification and landscape plan by Lee & Sakahara Architects shows 1 04.6 plantings of various native and non - native off- site trees in oite areas, in the vicinity of coastal Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -77 1 V5 I 2. Response to Comments I Review of Biologi [ sue, Hrn RcgcncjPTcjec,, Nrw;o Bexh,G Robert & Hrniln, C.wulft 11' olegisi November 6, 2008 P.Ffffa sage scrub- The uplands around Upper -ToA!3av naturally coastal sage sti.tib -NOv - n tu part sage and other low-growing vegetation. Plantingniore trees in this area may reduce the value 04-6 Cont'd to allow the project Proponent to extend project landscaping outside of the property' Boundaries, even if this means potentially degrading the Cit3,�si natural open Spam? Summary and Conclusion ,,As cietalled,Wthis letter, I do not.bill.ieve that the CEQA docurnentation.for ififipi6jiet accurately the mturalri�sdurc�onCit�Lov4TiediiaturakoO4t*e, lbcw adjacent t6 the Hyatt. I Regency property, � . To summarize: The limits of freshwater wetlands were in ppeol, much farther from th pro perty boundary than isthetase. Therevisadfuel modification plans do not," Srmrl fninii-num.100,40ot buffer caliedifovin the CLUP. The liniitseof coastal,sage I naithern: . wrubswere not mapped accurately along .ft as--wellas intensive m- a tI en- amce to keep the g� oundcover low. , mapproach based upofL l6oallynative cactus would provide habitat for gnathatchdivand other looW -skdof&e species and -would not require invasive and ;repetitive mechanical disturbance to maintain -axivifective fire break. It'ilo plant trees in the City's.. open space, in an area that--does Thankyou foribe iipporhflftfty to.proviae'this independent reviewAf you wish Wdiscuss any matters, please call meat,562477-21K ovs—md e-mail to robb@raharnilten.mm. Sincerely', Robed Hailton ,t'A. ' m C-imsuliing Biologist Attachment: Curriculum Vitae Page 2-78 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I ' 2. Response to Comments ' 04. Response to Comments from Robert A. Hamilton (as addressed to SPON), letter dated November 6, 2008. 04 -1 During the Planning Commission Hearing for the Hyatt Regency Expansion on November 6, 2008, Mr. Hamilton identified concerns regarding the location of the wetlands adjacent to the project site boundary. In response, the project biologist, ' Tony Bomkamp of Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) conducted a follow up site visit on November 7, 2008 to evaluate Mr. Hamilton's findings. The biologist conducted a second visit to formally delineate the cattail wetland on November 17 and December ' 2, 2008, using sub -meter accuracy GPS technology to map the limits of the cattail wetland. The limits of the GPS - generated polygon were very close to the limits depicted by Mr. Hamilton; however, GLA believes the discrepancy is due to the different methods being used to establish the location of the cattail wetland. The use ' of a sub -meter GPS technology is a more accurate method for delineating the limits of the cattail wetland than an aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth Pro. Figure 2, Vegetation and Fuel Modification (revised DEIR Figure 5.3-4) shows the ' revised location of the wetland. The original wetland mapping has shifted the location of the cattails to the north site when it was initially mapped in 2007; however, more importantly it appears that the ' wetland area has expanded to the south. While the reason for the expansion is not known, it is likely a combination of the extreme drought conditions during 2007 when it was initially mapped and wetter conditions in 2008 allowing expansion to the ' south to its current location (cattails are highly opportunistic and have the capacity to respond to varying environmental conditions). Based on the delineation using GPS, the southernmost extent of the cattails is approximately 40 feet from the property boundary. Therefore, the portion of the wetland is not within the "Special ' Treatment Zone "; rather, the cattail wetland is just outside the Special Treatment Zone and, there would be no need to remove any of the cattails during fuel modification. Furthermore, should the cattail wetland expand into the Special ' Treatment Zone, the fire department has indicated that some growth into the Special Treatment Zone, up to a maximum size equivalent to 100 percent of the existing wetland, would be acceptable and would not be subject to fuel modification ' activities. 04-2 Subsequent to the November 6, 2008, public hearing and follow -up assessment of the wetlands adjacent to the project site, the project applicant has worked with the City to increase the buffer area around the wetland and to assure compliance with CLUP Policy 4.2.2 -3. The site plan has been modified to provide a minimum of a 100 -foot buffer between the proposed timeshare buildings and the wetland. The ' modifications to the site plan and required related DEIR revisions are detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and Section 3.2, DEIR Updates and Clarifications. The revised site plan is included in Section 3.4, Revised and New Figures (see Figure 9, Hyatt Site PlanlGrading Plan (Revised DEIR Figure 3-4), Figure 2, Vegetation and Fuel Modification (Revised DEIR Figure 5.3-4) and Figure 2a, Vegetation and Fuel Modification —Plant Palette Detail). 04 -3 Based on the project biologists review and concurrence with the commenter's ' opinion about the use of Cam conica and Rhus ovata within the Special Treatment Zone, the City will include the following Condition of Approval: Within the Special Treatment Fuel Modification Zone located between the identified environmentally 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach *Page 2 -79 88 2. Response to Comments sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and Timeshare Building Nos. TS-1 and TS -2, only the following native, fire - resistant plant species shall be planted, subject to the approval of the Fire Department: • Coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) • Coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera) • Sticky- leaved monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus) • Foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida) • Purple needlegrass (Nasse /la pulchra) • Lance- leaved dudleya (Dudleya lanceolata) • Blue -eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum) 04 -4 The areas to the north of the fuel modification do contain "reasonably intact" coastal sage scrub; however, the limited areas that will be affected by fuel modification contain essentially no shrubs characteristic of Coastal Sage Scrub. In fact, the limited area of ruderal habitat within Zones C and D support very low densities of native species, including salt grass and needlegrass, and the proposed fuel modification activities would avoid all areas with even moderate densities of native plants. Refer to Figure 2, Vegetation and Fuel Modification (revised DEIR Figure 5.3- 4) and Figure 2a, Vegetation and Fuel Modification —Plant Palette Detail. 04 -5 In response to this comment, the City has added the following Condition of Approval for the project: Disposal of green waste onto the natural open space areas adjacent to the site shall be prohibited. ' 04 -6 The current landscape plan has been designed with no landscape trees within the minimum 50 -foot buffer zone between the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) and , development with many of the trees at greater distances. In response to this comment, the City has added the following Condition of Approval for the project: Prior to the issuance of building permits, a qualified biologist shall review the final ' landscaping plans to ensure that the proposed trees do not pose a potential threat to adjacent areas of CSS Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Page 2 -80 • The Planning Center February 2009 11 Letter R1 - Gerard Adhoute MD, FAGS (2 pages) Gerard ADHOtrM MD, F:ACS 20 �e.'MansDr, Newport tgq CA; 42657' N m'h 12 C69 JaimaI;AurMp,.Associate Pl'amer CityofNev+p4rt BeachPlarmirIg;Dgpartmeot.. 33OO 1N%wportSouleyard NewPoR:4each CA 42663 17eacr;Taime 1S furiilo, *ith Best Regards GerarA Adhoute 1� Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 2. Response to Comments �fz'va City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -81 CO I 2. Response to Comments I , m & AVAIL REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY%2008 TD: DRAFt.'EIH DIS7RIBUMON UST SUBJECT; NOTICE OF' COMPLETION AND AVAN:AW4!Y ,bF THE DRAFT ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (.SGH+. 200027.052) FOR'711E HYATT'REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH EXPAN$IDN PROJECT APPLICANT. NfE1:,CRUSE := ;8UHSTDNE,HOTELS DRAFT E1R.REVIEW-PER16R. FeWuatrji,;2008 -Mardi 27,2008. Pu[svant m. itie State of CaNPumNa Wbk :Resources .Code Seot)on 21;165 and :.tw% "GUfd Ww6 W iniplesnentetlon of•1he,CalHartma Fmiro_mVrrfel Lival8YAC1' as "amended tc: date, aslodd- AgerK:;+;- thB;Cdy of Newpat Beath W ckcUwing forp.v"' ,,.ie&w A DtaR Bmz., re W Impaot Report (DJR),fcithe• .proposed Fiygit.Regerwy Newpoit Beaeh expattsiOn: Project Tigm Hpau Regemy NMPW Beach Smamdon 0-pomd Project) Page 2 -82 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 ' 2. Response to Comments ' R1 Li 7 L� 1 1 11 I Response to Comments from Gerard Adhoute MD, FACS, dated March 1, 2008. R1 -1 This commenter's objection to the project is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to decision makers. The traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion identified no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding roadway network (including PCH and Jamboree), per the guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-83 WAILWA 2. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally /oft blank. Page 2 -84 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Letter R2 - Winnie Jay (1 page) 2. Response to Comments 314 V/a#'ole K> ,Java gwff4,x9a 4" ff,doog tJ Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -85 �4 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -86 • The Planning Center February 2009 r ' 2. Response to Comments ' R2. Response to Comments from Winnie Jay, dated March 8, 2008. ' R2 -1 The traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed expansion project identified no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding roadway network, per the guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach. 112 -2 The commenter's opinion regarding the need for more open space is noted. The project is on private property and is consistent with existing plans and zoning. Additionally, the proposed 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness center would be t available to both hotel guests and the general public. Existing open space at the project site comprises 13.03 acres, or 54.5 percent of the site, in comparison to the proposed project, which would include 9.65 acres, or 40.4 percent of the site. ' R2 -3 The project's potential impact on police services is evaluated in DER Section 5.10, Public Services. Based on the response from the police department, the project would not substantially increase the demand for protection services, and the ' department is adequately staffed to handle the proposed project. E 1 1 1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Neaporr Beach & Page 2 -87 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -88 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter R3 — Jan D. Vandersloot (1 page) Fmm lonV3i:DAOrrnm [rtgl�2ortV3�ad:com[ $'em. Thu [9day�,1%lartll�r'�i1011; ?i2�6 AMI 7g: Mw1PO ,)�Int� Cc: kSCh'*%Q , .tdHst� lrt8 9.�' F1VIImn�,df9: �i9,d*'r wrey@fws,4dr, fs ctlastal.ra'.gtiy;: Imirda,rrafi�rrea kdmf Ar.AtDaasom s��«�'or�n Em rtyaa ,aayen<yr�,�o�;scHSZOOSmaTOSZ titarbn zs; - -boa Re: matt El,Eyi,:t�ygai H9fPA }?tae ":Agok't'9 hE?4R?n�pd. Deaf Mr, P+tOOG; ThanKydtUfoYGI'to,'¢y� Y1}d .3lti�mrivr�$pf gp:the. Rye &fte�eky u,rakt FIEF:: 1691iev$ihA EIR„ frAm UiA T•_SJiR dt Jnha'l^?4ym Guld1,(f1elYpptt' al r)ly inapa_ ,.Atl.otbu(ki�nttnvmzc {M.aolg,9 T'ttrm�neCUp..HOwev,�r aet itOs :: sizeotbulief p[u��Tns�TEFdrx&�nf[tre Uppert�awpiut 6ay'ec�ysiem and fhe.�(siih/�Iy A,Y�iey, gnatcatnhers,:aT ttads��es,, - 9uffersoflWf�3ieCers[ gyp. Leeiriet�YaesfTn? itt ;&r[aasYal.acoSY.mE$}fA's:,guch ds eols:Caa d Therefcue�mNrrebt ih9EJi'?•'fii$m]Vhj`a'C , fk"To¢t haf{erlk regUired a§, vp [SAS,eC: }AB1�-R�ianDUftanaAach. •..• `n'olalEr SfedR4Ch jkl4�3�.i�[iki &':`.A'ii♦T �tljw?Mt¢th9E5Hei al th'R Uf�Q7•P�eWPnfl Ba y5t4,�75'CF;ra'' eiusti7lgie�,�ttltwvs��a }ett =1� 4atsHalryop�A Rau4evar�ruu(n4t�ard� md54?�tv�tti �s:H�tsptoc>ablY�utp9��a vRP,�� ine stet�m+masroa gr arryii�� Tt�areTsy'evrfieg4est Y,d't�Cti1.tl;S h?rrtet�[$'.be ?£4Y rtt�ters Ife' E �. man s aka n?>n me ap}vu lyta eoinn e a SGiceie'ty, Jan rl - uarri[ertef �;F" . Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -89 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -90 • The Planning Center February 2009 I 1 2. Response to Comments R3. Response to Comments from Jan D. Vandersloot, dated March 26, 2008. R3 -1 The determination of appropriate buffer widths depends on a variety of factors, including the species potentially affected, the extent of the interface between development and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), and other measures to mitigate potential indirect impacts. For this project, as described in ' detail below, a 50 -foot buffer is sufficient given the site conditions. The commenter incorrectly characterizes the approved buffers at Boise Chica (Brightwater) as 100 meters. The Coastal Commission actually approved "variable width" buffers rather than the 100 meter buffers noted by the commenter. It is also important to note that white - tailed kites have been documented to nest immediately adjacent to the Brightwater site, and white - tailed kites are more sensitive to ' development than the California gnatcatcher, which has been documented to nest within six meters (about 19 feet) of a major interstate highway in San Diego County: Five nests of the California gnatcatcher were recorded during the San Diego study, two along the 1 -5, three along 1 -15. Of these five, two were within revegetated coastal sage scrub on cut and filled slopes, three in natural sage scrub vegetation. The nests were at 6, 15, 24, 61, and 88 meters from the edge of the highway. One additional nest, on a revegetated filled slope approximately 15 meters from 1 -5 was previously documented by RECON.' Current research indicates that the California gnatcatcher is not "edge sensitive" and does not require expansive buffers. The 5D -foot buffer recommended by the Coastal Land Use Plan is sufficient to ensure that no impacts to nesting gnatcatchers are associated with the project, particularly given other mitigation measures proposed for the project (e.g., lighting). Finally, the area of interface with a 50 -foot buffer between building and coastal sage scrub extends for only about 65-70 feet, with the buffer expanding rapidly outside of this narrow area of interface. Therefore, the minimum 50 -foot buffer is more than adequate to protect the ESHA functions. ' Famolaro, Peter and Jeff Newman. 1998. "Occurrence and Management Considerations of California Gnatcatchers 1 along San Diego County Highways," Westem Birds, Vol. 29, No. a, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -91 C� . 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -92 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter R4 — Peter S. Bordas (2 pages) PETER S. BORDAS. 907 SPRING TIDE DRIVE NEWPORT BEACI.1 CA 92660 March.26, 2008 ,Bill Lego; pbla ing Ia ector City ofl,lcr otlBeach 3300NewportBlviL NewportBeach,,CA 92663 Res iLy4{ tRegmcyNeigpcxTBeachEcpansj0Trgject ,SCIN2006121051 DetiTtAQT. _I4ig 'My netg1168YS and I - o n`Spring Tx1e DYtI a ID.ZiaLjMY, Cove ook.down "IlpOil'the pT posed ezpaos�ort.Pinje4, mid, w%duld'welcome:the-npp�EtmjlyTO ptov`.%de.ifi put io; liciom" tg i��mmi ?siop}: _ 64=7 TWO,, of us became aware OfftiLe S[R gl en wallYmg by ttre pf laIDlio�ee:aud:Back Bgy�Dnve�mge anohi;e ova§ postedon> „# vefjtsmall;srgo nia tlxi co[ner: W ane awarattiat 1Le de�dline,tov wmmeat� �s?yfiereh.27,10$, Yte arealea!gwaze tlist theowver of thehotel ;Las ±re4amed Ii3s 1Julie Cavanaugtiof Goyemotenl$giuhonstamake pzw�ighomeaxvneaszgroups and;eceiye:mput on mod�£catiortgy e^GYehe k siresetd.aMiceto oiujirop ty mauagefon FBbnmry!'1¢ sndiiawo#6vReetvvtdiuo TTiduttuaately ,8teopman8geaetdrerdiiinot e7uno�urfadedwtgProID {ltdQaoAmasoNa pKtatio9:bas R4-2 `pi'cstl�tah�hiit'1. q�e'ivonldy�fet to pm v:ldef rW' '640 giwuad aWe 6 etheY�comms�tls+afta t5te eu��UoileloShai!e Wis tugity =ih}tlre'''fi4t4,.ge;. .0 9[C.GY!'Jgel'OWato.OfB torand�mm'£mlm Coaslal.AQwn ft0nddW Dommber X200$' tolawl gover�e�smd tcab�ibefc,possTtogoAumllQtel I R4;3: �relnpmelhi 'mB�Ss�oast8lwnea�ttlt] Witco. 1teGr �a„s.abnyt;theseAShuc4uYesbelt� quasi .. 7Yev y 'weaYe,sp�$veara ofxhk Enna ihe'C,oa6stal Commu�op�tq 1'.0 fNewpptt Beach to ci Jadagrg 6 2b07 wtuch,ana;dares t3 Ct>aslal -L a�TSse.�! t and 336ti eCiti?s (}en�aC tid7 aseslf l8ret ggucdanee`wglvnthe 1zogC.ltturtha siates.ih i£ c ";flsfq �t>3gim ilsePlaagowgit EattQpvfar"..... re hofiel ,p}opus.'ffiC�'�vdndz�tsliooidpre� ate- antlsubritffaLQPaln�dtit�tfor• ''. soaran.icwands lion ,etive eupable #u_dhte�*omthe Elk iEtFii_s et�rl>.asl�pa+e "a�Cr�eveat�ovea Hyatt Regenty Newport &eacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport &each • Page 2 -93 �� 2. Response to Comments ' Page 2 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Project, SCH#2006 1 21 052 March 26,.2008 We have reservations about the 88 thne.share units proposed for the expansion and hope (B4-0 in the future to be able taprovide our input to both the developerondtheplatming (coi»'d) cownission.. i t� Lauder 921 Sptrer8 TidelSitvc 5a&3j'Sewell - 905.5pting?%deDri!e Page 2 -94 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments R4. Response to Comments from Peter S. Bordas, dated March 26, 2008. R4 -1 Comment noted. The City complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for public notification of availability of the DEIR. Notices were mailed to individual property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the Hyatt Regency property boundary, and notices were posted on- and off -site. In ' addition, the notice was posted on the City of Newport Beach's website. The 45 -day public review period, as noticed, was from February 12, 2008, through March 27, 2008. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Finat EIR City of Neuport Beach • Page 2 -95 R4 -2 The commenter correctly notes that Government Solutions represents the project applicant, Sunstone Hotels, for this project. After receipt of this letter, Government Solutions arranged a community meeting with Harbor Cove residents and ' homeowners to provide an overview of the proposed Hyatt Regency Expansion project. The meeting was held May 1, 2008, at the Park Newport, Catalina Room. Meeting minutes are included as Appendix D of this FEIR. R4 -3 The City is aware of and has reviewed the referenced Coastal Commission memorandum. Please refer to the responses to the Coastal Commission's comment letter on the DEIR (Letter A2) in this Final EIR. It should be noted that the Coastal Commission has approved a variety of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone including but not limited to hotels, motels, youth hostels, overnight campgrounds, timeshares, fractional ownerships, and condominium hotels. R4 -4 Please refer to Response A2 -1. Since timeshares would provide accommodations to serve City visitors and have historically been considered visitor serving by the City, the proposed project is consistent with the existing CV designation and an amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan is not required. The commenters' concerns are noted, and the signees of this letter will be notified of the public hearing scheduled for consideration of the proposed project. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Finat EIR City of Neuport Beach • Page 2 -95 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -96 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter R5 — Gerald S. Morris and Gay G. Morris (2 pages) From: .jerryandgay.irrulRu:lerryandgay @cox nett Sent: Saturday; March. 29, 2008 9:4B AM To: Murlllo, Jaime 'Subject Hyatt £ xpaiisiwopposition -Sea Lslandisstand Lagoon Mr.;and:Mis. Gerald & Mums ?22 Ocean'Vista N'zq". fr Beach, CAQ6G0 13."d4?73:1�223. iervSri'ct�" ' x;net :March 27,,Wa: himo Wdllo, Assddiairy Planter: U'rfyof Ne*igtoiSoacli'Planmug TiagBrtctiztl 330¢ Newport &oulesard'. �cWypnti�B�each, CA F'LG'S3. Ikar.,Mr:,Mttiillo Asres�dentsnfthe comtrivart n &6e' a7alaod, tooated+GUZetly acrosathe stro�t fcaa At Haft liegene wos2�i"tyg.13`ti6tl4OSe ttie;}tropose7j expartub fife feet thai'.theezp"adsSOa EtSt `Mlilravga?tCg2CI}'oirw;4eB att6.Rt�[..! i7ruvgt}Y'gai ; ..;iecenlim tc,ud ik 'Urt3d'tie, uE "`dJjWvus al0 yvagii reP q�tlte,:" 'tfya`Ct, fiultior ailrplrfied'tiVttconcems.'Seeeral etbternents niad9'Lt}s t6z'group wgie hnacearate`IZ<YexyremLOn "kugvlcu,facts `Zltey thr},4uG.haVZeYIlg atiswerste s"orfiet . 1mpgrtad4; sgous' a�hcteltEltouYtE. 1( a-' el�gtarttt` thy+pzeir�riitil'i�ac{agePrScZY tfie Ctty :lg th"uoty.pragt tffdhO;rr+. Sti 4JS "Q"4aLro tolii'lLdt the } liadarran&cA -6r: NawFx> a4' aelto/ Leialato {rePrseRi'answeYuutrjS3estions alyd�a hesx aui,cuacei'ge..; R52� There?Laslltom xesentaihau'Aium'Dh- of Newpot '&each , it appears ftam.ihe r FYeaenra�,i3�rc t�themaa>r6at4i'^ obfQrthrdmt is6n010 b 'n°Bg'adQ�ifaventYettit s ,Oftyi.AfN Ft l h ax p ld 0f#ttals 4atfcgnm bFit)i- irr:'b tlMuuJrb'T la 1€SeFrmsf4evnLad?ttiF¢s thr�i €.1es ' 1rRi8�?niljeavirmdlivin�urtpdjy� :laclei?�'k+allt�mdsgaca?y. ,., 7keaieas�irft4rea+i�ew lLat,vtll IV`a'S'�ta.SaeaY4st 3raB'BTii'w iSrW�o't$ticltiid IddditatxnpFucrs 'I$rsts�lreat..3"amu�L net Nthewnrzris4hatareLSji'!t -iuQr� anf�tiheater andsPecral eVeut &$ eft#' tit$eic -re§laetant'ctnti;moarsai ttte fi[+nt'nf . tbs ink a `L�e+adi[tuahalaoaq"it u`4Ytgb, ge{+%p5ctii lfaliroa a �ll 6gCptri"�rrea9e R54 . me�� antssr�a9�r�v���t ;t>�the'm�rnt�nauiu�tes di�aLSUSS S�e.Stfo61'�t�lttsi�rpttt8� u};tnaayiuftheuaiid�Xil� rru[1Pct E14zhu ypalityaflii'e,; .. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Neaport Beach a Page 2 -97 mn 2. Response to Comments Increased tzwffic-Coatributingto the noise pmblcrugJjj be fire addition of mom traffic, espaciallytbetraffic that is generated froinlarg&.eyeirts being ,held in the ballwom These events will see Luge numbers of cap.arriving.apd departing- widiin a singk' tivaef'rione�. We also expeiiericcasafety hwear deD Jamboree as carslead down Jarribpme toward Pacific Coast highway, Cam stopped.fQr fights, backed up at the eatraftce to the Hyatt or waftirig.to, turn riotinto the Duties are R5-4 R5-5 RS-6 A5-7 Page 2-98 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments rR5. Response to Comments from Gerald S. Morris and Gay G. Morris, dated March 27, 2008 R5 -3 Stationary noise from operation of the project was addressed in the DEIR under Impact 5.9 -2 on page 5.9 -21. The impact analysis references the annual outdoor jazz event hosted by the Hyatt Regency. This is a week -long event that occurs in May. If the project is implemented, this event would no longer occur. The event takes place on the golf course, which would be replaced with timeshares. The Jazz Series (which occurs once a week during the summer months in the Amphitheatre), would continue, and as disclosed in the DEIR, would be subject to a Special Events Permit. Note that a Special Events Permit does not give the permit holder permission to violate the noise ordinance. Pursuant to the City's Municipal. Code for sound- amplifying equipment, noise levels from such devices are required to be controlled so they are not audible in excess of 100 feet. Consequently, the project would be required to abide by the mandatory noise limits of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Regular hotel operations, including the ballroom and maintenance facility referenced in this comment, would comply with the City's regulatory noise requirements. Under the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.26.025. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, noise generated at the Hyatt Regency property is prohibited from generating noise levels at residential properties that exceed 55 dBA Imo, during the day and 50 dBA L., during the night. These standards define what constitutes a noise nuisance in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project is bound by these ' z PKF Consulting, 1997, February 15. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -99 R5 -1 The commenters' opposition to the proposed project is acknowledged. R5 -2 Government Solutions, a firm representing the project applicant, Sunstone Hotels, held community meetings to provide an overview of the proposed project to ' surrounding residents. These meetings were conducted as public outreach by the applicant and were not sponsored, and therefore were not attended by City staff members or officials. Meeting minutes of the Sea Island community Homeowners Association Meeting held on March 26, 2008, are included in Appendix E of this ' DEIR. The objectives of the proposed project are listed on DEIR page 3 -2 and include, ' "Develop a new, larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference need for the City of Newport Beach." The potential opportunity for expanded ballroom facilities or conference centers in existing hotels was identified in a revenue enhancement study conducted by PKF Consulting on behalf of the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau? A preliminary study of the potential market demand for a conference or convention center was conducted, which evolved into a revenue enhancement study for Transient Occupancy Tax) for the City. The study's primary findings included an example of Public- Private partnerships that could allow for the development of a large ballroom or conference center at one of the existing hotels which would allow the City of Newport Beach to increase its level of rooms demand by appealing to group demand segments not currently able to be accommodated within the community. R5 -3 Stationary noise from operation of the project was addressed in the DEIR under Impact 5.9 -2 on page 5.9 -21. The impact analysis references the annual outdoor jazz event hosted by the Hyatt Regency. This is a week -long event that occurs in May. If the project is implemented, this event would no longer occur. The event takes place on the golf course, which would be replaced with timeshares. The Jazz Series (which occurs once a week during the summer months in the Amphitheatre), would continue, and as disclosed in the DEIR, would be subject to a Special Events Permit. Note that a Special Events Permit does not give the permit holder permission to violate the noise ordinance. Pursuant to the City's Municipal. Code for sound- amplifying equipment, noise levels from such devices are required to be controlled so they are not audible in excess of 100 feet. Consequently, the project would be required to abide by the mandatory noise limits of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Regular hotel operations, including the ballroom and maintenance facility referenced in this comment, would comply with the City's regulatory noise requirements. Under the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.26.025. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, noise generated at the Hyatt Regency property is prohibited from generating noise levels at residential properties that exceed 55 dBA Imo, during the day and 50 dBA L., during the night. These standards define what constitutes a noise nuisance in the City of Newport Beach. Because the project is bound by these ' z PKF Consulting, 1997, February 15. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -99 11, 2. Response to Comments I standards, it would not generate noise that would result in a noise nuisance at the residences during the daytime or nighttime. R5 -4 The existing speed limit on Jamboree Road approaching the Hyatt Newport , entrance is 50 mph. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines require a stopping sight distance of at least 500 feet for streets with speed limits of 50 mph. The available sight distance along Jamboree Road south of the Hyatt Entrance is greater than 500 feet. R5 -5 The proposed lighting plan and the parking structure elevations are shown in , Figures 3 and 4 of this FEIR, respectively. Lighting is subject to stringent City requirements and review as detailed under City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions on DEIR page 5.1 -35. To clarify the maximum light spillage that would be t allowed, the standard condition for this project has been refined to specify that spillage would not exceed one foot - candle at the property line. This refinement is included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. A detailed photometric study has been prepared. As shown on this study, because the light fixtures have been ' designed as "full cut -off fixtures," there would be no horizontal light spillage as a result of project implementation. Any revisions to the photometric study will be included with the final lighting plan would also be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, prior to occupancy, the lighting improvements would be inspected by City enforcement personnel to confirm that lighting levels do not exceed requirements and the approved lighting plan. R5 -6 As documented in the DEIR, Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program focus on the protection of public views. General Plan policy NR 20.3 specifies public view corridors from various roadway segments that should ' be protected (see DEIR page 5.1 -4). The DEIR does, however, acknowledge that surrounding residential communities, including the Sea Island community, have views of the project site, including the existing golf course and greenbelt areas. Due to heavy landscaping within the Sea Island community and on the Hyatt project site, most views of the Back Bay from Sea Island residents are limited. Although project - related impacts to surrounding residents have determined to be less than significant, it is acknowledged that some existing views would be impacted by the project. , R5 -7 As requested, this commenter will be noted of future activities associated with this project. ' I Page 2 -100 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' 2. Response to Comments Letter R6 —Yvette Alexander (1 page) From; yvette.alPXand pwachovia.com (maikg yvettealeltanderipwpchavia mm] Saet:'Tuesday, Apri1:01, 26M 10:41. AM Tot Wrillo,:. ]airne Subject: Hya[F Regency, Newport Beach Expan3 �Mtbl&: M,Milla; Mly b :W.Yvehe Alr Md. and I am a h mi4g r m Se&.ISlsnd ('I9lmd�"GagVOUiIOkj. &a My oppositioa'.lo tho Ngpk epgnargv,'ype,'mppfiriilLv4.and Ydd,tlggs tq tGf;B}"�aJt,fntWFyaarlilhflvt n.gad, *impadaa ooyeeFn.A bcs'YGS:ffiB;?uaY alao impatR= lfiraighClightiu . 'Fbank yau[oE�pur rsaecailSa?agd agaie,Plrmq;malie:grtle ofmy gppoHtli¢n; Sirmvety; Yvette even M :±A1cWa +kt `t3 9atiwr ffiyae,.�#Heaclr Ca•9IbG0 �he�kteir ..,dmSfnla�ec`fimv's_ -•• -e- Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -101 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -102 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments R6. Response to Comments Yvette Alexander, dated April 1, 2008. ' 136 -1 The commenter's opposition to the project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. The traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed expansion of Hyatt project identified no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding roadway network, per the guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach. Similarly, the operation of the Hyatt Regency expansion would not generate noise levels that exceed the City's noise standards or substantially elevate existing noise levels in the Vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. The DEIR, does, however conclude that construction - related noise impacts could not be mitigated to less than significant. The proposed lighting plan and the parking structure elevations are shown in Figures 3 and 4 of this FEIR, respectively. Lighting is subject to stringent City requirements and review as detailed under City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions on DEIR page 5.1 -35. To clarity the maximum light spillage that would be allowed, the standard condition for this project has been refined to specify that spillage would not exceed one foot - candle at the property line. This refinement is included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. A detailed photometric study has been prepared. As shown on this study, because the light fixtures have been designed as full cut -off fixtures, there would be no horizontal light spillage as a result of project implementation. Any revisions to the photometric study will be included with the final lighting plan would also be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, prior to occupancy, the lighting improvements would be inspected by City enforcement personnel to confirm that lighting levels do not exceed requirements and the approved lighting plan. I I 1 1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Firm! EIR City of Neaport Beach • Page 2 -103 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -104 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter R7 — Jean C. Browning (3 pages) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -105 OW:L, LJ 2. Response to Comments 04101/2008 21:40 M ED002 Jaime- Murillo, Associate;Planner City of` Newport 9eeaach planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. NewpoPt.Beach, CA 92663 April 2, 2009 Dear Jaime'Muriilu; My hatband and.T;llve rrrtlie community of Sea Island, direcffy across TYUnboree from 'the Hyatt Regency Hotel. W.e:attended . *6iting of our Homeowners Association and listened to a�giu teats forand agalnsY the expansion of the-'Hyatt Regency Hotel::: OUP at P,ftlart StF,tll! 4j" 't fact `that Jamboree Rd,:l$ Oft* R7 -1 the ous z_sfes#reets its cmr char by thit is substantWed: tiWfact that thetC- ty is goingto w e'the intersection of PGH arid J*iborcc as one -of tite f+rsf`irrl'ersections to have wimpraxed method: of frmffiacantral: ,Allowing the Hyatt to:expiatd their! operation; which,:would substantially generate an iko* we in traffic,.just doe'tiot make cgriittran'sen3e:. Page 2 -106 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments 04/01/2006 21:40 FAX 0003 There we too manly buildings and roads in Newport Bench. We hope that you will at the very least greatly scale down the H I Rna yatt 8 plans. Sincerely. 7egna: Browning. 99 Oucri Vfstq; 6f�wport Beaeh.:Ca 426QC1h5228 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -107 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -108 •The Planning Center February 2009 ' 2. Response to Comments 1 R7. Response to Comments from Jean C. Browning, dated April 2, 2008. R7 -1 The commenter's attendance at the Homeowner's Association meeting at which the project was presented by the applicant's representative, Government Solutions, is noted. Minutes of this meeting, which was held March 26, 2008, are included in Appendix E of this FEIR. ' As detailed in DEIR Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic, and included in the traffic report, DEIR Appendix L, the traffic impact analysis did not identify a significant ' impact to the intersection of Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway due to traffic generated by the expansion of Hyatt Newport hotel. R7.2 As documented in the DEIR, Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focus on the protection of public views. The DEIR, does however, acknowledge that surrounding residential communities, including the Sea Island community, have views of the project site, including the existing golf course ' and greenbelt areas. Although project - related impacts to surrounding residents have determined to be less than significant, it is acknowledged that some existing views would be impacted by the project. ' R7 -3 The loss of the existing on -site golf course is acknowledged. This use is a private use, however, and is not designated as open space in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the golf course is underutilized; it is estimated that there were a total of 5,522 rounds of golf sold at the Hyatt during 2007, or an average of 15.51 rounds per day. The golf course at the Hyatt has been envisioned for the development of 88 additional hotel units as a result of the Circulation and Improvement.and Open Space Agreement adoption. R7 -4 The commenter's opinion on the scale of the project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -109 The proposed height of the building complies with the City's zoning code. As detailed on DEIR page 5.8 -25, the project requires a use permit to allow heights up to 35 feet within the 26/36 feet height limitation zone that applies to the site. A ' modification permit is also required for the ballroom architectural tower and finial to 9008 exceed the height limit. Refer to Figure 7, Ballroom Elevations, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. ' The commenter's concern about a potential decrease in property value is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. This economic issue, however, is not in the realm of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. As detailed in DEIR Section 5.9, Noise, the operation of the Hyatt Regency expansion would not generate noise levels that exceed the City's noise standards or ' substantially elevate existing noise levels in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. ' R7 -3 The loss of the existing on -site golf course is acknowledged. This use is a private use, however, and is not designated as open space in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the golf course is underutilized; it is estimated that there were a total of 5,522 rounds of golf sold at the Hyatt during 2007, or an average of 15.51 rounds per day. The golf course at the Hyatt has been envisioned for the development of 88 additional hotel units as a result of the Circulation and Improvement.and Open Space Agreement adoption. R7 -4 The commenter's opinion on the scale of the project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -109 2. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1] 11 I 1 n �I 1 I 11 Page 2 -110 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Letter R8 — James & Katherine Murphy (2 pages) April 2, 2008 Taupe 141100, Associate PIcArtner City of Newport B0,6611 Plarinfig Department 3300 Nf-wpRrt.BJvd. Newport leach, CA.0266, .Dew W We are current xe idenis o�t`tlte ea Island p,,qA Bw Aw 1�440 -94xmity of N wntw sbbie oor c onperns'a, ' I epropoqe cla4ge Hyatt Newpwt Beach on UamboreeR , Q*94 I t should e:notcd that we attended die. Sea Isfanci Clwners. rneefihg last w06kgnq-,founc1.th. e idonnaitt qaqrc, vn ted RS 1 pre: tol(ttb#f- eff, .. b'uffft would tio# be have been sobxiAtfed,ejo*jWb for fd the Aembi , cturent foci t.Y'and Noise andTiviffic The All t',of200to8OO,v y perM bAd more detrti W. Ito R, P-Z - lit, I lull ifinia, for'tin'g 440i@'- �' as, eveq, p„ o» siileredrta�tie' a��tith'tiletyp0rtseacbivhett#� Ian: '- Md 40proved did 14 ;ban, bad -s6.36 Themumbets Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-111 f%p% W- C4744F 00 11 2. Response to Comments I The concerns above are foribe future, we also have concerns about the noise; traffic and dust:Which will be.croatedby the actual construction. Jamboree Road in the early morrinip .Veverung hours is heavily traveled and Wii the irt0ease traffic flow.,wilLblock our entrance to Sea Island due the R8-5 hack up; of traffic that wiLloccur: The tum. lane io..Sea Island .will beblocked by-thish.ack.up of traffic, which today is only occasionally-xprobleni(Boat Paradedr ugO'marnas). Vistas and'views �Byattwill As,a matter of Vecurroritly O Flynt; View- R" and se peinglipt 'W- OW, we, will -bet ,1n �40 iciok wg=Ot evertzelevant to. what me. s-eo Page 2-112 a The Planning Center R8L7 .February 2009 1 C 2. Response to Comments ' R8. Response to Comments from James and Katherine Murphy, dated April 2, 2008. R8 -1 The meeting minutes of the Sea Island Homeowner's Association Meeting with the ' applicant's representative are included in Appendix E. This meeting was conducted as community outreach by the applicant's representative, Government Solutions, to provide an overview of the project. The meeting was not sponsored by the City and ' was not part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) public notification or review process. ' traffic impacts that would be caused by the proposed project. Although the project would generate additional noise and traffic, the long -term operational impacts of these impacts were determined to be less than significant. 1`18-3 The provisions of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA), which vested development rights for the proposed expansion, are described in DEIR Section 3.2.2, page 3 -1. As discussed under Impact 5.8-2, DEIR ' page 5.8 -27, the CIOSA agreement is silent with respect to development of ancillary hotel facilities. The traffic study supporting the CIOSA, however, did utilize trip generation rates for the Hyatt Regency from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis ' Model (NBTAM) that are comparable to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) trip rate for hotels (Trip Code 31), which include supporting facilities such as banquet/meeting rooms, recreational facilities and retail shops. ' R8 -4 Regarding traffic, there is no difference in trip rates for hotel rooms and timeshares. Please refer to responses to letter A2 from the Coastal Commission regarding comparison of hotel rooms and timeshares and determination of whether the timeshares are an allowed use. 118 -5 As analyzed in DEIR Section 5.9, Noise, project- related construction noise would represent a significant, unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Air quality impacts, as analyzed in Section 5.2, however, including project- generated fugitive dust during construction activities, would be less than significant.. Substantial concentrations of particulate matter would not be generated at adjacent residences. ' With respect to the traffic concern, the table below summarizes the actual number of vehicles entering and exiting the site for the existing 403 -room hotel during the AM and PM peak hours. Additional trips generated by hotel expansion (based on trip generation rates based on actual trips) are also summarized in the table. Additional traffic generated by the hotel expansion is significantly less than the number of trips generated by the existing hotel facilities. 11 ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -113 It is accurate that a new engineering building is not proposed under the proposed project. The building indicated on DEIR Figure 3 -4, Site Plan, denotes an existing building as "New Housekeeping and Engineering." This will be a new use for the existing building, not a new building. As shown on DEIR Figure 3 -5, Demolition Plan, ' the existing maintenance building (near to Back Bay Drive) would be demolished. 118 -2 DEIR Sections 5.9 and 5.11 provide a detailed, quantitative analysis of the noise and ' traffic impacts that would be caused by the proposed project. Although the project would generate additional noise and traffic, the long -term operational impacts of these impacts were determined to be less than significant. 1`18-3 The provisions of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA), which vested development rights for the proposed expansion, are described in DEIR Section 3.2.2, page 3 -1. As discussed under Impact 5.8-2, DEIR ' page 5.8 -27, the CIOSA agreement is silent with respect to development of ancillary hotel facilities. The traffic study supporting the CIOSA, however, did utilize trip generation rates for the Hyatt Regency from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis ' Model (NBTAM) that are comparable to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) trip rate for hotels (Trip Code 31), which include supporting facilities such as banquet/meeting rooms, recreational facilities and retail shops. ' R8 -4 Regarding traffic, there is no difference in trip rates for hotel rooms and timeshares. Please refer to responses to letter A2 from the Coastal Commission regarding comparison of hotel rooms and timeshares and determination of whether the timeshares are an allowed use. 118 -5 As analyzed in DEIR Section 5.9, Noise, project- related construction noise would represent a significant, unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Air quality impacts, as analyzed in Section 5.2, however, including project- generated fugitive dust during construction activities, would be less than significant.. Substantial concentrations of particulate matter would not be generated at adjacent residences. ' With respect to the traffic concern, the table below summarizes the actual number of vehicles entering and exiting the site for the existing 403 -room hotel during the AM and PM peak hours. Additional trips generated by hotel expansion (based on trip generation rates based on actual trips) are also summarized in the table. Additional traffic generated by the hotel expansion is significantly less than the number of trips generated by the existing hotel facilities. 11 ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -113 r L 2, Response to Comments 1 Table 4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Hotel - Generated Vehicle Trips The traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed expansion of Hyatt project identified no significant traffic impacts to the intersection of Jamboree and Island Lagoon Drive, per the guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach. Left turn movements to access Island Lagoon Drive from southbound Jamboree Road would not be affected by additional traffic generated by the proposed expansion of Hyatt project. R8-6 As documented in the DEIR, Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program focus on the protection of public views. General Plan policy NR 20.3 specifies public view corridors from various roadway segments that should be protected (see DEIR page 5.1 -4). The DEIR does, however, acknowledge that surrounding residential communities, including the Sea Island community, have Views of the project site, including the existing golf course and greenbelt areas. Due to heavy landscaping within the Sea Island community and on the Hyatt project site, most views of the Back Bay from Sea Island residents are limited. Although project - related impacts to surrounding residents have determined to be less than significant, it is acknowledged that some existing views would be impacted by the project. The proposed lighting plan and the parking structure elevations are shown in Figures 3 and 4 of this FEIR, respectively. Lighting is subject to stringent City requirements and review as detailed under City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions on DEIR page 5.1 -35. To clarify the maximum light spillage.that would be allowed, the standard condition for this project has been refined to specify that spillage would not exceed one foot- candle at the property line. This refinement is included in Section 3, Revisions; to the Draft E1R. A detailed photometric study in conjunction with the final lighting' plan would also be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, prior to occupancy, the lighting improvements would be inspected by City enforcement personnel to confirm that lighting levels do not exceed requirements and the approved lighting plan. R8 -7 These comments are noted and will be forwarded to City decision makers. R8 -8 The commenter's opposition to the proposed project is noted and will be forwarded to decision makers. 1 I 1 1 1 1 Page 2 -114 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 2. Response to Comments Letter R9 — Karen Lucian (7 pages) 4e7 V/ 3.3�D J`'� f 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -115 I 2. Response to Comments i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p LJ 7] 1 1 1 1 Page 2 -116 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I ' 2. Response to Comments 1 I 1 11 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 0 I H Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach *Page 2 -117 2. Response to Comments R9-5 I I I I I I I 1 11 11 Page 2 -118 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 I ' 2. Response to Comments C I 1 1 I F L R9 -7 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -119 2. Response to Comments 1 'L R9 -9 (cMt'd) R9 -10 RO-11 Page 2 -120 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' I 1 2. Response to Comments 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R9 -12. 89=13 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -121 2. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 C P. 1 1 [1 H Page 2 -122 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 ' 2. Response to Comments ' R9. Response to Comments from Karen Lucian, dated April 3, 2008 ' 1`19 -1 The DEIR does disclose that the existing golf course would be eliminated upon project implementation. The overall project would result in a reduction of recreational uses. Existing recreational areas at the project site comprise 13.03 acres, or 54.5 percent of the site, in comparison to the proposed project, which would include 9.65 ' acres, or 40.4 percent of the site. Note also that potential project- related impacts on global climate change are analyzed in under Impact 5.2 -2, DEIR page 5.2 -16. These impacts were determined to be less than significant. tR9 -2 Potential project - related impacts, including impacts associated with the proposed ballroom, are addressed for each topical area analyzed in the DEIR. As included in ' the Statement of Objectives, DEIR Section 3.3, one of the project objectives is to "Develop a new, larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference needs for the City of Newport Beach." The potential demand for such a facility was supported by a study conducted by PKF Consulting on behalf of the City of Newport Beach and ' the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (please see response R5 -2). R9 -3 Smoking will be limited to outdoor designated areas only. Due to the distance ' between the facility and off -site receptors, concentrations of second -hand smoke that could affect off -site receptors would be negligible. Potential cigarette smoking in other areas of the project site, including the parking lot, would be similar to any other developed, commercial use. A detailed Fire Protection Plan was prepared for the ' proposed project and is included in DEIR Appendix H. The custom mitigation measures included in the report have been incorporated into the project and are also included in DEIR Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Measures Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -123 �� include structural requirements, fire protection systems, defensible space, and ' vegetation management. Fire hazards have been concluded to be less than significant for the project. The DEIR does not conclude that there would be no project impact to air quality. As evaluated in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, short- and long -term project - related emissions were determined to be less than the South Coast Air Quality Management ' District thresholds and therefore the project impact would be less than significant. R9-4 With the exception of the potential project - related impact on water supply and wastewater services, this comment is not within the purview of the California ' Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the EIR for the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designated land use for the project site and as disclosed in the project Initial Study (see DEIR Appendix A, Initial ' Study, Section 3.16), the General Plan Update EIR concludes that development in accordance with the plan would result in a less than significant impact to water supply and wastewater services. '1`19-5 The commenter's opinion of the proposed architecture is noted and will be forwarded to decision makers. Although aesthetic impacts are inherently subjective, ' the purpose of the DEIR is to provide an objective, technical analysis of the impacts. The DEIR provides a comprehensive disclosure of the physical impacts to the site, including height information and architectural details (please also see additional view simulations included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -123 �� 2. Response to Comments The proposed height of the building complies with the City's zoning code. As detailed on DEIR page 5.8 -25, the project requires a use permit to allow heights up to 35 feet within the 26/36 feet height limitation zone that applies to the site. A modification permit is also required for the ballroom architectural tower and finial to exceed the height limit. R9 -6 One of the objectives of the proposed project is to provide a larger ballroom at the site. These objectives are listed on DEIR page 3 -2 and include: "Develop a new, larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference need for the City of Newport Beach." The potential opportunity for expanded ballroom facilities or conference centers in existing hotels was identified in a revenue enhancement study conducted by PKF Consulting on behalf of the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau.' A preliminary study for the potential market demand for a conference or convention center was conducted, which evolved into a revenue enhancement study for Transient Occupancy Tax for the City. The study's primary findings included an example of Public- Private partnerships that could allow for the development of a large ballroom or conference center at one of the existing hotels which would allow the City of Newport Beach to increase its level of rooms demand by appealing to group demand segments not currently able to be accommodated within the community. Potential traffic impacts, including traffic on Back Bay Drive, were analyzed in the project's traffic study, DEIR Appendix L. As summarized in DEIR Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic, the project would not result in significant traffic impacts. R9 -7 Within the vicinity of the proposed project, Jamboree Road trends north -south and generally consists of three lanes in each direction. Adjacent to the project site, vehicles traveling along Jamboree Road have very good sight distance. Staff has reviewed the accident data for a three -year period (2005 -2007) at the intersections of Jamboree. Road /Island Lagoon and Jamboree Road /Back Bay Drive.. The table below summarizes the accident data at these intersections. Table 5 Accident History for 2005 through 2007 Based on the accident data for the intersections of Jamboree Road /Island Lagoon and Jamboree Road /Back Bay Drive, the rear -end accidents in the southbound number three lane on Jamboree Road adjacent to the project site were all attributed to drivers operating the vehicles at unsafe speeds. It is not anticipated that the ' PKF Consulting, February 15, 1997 Page 2 -124 • The Planning Center February 2009 J 1 I LJ E I 1 Total Rear -End Intersection Accidents SB Jamboree #3 Lane Cause of Accidents Jamboree RoadAsland Lagoon 11 7 Traffic Stopped, Citation for Unsafe Speed Jamboree Road/Back Bay Drive 15 2 Traffic Stopped, Citation for Unsafe speed Based on the accident data for the intersections of Jamboree Road /Island Lagoon and Jamboree Road /Back Bay Drive, the rear -end accidents in the southbound number three lane on Jamboree Road adjacent to the project site were all attributed to drivers operating the vehicles at unsafe speeds. It is not anticipated that the ' PKF Consulting, February 15, 1997 Page 2 -124 • The Planning Center February 2009 J 1 I LJ E I 1 I 1 2. Response to Comments proposed project would cause an increase in traffic accidents along Jamboree Road adjacent to the proposed project. R9 -8 Please refer to Response R9 -7. R9 -9 Please refer to Response R9 -7. '119 -10 The commenter's request to reduce the size of the proposed ballroom and modify the proposed architecture is noted and will be forwarded to decision makers. R9 -11 As shown on DEIR Figure 5.3 -1, C1OSA Space Dedication Adjacent to Hyatt Regency, the natural open space directly north and northeast of the project site was part of the open space dedication included in the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA), which vested the entitlement for the hotel expansion. The potential project - related impacts on the surrounding open space and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs) are evaluated in DEIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources, and have been concluded to be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. R9 -12 The proposed 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness facility would be available for use by the hotel guests and the general public. It is estimated that there were a total of 5,522 rounds of golf sold at the Hyatt during 2007, or an average of 15.51 rounds per day. The golf course at the Hyatt is underutilized and has been envisioned for the development of 88 additional hotel units as a result of the CIOSA adoption. R9-13 The existing Hyatt property is completely developed, and the proposed project, therefore, would not result in modifying natural, undisturbed property. Although the golf course would be removed, much of the project site would remain as open space. Existing .open space at the project site comprises 13.03 acres, or 54.5 percent of the site, in comparison to the proposed project, which would include 9.65 acres, or 40.4 percent of the site. Also note that an extensive landscape plan, as shown in Figure 8 in Section 3, Revisions to the E1R, would be implemented for the project. I ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beath * Page 2 -125 208 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -126 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter R10 - Dolores Otting (3 pages) Date: 4 " April 2008_ coo 04'1�B To- IaittmhliuiggAssoptazePhu= City of1400pon Be" FlanningDeparunea "Nov t From Dolan A -Doing Subject: Comm.s=oa_F][yalr.xegamcry DEB( ReferenC ;, Hyatt��cylQeWportBewhwgmns *nEnvirtintgentelL�gM Report,` ... NQ 2FId'61210S2,Februer;'?f108. •batsntvon;datato4ra &4 608 Bage:Iof3 =mcWfi�oglhapage - Deat1 . Mun'llti, Thank. you 'o {,ygtutime_;,a 1d,41c6W4iag'n!y wmment ttueshw_�s, gn;ttie$ya1 F!ol?S.. IfelttMDE1 ',wu so e leattutorialpbut:did very ]'ittletosdocribe t re-ini pt dpmeaa= needed to cvmp`w;ttb GEQA. It apP- aers`tbe•a,&rppE;pFP.J -X4?'> I.;eaAy feel- t(m[:tltelf shwtldbgredone,eyd:. rec]rGd$tCd t�dke'Blte':COtFltlaLLyitO1C5, I IN R1a1 R10-2 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -127 eMN 2. Response to Comments 5.5 Geutogy and Soda These are inconsistencies in this section as we4;as mw other sections. Pg. s S =T states, "Groundwater was encoNntered in numerous borings excavated during .the - Swtedmizetmytst;g on.oftbep"ect.she. Y'et'in:du gj=dioe; 43 Esithwosk, 4:31 Genera[, it states the Mowing. "' -The earttrwock thatfgflow bave;tiern'iTased oti:khe evahration of limited su6stufaoe mcpk+rations performed ta'date. Aasoico�- caarvauy, comets ilm RW'a si Candy, across stiorPd stannes. et}ri6 ak Opomtttendationamay needto:ke tnoffiSed tiasedon'iheresurttsaf & itue desigttidevei ;geofeCtmicalshrdies 'fhetecommendatons tpa.. Now provide our best estimate ifremed d grading based oa the limited data.svAadli Are'AEiR' supposed, toffySlledwitfi�ie3s %woraretbey�bssed,oittacts7 Iiotiw'ca3rthereai%c andthe puhlicfeel comfortableisafe2 'iimynan sop CntigatiaR meas+?res be madewben they'.- aretmwtreaaif ='don't °knowwhatthey at'e,aopppsed tu'mitigate? - .Tbgee wme. poinmems- made;inthe_tieotechFeasihlity Studyby&leiefdlderthatvi�enut ii} doted; ia�t�bar dooP ,FnFtII2*egacd'etaioingsuabsaec 4.47t'etpiaing Wa11s: ga6e �`- ' "TkiC earthpressuresipioxiiited ','tlaatthe non'eigaasive bacl'6ll weli.kfeuacil;aiki a d�magasy3�u,l V�heinetat[ ettb, �l' ihe`? Fall�so3b5t, ext�t.wasra'PressW'e'wr�,ttwt. - davetop. 7Pa'dramagesystem wt7t.vat'•4e;ieti. t7te�wail shouldhe de�goed Yo`res�at�an addat�salbydrosratt�ptessire. ,. end lt8oes on to page wpam 7 i`^i'arn musk7uetaken dmmgthe oompas%ianopemurm.twt m overstress #he•rrati. :'AFaIY back6ll. sponki hoePmpacted to at karts +�(ogitve �a{itron,'Lotveve lrekv3=rsiuil7mgnt should` Ii�mir�4`ad�stmtce @inkteasf.3 teetawag from iltewalls'wl�e sc�ssaae bk> �apder gld'Ue cpntaded v>berf }iei��Ap�ntylar� atcfinaLzett fort_ v �V9akSfl,eo>tdmona;ana�6aas : S>t �gttuseco` rfgrt�tsdeA' mlgpaYt2ptmkCrtiie: se�oincx >rr��ns,expat�rve8a7,'ani? li•taa istei'�, aheuldo't tha t±sb&ah�r}i�ai untigat+onm,xu3i lsewaAdila"e�vi8 ?rig �ir�aitwg�alisP,ru� ter "Ri'e(ts, bepr4�iy`'d ! eyir ait�r�toaga�sesaeujral ,tspttvvrdaa'r? b e6tiditiori snit to linmt tie b aticlatt`tdu . bmandYhe VAI Wells,* SkY4iULDilm �pPPr°f?Yooed itg`ticaon . ,Sih�ztia`sin,lafnd m tlteappe�cea<6ry flWeotemlrane`who aretes�ay slnwtd bn 8t?;ds c¢rtsult3,4Yibt cbosmto dui #km7�t'61�U�Sndoritwe i>aye °ebe samepio6lem of stefekt�cd mripgetnurLl Smce4ha'proleot yinehrderetavdng weps s tl�e bam�aUon tic[ eserid: adesct7ptional`• 3vltat' Cype�sTsrat jswWi llbesuitgdt{ttheprgacGdueto boninga•aarl bcaikms2 Page 2 -128 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Hyatt Regenry Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -129 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. 1 i Page 2 -130 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments R10. Response to Comments from Dolores Offing, dated April 4, 2008. 1110 -1 Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), both the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study are part of the preliminary review of a project to determine the environmental analysis that will be required for a proposed project. When an EIR is required, both are used to "scope" the contents of the EIR. An Initial Study conclusion that an impact may potentially result in a significant impact serves as the finding that the given impact must be further addressed in an EIR. It does not necessarily mean that once analyzed, that impact would be significant and/or require mitigation. Similarly, the NOP is used to solicit feedback from the public and responsible and trustee agencies on the scope of the analysis that should be included in the EIR. R10 -2 The DEIR is consistent with CEQA and does not require recirculation. R10 -3 Please refer to Response 01 -20 regarding groundwater level and potential project- related impacts. The Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by Kleinfelder (see DEIR Appendix F), is a design -level study as typically prepared for a DEIR. The study concludes that, from a geotechnical perspective, the project can be developed as planned, provided that the recommendations of the report are incorporated into design and construction. A design -level study is appropriate at the level of analysis that is provided for in a draft EIR. The design -level study sets forth a description of the geotechnical conditions that can be anticipated to be encountered during site development and the means by which those conditions can be addressed. As 4 is not possible at this point in the process to fully excavate a site--particularly where there are existing uses —a design -level study must make certain recommendations to be implemented once site conditions are revealed through grading and excavation. As set forth in Mitigation Measure 5 -3, the City has required that prior to issuance of grading permits, the site - specific remedial measures would be identified through preparation of a detailed engineering geotechnical investigation report. The subsequent engineering -level report would be prepared and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit Pursuant to the recommendations in the Kleinfelder report and mitigation measures provided in the DEIR, the subsequent report would include the engineering -level analysis of potential expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions. By requiring preparation of the engineering -level report and implementation of the specific measures identified in the design -level study and the engineering -level report, the City has committed itself to a course of action that would result in mitigation of any geotechnical impacts, and has set forth the standards and procedures that can be utilized to address those conditions. This commenter notes that some of the information and comments included in the Kleinfelder Geotechnical Feasibility Study are not included in the hardcopy DEIR (retaining walls, wall backfill compaction, etc.). The appendices, including the technical reports in their entirety, are part of the DEIR. In an effort to prepare a useable document for disclosure of potential project impacts for both agency and Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -131 2. Response to Comments general public use, it is not practical to include all of the detail in the technical studies in main volume of the DEIR. DEIR Mitigation Measure 5 -3 specifies the requirement for an engineering -level geotechnical report to address the issues identified in Kleinfelder report. To more specifically assure that the Kleinfelder study recommendations are implemented, this mitigation measure is revised as follows (see also, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR): 5 -3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed design engineering -level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and to provide site - speck recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level report shall include and address each of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared by Kleinfelder as included as DEIR Appendix F ( Kleinfelder, November 29, 2004, Project No. 61618). The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. R10-4 As set forth in Response R10 -3, the design -level study has identified the geotechnical condition to be addressed, the standard that must be met to ensure a stable site (i.e., compacted to at least a 90 percent relative compaction), and the methods that can be employed to address the condition (e.g., heavy equipment should be maintained a distance of at least three feet away from the walls). Where such standards are set forth, the identification of specific measures during the course of finalizing plans is not an improper deferral of mitigation. With respect to the commenter's question regarding Paragraph 4 on page 26, the City's requirement that a engineering -level report be prepared prior to issuance of grading permit ensures that the recommendations identified in the design - level study are properly carried forward in the engineering -level report. R10 -5 Please refer to Responses R10 -3 and R10-4. R10 -6 Impact 5.5 -2 is missing from the referenced subheading because the DEIR concludes that this impact would be less than significant and would not require mitigation. This conclusion and reference is found in the sentence under the Section 5.5.6, Level of Significance Before Mitigation. Section 15002 of the CEQA Guidelines states the purposes of CEQA as the following: (1) Inform governmental decision - makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. Page 2 -132 • The Planning Center Febmary 2009 1 2. Response to Comments (2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose d significant environmental effects are involved. The DEIR meets these requirements. A "written plan that demonstrates how the grading will occur" is not necessary to meet these objectives. A description of the proposed project, including construction information on grading quantities, phasing, demolition activities, infrastructure plans, etc., is included in DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description. Exhibit showings cut and fill areas for grading is included in this FEIR (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). R10 -7 Impact 5.5 -2 is not referenced on page 1 -15. On Page 1 -16, it is correctly noted as "Less than Significant" in both the "Level of Significance Before Mitigation" and the "Level of Significance After Mitigation" columns of the table. On page 5.5 -13, no mitigation measures are listed for Impact 5.5 -2 (see also Response R10 -6). There are no inconsistencies regarding this impact. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -133 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -134 •The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments Letter R11 — Sandra Genis (19 pages) SANDRAGEi•MS 15"MYR't7.MOOD COSTA ME$A. CA. PM23 PHOMPAX:(714) "4544814 April 4, 2008" 7aime >Murillo Associate .Pima city ofNewpolt Belch 334Q Newpoit:Boujevard Wwpult 33eaah, CA 92685.891-5 Sirlrleex. Df?M for,* FlY*R.WOCY:NVWpott,DeWhExp=Mgp ($QF3 2006121052); - Reark3s.. Murillo, ssnk'�otformeapyom�Ditacommsm`oi lnerrz,wnme>.lmp�t.3eep m (DFric) -Hxs�R e�cyt rtBWh OA..(S zuosl2l0% CMIM;*,4M suhmil�tloDbehaLtafw LarlyPortet artilsna}%so3f;- ii rs wy ^�efspW o TO - Willi, ei� eansrticaon gre; 44y er a fa81•umo- q�m at qre epsang xyau 1{p8eacy 3�ewpaFl.B � 3D,4t� sq„are rvae sm>�a fraasx WI11dID� addllionathalhaom spwx prtt ngl 32-ncs squsra&ert24 i smss Ire n tees): artd a- pact�iuglfft oe. MW d13sT?Yi doa:tf�ewspy8.m71es;aodWe'. euspllg3 f94:sgug7o foo - Ttortar rval6�j�.. Tke);IIIwustfullv3dea t6ileae d4bel;Qi 7'heSbWdAQrpos?4flh JM(p3l)1Sto:Wo.gn the ijr OtNew,porrDeach aMf stxWe- Rfftl e� ;gOt ®D&I1y-slgtiifiianfeuVu�ftl Vital %Wi�aals'audreli4et4iDRi�tieL �StigS{liF%. aRwefatedvPlih in�on 4f:6�g-AmupoSed.17{o�pFt^'sffi altemativySp the P+uJ� „A3 4pked o�I�e�- Aso €t�leai� me. �Daettwiu�7at�xava l:�l',a+,s�paanrctoauowhic�7, eicpu�aD,aua;� auaw &6eiglgat35.�Ct. ratlje.�Kael��ee85t9im1tatiou m�l,ol: a tteap�rmauovraitdrtraiethertQt ucuzseca�at�atg�amxo�tr�cwrauae�u t.,pa���l+ds devetopmenr�gte9pc�tby;lic ofN'gwpua>, wL1c3 deed agaDy °kuthesubject3;IR. - ki'1>2 Bpsed�»rinfucuanon ekswhatieaP tticDEtB:� 5�1� zt'eY� thgfi;lhe [7ty Gogh?- slegi,e. �A�pmveraaay�nc alterailaa of vg8eiahall.!�±Sa4Y- snvned:7> t+p�t oi'tlec. pr��ct ?eue><,aseaea:e ?nonPa 6sp sa�}a�a aah> carne' +,tttuatstoltwAUrd�eimvuesh��,+ es�vsmneat+ 8�de nr vrithSec4ive29fi�o3U��t�t�1 "Ievpa:t9eackMiuuc�pel+F; t��aeiyap�avatataY�aDee 'ro:>�Se�lmv�?te'marbe�«lmred.as 6t�ua�d6etaav: 1 aBlk s alsoheusedasaD rpb inoneTD cU4011MOn iay �,ft33' vvjthxlDy ep�pxotials or pal60 ca:u ;uga o me,�al Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -135 �i�J 2. Response to Comments inclu&theCaiifotroaCoastai Commission, State WaterResoutces Control BoardandSouth Coast:Air Quality MauagtentDistrict (p- 3 -35� The DEIR isj Wpropgd3y liMited scorn T&e Endowing topics we addressedJa the DER: • ..aesthetics « Air-Quality y . • Bialogieal ".Resotuees- CdltwalRE�tucos • Qa219&!•and Soils • Haaatds W HszattloiS MaWMIS • .HydxologylWg�rQuality • LattdUkandPlanning - • - Pnhllc'Setvices TtaF jpgtitatiouar d Traffic Th 'koUowiagtop�cs a;e twt 41icssed in the DEIR: Rgi'iyi!t,trgl IrGSpurces - Populatr sand Houagg' tPubUui71t4ties ;$ehreatio4., The topics must headdtessed. The lSrojeeeeuLtit�Puiedti81 1ycat,se -.nu ts. rglatertta e$elco €ilia mattetg�rti�tfed: Y@ge:luf -19 Rtt-3 (eont'd); R114 R11-S Page 2 -136 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments facilities, m1whng access to B" Say Drive. The ,Mx" pruiect obffective is so narrowas to exclude nearly all alternatives in accordance with Section 15124(b) of the CLIQA Guidelines, a project description wilst include. A statexiient of o1jectivei; sought by the propmd.projecL A deaflywftm, s4tem"I of objec#M'T'Aifl"heI -thileitd' (kvid i ' reasonaWe ran' of P' �# , ,geoGY ge finffi - - 5 kpVrrfa.*Cm itne Too- 'Of =shotild include &,Mie"purpose ofthe Project Statemenk Hyatt Regency New port Beach Expanjion Final EIR �h&ItOgl R11-7 (contd) R11-8 1 I R! 1A IP-110, City of Nmpon Beach • Page 2 -137 w QJ112 2. Response to Comments The OR n pps:wdiy mentions future landsCapieg(pp- 5,1 -31 through 33), but landscape plans ', provided. It is' alsonot cl mwhetheron- siteamenities: areintended- ,, for use only byhotel , guests +or for thepublio generally- The ffit also.misstatcs the.heightnf the- proposed -build rgs . when me ssored:in acoordanoc with the Ciiy Municipal Code, as discussed below: °The- DER -doft notaecarately reflee"Ite NevnWrt$eacli Height Linitations TImMI IR riser tW buildM beigtt, with the amept(on'of the 'belli om tower, Will not t1 3 '>ootLeigiitlimit(p. 3-Iq in a000cdancc with Secti tp ZQ:63Ai0 B of tGc NewpodBeer] .Mot viral r vlP.._ bu ldiea hm t m to be me=nwlSfomthe ` arolterednstural vertiralloeation of tinQuu�vn -aftmantsi eP-e.`. yrotee4've.militgs for.6tei + alts ; endoffierd&@,7`tiea• r%iop'featark'so'_'u; anen itatdrer[ aripNasis_ edde3l .andsularequip�ktral�patsPeti R`@!>g.. Rtt -11 `Ft9 =1z Rtt:]3 Page 2 -138 • The Planning Center February 2009 I I I 2. Response to Comments may be pennitted irommessof pm*tW height1knits subject: to the approval ofa Modification pmniL The proposed tower as shown in,Fjom S.-1-8(p. i5-1-23) appears to be bulky and solid with a few,opwinp,*atbardy&mioishiffieso=6fnim, Asd"� the toweris quite solid uM�l many fcet i tiove ilm 35 fbotheight limit lafwL the 'towerappeaus; shoilarm- bylkV an a ddi0and.buiioM,,,Nto*vdO.i,,f,&ii.ty small window. WsdoesuckgpowlobeA Minor Opel, cod-, The Project has EMOOd, agOat'"Utemplated in the Malec, of PrM or mjhzW data? R41-13 (confd) R11.14 Rlli15' ?RliA6 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2-139 2. Response to Comments it is the intent .of the.DEUL to erAble the City of Newport Beach, other resporisiblea9mcies,and tnterested patios to ovahialA the.finpacts of the propOsed.projent, thereby enobft thft,to makc.infmmed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements:.. as lbi6Ws-.City of Newport Beach... Mo&ficatimPemit-toaUowtan�m valdpotidvg;.. #*.6, 19, AlItla (confd) . i4d Page 2-140 • The Planning Center February 2009 I H I I !' I 2. Response to Comments have htft unpact on itatHc, *ooh they. may Create otha impacts m mbkd to:ttaffic, are not inc]uded nor am soy pt'o7ocft outside lhe.Newport Beech city limits. h%,WordW=wit Section.. 15130( bX31 of the Guiddim for the lmpien =tatioaofihe Rll -21' CMormEnvrtonmetWQoamy Act, . lead ageac= are topromdeanasarO *cxplaiaboafor (contd.). thegeog�aAwbmitabonused,The kad Wm— yshould :alsoconsi*theoahncof the tesoi ge mgmpblic, erea:f oraaaiysis; of ct�uiative mvact& andtheareaingies6ondesni >tlnecessattty r4cet the contact.of the impeGbenge> :.Tbismeatba-adibesseii.. Sienirwance 1limbolda� lishoulab6.notedthatAppendix oftbe: CEQAGwddmsdoesnotstate •whatwoold,or wuuldaot'�ttrmaiiY�' beeasiBtCigt $setas:maiutaioed.in thCI5FJ12'•: f R �- 1- 9r:�.2 -13, S,3•<ll a >al) bu m ', wpio- kw.Whatprerae,�*stateato'be sAA9PI8'f217ES1loN$ ",:,.egs dire Fid'as m.th�: �D;E1R' Eroj�]1'sciatioa;. 1 ' Lfio' Ei1�; �tlileutitht ufw�gfit' t+£ �sprolwsedsttttetiue ?.8bovogasg�a3e: Ye"geoT�:14. Alt-22 >71q -20. IHyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -141 2. Response to Comments 2; Will the spa and fitnMccaterbeavoibible for use by dw9encral public? 3. VMtbe UM share clubbousebe avaiiable, for use by tone share members in the am ou ts ide- their specific d = share pq tiod or will it be rest ficted? A Who is, the, footprint, in-squate feat, of the pro posed tower? 5. Will the tower mdu&- any babitablebt'lIS" Space? 6. Will the tower have toy fitoction,for hotel guests " Other V L-Albm? I WfflpWkftfkftvWuMuse3ivft*ar*W lots be physically separated?, WdUlditbe is I Site. OfNvwport oaactito'alfow� "armalp RII-23 ltd) R M>: Page 2-142 v The Planning Center February 2009 i 2. Response to Comments In aMtion the followitgg questions andeou tnents'musttie addtesse& 1. HOW inch. oftlie six iseuttentlyindpi%space7 iku #lesli[ '> Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Finat EIR :r "*g of is RII -26. City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -143 2. Response to Comments 1. TkEM must ,address ,fmpwb due tv.fu&w, oust dw* construction wWchcreate�a nuisance at4 visual impact at: best ,and health problem forvuk% bt--b,&v,&W,,atwolst I RII-27 Iffawem wbciWhsMzVw is legislating what type 1, W—bWb and ordinary homeowner may pumbase , how snit be cowJuded that any Owttuction RII-28 pwjoot,cv=,oT.�Wsj�wouIdIm no mipaa onOOwi*:fiWM" 6t cumWstvq, basis? : 1. .1; RWWOR9 g'I 142 Page 2-144 • The Planning Center February 2009 I 1 2. Response to Comments I i Watcatchm? With whatimpact? 9. (p..5.3-19j How wifl it be etsured:that maintenance doesmot result in dismption of habitat: values? 9. (p, 53 -21) Ftgac 5.3.4 mustshow'the property boundary the Hyatt.Repency Newport Beach site, 10. (p. 5.3-21) Fig.,5.34},•Wby is;thmagap betimm the -oft of the SpecW Treatntew nimmum of 18- bc:a.n� -uo of 8 K "17 -32 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -145 0 I 2. Response to Comments 23. (p. 5.3 -23) The inclusion of measotcs.to lima Lighting near babitatareas is reasonable: Howev¢iy the body of the DElR.does not,disgrus potential impacts, to notlie ling, although this Appendix D. laordertoeosuiethat ft.progosodmeamm Rll -32 maybe ®posed as a:pigject iequirer ient;:a none; must be established: 'ItiS:thus, suggeaWthat a.discussion oftbe impacts ofiighting on wildlifee be irinluded in the: main bodypfthe >IRL - �Rs§e?IZ'uf -19- Page 2 -146 • The Planning Center February 2009 it LI 2. Response to Comments Cukural It"oure lfie,Elft must - address the historic *dwanco of the hatel itself it is astou;Wing that the HR concludes, absent discussion, that ffim we m histatio resourom in the pojeut arm The udifirgboK whertknown as the Newporw JaN was Obm visited by doziurickof WUOW, ;"- This was Porticularly true dw* the Nixon a&d.pstiatiop- Anw&,ftw Who sWyodJWftNiUm at the NewpwW Im wmjofml6ii� 11 IL "Bob" Hulce+mrio, Joho Wtchell,,,and other hW plaeed aduthtish4owoffidW& t. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR P*A3 drig R11 -33 it City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -147 fVP% Ww" fwA�h'% %IWj 2. Response to Comments ====these engineering = impaLts:wlll boom An example would be the nwd to mmove w-L—wasthotory soil materials and hadl them off-sift, increasingconsmiotion.imp" on such &cbms as tmMe, aff • quality, go noise- 5_ -TheabdVeinformadon teganling expensive soils; soil coffosi%*, slbpe stability, jnwtbc pmvided.m the EIR, ihemearby senior oomplex Mtipticm Aotuavrei nuasi*sure omo* 9*440* mouifeftJoAsame 8i4t all appvopnjue,jOt dure w,fDHOwcd Mwi � anti lit Wdegroust v It, Z P*44 of 19 RII-36 (ront'dj RII-37 40149' Page 2-148 • The Planning Center February 2009 I I I I I I 2. Response to Comments system and the Bay? S. (p:.5.7 -11) The DER siates that the project site isuot- within. any coastol.flood hamd area; yet the msp o£cosstal flood.haumds (Fig 5.7.4, p. 5.745) is at suehasmall'scale„ one cannot really tell where the flood zone o nds.m tdationsh p to the- suhjecf property. This is furdwcibseuresft y p1wement ofx thick :red circle over'the flood zone hotmduy; The DER must ateseM Ian= sw]e.vasions ofRoLues:5:7.3 and 5:7-4 which dearly ray's 2'tt -as ( 4oi} Hyatt Regemrty Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -149 220 2. Response to Comments Page 2 -15 0 •The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments How wip noise be controlled is those areas? Rl l -42 4. Where on the site •wiQttasLbe stored anc:pickeduple mpacted? How wiU noise :be (cot.d) m con"lled those areas? I COO r > Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -151 2. Response to Comments Public Servuxs The DEIR must address how cr=Wncy response to the Dunes, Shelbnakw Island, and the Back Bay bdxrftW*Wj* tiad would be affected during construction Plans must =are adequate emergency response to these areas —TrAtnvortation and.1'raffic It ilia concern that this section is based m troffic counts up to-f I bur years oJA it is aw of in*DM...Am=.adcqmft mWysis would bepm.wdcdft,mgkuo4p#igtofmorecun=t #OW*u0*a(d siwspeolfr- Oats, frow2004 and2005 the Mosuvzrant counts available? (j,.5J1-8Y,.Abwdo:the trippenerattinwrates, shmnvorappretcr aduOntes, atthe Hyatt 3. (p- 5,11 -20 Trip gettetation calculations ouda.,#6 p--"mj2,W bellromspece Si A square Page 111tof 19 R11-43 R11 -44 Page 2-152 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' 2. Response to Comments 9. The DEWmust. address. ho w construction could affect accew :to, Back Ray, Diive.. I RII -45. (contd) Giowth.Iaducin .ImoxE: Because the, DEM failsto. address .infrastruetute capacity in the ate m mundipgthe ptoje 3 site;. itisnot kaoWWifauy ttawIbXdties, suckaswater hoes or pmnp-stations„ wouldbe tip serveffielsiteMoAfanyspel% now, bciitieswouldfaAtateadditioualgmwW. idadfitign;tfie R'tt -4& DEIR fai7s.io:addcess tYeaiandik employed housing Thus, it cuAwt be cahc1uded that tlie' project wilfugt: nduee adiitioasl groVrtbon eitha:an individual orcumulative basis. Fr4iect 9lternatives The tedctoedWkp m as ted od timesharealtematives were i npeoperly *jocted. Ifis'. reeogauiediu Uiod?Hii t&E it would @duce. ibou8h avt etimimate aupacrs: Thus, each m cuvtmnmentalW** *to"9 Oroposedptojectt Conclusion. I RN 47 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Neuport Beach • Page 2 -153 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -15 4 • The Planning Center February 2009 i 1 2. Response to Comments R11. Response to Comments from Sandra Genis, dated April 4, 2008. R11 -1 The commenter's understanding of the proposed project is accurate. R11 -2 As described under Mitigation Measure 6 -1, Vegetation Management, portions of the proposed fuel modification area along the northern project site boundary are owned by the City of Newport Beach. An agreement with the City to be conveyed with deed for extended fuel modification would be required. Pursuant to this mitigation measure, vegetation management would be required to be completed prior to the start of construction. The applicant is not requesting an establishment of grade in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.65.030 63. Finished grades are being used for the purpose of measuring height pursuant to Section 20.65.030 B.1, which states that the City may approve a grading plan at the time of subdivision, under which circumstances grade for the purposes of measuring height shall be the finished grade shown on the approved plan. The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative parcel map and has submitted a detailed grading plan for approval. Should the project be approved, the finished grades illustrated on the approved grading plan, Figure 9, Hyatt Site PlanlGrading Plan (Revised DEIR Figure 3 -4) in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, will be utilized for the purposes of measuring height. R11 -3 The commenter is correct that the EIR could be used as an informational document by other public agencies. Some public agencies that are required to issue permits and approvals, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, are considered responsible agencies and could rely on the EIR prior to taking action on the project. The table on page 3 -35 of the DEIR acknowledges that permits from the agencies listed in this comment would be required to implement the proposed project. R11 -4 As substantiated in the Initial Study (included as DEIR Appendix A), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to population and housing, public. utilities, and recreation. Development as .proposed for the project is in accordance with the 1993 Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) for the Hyatt property. This agreement vested an entitlement for expansion of the hotel use. The City's updated General Plan (2006), therefore, also anticipated this development. The projectwould not create permanent housing. and would not introduce new population to the area. The number of new .employees required to support the expansion would be minimal, and are anticipated to be available from existing residences in the surrounding areas.. Initial Study pages 53-55 substantiate that impacts to utilities and service systems, including water and wastewater services, which are provided by the City, would be less than significant. The check -mark for t question XVI b) on page 30 of the Initial Study is a typographical error, and should be marked as "less than significant" as supported on page 53 for this question. Project implementation would not generate new population that would increase the need for existing neighborhood or regional parks, and potential impacts to existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beatb • Page 2 -155 @V81 2. Response to Comments recreational resources would be less than significant, as concluded in the Initial Study. R11 -5 See Response R11 -4. Required infrastructure improvements are discussed in DEIR Section 3, Project Description, and Initial Study pages 53 -55 substantiate that impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. RI 1 -6 See Response R11 -4 R11 -7 As noted above, the proposed project is in accordance with the 1993 CIOSA development agreement. In exchange for development rights' (including the expansion of the Hyatt facility), The Irvine Company provided payments for circulation improvements, an interest -free loan, and land for open space and potential senior housing sites in the City. Six park sites have been dedicated under CIOSA, including Back Bay View Park, Newport Center Park, Newporter Knoll, Freeway Reservation, Upper Castaways, and Harbor Cove. The CIOSA agreement has resulted in substantial benefits to open space and recreation in the City. Maintenance of the on -site golf course was not a term of the agreement. The proposed project would not result in any long -term significant impacts to the recreation experience at Newport Dunes or Upper Bay in general. As concluded in the DEIR (see Section 5.9, Noise), however, construction - related noise would be significant at nearby residential and recreational receivers. At 90 feet from the project boundary, estimated noise levels during construction are projected to range from 76 to 83 dBA in comparison to the existing ambient noise level of 59 dBA. This impact would be significant and unavoidable and project approval would require a statement of overriding considerations by decision makers. Construction traffic for the Hyatt Regency project would not adversely impact Back Bay Drive with respect to the vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians along this roadway. At the present time, the capacity of Back Bay Drive substantially exceeds the current traffic volumes. There is sufficient roadway width available to maintain existing motor, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting current operations. The DEIR demonstrated that the intersection of Jamboree Road at Back Bay Drive is currently operating at Level of Service A during the AM/PM peak hours and the estimated maximum current average daily trips (ADT) on Back Bay Drive is only 2,000 trips. This would indicate that the roadway segment of Back Bay Drive is operating at Level of Service A. There is substantial excess capacity available on Back Bay Drive as a collector road to accommodate the additional construction traffic anticipated with the demolition of the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach ballroom and construction of the' new ballroom and the timeshare units. Total construction traffic is estimated to be only 196 ADT, with only a portion of it going back to Back Bay Drive. A Construction Management Plan will be prepared prior to any construction activities. This plan will demonstrate how.construction traffic would be routed onto and off of the site during all phases of the construction. A preliminary Construction Traffic Routing Plan is shown in Figure 5, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. The Construction Management Plan will follow the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to ensure that existing motor, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is not Page 2 -156 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 1 2. Response to Comments adversely impacted during construction. Where necessary, the appropriate signage, traffic cones, barricades, and other traffic control devices will be utilized to maintain existing traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian operations along Back Bay Drive. The Construction Management Plan will be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that current usage of Back Bay Drive is not adversely affected during any phase of construction. The Construction Management Plan will address in detail each phase of construction for the project. R11 -8 The project objective to expand the existing use in accordance with the existing CIOSA vested entitlement is logical. The specification of providing a total of 479 units in accordance with this objective did not preclude the consideration of other project alternatives, including an Alternative Development Area, Alternative Land Use, Reduced Ballroom Alternative, Reduced Timeshare Units Alternative, or Reduced Construction Equipment Alternative. DEIR Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, provides the reasoning why each of these alternatives were not analyzed in detail. For example, a reduced timeshare unit alternative would not eliminate the significant construction noise impact of the proposed project, the only impact determined to be significant after mitigation. R11 -9 As noted by this commenter, the project objectives include, "Develop a new, larger ballroom facility to assist in meeting conference need for the City of Newport Beach. ". The potential opportunity for expanded ballroom facilities or conference centers in existing hotels was identified in a revenue enhancement study conducted by PKF Consulting on behalf of the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau. 4 A preliminary study of the potential market demand for a conference or convention center evolved into a revenue enhancement study for Transient Occupancy Tax for the City. The study's primary findings included, "An example of Public - Private partnerships could be the development of a large ballroom or conference center at one of the existing hotels which would allow the City of Newport Beach to increase its level of rooms demand by appealing to group demand segments not currently able to be accommodated within the community." Rll -10 Per this comment, an upgraded cut/fill grading permit is included in this FEIR- Please see Section 3, Revisions to the Drag EIR, Figure 10, Earthwork CutlFill Map. The earthwork quantities have been updated as a result. The cumulative effect of various refinements and revisions to the project since the last earthwork quantity estimate (August 2005) has resulted in an increase in fill, and a reduction in cut -The updated quantities are: 22,500 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 26,500 cy of fill; the net result will be 4,000 cy of import required. The maximum.depth to be excavated is 18 feet below existing grade. R71 -11 Per this comment, a Landscape Plan is provided as Figure 8, Section 3, Revisions to ' the Draft EIR. The proposed 10,072- square -foot spa and fitness facility would be available for use by the hotel guests and to the general public. Please see response, R11, -12 regarding height limitation information. R11 -12 Section 20.65.030 B -1 of the City Code states that with an approved grading plan or parcel map, the grade can be measured from "finished grade" to establish the PKF Consulting, February 15, 1997. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -157 OJIMAIEwt 2. Response to Comments height of the building. In compliance of the city code, all buildings are within the 35- foot height limit. This project will be processing for a grading plan and a parcel map. The vertical heights of the buildings are measured to the midpoint of sloped roof plane, and less than five feet from the roof ridge, as indicated in the Section 20.65.030 illustration. City Planning Department accepts the methodology in measuring building height from finished grade. R11 -13 The theme tower of the ballroom building has been designed as a vertical mass in proportion to the scale of the overall building. The tower reflects the existing theme tower in the existing main lobby of the hotel. The footprint of the proposed tower is 1,6 percent of the overall ballroom building. The tower design has four open archways at the top. The upper portion of the tower has 45- degree chamfered corners at the sides of the four open archways. The clipped corners visually reduce the massing of the tower. Rll -14 CEQA does not require that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) be revised and recirculated as a result of changes or modifications to a project that are made between when the NOP was circulated and publication of the Draft EIR. Building heights and the proximity of the project site to adjacent sensitive vegetation communities (coastal sage scrub) were addressed in the NOP and the modifications or additional information that was developed during preparation of the Draft EIR did not require recirculation of the NOP. In addition to the comments on the DEIR, the public will have another opportunity to comment on the project features during the public hearing process. Rl l -15 Mitigation Measure 3 -1 requires avoidance of activities in coastal sage scrub during the nesting season; however, the measure also recognizes that there may be occasions that public health and safety require work during the nesting season. Therefore, in the event.this work is required, Mitigation Measure 3 -2 sets forth that biological monitoring must be implemented in order to minimize impacts to any potential nesting gnatcatchers. The phrase "to the extent practicable" or "to the extent feasible" refers to measures that require total avoidance of work, i.e., no grading of coastal sage scrub. Where total avoidance cannot be achieved due to public health and safety considerations, other mitigation measures set forth the additional measures that must be implemented to address and minimize potential impacts. Note also that the measures that are the subject of this comment are set forth in the approved Natural Community Conservation Planning /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) as construction- related minimization and mitigation measures. Please refer to Response R11 -32 (3 -8) with respect to grading restrictions during gnatcatcher nesting season. Rl l -16 The Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by Kleinfelder (see DEIR Appendix F), is a design -level study as typically prepared for a DEIR. The study concludes that, from a geotechnical perspective, the project can be developed as planned, provided that the 'recommendations of the report are incorporated into design and construction. The subsequent engineering -level report would be prepared and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Pursuant to the recommendations in the Kleinfelder report, and mitigation measures provided in the DEIR, the subsequent report would include the engineering -level analysis of potential Page 2 -158 •The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions. R11 -17 The statement on page 3 -35 that, "It is the intent of this DEIR to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements" is not intended to imply that the DEIR is all- inclusive of the analysis required for final approval and issuance of permits by the City and all responsible agencies. Additional project materials and engineering -level analysis is typically required for subsequent permits, including grading and building permits. R11 -18 Mitigation Measure 113 clearly specifies that either a self - parking or valet parking plan shall be submitted and approved that demonstrates the provision of the necessary 467 parking spaces. This mitigation measure was recommended by the traffic engineer, who deems the measure feasible, and requires a specific performance standard as recommended by CEQA. See response R11 -17_ Refer to Figure 11, Parking Plan, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. R11 -19 The landscape plan is included as Figure 8 in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Additionally, view simulations have been updated to reflect landscaping conditions upon installation and after five years (please see Figures 12, View Simulation 2, and 13, View Simulation 3 in Section 3). �A R11 -20 The components of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are detailed `(�) in DEIR Table 5.7 -3 and pages 5.7 -27 and 5.7 -28. The commenter is incorrect. Regulatory requirements with existing enforcement procedures such as the SWPPP are not required to be included as CEQA mitigation measures and are not required to be included in the project's mitigation monitoring plan. The DEIR appropriately documents the requirements and process for the SWPPP and associated best management practices for stormwater control. R11 -21 Two CEQA methodologies allowed for evaluation of potential impacts are described on pages 4 -6 and 4 -7 of the DEIR. As described in this section, both methods, the "related- project list" and "a summary of projections contained in an adopted general ' plan or related planning documents designed to evaluate regional or area -wide conditions" have been utilized in the DEIR, as appropriate. Additionally, as noted on page 4-7, the cumulative project list includes the Traffic Phasing Ordinance- identified projects as well as "other reasonable [oreseeable, cumulative projects identified by the City." The topical analysis of cumulative impacts does consider the resource evaluated. For example, the air quality analysis discusses cumulative impacts within the South Coast Air Basin, the biological resource analysis discusses cumulative impacts within the regional context of the NCCP /HCP, and public services such as police services are discussed based on the entire City, which is the service area for the Newport Beach Police Department. R11 -22 The commenter is correct in noting that the City, as CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project, has the discretion to apply customized significance thresholds for environmental review. As included in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, public ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach v Page 2 -159 2. Response to Comments agencies are encouraged to develop and publish their own thresholds of significance. Such customized thresholds are to be adopted by ordinance, resolution, or rule, and involve a public review process. Most cities, however, including the City of Newport Beach, have not adopted customized thresholds, and utilize Appendix G in preparing EIRs. This is consistent and in compliance with CEQA. Rl1 -23 The following responses correspond to the individual numbering in this comment: 1. See Figure 14, Site Sections, which is the revised DEIR Figure 3 -6. It shows the height of buildings relative to existing topography. 2. The spa and fitness center would be available to the general public. 3. No, the timeshare clubhouse would not be available for use by timeshare members outside their allotted period. 4. The footprint of the proposed tower is approximately 400 square feet (20 feet by 20 feet). 5. The tower would not have a floor and would not be habitable. 6. The tower would be ornamental only. It would not have an observation function. 7. Connection between the parking lots would not be restricted. 8. See Figure 15, Existing Building Setbacks, in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 9. An exhibit showing cut and fill areas for grading is included in this FEIR (see Figure 10, Earthwork CutiFill, in Section 3, Revision to the Draft EIR). Also, reter to Figure 9, Hyatt Site Plan /Grading Plan (Revised DEIR Figure 3 -4), for more information regarding grading. 10. The maximum depth to be excavated is 18 feet below the existing grade and 42 feet above mean sea level. 11. Please see Response R11 -2. .12. An agreement between the project applicant and the City of Newport Beach to allow fuel modification within the City- owned open 'space area would be addressed as a condition of approval (please also see Response R11 -2). R11 -24 The following responses correspond to the individual numbering in this comment: 1. The development agreement referenced in this comment was subsequent to the Notice of Preparation for the Hyatt Regency Expansion EIR. Per CEQA, the environmental setting, including the baseline for related projects, should reflect conditions at the time of issuance of the NOP. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Page 2 -160 *The Planning Center February 2009 1 I 1 2. Response to Comments 2. Please see Response R11 -21. 3. Please see Response R11 -21. The hydrology and water quality analysis for the ' DEIR are not based on the related project list methodology and a review of specific projects within the entire watershed is therefore not required. R11 -25 As noted in the introduction to the Aesthetics section, visual impacts are by nature subjective. The DEIR includes a narrative description and numerous view simulations to fully disclose the potential visual impacts to both the public and decision makers. Based on the significance thresholds, including whether the project would have a significant impact on a scenic vista, or substantially degrade the existing character of the project site or its surroundings, the project was determined to have a less than significant impact. The project would alter the site, ' and the DEIR does not conclude that the project would have "no impact' as noted by this commenter. Per the request in this comment, additional view simulations, including a closer simulation from Newport Dunes and a parking structure elevation from Jamboree Road, are provided in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR (see Figures 4 and 16). R11 -26 The following responses correspond to the individual numbering in this comment: 1. Existing open space at the project site comprises 13.03 acres, or 54.5 percent of the site, in comparison to the proposed project, which would include 9.65 acres, A� or 40.4 percent of the site. 2. See previous response. 3. 3.38 acres of open space will be lost. 4. As requested above, a clearer exhibit is shown in Figure 15, Existing Building Setbacks, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 5. Figure 9, Holt Site PlanlGrading Plan, which is the revised DEIR Figure 3 -4, and Figure 15, Existing Building Setbacks, depict the proposed site plan and placement of buildings. Below is a summary of existing and proposed setbacks. Existing: North property line (p /l) — 91' -7" (from existing Lido Building to north p /l) Northwest p/l 133' -5" (from existing Lido Building to north -west pll) West p/l — 17' -0" (from existing Housekeeping and ' Engineering Building to west p /1) Southwest p/I — 63'-4" (from existing ballroom to curved portion of p /1) South p/I — 370' -11" (from existing main portion of the hotel to south p /1) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach & Page 2 -161 2. Response to Comments 1 East p/I — 24'4" (from existing 1 -story Plaza Ballroom to east i pil) Proposed: , North p/I — 5' -5" (from TS-4 to north p /1) Northwest p/l — 9' -11" (from TS -2 to north -west p /1) West p /1— 29' -8" (from TS -7 to west p/I) Southwest p/I — 112' -4" (from new ballroom to curved portion of p /1) South p/I — 94' -3' (from new ballroom porte cochere to south p /l) East pil — 32' -3" (from relocated housekeeping and engineering building to east p /1) 6. Please refer to the DEIR view simulations and new view simulations in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and accurately reflect the Landscape Plan and fuel modification plans. As noted in this comment, landscaping features would soften the appearance of the buildings. They would not fully obstruct views of the buildings. 7. The defined "skyline" for the visual simulations is the boundary between the buildings and /or vegetation and the sky. For some of the viewpoints, upon development there would be increased views of the open sky in comparison to existing conditions. 8. The landscape plan is provided as Figure 8, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 9. The following City Standard Conditions of Approval would apply to the project with respect to landscaping. Enforcement of these conditions is through City procedures outside of the CEQA process: All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and , maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, Including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the General Services Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant ■ Page 2 -162 • The Planning Center February 2009 2. Response to Comments materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 10. See previous response. The Planning Department and the General Services Department shall be responsible for review and approval of the landscape plan. 11. See response R11 -25. The DEIR does not conclude that the appearance of the project site would be substantially the same after development. Based on the evaluation of impacts and significance thresholds, it concludes that aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. 12. The proposed Lighting Plan is included as Figure 3, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 13. See previous Response 01-8 and R5 -5. 14. See previous Response 01 -8 and R5 -5. 15. Project lighting would not substantially increase lighting levels over existing conditions and would not combine to result in cumulatively significant lighting impacts. Given the stringent City requirements for lighting and the minimal Q impact of the project, it was not deemed necessary to specifically evaluate potential light impacts across the bay. See also Response 01 -8 and R5 -5, and the Lighting Plan in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 16. Please see previous responses to aesthetics comments R11 -27 Impact 5.2 -3 and Impact 5.2 -5, respectively, evaluate the regional and localized air quality construction- related project impacts. As described in these sections, construction emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional or localized significance thresholds. Thresholds for localized air pollutant modeling are based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards, which represent the most stringent ambient air quality standards that have been established, to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory, distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. To reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities, the SCAQMD has adopted Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Appendix C to the DEIR includes the SCAQMD's Rule 403 requirements to reduce fugitive dust during construction activities. Rule 403 includes fugitive dust control measures such as watering two times daily, covering haul trucks, and reducing speed on unpaved roads. These measures are implemented as part of the existing regulations by the SCAQMD and are therefore not required to be included as conditions of approval. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Nimport Beach • Page 2 -163 2. Response to Comments Rti -28 The DEIR does not conclude that the project would have "no impact" on either an individual or cumulative basis for air quality impacts, or for climate change impacts. Air quality impacts were conducted in accordance with methodologies and thresholds adopted by the SCAOMD for determining cumulative, regional, and localized significance. With respect to potential project - related impacts on climate change, the DEIR concludes that "the proposed project would contribute to global warming through direct emissions of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and indirectly through removal of existing vegetation and replacement of the surface area With paved parking lots, sidewalks, and structures." Project- related CO, emissions were calculated and included in DEIR Table 5.2 -8. It was concluded that "in the absence of adopted thresholds, and because the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project by SCAG and criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the SCAOMD thresholds, project - related COz and their contribution to global climate change impacts in the State of California are considered less than cumulatively considerable." R11 -29 Modifications to the project site, including an increase in building area and removal of native trees, would not measurably affect, through loss of foraging area, native raptors and /or crows or ravens (corvids). Therefore, no measurable impacts to the ecological reserve, particularly to least terns, which nest over two miles from the project site, would occur. R11 -30 Fuel modification would be implemented in a manner that ensures no impacts to the disturbed wetland. In the DEIR Figure 5.3-4, Vegetation & Fuel Modification, shows that no impacts associated with fuel modification would occur in the area of the disturbed wetland. Also see the update of Figure 5.3 -4 in this Final EIR, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Figure 2. R11 -31 DEIR Tables 5.11 -4 and 5.11 -5 show future (2012) without and with project weekday peak -hour levels of service or intersections for the AM and PM peak hours. According to the tables, the project would result, in a nominal increase in the volume to capacity ratio at the intersection of Back Bay. Drive and Jamboree. It would increase from 0.481 to 0.485 for peak AM hours and from 0.601 to 0.611 for peak PM hours; which was determined in both cases to result in no traffic impacts. These negligible increases would have no affect on' wildlife for two reasons. First, this would not resutt in measurable increases of traffic along Back Bay Drive, north of the project site, which is where wildlife would be encountered. Furthermore, most wildlife that would potentially be affected by vehicle collisions (e.g., coyotes or bobcats) are nocturnal, and the project does not generate significant traffic in this area during the nighttime or early morning. Finally, the low speed limits on Back Bay Drive already greatly reduce the potential for wildlife /vehicle collisions, a condition . that would not change in the postproject environment. A construction management plan would be prepared prior to any construction activities. This plan would demonstrate how construction traffic would be routed onto and off of the site during all phases of the construction. A preliminary construction traffic routing plan is shown in Figure 5. The construction management plan would follow the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to ensure that motor, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is not adversely impacted during construction. Where necessary, the appropriate signage, traffic cones, barricades, Page 2 -164 • The Planning Center February 2009 , 2. Response to Comments and other traffic control devices would be utilized to maintain existing traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian operations along Back Bay Drive. The construction management plan would be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that current usage of Back Bay Drive is not adversely affected during any phase of construction. The construction management plan would address in detail each phase of construction for the project. R11 -32 The following responses regarding potential direct and indirect habitat impacts due to project - related - light, noise, dust, and water quality correspond to the numbering of the individual comments: All of the species listed in Table 5.3 -1 occur within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve or are expected to occur for either breeding or foraging, with the exception of the San Diego fairy shrimp. The remaining species can be divided into three categories: those that occur adjacent to the site (100 feet) for either breeding or foraging; species near the site (300 feet) for either breeding or foraging; and species that are dependent on the aquatic or salt marsh environment and occur a minimum of 400 feet from the site. The California gnatcatcher is the only species that occurs within 100 feet of the site, with at least one pair observed foraging within 30 feet of the proposed fuel modification zone (but not nesting). Mitigation Measure 5.3 -7 implements the NCCP /HCP Construction - Related Mitigation and Minimization Measures that have been developed to minimize impacts on the California gnatcatcher and therefore, impacts associated with the construction noise and dust would be reduced to a less than significant level. In particular, construction noise during the breeding season would be mitigated through on -site monitoring to ensure that noise levels are maintained within acceptable limits, with additional measures to be implemented as determined by the project biologist. Potential lighting impacts to the gnatcatcher would also be reduced to less than significant through implementation of a site - specific lighting plan that would be reviewed by the project biologist, These measures would also result in a reduction of potential impacts to species with the potential to occur within 300 feet of the site, including Cooper's hawk, monarch butterfly, northern harrier, and white- tailed kite, none of which exhibit potential for breeding within 300 feet of the site, only foraging. All of the other species, with the exception of the San Diego coast horned lizard on Table 5.3 -1, occur in the salt marsh or other aquatic environments and are at a minimum of 400 feet from the site with no potential for impacts, by the. project. There is no suitable habitat for the coast horned lizard within 300 feet of the site, though it may occur within the Ecological Reserve. There would be no potential indirect impacts on the coast horned lizard from this project. 2. None of the plant species listed in Table 5.3.2 exhibit potential for occurring within 100 feet or 300 feet of the project site and therefore, there is no potential for the project to have indirect impacts due to dust on special- status plants (though with the construction minimization measure that addresses dust, even plants within 100 feet or 300 feet of the project site would not be impacted). Other special- status plant species that occur within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (e.g., salt marsh bird's beak or southern tarplant) are Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -165 ffl 2. Response to Comments associated with the salt marsh or salt marsh edges and are well removed from the site with no potential for indirect impacts. 3-8 The Special Treatment Zone would be planted with a mix of native grasses and (orbs that have been selected to reduce the need for regular maintenance due to the low stature of the vegetation. All of the species would be native grasses and forts or succulents. Therefore, no mechanical equipment would be needed to conduct maintenance. Furthermore, where vegetation needs to be trimmed, it would be done by hand or with a weed whip. Any work within the Special Treatment Area during the gnatcatcher - nesting season would be performed by hand; weed whips would only be allowed outside of the gnatcatcher - nesting season (February 15 -July 31). 9. Figure 5.3 -4, Vegetation & Fuel Modification, has been revised to include the Hyatt Regency property boundary (please see Figure 2 in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). 10. As shown in the DER Figure 5.3 -4, Vegetation & Fuel Modification, there would be no gap between fuel modification zones. Please refer to Figure 2, the revised Figure 5.3 -4 included in the DEIR, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 11. The text in the referenced sections is consistent. Both the figure and the definitions on page 3 -20 specify that "surface fuels shall be maintained at a height not to exceed 18 inches and grasses shall not exceed 8 inches." 12. As noted under Impact 5.3-4, impacts to potential foraging area would not be considered significant. In the postproject condition, there would actually be an increase in forage as currently much of the Special Treatment Area consists of golf course turf, bare areas, or weedy species. The native plantings to be installed in the Special Treatment Zone would actually increase the foraging potential for a variety of species. The text under Impact 5.3 -4 has been modified as follows (please also refer to these changes in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR): Impact 5.3 -4. Project development would not adversely eealel impact migratory birds and raptor foraging habitat. [Threshold 8 -21 The Hyatt Regency golf course property currently contains ornamental trees and shrubs that have the potential to support nesting birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird, Treaty Act. The property is an open golf course adjacent to open space that supports, at best, moderate - quality. foraging habitat for common raptor species. Impacts to potential foraging area would not be considered significant. In the postproject condition, there would actually be an increase in forage as currently much of the Special Treatment Area consists of golf course turf, bare areas, or weedy species. The native plantings to be installed in the Special Treatment Zone would actually increase the foraging potential for a variety of species, HoweveF,-to-- assere Page 2 -166 0 The Planning Center February 2009 1 1 2. Response to Comments 13. The area immediately north of the project is not in the NCCP /HCP reserve system. This area is designated nonreserve open space. 14. There are no plans to add this area to the NCCP/HCP reserve system. 15. The fuel modification would be limited to the Special Treatment Zone, which would add native habitat to the edge of the nonreserve open space, or would result in the removal of nonnative vegetation from the area. Both activities would be beneficial to the nonreserve open space. 16. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, Discussion of Cumulative Impacts, requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts and the incremental impacts of the project in combination with other projects causing related impacts. "Where a lead agency ' is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not `cumulatively considerable,' a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable." DEIR Section 5.3, Biological Resources, substantiates that upon implementation of recommended mitigation, the proposed project would not adversely impact sensitive species or sensitive habitat. Project impacts, therefore, would not combine with other related projects to result in a significant impact. The DEIR describes the basis for concluding that impacts are not cumulatively considerable. In addition to substantiating the project - related impacts would be less than significant, Section 5.3 -4, Cumulative Impacts, notes that potential impacts to coastal sage scrub and sensitive species associated with this habitat would be addressed in a regional context through the NCCP /HCP program (described in Section 5.3 -1, ' Environmental Setting). As described in DEIR Section 4.5, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, analysis using a related project list (for example, as used for the cumulative traffic analysis), is one of two methods used for I cumulative impact analysis. The biological resources cumulative analysis does not rely on the "project list" methodology, and therefore it is not necessary to tabulate the impacts of individual projects. 17. The project would not impact coastal sage scrub or wetlands. Therefore, there would be no potential cumulative impacts. For raptor foraging and impacts of corvids within the reserve, see Response R11 -29. 18. The commenter does not provide an explanation of "unexpected" events. The NCCP /HCP Construction Mitigation and Minimization Measures have been implemented for scores of projects since their adoption over a decade ago. These measures are proven to reduce potential construction impacts to acceptable levels. Also, as noted, a biological monitor would be present during the gnatcatcher - nesting season to further ensure that impacts are minimized. 19. As noted in Responses 13 and 14 above, the area north of the site is not in the NCCP /HCP reserve system. The NCCP /HCP Construction Mitigation and ' Minimization Measures have been included in the DEIR because these are proven, time - tested measures developed in consultation with the wildlife agencies and approved by them. These measures would be implemented as Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -167 2, Response to Comments required mitigation measures and would be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program regardless of the status of the adjacent nonreserve open space. 20. The California gnatcatcher is highly territorial during the nesting season and any activities that encroach into a territory typically elicits scolds and other territorial behavior. Therefore, should gnatcatchers nest within close proximity of the site, it is expected that such behaviors would be exhibited and be indicative of stress. Should this occur, the biological monitor would stop work and consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service as indicated in Mitigation Measure 3 -2. Upon consultation, US Fish and Wildlife Service would determine whether an Endangered Species Take Authorization would be required. 21. See Response 20. 22. See Response 20. 23. The nexus for the lighting mitigation is included in the discussion under impact 5.3-1. One of the listed Coastal Act Policies with which the project would comply is listed as follows: Policy 4.1.1 -13 - shield and direct exterior lighting away from ESHAs to minimize impacts to wildlife. R11-33 Buildings younger than 50 years (1958) do not meet CEQA criteria as historic resources. Typically buildings older than 45 years (1963) are evaluated since there is often a delay between the environmental process and construction. The hotel was not completed in 1976. The hotel. was originally permitted in 1962 and additions were then permitted throughout the years with the last addition permitted in 1988. Therefore, does not meet either guideline. The assessment included in the Initial Study regarding potential historical resource impacts is therefore accurate, and the EIR need not address the historical activities noted by this commenter: R11-34 The requested earthwork cutJfill exhibit is provided in this FEIR as Figure 10, Section 3; Revisions to the Draft EIR. R11-35 Please refer to Response 01 -20. R11 -36 The following responses correspond to the individual numbering in this comment: 1. Please see Response R10-3 regarding the i engineering -level geotechnical analysis that would be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. Additionally, refer to the DEIR Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Qualily, Impact 5.7 -2 discussion regarding the potential for soil erosion and regulatory requirements for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction- related impacts. 2. The City of Newport Beach currently utilizes the 2007 California Building Code, which is based on the 2006 International Building Code with California amendments. Page 2 -168 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' 2. Response to Comments 2. Exhibits from the Newport Bay Watershed Action Plan have been attached as Figures 18, 19, and 20, which show the watershed in its entirety, including the San Diego Creek sub - watershed. The project is not anticipated to have any cumulative impacts to the upper portions of the Newport Bay Watershed because 1) the 152 square -mile watershed is primarily urbanized (two- thirds, with half the remaining land undevelopable or preserved open space);' 2) the majority of the watershed is upstream of the project site; and 3) the changes in existing versus proposed runoff conditions of the project site are less than significant when compared to the total amount of runoff entering the upper Newport Bay. 3. Groundwater tests have not been performed for the project and are not typically performed prior to the initial stages of construction. Groundwater quality tests are required for compliance with the De Minimus Permit and any groundwater dewatering procedures would require water quality testing as part of the permit. ' 4. See Response 2 above. 2003 DAMP Appendix D Newport Bay Watershed Action Plan. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Ping! EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -169 Prior to January 2007, the City utilized the 2001 California Building Code, which was based on the 2001 Uniform Building Code with California amendments. ' 3. Please see Response R10 -3. 4. Please see Response R10 -3. i5. Please see Response R10 -3. R11 -37 Potential impacts related to lead -based paint and asbestos are addressed in DEIR Section 5.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Compliance with stringent state and federal regulations as detailed on page 5.6 -13 would mitigate potential impacts associated with these materials to less than significant. Please refer to Responses A6 -14 and 01 -10. R11 -38 The DEIR addresses groundwater(dewatering impacts on pages 5.7 -20 and 5.7 -27. Based on the boring results presented on page 5.5 -7, it is unlikely that the project ' will encounter groundwater during the construction phase. Should dewatering be required, the project must either discharge to the sewer under an agreement with the sewering agency or comply with the requirements of the De Minimus Permit for short-term groundwater related discharges within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed (Order No. R8- 2006 -0065, amending Order No. R8- 2004 - 0021). The De Minimus Permit requirements and procedures that the applicant must follow specifically address the concerns of the commenter. Rl l -39 The following responses correspond to the numbering in the comment: 1. Cumulative impacts are addressed on page 5.7 -37 of the DEIR. The discussion includes the Newport Bay Watershed. 2. Exhibits from the Newport Bay Watershed Action Plan have been attached as Figures 18, 19, and 20, which show the watershed in its entirety, including the San Diego Creek sub - watershed. The project is not anticipated to have any cumulative impacts to the upper portions of the Newport Bay Watershed because 1) the 152 square -mile watershed is primarily urbanized (two- thirds, with half the remaining land undevelopable or preserved open space);' 2) the majority of the watershed is upstream of the project site; and 3) the changes in existing versus proposed runoff conditions of the project site are less than significant when compared to the total amount of runoff entering the upper Newport Bay. 3. Groundwater tests have not been performed for the project and are not typically performed prior to the initial stages of construction. Groundwater quality tests are required for compliance with the De Minimus Permit and any groundwater dewatering procedures would require water quality testing as part of the permit. ' 4. See Response 2 above. 2003 DAMP Appendix D Newport Bay Watershed Action Plan. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Ping! EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 2 -169 2. Response to Comments 5. An exhibit of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 0382H, showing the local area of the project, is included as Figure 20, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Section 3, Revision to the Draft EIR to supplement DEIR Figure 5.7 -3. The subject property is located within Zone X, which is an area with 0.2 percent chance of 100 -year flood event. 6. The potential for the project site to be inundated by failure of a levee or dam is addressed in the initial Study, Section 3.8i) (see DEIR Appendix A, page 45). 7. Please see Response R11 -38. 8. The common misconceptions associated with BMP removal efficiencies and the limitations this terminology has when dealing with stormwater runoff and water quality are recognized. The following text is excerpted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Storm Water Best Management Practice Design Guide (EPAJ600JR- 04/121, September 2004): "The quantification of efficiency of BMPs has often centered on examinations and comparisons of 'percent removal' defined in a variety of ways. BMPs do not typically function with, a uniform percent removal across a wide range of influent water quality concentrations. For example, a BMP that demonstrates a large percent removal under heavily polluted influent conditions may demonstrate poor percent removal where low influent concentrations exist. The decreased efficiency of BMPs receiving influent with low pollutant concentrations has been demonstrated. it has been demonstrated that there is a minimum effluent concentration achievable through implementation of BMPs for many constituents (Schueler, 1996 and Minton, 1998). Percent removal alone, even where the results are statistically significant, often does not provide a useful assessment of BMP performance." Since the calculation of percent removal is a function of the influent quality, a higher percent removal may be reported for influents with high concentrations than with low concentrations, regardless of whether the effluent concentration is still considered high. Similarly, a BMP with a high removal effectiveness may still discharge runoff with concentrations that exceed water quality objectives. The proposed project used the BMP Table within the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan as the preferred method for selecting BMPs based on their expected performance over numerous studies. 9. Construction BMPs such as erosion and sediment control measures are selected based on the final rough and precise grading plans for the project. As part of the permit application,'an erosion and sediment control plan is required along with the rough and precise grading plans in order to obtain a grading permit. This plan lays out the primary erosion and sediment control features in fine detail to reduce the potential for sediments and non - visible pollutants from discharging from the site. The City of Newport Beach is required to review and approve this plan prior to issuance of the grading permit. The implementation of the BMPs is temporal in nature based on the active and inactive areas of each phase of construction. Considering how construction sites change very quickly (daily, weekly, etc.), the modifications to the erosion and sediment control plan are documented in the on -site SWPPP plan that is required by the Statewide General Construction NPDES Permit. In addition, compliance with local grading Page 2-170 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' 2. Response to Comments ' ordinances and the General Construction Permit require implementation of construction BMPs to the Best Available Technology economically achievable ' (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) standard for reducing pollutants from construction site storm water runoff. Table 5.7 -3 is provided to show CASQA approved construction BMPs available to meet the BAT/BCT regulatory standard. 10. Regulatory requirements are not CEQA mitigation measures and need not be included in the CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program. Compliance with the General Construction Permit requires the development of a SWPPP. Part of the SWPPP requirements includes the development and implementation of a monitoring program (Section B of the General Construction Permit), where construction BMPs will be monitored and inspected. 11. The areas proposed for permeable pavement is illustrated in Appendix I of the EtR (figure 4 of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Water Quality Report). As long as the percentage of permeable pavement in relation to the sub - drainage area is 0.2 or greater, then the area could be considered self- treating. 12. Per the Countywide Model WQMP requirements as reviewed and approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Board, site design BMPs are to be "considered and incorporated where applicable and feasible, during the site planning and approval process..." The project will therefore, meet the intent of the Model WQMP requirements. 13. The proposed project will be required to develop and implement a project- , specific WQMP per City requirements. Part of the WQMP includes an operation and maintenance plan, 'where BMPs including site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs are to be periodically inspected and maintained to ' ensure proper function and performance, in perpetuity. These features do not fall within the mitigation monitoring program associated with the EIR. 14. The specific source control measures will be selected concurrently with the final design of the project and these measures will be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach as documented in the Preliminary and Final WQMP associated with the final construction documents. Based on the level of detail of design at this time, not all source control measures can be prescribed at this time. For example, should trash disposal areas be located indoors, there would not be a need for a trash enclosure source control BMP. Per the Countywide Model WQMP requirements, "Source Control BMPs (routine non - structural ' BMPs, routine structural BMPs and BMPs for individual categories /project features) are required within all new development and significant redevelopment projects regardless of their priority, including those identified in an applicable regional or watershed program, unless they do not apply due to the project characteristics." In other words, all applicable source control BMPs will be prescribed for the project unless the project feature the BMP is intended to mitigate is not present. 15. See Response to No. 13. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -171 2. Response to Comments 16. See response to comment 8. Instead, the Countywide Model WQMP requires that the project implement treatment control BMP(s) that remove anticipated pollutants of concern at a high to medium removal efficiency. This is presented in Table 5.7 -5 in the DEIR. This table is consistent with the Countywide Model WQMP and was derived from numerous studies reviewed by the county on treatment BMP performance. Identification of specific removal efficiencies of each given pollutant for stormwater runoff is not recommended as noted in Response to Comment 17, The Pre - Construction Hydrology and Post - Construction Hydrology exhibits from the hydrology study in DEIR Appendix I have been reproduced as Figures 22 and 23 in this FEIR, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. 18, The preconstruction and postconstruction flow quantities are computed based on commercial zoning for the entire site. The effect of this methodology is that the stormwater runoff tends to be nearly equal in pre- and postdevelopment conditions. While this approach is an accepted method, in this case it may be more realistic to consider the tributary subareas containing the existing golf course as undeveloped property. By doing so, the preconstruction runoff from Subarea "E" would be reduced by 3.13cfs to 8.49cfs, and Subarea "G" would be reduced by 3.97ofs to 10.65cfs. The revised Preconstruction Flow Table 5.7 -6 is shown below. The postconstruction flow is unchanged. Table 6 Table 5.7 -6 from the DEIR Table 5.7-6 Page 2 -172 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments Therefore, the maximum increase, post construction, in any given subarea is 3.97 cfs. The total increase is 7.1 cfs. 19. The redevelopment of the proposed project site is in a location of the City that is considered mostly built -out. Future redevelopment of adjacent properties that are currently developed would not cumulatively increase the amount of impervious surface area and runoff draining to the Newport Bay to any significant degree. Cumulative downstream impacts from project implementation are therefore considered to be less than significant. 20. With respect to mitigation monitoring, see Response to Comment 13. In accordance with the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) Permit and OC DAMP, all priority projects must implement site design, structural and nonstructural source control, and treatment control BMPs to address the pollutants of concern from the proposed project, postconstruction. Selection of specific BMPs is also based on the proposed drainage conditions and other constraints of the project site. Since some of the pertinent details of the project that are required for exact BMP selection are not known during the CEQA phase, it is difficult to determine exactly which BMPs will be implemented and how they will be implemented on the project site. Hence, the technical study presented in Appendix I specifies various treatment BMP options that would satisfy pollutant removal requirements set forth in the MS4 Permit and Countywide Model WQMP. For example, consider the fact that permeable pavement relies upon infiltration into soil as its main treatment mechanism. However, infiltration BMPs are not allowed if groundwater is less than 10 feet below the treatment BMP. This constraint, though, does not exclude the use of infiltration type treatment BMPs until it is proven that the 10 feet of clearance cannot be met at the particular location where the BMP is proposed. Similarly for the construction phase of the project, construction BMPs cannot be determined until grading plans are produced to determine specific drainage patterns, areas of concern for high erosion (i.e. slopes stabilization), phasing /scheduling, and seasonal conditions, all of which contribute to the ' effective selection of construction BMPs. Specific Construction BMPs are documented in a SWPPP as required by the General Construction Permit, which is also prepared during the preparation of grading /construction plans for the Project. The SWPPP must be in place at the beginning of construction activities, and must be updated as the various phases of construction progress (e.g. excavation, mass grading, precise grading, paving, building construction, etc.). The SWPPP must be made available for review by the Regional Water Quality ' Control Board (RWQCB) and City upon request. Section A of the General Construction Permit provides the guidelines for SWPPP preparation and implementation. ' Though speck construction and post- construction BMPs cannot be specified with confidence at this stage of the projects development, compliance with the water quality regulations that require them, such as the General Construction Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -173 ao 2. Response to Comments Permit and the OC DAMP requiring the preparation of a SWPPP and project - specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), may be considered as mitigation measures. Compliance with the SWPPP and project- specific WQMP are designed to ensure less than significant impacts on water quality. R71 -40 Without evaluating the individual policies, the DEIR could not demonstrate whether the project was consistent or inconsistent with applicable policies. It is appropriate to review applicable policies for consistency or inconsistency. Please refer to responses to the DEIR comment letter from the Coastal Commission (Letter A2) with respect to timeshare consistency with the Local Coastal Program. Please prefer to previous responses to this letter regarding building height measurement. R11-41 The proposed project is a relatively small expansion of an existing hotel and would not directly result in an increase in flights at the John Wayne Airport. A potential increase in flights indirectly due to the project would be nominal, speculative, and beyond the scope of a project - specific EIR. Noise from on -site mechanical equipment from operation of the project was addressed under Impact 5.9 -2 on page 5.9 -21. Stationary noise from the project site includes mechanical sources of stationary noise. These noise sources are regulated under the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.26.025. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, noise generated at the Hyatt Regency property is prohibited from generating noise levels at residential properties that exceed 55 dBA Les during the day and 50 dBA L25 during the night. R11-42 The numbered questions included in this comment are addressed by number below: 1. As stated on page 5.9 -21, existing noise - generating activities occur throughout the Hyatt Regency. Future uses would not substantially change the character or magnitude of noise generated onsite and stationary sources of noise are regulated under the City's Municipal Code to ensure no noise nuisance would occur. 2. As stated on page 5.9 -21, noise sources associated with the Hyatt Regency project includes noise associated with landscaping, maintenance, recreation, deliveries, parking, and events. Landscaping activities currently occur on the perimeter of the site and would continue to occur with implementation of the project. 3. As stated in DEIR Chapter 5.9, Noise, noise-sensitivet areas surrounding the project site include residential, recreational, and open spaces areas, which include the Newport North Environmental Study Area, Palisades Tennis Club, Bayview Landing community, Newport Dunes, Villa Point community, Sea Island community, and Harbor Cove. The residential communities surrounding the project site are located over 340 feet from the new ballroom and timeshare units. 4. The property line of the Bayview Landing senior community is approximately 90 feet from the property line of the Hyatt Regency, but over 340 feet from the new ballroom and timeshare units. Page 2 -174 •The Planning Center February 2009 1 2. Response to Comments 5. The property line of Sea Island residential community is approximately 125 feet from the property line of the Hyatt Regency, but over 340 feet from the new ballroom and timeshare units. 6. By means of this FEIR, Mitigation Measure 3 -2 is revised as follows. This revision is also included in Section 3, Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, in this FEIR. 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels and the birds appe `- d'� o Wised noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to) construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. 7. Cumulative noise impacts may occur if there are substantial noise increases from existing conditions due to noise sources from cumulative development and the proposed project. In general, substantial noise increases are defined as perceptible changes in the ambient noise environment, which occurs when there is a 3 dBA or more increase. However, the City of Newport Beach General Plan acknowledges that even smaller increases over time contribute to the noise environment, and therefore has established a more sensitive threshold for ' determining project impacts when the existing ambient noise environment is already excessive, as defined by the General Plan. Where project impacts are identified, the project would also cumulatively contribute to traffic noise increase. ' However, if no project impacts are identified, then project- related traffic would not be substantial enough to cumulatively contribute to cumulative noise increases. In order for the project's contribution to be cumulatively considerable in a noise environment that ranges from 65 to 75 dBA CNEL, the project would have to contribute a minimum of 1 dBA or more to the ambient noise environment (see ' Table 5.9 -5). In general, a 1 dB increase is not perceptible, except in a laboratory setting. As shown in Table 5.9 -10, the project would only increase ambient noise levels by a fraction of a decibel (0.1 dB). Because project- related traffic would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dI3 on roadways in the vicinity of the project site that experience noise levels less than 75 dBA CNEL, the project's cumulative contribution to traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project is also less than significant. ' 8. Existing services and facilities at the Hyatt Regency at Newport Beach include laundry, food service supplies, and deliveries. These services/facilities would occur in the same locations as they do currently, except the laundry services, which would be moved to the new housekeeping building by the existing ballroom, as shown in Figure 9, Hyatt Site PlanlGrading Plan (Revised DEIR Figure 3-4), Section 3 Revisions to the Draft EIR. Noise from existing and future stationary sources is regulated under the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -175 C� 2. Response to Comments 9. Trash receptacles at the Hyatt Regency would remain in the same locations as under existing conditions. However, there is a new trash enclosure area shown on the site plans to the northeast of the clubhouse near the tennis facility. Refer to Figure 9, Hyatt Site Plan /Grading Plan (Revised DEIR Figure 3 -4), in Section 3 Revisions to the Draft EIR. Noise from existing and future stationary sources is regulated under the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. R11 -43 There would be no blockage of Back Bay Drive or access to Newport Dunes, Shellmaker Island, or the Back Bay. Please also see Response RI 1 -7. R11- 4 Please see the detailed responses to these issues below (Response R11 -45) R11 -45 The responses to this comment are organized per the numbering in the original comment: The traffic study was initiated in 2006 with the Notice of Preparation for the project. Year 2004 and 2005 traffic counts were the most up -to -date available at the time of initiation for the traffic study. Year 2004 and 2005 traffic counts were provided by the City of Newport Beach for the following intersections: • Coast Hwy and Dover Drive • Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive • Coast Highway and Jamboree Road • Coast Hwy and Newport Center • Coast Hwy and Avocado Avenue • Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulevard • Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Rd • Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara The traffic counts at these intersections were then escalated using an annual growth factor of 1 percent per year to estimate Year 2006 conditions, consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Study Guidelines. New traffic counts were conducted in 2006 for the following two study intersections: • Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive • Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance/Island Lagoon No growth factors were applied to these intersections as they were current Year 2006 traffic counts. In response to the comment above, the Years 2004 and 2005 traffic counts with the 1 percent annual growth factor used in the Hyatt Newport traffic study were compared to the most recent existing traffic counts conducted by the City of Newport for the eight study intersections identified above. These recent traffic counts were conducted in the years 2006 and 2007. The tables below summarize the level of service for each of the eight intersections as reported in the Hyatt Newport traffic study and using the more recent traffic counts. As shown in the table, the Hyatt Newport traffic counts provide a comparable or more conservative estimate of existing traffic conditions Page 2 -176 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 11 I 11 I 2. Response to Comments at a majority of the study intersections. In all cases, the eight study intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level of service in the existing condition. Table 7 AM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison 1 Intersection Coast Highway and Dover Drive Hyatt Newport rraffic Study LOS 0.736 C I Year rr, rr Traffic Counts r 0.674 B change -0.062 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.775 C 0.473 A -0.302 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.740 C 0.655 B -0.085 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.371 A 0.351 A -0.02 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.459 A 0.473 A +0.014 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0,570 A 0.705 C +0.135 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.763 C 0.536 A -0.227 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.564 A 0.527 A -0.037 Table 8 PM Peak Hour Level of Service Comparison 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.779 C 0.742 C -0.037 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.650 B 0.642 B -0.008 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.771 C 0.690 B -0.081 4 Coast Highway and Newport Cerder Drive 0.506 A 0.532 A +0.026 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.544 A 0.586 A +0.042 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.756 C 0.640 B 0.116 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.828 D 0.560 A -0.268 8 1 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.659 B 0.807 D +0148 2. In the existing condition, the Hyatt Regency Hotel provides 403 rooms. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance /Island Lagoon serves as the only current access point for hotel employees and guests. This condition allows for a review of the traffic counts conducted at this intersection to determine the existing trip generation rate for the hotel during the AM and PM peak hours. The table below summarizes the actual number of vehicles entering and exiting the site for the existing 403 -room hotel and compares the actual counts to the City of Newport Beach trip generation rates Hyatt Regency Neup6rt Beach Expansion Final EIR City of NewPort Beach • Page 2 -177 2. Response to Comments for a 403 -room hotel. The comparison shows that the existing traffic generated by the hotel on a per -room basis is lower than the City - established rate for analysis of new hotel rooms. The use of the City of Newport Beach trip generation rates for the new hotel rooms results in a conservative estimate of new trips generated by the proposed expansion. Table 9 Comparison of Existing Hyatt Newport Hotel Traffic Counts and Anticipated Trip Generation Rate 3. The City of Newport Beach NBTAM trip generation rates for hotel rooms are established to include ancillary hotel facilities (ballrooms, restaurants, and spa). The traffic analysis includes actual trip generation data for a similar hotel in the city (Newport Marriott), which illustrates that the NBTAM hotel trip generation rates are reasonable and that the trip generated by ancillary uses such as ballrooms and spas are reflect in the per room trip rates. 4. The EIR includes an analysis of anticipated peak parking demand for the project upon completion. The analysis shows that sufficient parking is provided as part of the proposed project. As part of the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach will require the project applicant to submit to the City for approval a Parking Management Plan (PMP), which will specify the number and location of parking stalls that would be provided for hotel guests, employees, and construction employees during the construction of the proposed hotel improvements. The PMP will be required to demonstrate that sufficient parking will be available on -site for all users during construction. 5. Construction of the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would result in some temporary loss of existing off- street parking for hotel visitors. The project applicant submitted a Conceptual Construction Management Plan, (February 28, 2007) outlining the number of parking spaces that would be available for use by hotel guests and visitors during construction. It is estimated that a minimum of 406 parking spaces would be available during both the timeshare /spa construction phase and the new ballroom construction phase. Refer to p. 5.11- 26 in the DEIR. Page 2 -178 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' Enter Exit Total Source Oty Time Period I Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips AM 61 28 89 Actual Traffic Peak Hour Counts Rooms Room 403 PM 90 61 151 Peak Hour Newport Beach AM Peak Hour 0.40 161 0.27 109 0.67 270 Trip Generation Rooms Room 403 0.41 165 0.35 141 - 0.76 306 Rabe Peak Hour 3. The City of Newport Beach NBTAM trip generation rates for hotel rooms are established to include ancillary hotel facilities (ballrooms, restaurants, and spa). The traffic analysis includes actual trip generation data for a similar hotel in the city (Newport Marriott), which illustrates that the NBTAM hotel trip generation rates are reasonable and that the trip generated by ancillary uses such as ballrooms and spas are reflect in the per room trip rates. 4. The EIR includes an analysis of anticipated peak parking demand for the project upon completion. The analysis shows that sufficient parking is provided as part of the proposed project. As part of the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach will require the project applicant to submit to the City for approval a Parking Management Plan (PMP), which will specify the number and location of parking stalls that would be provided for hotel guests, employees, and construction employees during the construction of the proposed hotel improvements. The PMP will be required to demonstrate that sufficient parking will be available on -site for all users during construction. 5. Construction of the proposed Hyatt Regency expansion would result in some temporary loss of existing off- street parking for hotel visitors. The project applicant submitted a Conceptual Construction Management Plan, (February 28, 2007) outlining the number of parking spaces that would be available for use by hotel guests and visitors during construction. It is estimated that a minimum of 406 parking spaces would be available during both the timeshare /spa construction phase and the new ballroom construction phase. Refer to p. 5.11- 26 in the DEIR. Page 2 -178 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' it 1 2. Response to Comments ' 6. 785 spaces are currently provided on -site. 7. The Newport Hyatt Regency does not monitor parking utilization. General parking utilization information, however, was obtained from ACE Parking, which provides the parking service for the resort the Newport Hyatt Regency. The facility provides 200 valet stalls and 455 self- parking stalls. Based on numbers from Ace for the month of August 2008, the valet parking was 38 percent utilized and the self - parking was approximately 33 percent utilized. August represents one of the busier months for the facility with jazz concerts and guests vacationing in the summer. Specific event parking information is not available. ' .8. The PM peak -hour trip generation rates used in the traffic analysis are consistent with City of Newport Beach standards for hotel land uses within the city. The trip generation rates are also tailored to correspond to the peak hour of traffic ' volume on adjacent streets, which may not correspond to the peak hour of trip generation for the site. This is a standard approach for traffic analysis studies, as analyzing project trip generation during the peak hour for traffic on adjacent ' streets typically results in a conservative analysis of traffic conditions. 9. No access restrictions to Back Bay Drive are currently proposed during the construction of the project. Any street closures or access restrictions requested by the project applicant during construction would require review and approval by the City of Newport Beach. ' R11 -46 Required infrastructure improvements are described in DEIR Section 3, Project Description. It is anticipated that the number of employees required for the hotel expansion would be supported by the surrounding population, and no need for '. employee housing would be created. R11 -47 Neither the Reduced Ballroom Alternative or the Reduced Timeshare Units Alternative would eliminate the unavoidable significant construction- related noise impact of the project as proposed, The DEIR does acknowledge that these alternatives would, however, slightly reduce the noise impact. These alternatives are appropriately rejected from detailed analysis. R11-48 The DEIR is adequate the does not meet the stated requirements of CEQA ' Guidelines Section 15088.5, which would require recirculation. LJ L 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -179 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 -180 •The Planning Center February 2009 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon 1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; 2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and /or 3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR to fully respond to commenter concerns. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout te) to indicate deletions and in Bold to signify additions. 3.2 DEIR UPDATES AND CLARIFICATION Revisions to the DEIR Section 3, Project Description Subsequent to the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach acquired property from The Irvine Company. Figure 3 -4, Site Plan, on page 3 -11 of the Draft EIR has been modified to show that the property directly north of the project is currently owned by the City of Newport Beach. Please see revised Figure 9, Section 3.4. In the Draft EIR, the site plan (Figure 3-4) shows that Building No. TS -1 is 85 feet from the wetland, which is northwest of the project site. The distance between the proposed timeshare building and the wetland ' is also shown in Figure 5.3-4, Vegetation and Fuel Modification, in the DEIR. Subsequent to the November 6, 2008, public hearing and follow -up assessment of the location of wetlands adjacent to the project site, the project applicant has worked with the City to increase the buffer area around the wetland and to assure compliance with CLUP Policy 4.2.2 -3. Policy 4.2.2 -3 of the City's CLUP states the ' following: Require buffer areas around wetlands to be of sufficient size to ensure the biological ' integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller buffer widths may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 foot buffer is not possible due to site constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource, and of the type and intensity of disturbance. To assure compliance with CLOP Policy 4.2.2 -3, the site plan has been modified to provide a minimum of a 100 -foot buffer between the proposed timeshare buildings and the wetland. Building TS -1 has been moved 15 feet to the southwest, providing a distance of 100 feet between the proposed time share ' building and the wetland. The updated site plan is shown in Figure 9, Hyatt Site Plan /Grading Plan (revised DEIR Figure 3-4). The distance of 100 feet between the proposed time share building and the wetland is also shown in Figure 2, Vegetation and Fuel Modification (revised DEIR Figure 5.3 -4). The changes to the site plan would increase the buffer between the proposed timeshare buildings and the coastal sage scrub habitat and would reduce potential environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed project as detailed in the DEIR. The modification to the site plan would only change the Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -1 C `�' 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR location of one building, Building No. TS -1, as all other buildings would remain the same as analyzed in the DEIR. Relocation of building TS -1 would also result in a slight increase in required earthwork. An additional 660 cubic yards (a little over 1 percent increase) would be required. According to the project's civil engineer, Fuscoe Engineering, this is within the margin of error for earthwork calculations and is considered a negligible amount. The revised grading plan is shown on Figure 9, Hyatt Site PlanlGrading Plan (Revised DEIR Figure 3 -4). The construction schedule and activities would not change and related construction impacts would not be affected. The movement of the building would also not interfere with the ingress and egress for the construction traffic flow and would not block any existing or future emergency exits. Refer to Figure 5, Construction Traffic Access. The height of Building No. TS -1 will remain the same as previously analyzed in the DEIR and would still comply with Chapter 20.65, Height Limits, of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. Therefore, the slight relocation of Building No. TS -1 would not perceptually change the visual simulations shown in Figures 5.1 -2 through 5.1 -11, Visual Simulation 1 through 9, in the DEIR, and the visual simulations shown in Figures 12 and 13, Visual Simulation 2 and Visual Simulation 3, in the FEIR. Revisions to DEIR Section 5.7, Transportation and Traffic The Draft EIR correctly states that the existing net ballroom and meeting space totals 25,740 square feet, and that, upon project implementation, the net ballroom and meeting space will total 33,582 square feet (page 3-9 of the DEIR). The parking evaluation in the Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis for the EIR however, incorrectly assumed that the existing net ballroom and meeting space totals 22,590 square feet, and that, upon project implementation, the net ballroom and meeting space will total 30,432 square feet .(page 33 of the Technical Appendix.). This results in approximately 3,150 square feet of meeting space not included in the calculations. The ballroom and meeting space square footage which was used to calculate the on -site parking demand forecast for the Hyatt Expansion project was not correct. The parking analysis was subsequently updated to reflect the accurate net square footage of the ballroom and meeting space. The Traffic Analysis was updated to include the revised parking analysis and is included as Appendix G of this Final EIR (Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis, September 22, 2008). To reflect the updated analysis, the Off - Street Parking section of the DEIR (pages 5.11 -21 through 5.11 -23) have been revised as follows: Off -Street Parking A parking analysis was prepared for the proposed project. The findings and conclusions of the parking analysis were included in the traffic impact analysis prepared by IBI Group (see Final EIR Appendix G), and are provided in this section. Table 5.11 -6 summarizes the land uses, minimum parking requirements, and provided parking identified in the parking analysis. Page 3 -2 • The Planning Center February 2009 I 1 LJ 1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.11 -6 Hyatt Regency Off- Street Parking Summary Sources: City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Chapters 20.66 and 20.84. ' The 1,702 square feet only included the square footage of the assembly area, consistent with the City of Newport Beach parking requirements. As shown in Table 5.11 -6, the proposed project would provide a total of 912 parking spaces for the hotel facilities and timeshare units. The Hyatt Regency hotel rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities would be served by 785 parking spaces, consisting of 345 standard parking spaces and 440 tandem /valet spaces. The parking analysis notes that several hotels in the City of Newport Beach and other cities operate exclusively with valet parking, and allocating a majority of the provided hotel parking to valet service is not uncommon in the hotel industry. The parking analysis also acknowledges the recent approval of exclusively valet parking at the Island Hotel in Newport Beach (formerly Four Seasons hotel). The timeshare units and clubhouse would be served by 127 standard parking spaces that would be reserved for use by timeshare unit guests only. The parking analysis and the project's site plan call for one parking space per five occupants for the proposed hotel banquet facilities. This assumption is aggressive in that it assumes a higher than average vehicle occupancy rate. The average vehicle occupancy rate in Southern California is 1.2 occupants per vehicle. While it is reasonable to assume that some conference /banquet attendees would be guests at the hotel, some events in the ballroom facilities would attract significant numbers of visitors who are not staying at the hotel. It is likely that the average vehicle occupancy rate for the ballroom /banquet facilities would fall between the standard 1.2 occupant figure and the 5 occupants per vehicle figure cited in the applicant's parking study. ' Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code identifies minimum parking requirements for hotels at one space per two hotel rooms. Banquet facilities are assumed to be included within this requirement. As a point of comparison, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) manual, Shared Parking (2n' Ed.), was also reviewed to compare the hotel and conference facility parking demand data included in this publication with the parking proposed for the Hyatt Regency. The ULI manual has compiled parking data from land uses throughout the United States and identifies typical peak parking rates for specific land uses and opportunities for shared parking between adjacent land uses. ' Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of facility space for hotels with ballroom /banquet facilities that exceed 50 square feet per guest room. The Hyatt Regency ' would provide 6a3 70.1 square feet of ballroom /banquet facility space per guest room if the proposed expansion is approved. This ratio results in a forecast peak demand of 688 672 parking spaces for the ballroom/ banquet facilities. Together, Feems and banquet fae"Ries ..'e, te 'aye a oeFA":— guest FSAFnq. this assumes that the peak "Fite peFieds lef paFk:Fig demand feF eaeh Lisee Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 3 -3 Zoning Code Parking Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Use Requirement Units Required by City Code Provided Hotel (includes guest rooms 1 space per 2 rooms 391 rooms 196 785 and ba uetfacilities Timeshare Units 1.2 spaces per room 88 units 106 Timeshare Clubhouse/Meegng 1 space per 50 sq. ft. 1,702 sq. ft. 34 127 Facilities Overall Site Total 336 912 Sources: City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Chapters 20.66 and 20.84. ' The 1,702 square feet only included the square footage of the assembly area, consistent with the City of Newport Beach parking requirements. As shown in Table 5.11 -6, the proposed project would provide a total of 912 parking spaces for the hotel facilities and timeshare units. The Hyatt Regency hotel rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities would be served by 785 parking spaces, consisting of 345 standard parking spaces and 440 tandem /valet spaces. The parking analysis notes that several hotels in the City of Newport Beach and other cities operate exclusively with valet parking, and allocating a majority of the provided hotel parking to valet service is not uncommon in the hotel industry. The parking analysis also acknowledges the recent approval of exclusively valet parking at the Island Hotel in Newport Beach (formerly Four Seasons hotel). The timeshare units and clubhouse would be served by 127 standard parking spaces that would be reserved for use by timeshare unit guests only. The parking analysis and the project's site plan call for one parking space per five occupants for the proposed hotel banquet facilities. This assumption is aggressive in that it assumes a higher than average vehicle occupancy rate. The average vehicle occupancy rate in Southern California is 1.2 occupants per vehicle. While it is reasonable to assume that some conference /banquet attendees would be guests at the hotel, some events in the ballroom facilities would attract significant numbers of visitors who are not staying at the hotel. It is likely that the average vehicle occupancy rate for the ballroom /banquet facilities would fall between the standard 1.2 occupant figure and the 5 occupants per vehicle figure cited in the applicant's parking study. ' Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code identifies minimum parking requirements for hotels at one space per two hotel rooms. Banquet facilities are assumed to be included within this requirement. As a point of comparison, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) manual, Shared Parking (2n' Ed.), was also reviewed to compare the hotel and conference facility parking demand data included in this publication with the parking proposed for the Hyatt Regency. The ULI manual has compiled parking data from land uses throughout the United States and identifies typical peak parking rates for specific land uses and opportunities for shared parking between adjacent land uses. ' Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of facility space for hotels with ballroom /banquet facilities that exceed 50 square feet per guest room. The Hyatt Regency ' would provide 6a3 70.1 square feet of ballroom /banquet facility space per guest room if the proposed expansion is approved. This ratio results in a forecast peak demand of 688 672 parking spaces for the ballroom/ banquet facilities. Together, Feems and banquet fae"Ries ..'e, te 'aye a oeFA":— guest FSAFnq. this assumes that the peak "Fite peFieds lef paFk:Fig demand feF eaeh Lisee Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 3 -3 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Shared Parking also recommends making adjustments to the parking demand for certain land uses to account for captive and noncaptive users. Banquet/Meeting space or convention space at hotels is identified as a use where captive /noncaptive users should be considered when determining peak parking demand. In the case of a hotel, a captive user would be someone staying at the hotel and then attending an event or conference in the banquet/meeting facilities at the same hotel. Since the parking space occupied by this hotel guest is accounted for in the parking demand for the hotel rooms, counting this occupied parking space for the banquet /meeting room facilities would be a double count of the parking demand generated by this single user. Noncaptive users would be banquet/meeting attendees who drive to the hotel and park for the sole purpose of attending a function in the banquet/meeting facilities. These are typically local residents who would not need to stay at the hotel or visitors traveling to and from the airport, but not staying overnight. The procedures outlined in Shared Parking call for the application of a noncaptive ratio to the estimated parking demand to determine the appropriate reduction in the overall parking demand for the facility. For example, if the percentage of noncaptive users of a banqueUmeeting facility was determined to be 75 percent of the attendees, with 25 percent of attendees staying at the hotel, the peak parking demand would be reduced by 25 percent to ensure that only noncaptive users are counted. Two default noncaptive ratios are provided in Sharing Parking. A 60 percent noncaptive ratio is identified for hotels with 20 to 50 square feet of banquet/meeting space per guest room. For hotels with more than 50 square feet of banquet/meeting space per guest room, a 25 percent non - captive ratio is identified. For the purposes of this parking demand analysis and based on input from the Hyatt Newport owner, it was determined that these default noncaptive ratios would likely be too aggressive, and their application could result in an underestimation of the anticipated parking demand for the hotel's banquet /meeting facilities. Instead, this parking demand analysis uses a 90 percent noncaptive ratio, which is consistent with the ratio identified in a study of hotel parking published in Urban Land.` The 90 percent noncaptive ratio results in a more conservative analysis and estimate of potential parking demand. Applying the 90 percent noncaptive ratio to the demand for 672 parking spaces assigned to the banquet/meeting facilities results in a final parking demand estimate of 605 parking spaces. Together, the hotel guest rooms and banquet facilities would be anticipated to have a combined parking demand of 801 spaces; allocated as 605 spaces for the banquet facility and 196 spaces for the hotel guest rooms. However, this assumes that the peak time periods for parking demand for each use overlap. Shared Parking also forecasts peak parking demand by time period based on actual parking surveys of specific land uses. Table 5.11 -7 summarizes parking demand for the Hyatt Newport hotel on an hourly basis for a typical weekday. e Gerald Salzman, "Hotel Parking: How Much is Enough ?" Urban Land, January 1988. Page 3 -4 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 J 1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.11 -7 H att Regency Hotel Ott- Street Parkin I uemanor rorecasr Time Period Hotel Guest Room Demand Banquel/Meeling Facility Demand with Noncaplive Adjustment 90% Total Demand Available Parking 8 AM 176 304-302 480 478 305 307 9 AM 157 608 605 7-65762 2023 10 AM 137 W685 745 742 4943 11 AM 137 608605 746 742 4943 12 PM 127 608 605 735 732 6053 1 PM 127 608 605 7-35732 6053 2 PM 137 608 605 745 742 4043 3 PM 137 608 605 745 742 4043 4 PM 147 608 605 755 752 3033 5 PM 157 608 605 765 762 2923 6 PM 167 304 302 471 469 314 316 7 PM 167 182181 349 348 436 437 8 PM 176 182181 389 357 426 428 9 PM 186 6160 247 246 638 539 10 PM 186 0 186 599 11 PM 196 0 196 589 Based on these forecast parking demand rates, at no time would the Hyatt Regency exceed the current project development plan for 785 parking spaces for use by the hotel guest rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities. Additional analysis of the timeshare parking facilities is also necessary, because 140 parking spaces for 1 the timeshare units and clubhouse area would be required per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. As shown in the Table 5.11 -6, 127 parking spaces would be reserved for the exclusive use of the timeshare units and clubhouse. Passible timeshare overflow parking demand could be accommodated 1 in the general hotel parking. Hourly parking demand forecasts from Shared Parking were used to estimate the peak parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated clubhouse facility. The results of this forecast are summarized in Table 5.11 -8. 11 1 fl �1 1 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb • Page 3 -5 po 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.11 -8 Hvatt Reaencv Timeshare Off- Street Parking Demand Forecast Time Period Timeshare Unit Demand Clubhouse/Lounge Demand Total Demand Available Parking 8:00 AM 95 10 48§105 2122 9:00 AM 85 3 88 39 10:00 AM 74 3 7477 49-50 11:00 AM 74 2 76 51 12:00 PM 69 34 103 24 1:00 PM 69 34 103 24 2:00 PM 74 11 85 42 3:00 PM 74 3 7877 49-50 4:00 PM 80 3 83 44 5:00 PM 85 10 95 32 6:00 PM 90 19 109 18 7:00 PM 90 20 !10 17 8:00 PM 95 24 119 8 9:00 PM 101 23 423124 43 10:00 PM 101 20 121 6 Table 5.11 -8 shows that the anticipated parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated clubhouse facility would not exceed the exclusive parking designated for the timeshare facilities. Additionally, overflow - parking demand from the timeshare units and facilities could be accommodated in the general hotel parking facilities. Table 5.11 -9 summarizes parking demand for the overall Hyatt Regency hotel expansion uses. Table 5.11 -9 A arr negency rordl Vrr -career ParKmi ir uemana rorecasr Time Period Hotel Demand Timeshare Demand Total Demand Available Parking 8:00 AM 480 478 106 585 584 326 328 9:00 AM 7%762 88 833 850 W62 10:00 AM 7-46742 78 823 820 8992 11:00 AM 7-46742 76 821818 9194 12:00 PM 735 732 103 838 835, 7477 1:00 PM 735 732 103 838 835 7-477 2:00 PM 745 742 85 833 827 8185 3:00 PM 745 742 78 823 820 9992 4:00 PM 7-66752 i 83 838 835 .7477 5:00 PM 765 762 95 860 857 5255 6:00 PM 474 469 109 579 578 333 334 7:00 PM 349 348 111 469 459 453 8:00 PM 359 357 119 478 477 434 435 9:00 PM 247 246 123 378 369 542 543 10:00 PM 186 121 307 1 605 Based on the forecast parking demand summarized in Table 5.11 -9, the proposed project would provide sufficient parking facilities to meet parking demand generated by the hotel and timeshare facilities. However, without an approved valet parking plan, parking could be a significant impact. Page 3 -6 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 ' 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ' 3.3 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR. ' Pages 1 -7 to 1 -23. Table 1 -1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation This Table has been reproduced in its entirety as Appendix A to ' this FOR for reference due to missed pages in some copies of the DEIR. ' Page 2 -2. Section 2.3.2, Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts. The text has been revised in response to Comment 01 -3 from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. Few Five environmental impact categories are identified here as not being significantly affected by, or affecting the proposed project and as such are not discussed in detail in this DEIR. This determination was made by the City of Newport Beach in its preparation of the Initial Study. The following topical issues are not addressed in the DEIR: • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing ' Recreation �^ • Utilities and Service Systems Thirteen Eleven environmental factors have been identified as potentially significant impacts if the proposed project is implemented. These factors are: • Aesthetics Agri . It -..l Rene - ^^ ' Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality ' Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services ' Transportation and Traffic Utilities and 6erviee-Systems ' Page 3-15. Figure 3 -6, Site Sections. This figure has been modified to enlarge the text description of the heights of the buildings for individual Site Sections in response to comment RII -23 from Sandra Genis. Please see revised Figure 14. 1 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Finat EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -7 3• Revisions to the Draft EIR , Page 3-21, Section 3, Project Descriotion, The text has been revised in response to Comment 01 -9 ' from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. Pursuant to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (10.28.040), construction hours would be limited to ' between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction would not occur on Sundays. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when , the maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. BeeauseirflioFevements le the sewer and steft�n dFain hifilitmes within the jamberee Read Fight Of way weUld Heeessitate elesu up 40 N-00 sel,lt�`-eand tFavel lanes, eenstFuction activities asseeiated with these imisFevements weuld Page 5.1 -35, Section 5.1. Aesthetics. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions, Condition 3. The ' text has been revised in response to Comment 01 -8 from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. Standard Lighting Condition 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. The plan shall show that lighting values would be 1 foot - candle or less at all property lines. Page 5.2 -18. Section 5.2, Air Quality, Table 5.2 -9. Footnote 2 has been corrected in response to Comment 01 -13 from the Environmental Qualify Affairs Committee. Table 5.2 -9 Project- Related Construction Phase Emissions (in pounds per day) Construction Phase' CO NO,r ROG S02 PNin PM2.5 1 CO23 Demolition 23 42 5 <1 11 4 4,383 Site Grading 39 76 9 <1 17 7 7,701 Building Construction 46 65 22 <1 5 5 7,151 SCAOMD Standard 550 100 75 150 150 55 NA Significant? No No No No No No NA Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. 1 Construction equipment m& based on preliminary construction information from the project engineer. 2 Fugulve dust emissions assume one- quarter of the approximately 14 acres site would be graded at any one time. Fugitive dust emissions assume implementation of SCAOMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, including: watering disturbed soils a minimum of two times daily, reestablishing disturbed groundcover as quickly as possible, reducing speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour, and securing haul loads (covering with tarp or leaving a minimum of 24 6 inches of freeboard). 3 CO2emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAr1MD or GARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this air pollutant. Page 3 -8 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 3• Revisions to the Draft EIR Pare 5.3.20, Section 5.3. Biological Resources, Impact 5.3 -1. This impact has been refined to more accurately represent the revised Site Plan in Figure 9 in response to comment 042 from Robert Hamilton, as addressed to SPON. As detailed in Section 5.3.1, Environmental Setting, the coastal sage scrub habitat adjacent to the project site is assumed ESHA. In addition to the policies reviewed in that section to determine ESHA, Chapter 4, Coastal Resource Protection, of the Coastal Land Use Plan includes the following policies to protect ESHAs: 4.11.-3 Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in ESHA. 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. 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. 4.1.1. -10 Require buffer areas of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect. Terrestrial ESHA shall have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet wherever possible. Smaller ESHA buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 50- foot -wide buffer is not possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the ESHA given the site- specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and sensitivity of disturbance. 4.1.1:11 Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion. 4.1.1:12 Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas. 4.1.1. -13 Shield and direct exterior lighting away from ESHAs to minimize impacts to wildlife. 4.2.2:3 Require buffer areas around wetlands to be of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shalt have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller buffer widths may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 foot buffer is not possible due to site constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource, and of the type and intensity of disturbance. The project design would result in complete avoidance of off -site CSS. As shown on Figure 5.3 -4, 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 areas and off -site CSS and a 100 -foot buffer between development and the wetland located north of the site, to assure full compliance with the City's Coastal Land Use Policies. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -9 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.3 -21, Figure 5.3-4. Vegetation & Fuel Modification. This figure has been modified to enlarge the text description of the Fuel Modification Zones in response to Comment 01 -17 from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and to add the Hyatt Regency property boundary in Response to comment R11 -9 from Sandra Genis. Please see revised Figure 2. Page 5.3 -23, Impact 5.34. This impact has been refined to more accurately represent potential impacts to foraging habitat in response to comment R11 -32 (12) from Sandra Genis. Impact 5.3 -4. Project development would not adversely seu impact migratory birds and raptor foraging habitat. [Threshold B -21 The Hyatt Regency golf course property currently contains ornamental trees and shrubs that have the potential to support nesting birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The property is an open golf course adjacent to open space that supports, at best, moderate - quality foraging habitat for common raptor species. Impacts to potential foraging area would not be considered significant. In the postproject condition, there would actually be an increase in forage as currently much of the Special Treatment Area consists of golf course turf, bare areas, or weedy species. The native plantings to be installed in the Special Treatment Zone would actually increase the foraging potential for a variety of species. Page 5.3 -25, Section 5.3. Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure 3 2. The text has been revised in response to Comment R -11 from Sandra Genis. 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels and the birds appe -' be �� str esse(* noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to) construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. Page 5.5 -14, Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, Mitigation Measure 5-3. The text has been revised in response to Comment R -3 through R -5 from Delores Qtting. 5 -3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed design- engineering -level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and to provide site - specific recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level report shall include and address each of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared by Kleinfelder and included as DEIR Appendix F ( Kleinfelder, November 29, 2004, Project No. 61618). The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough Page 3 -10 a The Planning Center February 2009 ' 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. Page 5 -5-14 through 5.5 -16, Section 5.6. Hazards and Hazardous Material, Mitigation Measure 6-1. The text has been revised to reflect current changes. 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 the following specific provisions: Water Supply and Fire Flow Fire hydrants and fire flow capacity shall be approved by the fire Chief. A reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, may be allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Fire Access • New driveway entrance areas shall be designed to City requirements with all- weather driving surface of A.C. paving over approved base and a capacity rating of at least 75,000 pounds, to accommodate fire apparatus. Approach /departure angles associated with development �^ driveways shall not exceed 3 degrees. 0412 • The minimum width of fire lanes shall be 26 feet. �'�„j • There are no planned traffic calming devices • Adequate fire apparatus turnarounds shall be provided and approved by the NBFD (current plans include a minimum 28 -foot turning radius adjacent to Building TS -7 and another turnaround located adjacent to Building TS -4 /Clubhouse). • Unobstructed firefighter access to.all portions of the buildings via walkways, driveways, or trails shall be provided. A minimum of 3 feet for firefighter access shall be maintained along both sides of all structures adjacent to fuel modification zones. • Roads and access components (gates, sign, etc.) shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Building Fire and Ignition Resistance • The project shall include ignition - resistant construction features consistent with current fire ' and building codes for the proposed structures exposed to wildland vegetation (buildings TS -1, TS -2, TS -3, and TS -4). Enhanced structural requirements shall be provided for the following as detailed in the FPP: roofing, fire - resistive walls, eaves protection, venting, glazing, skylights, insulation, gutters and downspots, appendages and projections, spark arrestors, exterior doors, and detached accessory structures. ' Fire Protection Systems ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -11 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National Fire Protection Association sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Defensible Space The Fuel Modification Plan (see details, Section 3.4.3 of this Draft EIR and the FPP, Appendix H) shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the NBFD. The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD. Brush removal must be completed prior to commencing any flammable construction, and final inspection and approval must be obtained prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures adjacent to the fuel modification area. Fuel Modification Zones shall be subject to an annual inspection conducted by a representative of the City in order to assure that zones are maintained in compliance with the applicable fuel modification requirements. The property owner shall maintain defensible space in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan as approved. Vegetation Management The fuel modification area along the northern boundary of the project lies partially on the Hyatt Regency property, PaFtially eFI PFOpe owned by the City of Newport Beach; and-�aHiaHy en • The proposed landscape plan /fuel modification zone plant palette shall be reviewed and approved by the NBFD. Landscape plans shall comply with all landscaping requirements. • Defensible space vegetation management responsibility is assigned to persons /company(ies) owning buildings or structures on this property. • Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of the defensible space shall include modifying or removing nonfire- resistive vegetation and keeping leaves, needles, and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from roofs of buildings and structures. • Maintenance and funding for vegetation management shall be required and enforced by deed encumbrances, which are attached to the property. Such deed encumbrances shall be reviewed and approved by NBFD Chief. • An agreement with the neighboring property owners (as described above), to be conveyed with deed, for permanent maintenance of landscape area that also serves as extended fuel modification area for Hyatt property. • Vegetation management shall be completed prior to the start of and continue throughout the construction phase. Prior to site demolition, adequate fuel breaks shall be constructed between demolition areas and existing flammable vegetation. • Vegetation maintenance includes ensuring operation of irrigation systems. • Vegetation maintenance is required following wind and rain storms to remove combustible plant - related debris from fuel modification zones. Page 3 -I2 • The Planning Center February 2009 ' 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR • Caution must be exercised on steep slopes to minimize erosion with the removal of vegetation and the addition of irrigation. Page 5.7-26, Section 5.7. Hydrology and Water Quality Table 5.7-3, Construction BMPs. The list of proposed BMP Descriptions has been revised in response to Comment 01 -29. From the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, to eliminate polyacrylamide as a potential BMP for erosion control. Table 5.7 -3 Construction BMPs BMP Category BMP Description EC -1 Scheduling EC -8 Wood Mulching EC -2 Preservation of Existing Vegetation EC -9 Earth Dikes and Swales EC -3 Hydraulic Mulch EC -10 Velocity Dissipation Devices Erosion Controls EC -4 Hydroseeding EC -11 Slope Drains EC -5 Soil Binders EC -12 Streambank Stabilization EC -6 Straw Mulch ES 133 Peirro:r'amf.id2 EC -7 Geotextiles and Mats SE -1 Sift Fence SE -7 Street Sweeping SE -2 Desilting Basin SE -8 Sandbag Barrier SE -3 Sediment Trap SE -9 Straw Bale Barrier Sediment Controls SEA Check Dam SE -10 Chemical Treatment 5E -5 Fiber Rolls 5E -11 Chemical Treatment SE -6 Gravel Baq Berm Wind Erosion Controls WE -1 Wind Erosion Control TC -1 Stabilized Construction Entrance / Exit Tracking Controls TC -2 Stabilized Construction Roadway TC -3 Entrance /Out et Tire Wash NS -1 Water Conservation Practices NS -9 Vehicle & Equipment Fueling NS -2 Dewatering Operations NS -10 Vehicle & Equipment Mainten. NS -3 Paving and Grinding Operations NS -11 Pile Driving Operations Non- Stormwater Management NS -4 Temporary Stream Crossing NS -12 Concrete Curing Controls NS -5 Clear Water Diversion NS -13 Concrete Finishing NS -6 IC /ID Detection and Reporting NS -14 Material Use Over Water NS -7 Potable Water / Irrigation NS -15 Dem0lition Over Water NS -8 Vehicle & Equipment Cleaning_ NS -16 Temporary Batch Plants WM -1 Material Delivery & Storage WM -6 Hazardous Waste WM -2 Material Use WM -7 Contaminated Soil Waster Management and Controls WM -3 Stockpile Management WM -8 Concrete Waste (i.e., good housekeeping practices) WM -4 Spill Prevention and Control WM -9 Sanitary/ Septic Waste WM -5 Solid Waste Management Source: Mscoe Engineering Water UaNityReport Ryan Regency Newport ueacn, ,unary tuur. Page 5.8-21 and 5.8.22, land Use, Impact 5.8-1, Table 5.8-1. This Table reflects the relocation of Building No. TS -1 in the revised site plan /grading plan in Figure 9. This is in response to comment 04-2 from Robert Hamilton, as addressed to SPON. ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -13 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -14 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR and S 6,3 New Development Design (page 11 -27). Site and design new As a part of the proposed project, the project applicant's biological consultant prepared a fire protection plan (see development to avoid the need to extend fuel modification zones into DER, Appendix D ). As outlined in the fire protection plan and as discussed in Impact 5.3 -1, the proposed project sensitive habitats. and related fuel modification would not remove any CSS, which is considered an ESHA, and would comply with the City's Coastal Act policies set forth to protect ESHAs. The project design would result in complete avoidance of off - site CSS. As shown on Figure 5.3 -4, Vegetation and fuel Modification, neither grading nor fuel modification activities would remove any CSS. In addition, project design includes a minimum 50 -foot buffer between developed areas and off -site CSS to assure full compliance with the City's Coastal Land Use Policies. S 6.4 Use of City- Approved Plant List (page 11 -27). Use fire - resistive, As outlined in the fire protection plan (see Appendix D of this DER), fuel modification zones were created to native plant species from the City- approved plant list in fuel modification provide a means for the installation and maintenance of landscaping along the projects northern boundary, which zones abutting sensitive habitats. abuts CSS and other sensitive habitats(see Appendix C, Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan, of the Fire Protection Plan). The Special Treatment Zone for example would include the following provisions: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR Page 3 -15 • City of Newport Beach • Allow 50 feet of fuel modification adjacent to the sensitive CSS habitat immediately north of the project site. Maintained, Irrigated landscaping is limited to ground cover material chosen from the approved Newport Beach Fire Department fire- resistive plant list. Ground cover is to be irrigated and maintained at a height of 8 inches or less and free of dead plant material. and Fnalpta nod at a he ght a! 8 FiGhiii; oF 19%. Plant MaW a' Shall be iFligaied to FRaintaiR adequate #ueF+noisidres Fuel Modification Zones A to D would include requirements such as: • Irrigated ground cover selected from the fire - resistive plant list shall be maintained at a height not to exceed 8 inches. • Shrubs or trees proposed for planting in this zone shall be in accordance with planting guidelines and spacing standards established in the NBFD Fuel Modification Standards. All combustible plant species shall be removed and the area shall be maintained free of dead and dying plant material • Maintenance shall include ongoing removal and /or thinning of undesirable combustible vegetation, replacement of dead /dying fire - resistant plantings, maintenance of the operations integrity, and programming of the irrigation system, and regular trimming to prevent ladder fuels. • Nonnative trees shall be treated to remove dead and dying limbs and trees and to create vertical separation of tree canopies from understory fuels. The Planning Center February 2009 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR Page 3 -16 • City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2009 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 5.11 -22, 23, Section 5.11, Transportation/Traffic, Tables 5.11 -7, 5.11 -8 and 5.11 -9. Corrections to these tables were required per Comment 01 -41. The referenced tables were updated and corrected in conjunction with the refined parking analysis conducted to address minor discrepancies in the net square footage for proposed ballroom and meeting space. Please refer to Section 3.2, DElR Updates and Clarification for updated tables and discussion. 5.11 -7 n rr rmtegency norer un- arreer rarKin 1 memana rorecasr Time Period Hotel Guest Room Demand Banquet /meeting Facility Demand with Non - Captive Adjustment 90% Total Demand Available Parkin 8 AM 176 304302 480 478 306 307 9 AM 157 608 605 7,615762 20 23 10 AM 137 608 605 7-45742 4043 11 AM 137 608605 745 742 40 43 12 PM 127 608 605 735 732 6053 1 PM 127 608 605 735 732 &9 53 2 PM 137 608 605 745 742 4043 3 PM 137 608 605 7-45742 40 43 4 PM 147 608 605 7-%752 3033 5 PM 157 608 605 765 762 2-023 6 PM 167 904 302 473 469 314 316 7 PM 167 382181 349 348 436 437 8 PM 176 382181 359 357 426 428 9 PM 186 6460 247 246 638 539 10 PM 186 0 1 186 599 11 PM 196 1 0 1 196 589. Hyatt Regency Newport Reach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -17 IQV 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.11 -8 Hvatt Reaencv Timeshare Off- Street Parkins Demand Forecast Time Period Timeshare Unit Demand Clubhouse /Lounge Demand Total Demand Available Parking 8:00 AM 95 10 4W105 2422 9:00 AM 85 3 88 39 10:00 AM 74 3 7877 4950 11:00 AM 74 2 76 51 12:00 PM 69 34 103 24 1:00 PM 69 34 103 24 2:00 PM 74 11 85 42 3:00 PM 74 3 7477 49-50 4:00 PM 80 3 83 44 5:00 PM 85 10 95 32 6:00 PM 90 19 109 18 7:00 PM 90 20 110 17 8:00 PM 95 24 119 8 9:00 PM 101 23 423124 43 10:00 PM 101 20 121 6 Table 5.11 -9 n aer ere enc a orar uTT- srreer i-aricm uemana e•orecasr Time Period Hotel Demand Timeshare Demand Total Demand Available Parkin 8:00 AM 480 478 105 586 584 326 328 9:00 AM 765 762 88 853 850 5952 10:00 AM 7-45742 78 823 820 8992 11:00 AM 745 742 76 821818 9194 12:00 PM 735 732 103 838 835 7-477 1:00 PM 735 732 103 838 835 7-477 2:00 PM 745 742 85 834 827 8485 3:00 PM 745 742 78 823 820 8992 4:OO PM 755 752 83 838 835 7-477 5:00 PM 765 762 95 860 857 6255 6:00 PM 474 459 109 579 578 333 334 7:00 PM 349 348 111 460 459 453 8:00 PM 359 357 119 478 476 434 436 9:00 PM 247 246 123 379 369 542 543 10:00 PM 186 121 307 605 Page 3 -18 •The Planning Center February 2009 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page 30, Appendix A. Initial Study. The checkbox for question XV1. b) Utilities and Service Systems, has been corrected in response to Comment 01-3, from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. 3.4 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES As referenced throughout this Final EIR, the report figures that follow are revisions of figures that already appear in the DEIR (as indicated) or new figures provided for clarification to respond to comments. Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Final EIR City ojcNewport Beach • Page 3-19 town% W-IM" X a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, X X the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? 3.4 REVISED AND NEW FIGURES As referenced throughout this Final EIR, the report figures that follow are revisions of figures that already appear in the DEIR (as indicated) or new figures provided for clarification to respond to comments. Hyatt Regency Newport Beath Expansion Final EIR City ojcNewport Beach • Page 3-19 town% W-IM" 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -20 • The Planning Center February 2009 y z O. UPPER 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Imaginary Surface Analysis South End of John Wayne Airport Runway - 56.1 feet AMSL Approximate Distance - 18,170 linear feet (100:1) - 100 linear feet for every 1 foot rise in elevation i Highest Structure II Ridge Height - 102.33 feet AMSL .� JWA Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surface - 237.8 feet AMSL P Project Site Source: City of Newport Beach Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR 0 =3.300 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -22 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 wti L� ca V �a c� Q Jam Noc �� f. m R. yPr 0, 1 y , . m P` k. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -24 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 FUEL MODIFICATION PLANT PALETTE '.; ntA PI,wI GPECIES VNLESSOTHERVfiSE RETIED ARE SELECTED ZONE A. II FROMTIf N9fp APP0.0VEp l'IAIJT PALETIEMIDBPEGFlED lT1Ep. roOS llL FORAMROPRIgTf.F1?1 AIpIXEIfgTION pNES. 4y� /��r`j�/ D IFlOUM' N.C.N. UN DCOVER -ATP' F�tr � AOACIAREDLET$ DESERT CARPET ROSMAI1NUTS OFFICINALIS ROSEMARY SHRUB SHRUB MELALEUCANESOPHIUA SHOWEY HONEY MYRTLE 24' BOX L }.r STRAWBERRY TREE LANTANA MONTEVIDEN545 TWULINO LAMANA TRACHELCSPERMUM SHRUB mrx4 1. 'v JASMINUIOES STARJANMINE AEONIUMSPECIES AEONIUM CARISSAMACROCPHPA NA(MPLUM SHRUB OC. GCJSHRUB N N \l k MEfROSIDEROS EXCELSUS ELACAGNUSPUNGENS SILVERBERRY SHRUB N TP\�� iq \' LIGUSTRUMJAPDMCUM TEXAS. PRIVET PRUNUS CAROLINIANA CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL SHRUB. SHRUWFRE6 N X L\ \ \i\'�\ a \ \�} PYRACATHA SPECIES FIREJHORN RHAPHIOUEPIS SPECIES INPONN HAWTHORNE SHRUB SHRUB 0 �V0 � SEOUMSPE6 ES WESTRINGIAFRUTICOSA N.0 N. i" OUERCUSAGRIFOLIA arG\:S e•.I b - BOX SHRUB ACCENT AGAVEATTENUATA, N.0 N . SUCCULENT SHRUBS STRELITZIANIOOLAI QIANTBIROOFPAOISE RA PBREA IM 24- BOX STRELII LAREGINAE BIRD OF PAAAENSE PERENNIAL MUSCAT ZOIJE'I NOTES PLR NBI C I :GAEL MQGHCANGN SIANOA IM5 N Wr,A m'.wMU 00m4 nw. CORAL TREE 24•BOX ilRr[xt. �wrts Nora NwrvY w.v mrt "v4. wiry+ ixP Mi�u`c.IYA +p:BNUlsn: ED9miAwI�EFF ?'_H` Iwnall[OgvT.gry tp.0 WYRm iOMtEmEUwv yy0[ 6,ouzFnu:1[0vuamlN�.tuumiHAtiq. nY, z0l6S mviGW m e:r MsY¢[: AFRICAN SUMAC 24- BOX SPECIAL TREATMENT ZONE SRAHEAARMATA MEXICAN BLUE PALM 8.19RTH, N M,1,I BRAHEA EDULIS DUDLEYAUJ4CEOLATA UWCELEAVEDOUDLEYA SUkCULENT/PERENNIA N MIMULUS AT RANTACUS STICKY-LEAVED MONKEY FLOWER NASELLALEPIDA" SURSHHUB QUEEN PALM' V,ryw FOOTHILL NEEDLEGRASS NASELLAtPLHCf RA" PURPLE NEEDLEGRASS GRASSIGL GRASS IGG, TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNE[ WINDMILL PALM' OPUNTIA LITTORAI IS COAS T PRICKLY PCNI CFCLII9HRUB w_MiIF S M a+ - -W,-MT OMNTIAPROLIFERA C00.STM CHOLLA CACTI SHRUB SISYRINCHIUM BPLLLM BLUEEYED.GRASS GRABS /GC. SPECAL DUAINEIN FU ENOTES. fWM Y W+Fl owm � m - .:. nmrae�r�Mas. M4mMro a ruD..m�ti.•mxmrPn.ra ..wa SCESTEEI ZONE 8- - EXISTING MAINTENANCE EASEMENT. DISTURBED LANDSCAPE DUE AI CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED WITRVEGETFTION FROM THE NBFD APPROVED FIRE RESISTIVE PLANT LIST. NOT TO EXCEED -• JBAIGN, TNIS ZONE SJiALL BE IRRIGATED TO SUPPLEMENT NATIVE VEGGIATOW. ZONEC- NO PRO WSEOILANDSCAPING THIS AREA. REFER TO CONCEPT FUEL MODIFICATION PIgN.FOR MORE INFORMATION. xOTE: ELECTED '.; ntA PI,wI GPECIES VNLESSOTHERVfiSE RETIED ARE SELECTED v �1 II FROMTIf N9fp APP0.0VEp l'IAIJT PALETIEMIDBPEGFlED 1!�} FORAMROPRIgTf.F1?1 AIpIXEIfgTION pNES. 4y� . 1Nt�lr1 Source: Lilescapes Intemational; Inc. 2008 Hyalt Regeng Newport Bead; Expansion Final EIR 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Vegetation and Fuel Modification -Plant Palette Detail FUEL MODIFICATION TREE PALETTE v �1 II 20N A- ' J 4y� GIDeiO: -ATP' F�tr Nrt "�tl t. r / / Fc'n ly.151 �./✓� �4, 4 ... ,tinC r�.�i WaT3.YCl MELALEUCANESOPHIUA SHOWEY HONEY MYRTLE 24' BOX ARBUNB MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24'6OX mrx4 MAYIENUSUGARIA MAVTEN TREE 24 Box MEfROSIDEROS EXCELSUS NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMASTREE 2, BOX N POPW.US FREM0NT11 FREMONTCOTTONTWX20 24'80% PLA=LTS RACEMOSA CALIFORMASYCAMURE N_ BOX i" OUERCUSAGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK b - BOX PITTOSPORUM UNDULAMM VICTORIAN BOX 24 -BOX .� CERATONIA9LI0UA CAROB 24- BOX EMOBOTRYAJAPONILA MUSCAT 24' BOX N Wr,A ERYTHRINASPECIES CORAL TREE 24•BOX RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 24- BOX SRAHEAARMATA MEXICAN BLUE PALM 8.19RTH, N M,1,I BRAHEA EDULIS GUAOALUPEPALM SgUYB.T.H. N SYAGRUSROMANZOFFANUM QUEEN PALM' TB'25'B,T,H. TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNE[ WINDMILL PALM' LRY B.TH. w_MiIF S M a+ - -W,-MT mm� u Tawry ws �tmulc� inwwiv R.rwiu IRRIGATION NOTE ZONF'A•.ALL JANDSCAPEO AREAS WITHIN ACHE A WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AMOMA1IC IRPJGXTON SYSTEM i0 MAINTAIN HEALTHY VEGETATION WITH HIGH MOISTURE CON ENT THEAUTOANTICTRAGATI0.4 9v5TEM 91NLL BE 1H5iNlE0 LSwD STAND -N, IDECONTOMLERS. IRRIGATIONE KEPMEMSNAI.LPE COAIPAT EZONES FROMT THESE THEREBY CREATING RSAtMEONITHIOZO SJMUSS IRRIGATED YMAI.SIMTREEBlHll ESREC TINGSEPAMTEIryDRD)OUEG,AL TIROL O ES.G \TILL BE SUPPLIEDDEN COSUC WATERIUNLEB IAWVALIEDWATER ASSEMBLIES INALLfANNSM.VALVES,ATE BOXES,. ER LOUWNGVIJ.VEUNDCORT IS THIRDUCED I EBTHE!LNDSCLLE. BEP STAGALVE BOXES. USED RATTEGRA. GROUND IALVI I10 PROVEN. OIWHEAD DRAINAGE ROUND CO ERARAS WILL BE DSEO W I) ISIIFGMLGNECK VALVE STOPREVENT LOW HEAD SEMA TATTED CWEE DIED WILL BE OESIGNDIEM THE COHIRUMERONCLOiUR WILL ONSWi BEA ADRAINED LOCATION IN TAI OF PEW[ TREES TtlECONLRl1LLER ENCL0.5UPE5 WILL BELOCLaEOw AB pAIEGC LOCALIOx IN THE NNGSLAPEN9RTSF.LOI'$MOAROS NMQRMNIUWSAS ML'RRIGAAJO.VEN GN,PUILLO.VPLYWIIN L TY OF NEWPORT BFACII BTPXGAPOS ANryOR AIJYNNSDICRONAL WAT Ci(AGFIJOES. �I v �1 II dl� \T ' J 4y� �{ -ATP' F�tr L "�tl t. r / / Fc'n ly.151 �./✓� �4, 4 ... ,tinC r�.�i WaT3.YCl q� /�'�/ ��J ♦� ANON 1) r I 1` k r, t A; N` e I Y y w 'I< M� I \ 1 � ,2• }' T �T A \f R 4-147 ®O Scale (Feet) The Pkrrniing Center- • Figure 2a v �1 II dl� \T ' J -u+, _\ l �{ ®O Scale (Feet) The Pkrrniing Center- • Figure 2a 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 11 i 1 i Page 3 -26 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 3. Revisions to the Draft RIR 1 Lighting Plan LUMINAIRF SCHEDULE SYMBOL hTY L14BLE (LAMPS PER FIXTURE LUMENS LLF 7E) ' 88 _ DMl 1 SINGLE 11000 0.720 •f ,I -0 37 BM2' SINGLE 12500 0.720 - =o 4 1 BM2c SINGLE 16000 0.800 NUMERIC SUMMARY __ _ - ,� &��4�,•�''� a LABLE f.A1.0 TYPE UNITS AVG .MAX ht(N AiV GlMiN MAX /MIN _.� ``., �•e \ siteStructure ferrate lllunina�u'e c 1.01 6.2 02 5,05 _ 158.u0"— Side lightin Iltuninance Fc 101 11:7 02 _ v Wi +4ai b) l 9'Y` rJ nfp Y Y f 1 {N aly, � s °�ui _.w -� a u� { t uz Fw a 3 V�u J C4 -V a F y II � If4W 3 U I Source: Lee .& Sakahara Architects 2008 yII 01 , T 1 YO F .I✓ , eJ} 16 Y f� i �� t f 1 rxr,�w "a .sar 6v r 1 If �{NY �6N l Y R W IWI ll�f . .1 Q 4 1 N �i I I x +I Y (H i t a IY1LJ1'I l il✓ry y F Im i , ttt � - lll4 !xN C4 -V a F y II � If4W 3 U I Source: Lee .& Sakahara Architects 2008 rjY1W , k' ArNI: tM h -: wF � F El JAMBOREE t A� • � .. (aW+a ut"iv �'1r}t °�' Itift f v i SY> , ae:_ C lit t f �Y ttkMt. - b z f _ 1 'PdV I I I I I a - ROAD - - - - - - - - - o� a Scale (Feet) 11jat7 Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EiR The Planning Center • Figure 3 yII 01 , T T 11 Y YO F 1 p'y F Y F q � F El JAMBOREE t A� • � .. (aW+a ut"iv �'1r}t °�' Itift f v i SY> , ae:_ C lit t f �Y ttkMt. - b z f _ 1 'PdV I I I I I a - ROAD - - - - - - - - - o� a Scale (Feet) 11jat7 Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EiR The Planning Center • Figure 3 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -28 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects 2008 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Parking Structure Elevations II•AAa9GIMPikl _ _ _PRR Ml LINE qMR FILMR IEL •JS6uasL) 4 4 LOWER FLOOR LEVEL IEL.2JOMISL) PMMPE] LINE UPPER FLOOR LEVEL L IFL •�OM16y LOWER FLOOR LEVEL Ip. •]] 6 NA6q LA51 LLLVAIIUN { Y qu r ' } .' I J' � -�• _ . 10 - PA PET LINE L UPPERFLOOR LEVEL II NORTH ELEVATION LOWER FLOOR LEAL o 30 -- (EL .23.0 MISL) - Scale (Feet) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final E[R The Planning Center • Figure 4 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -30 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 POINT "C' (PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 4) ALTERNATE FOR CONSTRUCTION 01 POINT "B" (EXISTING DRIVEWAY) FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BALLROOM AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BALLROOM AND LOWER PARKING FIELD CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC FLOW FOR INGRESSIEGRESS Source: Fuscoe 2008 r r t� t 1 J � l J e POINT "A" (EXISTING EMERGENCY ACCESS) FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MAINTENAN BUILDING AND ADJACENT STRUCTUR CONSTRUCTION OF TJMESHARES;i� lid e+ 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Construction Traffic Access 6 so Scale (Feet) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final E!R The Planning Center • Figure 5 %i 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ' This page intentionally left blank. ' I L� [1 1 Page 3 -32 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 DRY WEATHER LOW FLOW DIVERSION (AUTOMATED( i Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR i 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Proposed Storm Water BMPs 0 150 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 6 Uri LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING LOW FLOW PIPE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED LOW FLOW DIVERSION PIPE ............ DRAINAGE BOUNDARY FLOW DIRECTION TRASH SCREEN 0 LOW FLOW DIVERSION ❑ FILTERRA 0 STORM FILTER C SAND FILTER PERVIOUS PAVEMENT BIORETENTION 0 150 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 6 Uri 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 1 Ms page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -34 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 M® M M M M M M s M M ■■ M M M® M M M .�sra — mT'Cx. uuoe " 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Ballroom Elevations y— sxcxmawow:rwmaces .. .. SOUTH ELEVATION Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR -11 —' 0�'xVW�WLY P-.�„ WEST ELEVATION wcuq>Exwoxrwxvo [ s amt. - PPOIO.[�OPq¢ �S Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 7 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -36 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 d I I VALET 1 T PAI1gNG I MKI Tf NSiDAPPMWEp FPEITF551M 1NF£F0RIYEL .. FUEL AMA ' EDEWRWTKM A qpE AGGEGS NpN BAdt BAY ErG�B�WAiA�0..OM - �N �'EMOLISNE➢ - - - tic � VAI • AY POOL B PARANG r pECIT 1UTHEATE. REFINE �F 'xW PGQL9OE GBANPS. � NEW POOL � M1INf� POOL DECK ACCESS fNOM aI EXISTING 5 HOTEL I VAET OISPwY LPONTE CACHEFE %STING TREE AND PALM LEGEND EXOTMG PAUUmRauNpw PUCE — ' Ex151wG TNEES IOKMNx MPLpCE' ..x:u ­L 1- 1. K Mu•a n i r1ELOGTE0PALW _ ® Bp,O(ATFDTRCCe Rom 1pFE LIX�Al1GN9 ME/3WL01LILUlE IRN'PSTp1Y TpE£ §M!1 PµW Npi MRWEO MMAY MI0PO9EG PI3M 114 NPPEN dY. eweA T 1 f» ®ILa .FtGx 4uE PUM f� 6P.W ANF rFpMA PNv AA.NIFAED.1.g AURA �TATA 1/.E wY• MAn..uu wnmxxrnA OI/IL.�S N.PMtN NESITGRRA NFAV PYy E N�� COLCMIfd. @MIWII yPt Pµu x�w.sEa�'.ELU srwlxx LUws XEN,WAAIN IAPYPAIN w Evl9s`n� xo�i i�ixexrPNA. MppOSE�MCENI SPECIMENS ._ NWSwG /.GwrWlNirM1LLW' 14FIxne• ALOE pICEP xCE MW,W rIFM' PLPagy{pq,'mFF' G,ryBS£CFP � CI,PU$ WIAOM PAW slsLnaAxAVrA, 0IWh11PH suxr.9saPAPAMaE E� PIroPOSEOMrnvEMrLO ACCENT TNfEs xflxx,MC ¢,• iAf.NNMLwrLq¢M ,� xG.L x0NAEU,FIW lB7wn,A LNAtnENAEaxrt COSTING MA mnrF uxwwwTA AFnr.W,uvTI6F T.,owPt I�N,IAPxET TrR M+WOSE0 CA `EVER EN TREIm CANON CIP, ARRMA Lx6 M1NIyQ Wi1W CPwNbxlbAgrMM GM9O1MAYlCks LOQLN U(KA PFELE9 IPxxp4N IIAGtlGM N� ou.x .ao..n. ,rnne:e.nw.n,uwa. wi.a EiKEMENI ggqxAPWpW' Lpd,L"L'E01R' ,RB,NAx LLMFATA yppxlePANA \YBO YM,9r "AM ALMpCwI®y _ p sMMSAIp LqY 671gMBWVEN IAMN NiFA AIMLIALBgSEfl T-7 I -1 .'.L•3 d I I VALET 1 T PAI1gNG I MKI Tf NSiDAPPMWEp FPEITF551M 1NF£F0RIYEL .. FUEL AMA ' EDEWRWTKM A qpE AGGEGS NpN BAdt BAY ErG�B�WAiA�0..OM - �N �'EMOLISNE➢ - - - tic � VAI • AY POOL B PARANG r pECIT 1UTHEATE. REFINE �F 'xW PGQL9OE GBANPS. � NEW POOL � M1INf� POOL DECK ACCESS fNOM aI EXISTING 5 HOTEL I VAET OISPwY LPONTE CACHEFE %STING �E rtW e�iyi.W,wm�y a� Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 'SEA ISUNO' RESIGENTNI ZING NN0FJ6TOBY PALMS EXUTNG HOTEL 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Landscape Plan LINE % NT LwE j' //� CITY IK NEWPOflT / � eEADH PflOPENTY i REFER TO FUEL TIONMANFOP EAQMEFAO WTONIN � THIB PAANING a� LOO d DL- BOX STAY TO POOL AREA TIMESHARE POL% XiSPA NEOflFArpNAL AREA 5GN6 TENfs�T.. . 1.,_il ADDITIONAL PINES \- EYJBTING TENNIS COURT on FOLU' CAHFUS RAI SCHFFrvING �E(ISNNG JOUN WAYNE / TEN" C 09 RRIVATEI 0 150 Scale (Feet) The Planning Genter • Figure 8 rxn:xn:exa OPEN PPHNING WING ..x:u ­L 1- 1. K Mu•a n i _ STRUCTURE LEVEL NPPEN NWSwG COSTING MA y CANON CIP, n wn ou.x .ao..n. ,rnne:e.nw.n,uwa. wi.a EiKEMENI SENEFc EE PAflgNG ENGINES EXISNNGM -AZA SA'LA0O M _ cwrxxwnwoewvw..uc nmr...rrwruu. PflCPEfliY IAIE - - '� ir'ma~wyrwu�o .riiw vwFio rum YU-A PoINi' prrn Wina�Ane�.�in r.uf,.u.m MSIIX.NTILL ��x; �M: Mxpxr,iW xw, µrwau.o rp..000 -� n' �E rtW e�iyi.W,wm�y a� Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 'SEA ISUNO' RESIGENTNI ZING NN0FJ6TOBY PALMS EXUTNG HOTEL 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Landscape Plan LINE % NT LwE j' //� CITY IK NEWPOflT / � eEADH PflOPENTY i REFER TO FUEL TIONMANFOP EAQMEFAO WTONIN � THIB PAANING a� LOO d DL- BOX STAY TO POOL AREA TIMESHARE POL% XiSPA NEOflFArpNAL AREA 5GN6 TENfs�T.. . 1.,_il ADDITIONAL PINES \- EYJBTING TENNIS COURT on FOLU' CAHFUS RAI SCHFFrvING �E(ISNNG JOUN WAYNE / TEN" C 09 RRIVATEI 0 150 Scale (Feet) The Planning Genter • Figure 8 I 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -38 a The Planning Center February 2009 1 I 1 Source: Fuscoe 2009 a � Ir y 8 QF-v{a5 I M o't� FGA. o� U Q m BACK BAY DRNF. fE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Hyatt Site " —� Rw 7 JAMBOREE ROAD rading Plan VIGMTY MM yr m zrx� L EGM " �v:nwb —3ft 1�.64eYE®[.11� e@1C/IMNiK w�v �ui�n o ✓!°rmm �w i i °`�w�a. att wpm: r°w'�w cww°q UTRM �. udwm°nna�� rt�in�nn�+o 0 150 Scale (Feet) ' Hyatt Regency Neuport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center • Figure 9 (Revised DEIR Figure 3 4) I 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ' This page intentionally left blank. t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 3 -40 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Back Bay pr JJi� m \l� (FF =28t) 1 a • I Nt . (FF =201) .. } Z.� � J// ✓ � � /Y i v �u i1�11111AI1ju�11�1��1��A1111p1i ���� '-� IIII�Ii�1111 Yllllll` � ---- ---------- --- __ -- �..- ����nY1ne11neminliunc9AS�ei% �� mboree Rd 14 Source: Fuscoe 2006 3. Revisions to the Drafi EIR Earthwork Cut /Fill Map LEGEND Range Range Beginning End Color -19.00 - 1 500 0 Cut AREA -15.00 -10.00 ■ -10.00 -5.00 ■ -5.00 0.00 a 0.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 t FR.i AREA T0.00 15.00 ■ 15.00 17.00 ■ CUT . 22.600 CY Flu. = 26AW CY IMPORT = 4,000 CY O JTIES NOT MJU5 FOR SNRINN MO SUBSIDENCE 145 Scale (Feet) Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center 0 Figure 10 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -42 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 A —BACK BAY VIEW PARK um. ,m IL con sPPCES I ¢DSO- BAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING VILLA POINT r Source: Lee & Sakahara Architects 2008 ¢�D_ amo±l A. A� — F%IEi1NGWeUF:£P FPOM C %MI.W1A1 F- D]SIING EDGE 01 CSS I TAT ��,y( / BACK - / • 'WP \ Y r \ 1 MuARY 10, =7 1 CSSERVTVCAGNIhKXKS L\ .. _e- Wes_ ..l_\� ♦A.. E)SPNGI mu-_ / �� _ ��.tOP TNE'B ifR K fc S" " � PREI�F.PTY DT♦IVE "� "_� _ . _ % % /, := 1 / -_ '� `, _ L T - -- OPEN ° V. _ 2�ppV1 tp.- ,RAP NgN SM 0 Pr rc . ♦ gz¢s r i OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE 1 LOWER LEVEL • 1tlt PACf S. I Ir S T �Pj Bit 1I e0 \ ` d V" 3P ♦ m. o t L�' PPUIT.IING MALL y L "MaMING POOL COLRT J r'TS-e /CLUB HOU?E nA wRSU.raaEl 1 n PPHM1ING '1i5MMEPHEAO' w 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Parking Plan THE IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTY VN6ClF£ FAGEMExi :NEi1T C! HYAIi FOR R AL OIF COURSE, RU TTWC i MTA__ECREATIONN £ MSTALLEO W NI WITH ANU TTIES iPl0lyWp60 P 'JOHN WAYNE EAN PARKING GULCH" EL 540, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPERTY �y fuel M°oiflrnTwx- y 1giE REfNNING WN PARKING PARKING SUMMARY TS-4 SUBTERRANEAN PARKING R2UN7S EL420 .. rvl veDa,„wlGNZaNe ' SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS — PLIAININGWALL - - RETAWING WALL �I .. — __—__ -•.1 I NO. UNIT/ REDO ^— PARNM� 1ARIUN4 \IITSlk T pp HrTANNOWML- Y t L�' PPUIT.IING MALL y L "MaMING POOL COLRT J r'TS-e /CLUB HOU?E nA wRSU.raaEl 1 n PPHM1ING '1i5MMEPHEAO' w 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Parking Plan THE IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTY VN6ClF£ FAGEMExi :NEi1T C! HYAIi FOR R AL OIF COURSE, RU TTWC i MTA__ECREATIONN £ MSTALLEO W NI WITH ANU TTIES iPl0lyWp60 P 'JOHN WAYNE EAN PARKING GULCH" EL 540, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROPERTY �y fuel M°oiflrnTwx- y 1giE REfNNING WN PARKING PARKING SUMMARY TS-4 SUBTERRANEAN PARKING R2UN7S EL420 .. rvl veDa,„wlGNZaNe ' SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS — PLIAININGWALL - - RETAWING WALL �I .. — __—__ -•.1 I NO. UNIT/ REDO ^— 1275 ACES AREA a qi _ ISTIN PL's J R � Ir"" — PM t2DSSPACES KNG LOT - I NOT A PART IgNzy, 'h �+ +� NG' B� EXISTING PLAZA spaces spaces 1 space 12 Toone I f TIMESHARE KING AR Lm I NE PING BALLROOM UNITS 88 units 106 1.2 spaces / room UING r irm SPACES) PLAZA(1STORp TIMESHARE .. spa n 1,7029.1. - - -MOTEL —_- �E1lBTINGGATE - �PIpPEA1Y PROPERTY UNE / -. <B) JAMBOREE ENTRY ROAD WITNIa'OXOUX - FA4EMENTGNEnu 0 LINE - 336 912 __- - - - - -- - = — 17SSPACES VALET/TANDEM 440 SPACES (SURFACE (INCLUD. VALETfFANDEM 56 SPACES) TOTAL I1 Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR LAND USE NO. UNIT/ REDO PROVIDED 1275 ACES AREA HOTEL ROOMS Includ. guest rm& 196 785 banquet facilities) 391 rooms spaces spaces 1 space 12 Toone TIMESHARE UNITS 88 units 106 1.2 spaces / room spaces 127 TIMESHARE CLUBHOUSE/ spa MEETING 1,7029.1. FACILMES spaces 1 space / 50 St. TOTAL - 336 912 HOTEL PARKING BREAKDOWN SURFACE 17SSPACES VALET/TANDEM 440 SPACES (SURFACE (INCLUD. VALETfFANDEM 56 SPACES) TOTAL 785 SPACES _ TIMESHARE PARKING BREAKDOWN SU FACE SUBTERRANEAN BOSPACES_ 47 SPACES TOTAL 1275 ACES 0 160 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 11 to _* 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -44 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Q1 �f .o �N w 0 a r ws 0 w 2� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. L 1 C 1 J Page 3 -46 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Existing View 3: View from Back Bay Drive north of project site looking south toward prOJecc sn . Proposed View 3, (Lanoscapmg G\ °• °• - View from Back Bay Drive north of project site looking south toward profecr sip . Proposed View s: is -yea. 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR c7mulation 3 VL J The Planning Center Figure 13 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -48 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Site Sections + A MID SLOPE ROOF s ' //' MID SLOPE ROOF— 25TORY 1 STORY `— �— rPJ 35TORY PODS 3\ MIOEtAPEROOF- b c � ' 11Gh + ` 2 STORY X vmeuNE PIA-EU F _ —_ aR0 �� PROPOSED NEW GRADE —" ^� to e Mq`LOPENOpFT L _ ` 4 3STOR STORY 'WE PL bL [Lrv[ -. nR PV.IELMET T .3 sN041 m `NAiLIflALGMDE O pNDFL BNE.UN. _I. Q SLOPEnmM1 P6AiC JNL pI.b MID SLOPE A }' TS-0 mG P+1, m-+.. __ JJJII sett TS -2 Male; G a a •:•.y .c ..f, Sn .V <. PMlEF-0i^ - '^ IFl..tisl FRtal b pARW PARKING �TS-1 IPin IE fl� JAMBOREE ROAD - �r °` FIE NATUPN. GPAOE FINISHEDGMDE FlNISI PC GRADE - '4 ' NATURAL GRADE6 "V GTENx13 '�` �— __ E4 -TINE iENN15 GOUPi I / SWIMMING PROPOSED) NEYY FINISI IED GMDC- �W�A'iG q PROPOSEDNEWCI PAflgNO_ — 1_ 'PARKING � / _ _ _ _ _ _ pO_OLC_OUPT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ���_ ,�_ J ,�.., --- ---/// F`PPOPERhNNE NANRNGRM]ER PflOPOSEDNLWFIDISHED GRACE , - NATUALGMDE PROPOSEONEWGRAOE PPGPOSF.NNE GR.,WE NATUPALGMDE PPOPOSEDNEWGRADE REFERENCE ONE ONLV NAIDMLGRAOE PROPEM LIKE 1 � BACK OAV DRIVE SITE SECTION A -A I STORY \7 MIDSLOPEROOF KI' 01251 ' - xEwl Hu u lE PROPOSED NCWGRADE - PAPA Ru C �I ('VATUML GRADE PMWfl UN`. P,PUre IINF ': Lr /� PROPOSED RADDFlNI CO GRACE Plplt tJ,vE_ EI 5.1 1 4y C. g' /AA]uRN:GMGE REeROap - PARKING STRUCTURE wER' IFF IExn NEW BALLROOM 1 PARKING AEY•1N0 "G —.: F` a»' e =W C^A''t`A.<n4a`_YVn.Ffl__ --i __-k_ �`PPOPERtt uNF ` PROPO CDNEWGRADE \ vu1WNG BACK BAY ORIVEf REFERENCE LINE ONLY NAIUNAL GRADE ` PROPERTY LINE GG]]OMOF DIVING DRAYCIIE SYStUR . -N3 SITE SECTION B -B -- SECTION C -C (TS -4) SCALE: 1/16 " =1' -.0° Source: Lee &Sakahara Architects 2008 Ilyat! Regent)' Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR KEY MAP OF �MIG SLOPE NOOFfA -- SKAK 'pW MA%.I. PMOEOP 1a — MIDSLOPE F.1 N.T.S. 'INTERNAL I� 6�. soF• mart _ II NOTES: 1 nPEr - I $ 'ml alyeE Pma m 1. ALL BUILDING. HEIGHTS WITH SLOPED ROOFS ARE MEASURED FROM "FINISHED VWDSLMEG ww. AI GRADE" TO MID SLOPE OF ROOF. THIS HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 35 FEET IN I TS 5 FnnsxED GRADE HEIGHT. 1'HE RIDGE OF THE ROOF SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN FEET FROM �L• si i - re � I -""` THE PERMITTED HEIGHT OF JS FEET (OR LESS THAN 40 FEET IN HEIGHT, FROM n vc �e�cK j, S91EPP:PPIU4wD '•^TM -^a r����it r� F /in / / / /altf /� / / //% FINISHED GRADE) t .__. //,/fiieiunvmvv, in,fiii..ii./ /.�11i�� %�c %r /., /O /L ✓ /�/ SECTION D -D (TS -5) SCALE: 1/16 " =1' -01 0 80 Scale (Feet) The Planning, Center • Fi_qure 14 (Revised DEIR Figure 3 -6) 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR , This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -50 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 BACK BAY DRNE_ �, _ 0 Source: Fuscoe 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR I I I 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Existing Building Setbacks 0 170 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 15 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -52 • The Planning Center February 2009 View from the east towards the site. 3. Revieinnc to MP T)r i{t PTO Visual Simulation from Newport Dunes Source: Fuscoe Engineering — IM M yatt Regenry Newport Beach Expanrion Final E1R _. Scale (Feet) 3. Revisions to the This page intentionally left blank. EIR Page 3 -54 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Land Use Map LEGEND LAND USE Agriculture Commenoal/Servke IndLianal Infrastructure Mixed UrbanlOeveloped Open Spam and Recreation Residential Water Tnbulanes Watershed Boundary This map is a mosaic of Irvine; Lake Fdwst, and SCAG land use data. Other citys lend use data Was not available/applicable- 0 3.5 Scale (Miles) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center a Figure 17 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -56 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 Legend Subwatersheds Orve«pon Bay n�wunes Monitoring Sites • MICA • s�oassessmem(80i • Recolmmssanca D, %WMo,, EYUary fEst) • Lann U. Can !Eobon • Mess Enieaoone lMeael Mass I e•Ltena • Mesa I Boo It Mass I Eat I Boo I B•dene STATION ID • ]e -BNew • tl -eB-eP • nex +, • mBaly • @ -mao+ • W.exau • tl. aMSOUa) • -P)IL@ JIeNRt1 WLYISHB • W.BMWS • ffi'BNBY • W- LYN0.14lFY�: • W.a11W] • v.axm.e • et.eweo])w. • W -BNWI • a•11.16 • @- CMI]•Fn • W -PIBIb • S -V�'.. • tlBMOPF[r o. mat] • acxmB • WmsolwP • nBlea • WLHPMY • @- INIOfiSOs f)maa • tl -1X64W • tlLPiF)JVu ,]81an • .I LNBIVB • WIGMFSMw .Waa • 1]- Y�FIE • A- LVF]X9l e.`.0 • m -er® • v•B•uL • ntvz]Pwxxv • 1) -BFI • a -CICq! • m- LiF1!{RWVP m. BNmJO • n -tweaP • mnwmW • m BNm.O • a.wem • mnwmo+ n.axm.Y • r -coat • n -mto•t �, • 4 PNN.N • WBeI•tl • mT@iW • •t.vmaY • n -•Bmm • N BNBiSa • @IYaCM • tlNNPaO • mbHmb • aWauY • M -IMMau • m BN @9 • M -NlM6 • @- 6lIYIW • Sl -BNN}Y • tlVl%aL • tlBA:,.0 Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Subwatersheds and Monitoring Locations Scale (Miles) Y The Planning Center • Figure 18 �� 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Newport Bav Watershed D3 LAMER FGR 2W2 Mfdl LIST GIS FILES Trw 2W2 ]0](y GIS tiles wroe C,enO M repylrp wmalea py as S L8.m RWGCB'e. Tone GIs rtprarmao,a na. araw me-rt or as ma waters wry an enn.Y sre annul! .ol ee cn�aaerae wtivAVe fir Ne peveeprtnn �1 TMOLS or cIM r NYrpry a,]Idr6 Rro TMCL ITmal Mavimum Oairy Lowl artpn mn ammaay aep,.a. mare ar Yn a,e. MapneN rro Torar urea weYm e a wan.n o�oarna .trE wrl� ee upCahtl Ourgy extr Lap,y MY IO pn81 x+pre ea rrrwamae a,n. anar awrce aaM aamae W e,,,nn m n.nae. cn Oena' Mrulo pravaeE by ArPMa Mappx 2 W2 LEGEND Receiving Waters - TMDLs Reacn I Nuvnnta Saalment. aM Tonics Ream ]. Nubrens. Seaimael, vM Toalw Umar Bay. NJVN nIa Seljmern, Toalm a"d Fag, Col00rm Lower Bay: Npblenls SeBlmerll, Twin. am Fecal CGIONr Watershed O Newport Bay-San DY Creek •— Tribwnn 0 3 Scale (Miles) Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center a Figure 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agenc ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Fin At FLEA, � 1E191 C90 LF yfl WLPO qY W ES) 'Y ( iVER Q)6 1 MORNING 1 9 STAR IN g ZONE X SHEI.LMAAERRD - NEWPORT ZONE AE feL 91 ZONE X UPPER HIGHWAY VILLAGE Ep4 qE �. t '9 tiQ 1M �i E / ppGF r3 U M Z u 6 m Z JE LN �W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 060227 ZONE X DX1991 x' V 2004 III EIR sr COAST klCHWAv a DRIVE EAST C� °HIN i u G 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR q a' ZONE X ZQNE Flood Insurance Rate Map QO 0� 0 600 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 20 f CIR. y ZONE X E } OPdD YJ VJ'I' 'f PtYMp� VET' D1 DX2000 Vµ OA X \,,, ZONE X ISLE � P �O W s Eas r xDX1998 NTORI^ .. DX1997 i a s wESr X DX3664 RROONTORr V 2004 III EIR sr COAST klCHWAv a DRIVE EAST C� °HIN i u G 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR q a' ZONE X ZQNE Flood Insurance Rate Map QO 0� 0 600 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 20 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -62 • The Planning Center February 2009 R\ , BACK B _AY ORIV_E -_ - _ p� _ uCe Ca E ♦ \ _ - f TO MCC MY OR 78010 ` 1 oz = BAl CIS I \ ` an .'mm • TO BMN MY CR • To so MT oP. px s91 cFS 0.71AC \� \�O /• r • � • 10 MD( BItY W, \ � I s1aAC . �• F •�, _ wu -. �• I GN4a)t\i• . - ` r ' i1 .�• • 4.26AC > . 64JAC `• o . � % m z 0J m Co ZI 6 °• D1 1.1 , • �� _ 14 62 ' - r ' , • 6]340 • ♦ i L_••�..� �.. �•..� - - - I r Iwp�Naj n= v. . I.0 ft1 - PU .A= UIUILDM9 Q IWBNCC M.j { - j \ ♦ IO5.10L RI ,J \1 p], . loo) cv6 CIFS 1 *I k v,i. • 1010: 96w CrS -.. JAMBOREE ROAD Source: Fuscoe Engineering 2006 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Existing Hydrology LEGEND: 0 150 r Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 21 MAIN WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB - WATERSHED BOUNDARY COMPONENT AREA NUMBER &1M. ACREAGE 0100= FLOW(CFS) 100 YEAR FREQUENCY CFS CUBIC FOOT PER SECOND FLOW DIRECTION O HYDROLOGY NODE NUMBER 0 150 r Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 21 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. 0 Page 3 -64 • The Planning Center February 2009 , j. K O m U m Cj' osS,eR .. ♦ \ W BMlt 6d. BACK BAY owA 4 AOG,p S %p$ e `tAC tp eaDC enx m. j( "�i f ozv ass asp%` Sys/ r • � oN .0 a.� . ♦ U - Ir v t7T(g '�R V rG ) C14'14 ` • 0 311 as \. /•• -. I� aye as \ NO.• \ �'�.• • /•• 1 , A 8 •. I/ BJ ♦O\. /•• N1 ♦ -000 _`A �,.. 0,1W- JJ_ •r;-T •�'�• <� •• •/� 1, "• I.L .. .: i /'yv - :�,; . -_ —4 I • �Y }� '� "Ole. - � I SOInce: Fuscoe Engineering 2007 Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Final E(R • �. �... r ml A -1 di - • "'�{ A-3.- °:a' l to as •�,...: ____I as` ♦ . PLAZA BUILDING \ .n..esl tl5: 1.5840 I� JAMBOREE ROAD _ P 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Proposed Hydrology LEGEND: MAIN WATERSHED BOUNDARY RNV- SUB — WATERSHED BOUNDARY COMPONENT AREA NUMBER i ACREAGE 0100— CM CPS SOInce: Fuscoe Engineering 2007 Hyatt Regenty Newport Beach Expansion Final E(R • �. �... r ml A -1 di - • "'�{ A-3.- °:a' l to as •�,...: ____I as` ♦ . PLAZA BUILDING \ .n..esl tl5: 1.5840 I� JAMBOREE ROAD _ P 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Proposed Hydrology LEGEND: MAIN WATERSHED BOUNDARY SUB — WATERSHED BOUNDARY COMPONENT AREA NUMBER S.tAD ACREAGE 0100— FLOW(CFS) 100 YEAR FREQUENCY CPS CUBIC FOOT PER SECOND FLOW DIRECTION © HYDROLOGY NODE NUMBER 0 150 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 22 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 -66 • The Planning Center February 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 Appendices Appendix A Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance after Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expamion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb Appendices t This page intentionally IeR blank. I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I The Planning Center February 2009 1 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach Februan, 2009 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation r5.1,AESTHETICS , 5.1.1: The proposed project would not have a Less than significant No mitigation measures are recess;ry Less than s grficant substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas or substantially after the visual appearance of the project site. 5.1.2: The proposed project would generate Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant additional nighttime light and glare. �".2 AIR QUALITY 5.2 -1: The proposed project is consistent with the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant applicable Air Quality Management Plan. 2 -2: The proposed project is not a regionally Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Igndicant project that could potentially Cflmulatively contribute to climate change impacts in California. 5.2 -3: Construction activities associated with the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant proposed project would not generate short-term emissions. in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. 5.2 -4: Long -term operation of the project would Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant not generate additional vehicle trips and associated emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. 5.2.5: The proposed project would not expose Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach Februan, 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.3 -1: The proposed development and related fuel Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant modification would not remove any coastal sage scrub and would comply with the City's Coastal Act policies set forth to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAS). 5.3 -2: Construction - related activities could have a Potentially sign'rficant 3 -1 temporary adverse Impact on coastal California gnatcatchers nesting in preserved areas of coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site. i N Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the NCCP /HCP, including construction - related minimization and mitigation measures that minimize impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and other coastal sage scrub species. These include: • To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 though 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. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies /utilities will provide USFWS /COFG with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specked in the NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other coastal sage scrub Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed, and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent practicable in the context of public health and safety considerations. • Prior to commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of coastal sage scrub, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. Less than significant The Planning Center February 2009 � w �■ iw � �w ■�i s �s w iw w l� �■ � r w Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Following the completion of initial grading /earth movement activities, all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearty visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parMng, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas. • In areas bordering the NCCP Reserve System or Special Linkage /Special Management areas containing significant coastal sage scrub Identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut- and -fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction > supervisors, and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to w ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. • Coastal sage scrub identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and location within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. 3 -2 If construction occurs during the CAGN breeding season (February 15 to July 15), a biological monitor shall conduct weekly surveys of the coastal sage scrub within 300 feet of grading activities. If CAGN nest are located within 300 feet, noise monitoring shall be implemented and where construction noise exceeds 60 decibels, noise mitigation shall be implemented and may include (but is not limited to), construction of noise barriers, change in grading arrays, or other means determined appropriate by the project biologist. 3 -3 To ensure that project lighting along the northern perimeter of the site does not cause significant Impacts to nesting gnatcatchers, the following measures shall be implemented: • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall be directed away from coastal sage scrub habitat. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 APPendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation • All lighting within 100 feet of coastal sage scrub shall consist of the lowest intensities that still provide for adequate safety. • A qualified biologist shall review lighting plans prior to construction to ensure that the proposed lighting minimizes potential Impacts on the California gnatcatcher. 5.3.3: Development of the proposed project would Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant not impact any sensitive plant species. 5.3 -4: Project development could impact Potentially significant 3-4 During project construction, all trees to be removed shall be identified. Such trees should Less than significant migratory birds and raptor foraging habitat be removed outside the avian nesting season, which extends from March 14 to July 15. 3.5 If for some reason it is not possible to remove all trees during the nonnesting season, then trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to removal. If no nesting birds are found, the tree may be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the P nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. 3 -6 For trees being preserved, it construction is to occur during the nesting season, preserved trees shall be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. 5.3.5: The proposed project would not affect Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant wildlife movement. 5.3 -6: The proposed project would not conflict Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant with any local policies or ordinances and would comply with the provisions of the centrallcoastal HCP /NCCP. 5.3 -7: The proposed project would comply with Potentially significant Mitigation Measures 3.1 through 3 -3 apply. Less than significant the provisions of the central/coastal HCP /NCCP. Hyatt Regency Newport Beacb Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach M = M t i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN M M 1� M M = M The Planning Center February 2009 M r = M Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.4 -1: Development of the project could impact Potentially signif icant 4 -1 Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written Less than significant archaeological resources. evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the project applicant has retained an Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist. The archeologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The archaeologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The archaeologist shall determine the extent of monitoring that is required during excavation and grading activities. The qualified archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. The methods of archaeological monitoring, Including timing, location, types of artifacts anticipated, and procedures for additional analysis, if necessary, shall be described in an archaeological monitoring plan. The extent and duration of the monitoring program shall be Ln dependent upon the City- approved grading plans. The construction manager shall adhere to the stipulations of the archaeological monitoring plan. 2) The archaeological monitoring plan shall be developed prior to commencement of on -site grading activities. 3) Should any subsurface cultural resources be encountered, the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to halt grading activities until uncovered resources are evaluated and a determination of significance is made. If cultural resources are encountered, a Native American monitor with a Tongva/Gabrielino lineage, the project applicant, and the City of Newport Beach shall evaluate the significance of the resources and, if appropriate, shall determine appropriate treatment and mitigation of the resources. If cultural artifacts are recovered, any eligibility testing and /or determination of additional mitigation should be done in consultation with the Native American monitor. 4) During construction, if buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historical artifacts, specimens, fossils, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground - disturbing activities, the contractor shall ensure that all work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until the qualified on -call archaeologist arrives on -site and can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures In consultation with the City. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5) Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological monitor has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 6) A report that documents the findings of the program shall be prepared. The report shall provide an itemized Inventory of the recovered specimens. Submission of the final report and inventory to the City of Newport Beach shall represent completion of the mitigation monitoring program for archeological resources. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation of each site /locality, and interpretation of resources recovered and shall include all specialists' reports as appendices. All project documents, including field records and the report itself, should be Included on a CD in portable document format The CD shall be included a pocket at the rear of each copy of the report. O1 4 -2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a preconstruction testing plan for cultural resources shall be implemented. Testing may be conducted during the same period as demolition activities. However, ample time shall be allowed for the results of the testing to be evaluated and for possible redesign to avoid the findings sites or mitigation of destructive construction impacts on the sites. Testing shall be conducted as follows: • Proposals to conduct testing shall include construction fencing and warning signs to protect patrons of the Hyatt Regency and the shoring of deep units and /or trenches to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. • A trench at least 20 meters in length within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, for a total of four trenches. The depth of the trenches shall be 20 centimeters below any cultural or potential cultural levels and must be sufficient to determine site stratigraphy. Soil profiles and stratigraphic columns are required to document the site Integrity or lack thereof. • If intact site deposits are demonstrated to be present within the footprints of Timeshare Buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, then a minimum of two 1- meter - square units shall be placed in intact site areas, to be determined by the principal investigator. The units shall be dug in natural stratigraphic levels ff possible and in 10- centimeter levels otherwise. These units will document the potential of the site to contribute new information to prehistory. Documentation shall be thorough and detailed. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2009 W = = = s 1=1 = = i M W W = = W = = 1=1 Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • A minimum of 10 to a maximum of 50 test pits shall be utilized to determine the boundaries of the site. The test pits should test the limits of the site at the limits of the project along the project footprint in the vicinity of timeshare buildings 1 -7, the timeshare clubhouse, the new ballroom, and the new spa facility. • Limited testing of the new ballroom area shall be conducted to determine if resources exist in the area in order to avoid construction delays caused by unanticipated finds. • Artifacts recovered will be in the custody of the principal Investigator until they are transported to the designated accredited repository and will be prepared, identified, and cataloged prior to transport. 5.4.2; The proposed project could destroy Potentially significant 4 -3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written Less than significant paleontological resources or a unique geologic evidence to the City of Newport Beach that the applicant has retained an Orange County feature. Certified Professional Paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be retained for the duration of the excavation and grading activities to provide professional services and monitoring during all such activities. The paleontologist shall comply with the following tasks. 1) The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing the mitigation plan and maintaining professional standards of work at all times. 2) The paleontologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting and shall be Invited to briefly define paleontological resources, discuss cooperation with the paleontological monitor, and outline the on -call procedures to be followed in the event of a discovery when the monitor is not present. 3) The paleontologist shall prepare monthly progress reports to be filed with the City. The principle investigator shall prepare a final report to be filed with the City. The report shall include a list of resources recovered, documentation for each locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. All specialists' reports shall be included as appendices. 4) Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed surfaces and microscopic examination of matrix. 5) The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading from exposed resources in order to recover the specimens and contextual data. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beacb February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 6) If the discovery of paleontological resources meets the criteria for fossil locality, formal locality documentation activities shall be performed. In addition, samples shall be submitted for dating and other special analyses. 7) If microfossil localities are discovered, the monitor shall collect matrix for processing. To limit downtime, the monitor may request heavy machinery assistance to move large quantities of matrix out of the path of construction to designated stockpile areas. Testing of stockpiles shall consist of screen washing small samples (200 pounds) to determine if fossils are present. Productive tests shall result in screen washing of additional matrix from the stockpiles to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per locality. 8) Fossils recovered shall be prepared, identified, and cataloged before donation to the accredited repository that will maintain the collection for future scientific study and exhibition within Orange County, to be designated by the City. Such fossils 00 shall be prepared, prior to donation, to the point of dedication. The project proponent shall be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the county or other suitable repository for long -term curation and maintenance of the donated collection. Any resources determined not to meet the significance criteria can be used in school education programs. 5.4 -3: The proposed project's grading activities Potentially significant 4 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall place the following note Less than significant could result in the disturbance of human remains. on all grading plans: "If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Cade Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLO). With the permission of the landowner or his or her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials." This requirement shall also be discussed at the pregrade meeting(s). Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 5.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.5 -1: Persons and existing and future structures Potentially significant 5 -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate that all within the project site would be subjected to grading operations and construction will be conducted in conformance with the City of potential seismic - related hazards. Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall include a note on all grading plans indicating that grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in Geotechnical Engineering in order to achieve proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, placement and compaction of structural fill, stability of finished slopes, and incorporation of data supplied by the engineering geologist. The geologist shall geologically map the exposed earth units during grading to verify the anticipated conditions, and if they are different, provide findings to the geotechnical engineer for kD possible design modifications. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed engineering -level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and provide site - specific recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level report shall include and address each of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report prepared by Kleinfelder and Included as DEIR Appendix F ( Kleinfelder, November 29, 2004, Project No. 61618). The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. Prior to Issuance of grading permits and based upon the soil corrosivity tests conducted for the proposed project, the project applicant shall Include a note on all grading plans indicating that soils testing in the areas proposed for development shall be performed under the observation of a registered corrosion engineer specializing In soil corrosivity for any areas proposed to be developed with structures. The corrosion engineer shall evaluate the corrosion potential of the soils on proposed improvements, recommend further testing if deemed necessary, and identity specific construction methods to address soil corrosivity, if detected. Less than significant Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 Table 1 -f Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach = M M r M = The Planning Center February 2009 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 5.5 -2: The proposed project would not result in Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 5.5 -3: Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, Potentially significant Mitigation Measures 5 -1 through 5 -4 apply. Less than significant Including soil corrosivity, could result due to development of the project. 5.5 -4: The project site is located on expansive soil Potentially significant Mitigation Measures 5 -1 through 5 -4 apply. less than significant that could result in substantial risks to life or property. 5.. 6-HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS _ Less than significant .< ��s`__ -- No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.6.1: The proposed project could create a hazard Less than significant the public or the environment through i�asonably foreseeable upset and accident �gnd'Nons involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A possibility exists that hazardous demolition debris containing asbestos and /or lead -based paint may require remediation and off -site transportation. 5.6.2: The project site is not included on a list of Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, development would not be expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5.6.3: Although the project site Is located within Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant the boundaries of an airport land use plan, it is 3.5 miles from the airport and project Implementation would not be expected to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach = M M r M = The Planning Center February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.6.4: Design measures and mitigating actions Potentially significant 6 -1 The project applicant or successor in interest shall comply with the provisions in the Fire detailed in the fire protection plan (FPP) would Protection Plan (FPP) as reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department minimize the potential risks to people and /or (NBFD), including but not limited to the following specific provisions: structures to loss, injury, or death, Water Supply and fire Flow Fire hydrants and fire flow capacity shall be approved by the fire Chief. A reduction in required fire flow of up to 50 percent, as approved by the Fire Chief, may be allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The resulting fire flaw shall not be less than 1,500 gallons per minute. Fire Access • New driveway entrance areas shall be designed to City requirements with all - weather driving surface of A.C. paving over approved base and a capacity rating of at least 75,000 pounds, to accommodate fire apparatus. Approach/departure r angles associated with development driveways shall not exceed 3 degrees. r • The minimum width of fire lanes shall be 26 feet. • There are no planned traffic calming devices. • Adequate fire apparatus turnarounds shall be provided and approved by the NBFD (current plans Include a minimum 28 -foot turning radius adjacent to Building TS -7 and another turnaround located adjacent to Building TS -4 /Clubhouse). • Unobstructed firefighter access to all portions of the buildings via walkways, driveways, or trails shall be provided. A minimum of 3 feet for firefighter access shall be maintained along both sides of all structures adjacent to fuel modification zones. • Roads and access components (gates, sign, etc.) shall be maintained In perpetuity by the property owner. Building Fire and Ignition Resistance • The project shall include ignition- resistant construction features consistent with current fire and building codes for the proposed structures exposed to wildland vegetation (buildings TS -1, TS -2, TS -3, and TS -4). Enhanced structural requirements shall be provided for the following as detailed in the FPP: rooting, fire - resistive walls, eaves protection, venting, glazing, skylights, insulation, gutters and Hyatt Regenry Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts. Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation downspots, appendages and projections, spark arrestors, exterior doors, and detached accessory structures. Fire Protection Systems • Buildings shall be fully sprinklered per the appropriate National Fire Protection Association sprinkler standard for the occupancy. Defensible Space • The Fuel Modification Plan (see details, Section 3.4.3 of this Draft EIR and the FPP, Appendix H) shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate to obtain approval by the NBFD. The approved final fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the NBFD. Brush removal must be completed prior to commencing y any flammable construction, and final inspection and approval must be obtained prior to Issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures adjacent to the fuel modification area. • Fuel Modification Zones shall be subject to an annual inspection conducted by a representative of the City in order to assure that zones are maintained in compliance with the applicable fuel modification requirements. The property owner shall maintain defensible space in accordance with the Fuel Modification Plan as approved. Vegetation Management • The fuel modification area along the northern boundary of the project lies partially on the Hyatt Regency property, partially on property owned by the City of Newport Beach, and partially on property owned by the Irvine Company. • The proposed landscape plan/fuel modification zone plant palette shall be reviewed and approved by the NBFD. Landscape plans shall comply with all landscaping requirements. • Defensible space vegetation management responsibility is assigned to persons /company(ies) owning buildings or structures on this property. • Maintenance of defensible spaces shall occur annually, prior to May 1, or more often, as determined by the NBFD. Maintenance of the defensible space shall Include modifying or removing nonfire- resistive vegetation and keeping leaves, Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Neuport Beach February 2009 Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation needles, and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from roofs of buildings and structures. Maintenance and funding for vegetation management shall be required and enforced by deed encumbrances, which are attached to the property. Such deed encumbrances shall be reviewed and approved by NBFD Chief. • An agreement with the neighboring property owners (as described above), to be conveyed with deed, for permanent maintenance of landscape area that also serves as extended Less than significant fuel modification area for Hyatt property. • Vegetation management shall be completed prior to the start of and continue throughout the construction phase. Prior to site demolition, adequate fuel breaks shall be constructed between demolition areas and existing flammable vegetation. • Vegetation maintenance includes ensuring operation of irrigation systems. w . Vegetation maintenance is required following wind and rain storms to remove combustible plant - related debris from fuel modification zones. Caution must be exercised on steep slopes to minimize erosion with the removal of vegetation and the addition of irrigation. 5.7,HYDROLCGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.7.1. The proposed project would not violate any Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant water quality standards or waste - discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. 5.7.2: Expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Beach would not substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, resulting In substantial erosion or siltation, or flooding on- or off -site. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Neuport Beach February 2009 F5 Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 5.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.8 -1: The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion is Less than significant hb mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant consistent with applicable local plans, including the City of Newport Beach General Plan, zoning code, and local coastal program land use plan. 5.8 -2: Implementation of the project would be in Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant accordance with the vested entitlement for the project site under the 1993 CIOSA. 5.8 -3: The proposed Hyatt Regency expansion Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant would comply with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. 1: The increase in traffic from operation of the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Hyatt Regency expansion project would not significantly Increase traffic noise levels. 5.9 -2: New stationary noise sources from long- Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant term operation of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach expansion would not substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise - sensitive land uses. 5.9-3: Newly expanded on -stte nolse - Sensitive Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Uses would be compatible with the noise environment 5.9 -4: Construction of the Hyatt Regency Newport Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Beach expansion would not generate vibration levels that exceed the FTA crterlon for human annoyance at nearby residential structures. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2009 M M =1 = = M = = r = =1 M = M M M M M M a M M M = M = IM = = = = = = Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.9.5: Construction activities at the Hyatt Regency Potentially significant 9 -1 Temporary sound blankets (fences typically comprised of poly - vinyl- chloride- coated Significant and unavoidable would significantly elevate the daytime noise outer shells with adsorbent Inner insulation) shall be placed alongside the boundary of environment in the vicinity of noise - sensitive project - related site during construction activities that are located in the vicinity of residential and recreational uses. residential and recreational land uses affected by significant levels of construction noise, which Includes the areas adjacent to the Palisades Golf Course, the Newporter North Environmental Study Area, and the Bayview Landing senior community. The temporary sound blankets shall be to prevent direct line -of -sight from construction activities occurring directly adjacent to this property. 9 -3 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. 9.4 The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is fit with properly by operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as F; originally equipped by the manufacturer. u' 9 -5 The Construction Contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential and recreational receptor locations as is feasible. 9 -6 Material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. 5.9 -6: The Hyatt Regency is located outside the Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the John Wayne Airport and would not result in substantial aircraft noise exposure to future occupants and workers. D.iu rueLlu 3CtlYRaS FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 5.10 -1: The proposed projects incremental Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant Increase in demand for city fire protection services would not signif icantly Impact the Newport Beach Fire Departments ability to provide fire and emergency /medical services. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation Level of Significance Level of Significance Environmental Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 01111rr 00nrcrnnu 5.10 -2: The proposed projects introduction of Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant new structures, workers, and visitors Into the City of Newport Beach police service boundaries would not substantially increase the demand for police protection services. . flHifillb �1 5.11 -1: The proposed project would generate an Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant estimated total of 661 daily vehicle trips and 51 AM and 58 PM peak hour trips. These project - related trips would not impact levels of service for existing area roadway system. &11 -2: The project - related WC Increase of 0.001 Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant and 0.002 in the AM and PM peak hours for Coast Highway /MacArthur Boulevard intersection, (the only CMP intersection In the study area) would be less than the 0.010 WC increase that would be classified as a significant impact. The project, therefore, would not result In a designated road or highway exceeding County Congestion Management Agency service standards, 5.11 -3 On -sfte site access and circulation to Less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant accommodate the new timeshare units, ballroom facility, and ancillary uses would not increase hazards or incompatible uses. 5.11.4: A total of 912 parking spaces would be Potentially significant 11 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed ballroom facility, the project Less than significant provided to serve the proposed project However, applicant shall submit a valet parking plan to the Planning Director and City Traffic the project's valet parking component could result Engineer for review and approval. All valet parking services provided pursuant to the in an on -site parking Impact. valet parking plan shall comply with the measures outlined in the parking plan. Hyatt Regeney Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2009 M = M = = = = M M = = M = = == M l= = Appendices Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental lmnacts. Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitiqation Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.11 -5: Temporary construction impacts would Potentially significant 11.2 During the construction of the Hyatt Regency expansion, no construction vehicle trips Less than significant result In a significant Impact to the Jamboree shall be permitted to enter or exit the project site during the PM peak period between Road /San Joaquin Hills Intersection during the PM 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Construction vehicles shall be defined as dirt haulers, material peak period. delivery trucks, construction- vehicle transport trucks, and other similar large vehicles. Construction employee trips are not included in this restriction. 5.11 -6: Adequate on -side parking would not be Potentially significant 11 -3 The Hyatt Regency shall maintain a minimum of 467 parking spaces for use by hotel Less than significant available during some phases of project guests and visitors during the full duraton of construction activities. This minimum construction. requirement of 467 may be provided through either self - parking or valet parking. In addition, the project applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan prior to the initiation of construction activities to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall clearly by identify how and where the 467 necessary parking spaces would be accommodated on- site during construction. Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR The Planning Center City of Newport Beach February 2009 Appendices This page intentionally left blank. r 00 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach The Planning Center February 2009 Appendices Appendix B Newport Beach Fire Department Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach rr7 Appendices 1 This page intentionally left blank. I 1 F7 F 1 1 I 1 F, p The Planning Center February 2009 1 r City of Newport Beach k, x , ;/ F3, I' Homer Bludau _. - +. - City Manager DEPA 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, C d CITY COUNCIL City Stats: 192663 (949Y 1' STEVE LEWIS. FIRE CHIEF • Michael Henn Permanent Population: 83,361 Summer Population: 100,000+ District I- Balboa Total Square Miles: 50.5 square miles (includes 25.9 sq. miles of land. • Steven Rosansky 23 sq. miles of ocean, and 2.5 sq. miles of bay) District 2 -W. Newport • Don Webb District 3- Newport Heighrs :.- t FIRE STATISTICS • Leslie Daigle D 4 A iscrict -Sans m Heights FLSA standards) Edward Selich, Mayor • 117 Regular FUII -time Suppression - District 5 -Wboa Island Staff It Nancy Gardner 3 Battalion Chiefs Fire Divisions District 6- Corona del Mar 30 Fire Captains . Lifeguard HQ 70 Newport Pier Keith Curry 30 Engineers District 7- Newport Coast 24 Paramedics • Station 1 30 Firefighters Two Firefighter /Paramedics on all - FIRE FACILITIES Paramedic Rescue Ambulances ta Fire Administration Average work week 56 hours (per 3300 Newport Blvd FLSA standards) Fire Divisions L. -- . Lifeguard HQ 70 Newport Pier Fire Equipment • Chiefs Office • Support Services • Station 1 8 Engines • Emergency Medical Services (Fire Medics Program) E Balboa Blvd, 2 Trucks • Fire Prevention '110 - . Station 2 3 Paramedic Vans • Training and Education (CERT Program) 475 32nd Street • station 3, LIFEGUARD STATISTICS 868 Santa Barbara Drive .station 4 '2006 2005 2004 200 { -.... ' 124 Marine Avenue _.2007 _ Attendance 7,317 536 7,519 iAs a :3.5 c 2u.3G c ' 5.157` • 17 Full -time Staff • Station 5 ,.- A - _ `' �- • 225 Seasonal Lifeguards 410 Marigold Awa:ue Rescues 3" S 3.91e [G7 353? ti387- • 35 Jr. Lifeguard Instructors . Station 6 .,. ' _. `� • 1200 Jr. Lifeguard participants -: Ma ; �— __' -`i -- 1318 Irvine Avenue ,a Ctt ftjs`1 7899, 84.949 70,662 125750 124781 Station 7 x I M if 4.924 54' - 3,9054 25331„ • 38 L'deguard Towers staffed on summer days 20401 Acaria Street _ -f _ >z.! ',v - _ -; • 8 Patrol Units Station 8 gljs Reunited 419 f _90 421 713;- 3 Supervisor Vehicles 1 6502 Ridge Park Ro,d _- -- - - --- - — . 3 30' Rexue Boats Totals _. °.i) 68,183 94. 56 F,2'r1. 1.;5'33 137bi3T. Appendices Appendix C Green Building Program M Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach LI Appendices 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 i i 11 1 i 1 i I 1 F1 1 1 1 1 The Planning Center February 2009 1 I J ' HYATT REGENCY, NEWPORT BEACH CA (NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY) GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM SITE & LANDSCAPE Recycle Construction and Demolition Waste Plan Install California Friendly Landscape Install Water - Efficient Irrigation Systems Install Irrigation Controllers that are Based on Weather Signal or Moisture- Sensor Reduce Exterior Light Pollution and Spillage: Exterior Parking Lot and Walkway Fixtures Over 100 Watts to be Full Cut -off FOUNDATION, FRAME, AND ROOFING Use Roof Products certified by Energy Star or the Cool Roof Rating Council, where applicable, ' in the Ballroom Building PLUMBING Insulate All Hot Water Pipes Install On- Demand (Tankless) Hot Water Heaters Install Low Consumption Water Efficient Plumbing Fixtures ' LIGHTING & APPLIANCES Exceed Title 24 Exterior Lighting Requirements Install High Efficiency Transformers Install Energy Star Exit Signs Install Energy Efficient Lighting Fixtures where applicable ' Install Electronic Ballasts for Fluorescent Light Fixtures Automatic Means of Turning Off Lights throughout All Light Poles shall Incorporate High Efficiency HID Lamps HVAC Install High Efficiency HVAC Systems Install High Efficiency HVAC Filters ' Install Electronic Programmable Setback Thermostats throughout ENERGY PERFORMANCE Exceed Title 24 by at least 5 % in Ballroom Building Use of Low -E Glazing Systems in the Timeshare Buildings ' RENEWABLE ENERGY Provide Conduit and Proposed Layout for Future Photovoltaic (PV) System INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITY Use Low VOC Interior Paints and Wood Finishes Use Low VOC Construction Adhesives and Sealants ' Ventilation Plan for Ballroom during Construction to Reduce Contaminants. RESOURCE EFFICIENT MATERIALS ' Use of Selective Recycled or Rapidly Renewable Construction Materials ' C -1 Appendices Appendix D Harbor Cove Community HOA Meeting Minutes on May 1, 2008 co ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices ' This page intentionally left blank. I I 1 1 1 I The Planning Center February 2009 1 GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS INC MEMO To: Hyatt Team From: Vicki Fetterman Date: May 13, 2008 Re: Harbor Cove Community Meeting Minutes — May 1, 2008 The following is a summary of the meeting with Harbor Cove residents about the proposed plans for the Hyatt. The meeting was open to all Harbor Cove homeowners and was held at the Park Newport, Catalina Room, on Thursday, May 1, 2008. ■ Meetine Attendees Cora Newman, Government Solutions, Inc. ' Julie Cavanaugh, Government Solutions, Inc. Vicki Fetterman, Government Solutions, Inc. Paul Devitt, General Manager, Hyatt Hotel, Newport Beach Ron Sakahara, Lee & Sakahara Architects Approximately 17 Harbor Cove residents ' Overview ' Government Solutions, Inc. (GSI) gave a powerpoint presentation providing Harbor Cove residents with an overview of the plans for the Hyatt. The proposed project includes 88 timeshare units within seven buildings, a time share clubhouse, new 800 -seat ballroom, new spa ' facility, and a two -level parking structure. Concerns raised during this meeting are summarized below: tTraffic ♦ Residents wanted confirmation that traffic was analyzed. The Team responded that it ' had. ♦ Questions were raised concerning traffic at the Dunes. The Team indicated that a traffic study was prepared as part of the EIR. ' 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (949) 717 -7943 • (949) 717 -7942, fax ' www.gigy1l.com ♦ Residents asked about traffic mitigation measures related to valet parking and construction. Once again the Team referred them to the EIR. ♦ Residents asked about hotel deliveries. Paul Devitt noted that most hotel deliveries are made via the Jamboree entrance. Parkine ♦ Residents asked: How many existing parking spaces are available? How many will be added with the additional new parking structure? The Team assured them that adequate parking was being provided and that the project will be over - parked. ♦ Residents also asked: Will there be additional valet parking? Do the plans take advantage of the Back Bay Road entrance? The answer to both questions was yes. Ron Sakahara clarified that one of the access points is a fire entrance /exit. Proposed Development ♦ Drainage and improving water quality was a concern. The Team indicated Mitigation Measures were included in the EIR. ♦ Where will the maintenance shed be located? The Team answered that it would be located along Jamboree in an existing building and that storage was still being addressed. ♦ Where will the air conditioning condensers be placed? Ron Sakahara indicated they could be located in such a manner as not to impact Harbor Cove residents. ♦ How are their views impacted? The Team will go out and take additional photos. ♦ How long will construction take? Will it be done in phases? ♦ Residents commented that there are only one- and two -story buildings on the property now. The Team clarified that there are one -, two- and three -story buildings currently in existence at the Hyatt and that the two buildings to be located closest to Harbor Cove will be two- stories. ♦ Residents discussed the assessments on their property tax bill related to the bond resulting from the CIOSA Agreement. As an aside, Castaways paid 85% of the CIOSA fee. ♦ The Harbor Cove property management company did not notify residents about the release of the EIR or the 45 -day review period ♦ "Architecture is beautiful!" ♦ "Love the Bell tower!" Time Shares How will time share units generate income for the City? The Team explained that in order to construct time shares, a Development Agreement was required to address the loss of the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT). Residents asked where time share guests would access the site and park. The Team showed them on a site plan. Residents asked how we were addressing the issue of time shares at the Coastal Commission. The Team responded that we would address the issue at the Coastal Commission and that at the present time, we were focused on processing the proposed expansion through the City. D -2 Appendices Appendix E Sea Island Community HOA Meeting Minutes on March 26, 2008 COO ' Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I The Planning Center February 2009 1 MEMO To: Hyatt Team From: Vicki Fetterman Date: April 23, 2008 Re: Sea Island Community HOA Meeting Minutes — March 26, 2008 The following is a recap of the items presented and discussed during the Sea Island Lagoon Home Owners Association Meeting at the Sea Island Community Center on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. Meetine Attendees Cora Newman, Government Solutions, Inc. Julie Cavanaugh, Government Solutions, Inc. Vicki Fetterman, Government Solutions, Inc. Tom Naughton, Sunstone Hotels Approximately 25 Sea Island HOA members GSI presented a PPT presentation to give HOA members an overview of the project which included 88 timeshare units within seven buildings, clubhouse, new 800 seat ballroom, new spa facility and new two level parking structure Resident Issues Traffic ♦ Residents would like signs to direct motorists to Hyatt new parking structure ♦ Observation by residents that there have been numerous accidents along Jamboree near the Hyatt and Back Bay Drive; slow down traffic ♦ Need access turn around for trailers ♦ Queuing up issue on Jamboree for Sea Island entrance; possible signal timing change ♦ Specific egress with parking ♦ Motorcycle traffic and noise 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (949) 717 -7943 • (949) 717 -7942, fax www.g,evsl)l.com Construction ♦ Grading of golf course ♦ How long will construction last; is there a phased construction plan; request for completion date ♦ Will there be extra security during construction Parkin ♦ Will cars be visible on top of parking structure ♦ Security lighting on top of parking structure is big concern; request shields on lights ♦ Existing parking is already a lighting issue (5 Sea Cove, 17 Ocean View) ♦ What is the size of the upper parking deck ♦ Contingency plans for parking Proposed Develonment ♦ Need clarification on where maintenance shed will be located (15 Sea Cove) ♦ There will not be enough room in the existing building along Jamboree for all the maintenance equipment ♦ Request for new Hyatt signage for direction ♦ Concerns regarding increased ballroom numbers, especially parking ♦ "Architecture is beautiful!" Jazz Festival ♦ Will the Jazz Festival go away; too much noise ♦ Will Hyatt send out pre -Jazz Festival letters of notification this year E -2 Appendices Appendix F Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis by IBI Group, August 15, 2008 Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beach I Appendices 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The Planning Center February 2009 1 I 1 HYATT NEWPORT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ' Prepared for: _ City of Newport Beach I Ill ' AUGUST 15, 2008 ' F -1 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................... ...................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... ..............................3 1.1 REPORT SECTIONS ................................................................... ..............................— 3 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................. ..............................3 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................. ..............................6 2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ...................................................... ..............................6 2.2 TRAFFIC IMPACT LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE.: ........................................................... 7 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................ ..............................8 3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ................................................. ..............................8 3.2 PROJECT STUDY INTERSECTIONS ............................................ ............................... 8 3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................... .............................10 3.4 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................... .............................13 3.5 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EXISTING CONDITION . .............................13 4.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (YEAR 2010) ................15 4.1 CONSTRUCTION TRIP GENERATION ......................................... .............................15 4.2 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS — WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION CONDITION.. ...... 18 4.3 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS —WITH CONSTRUCTION CONDITION ................21 4.4 ON -SITE PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION ........................... .............................24 5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITITGATION MEASURES ........ 26 5.1 WITH CONSTRUCTION CONDITION ............................................ .............................26 5.2 SITE ACCESS AND PARKING ...................................................... .............................26 TECHNICAL APPENDIX ......................................................:............ .............................27 IBI GROUP PAGE i F -2 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF FIGURES Figure1 -1: Project Study Area ................................................................................... ..............................4 Figure1 -2: Site Plan ............. .............................................................. ..............................5 Figure 3 -1: Existing Study Intersection Geometry ................. ................... ..............................9 Figure 3 -2: Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes —AM Peak ............... .............................11 Figure 3 -3: Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes — PM Peak ............... .............................12 Figure 4 -1: Construction Truck Trip Distribution ....................................................... .............................16 Figure 4 -2: Construction Employee Trip Distribution ................................................ .................:...........17 Figure 4 -4: Year 2010 Without Construction PM Peak Traffic Volumes ................... .............................20 Figure 4 -5: Year 2010 With Project Construction AM Peak Traffic Volumes ........... .............................22 Figure 4 -6: Year 2010 With Project Construction PM Peak Traffic Volumes ........... .............................23 IBI GROUP PAGE ii F -3 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis ' TABLE OF TABLES Table ESA: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary (During Construction) .............1 Table ES.2: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary (During Construction) .............2 Table 2.1: Level of Service for Signalized Intersections .................................. ............................... 6 Table 3.1: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary .............................. .............................13 Table 3.2: Existing Average Daily Traffic. ....................... .............. ...................... .............. ......... 14 Table 4.1: Project Construction Trip Generation ...... ................. .. ........... ....... .............._................. 15 Table 4.2: Future Without Construction (Year 2010) Intersection LOS Summary ......................... 18 Table 4.3: Future With Construction (Year 2010) Intersection LOS Summary . .............................21 Table 4.4: Hyatt Newport Hotel Off- Street Parking Demand Forecast During Construction ......... 24 IBI GROUP PAGE F -4 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description ' The Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (Sunstone) proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Newport Beach hotel (Hyatt Newport) located on a 25.7 acre site at 1107 Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The project would encompass the addition of 88 new timeshare units; an expanded ballroom with 11,032 square feet of facility space; a 10,072- square -foot spa and new pool; and a two -level parking garage. As proposed, project implementation would require demolition of 12 existing villas (rooms), the existing terrace ballroom (3,190 sgft), and removal of a nine -hole golf course. ' This report analyzes traffic conditions during construction of the proposed project improvements. The analysis focuses on vehicle and truck trips generated by the construction activities. Analysis Methodology The traffic impact analysis is performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach standards. Traffic operations are analyzed using the intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. ' TRAFFIX software is used to perform ICU analysis. Traffic Conditions During Construction Future Without Project Construction and Future With Project Construction conditions are analyzed at ten study intersections. Table ESA summarizes the traffic conditions at each project study intersection ' for the AM peak hour. Table ES.2 summarizes the traffic conditions at each project study intersection for the PM peak hour. Table ESA: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary (During. Construction) n I I I I 1 �1 i Without Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.801 D 0.803 D 0.002 No 2 Coast Highway and Ba side Drive 0.851 D 0.854 D 0.003 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.884 D 0.887 D 0.003 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.506 A 0.508 A 0.002 No 5 Coast. Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.566 A 0.567 A 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.723 C 0.724 C 0.001 No 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.875 D 0.876 D 0.001 No 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.654 B 0.655 B 0-M No 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entranceiisland Lagoon 0.457 A 0.452 A -0.005 No 10 Jamboree Road and Back Be Drive 0.470 A 0.472 A 0.002 No IBI GROUP PAGE 1 1 F -5 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 1 11 Table ES.2: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary (During Construction) 1 No. 1 Intersection Coast Highway and Dover Drive logo. 0.902 E with Construction V1 Los 0.904 E Increase in VIC D.002 I ,Pact No 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, 0.770 0.772 C 0.002 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 1.012 1.014 F 0.002 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.608 0.609 B 0.001 No 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.645 kE 0.646 B 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.929 0.931 E 0.002 No 7Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.949 0.960 E 0.011 Yes 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.736 0.747 C 1 0.011 No 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport EntrancelIsland Lagoon 0.565 D 0.824 D 0.259 No 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.577 B 0.614 B 0.017 No One significant traffic impact is identified during the With Project Construction Condition at the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road during the PM peak hour. This is a temporary traffic impact that occurs only during the construction of the proposed Hyatt Newport Hotel expansion. The mitigation measure to address this traffic impact is to restrict construction vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. During the construction of the Hyatt Newport Hotel expansion, no construction vehicle trips are permitted to enter or exit the project site during the PM peak period between 4:00pm and 6:00pm. Construction vehicles are defined as dirt haulers, material delivery trucks, construction vehicle transport truck and other similar large vehicles. Construction employee trips are not included in this restriction. Iar GROUP - PAGE 2 F -6 I l__1 I i I 1 ' Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis t 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of a traffic impact analysis performed for the City of Newport Beach. analyzing the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed expansion of the Hyatt Newport Hotel. The traffic impact analysis has been completed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach traffic study guidelines. Traffic level of service calculation sheets for the Existing, Future Without Construction, and Future With Construction conditions are provided in the Appendix of this report. 1.1 REPORT SECTIONS This report consists of six sections. • Introduction • Analysis Methodology • Existing Conditions • Future Conditions Without Construction • Future Conditions With Construction • Recommended Mitigation Measures 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (Sunstone) proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Newport Beach hotel (Hyatt Newport) located on a 25.7 acre site at 1107 Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The project would encompass the addition of 88 new timeshare units; an expanded ballroom adding 11,032 square feet of facility space; a 10,072- square -foot spa and new pool; and a two-level parking garage. As proposed, project implementation would require demolition of 12 existing villas (rooms), the terrace ballroom (3,190 sqft), and removal of the nine -hole golf course. Figure 1 -1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the Hyatt Regency Newport Hotel. Figure 1 -2 shows the proposed project site plan. The following operating scenarios are evaluated in the traffic impact analysis: • Existing Condition Project Opening Year (2010) Conditions Without Construction • Project Opening Year (2010) Conditions With Construction IBI GROUP PAGE 3 F -7 N LEGEND Project Site Study Intersection NOi TO SC/rLE IBI Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study Figure 1 -1 GROUP Project Location /Study Area z RN J „ f ri MIT Ion ffilm"11, /�tttttttMORE& t- tttr<ttt l NP 11929=1Z I G 0 HYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH SUNSTONE MOTEL INVESTOR$, INC. ,SJ nJaw.o a � ..w�aswru �wm. u mnu IHf.MVE � - {- i m uu / PPP°4PiY l �lmif � _�AVr T �nwuwMUc /�r�.iwifwwrnm.n i -tt``� VICINITY MAP •JQMWAT E 0ma , Vr ifli f� �'lI , 1J �aCEMACOx F PNnFcPYFPxtJrI Simi, � !!� .► Vie,, �. , : �i�'L „q �� Y � �J �_ uminmlmminme y y _ °� rnsE�•rrl•�a�le� F ?.✓,5��• r&Z?RLAP.fY �IPL4APA. � r. f r . ® ®�® . .41111111111111111111111111111. LL. $ i Y d ,.. d jy ..r. 1 'Q� RnlT11rt2S. ®0 AJiGv NY W. ll #1144411YbY3FYANYIINYd✓�J ®IIi1�t�E��{?� s. ERTiLT•1!f.T.!i1t��t♦ IBINewport Beach ConstructionTraffic Impact Study GROUP Project Site Plan YLNf MnATLLW..VQ" Salmts'1.PF! I •H R R4IXYk4 h. mm MwrW fs. SM IFN+mnh4 RH Ma.an #8A1 sdrtQU�n �w RmJ #N. aC1 �.l #).251 M.mzn iW. amaen. an waA:wvn, au .,..,•., n....�1. Figure 1 -2 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The traffic impact analysis is performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach standards. The analysis examines weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project. Traffic operations at signalized intersections are analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Capacity analysis is a set of procedures for estimating the traffic- carrying ability of facilities based on operational conditions. The City of Newport Beach has established 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour as the capacity standard for analysis. The efficiency of traffic operations is commonly measured by traffic engineers and planners with a grading system Galled Level of Service (LOS). Evaluation of roadways and intersections involves the assignment of grades from A to F, with "A" representing the highest level of operating conditions and "F representing extremely congested and restricted operations. The level of service analysis for signalized intersections is performed using a traffic impact analysis software program called TRAFFIX. TRAFFIX is a network -based interactive computer program that enables calculation of levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections for multiple locations and scenarios. 2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Traffic conditions at signalized intersections are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology for signalized intersections, which evaluates capacity in terms of the volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio. The LOS level is determined by measuring the ratio of volume -to- capacity (V /C) for each roadway and intersection. Each letter grade corresponds to a range of V/C values, which are described in detail in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description of Traffic Conditions WC Ratio At level of service A there are no cycles that are fully loaded, and few are even dose to loaded. A No approach phase is utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. 0.00-0.60 Typically, the approach appears quite open, turning movements are easily made, and neady all drivers find freedom of operation. Level of service B represents stable operation. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized B and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat 0.61-0.70 restricted within platoons of vehicles. In level of service C stable operation continues. Full signal cycle loading is still intermittent, but C more frequent- Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal 0.71-0.80 indication, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Level of service D encompasses a zone of increasing restriction, approaching instability. D Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial during shod peaks within the peak pe nod, 0.81-0.90 but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back-ups. Level of service E represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can E accommodate. At capacity (WC =1.00) there may be long queues of vehicles waiting 0.91 -1.00 upstream of the intersection and delays may be great (up to several signal cycles). Level of service F represents jammed conditions. Back -ups from locations downstream or on F the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under >1.00 consideration; hence, volumes carried are not predictable. VIC values are highly variable, because full utilization of the approach may be prevented by outside conditions. Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40 IBI GROUP PAGE 6 F -10 J [1 1 I 1 I 1 J 1 1 L L� I Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis ' The City of Newport Beach standard for the minimum acceptable intersection level of service (LOS) is LOS D. Mitigation is required for any intersection where the project trips causes the intersection level of service to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E. For an intersection operating at LOS E or worse in the without project condition an increase in WC of 0.010 or greater due to project traffic is also considered a significant impact. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines specify LOS E as the ' minimum acceptable intersection level of service for CMP intersections_ A significant impact is caused by a 1 % increase in WC (0.010) if the CMP intersection already operates at LOS F. 1 IBI GROUP F -11 PAGE 7 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis ' 2. 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides information on the street network that serves the project site. Existing traffic ' counts and levels of service at the project study intersections are presented in this section. 4. 3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ' The existing study area roadway network is described in this section and shown in Figure 3 -1 _ Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue • Jamboree Road is a north -south divided major arterial roadway with three lanes in each 6. direction. , • Coast Highway runs east -west with a raised median and three lanes in each direction Jamboree Road and. San Joaquin Hills Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Between Jamboree Road and Dover 8. Drive, Coast Highway is an eight lane roadway. • Dover Drive is a north -south four lane divided primary arterial roadway. Jamboree Road and Hyatt Newport Entrance /Island Lagoon • Bayside Drive is a four lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. ' • Newport Center Drive is a divided, six lane major arterial roadway. • Avocado Avenue is a four lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. • MacArthur Boulevard is a north -south divided major arterial roadway with three lanes in each direction. • Back Bay Drive is a collector roadway providing two lanes in each direction. , • Santa Barbara Road is a four lane undivided secondary road connecting Jamboree Road and Fashion Island. • San Joaquin Hills Road is a major arterial roadway with a raised median, providing three lanes in each direction. 3.2 PROJECT STUDY INTERSECTIONS Ten intersections are selected for evaluation and are described in this section. The ten study intersections were identified in consultation with the City of Newport Beach. All study intersections are signalized. Figure 3 -1 shows the study intersections with existing lane geometries. The ten study , intersections are identified below: 1. Coast Highway and Dover Drive 2. Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 3. Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 4. Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive , 5. Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 6. Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard (CMP Intersection) , 7. Jamboree Road and. San Joaquin Hills Road 8. Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 9. Jamboree Road and Hyatt Newport Entrance /Island Lagoon , 10. Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 1 IBI GROUP PAGE 8 F_12 I I 1144 r hOV dll4 r s hid NOTTOSCA E I TD I Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study lj� 1 Figure 3 -1 GROUP Existing Study Intersection Geometry F -13 LEGEND Project Site ♦ Study Intersection Q Signalized Intersection -•-» Intersection Lane Geometry dll4 r s hid NOTTOSCA E I TD I Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study lj� 1 Figure 3 -1 GROUP Existing Study Intersection Geometry F -13 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis , 3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Intersection turning movement counts for eight of the ten study intersections were provided by the City of Newport Beach. City- provided traffic counts were conducted in 2004 and 2005. In order to estimate Year 2006 traffic conditions at these intersections, a 1% per year traffic growth rate was applied to designated roadways, consistent with City of Newport Beach standards. Roadways with an approved ' 1 % per year growth rate are identified in the Appendix of this report. The eight intersections with City - provided traffic counts are as follows: • Coast Highway and Dover Drive , • Coast Highway and Bayside Drive • Coast Highway and Jamboree Road , • Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive • Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue • Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard ' • Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road • Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road Intersection turning movement counts were performed at the remaining two project study intersections in April 2006. Counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM to capture the AM peak hour and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM for the PM peak hour. These intersections are: , • Jamboree Road and Hyatt Newport Entrance/Island Lagoon • Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Because these traffic counts were completed in 2006, the application of an annual growth factor is not necessary. Vehicle counts by turning movement at all ten project intersections for AM and PM peak hour are shown in Figures 3 -2 and 3 -3. ' J IBI GROUP PAGE 10 F -14 I NOT TO SCALE IB I Newport Beach Construction Traffic impact Study Figure 3 -2 GROUP Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes -AM Peak ' F -15 66 \ 190 1 974 155 J t_1254 1738 2370 28 1 / 60 \ 2 Iir5 NEWPORT aAY 8 \ 4J 11.36 6� 1 13 1947 —� © • -3290 484 -1 6 2621 1 r1 \ 8 / / 720 \ 1309) 1 L2253 87 J t331 1610 — © 2026 27 gh �T 4 Iir5 285 / a NEWPORT BAY ea! \ �a 87v0, / 0 \ 50.30 1 1035 60�j t±—Z5 1404 O 1163 6 7ir / LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume W ' 163I¢ ` 1701 ! 476 7a } La 37 36 69 0 . 99 3G ih 9 11313 NEWPORTBAY I. 1401 68J 1 329 6D t-1-90 23 Q 6 M !� rT� i 343 19 1 1'27 '103112 i6 461 1 222 2L6J t 145 1466 - -7 J O —1671 1 0 6 71r \ 0 / 2012 5-11�ML 0— O W1ir26 1064 163 \ 150 1 LnI 11L� t 45 1303 © -1398 49 1 � 2 \ 102, 4 06 24 / 6 1966 4J1LM 3J L — 0 7 ♦, 12 4 lir9 19.9 N NOT TO SGILE IB I Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study Figure 3 -3 GROUP Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak F -16 1 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 3.4 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection level of service for the existing condition is analyzed for each of the ten project study intersections. The analysis includes a review of the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Table 3.1 summarizes the results of the AM and PM peak hour existing conditions analysis. All study intersections operate at a satisfactory level of service in the existing condition. Table 3.1: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary No, 1 Intersection Coast Highway and Dover Drive ak LOS 0136 C PM Vic 0.779 Peak LOS C 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.775 C 0.650 B 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.740 C 0.771 C 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.371 A 0.506 A 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.459 A 0.544 A 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.570 A 0.756 C 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.763 C 0.828 D 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.564 A 0.659 B 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance/Island Lagoon 0.374 A 0.477 A 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.389 A 0.485 A 3.5 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EXISTING CONDITION Average daily traffic (ADT) data was also collected for arterial roadway links in the project study area. ADT data was obtained from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) traffic volume maps for 2005. A growth rate of 1% per year was applied to the appropriate roadway segments, consistent City of Newport Beach guidelines, to obtain Year 2006 ADT volumes. New ADT counts are obtained at two locations where OCTA traffic volume data was not available. Roadway link 24 -hour tube counts were conducted on Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road and on Back Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road in December 2006. The City of Newport Beach does not require an analysis of ADT and roadway link level of service for ' traffic impact studies. The ADT data collected and presented in this report is used in the analysis of noise and air quality as part of the preparation of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. Table 3.2 summarizes the average daily traffic volumes traffic volumes under existing conditions. II I IBI GROUP PAGE 13 F -17 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis Table 3.2: Existing Average Daily Traffic 1 Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road .� 38,502 2 Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara Drive 34,000 3 Jamboree Road north of the Project Entrance 34.000 4 Jamboree Road south of the Pro ect Entrance 34,000 5 Jamboree Road south of Back Bay Drive 34,000 6 Coast Highway west of Dover Drive 51,515 7 Coast Highway west of Ba side Drive 56,667 8 Coast Highway west of Jamboree Road 46,364 9 Coast Hqlhway east of Jamboree Road 37,091 10 Coast Highway east of Newport Center Drive 37,091 11 Coast highway east of Avocado Avenue 37,091 12 Coast Highway east of Macarthur Blvd 37,091 13 San Joaquin Hills Road east of Jamboree Road 18,000 14 Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road 14,524 15 Newport Center Drive north of Coast Highway 10,000 16 Macarthur Blvd north of Coast Highway 35,030 17 Dover Drive north of Coast Highway 32,000 18 Back Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road 997 IBI GROUP PAGE 14 F -18 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (YEAR 2010) Forecast traffic conditions during the construction of the proposed project in the Year 2010 are presented in this section. The traffic analysis for the Year 2010 Project Construction condition includes trips generated by the construction vehicles accessing the project site as well as the Year 2010 ambient traffic volumes and trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. The project construction analysis also factors in anticipated lane closures on Jamboree Road during construction of the hotel and upgraded sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to serve the hotel expansion. Additional detail on the duration, limits, and potential impact of the lane closures is provided in Section 4.3. 4.1 CONSTRUCTION TRIP GENERATION Forecast construction trip generation for the expansion of the Hyatt Newport Beach hotel was estimated using construction vehicle estimates provided by the project applicant's civil engineer. Trip generation estimates include both construction employee trips to the project site and construction ' vehicle trips. As is the case in the project analysis, the traffic analysis is focused on the AM and PM peak hours. Table 4.1 summarizes the net trip generation during hotel construction. Figure 4 -1 and 4- 2 illustrates the assumed distribution of construction trips (construction vehicle and employee trips) on ' the surrounding roadway network. Table 4.1: Project Construction Trip Generation 11 11 I Time Truck Employee Period Total Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Source: Hyatt Newport Construction Information IBI GROUP PAGE 15 1 F -19 O L sir -J L 11 rl i © � sir NOT TO SCALE IBT Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study 1 Figure 4 -1 GROUP Construction Truck Trip Distribution P -20 I �yx —J L tax 4D •_. eox sir 25% 1 L 5 t- 25% . L% 25% ---• © �5x -• © •--- sir sir NOT TO SCALE TUT Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 -2 GROUP Construction Employee Trip Distribution ' F -21 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis ' 4.2 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS — WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION CONDITION Table 4.2 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour LOS for the ten study intersections in the Future Without Project Construction condition. The increases in traffic volumes reflect ambient traffic growth and new trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. As would be expected, LOS levels at each intersection are worse than the existing conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The LOS level during PM peak hour for three intersections changes to an unacceptable level in the future condition (defined as LOS E or worse). The intersection turning movement volumes for the Future Without Construction condition are shown in Figures 4 -3 and 4-4. Table 4.2: Future Without Construction (Year 2010) Intersection LOS Summary 1 Intersection Coast Highway and Dover Drive AM Vic 0.801 R D 0.902 E 2 Coast Highway and Ba side Drive 0.851 D 0.770 C 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.884 D 1.012 F 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.506 A 0.608 B 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0 -566 A 0.645 B 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0 -723 C 0.929 .E 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.875 D 0.949 E 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.654 B 0.736 C 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrancellsland Lagoon 0.457 A 0.565 D 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.470 A 0.577 B 181 GROUP PAGE 18 F -22 7 u 1 1 I 1 1 1 LI / 7a 2.,J 111091 56 J L7 —1711 32 3 9 Wir3 NEWPORTaAY sa%o / 1 5311) 1 1637 W2.1 L36 1108— Q' —1617 FO of 8 70 \ 0 LEGEND ® Project Site Q Signalized Intersection ---� Peak Hour Volume u 50� 1163 L 3148 3335 89 35!!!��� � 1 rU2 21 NEWPORTBAY 1557 67 1 1807 30D 1357 ]8 —. O 8 557 105 2ir20 1]89 / 322 \ 85 J 1 1303 13R t?22 2159 -� © x-1460 32—i �» �2 29 1 174 431f / NEWPORT BAY 3J 299 11531 77t t 142 23— 0 —5 is 1 FM 1664 0 88J 1135 452J t ?11 1880— 0 1702 0� T;- O F, 1184 37J 1114 t 0 0— 0 L-1 Z 2�ir6 1974 Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study IB I GROUP Future Without Construction (Year 2010) Study Intersection Volumes -AM Peak F -23 / 72 \ 43J1470 20a�t t 124 1672 —+ © —1582 228 88 611 r102 � 55 6 1188 6711,8 t 46 0— --1 40 ♦ ?T 4 r1l 1923 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 4 -3 231 1 L, 073 215t ti375 2248= O 2])4 29 !� �» 2' 1 I45 63 8 7J1�� 92D t 14 2528- © 3]5] 51,1� 6 26[I 1 F21 � H / 203hI 7 L541 y� t 659 53 O] 36 i ♦ 209 1 iI149 1,6412 / 252 \ 147 j1 L486 105 t 390 2053 © 2384 61i F86 283 / 160 \ 148J 1 L217 1L7_j t?7 1940 -• © --1836 527 5 24 NOTTOSC LE I �TR T Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study 1JJ 1 Figure 4-4 GROUP Future Without Construction (Year 2010) Study intersection Volumes - PM Peak F -24 [I U 1 1 II 1 1 1 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 4.3 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS —WITH CONSTRUCTION CONDITION Table 4.3 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour LOS for the ten study intersections in the Future With Project Construction condition. The increases in traffic volumes reflect the traffic generated by the construction activities, in addition to.the ambient growth rate and new trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. This analysis also includes the planned lane closures on Jamboree Road during construction of new sewer and storm drain facilities for the Hyatt Newport hotel. The installation of the improved sewer and storm drain facilities will require construction within the Jamboree Road right -of -way for a period of four to six weeks. The project applicant's civil engineer has indicated that one lane of southbound Jamboree Road would need to be closed during construction from a point 250 feet north of Back Bay Drive to a point approximately 850 feet north of the Hyatt Entrance /island Lagoon intersection. The traffic impact analysis for the With Project Construction conditions assumes the closure of one southbound lane on Jamboree Road within the limits described above during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection turning movement volumes for the Future With Construction condition are shown in Figures 4 -5 and 4 -6. Table 4.3 summarizes the LOS at each project study intersection. Table 4.3: Future With Construction (Year 2010) Intersection LOS Summary 1 Coast Hiqhway and Dover Drive 0.803 D 0.904 E 2 Coast Highway and Ba side Drive 0.854 D 0.772 C 3 Coast Hiqhway and Jamboree Road 0.887 D 1.014 F 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.508 A 0.609 B 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0:567 A 0.646 B 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.724 C 0.931 E 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.876 D 0.747 C 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.655 B 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrancensland Lagoon 0.452 A 0.824 D 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.472 A 0.614 B Identifies an intersection with a significant impact The Future With Construction analysis identifies a significant traffic impact at Study Intersection #7 (Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road) during the PM peak hour. This is a temporary traffic impact that would occur only during construction of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion. Mitigation measures to address this significant impact are identified in the following section. IBI GROUP PAGE 21 F -25 / 203J71 15�61 X97 2452 — 0 x-1712 327 11 5 �3 NE ORTaAY / \ 50 �J j L63 7J. i 28 3159 --» © .-- 1989 331 355 h i 1102 21 / / 3 852J i L°^ 134 t_20 2159 —+ © .-- -1460 327 142 \ 29 1 It174 431 Ba1Lt0a 81va 4'' / i \ 5355 1 L.37 6005 tT 6 1109—. O' . -1621 07 71r , LEGEND Project Site © Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume NEWPORTBAY t r � 1611 67J 1 65 407. 30LJ t7 78, O —8 5] 3 106 2i' 11 (130 11774 NEWPORTBAY ' 1356 34J 1 L531 7_J t-!!? 23, Q r -5 24Z!!��} 41 1 I r23 116190 / "J1 L5 450 J `11 1880 O . -1709 1240 371L.4 22J 0 —» tD . -1 57 291 F6 1978 / \ 3Ji70 20 J t 4 1673 — © « -1589 28 : 88 66 1102 55 6 1186 123J 3J 55 � Cd5 0 —. LL' �1 42-Z 27 11 r. 923 N NOT TO SCALE IBI Newport Beach Construction Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 -5 GROUP I Future With Construction (Year 2010) Study Intersection Volumes -AM Peak F -26 66 2391 L1073 215 - `376 2249 --+ N 62 2 \ 71 F 63 / NE ORT9AY 6 "j 1 L"0 9�• 2529 11— © f6-3 8 51 r� \ 26<1114i / ]52 tp5� .`381 2053 -+ © .- 238a 28 r 198 �°1 l 6 283 Balboa 87vr/ '�• �1 LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection —� Peak Hour Volume NEWPOft79AY >w. >•, 1 1771 1 541 7a } L9 53— 36 1 609 1,L 1"52 1692 NEWPORTSAY 1787 771 1 L346 63, CT 24 —a Q . -7 29 3 l 391 16 h 1 fi35 111401 4921 1 1 22 3 3 157 2139 0 1 0 1 0 0� 2420 5J1L37 L 0, © �i 32 1 J 14 39 1 F27 1447 1481 1 417 aj t47 1947 - -. © . -1837 §2 1 (]5 1001 r4 24 6 2373 4J1L35 '5 i � t?6 1 —. LL' 0 Oil * 16 r" I f(-�5 137779 N NOT TO SCALE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study j) Figure 4 -6 GROUP Future With Construction (Year 2010) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak ' F -27 884 1 186 1863 —. Q 1450 ♦0 7ir LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection —� Peak Hour Volume NEWPOft79AY >w. >•, 1 1771 1 541 7a } L9 53— 36 1 609 1,L 1"52 1692 NEWPORTSAY 1787 771 1 L346 63, CT 24 —a Q . -7 29 3 l 391 16 h 1 fi35 111401 4921 1 1 22 3 3 157 2139 0 1 0 1 0 0� 2420 5J1L37 L 0, © �i 32 1 J 14 39 1 F27 1447 1481 1 417 aj t47 1947 - -. © . -1837 §2 1 (]5 1001 r4 24 6 2373 4J1L35 '5 i � t?6 1 —. LL' 0 Oil * 16 r" I f(-�5 137779 N NOT TO SCALE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study j) Figure 4 -6 GROUP Future With Construction (Year 2010) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak ' F -27 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 4.4 ON -SITE PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion would result in some temporary loss of existing off - street parking for hotel visitors. This section discusses off- street parking conditions at the Hyatt Newport during construction. The project applicant submitted a Conceptual Construction Management Plan, dated February 28, 2007, outlining the number of parking spaces that would be available for use by hotel guests and visitors during construction. It is estimated that a minimum of 406 parking spaces would be available during both the timeshare /spa construction phase and the new ballroom construction phase. During construction, 391 guestrooms will be available for use, resulting in a minimum parking requirement of 196 spaces per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. Additionally, 15,538 square feet of banquet and meeting room space will also be available for use during construction. Consistent with the methodology described in Traffic Study, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) manual Shared Parking, 2nd Edition is used to determine a parking demand forecast the Hyatt Newport hotel during construction of the proposed hotel expansion. The ULI manual has compiled parking data from land uses throughout the United States and identifies typical peak parking rates for specific land uses and opportunities for shared parking between adjacent land uses. Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of facility space for hotels with ballroom /banquet facilities- This ratio results in a forecast peak demand of 310 parking spaces for the 15,538 square feet of ballroom/ banquet facilities that will remain in operation during construction. Together, the hotel guest rooms and banquet facilities would be anticipated to have a combined parking demand of 506 spaces allocated as 310 spaces for the banquet facility and 196 spaces for the hotel guest rooms. However, this assumes that the peak time periods for parking demand for each use overlap. Shared Parking also forecasts peak parking demand time periods based on actual parking surveys of specific land uses. Table 4.4 summarizes parking demand for the Hyatt Newport hotel on an hourly basis for a typical weekday. Table 4.4: Hyatt Newport Hotel Off- Street Parking Demand Forecast During Construction Time Period 8:00 am Hotel ' Guest Room 176 Sanquettlyeeting Demand 155 331 75 9:00 am 157 310 467 -61 10:00 am 137 310 447 Al 11:00 am 137 310 447 At 12:00 pm 127 310 437 -31 1:00 pm 127 310 437 -31 2:00 linn 137 310 447 -41 3:00 pm 137 310 447 -41 4:00 pm 147 310 457 -51 5:00 pm 157 310 467 -61 6:00 pm 167 155 322 84 7:00 pin 167 93 260 146 8:00 PM 116 93 269 1 137 9:00 PM 186 31 217 189 10:00 Pm 186 0 186 220 IBI GROUP PAGE 24 F -28 Cl 11 11 1 H 1 I 1 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis Based on these forecast parking demand rates, the interim off - street parking configuration during construction would not provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to meet peak demand at the hotel. The anticipated peak parking demand is forecast to exceed off - street parking supply by as many as 61 spaces. A minimum of 467 parking spaces would need to be provided into to meet demand. Potential mitigation measures to address this impact are discussed in Section 5.1. IBI GROUP PAGE 25 F -29 Hyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITITGATION MEASURES This section discusses the significant traffic impacts identified in this traffic impact analysis and provides mitigation measures to address each impact. 5.1 WITH CONSTRUCTION CONDITION One significant traffic impact is identified during the With Project Construction Condition at the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road during the PM peak hour. This is a temporary traffic impact that occurs only during the construction of the proposed Hyatt Newport Hotel expansion. The mitigation measure to address this traffic impact is to restrict construction vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. During the construction of the Hyatt Newport Hotel expansion, no construction vehicle trips are permitted to enter or exit the project site during the PM peak period between 4:00pm and 6:00pm. Construction vehicles are defined as dirt haulers, material delivery trucks, construction vehicle transport truck and other similar large vehicles. Construction employee trips are not included in this restriction. 5.2 SITE ACCESS AND PARKING A significant parking impact is also identified during the With Project Construction Condition. The project proposes to provide 406 off - street parking spaces onsite during construction. Based on the analysis completed in Section 4.4, a minimum of 467 parking spaces are necessary to meet anticipated peak demand of the available hotel uses open during construction. To mitigate this impact, the Hyatt Newport hotel project applicant shall maintain a minimum of 467 parking spaces use by hotel guests and visitors during the full duration of construction of the hotel expansion. This minimum requirement of 467 may be provided through either self parking or valet parking. In addition, the project applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan prior to the initiation of construction activities to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall clearly identify how and where the 467 necessary parking spaces would be accommodated onsite during construction. IBI GROUP PAGE 26 F -30 ' IHyatt Newport Construction Traffic Impact Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 IBI GROUP F -31 TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE 27 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 2 -1 Newport Hyatt __ _ - -__ - Existing AM Intersection Volume Report --------------- --- Base Volume Alternative Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Node Intersection L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T -- R 1 Coast Hwy And 50 55 63 1056 74 170 127 2175 31 28 1281 0 2 Coast Hwy and 356 21 101 19 11 32 34 2853 320 86 1472 27 3 Coast Highway 29 430 174 219 308 0 1210 1922 30 136 1038 0 4 Coast Hwy and 0 0 0 35 0 0 428 1606 0 0 1086 0 5 Coast Hwy and 66 55 102 70 72 0 196 1401 27 85 971 119 6 Coast Hwy and 0 0 0 564 0 0 504 927 0 0 1133 0 7 Jamboree Road 19 1411 0 568 1277 0 301 61 0 93 8 316 8 Jamboree Road 13 1336 308 497 1038 32 71 23 24 40 5 137 9 Jamboree Road 24 1622 14 12 930 36 22 0 6 23 1 10 10 Jamboree Road 42 1589 10 7 923 62 49 0 32 17 1 33 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -32 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 3 -1 ________________________________________________________________________________ Newport Hyatt - Existing AM ------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ---- ------- -- - - - - -- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Biel/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive C xxxxx 0.736 C xxxxx 0.736 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive C xxxxx 0.775 C xxxxx 0.775 + 0.000 V/C # 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Rea C xxxxx 0.740 C xxxxx 0.740 + 0.000 V/C # 4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center A xxxxx 0.371 A xxxxx 0.371 + 0.000 V/C # 5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue A xxxxx 0.459 A xxxxx 0.459 + 0.000 V/C # 6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulev A xxxxx 0.570 A xxxxx 0.570 + 0.000 V/C # 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin C xxxxx 0.763 C xxxxx 0.763 + 0.000 V/C # 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbar A xxxxx 0.564 A xxxxx 0.564 + 0,000 V/C # 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entran A xxxxx 0.374 A xxxxx 0.374 + 0.000 V/C # 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Dri A xxxxx 0.389 A xxxxx 0.389 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -33 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 4 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.736 Loss Time (sec): 0 (y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 87 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II --------------- 1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0' I 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II-------------- II--- -- ---- ------ II--- ----- -- - -- - -1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 55 63 1056 74 170 127 2175 31 28 1281 672 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 O.DO Initial Bse: 50 55 63 1056 74 170 127 2175 31 28 1281 0 User Adj: 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 50 55 63 1056 74 170 127 2175 31 28 1281 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 55 63 1056 74 170. 127 2175 31 28 12B1 0 PCE Adj: 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 50 55 63 1056 74 170 127 2175 31 28 1281 0 ---- -- - - - --- --------------- II --------------- f)--------------- II --------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 4800 1600 1600 3200 4733 67 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- 11--- --- --- -`--- -II----- ----- --- --I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.03 0:04 0.22 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.27 0.00 Crlt Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -34 AM Peak Existing . Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 5 -1 Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 02 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive # x**;##*t* kk* 4#**k%* F**##*} ktk} k* tk** xhxF Rhk* k#** k *F *Y#kR4kxFtYkktxkk*4xYk*kk # +* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.775 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 101 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 ------------ ---------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 356 21 101 19 11 32 34 2853 320 86 1472 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 356 21 101 19 11 32 34 2853 320 86 1472 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 356 21 101 19 11 32 34 2853 320 86 1472 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 356 21 101 19 11 32 34 2853 320 86 1472 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 356 21 101 19 11 32 34 2853 320 86 1472 27 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- I!--------------- 11--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.24 0.13 0.63 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 3575 211 1014 1600 409 1191 1600 4800 1600 1600 6285 115 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.10 0.10 0.10 MI 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.59 0.20 0.05 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -35 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 6 -1 -------------------- --- --- -- ------- ---- ---- ---- -- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road # X+ rt4fFR% k+#*#k FhhkkYi *# *Y:kik *4 * *fRR } * { # *RR #k #k#} RRR *R } # #4R4SkkRk44R 1R #RR *R! #k *# Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.740 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 88 Level Of Service: C #i #i4 % * *FF +! # *# ;RkF %X4k #; RRR#«# kk1F*#+}* kkR%*+ ktkk +kkR#k}4 ♦aRR *R#k *}i; #k#R#Y:#+ #k Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 430 174 219 308 655 1210 1922 30 136 1036 214 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 29 430 174 219 308 0 1210 1922 30 136 1038 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 -00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 29 430 174 219 308 0 1210 1922 30 136 1038 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 430 174 219 308 0 1210 1922 30 136 1038 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0100 Final Vol.: 29 430 174 219 308 0 1210 1922 30 136 1038 0 ------------ I--------------- II---------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 Lanes: 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.94 0.06 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2278 922 1600 3200 1600 4800 6302 98 3200 6400 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.14. 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.16 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** «4 ## kkk* * +k* k*# 4RRi4« Y*# kRrt# 1R rt** R* k4kk* RRrt# L44* kRk## k#** kR# k * # *k4R*rtki # +t4k*rtR#4 *4 *k #RRRR#4 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -36 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 7 -1 Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.371 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II---------- ----- II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 79 428 1606 0 0 1086 202 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 '0 0 428 1606 0 0 1086 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 35 0 0 428 1606 0 0 1086 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 0 428 1606 0 0 1086 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 35 0 0 428 1606 0 0 1086 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II------ ------- -- II---------- - - - - - I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -37 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 8 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) *#***+#} k* x*# kk+ x4kFk4} rtk« k* k} k#* FFk##+# FxF* k#}# Y4kF #+k #i44 # #khY *4# #ttxxkk44+# #* Intersection #5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue k% x*#*# k*; xk* Yk# 4k**+ 4k#; FF}# kkkk« kk4kkFkx**** 44# xF *+i #i +4k « «# + *k # #4Y# * *th4 } *44# Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. IX): 0.459 Loss Time (sec): 0 {Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (seclveh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II --------------- f Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 55 102 70 72 43 196 1401 27 85 971 119 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 55 102 70 72 0 196 1401 27 85 971 119 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 66 55 102 70 72 0 196 1401 27 85 971 119 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 66 55 102 70 72 0 196 1401 27 85 971 119 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 66 55 102 70 72 0 196 1401 27 85 971 119 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II------ --- -----II- ---- ----- - - - -- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.94 0.06 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 4709 91 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I1--------------- i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.20 0.07 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -38 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 9 -1 _____________________________________________.____ _______________________- _ -_____ Newport Hyatt - Existing AM __ __ ------- _----------- _------ ----------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) #*#* rt* k4kF* FF* kF# 4**k* i *i##4Y# *Y * *4 *rthRx *RFFxFx * * # *#rt k * % # *+* *kkRFk4Y**hY44 * *h } * ** Intersection #6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulevard k *k *FRFkkkYk * # *YrtY ## Y4k** rt*}4** , Yrt* xxF** k4 *Y* * *44 #hk *FR %kfY *Y # # # * # % }xx* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.570 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: A FFYF4* kk** k* Y## 1#* k4** k* xk***% FFxxkk##* F*k*##k Y*# *4 * #k * *hxFF4YYk * #i # *h # * #kRFkkii Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------- 1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min_ Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------ ____.,________________ II_______________ il__ _____________II_______________i Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 564 0 387 504 927 0 0 1133 1036 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 564 0 0 504 927 0 0 1133 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 564 0 0 504 927 0 0 1133 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 564 0 0 504 927 0 0 1133 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 564 0 0 504 927 0 0 1133 0 ------------ !--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 71--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 1 --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- U - ------- ---- - -I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0 -00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 Grit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -39 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 10 -1 ----------------------------------------------- ---- --------- ---- ---- --- - -- - -- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 47 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.763 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay isec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 96 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- f Volume Module: Base Vol: 19 1411 119 568 1277 64 301 61 57 93 8 316 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 19 1411 0 568 1277 0 301 61 0 93 8 316 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 19 1411 0 568 1277 0 301 61 0 93 8 316 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 19 1411 0 568 1277 0 301 61 0 93 8 316 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 19 1411 0 568 1277 0 301 61 0 93 8 316 ------------ 1--------------- 11--- ----- ------- 11 --------------- --------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- IV--------------- 11--------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.18 0.27 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.20 Crit Moves: } * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -40 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13 :52:53 Page L1 -1 --------------------------------------------------- ----- -------- -- --- -- - - - - -- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.564 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 13 1336 308 497 1038 32 71 23 24 40 5 137 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 13 1336 308 497 1038 32 71 23 24 .90 5 137 User Adj: 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 13 1336 308 497 1038 32 71 23 24 40 5 137 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 13 1336 308 497 1038 32 71 23 24 40 5 137 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 13 1336 308 497 1038 32 71 23 24 40 5 137 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- I1--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.51 1.78 0.22 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 1600 783 817 2844 356 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.28 0.19 0.16 0.22 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.09 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -41 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2009 13:52:53 Page 12 -1 --------------------------------------------------------------------`------- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM, Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.374 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = S sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): rrxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II --------------- I1 --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 1622 14 12 930 36 22 0 6 23 1 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 24 1622 14 12 930 36 22 0 6 23 1 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 24 1622 14 12 930 36 22 0 6 23 1 10 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 24 1622 14 12 930 36 22 0 6 23 1 10 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 24 1622 14 12 930 36 22 0 6 23 1 10 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- il -------------- -1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.04 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 1600 4621 179 1600 0 1600 1533 67 1600 ------------ I --------------- Il--------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -42 AM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:52:53 Page 13 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing AM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.389 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R - 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------------------- ------- 11------ ------ ---II --------------- 11 --- - -I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II------ ---- ---- _II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 42 1589 10 7 923 62 49 0 32 17 1 33 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 42 1589 10 7 923 62 49 0 32 17 1 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 42 1589 10 7 923 62 49 0 32 17 1 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 42 1569 10 7 923 62 49 0 32 17 1 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 42 1589 10 7 923 62. 49 0 32 17 1 33 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- Il--------------- II--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4770 30 1600 4498 302 1600 0 1600 1600 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- II-------------- II-- --- ------- --- II--- ---- --- - - - - - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -43 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51.25 Page 2 -1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - .Existing PM ------------------------------------------------------------_--------------_-- Intersection Volume Report Base Volume Alternative --------------------------------------------------- ---------- --- --- ---- --- - -- - -- Node Intersection 1 Coast Hwy And 2 Coast Hwy and 3 Coast Highway 4 Coast Hwy and 5 Coast Hwy and 6 Coast Hwy and 7 Jamboree Road 8 Jamboree Road 9 Jamboree Road 10 Jamboree Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T -- R 27 63 45 974 66 192 155 1738 28 60 2370 0 257 8 21 29 8 48 63 1947 484 61 3290 13 49 282 84 253 720 0 872 1610 27 187 2026 0 0 0 0 220 0 0 286 1486 0 0 1671 0 100 24 104 217 160 0 112 1303 49 72 1398 45 0 0 0 1035 0 0 608 1404 0 0 1163 0 107 1313 0 476 1634 0 73 37 0 197 47 612 15 1032 127 329 1401 68 61 23 29 340 6 485 35 1064- 20 33 2012 54 29 0 32 10 1 1 44 1049 14 33 1968 43 37 1 36 12 0 25 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -44 ,I I I I I I I ' Traffix 7.1.0607 '(c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA I ' F -45 PM Peak Existing ________________________________________________________________________________ Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 3 -1 Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service I Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive C xxxxx 0.779 C xxxxx 0.779 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive B xxxxx 0.650 B xxxxx 0.650 + 0.000 V/C # 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Roa C xxxxx 0.771 C xxxxx 0.771 + 0.000 V/C # 4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center A xxxxx 0.506 A xxxxx 0.506 + 0.000 V/C # 5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue A xxxxx 0.544 A xxxxx 0.544 + 0.000 V/C # 6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulev C xxxxx 0.756 C xxxxx 0.756 + 0.000 V/C # # 7 8 Jamboree Road Jamboree and San Joaquin D xxxxx 0.828 D xxxxx 0.828 + 0.000 V/C Road and Santa Barbar B xxxxx 0.659 B xxxxx 0.659 + 0.000 V/C I # 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entran A xxxxx 0.477 A xxxxx 0.477 + 0.000 V/C # 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Dri A xxxxx 0.485 A xxxxx 0.485 + 0.000 V/C ,I I I I I I I ' Traffix 7.1.0607 '(c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA I ' F -45 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 4 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Los3 as Cycle Lenqth %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) #* 444kXkxF** 4*#* xF#* k#### hF *4i *Y ;F * * #Xk #Y*FhFF # # *hh�i #xRk *1#4x4 * * *xFrx# * **#tkx ; #. Intersection kl Coast Hwy And Dover Drive * 4X11 4##* Fx44k##* x*** * * #k*F4 *XkkkFFx * *4rtk # ;hx * * # #A'k Xa #xxR #Fr # * *Y# * *xkxri*44 *t;F; Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap- (X): 0.779 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 103 Level Of Service: C F**#*#**# Ffi* x## k#** xk** k* 4kFhrt* 4} k; xkh#*# 414FFx4# #kia ## #R #FRx * * # * # *xk *FxF *k ##tY; Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----------_- I--------------- II-----------_--- II- -------- --- --II-------- -- - - - -- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 63 45 974 66 192 155 1738 28 60 2370 1254 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial. Bse: 27 63 45 974 66 192 155 1738 28 60 2370 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 27 63 45 974 66 192 155 1738 28 60 2370 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 Reduced Vol: 21 63 45 974 66 192 155 1738 28 60 2370 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 27 63 45 974 66 192 155 1738 28 60 2370 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.17 0.83 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1867 1333 4800 1600 1600 3200 4724 76 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- ll--------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.49 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 'Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -46 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 5 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level OF Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Fk**+ h+* xFFF; kk+# k* hFFx*# k*#* k*% x**# k++* k* RF; xhrt+ khFF*tk# * %FRh* *4ixR *Yk# +i + %*xkk Intersection N2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.650 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 65 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II-------------- _II--------------- --------------- Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 it 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 257 8 21 29 8 48 63 1947 484 61 3290 13 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: .257 8 21 29 8 48 63 1947 484 61 3290 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 PHF Volume: 257 8 21 29 8 48 63 1947 484 61 3290 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 257 8 21 29 8 48 63 1947 484 61 3290 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 257 8 21 29 8 48 63 1947 484 61 3290 13 ------------ I --------------- ll--------------- 11--------------- I)--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.70 0.08 0.22 1.00 0.14 0.86 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 4313 134 352 1600 229 1371 1600 4800 1600 1600 6375 25 ------------ I --------------` II--------------- II-- --- --- ---- -- II ------- --- - - - - - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.30 0.04 0.52 0.52 Crit Moves: + * #* * * «* « *k# * * ** Traffix 7,1 -0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -47 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51 :25 Page 6 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LosS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection A3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road *#*#***###*N##** S*% Y**{#******* W*#;***+*;** N**{ k* *##k *S * *## # * % *4 *44FN * + } *FNF **4* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val. /cap. (X): 0.771 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- 11 --------------- ]i ---------- - --- -II---- ----- - - - - - -I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II---- ----- -- -- -- II------- --- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 49 282 84 253 720 1309 872 1610 27 187 2026 231 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 49 282 84 253 720 ' 0 872 1610 27 187 2026 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 -00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 49 282 84 253 720 0 872 1610 27 187 2026 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 49 282 84 253 720 0 872 1610 27 187 2026 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 49 282 84 253 720 0 872 1610 27 187 2026 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- I1--------------- 11--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.54 0.46 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.93 0.07 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2466 734 1600 3200 1600 4800 6294 106 3200 6400 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.00 0.18 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves; * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -48 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 7 -1 Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection &4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.506 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- '--------------- II --------------- 11--------------- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 220 0 460 286 1486 0 0 1671 145 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 220 0 0 286 1486 0 0 1671 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 220 0 0 286 1486 0 0 1671 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 220 0 0 286 1486 0 0 1671 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.; 0 0 0 220 0 0 286 1486 0 0 1671 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- Ii--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: .Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves; * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -49 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 8 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Y;* xxxh# t*#* xxxx### kY4#**# kkfkxk*#*+# xx* k##+; xFx * * # +k* *xx * #4 #Y4ki ; #Fxxx#k# #k4f ## Intersection #5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.544 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: A kl* h+ Y* xxrt4t*# F* x### k# tx%** 4k+* FRh# tk* xxxtYFifi* xx *kk +4#t #* ; %x # #YkkkF4xFF%xk4tk *k Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- i Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 24 104 217 160 147 112 1303 49 72 1398 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 24 104 217 160 0 112 1303 49 72 1398 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: too 24 104 217 160 0 112 1303 49 72 1398 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 24 104 217 160 0 112 1303 49 72 1398 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 l_0o 1.00 0.00 1.o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 100 24 104 217 160 0 112 1303 49 72 1398 45 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.85 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 1842 1358 1600 1600 4626 174 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat:. 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.29 0.03 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -50 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 200'7 13:51:25 Page 9 -1 ---------------------------------------------------------_----__-----------_- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) +** kFFF* xk}* k* X4* akkkX4***# xkFxkx*## YX# rt* 4{++ k* hrt4xxk # #h4x+ *xhxxx *Yk#ati *k *kk }R# Intersection #6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulevard * x** k*****}**** ik+*** X* X4**** x******** k4********* * * * *** * ** *x * ** * * *X ** ** #F * *kxxkk Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol ./Cap. (X): 0.756 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (seclveh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 76 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------- - - -- -I -- II--------------- II---------- ----- fl--- ------ - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 1035 0 503 608 1404 0 0 1163 625 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1035 0 0 608 1404 0 0 1163 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1.O0 1.00 0.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1035 0 0 608 1404 0 0 1163 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1035 0 0 608 1404 0 0 1163 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1035 0 0 608 1404 0 0 1163 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II- ------- -- -- - - -1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 Crit Moves: *** k* 4** 4* k*{*++****** xxxhxxx* F* F*# Y**** k** Y*x xxT *4kk4k **xxxFF * *Fk+ ** *txxxxxx# ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -51 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 10 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) tkhR* xrtk+* i# Khi**# kkF* xh*# M} kxi** kk# xFx***#} K*#*## k # *tih *- ## #YF£Fhfi* * *#k +YY #F * * #i Intersection k7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road * k# Yih i## Y*+t hkk*++ i# Fikkk* kf## rt*+ i# k# Si* i#}* Fiii # *kF* *i * *i#rt+kkF *h + +Y # #t * # *F!i* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.828 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- II--------------- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 107 1313 136 476 1634 170 73 37 36 197 47 612 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 107 1313 0 476 1634 0 73 37 0 197 47 612 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 107 1313 0 476 1634 0 73 37 0 197 47 612 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced VOL: 107 1313 0 476 1634 0 13 37 0 197 47 612 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 107 1313 0 476 1634 0 73 37 0 197 47 612 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.99 1.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 3185 1615 1600 3200 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.07 0.27 0.00 0.15 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.38 Crit Moves: ** i+ rtYt** Kh# rt# k} *K *kti * *RKi #t#t}xrt *#k } *iiKtih }* kit #ti / *ixx #firtii4rt}FKiiYrt4YiiYKii Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -52 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 11 -1 Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU I(LOSS as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R 1. - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- li--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- i Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II - ---- Volume Module: Base Vol: 15 1032 127 329 1401 68 61 23 29 340 6 485 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 15 1032 127 329 1401 68 61 23 29 340 6 485 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 15 1032 127 329 1401 68 61 23 29 340 6 485 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 15 1032 127 329 1401 68 61 23 29 340 6 485 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 15 1032 127 329 1401 68 61 23 29 340 6 485 ------------ --- --- -- ----- -- II----------- - - - -II --------------- --------------- Saturation flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.97 0.03 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 1600 708 892 3145 55 1600 _----------- I --------------- II--- ----- --- --- - II --------------- --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.22 0.08 0.10 0.29 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.30 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** *hRR Traffix 7.1.0601 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -53 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 12 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Existing PM Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSs as Cycle Length 96) Method (Base Volume Alternative) X + # *X;kRRX4kk*4; ;R* x444 !;;xx *i +[kxxhXY #MkxxxM4Lkk %k4 %*4%x44# #f kf +xx xX %xkikxfkxxx Intersection R9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance h%*%# kk; kRh% ki#[;; kX%;#* ki% X% hL+ ;4AxXXkk }kkxxhX4- hk #ikxhXh +h4k4 kkikxhRhYki +kk[Rkf Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.477 Loss Time {sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: A 4x4x X %; #rt *kkhX % +kkkkRx %k #ktkxh #Y # #* 44x4} k# kkRR% Xkk }k;4hxRkR%kk4Xkk4kRRxRX ; ;+k + +; Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II --------------- 1 Control: Protected Protected .Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 35 1064 20 33 2012 54 29 0 32 10 1 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 35 1064 20 33 2012 54 29 0 32 10 1 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 35 1064 20 33 2012 54 29 0 32 10 1 11 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 1064 20 33 2012 54 29 0 32 10 1 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 35 1064 20 33 2012 54 29 0 32 10 1 1 ------------ I --------------- I1--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 Final Sat_: 1600 4800 1600 1600 4675 125 1600 0 1600 1455 145 1600 ------------ I --------------- V I--------------- II--------------- Il--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** x** *R *x# #x } * *xx #4 } *RxxX } %x *xRx # + +* }xxx * *# }* xxx *} } * # #kRxxxxX#4t ##kt'k xttx4 # **#xkkk Traffix 7,1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -54 a i I Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -55 PM Peak Existing Thu Jan 4, 2007 13:51:25 Page 13 -1 _________________________________________________ Newport _______________ Hyatt - Existing PM ____ _______ _ ____ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.485 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L _______________ - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L _______________ - T - R Control: Protected _______________ Protected _______________ Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------ ______ I_______________ Volume Module: II_______________ II__ _____________II_______________I Base Vol: 44 Growth Adj: 1.00 1049 19- 1.00 1.00 33 1.00 1968 43 37 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 36 1.00 12 1.00 0 25 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 44 1049 19 33 1968 43 37 1 36 12 0 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.OG 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 PHF Volume: 44 1.00 1.00 1049 19 1.00 33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1968 43 37 1 1.00 36 1.00 12 1.00 1.00 0 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 1049 19 33 1968 43 37 1 36 12 0 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 -.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 44 1049 19 33 1968 43 37 1 36 12 0 25 ------------ I_--------------- Saturation Flow Module: ! I--------------- II--------------- }!--------------- 1 Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 2.94 0.06 1.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4715 85 1600 4697 103 1600 43 1557 1600 1600 1600 _1 --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: FF** - **** **** %•** i I Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -55 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 2 -1 -----------------------------------------------------`---_-------_------------ Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------_-------- Intersection Volume Report Base Volume Alternative -----------------------------------------------------------------_----------_-- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Node Intersection L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T -- R 1 Coast Hwy And 50 55 63 1091 74 203 156 2446 32 29 1711 0 2 Coast Hwy and 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3148 335 89 1988 28 3 Coast Highway 29 431 174 303 322 0 1332 2159 32 142 1460 0 4 Coast Hwy and 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1880 0 0 1702 0 5 Coast Hwy and 66 55 102 70 - 72 0 204 1672 28 88 1582 124 6 Coast Hwy and 0 0 0 637- 1 0 .600 1108 0 0 1617 0 7 Jamboree Road 20 1769 0 607 1557 0 301 78 0 105 8 357 8 Jamboree Road 14 1684 323 531 1299 34 17 23 24 40 5 142 9 Jamboree Road 25 1974 16 14 1184 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 10 Jamboree Road 46 1923 11 8 1186 67 55 0 40 27 1 45 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -56 I ,1 I I I I ITraffix 7,1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -57 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2D07 13 :40:36 Page 3-1 -------------------- Newport Hyatt Future ------------------------------ Impact Analysis Report ------------------------- - Level Of Service ' Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive D xxxxx 0.801 D xxxxx 0.801 + 0.000 VIC # 2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive D xxxxx 0.851 D xxxxx 0.851 + 0.000 VIC # 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Roa D xxxxx 0.884 D xxxxx 0.884 + 0.000 VIC # 4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center A xxxxx 0.506 A xxxxx 0.506 + 0.000 VIC # 5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue A xxxxx 0.566 A xxxxx 0.566 + 0.000 VIC # 6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulev C xxxxx 0.723 C xxxxx 0.723 + 0.000 VIC # 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin D xxxxx 0.875 D xxxxx 0.875 + 0.000 VIC ' # 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbar B xxxxx 0.654 B xxxxx 0.654 + 0.000 VIC # 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Fntran A xxxxx 0.457 A xxxxx. 0.457 + 0.000 VIC # 10 Jamboree Road and Back Say Dri A xxxxx 0.470 A xxxxx 0.470 + 0.000 VIC ,1 I I I I ITraffix 7,1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -57 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 4 -1 --------------------------- -.---_------_---_------------_--_------------------ Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection Al Coast Hwy And Dover Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.801 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 115 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected- Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- 11--- -------- ---- I1- -------- - - - - --I Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 55 63 1091 74 203 156 2446 32 29 1711 797 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0o Initial Bse: 50 55 63 1091 74 203 156 2446 32 29 1711 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF volume: 50 55 63 1091 74 203 156 2446 32 29 1711 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 55 63 1091 74 203 156 2446 32 29 1711 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 50 55 63 1091 74 203 156 2446 32 29 1711 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--- ----- ------ -II-- -- ---- -- --- - -1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 4800 1600 1600 3200 4738 62 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------- - - - - - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.23 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.36 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -58 i i AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40 :36 Page 5 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) *k£< i#* i+#*** RRkkkkkk#** k* kR *kRtk * *kkikk*k *X %Rtk #ah4kikXRX* #kki # * #XX # #i4 #i*XY; ;f Intersection #2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive * XXSkk} ii i**** XX*# a* Xikk** rtX**# kkkt#+ k*t**' kkh} RRRk }kik * * *Xk +k * * *4 # *Xk #a# } *#k *R +t Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.851 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D *## f+#******* 44kit+ k** RR**# k+ kkkik* 4k** kXRk; fk# 4kikk * * *t.R#kt # ++XkTRk # #k #k *h *R #fa Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3148 335 89 1988 28 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3148 335 89 1988 28 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3148 335 89 1988 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3148 335 89 1968 28 PCE -Adj: 1.00 1.00 1 -00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3148 335 89 1988 28 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- il--------------- II--------------- ! Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.24 0.13 0.63 1.00 0.18 0.82 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 3575 209 1016 1600 289 1311 1600 4800 1600 1600 6311 89 ------------- I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: vol /Sat: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.66 0.21 0.06 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** 4 * +k * *kk * * **k4k#k **X *kkk *k* kkk * *kk #X *k * * * * *kkik * % * * **kRXkk #kki *kk4 *k * * *i* *kk * #k*ktR*kXR4 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -59 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 6 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.884 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 431 174 303 322 851 1332 2159 32 142 1460 422 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bee: 29 431 174 303 322 0 1332 2159 32 142 1460 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 29 431 174 303 322 0 1332 2159 32 142 1460 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 431 174 303 322 - 0 1332 2159 32 142 1460 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 -00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 29 431 174 303 322 0 1332 2159 32 142 1460 0 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.94 0.06 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2280 920 1600 3200 1600 4800 6307 93 3200 6400 1600 ------------ I --------------- lY--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vollsat: 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.00 0..29 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.23 0.00 Crit Moves: * *** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -60 I I I I C' 1 I 1 L I I I AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 6, 2007 13:40:36 Page 7 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection M4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.506 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II --------------- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 88 450 1880 0 0 1702 211 Growth Ad5: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1880 0 0 1702 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1880 0 0 1702 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1880 0 0 L702 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1880 0 0 1702 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- r!--------------- !!--------------- ! Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1,00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0,00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0..00 0.00 0.14 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -61 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 8 -1 ---------------------------------------------------------------.-_------------ Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) t* ka# 4Rhrt##+ i##} xxi* 4# it* 4Rx** f} 44iRx* fx##*; xkrtif # +rt #4kxxkx *#*4 *akix }l ;hi*rt*f4*f Intersection H5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue #akaf +#R *R #kRaai#kiR * + #4 #iYR R # *#4}*R *x*kik +fxxkx ***4f }fk #xxRxi *#*)af <i \ #fRxR * * #+ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.566 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: A Rk4 #kaa 4fk; #R #k4+ifi4R *R* 1441# kkk*##}#* k##+} k4# i4* Rik44ai #* #x+ }k #�'* *k *Yi \ ;ixxxR* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I' --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- 1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 11------ ---- -- --- i1---- ----- -- - ---I Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 55 102 70 72 43 204 1672 28 88 1582 124 Growth Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 55 .102 70 .72 0 204 1672 28 88 1582 124 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1672 28 88 1582 124 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1672 28 88 1582 124 PCE Adj: 1.00 1100 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF.Adj: 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1672 28 88 1582 124 ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 4721 79 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.04 0,03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.33 0.08 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** *x ** kxi***# 4* x* xx*** k * * * *ix *k4 *k *xxk4 *k # * * * *i *kkk * *4 *1444414 # * * *44x *x# #iki } # *k* *4441 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -62 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 9 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap- (X): 0.723 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected. Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 637 1 531 600 1108 0 0 1617 1236 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 637 1 -0 600 1108 0 0 1617 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1108 0 0 1617 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1108 0 0 1617 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MIX Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1108 0 0 1617 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 1600 0 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.23 0 -00 0.00 0.34 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -63 AM Peak 2008 without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:90:36 Page 10 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AN - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSs as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (x): 0.875 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D * i*+ axx+ x+ rt# axR* rt+ x*+ xx* x+. rt;; xrt#+* axxkax; xxxx; # # + ;xx *+4 #raxx «#; *a #xxxx+ #; ; ; +x xx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ----- _------ I --------------- II-- -- --------- II--------------- II---------- - - - --I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase. - Rights: Ignore Ignore Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II-- ----- --- ---- -11- ---- ---- - - - - - -I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1769 129 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 20 1769 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PBF Volume: 20 1769 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: .20 1769 0 PCE Adj:. 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol`.: 20 1769 0 ------------I--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 ------------1--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.37 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** xxxxxxxxx*xx * *x *zzz *xxxxxx*+ 607 1557 1.00 1.00 607 1557 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 607 1557 0 0 607 1557 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 607 1557 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3200 4800 0.19 0.32 zx *+ 67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1600 1.00 1.00 1600 0.00 4 *x *x* 301 78 1.00 1.00 301 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 301 78 0 0 301 78 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.00 301 78 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3200 1600 0.09 0.05 * *** 57 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1600 1.00 1.00 1600 0.00 kxxxx* 105 8 357 1.00 1.00 1.00 105 8 357 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 105 8 357 0 0 0 105 8 357 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 105 8 357 I1--------- - - - - - -I 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3200 1600 1600 I1--------- - - - - - -1 0.03 0.01 0.22 xxxrt k + + + + +Rxz+ +x *x +xxx Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -64 AM Peak 2003 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 11 -1 _ ___ _____ __ _____ __ _____ -- _-- _- _-- _______- _-- _____ -__ ____ _ Newport Hyatt Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.654 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: B kxxx#*#+# hkt* xhx{{ 4###### 44* t# x* x*{#**++* krt* hxxx* # # +4rttk*xt4 #k # * *t { ##{ # +*t * *Rxx< Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--- ---------- -- II- ----- ---- - - - -- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 1684 323 531 1299 34 77 23 24 40 5 142 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ise: 14 1684 323 531 1299 34 77 23 24 40 5 142 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 1684 323 531 1299 34 77 23 24 40 5 142 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 1684 323 531 1299 34 77 23 24 40 5 142 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 14 1684 323 531 1299 34 77 23 24 40 5 142 ------------ I-------------- li--------------- II-- ------ ------- Il- --- ------ - - - - - I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.51 1.78 0.22 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 1600 783 817 2844 356 1600 ------- I -------------- - 11 --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.35 0.20 0.17 0.27 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.09 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** + * ** + * ** Traffix 7,1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -65 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 12 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.457 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = S sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: A k4i*#** R4# RfRf h* k+ kR« hkR# kR* x# k« i{« R«# 44+; RT« 4Ai* k4 « *R #rt }k * #h * #h4 # *+rtR «f ;« #4 *+t« Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II---------- - - - - -I Controlt Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 1974 16 14 1184 37 22 0 6 36 L 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 25 1974 16 14 1184 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1 -00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 25 1974 16 14 1184 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 1974 16 14 1184 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 25 1974 16 14 1184 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- ll --------------- 11 --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 16D0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.03 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 1600 3103 97 1600 0 1600 1557 43 1600 ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vollsat: 0.02 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 O.D2 0.01 Crit Moves: • * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 1 11 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -67 AM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:40:36 Page 13 -1 Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction AM - Year 2010 . Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length e) Method (Base Volume Alternative) x**** x*** 4##*###*+++ 4+# x# x### k « } %Y * + * #k + %rt % % % * % * * *x * + # # +kfY• Intersection #10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive % Y% Y**** YY% Y% YY***** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.470 Loss 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx ' Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: A '(sec): Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ' Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ___I -------- _______ --------- ___ 11___--------- Control: Protected Protected ___ II__ _--------- ___!I___--------- Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 _____________II_______________I 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------ ______ I_______________ II_______________ Volume Module: II__ Base Vol: 46 1923 11 8 1186 67 55 0 40 27 1 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 1923 11 8 1186 67 55 0. 40 27 1 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 1923 11 -8 1186 67 55 0 40 27 1 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Reduced Vol: 46 1923 11 8 1186 67 55 0 40 27 1 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 1923 11 8 1186 67 55 0 40 27 1 45 ' ------------ --------------- 11--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 II--------------- 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 II_______________I 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.84 0.16 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4773 27 1600 4543 257 1600 0 1600 1600 1600 1600 ' . ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: 1 11 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -67 PM Peak 2008 without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 2 -1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Pro3ect Construction PM - - Year 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Volume Report Base Volume Alternative -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Node Intersection 1 Coast Hwy And 2 Coast Hwy and 3 Coast Highway 4 Coast Hwy and 5 Coast Hwy and 6 Coast Hwy and 7 Jamboree Road 8 Jamboree Road 9 Jamboree Road 10 Jamboree Road Northb L -- T 27 63 262 8 50 283 0 0 100 24 0 0 112 1642 16 1348 36 1391 52 1379 3und Southb - R L -- T 45 1073 66 21 100 8 86 486 752 0 223 0 104 217 160 0 1186 0 0 541 2031 132 346 1785 27 37 2418 25 35 2373 Dund Eastbo - R L -- T 239 215 2248 77 92 2528 0 1056 2053 0 312 2132 0 117 1940 0 821 1859 0 74 53 77 63 24 56 29 0 47 39 1 ind - R 29 511 28 0 52 0 0 29 32 41 Westbound L -- T -- R 62 2774 C 63 3757 14 L98 2384 C 0 2118 C 75 1836 47 0 1449 C 209 47 655 341 7 492 14 1 2 16 0 2E Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to- IBIGROUP, IRVINE, CA PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construe --------------------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Del/ V/ LOS Veh C # 1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive E xxxxx 0.902 # 2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive C xxxxx 0.770 # 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Roa F xxxxx 1.012 # 4 Coast Hwy and.Newport Center B xxxxx 0.608 # 5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue B xxxxx 0.645 # 6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulev E xxxxx 0.929 # '7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin E xxxxx 0.949 # 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbar C xxxxx 0.736 # 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entran A xxxxx 0.565 # 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Dri A xxxxx 0.577 -Lion PM - - Ye Future Del/ V/ LOS Veh C E xxxxx 0.902 C xxxxx 0.770 F xxxxx 1.012 B xxxxx 0.608 B xxxxx 0.645 E xxxxx 0.929 E xxxxx 0.949 C xxxxx 0.736 A xxxxx 0.565 A xxxxx 0.577 Page 3 -1 sr 2010 Change in + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -69 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 4 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport 11yatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection kl Coast Hwy And Dover Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.902 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11 - ------- -- ---- II ---------- - - - -- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 63 45 1073 66 239 215 2246 29 62 2774 1375 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial 8se: 27 63 45 1073 66 239 215 2248 29 62 2774 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 27 63 45 1073 66 239 215 2248 29 62 2774 0 Reduct Vol:. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Reduced Vol: 27 63 45 1073 66 239 215 2248 29 62 2174 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0_00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 -00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 27 63 45 1073 66 239 215 2248 29 62 2774 0 ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- t Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.17. 0.83 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1867 1333 4800 1600 1600 3200 4739 61 1600 4800 1600 --- --------- I --- -- -- II--------------- II--- ---- ---- ----II- -- -- --- -- - - - - - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.03 0.03 0,22 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.04 0.58 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** « * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -7 0 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 5 -1 _________________________________________________ ______ __________________ _______ ' Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - = Year 2010- __------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection k2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.770 ' Losst Time *see): 0 (Y +R 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ' Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -------- ______----- _----- __ II__----- _----- __ II__ _--------- ___II___--------- ___I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 ------ _____________________ II_______________ II___ ..___________II_______________I Volume Module: Base Vol: 262 8 21 100 8 77 92 2528 511 63 3757 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 262 8 21 100 8 77 92 2528 511 63 3757 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 262 8 21 100 8 77 92 2528 511 63 3757 14 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 262 8 21 100 8 77 92 2528 511 63 3757 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol_ 262 8 21 100 8 77 92 2528 511 63 3757 14 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I ' Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.70 0.08 0.22 1.00 0.09 0.91 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.99 0.01 ' Final Sat.: 4322 132 346 1600 151 1449 1600 4800 1600 1600 6376 24 ----- _----- _---- __--- ___--- II---- _---- __---- II---- _---- __---- If---- _---- ______I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.53 0.32 0.04 0.59 0.59 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** kY *4 ' Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -71 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 6 -1 -- ---- -- -- - - - -- ---___-_-_-__----------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (x): 1.012 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- II --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 283 86 486 752 1470 1056 2053 28 198 2384 380 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 50 283 86 486 752 0 1056 2053 28 198 2384 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 50 283 86 486 752 0 1056 2053 28 198 2384 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 283 86 486 752 0 1056 2053 28 198 2384 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 50 283 86 486 752 0 1056 2053 28 198 2384 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.53 0.47 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.95 0.05 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2454 746 1600 3200 1600 4800 6314 86 3200 6400 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.37 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -72 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 7 -1 -------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -- - --- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length °s) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection A4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.608 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 48 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- ll--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- il--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 223 0 492 312 2132 0 0 2118 157 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 223 0 0 312 2132 0 0 2118 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 223 0 0 312 2132 0 0 2118 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 223 0 0 312 2132 0 0 2118 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 223 0 0 312 2132 0 0 2118 0 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 Crit Moves: z * ## * **# * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -73 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 8 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU I(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 45 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.645 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II ------ - - - - -- - -II -- ---- - - --`I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ I --------------- il--------------- ( I--------------- II--------------- 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 24 104 217 160 148 117 1940 52 75 1836 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 24 104 217 160 0 117 1940 52 75 1836 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 100 24 104 217 160 0 117 1940 52 75 1836 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 24 104 217 160 0 117 1940 52 75 1836 47 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 100 24 104 217 160 0 117 1940 52 75 1836 47 ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.85 1.00 . 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 1842 1358 1600 1600 4675 125 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--- -- -- ---- ---- 11-- -- ---- -------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.41 0.05 0.38 0.03 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c),1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -74 PH Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 9 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU )(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) intersection #6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.929 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ 1-------------- I1--------------- 11---------- ----- 11- --- ------ - - - - -I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II-------------- _II---------- - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 1186 0 664 821 1859 0 0 1449 758 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1186 0 0 821 1859 0 0 1449 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1186 0 0 821 1859 0 0 1449 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1186 0 0 821 1859 0 0 1449 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0..00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1186 0 0 821 1859 0 0 1449 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2 -00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ---- ---- ---- I --- - -- - -- II--------------- II- ---- --- --- ----II- -- ---- --- -- -- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 Ciit Moves: * * ** Tcaffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to III GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -75 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov S. 2007 13:47:33 Page 10 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------`------ Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length °s) Method (ease Volume Alternative) Intersection V Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.949 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II -------------_- II --------------- II---------- - - - -- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 ------------ I ------ - - - - - . Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 I642 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 112 1642 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 112 1642 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 112 1642 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 112 1642 ------------ ----------- Saturation Flow Module: 'Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 -- -------- -- I ----- - --- -- 149 541 2031 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 541 2031 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 541 2031 0 0 0 0 541 2031 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 541.2031 ---- II --- - - - - -- 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1600 3200 4800 ---- II --- - -- - -- 177 74 53 0 -00 1.00 1.00 0 74. 53 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 74 53 0 0 0 0 74 53 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0 -- -- 11-- 74 - - 53 - - - -- 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1 -00 1.00 1.00 1.75 1.25 1600 2797 2003 -- -- II -- - - - - --- 36 209 47 0.00 1.00 1,00 0 209 47 0.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1,00 0 209 47 0 0 0 0 209 47 0.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 1.00 1100 0 - -- 14 209 -- - --- 47 -- 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 2.00 1,00 1600 3200 1600 ---- II --- - - - - -- 659 1.00 659 1.00 1.00 659 0 659 1.00 1.00 659 - -- I 1600 1.00 1..00 1600 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.07 0.34 0.00 0.17 0.42 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.41 Crit Moves: * * ** + * ** * * ** * * ** .Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -76 ' Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -77 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 11 -1 ' - - -- Newport Hyatt -= Future Without Project Construction- PM = 2010 - - Level - - - -- Of Service Computation Report -Year -_ - -- - ICU 11LOSS as Cycle Length $) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection A8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap._(X): 0.736 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 86 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R ------------ L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------- Control.: Protected II--------------- II--------------- 11 Protected Split Phase --------------- Split I Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ' Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 ------------ 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 I--------------- Volume Module: II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- I Base Vol: 16 1348 132 346 1785 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 ' Growth Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 1348 132 346 1785 77 .63 24 29 341 7 492 User Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 1348 132 346 1785 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 1348 132 346 1785 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 PCE Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 ' MLF Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 16 1348 132 ------------ 346 1785 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 I--------------- Saturation Flow Module: 11 --------------- II--------------- !!--------------- ! 'Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3,00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.55 1.96 0.04 1.00 ' Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 ------------ 3200 4800 1600 1600 725 875 3136 64 1600 I --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: II --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Vol /Sat: 0.01 0,28 0.08 0.11 0.37 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.11 '0.31 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** + # «* ' ' Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -77 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 12 -1 ______________________________________________ ___ __ ___ ________ _________ ______ Newport Hyatt - Future Without .Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length a) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 99 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.565 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sect Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II --------------- il--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 36 1391 27 37 2418 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 1391 27 37 2418 56 29 D 32 14 1 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 36 1391 27 37 2418 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 36 1391 27 37 2418 56 29 0 32 14 1. 2' PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol_: 36 1391 27 37 2418 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 ------------ i--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.93 0.07 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 1600 4691 109 1600 0 1600 1493 107 1600 ------------ I --------------- II_____.--------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.29 0.02 0..02 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -78 C] 1 11 1 CI F 1 1 PM Peak 2008 Without ConstrThu Nov 8, 2007 13:47:33 Page 13 -3. _______ __ ____ ____ ___ __________________ Newport Hyatt - Future Without Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU I(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) +4 +tt * + + + *# kkk** xk* x4xkxxXXXXkXk* kkXk* Xk* 4* k* kk* x + +t +t # + *x # + # ** # #x4 *4 *Xkkxk4 +x4* Intersection #10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive * + + + + # + +xx* kkk* kkkXkXkXXkk4kl XXXkkkXkkkkkkXk* kk+# # #t * # + + ** + #x #++ # + # # ;XXkkXkkXkkk Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.577 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 54 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II Control: Protected --------------- II --------------- II Protected Protected --------------- I Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ---- --- - - - - -I Volume Module Base Vol: 52 1379 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 1379 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 52 1379 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 52 1379 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 52 1379 ------------ I---------- Saturation Flow Module: 25 1.00 25 1.00 1.00 25 0 25 1.00 1.00 25 35 2373 1.00 1.00 35 2373 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 2373 0 0 35 2373 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 35 2373 47 39 1.00 1.00 47 39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47 39 0 0 47 39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47 39 1 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1 0 1 1.00 1.00 1 41 1.00 41 1.00 1.00 41 0 41 1.00 1.00 41 16 0 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 0 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 0 26 0 0 0 16 0 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 0 26 Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 2.94, 0.06 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4715 8S 1600 4707 93 1600 38 1562 1600 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- Il --------------- II --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -79 Default Scenario Newport Hyatt _______ _____ __ _ ___ Node Intersection 1 Coast Hwy And 2 Coast Hwy and 3 Coast Highway 4 Coast Hwy and 5 Coast Hwy and 6 Coast Hwy and 7 Jamboree Road 8 Jamboree Road 9 Jamboree Road 10 Jamboree Road Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 ______________________________________ Future With Project Construction AM - Intersection Volume Report Base Volume Alternative Northbound Southbound Eastbo L -- T -- R L -- T -- R L -- T 50 55 63 1092 74 203 156 2454 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3159 29 431 174 304 322 0 1343 2159 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1881 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1673 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1109 20 1774 0 607 1611 0 301 78 14 1690 323 531 1354 34 77 23 25 1978 16 14 1240 37 22 0 54 1923 11 8 1186 123 57 0 - Ye and - R 32 335 32 0 28 0 0 24 6 42 Page 2 -1 3r 2010 Westbound L -- T -- R 29 1712 C 89 1989 28 142 1460 C 0 1709 C 88 1589 124 0 1621 C 106 8 357 41 5 142 36 1 18 27 1 45 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA I J I. 1 Traffix 7.1.0607 (0) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBi GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -81 Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 3 -1 ' _______________ _________________ __________ Newport Hyatt - Future With ____ Project Construction _________________________ AM - - Year 20LD ____________________________________ Impact _______________________________ Analysis Report Level Of Service ' Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C ' # 1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive D xxxxx 0.803 D xxxxx 0.803 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive ❑ xxxxx 0.854 D xxxxx 0.854 + 0.000 V/C ' # 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Roa D xxxxx 0.887 D xxxxx 0.887 + 0.000 V/C # 4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center A xxxxx 0.508 A xxxxx 0.508 + 0.000 V /C. ' # 5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue A xxxxx 0.567 A xxxxx 0.567 + 0.000 V/C # 6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulev C xxxrx 0.724 C xxxxx 0.724 + 0.000 V/C ' # 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin D xxxxx 0.876 D xxxxx 0.876 + 0.000 V/C # 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbar B xxxxx 0.655 B xxxxx 0.655 + 0.000 V/C ' # 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entran A xxxxx 0.452 A xxxxx 0.452 + 0.000 V/C # 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Dri A xxxxx 0.472 A xxxxx 0.472 + 0.000 V/C I. 1 Traffix 7.1.0607 (0) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBi GROUP, IRVINE, CA ' F -81 Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 4 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------_----------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive + kkkRkkkk4+ 4kk*#<+ k4** k* XX% k% kk* kk*#* kkkkk### 4t44ikk +#+ #kX#XRXkX #kX4# * *k +Y *4 * %Xk' Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X1: 0.803 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 116 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- I Control: Split_ Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ----------- I ------------ --- II----- -- ---- - - - -II -- -If-- -------- - - ---I Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 55 63 1092 74 203 156 2454 32 29 1712 797 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 50 55 63 1092 74 203 156 2454 32 29 1712 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 50 55 63 1092 74 203 156 2454 32 29 1712 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 55 63 1092 74 203 156 2454 32 29 1712 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 50 55 63 1092 74 203 156 2454 32 29 1712 0 ----_------- I --------------- II--------------_ II--------------- II---------- - - - - - I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1 -00 2.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 4800 1600 1600 3200 4738 62 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--- ----- -- ----- II-- ----- --- -- - - - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.23 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.36 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -82 Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 5 -1 -------------------------------------------------- --------------------- --- --- Newport Hyatt - Future with Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length a) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Ri*+ f# tT# kfk## t+ i}#* Krt* Rx4kT}## t4# ai} k#%* kk* x*# x# i- t #tk #K *xtfaT + + #tixRk}a#*#a # #hT Intersection #2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.854 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D # xf#.## tt# ta####*## zxlkxx# Tk*+#}# Kak*** z1+ xT* ka* t# #aa #%zxxaaka + #k *xx *k ##'Rtt*a } *% Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- I( --------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 ------------ -------------- II------- _---- _-- II-------- ------- II -- --- - - - --I volume Module: Base Vol: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3159 335 89 1989 28 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3159 335 89 1989 28 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3159 335 89 1989 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol; 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3159 335 89 1989 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 359 21 102 63 11 50 70 3159 335 89 1989 28 ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- !l--------------- ! Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Lanes: 2.24 0.13 0.63 1.00 0.18 0,82 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 3575 209 1016 1600 289 1311 1600 4800 1600 1600 6311 89 ------------ I --------------- II -------- ------- il--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: - Vol /Sat: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.66 0.21 0.06 0.32 0,32 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * +4* 4 + ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -83 Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 200E 11 :33:27 Page 6 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road XkiYkkkkSk } #*k # *} Skii#}#++ Sk* kYk# 44* kRSk# 4#%* kkRSS #k4 +!# +{RkRRRR #K #t * * *R * * *kRRh# Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.887 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II --------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected. Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 ------------ I------- -------- II --------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 431 174 304 322 852 1343 2159 32 142 1460 430 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 29 431 174 304 322 .0 1343 2159 32 142 1460 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 29 431 174 304 322 0 1343 2159 32 142 1460 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 29 431 114 304 322 0 1343 2159 32 142 1460 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 29 431 174 304 322 0 1343 2159 32 142 1460 0 ------------ 1--------------- 11--------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.94 0.06 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2280 920 1600 3200 1600 4800 6307 93 3200 6400 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.28 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.23 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -84 I 1 I I u III I I I I I U Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 7 -1 ------------------------ --- ------ ---------- - - - --- - -__------------ ----- --` --_ Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) # 4** t#t#f 4k# rtRhTRkk # #Yi #h #!*k # *ki * #kTkkTT *Tk *!4t}4 #tit #k;k *#ik* # #kRTR **k4Y # # *+4 Intersection #4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center # ik# 4# ikrtt rtkkk RTT* kk# t4#t k441}# k# rt* RT* TRT** k* iit Yty ! #44kT ; * #i }t }* #kkTTT **kY4 #4t* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.508 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A tY44k4#* i# 4t TTk TRTh** k# 4ii144k*}* k* rtrtrtR* T** R***## *f #*#! *4R *k *kk #4#itYRTk * #ttkt4* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I-------------- II--------------- II --------------- II --------- - - - - - - I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I-------------- II-------------- II----------- -- --II- ------ ----- -- - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 89 450 1881 0 0 1709 211 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1881 .0 0 1709 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1881 0 0 1709 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1881 0 0 1709 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 35 0 0 450 1881 0 0 1709 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- 1I--------------- 11--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II-------- -- - - - - -1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 Crit Moves: * tt# tt tt**«t** 4t* R** Rrt* RTk*****«* 4# t** k**«t kT* k** * # # # + *t#*ttkTk ** * * *t *tTw «t * * *t* Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -85 Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 8 -1 ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------- - - - --- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) TRRR*# 4## ktR hi!*+ k* TR+ 4k+ kfiR# 4#* kT* i*# 4#* Ti# kikkk xTRR4tki *khRRk #+4}#kRRRkxk} #t ## Intersection 45 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue *##* RRh+#;# kkRit+}## RR* Y4i4RRR4#*#* RRR{ kk* RR##* 4+ *kRT1## *+#k #RRTkRitk # # *kT#X+tki Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.567 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: A **+} 4# R{ Rh## kt 44R**+* 4+ iR+# i+* fiRi4*#* TR44+** Rxx4+ R#k4RRR *Y4k #t *kR *tRR #44#}kkRR #4 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II---_----------- II---------- ----- II ---------- - - - - - I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 -----------_ I --------------- II--------------- II---------- --- --II- -- ---- -- - - - - -- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 66 55 102 70 72 43 204 1673 28 88 1589 124 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1673 28 88 1589 124 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1673 28 88 1589 124 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1673 28 88 1589 124 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 66 55 102 70 72 0 204 1673 28 88 1589 124 ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 3 -.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 4721 79 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- 41--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.33 0.08 Crit Moves: *xxx 44 ** *xx* #x44 44***** xik*#* x4# tkk# x4# k;** R4ik***x 4* k*: k* 44* 4}# x* *k444itk *k444k *44k * *# *4Rh*t *k ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA I 1 I I I I I I I LJ 1 I Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 9 -1 ______________________________________________ __________ _______________ ______ Newport Hyatt - Future with Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) 4# wTiRikTR* RxR4## 4k4irt## i!}* hxR* k4# i}t 4!###*k** RT #4#! #4*}t #YiTTRkT *}k##4liiRTk *R Intersection #6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulevard Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.729 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ____________ _______________ Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0- 0 0 3 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 637 1 535 600 1109 0 0 1621 1236 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1109 0 0 1621 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1109 0 0 1621 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1109 0 0 1621 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 637 1 0 600 1109 0 0 1621 0 ------------ I--------------- ! 1--------------- 1 1--------------- 11--------------- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0,00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3200 1600 0 3200 4800 0 0 4800 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** # * ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -87 Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 10 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val. /Cap. (X): 0.876 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 _----------- i--------------- II--------------- II--- --- --- ------ II---- ----- - - - - - - I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 1774 130 607 1611 67 301 78 57 106 8 '357 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 1774 0 607 1611 0 301 78 0 106 8 357 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF volume: 20 1774 0 607 1611 0 301 78 0 106 8 357 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 1774 0 607 1611 0 301 78 0 106 8 357 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 20 1774 0 607 1611 0 301 78 0 106 8 357 ------------ I--------------- il--------------- II ---- ---- -- ----- II- -------- - - -- - - I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- il--------------- II --- -- --- ------ -ll-- ---- --- - -- -- - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.37 0.00 0.19 0.34 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.22 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * # *x } t#* k#**** t****** xx### k* xxt##********** xx#### xxxx #xk # #k * * * * # *# * * # * * * * +*x # # *xtt ** Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 1wW.Jj I I I I I I I I I Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 11 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road #k*4++} +i kit#+ kh* rt# kk ## *R # *kR #ki ##+ +ik #Y+Ytk+ # +h4Rf RTx #iK44 #i ## # *k *Tikt**R + +h #4k Cycle (sec): IOD Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.655 Loss Time (sec): D (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- 11---------- - - - --I Control: Protected Protected. Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1. 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II------ =-------- II-- -------------11---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 1690 323 531 1354 34 77 23 24 41 5 142 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse; 14 1690 323 531 1354 34 77 23 24 41 5 142 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 1690 323 531 1354 34 77 23 24 41 5 142 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 14 1690 323 531 1354 34 77 23 24 41 5 142 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML£ Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1100 Final Vol.: 14 1690 323 531 1354 34 77 23 24 41 5 142 ------------ I--------------- I)--------------- I1--- --- ----- --- -I1- ------ -- - - - - - -I Saturation Plow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 0.51 1.78 0.22 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 1600 783 817 2852 343 1600 ------------ I --------------- II ------------_-- II--------------- II ---------- - - - - - I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.35 0.20 0.17 0.28 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.09 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** *k ** *kRk k* kk* 4** t* k*#* i*} tf* t**+ rk***#** tf kk** kRRRkkkk+ k* * #tkk *Y * * * * *kkki*hRlh #RRkk *4if+ Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA I !J Default Scenario -Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33 :27 Page 12 -1 Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 --------------------------------------------------- --- ---- --------- - - - - -- Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 1 1 I F -90 I Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection A9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.452 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx , Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: ------- - - - - -I L - T - R ------------- L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ' Control: II--------------- Protected Protected, II--------------- 11- Permitted ---- --- - - - - - -I Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: ------------ 1 0 3 0 1 --------------- 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Volume Module: I II--------------- 11--------------- 11 --------------- 1 Base Vol: 25 1978 16 14 1240 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 25 1978 16 14 1240 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 25 1978 16 14 1240 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 1978 16 14 1240 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: ------------ 25 1978 16 1--------------- 14 1240 37 22 0 6 36 1 18 Saturation Flow II--------------- Module: II--------------- 11--------------- I Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.03 1.00 Final Sat.: ------------ 1600 4800 1600 --------------- 1600 3107 93 1600 0 1600 1557 43 1600 Capacity Analysis I II--------------- Module: II--------------- 11--------------- I , Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.41 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA 1 1 I F -90 I I I I I H I I [1 I I I I I Default Scenario Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:33:27 Page 13 -1 _- -- - - -- ----------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction AM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.472 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11 --------------- 11 --------------- II_--------- - - - - -I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 L 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 54 1923 11 8 1186 123 57 0 42 27 1 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Initial Bse: 54 1923 11 8 1186 123 57 0 42 27 1 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 54 1923 11 8 1186 123 57 0 42 27 1 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 1923 11 8 1186 123 57 0 42 27 1 45 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 1923 11 8 1186 123 57 0 42 27 1 45 ------------ I--------------- II------------ --- II-- -- ------- ---- II- - -- --- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.98 0.02 1.00 2.72 0.28 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4773 27 1600 4349 451 1600 0 1600 1600 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- 11 --------------- il--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -91 r PM Peak 2008.With ConstructFri Aug 15, 2008 11:38:39 Page 2 -1 ___________________________________________________ __ _____ ______ __ ________ ____ __ Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 __________________________________________________ ___ ______ _________ ______ ___ _ __ Intersection Volume Report Base Volume Alternative ___________________________________________________ ___ ____ ________ ________ _ _ ____ Node intersection 1 Coast Hwy And 2 Coast Nwy and 3 Coast Highway 4 Coast Hwy and 5 Coast Hwy and 6 Coast Hwy and 7 Jamboree Road 8 Jamboree Road 9 Jamboree Road 10 Jamboree Road Northb L -- T 27 63 262 8 50 283 0 0 100 24 0 0 112 1692 16 1401 36 1447 54 1379 Fund Southb� - R L -- T 45 1073 66 21 100 8 86 489 752 0 223 0 104 217 160 0 1186 0 0 541 2033 135 346 1787 27 37 2420 25 35 2373 )und Eastbo - R L -- T 239 215 2249 77 92 2529 0 1057 2053 0 312 2139 0 117 1947 0 825 1863 0 74 53 77 63 24 56 29 0 49 95 1 and _ R 29 511 28 0 52 0 0 29 32 47 Westbound L -- T -- R 62 2784 0 63 3768 14 198 2384 0 0 2119 0 75 1837 47 0 1450 0 209 47 659 341 7 492 14 1 2 16 0 26 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -92 PM Peak 2008 With ConstructFri Aug 15, 2008 11:38:39 Page 3 -1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 -------------------------------------- Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Coast Hwy And Dover Drive E xxxxx 0.904 E xxxxx 0.904 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Coast Hwy and Bayside Drive C xxxxx 0.772 C xxxxx 0.772 + 0.000 V/C # 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Roa F xxxxx 1.014 F xxxxx 1.014 + 0.000 V/C # 4 Coast Hwy and Newport Center B xxxxx 0.609 B xxxxx 0.609 + 0.000 V/C # 5 Coast Hwy and Avacado Avenue B xxxxx 0.646 B xxxxx 0.646 + 0.000 V/C # 6 Coast Hwy and MacArthur Boulev E xxxxx 0.931 E xxxxx 0.931 + 0.000 V/C # 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin E xxxxx 0.960 E xxxxx 0.960 + 0.000 V/C # 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbar C xxxxx 0.747 C xxxxx 0.747 + 0.000 V/C # 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entran D xxxxx 0.824 D xxxxx 0.824 + 0.000 V/C # 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Dri B xxxxx 0.614 B xxxxx 0.614 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.1.0607 ic) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -93 PM Peak 2008 With ConstructFri Aug 15, 2008 11:38:39 Page 10 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) *** 4<#* k** rth{ XYlXI h{ 444wTRhk h**!}# 4{ 4{ 4kTR* YrtXki{ k { * *k4T4kwk *4k}!Y4*t{4xT *xk1 *kt Intersection N7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road k# rtk#**#{# T*{* k* kX4k # {k4 *TRTrtkrtk ***k#t }i {TRTwk * * {Tk #kµ4 ** * *rtTwY!#} }wR { }k4*kwlRxR Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.960 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: E # k#*k** 4# 4+k t} k{ Tk{ R{* kµ{ 4k* T# wRRwk* 4# ik{* h4RTRf µk *4fk }k4kkkRTRkµtwttk}** {*k#!kw Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----------_ i--------------- II------------_-- II --- ---- -------- II--------- - - - - - - I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Ignore Ignore Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 ------------ 1--------------- If--------------- I1--------------- Il--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 1692 152 541 2033 177 74 53 36 209 47 659 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.OD 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 112 1692 0 541 2033 0 74 53 0 209 47 659 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0100 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 O.OD 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 112 1692 0 541 2033 0 74 53 0 209 47 659 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 112 1692 0 541 2033 0 74 53 0 209 47 659 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1100 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 112 1692 0 541 2033 0 74 53 0 209 47 659 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.75 1.25 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 2797 2003 1600 3200 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.07 0.35 0.00 0.17 0.42 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.41 Crit Moves: * * *• * * ** f. ** * * *k Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -100 PM Peak 2008 With ConstructFri Aug 15, 2008 11:38:39 Page 11 -1 ------- _ -_P--" - --'- _ ---------------- ---------------------_- - - - --' Newport Hyatt att Future With Project Construction PM Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) x*** 4+## 4# 4k## kxh*### x# 4k* x** k*** x* xx* xx* rt* hk** kx *x *xxkx * *k * * # #4 # *# * * +4 # * * *4# + }rt Intersection 48 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road ** k* k#*# xx44+ 4##* xx4# 4# 4## x* x** x***** xx* hhxxrt* x* hhxhRxxx * * * *k * *# # }t # * + ## * + # #} #x* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.747 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 90 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ 1--------------- II--------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 16 1401 135 346 1787 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 1401 135 346 1787 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 1401 135 346 1787 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 1401 135 346 1787 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 16 1401 135 346 1787 77 63 24 29 341 7 492 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600. 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.55 1.96 0.04 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 1600 1600 725 875 3136 64 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.01 0.29 0.08 0.11 0.37 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.31 Crit Moves: * * ** x * ** * * ** * *44 Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -101 PM Peak 2008 With ConstructFri Aug 15, 2008 11:38:39 Page 12 -1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) t* w; xwk* t}# t*!% ThT##* 4i% wxxTrtYa!} h# atRwkh** Y} 4}} k *t +k ; ;w % ;kFTxrth *} }! #t4*t #kkxk%T Intersection #9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Entrance h#+ hot; h* hx## xttwxhh*%* 4}%* wxTx*# a** x4al; wk T% rt# aY }# * ##t # ;tkTx *xhx*xwR *RRk # }R } * *w Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.824 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 106 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- II--------------- II --------------- II--------------- I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 36 1447 27 37 2420 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 1447 27 37 2420 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 36 1447 27 37 2420 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 36 1447 27 37 2420 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 36 1447 27 37 2420 56 29 0 32 14 1 2 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11--------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 1600 3128 72 1600 0 1600 1493 107 1600 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- il--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol /Sat: 0.02 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.77 0.77 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -102 I I I ' Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -103 PM Peak 2008 With ConstructFri Aug 15, 2008 11:38:39 Page 13 -1 ________________________________________________________________________________ Newport Hyatt - Future With Project Construction PM - - Year 2010 ____ Level Of __ ____ ----------- Service Computation -- _ _ Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length a) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Yf%;* i* 4ikkk# Xi* ii;*#% i4# ik* h%*+ 44;;* #i #k## # ** # }i# ; ; %hh#i#44 *k #hrtrt# I Intersection #10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive i44i4f*#*+ Yik Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.614 Time (sec): 0 (Y +R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx Loss Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --II L - T - R --------- - - - - -I ------------------------- Control: Protected II--- -- ------- --- II---- Protected - --- -- -- - - Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------ ______ I_______________ Volume Module: II_______________ il__ _____________ll_______________I Base Vol: 54 1379 25 35 2373 49 95 1 47 L6 0 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 54 1379 25 35 2373 49 95 1 47 16 0 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 54 1379 25 35 2373 49 95 1 47 16 0 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 1379 25 35 23%3 49 9S 1 47 16 0 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . Final Vol.: 54 1379 25 35 2373 49 95 1 47 16 0 26 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: II--------------- ll--------------- I Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.95 0.05 1.00 2.94 0.06 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.; 1600 4715 85 1600 4703 97 1600 33 1567 1600 1600 1600 ----- _----- _ 1---- _---- Capacity Analysis ______ II Module: ---- _---- ______ II ---- _______ ---- II---- _---- __---- I Vol /Sat: 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** kk* k# tYtkY##% 4kk* k* YYk* kk** YYYYkkkkkRYi*i#kY#4 *k * * *kiYYkk4 i'k *#xYi # #k*kkk *YYY *kki I I I ' Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to IBI GROUP, IRVINE, CA F -103 Appendices Appendix G Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report by IBI Group, September 22, 2008 CO Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion Final EIR City of Newport Beacb Appendices ' This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center February 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HYATT NEWPORT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for City of Newport Beach Rev —SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 Prepared by: GRG�JP' G -1 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis ' TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.. ..................................................................... ........................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... ..............................3 1.1 REPORT SECTIONS ..................................................................... ............................... 3 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................. ..............................3 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .... ............................... 6 2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ....... .................... .. ...... .. .... .. ... ... ......... _._ ..... ____ ...... 6 2.2 TRAFFIC IMPACT LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................... ..............................7 2.3 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE .................................................. ..............................7 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................ ..............................8 3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ................................................. ..............................8 3.2 PROJECT STUDY INTERSECTIONS ............................................. ..............................8 3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................... .............................10 3.4 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................... .............................13 3.5 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EXISTING CONDITION. .... __ ...... ____ .... 13 4.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION (YEAR 2012) .. .............................15 4.1 PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH 1992 CIOSA TRAFFIC STUDY .. .............................15 4.2 AMBIENT TRAFFIC GROWTH ...................................................... .............................15 4.3 APPROVED AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ............................... .............................18 4.4 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS - WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION .................... 24 4.5 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION ...........27 5.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (YEAR 2012) ....................28 5.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ................................................... ............................... 28 5.2 HOTEL TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON ............................... ............................... 33 5.3 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS - WITH PROJECT CONDITION ............................34 5.4 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITH PROJECT CONDITION ...................35 5.5 ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM . .............................38 5.6 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ............................................ ............................... 38 5.7 ON -SITE PARKING ........................................................................ .............................40 6.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITITGATION MEASURES ........ 45 6.1 WITH PROJECT CONDITION ........................................................ .............................45 6.2 SITE ACCESS AND PARKING ..... ................................... _ ........................................ 45 TECHNICALAPPENDIX ................................................................... .............................46 ISI GROUP G -2 PAGE i IHyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis I I TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 -1: Project Study Area ................................. ............................... ..................... ..................4 Figure1 -2: Site Plan ................ ......................... ............................... .................. .....................5 Figure 3 -1: Existing Study Intersection Geometry ..................................................... ..............................9 ' Figure 5 -5: Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes — PM Peak .......................... 37 Figure 5 -6: Site Access Driveways ........................................................................ .............................39 I I I I i I I I I IBI GROUP PAGE ii I G -3 Figure 3 -2: Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes — AM Peak ............... .............................11 Figure 3 -3: Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes — PM Peak ............... .............................12 Figure 4 -1: Ambient Turning Movement Volumes Year 2012 — AM Peak ................ .............................16 ' Figure 4 -2: Ambient Turning Movement Volumes Year 2012 — PM Peak ................ .............................17 Figure 4 -3: CIOSA Hyatt Expansion Trips Removed from Study Intersections — AM Peak .................. 20 Figure 4-4: CIOSA Hyatt Expansion Trips Removed from Study Intersections — PM Peak ..................21 Figure 4 -5: Net Approved and Cumulative Project Added Trips — AM Peak ............ .............................22 Figure 4 -6: Net Approved and Cumulative Project Added Trips — PM Peak ............ .............................23 ' Figure 4-7: Future Without Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes — AM Peak .....................25 Figure 4 -8: Future Without Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes — PM Peak... .................. 26 Figure 5 -1: Project Trip Distribution .................... ............................... .................... .............................30 Figure 5 -2: Project Added Trips — AM Peak .......................................................... .............................31 Figure 5 -3: Project Added Trips — PM Peak ......... ............................... ................. .............................32 Figure 5-4: Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes — AM Peak .......................... 36 ' Figure 5 -5: Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes — PM Peak .......................... 37 Figure 5 -6: Site Access Driveways ........................................................................ .............................39 I I I I i I I I I IBI GROUP PAGE ii I G -3 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF TABLES Table ES.1: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary .................. ..............................1 Table ES.2: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary .................. ..............................2 Table 2.1: Level of Service for Signalized Intersections ................................... ..............................6 Table 3.1: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary .............................. .............................13 Table 3.2: Existing Average Daily Traffic ........................................................ ............................... 14 Table 4.1: Approved Projects ........ ............................... .............. ............................... .........18 Table 4.2: Cumulative Projects ..................................................................... .............................19 Table 4.3: CIOSA Hyatt Newport Expansion Trip Generat ion .......................... .............................19 Table 4.4: Future Without Project (Year 2012) Intersection LOS Summary ..... .............................24 Table 4.4: Future Without Project (Year 2012) Average Daily Traffic ............... .............................27 Table 5.1: Project Trip Generation ................................................. ................................ ..........28 Table 5.2: AM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation Comparison ....................... .............................29 Table 5.3: PM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation Comparison ....................... .............................29 Table 5.4: Daily Project Trip Generation Comparison ...................................... .............................29 Table 52: Hotel Ballroom - Banquet Facility Size Comparison .......................... .............................33 Table 5.3: Comparable Hotel Trip Generation .................................................. .............................34 Table 5.4: Vehicle Trips Per Room ................................................................... .............................34 Table 5.5: Future With Project (Year 2012) Intersection LOS Summary .......... .............................35 Table 5.6: Future With Project (Year 2012) Average Daily Traffic .................... .............................35 Table 5.7: CMP Intersection LOS Summary ..................................................... .............................38 Table 5.8: Hyatt Newport Off - Street Parking Summary...,. ............................................. __ ........ .40 Table 5.9: Hyatt Newport Hotel Off-Street Parking Demand Forecast ............. .............................42 Table 5.10: Hyatt Newport Timeshare Off -Street Parking Demand Forecast .. .............................43 Table 5.11: Hyatt Newport Total Off - Street Parking Demand Forecast ........... .............................43 IBI GROUP PAGE iii G -4 I Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description ' The Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. ( Sunstone) proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Newport Beach hotel (Hyatt Newport) located on a 25.7 acre site at 1107 Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The project would encompass the addition of 88 new timeshare units; an expanded ballroom adding a net 7,842 square feet of facility space; a 10,072- square -foot spa and new pool; and a two - level parking garage. As proposed, project implementation would require demolition of 12 existing villas (rooms), the. existing terrace ballroom (3,190 sgft), and removal of a nine -hole golf course. Analysis Methodology The traffic impact analysis is performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach standards. ' Traffic operations are analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. TRAFFIX software is used to perform ICU analysis. Traffic Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Existing, Future Without Project and Future With Project conditions are analyzed at ten study intersections. Effects of cumulative projects identified by the City of Newport Beach are considered for both Future Without and With Project conditions. Table ESA summarizes the traffic conditions at each project study intersection for the AM peak hour. Table ES.2 summarizes the traffic conditions at each project study intersection for the PM peak hour. I I LJ Table ESA: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary IBI GROUP PAGE 1 I G -5 No. 1 Intersection Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.736 C 0.811 D 0.813 D 0.002 No 2 Coast Highway and Ba side Drive 0.775 C 0.865 D 0.867 D 0.002 No 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.740 C 0.895 D 0.900 D 0.005 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.371 A 0.514 A 0.515 A 0.001 No 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.459 A 0.573 A 0.574 A 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.570 A 0.736 C 0.737 C 0.001 No 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.763 C 0.885 D 0.887 D 0.002 No 6 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.564 A 0.663 B 0.665 B 0.002 No 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entranceltsland Lagoon 0.374 A 0.461 A 0.461 A 0.000 No 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0389 A 0.481 A 0.485 A 0.004 No IBI GROUP PAGE 1 I G -5 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis Table ES.2: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary All study intersections operate at a satisfactory level of service in the existing condition. As would be expected, LOS levels at each intersection in the Without Project and With Project conditions are slightly worse than the existing conditions due to regional traffic growth and trips added by this project and other future projects. Study intersections 1, 3, 6 and 7 operate below the acceptable level of service in the Future Without Project and Future With Project conditions. However, the increase in VIC at these intersections resulting from project traffic does not exceed the impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are identified to traffic circulation as a result of proposed expansion of the Hyatt Newport hotel, and no mitigation measures are required at the study intersections. No significant traffic impacts are identified related to parking availability and project site access. The Hyatt Newport hotel is anticipated to provide sufficient parking facilities to meet parking demand generated by the hotel and timeshare facilities. No significant impacts related to parking availability are identified. IBI GROUP PAGE 2 G -6 Intersection Drive Existing Vic 0.779 LOS 0.914 E 0.916 E 0.002 No C 73 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.650 B 0.781 C 0.782 C 0.001 No Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.771 C 1.026 F 1.032 F 0.006 No 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.506 A 0.618 B 0.619 B 0.001 No 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.544 - A 0.651 B 0.652 B 0.001 No 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.756 C 0.945 E 0.946 E 0.001 No 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.826 D 0.958 E 0.961 E 0.003 No 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.659 B 0.742 C 0.745 C 0.003 No 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance /Island Lagoon 0.477 A 0.559 A 0.573 A 0.014 No 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.485 A 0.601 B 0.611 B 0.010 No All study intersections operate at a satisfactory level of service in the existing condition. As would be expected, LOS levels at each intersection in the Without Project and With Project conditions are slightly worse than the existing conditions due to regional traffic growth and trips added by this project and other future projects. Study intersections 1, 3, 6 and 7 operate below the acceptable level of service in the Future Without Project and Future With Project conditions. However, the increase in VIC at these intersections resulting from project traffic does not exceed the impact threshold established by the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts are identified to traffic circulation as a result of proposed expansion of the Hyatt Newport hotel, and no mitigation measures are required at the study intersections. No significant traffic impacts are identified related to parking availability and project site access. The Hyatt Newport hotel is anticipated to provide sufficient parking facilities to meet parking demand generated by the hotel and timeshare facilities. No significant impacts related to parking availability are identified. IBI GROUP PAGE 2 G -6 fHyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of a traffic impact analysis performed for the City of Newport Beach, analyzing the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed expansion of the Hyatt Newport Hotel. The traffic impact analysis has been completed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach traffic study guidelines. Traffic level of service calculation sheets for the Existing, Future Without Project, and Future With Project conditions are provided in the Appendix of this report. ' 1.1 REPORT SECTIONS This report consists of six sections. • Introduction • Analysis Methodology • Existing Conditions ' Future Conditions Without Project • Future Conditions With Project ' Recommended Mitigation Measures 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. ( Sunstone) proposes to expand the existing Hyatt Newport Beach hotel (Hyatt Newport) located on a 25.7 acre site at 1107 Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The project would encompass the addition of 88 new timeshare units; an expanded ballroom; a 10,072- square -foot spa and new pool; and a two -level parking garage. As proposed, project implementation would require demolition of 12 existing villas (rooms), the terrace ballroom (3,190 sgft), ' and removal of the nine -hole golf course. Figure 1 -1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the Hyatt Regency Newport Hotel. Figure 1 -2 shows the proposed project site plan. The Opening Year for the proposed Hyatt Regency hotel expansion is assumed to be 2011. This study analyzes future without and with project conditions one year after the project opening year - 2012, consistent with City of Newport Beach traffic study guidelines. The following operating scenarios ' are evaluated in the traffic impact analysis: • Existing Condition • Future (2012) Conditions Without Project ' Future (2012) Conditions With Project I 1 IBI GROUP ' G -7 PAGE 3 N LEGEND ® Project Site • Study Intersection NOT TO SCP E -(R T Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study 1.1Jj Figure 1 -7 GROUP Project Location /Study Area "'K WJ i r � r A IIIIIIIY � �� -I va ■ SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. I, It THE Wr E /' WIAM' .1 f NNYOEN(Y P.uy ��NY9YR w,rw.wnl�x..n� - ��� ° ""''°'"` VICINITY MAP Hl.xs,u.nrJ..rwv Wu, w,.. w ila.uyN JC+unrwm� thurv.CY:fwe' wMn.x. 1 Grr or xcr'rYN' _ IRACH PN^_NCN'Y awm =•-max Imi LECENO[ w. ..ane[n HJVi IrY' NINLHIIAIMEAV rIMW ' "M.[ "wrwJ.: Cn6wlprx P.a E \ol �M!',KVbA 'AR SYM4wMY YL�6xeuenY,:. tiri4 ^JL9 nleTPU,rc[a 4 J K •• •• •• _ — a[I�OIf'41 k,i rx4h)WWYP.. SITE PLAN A -1 J2 A IA M.,r„aneia Ra 4.nrv, .ro AFAM M m Iw.LVwna:. rtr ..b�.f .1..0 bR I —.— IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 1 -2 GROUP Project Site Plan Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The traffic impact analysis is performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach standards. The analysis examines weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project. Traffic operations at signalized intersections are analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Capacity analysis is a set of procedures for estimating the traffic - carrying ability of facilities based on operational conditions. The City of Newport Beach has established 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour as the capacity standard for analysis. The efficiency of traffic operations is commonly measured by traffic engineers and planners with a grading system called Level of Service (LOS). Evaluation of roadways and intersections involves the assignment of grades from A to F, with "A" representing the highest level of operating conditions and "F" representing extremely congested and restricted operations. The level of service analysis for signalized intersections is performed using a traffic impact analysis software program called TRAFFIX. TRAFFIX is a network -based interactive computer program that enables calculation of levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections for multiple locations and scenarios. 21 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Traffic conditions at signalized intersections are evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology for signalized intersections, which evaluates capacity in terms of the volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio. The LOS level is determined by measuring the ratio of volume -to- capacity (V /C) for each roadway and intersection. Each letter grade corresponds to a range of V/C values, which are described in detail in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description of Traffic Conditions VC Ratio At level of service A there are no cycles that are fully loaded, and few are even dose to loaded. A No approach phase is utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. 0.00-0.60 Typically, the approach appears quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. Level of service 8 represents stable operation. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized B and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat 0.61 -0.70 restricted within platoons of vehides. In level of service C stable operation continues. Full signal cycle loading is still intermittent, but C more frequent. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal 0.71-0.80 indication, and back-u may develop behind turning vehicles. Level of service D encompasses a zone of increasing restriction, approaching instability. D Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, 0.81 - 0.90 but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back -u s. Level of service E represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can E accommodate. At capacity (V /C = 1.00) there may be long queues of vehicles wailing 0.91 -1.00 upstream of the intersection and delays may be great (up to several si nal es). Level of service F represents jammed conditions. Ba& -ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under >1 00 F consideration; hence, volumes carried are not predictable. V/C values are highly variable, because full utilization of the approach may be prevented by outside conditions. Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic PhasiN Ordinance, Chapter 15.40 I9I GROUP G -10 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 2.2 TRAFFIC IMPACT LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The City of Newport Beach standard for the minimum acceptable intersection level of service (LOS) is LOS D. Mitigation is required for any intersection where the project trips causes the intersection level of service to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E. For an intersection operating at LOS E or worse in the without project condition an increase in V/C of 0.010 or greater due to project traffic is also considered a significant impact. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines specify LOS E as the minimum acceptable intersection level of service for CMP intersections. A significant impact is caused by a 1% increase in V/C (0.010) if the CMP intersection already operates at LOS F. 2.3 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE The City of Newport Beach typically requires new projects to complete a traffic impact analysis that is consistent with the City's adopted Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). However, the proposed expansion of the Hyatt Newport hotel was previously analyzed under the TPO as part of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) project. The CIOSA project and the associated traffic study were approved by the City of Newport Beach in 1992. As such, the City of Newport Beach does not require that a new TPO analysis be completed for this proposed project. The traffic impact analysis summarized in this report is conducted to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is completed consistent with the traffic study guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach. rBI GROUP PAGE 7 1 G -11 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides information on the street network that serves the project site. Existing traffic counts and levels of service at the project study intersections are presented in this section. 3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK The existing study area roadway network is described in this section and shown in Figure 3 -1. • Jamboree Road is a north -south divided major arterial roadway with three lanes in each direction. • Coast Highway runs east -west with a raised median and three lanes in each direction between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Between Jamboree Road and Dover Drive, Coast Highway is an eight lane roadway. • Dover Drive is a north -south four lane divided primary arterial roadway. Bayside Drive is a four lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. • Newport Center Drive is a divided, six lane major arterial roadway. • Avocado Avenue is a four lane undivided secondary arterial roadway. • MacArthur Boulevard is a north -south divided major arterial roadway with three lanes in each direction. • Back Bay Drive is a collector roadway providing one lane in each direction adjacent to the project site. • Santa Barbara Road is a four lane undivided secondary road connecting Jamboree Road and Fashion Island. • San Joaquin Hills Road is a major arterial roadway with a raised median, providing three lanes in each direction. 3.2 PROJECT STUDY INTERSECTIONS Ten intersections are selected for evaluation and are described in this section. The ten study intersections were identified in consultation with the City of Newport Beach. All study intersections are signalized. Figure 3 -1 shows the study intersections with existing lane geometries. The ten study intersections are identified below: 1. Coast Highway and Dover Drive 2. Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 3. Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 4. Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 5. Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 6. Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard (CMP Intersection) 7. Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 8. Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 9. Jamboree Road and Hyatt Newport Entrance /Island Lagoon 10. Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive IBI GROUP PAGE 8 ' G -12 NOT TO SCALE IR T Newport Beach.Traffc Impact Study 1�1 Figure 3 -1 GROUP Existing Study Intersection Geometry ' G -13 LEGEND . Project Site Study Intersection Q Signalized Intersection ---)— Intersection Lane Geometry NOT TO SCALE IR T Newport Beach.Traffc Impact Study 1�1 Figure 3 -1 GROUP Existing Study Intersection Geometry ' G -13 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Intersection turning movement counts for eight of the ten study intersections were provided by the City of Newport Beach. City- provided traffic counts were conducted in 2004 and 2005. In order to estimate Year 2006 traffic conditions at these intersections, a 1% per year traffic growth rate was applied to designated roadways, consistent with City of Newport Beach standards. Roadways with an approved I % per year growth rate are identified in the Appendix of this report. The eight intersections with City - provided traffic counts are as follows: • Coast Highway and Dover Drive • Coast Highway and Bayside Drive • Coast Highway and Jamboree Road • Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive • Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue • Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard • Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road • Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road Intersection turning movement counts were performed at the remaining two project study intersections in April 2006. Counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM to capture the AM peak hour and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM for the PM peak hour. These intersections are: • Jamboree Road and Hyatt Newport Entrancefisland lagoon • Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Because these traffic counts -were completed in 2006, the application of an annual growth factor is not necessary. Vehicle counts by turning movement at all ten project intersections for AM and PM peak hour are shown in Figures 3 -2 and 3 -3. IBI GROUP PAGE 10 ' G -14 I / ]4 \ 0 J 1 056 �`j t 6 2 2115 —• O ' —t281 571 r3 55 NEW ORTBAY Bd7�j &Yd. MJ1L664 504, :J _ t216 927 — 0 1133 0 i9 r si LEGEND - Project Site Q Signarized Intersection --� Peak Hour Volume / �� 11 \ 32J 1 `l9 L2 2853 —• © X14]2 322 86 35q 11'01 \ 21 NEWPORTBAY 1277 "JILs6a 30� t 3,8 6, — O 8 !, �! 9 y 1411 14111 / 65J 1 219 \ 1210 ? t2L4 1922 - 1038 30 836 2�ir74 430 / NEW➢ORTBAY 1078 32J 1 �497 7� t 137 23 —. '0 . -5 24 17iros 1336 ]9J 1 1 35 \ 428 4 t?02 1606 0 0 • -1086 8 7ir , 930 36J L12 t 19 61�, �! 4 2a 1 i I' I16R 72 4J1 L70 1?�j t?19 1404_ —• © 971 27Z 8 1 r02 6 923 6J1L7 0� t J3 32 i 47ir� 15&9 N NOT TO SCALE TD T Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study j, j,� 1 Figure 3 -2 GROUP Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes - AM Peak ' G -15 66 192J 1 L74 ,5L i 0 2254 1]38 O X2310 281 r 6D 2 !!�11 1 F45 6J 6 \ 4J1L, \ t 13 194] © 1290 4i" 1 49 72 (� 25111`1 hh r+ \ 101114 N 6 i 1309) 1 L253 UD t 231 © 1610 --� -2026 2 1 � 181 47 F84 / 660J 1 L220 \ 286J t L45 1486 -• O 1671 ♦Q 71r / 160 \ 14� 1 L21] 111D t 45 1303 - © -1398 1 49 72 hh r+ \ 101114 N / 0 60� 11:035 6� L 625 1404 -� O « -1163 Ol 7ir 0 LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume 170 J 1 L4]6 73 1 t6? 3] - O 4] 36 3 !!11 ��!! ♦ 197 10t rim 113113 1401 WJIL329 6� Ls 340 1 1 112] 1032 2012 54J 1 L33 L0� 011 32 l 0 355 1 r20 1064 1968 11 L33 t__ 36 3 r9 1049 N NOTTO SCALE ID I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study j)1 Figure 3-3 GROUP Existing (Year 2006) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak G -16 L J 1 [1 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 3.4 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection level of service for the existing condition is analyzed for each of the ten project study intersections. The analysis includes a review of the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Table 3.1 summarizes the results of the AM and PM peak hour existing conditions analysis. All study intersections operate at a satisfactory level of service in the existing condition. Table 3.1: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS Summary No. Intersection 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive ANI Vic Peak P&I Peak LOS WC LOS C 0.779 C 0.736 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.775 C 0.650 B 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.740 C 0.771 C 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.371 A 0.506 A 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.459 A 0.544 A 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.570 A 0.756 C 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.763 C 0.828 D 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.564 A 0.659 B 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance/island La oon 0.374 A 0.477 A 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.389 A 0.485 A 3.5 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EXISTING CONDITION t Average daily traffic (ADT) data was also collected for arterial roadway links in the project study area. ADT data was obtained from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) traffic volume maps for 2005. A growth rate of 1% per year was applied to the appropriate roadway segments, consistent City of Newport Beach guidelines, to obtain Year 2006 ADT volumes. New ADT counts are obtained at two ' locations where OCTA traffic volume data was not available. Roadway link 24 -hour tube counts were conducted on Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road and on Back Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road in December 2006. ' The City of Newport Beach does not require an analysis of ADT and roadway link level of service for traffic impact studies. The ADT data collected and presented in this report is used in the analysis of noise and air quality as part of the preparation of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. Table 3.2 summarizes the average daily traffic volumes traffic volumes under existing conditions. IBI GROUP PAGE 13 ' G -17 Hyatt Newport Traffic impact Analysis Table 3.2: Existing Average Daily Traffic No. 1 Roadviay Segment Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road Existin,: r 38,502 2 Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara Drive 34,000 3 Jamboree Road north of the Project Entrance 34,000 4 Jamboree Road south of the Project Entrance 34,000 5 Jamboree Road south of Back Bay Drive 34,000 6 Coast Highway west of Dover Drive 51,515 7 Coast Highway west of Ba side Drive 56,667 8 Coast Highway wrest of Jamboree Road 46,364 9 Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road 37,091 10 Coast Highway east of Newport Center Drive 37,091 11 Coast highway east of Avocado Avenue 37,091 12 Coast Highway east of Macarthur Blvd 37,091 13 San Joaquin Hills Road east of Jamboree Road 18,000 14 Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road 14,524 15 Newport Center Drive north of Coast Highway 10,000 16 Macarthur Blvd north of Coast Highway 35,030 17 Dover Drive north of Coast Highway 32,000 18 1 Back Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road 997 IBI GROUP PAGE 14 G -18 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis ' 4.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION (YEAR 2012) The Opening Year for the proposed Hyatt Regency hotel expansion is assumed to be 2011. This section analyzes future without project conditions one year after the project opening year - 2012. Traffic volumes used in the analysis of the future without project condition are developed by applying an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes to account for ambient traffic volume increases and by adding in trips generated by approved projects and reasonability foreseeable projects planned within the project study area. The lane geometries for each of the 10 study intersections in Year 2012 are anticipated to be the same as the existing conditions. Forecast traffic conditions for the future without the proposed project in the ' Year 2012 are presented in this section. 4.1 PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH 1992 CIOSA TRAFFIC STUDY ' In 1992, the City of Newport Beach approved the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA), which included several proposed land use projects located throughout the City. The CIOSA project included the expansion of the Hyatt Newport hotel to 479 total rooms, an increase of 68 rooms from the baseline 1992 condition. A traffic study for the CIOSA development, including a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, was completed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. As such, a new TPO analysis is not required as part of this updated traffic study. This current traffic study is being completed as part of an analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act ' (CEQA) to determine in the environmental baseline conditions have changed since the original 1992 traffic analysis. As part of the future conditions analysis, the City of Newport Beach provides vehicle trips generated by ' projects that have been approved by the City, but have not yet been completed. These approved project vehicle trips are not reflected in existing traffic counts. To include the approved project trips in the analysis, the trips must be added to the baseline traffic volumes. The approved project list includes vehicle trips generated by projects identified as part of CIOSA, which includes the 68 -room expansion of the Hyatt Newport. The trips generated by the 1992 approval of the Hyatt Newport hotel under CIOSA are removed from the analysis of future traffic conditions in order to avoid double counting the trips generated by this project. An accounting of previously approved Hyatt Newport expansion vehicle trips removed from the future baseline traffic conditions is provided in Section 4.3 of the traffic study. ' 4.2 AMBIENT TRAFFIC GROWTH In accordance with the City of Newport Beach standards, ambient traffic volumes for Year 2012 are estimated by applying an annual growth rate of 1% to existing traffic volumes on specific roadways t identified by the City of Newport Beach. Baseline Year 2012 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 -1 and 4 -2. 7 U' F--] Li FJ IBI GROUP PAGE 15 G -19 /,]OJ 74 1 1056 'I 13L 1713 2309 - O x-,360 M F 3p �lsiF3 32r 695J 11232 1284 J. t227 2046...E © .--1162 32 r 144 \ 29li�4 430 \ 9 6 J 1135 454j .214 1705 -+ O, • -1153 F o` 6l0 / 72 43J 11.6 Z0i i il?0 1687 -1031 29 F s6 a]iF02 55 41 J 1 t:9 52IJ t 1100 984- O 1203 i0 7ir LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume / 1356 6O 11603 3�1_j t 316 61 0 + -8 557 i33 2fl ...��, i(26 1468 1102 34J 11628 23 � o . -5 2�4__� 171F7 1418 987 mJ 1113 ,a, `0 6_ o 6 i �. 23 �17i 'S 976 66J L7 0! LL' t ?, JS'i LL __� N NOT TO SCA LE IBT Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study .j, Figure 4 -1 GROUP Ambient Turning Movement Volumes (Year 2012) -AM Peak G -20 32J 11.9 32 29 3029 --+ © • -1563 340 .��1 356 i 01 \ 2, 32r 695J 11232 1284 J. t227 2046...E © .--1162 32 r 144 \ 29li�4 430 \ 9 6 J 1135 454j .214 1705 -+ O, • -1153 F o` 6l0 / 72 43J 11.6 Z0i i il?0 1687 -1031 29 F s6 a]iF02 55 41 J 1 t:9 52IJ t 1100 984- O 1203 i0 7ir LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume / 1356 6O 11603 3�1_j t 316 61 0 + -8 557 i33 2fl ...��, i(26 1468 1102 34J 11628 23 � o . -5 2�4__� 171F7 1418 987 mJ 1113 ,a, `0 6_ o 6 i �. 23 �17i 'S 976 66J L7 0! LL' t ?, JS'i LL __� N NOT TO SCA LE IBT Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study .j, Figure 4 -1 GROUP Ambient Turning Movement Volumes (Year 2012) -AM Peak G -20 ,735 180J!L55 ] t62 37 Q . -4] 36 Z �7 l trl 4 1394 ,fio � 47J ! 417 1,9 J L 1383 . - -. © ,484 ,2 76 iw6 I F� 24 NOT TO SCALE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 4-2 GROUP I Ambient Turning Movement Volumes (Year 2012) - PM Peak ' G -21 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 4.3 APPROVED AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ' The City of Newport Beach compiled a list of approved and reasonably foreseeable projects that are located within the project study area. Approved projects are included in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative, projects are also , incorporated into the future conditions analysis. The City of Newport Beach provided trip generation rates and trip distribution patterns for each of the approved and cumulative projects. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 identify the approved and cumulative projects. Additional detail for the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions used for the approved and cumulative projects is provided in the ' Appendix of this report. Trips assoc from the future baseline condition. Table 4.1: Approved Projects 148 Fashion Island Expansion 154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 157 Ford Redevelopment 168 Hoag Hospital Phase II 555 CIOSA -Irvine Project* 910 Newport Dunes 936 1401 Dove Street 938 Olsen Townhome Project 939 Bayview Landing Senior 941 4941496 Old Newport BI, 942 401 Old Newport Blvd. 943 Newport Technology Center 944 1901 Westcliff Surgical 945 Hoag Hospital Phase III 946 Newport Lexus 947 Birch Medical Office 948 Saafar Fine Indian Cuisine 949 St. Mark Presbyterian 950 St. Andrews Presbyterian 951 Corporate Plaza West 952 Mariners Mile Gateway ated with the 68 -room eormsion of the Hvatt Newport F LJ Diet are removed I IBI GROUP PAGE 18 G -22 1 I r7 it I 1 [1 CJ 1 i 1 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4.2: Cumulative Projects No. 1 Cumulative Project Land Use South Coast Shipyard Residential Retail /Office 2 Mormon Temple Church 3 Our Lady Queen of Angels Church/Classrooms 4 Mariners Church Church /Health Club 5 Exodus Community Center Church/SchooUHealth Club/Child Care Center 6 Newport Coast Development Multiple Land Use 7 Bonita Canyon Residential 8 Newport Ridge Development Multiple Land Use As noted previously, the Approved Projects list includes the CIOSA project and the approved 68 -room expansion of the Hyatt Newport hotel. In order to avoid double counting the trips generated by the proposed Hyatt Newport hotel expansion, the portion of vehicle trips allocated to the 68 -room expansion under CIOSA must be removed from the baseline future traffic conditions. Table 4.3 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the 68 -room hotel expansion obtained from the approved CIOSA traffic study. Table 4.3: CIOSA Hyatt Newport Expansion Trip Generation Figure 4 -3 and 4-4 identify the specific study intersections where the vehicle trips generated by the CIOSA Hyatt Newport expansion project are removed from the future traffic volumes for AM and PM peak hours. The assumed CIOSA Hyatt Newport expansion trip distribution is consistent with the project trip distribution pattern used in this report and summarized in Figure 5 -1, with the exception of Intersection 9 and 10. In the existing condition, only Study Intersection 9 (Jamboree Road /Hyatt entrance) provides entrance to the project site and all CIOSA- related trips are distributed through this entrance. In the with project condition, vehicle access will be provided from Study Intersection 9 and Study Intersection 10 via Back Bay Drive. Figure 4 -5 and Figure 4-6 show the vehicle trips added to each project study intersection in the AM and PM peak hours as a result of the approved and cumulative projects. These traffic volumes are net values that reflect the removal of the CIOSA Hyatt Newport expansion trips. IaI GROUP PAGE 19 G -23 0 ✓i L2 0 ✓14° :�IL5 2j14° ✓i�O L —°1 t2 ,°t tL° -1j Lo °J L° ♦o � �o oZ oZ ✓o ♦ a 70r si r 1 7 71 r ° ° ° 0 ° 0 ° NEtNPORT aAY @alb0a @IV , ,1 tl �1 0 J1LO 2:Li Q tO i0 7ir 0 LEGEND ® Project Site Q Signalized Intersection CIOSA Project Trips NEW RT BAY ,6 JIB.° ot t° 0� 0 0 0 i2 7ir a �a��isruc!ni is 01 °�o� °t° r 7ir 9 n 1 Z�° 0j iD 0 n °- m i 21 r °- 7r N IR I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study 1� 1 Figure 4 -3 GROUP CIOSA Hyatt Expansion Trips Removed from Studv Intersections - AM Peak G -24 I 1 G -25 Jib 0 J 1�° 0 J1L7 JILO Jl�° ' °? L °J t ° t� L° °J L OZ ♦• 0 0 ♦ D 0 ♦ 0 0� ✓: 0 �0 sir 7ir 71r 71r 7ir 0 0 0 0 0 6L Jj £ NE"ORTBAY BSS` �y0 q $ a�✓ tim 1 m o a m PN U qa � NEWPORT BAY „� 6•S' w° c m N O Dr �a ode as m m� 9 U Ram ' 2 cOam� � San ry. 1 10 sa co pry t m V o q B a �°°O j NEWPORT BAr m � ' 4 S Park AVe. � >a yam aalp°a I LO 0J LO t2- 7 —• Q 13 t� 0 O 71 i r 1 U° 1 J 1 L° r 011 0 „ oJI -2J 0—, Q '0 1dt t° GE 0 ° °J 0—� .° t- (E 0 �1irr'�� °'�ir� 0 , r0 A i o 0 o LEGEND ,2 0 ,a - Project site N Q Signalized Intersection CIOSA Project Trips NorroscAi.e IB I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 44 GROUP CIOSA Hyatt Expansion Trips Removed from Study Intersections - PM Peak 1 G -25 / 0 33� I �35 2" t se —37a o 7ir 0 q�0 1JIL" 2�j L 21 i sir 0 16JI�]6 Ls a qir 0 t? 109 —• O � =ST2 0 a 11r° 0 aI+ \ JlO 214 -- © 572 r0 7ir o , 128 J I L60 7� L_� 143 -� O - � -438 t0 FO 71 LEGEND ® Project Site 0 Signalized Intersection Trips 228 JIL16 L °1 17 10 0 ♦ 12 7ir 219 L 1L L a'o 7ir 294 216 J1L2L 0 286 206 226 Jl� 6J t12 o o 269 269 N NOT TO SCALE IBT Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study .0 1 Figure 4 -5 GROUP I Net Approved and Cumulative Project Added Trips -AM Peak —d G -26 1 I / a N 4J 1L99 439 Q L 308 01 i—p sir o , 0 n✓ II 1 4T, 502 —. © 333 Z r0 sir . 6 , / 3 \ 108J 1 223 1a9 J t T 318 —• © 216 3 11� 0 3J 1 �3 t? 586 —• 0 . - -319 LD 7ir a , � 0 \ IJ �O 584 © L381 ip sir 0 / 9 \ 1401 L09 ,j L08 398 —O —239 VI 0 7ir 0 LEGEND - Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Trips 1331 J 14as 11 L 16 O 0 sir 216 321 J1�.4 1— Q L> qir 214 324 II 0J 1 `+3 L1 o-- 0 0 a4 71r 284 326 J1LI 2J L ♦a 71r 28T N NOT TO SCALE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 4 -6 GROUP Net Approved and Cumulative Project Added Trips - PM Peak G -27 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 4.4 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS — WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION Table 4.4 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour LOS for the ten study intersections in the Future Without Project Condition. The increases in traffic volumes reflect ambient traffic growth and new trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. As would be expected, LOS levels at each ' intersection were slightly worse than the existing conditions during AM peak hour. The LOS level during PM peak hour for three intersections changes to an unacceptable level in the future condition (defined as LOS E or worse). The intersection turning movement volumes for the Future Without Project condition are shown in Figures 4 -7 and 4 -8. Table 4.4: Future Without Project (Year 2012) Intersection LOS Summary 1 Coast Highway and Dover Drive 0.811 PM Vic 0.914 Peak LOS E D 2 Coast Highway and Ba side Drive 0.865 D 0.781 C 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.895 D 1.026 F 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.514 A 0.618 B 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.573 A 0.651 B 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.736 C 0.945 - E 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.885 D 0.958 E 8 Jamboree Read and Santa Barbara Read 0.663 B 0.742 C 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport Entrance/Island Lagoon 0,461 A 0.559 A 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.481 A 0.601 B IEI GROUP PAGE 24 G -28 t. I I / ]4 203J 1 1�09t 59 2! t 2492— O � —t]]8 33 Z { 30 5 11 \ 055 F3 , / \ 50«1 1 l63 ]1 L9 3208 -- © —2019 342 Z 359 1 l.2 21 / 328 884J I L307 35� 1426 482 33 1 44 \ 24� 1 6574 431 ae J 11;5 459 J 215 1914 —. O 1725 0 �Y 0� ]2 \ 43«1 2 `70 20 t 26 1704 © .-1603 29 6eL1r02 55 / 539J 1 �L6119 \ B 1 f t 1!68 1127, O _1641 OZ l0 7ir LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume � 1564 eg_111619 78 O 57 e 5� 656565rr!!!!! _I05 20� 1 "31 179119 1321 35J 1 1542 t i 142 23 —. O + -5 26� �q� 1 0� i �_ -9 1712 1203 38J 1 LI5 2 18 0—. O 1 36 71F20, 1202 68J 1La t `S 4'SZ 56� 11" � N NOT TO 507LL.E IBINewport Beach Traffic Impact Study I Figure 4 -7 GROUP Future Without Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes -AM Peak 1. G -29 N 239 1 �On 8 111 1 LOO ]6I 1498 I ! L92 492 0 J LM 6 \ "j J 0 L21] 219 ! L1401 93 1 L 101 t385 311J .`60 fig i L 2284 —+ Q X2924 (7569 --� © �-y825 2081 ---. © . —.242] (2163 —. O . -2153 1g6] © x__1865 3� U 521 6-6 29 ♦ 202 i 0 5� ]6 271 F5 26q F1 501 J 1 i F Mo I X64 8 283 0 24 / 2066 1801 L551 ] L9 53 —• Q +—�] ,6]70 0 NOTTOSC LE I IB I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study j� 1 Figure 4 -8 GROUP Future Without Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak G -30 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 4.5 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES - WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION Table 4.4 summarizes the ADT volumes for the Future Without Project conditions. The increase in average daily traffic volumes reflect ambient growth and new trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. Table 4.4: Future Without Project (Year 2012) Average Daily Traffic No. 1 Roadway Segment Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road 48,058 2 Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara Drive 42,381 3 Jamboree Road north of the Project Entrance 42,215 4 Jamboree Road south of the Project Entrance 42,275 5 Jamboree Road south of Back Bay Drive 42,415 6 Coast Highway west of Dover Drive 63,056 7 Coast Highway wrest of Ba side Drive 69,359 8 Coast Highway west of Jamboree Road 59,132 9 Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road 50,423 10 Coast Highway east of Newport Center Drive 50,355 11 Coast highway east of Avocado Avenue 49,927 12 Coast Highway east of Macarthur Blvd 49,937 13 San Joaquin Hills Road east of Jamboree Road 19,350 14 Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road 14,648 15 Newport Center Drive north of Coast Highway 10,538 16 Macarthur Blvd north of Coast Highway 43,056 17 Dover Drive north of Coast Highway 34,750 18 Bads Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road 1,107 IBI GROUP PAGE 27 G -31 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 FUTURE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (YEAR 2012) Forecast traffic conditions with the proposed project in the Year 2012 conditions are presented in this section. The traffic analysis for the Year 2012 Future With Project condition includes new trips generated by the proposed project as well as the Year 2012 ambient traffic volumes and trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. 5.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Forecast trip generation for the expansion of the Hyatt Newport Beach hotel was estimated using trip generation rates from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model ( NBTAM). The proposed project includes 88 new timeshare units, an expanded ballroom adding a net 7,842 square feet of facility space, a 10,072 sq. ft. spa, a 2 -level parking garage, and removal of an existing 9 -hole golf course and 12 villas (rooms). Table 5.1 summarizes the net trip generation for the proposed hotel expansion. Table 5.1: Project Trip Generation. The proposed project results in a net increase of 76 roomshime share units. With the proposed expansion, the Hyatt Newport hotel would have a total of 479 rooms, consistent with the entitlements for this site and the proposed hotel expansion analyzed as part of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) in 1992. For the purposes of trip generation, timeshare units and hotel rooms are considered to be equivalent. It should also be noted that the NBTAM trip generation rate for hotel rooms is higher than the average trip generation rate published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 7h Edition. The ITE hotel rate is assumed to include hotel trips generated by hotel rooms and other ancillary hotel facilities including ballrooms, restaurants, and spas. A comparison between the previously approved Hyatt Newport expansion under CIOSA and the current project is also provided. As noted, the CIOSA project included the addition of 68 -hotel rooms, resulting in a total of 479 rooms on the Hyatt Newport site. Since the approval of CIOSA, the baseline number of hotel rooms on the Hyatt site has been reduced from 411 to 403. The new proposed expansion will remain equal to the 479 room cap. Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 provide a comparison of the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and Daily trip rates assumed in the 1992 approval of the hotel expansion under CIOSA and the current expansion proposal. I6I GROUP PAGE 28 G -32 I 7 J 11 LJ Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5.2: AM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation Comparison Table 5.3: PM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation Comparison Table 5.4: Daily Project Trip Generation Comparison The results of this trip generation comparison suggest that a similar number of vehicle trips would be generated by the current proposed expansion project during the AM and PM peak hours when compared to the expansion approved in 1992 under CIOSA even with an additional eight rooms included in the proposal. This refinement likely reflects updated information regarding hotel trip generation rates that have been incorporated into NBTAM during the intervening 14 years between the CIOSA approval and the current analysis. An additional comparison of the NBTAM hotel trip generation rate and existing hotel facilities in the City of Newport Beach is provided in the following section of this report. Figure 5 -1 shows the project trip distribution. Project added trips at the study intersections are shown in Figures 5 -2 and 5 -3 for AM and PM peak hour. It should be noted that the project trip distribution includes the reassignment of existing trips entering and exiting the project site. In the existing condition, the main entrance off Jamboree Road serves as the sole vehicular access to the project site (Study Intersection #9). In the Future With Project condition, project access would also be provided from Back Bay Drive, resulting in vehicle trips accessing the project site through Study Intersection 10. The project trip distribution assumes that 60 percent of vehicle trips to and from the site would use the primary access driveway on Jamboree Road and the remaining 40 percent of project trips will access the project site via Back Bay Drive. IBI GROUP PAGE 29 G -33 JIL5% 11f 20 20% Q% _! L 1ir5% 4% NOTTOSO E I IB I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5 -1 GROUP Project Trip Distribution G -34 ■ J1�2 0J Lo 5J Ls 2J 1LO JILO L -2--t L° 81 L Ii t _ 6� 0 4 8 —. © 5 0 -� ©. -0 6 —• O• -6 4 —. © �6 0 ♦D 0 sir sir �lir 11r 0 0 0 0 0 Ala NEWPORT BAY i q! 7 �@ m °hp `Sao% NEWPORTeAY d d N � O )m sde Dr. m °a 0m -� 9 P°sm a 2 A Sy cOas //r 10 Z '4 m y. a� 4r "(� 3 Center �` U c a m $ NEWPORTBAY 4 ' S Park Ave. tttt $Pm ' Balppa BOW. ad' 6 eWD� P 0 12 J1LO JIL.B L 0J L 2 —• 0 3 0 1 O '0 07 4­0- OZ 42 si 7i JIB JI r r B 6J 0 8 L0 _65 L � t0 o� o o� Q o o-- --o 1 7ir 7ir 7ir LEGEND s A 9 N Project Site Signalized Intersection Project Trips NOT TO SCALE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5 -2 GROUP Project Added Trips -AM Peak ' G -35 a 'II 0J L 6 -. O �5 siF0 0 ,2 0J LO L o �, �o�o 0 sir NOT TO SCALE IB I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5-3 GROUP I Project Added Trips - PM Peak G -36 ' Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 5.2 HOTEL TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON The City of Newport Beach requested an additional analysis of hotel trip generation to verify that the adopted NBTAM hotel rate would adequately account for automobile trips generated by the new hotel ' rooms and ancillary facilities such as the proposal ballroom and spa. A two -step analysis was completed to verify if the NBTAM hotel trip generation rate provides a reasonable forecast of project trip generation. ' First, several hotels in the Newport Beach area were selected for a comparison of the ratio between the number of hotel rooms and size of ballroom /banquet facilities provided for the hotel. The selected hotels are considered to be of similar size and within a similar room rate class to the Hyatt Newport hotel. Table 5.5 summarizes the number of hotel rooms and the size of the ballroom /banquet facilities provided at the Hyatt Newport and other similar hotels in the vicinity of Newport Beach. Table 5.5: Hotel Ballroom- Banquet Facility Size Comparison Hotel Hyatt Newport current condition Ballroom- Banquet Facility Space (in Sqft.) 25,740 403 63.8 Hyatt Newport (proposed condition 33,582 479 70.1 Hyatt Newport increase only) 7,842 76 1032 Balboa Bay Club 10,537 132 79.8 Fairmont Newport Beach 17,000 444 38.3 Hilton Costa Mesa 48,000 486 98.8 Hyatt Huntington Beach 21,000 266 78.9 Hyatt R enc Irvine 52,000 517 100.6 Marriott Dana Point 30,000 536 56.0 Marriott Newport Beach 41,000 532 77.1 Radisson Newport Beach 25,000 335 74.6 The Island Hotel 30,000 295 1011 Average (non-Hyatt Newport Properties) 292,537 3,920 74.6 This comparison illustrates that while the proposed expansion at the Hyatt Newport hotel will increase the size of the ballroom /banquet facilities at the hotel, the ratio of facility space to the total number of hotel rooms will remain below the industry average for comparable hotels in the Newport Beach area. The second step is this comparison is the collection of peak hour traffic counts from a comparable hotel property to verify the assumption that the standard per -room hotel trip generation rate would include trips generated by ballroom /banquet facilities and other ancillary hotel facilities. The Newport Beach Marriott Hotel on Newport Center Drive was selected as a comparable property to conduct peak hour driveway traffic counts. This hotel is slightly larger than the Hyatt Newport hotel in terms of number rooms and facility space, allowing for a more conservative observation. The hotel also has an on -site spa, similar to what is proposed for the Hyatt Newport. The purpose of the peak period traffic counts is to determine the actual trip generation rate for this hotel and to compare this observed trip generation rate with the standard NBTAM hotel trip generate rate. AM and PM peak period traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, September 14, 2005 at each driveway providing access to the Newport Marriott. This day was selected to provide a typical weekday operation for hotel occupancy and because a 450- attendee all -day conference was IBI CROOP G -37 PACE 33 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis scheduled at the Newport Marriott hotel. The scheduled conference allowed for a traffic count to be conducted while a large event was taking place, providing an opportunity to assess the potential trip generation for large conferences or ballroom facility events in addition to trips generated by the hotel rooms. Table 5.6 summarizes the observed vehicle trips generated by the Newport Marriott hotel, the ITE hotel trip generation forecast for a 532 -room hotel, and NBTAM hotel trip generation forecast for a 532 -room hotel. Table 5.7 summarizes the trip generation data on a per -room basis. Additional data related to the Newport Marriott traffic counts is provided in the Appendix of this report. Table 5.6: Comparable Hotel Trip Generation Table 5.7: Vehicle Trips Per Room The observed vehicle trips generated by the Newport Marriott hotel during the AM and PM peak hours are lower than the standard ITE and NBTAM average hotel trip generation forecasts for a hotel of this size. Based on this observed information, it was determined that the use of the NBTAM hotel trip generation rate would provide for a reasonable forecast of new vehicle trips generated by the Hyatt Newport hotel expansion. 5.3 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS -WITH PROJECT CONDITION Table 5.8 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour LOS for the ten study intersections in the Future With Project Condition. The increases in traffic volumes reflect the traffic generated by the project, in addition to the ambient growth rate and new trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. As would be expected, LOS levels at each intersection were slightly worse than the Future Without Project conditions. However, no significant traffic impacts are identified as a result of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion. The intersection turning movement volumes for the Future With Project condition are shown in Figures 5-4 and 5 -5. IBI GROUP G -38 PAGE 34 I I i I I I I 1 I I l IJt 1 I� E)(it Observed Newport Marriott Traffic Counts Hotel Rooms 532 AM Enter - Trips 94 Dist - Trips 59 - 153 PM - 75 122 197 ITE Standard Hotel Rate Hotel Rooms 532 AM 0.34 181 022 117 0.56 298 PM 0.31 165 0.28 149 0.59 314 NBTAM Rate Hotel Rooms 532 AM 0.4. 213 0.27 144 0.67 356 PM 0.41 218 0.35 186 0.76 404 Table 5.7: Vehicle Trips Per Room The observed vehicle trips generated by the Newport Marriott hotel during the AM and PM peak hours are lower than the standard ITE and NBTAM average hotel trip generation forecasts for a hotel of this size. Based on this observed information, it was determined that the use of the NBTAM hotel trip generation rate would provide for a reasonable forecast of new vehicle trips generated by the Hyatt Newport hotel expansion. 5.3 INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS -WITH PROJECT CONDITION Table 5.8 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour LOS for the ten study intersections in the Future With Project Condition. The increases in traffic volumes reflect the traffic generated by the project, in addition to the ambient growth rate and new trips generated by the approved and cumulative projects. As would be expected, LOS levels at each intersection were slightly worse than the Future Without Project conditions. However, no significant traffic impacts are identified as a result of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion. The intersection turning movement volumes for the Future With Project condition are shown in Figures 5-4 and 5 -5. IBI GROUP G -38 PAGE 34 I I i I I I I 1 I I l IJt 1 I� Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5.8: Future With Project (Year 2012) Intersection LOS Summary No. 1 Intersection Coast Highway and Dover Drive AM Peak Vic LOS 0.813 D PM V/C 0.916 Peak LOS E 2 Coast Highway and Bayside Drive 0.867 D 0182 C 3 Coast Highway and Jamboree Road 0.900 D 1.032 F 4 Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive 0.515 A 0.619 B 5 Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue 0.574 A 0.652 B 6 Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.137 C 0.946 E 7 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.887 D 0.961 E 8 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Road 0.665 B 0.745 C 9 Jamboree Road and Hyatt Regency Newport EntrancelIsland Lagoon 0.461 A 0.573 A 10 Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive 0.485 A 0.611 B 5.4 ROADWAY LINK TRAFFIC VOLUMES — WITH PROJECT CONDITION Table 5.9 summarizes the ADT volumes for the Future With Project condition. The increase in average daily traffic volumes reflect the ambient growth, new trips generated by the cumulative projects, and project generated trips. Table 5.9: Future With Project (Year 2012) Average Daily Traffic No. 1 Roadway Segment Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road With Project AOT r. 48,322 2 Jamboree Road north of Santa Barbara Drive 42,679 3 Jamboree Road north of the Project Entrance 42,545 4 Jamboree Road south of the Project Entrance 42,605 5 Jamboree Road south of Back Bay Drive 42,745 6 Coast Highway west of Dover Drive 63,188 7 Coast Highway west of Ba side Drive 69,525 8 Coast Highway west of Jamboree Road 59,298 9 Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road 50,589 10 Coast Highway east of Newport Center Drive 50,521 11 Coast Highway east of Avocado Avenue 50,059 12 Coast Highway east of Macarthur Blvd 50,069 13 San Joaquin Hills Road east of Jamboree Road 19,384 14 Santa Barbara Drive east of Jamboree Road 14,682 15 Newport Center Drive north of Coast Highway 10,572 16 Macarthur Blvd north of Coast Highway 43,122 17 Dover Drive north of Coast Highway 34,784 18 Back Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road 1,107 IBI GROUP PAGE 35 G -39 / \ / 203J711�093 t29 159 ..812 �. 2498 O �- -1742 33 Z 355' 1 102 50� } F3 \ / /326 869' 1L IM5 1434 33 4_1_4a \ 291 } I IIp-74 4131 �J 1 �35 461j `15 1916 O —1731 0 O� 0 2 / 2 0 20!j \ 43J Z`7 333 t 126 1705 - -. © r -1609 r9 I 47g-0 6671x2 / 1 \ 542J 1 1649 613J t 1258 t129 0 i l 0 sir LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume � 1596 68J 1 1619 3 0 + L7 78 — © - -8 51Z 107 2q 1 rrr!!! �32 1007 1335 35J 11542 -2 23—. O —8 24 1 F330 1721 1209 47J1L15 9 J .18 0 - -. I . —1 12Z 24 G 1 1 r 1208 74J 118 Lai LL' �5 � 4 p1 U-4 27 I5i 2 N i NOT TO SG\LE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5-4 GROUP Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes -AM Peak G -40 fl / 50J 1 163 t29 3215 © x--2024 342 Z 9-1 355' 1 102 21 /326 869' 1L IM5 1434 33 4_1_4a \ 291 } I IIp-74 4131 �J 1 �35 461j `15 1916 O —1731 0 O� 0 2 / 2 0 20!j \ 43J Z`7 333 t 126 1705 - -. © r -1609 r9 I 47g-0 6671x2 / 1 \ 542J 1 1649 613J t 1258 t129 0 i l 0 sir LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Volume � 1596 68J 1 1619 3 0 + L7 78 — © - -8 51Z 107 2q 1 rrr!!! �32 1007 1335 35J 11542 -2 23—. O —8 24 1 F330 1721 1209 47J1L15 9 J .18 0 - -. I . —1 12Z 24 G 1 1 r 1208 74J 118 Lai LL' �5 � 4 p1 U-4 27 I5i 2 N i NOT TO SG\LE IBI Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5-4 GROUP Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes -AM Peak G -40 ■ / 6 23911 4075 \ 219 tt402 2290 —. O .---2829 3p 1 rprrm�� ♦ � \27 63 NEWPORTBAY / 8 \ T]1 1 400 931 tia 2577 —. © .-- -3832 521 Z [n� �2 ♦ 65 \ 26 lil , Bat,, B1Ytl_ \ n LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection — Peak Hour Volume NEWPORTBAY 2078 18011 L551 7� t22 83 6 O 211 aT 3 76Z 1� 5111'52 118811 / 15051 i 499 \ 108 t 393 2087 .-- -2427 29 202 \ sg1F NEWPORTBAY L ' 1628 7811 �57 g� t 492 24 10 11 136 1176111 / 0 \ d9A1 1 423 319 .160 2168 —. O .-2159 7 2666 66J �M p2� L —• O 27Z i� (j' is 3 111_7 1931 / 160 681 1 1,217 19 J t4d 1972— © —1811 �3 1 76 � 24 6 2610 54J 1 L336 s� t 46 0 —• . -0 22 Zhh 16 T41ir5 39 N NOT TO SCO.LE IBI I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5-5 GROUP Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak 1 G -41 o 6781 1 4 208 93 t n1 1691 --- Q tan Oi i0 11 LEGEND Project Site Q Signalized Intersection — Peak Hour Volume NEWPORTBAY 2078 18011 L551 7� t22 83 6 O 211 aT 3 76Z 1� 5111'52 118811 / 15051 i 499 \ 108 t 393 2087 .-- -2427 29 202 \ sg1F NEWPORTBAY L ' 1628 7811 �57 g� t 492 24 10 11 136 1176111 / 0 \ d9A1 1 423 319 .160 2168 —. O .-2159 7 2666 66J �M p2� L —• O 27Z i� (j' is 3 111_7 1931 / 160 681 1 1,217 19 J t4d 1972— © —1811 �3 1 76 � 24 6 2610 54J 1 L336 s� t 46 0 —• . -0 22 Zhh 16 T41ir5 39 N NOT TO SCO.LE IBI I Newport Beach Traffic Impact Study Figure 5-5 GROUP Future With Project (Year 2012) Study Intersection Volumes - PM Peak 1 G -41 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis 5.5 ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) monitors the level of service at all designed CMP intersections in the County. One CMP intersection is located in the study area. This intersection is: • MacArthur Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway The Orange County CMP defines a significant impact as an increase in v/c of 0.010 or greater during either the AM or PM peak hour for intersections operating at LOS F. Table 5.10 summarizes the LOS at this CMP intersection for the Existing, Future Without Project, and Future With Project conditions. Table 5.10: CMP Intersection LOS Summary No significant traffic impacts are identified at this CMP intersection as a result of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.6 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The project site plan for the proposed hotel expansion is shown in Figure 5 -6. With the proposed expansion, the Hyatt Newport hotel site would have four access driveways. The primary access driveway will remain on Jamboree Road at the existing signalized intersection with Island lagoon Road (Dwy 1). This driveway will continue to serve as the primary access point for hotel guests and visitors. A second main access driveway would be created on Back Bay Drive by enhancing an existing rarely used driveway, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive (Dwy 2). This driveway would be an upgrade of the existing driveway and would serve as the primary access for visitors and guests attending conferences and functions at the hotel. Two additional secondary access driveways are proposed further west on Back Bay Drive. One driveway will provide secondary access to the main parking lot (Dwy 3). The driveway furthest to the west will provide emergency vehicle access to the new timeshare units and the hotel (Dwy 4). In the existing condition, visitor and guest access to the Hyatt Newport hotel is provided exclusively from the main entrance driveway off Jamboree Road. The existing driveways along Back Bay Drive are typically closed to hotel guest vehicles and are reserved for emergency vehicle and employee access. After completion of the proposed expansion, it is anticipated that the main access driveway off Jamboree Road will remain the primary access point for hotel guests to access the hotel rooms and timeshare units. Consistent with the existing on -site circulation, hotel guests would access the main parking facility located south of the main access driveway (Dwy 1). The new timeshare units will be located north of the main access driveway and the existng hotel structures. Vehicles traveling to and from the timeshare units would use Dwy 1 as the main access point to the Hyatt Newport property. Parking facilities for these timeshare units would be located adjacent to the units. Vehicles accessing the timeshare units will circulate to the north of the project site, away from the main parking facilities. With the separation of on -site vehicle traffic for the hotel and traffic for the timeshare units, no significant impacts to on -site traffic circulation are anticipated to be caused by the proposed timeshare units. 1131 GROUP G -42 PAGE 38 1 1111111M. AM Coast HighwaV and MacArthur Boulevard 0.570 A 0.736 C 0.737 C 0.001 No PM I Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 0.756 C 0.945 E 0.946. E 0.001 No No significant traffic impacts are identified at this CMP intersection as a result of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion. No mitigation measures are necessary. 5.6 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The project site plan for the proposed hotel expansion is shown in Figure 5 -6. With the proposed expansion, the Hyatt Newport hotel site would have four access driveways. The primary access driveway will remain on Jamboree Road at the existing signalized intersection with Island lagoon Road (Dwy 1). This driveway will continue to serve as the primary access point for hotel guests and visitors. A second main access driveway would be created on Back Bay Drive by enhancing an existing rarely used driveway, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive (Dwy 2). This driveway would be an upgrade of the existing driveway and would serve as the primary access for visitors and guests attending conferences and functions at the hotel. Two additional secondary access driveways are proposed further west on Back Bay Drive. One driveway will provide secondary access to the main parking lot (Dwy 3). The driveway furthest to the west will provide emergency vehicle access to the new timeshare units and the hotel (Dwy 4). In the existing condition, visitor and guest access to the Hyatt Newport hotel is provided exclusively from the main entrance driveway off Jamboree Road. The existing driveways along Back Bay Drive are typically closed to hotel guest vehicles and are reserved for emergency vehicle and employee access. After completion of the proposed expansion, it is anticipated that the main access driveway off Jamboree Road will remain the primary access point for hotel guests to access the hotel rooms and timeshare units. Consistent with the existing on -site circulation, hotel guests would access the main parking facility located south of the main access driveway (Dwy 1). The new timeshare units will be located north of the main access driveway and the existng hotel structures. Vehicles traveling to and from the timeshare units would use Dwy 1 as the main access point to the Hyatt Newport property. Parking facilities for these timeshare units would be located adjacent to the units. Vehicles accessing the timeshare units will circulate to the north of the project site, away from the main parking facilities. With the separation of on -site vehicle traffic for the hotel and traffic for the timeshare units, no significant impacts to on -site traffic circulation are anticipated to be caused by the proposed timeshare units. 1131 GROUP G -42 PAGE 38 1 I' Q 8]X: MYJ 6k y�rR I11\ 1 I • a l SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, [NO, IBINewport Beach Traffic Impact Study GROUP Project Site Access Driveways 0 I C� J is',.. ' Via i'i ' RIANR. !Y[YIAYt nn.K �TTrC � w11r1VnRnlr flN. Ptnii[nd tlR hvlry LYd �_ GTYOF N_IROx[ aM..Ihm AP Yi. Nil I i MtXtsJl 9t � plan'. N [w lMldLl YJJ/ 111 !f !n �. rwu: LEGEI(7� /jl��� TW �� � 'uo= `•••rr,a•• /` ;�anrm nuvlw G[w� �.PfFLxIWPfA l.ra. ^� fOIIMEiOM OfF �� M6 nwcm ! I \4t'4i6. �-•^! � lemwmn m PPC �1 ♦ na .. rs,a +vy"�I [mewxne uwrt PUUV.\: i'i ' RIANR. !Y[YIAYt nn.K �TTrC � w11r1VnRnlr � ]F[axmaa Nn,winnfuxwwr. flN. Ptnii[nd tlR hvlry LYd AtOfMM rW aM..Ihm AP Yi. MtXtsJl 9t � plan'. N [w lMldLl YJJ/ Figure 5 -6 TW Wall I � ]F[axmaa Nn,winnfuxwwr. flN. Ptnii[nd tlR hvlry LYd AtOfMM rW aM..Ihm AP Yi. MtXtsJl 9t � plan'. N [w lMldLl YJJ/ Figure 5 -6 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis The proposed new ballroom facility would be located on the south end of the project site between Dwy 2 and Dwy 3 along Back Bay Drive. Dwy 2 would serve as the primary access and egress location for large conferences and functions held in the ballroom facility. Dwy 2 provides direct access to a proposed new parking structure on the Hyatt Newport site and to the remaining main parking facilities for the hotel. The location of Dwy 2 adjacent to these main parking facilities and away from the main guest entrance to hotel would assist in reducing on -site vehicle circulation conflicts between ballroom visitors and hotel guests. Dwy 2 would provide left turn and right turn access on Back Bay Drive, with the signalized intersection of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road providing the primary access to the regional roadway network. Based on the current site plan provided by the project applicant, it is assumed that entrance on Dwy 2 is not controlled by an access gate. No significant impacts related to vehicle queuing and access or egress are anticipated as result of the operation of Dwy 2 as the primary access for large ballroom conferences and functions. 5.7 ON -SITE PARKING The project applicant submitted a parking analysis for the hotel site after completion of the proposed expansion. The parking demand analysis technical report prepared by RK Engineering Group, Hyatt Newporter Parking Review, is dated May 10, 2006. A review of the conclusions and findings of this parking study is provided in this section along with a separate analysis of project parking demand and supply. The Hyatt Newporter Parking Review identifies that after completion of the proposed Hyatt Newport expansion, the project will provide a total of 912 parking spaces for the hotel facilities and timeshare units. The Hyatt Newport hotel rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities would be served by 785 parking spaces configured as 345 standard parking spaces and 440 tandem /valet spaces. The report notes that several hotels in the City of Newport Beach and other cities operate exclusively with valet parking, and allocating a majority of the provided hotel parking to valet service is not uncommon in the hotel industry. The report also acknowledges the recent approval of a 100% valet parking service the Island Hotel in Newport Beach (formerly Four Seasons hotel). The timeshare units would be served by 118 standard parking spaces that would be reserved for use only by timeshare unit guests. Table 5.11 summarizes the land uses, minimum parking requirements, and provided parking identified in the Hyatt Newporter Parking Review report. Table 5.11: Hyatt Newport Off-Street Parking Summary Hotel (includes guest norms and t space per 2 Units Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided by City Code banquet facilities) rooms 391 rooms 196 785 1.2 spaces per Timeshare Units room 86 units 106 Timeshare Clubhouse/Meeting 1 space per 50 127 Facilities sqft 1,702 sqft 34 Overall Site Total - - 336 912 Sources: City of Newport Beach Zonina Code. Chanter 20.66 and Chanter 2094. Valet Parking The project site plan includes tandem parking spaces located in a proposed two4evel parking garage, surface parking lot proposed along the southern portion of the project site, and in the lot east of existing hotel building. In order to ensure proper utilization of these tandem parking spaces a valet parking plan will need to be implemented for the project site. The project applicant will be conditioned 1 5 nI LJ I I IBI GROUP G -44 PAGE 40 1 ' Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis ' by the City of Newport Beach to submit a valid valet parking plan for the project to the City's Engineering Department prior to the occupancy of the proposed improvements. Anticipated Parking Demand ' The Hyatt Newporter Parking Review report and project site plan call for one parking space per five occupants in proposed hotel banquet facilities.. This assumption is aggressive in that it assumes a higher than average vehicle occupancy rate. The average vehicle occupancy rate in Southern ' California is 1.2 occupants per vehicle. While it is reasonable to assume that some conference /banquet attendees would be guests at the hotel, some events in the ballroom facilities will attract significant numbers of visitors that are not staying at the hotel. It is likely that the average ' vehicle occupancy rate for the ballroom/banquet facilities would fall between the standard 1.2 occupant figure and the five occupants per vehicle figure cited in the applicant's parking study. Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code identifies minimum parking requirements for hotels ' at one space per two hotel rooms. Banquet facilities are assumed to be included within this requirement. As a point of comparison, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) manual Shared Packing, 2ntl Edition was also reviewed to compare the hotel and conference facility parking demand data included in this publication with the parking proposed for the Hyatt Newport hotel. The ULI manual has ' compiled parking data from land uses throughout the United States and identifies typical peak parking rates for specific land uses and opportunities for shared parking between adjacent land uses. Shared Parking identifies a peak demand of 20 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of facility space for hotels with ballroom/banquet facilities that exceed 50 sq.ft. per guest room. As noted in Table 5.2, the Hyatt Newport hotel will provide 70.1 sq.ft. of ballroom /banquet facility space per guest room if the proposed expansion is approved. This ratio results in a forecast peak demand of 672 parking spaces ' for the ballroom/ banquet facilities. Shared Parking also recommends making adjustments to the parking demand for certain land uses to account for captive and non - captive users. Banquettmeeting space or convention space at hotels is identified as a use where captive /non- captives users should be considered when determining peak parking demand. In the case of a hotel, a captive user would be defined as someone staying at the hotel and then attending an event or conference in the banquettmeeting facilities at the same hotel. Since the parking space occupied by this captive hotel guest is accounted for in the parking demand ' for the hotel rooms, counting this occupied parking space for the banquettmeeting room facilities would be a double count of the parking demand generated by this single user. Non - captive users are defined as banquettmeeting attendees who drive to the hotel and park for the sole purpose of attending a ' function in the banquettmeeting facilities. These are typically local residents who would not need to stay at the hotel or visitors traveling to and from the airport, but not staying overnight. The procedures outlined in Shared Parking call for the application of a non - captive ratio to the ' estimated parking demand to determine the appropriate reduction in the overall parking demand for the facility. For example, if the percentage of non - captive users of a banquettmeeting facility was determined to be 75% of the attendees, with 25% of attendees staying at the hotel, the peak parking ' demand would be reduced by 25% to ensure that non - captive users only are counted. Two default non - captive ratios are provided in Sharing Parking. A 60% non - captive ratio is identified for hotels with 20 to 50 square feet of banquettmeeting space per guest room. For hotels with more than 50 square feet of banquettmeeting space per guest room, a 25% non - captive ratio is identified. ' For the purposes of this parking demand analysis and based on input from the Hyatt Newport owner, it was determined that these default non - captive ratios would likely be too aggressive, and their application could result in an underestimation of the anticipated parking demand for the hotel's ' banquetmeeting facilities. Instead, this parking demand analysis uses a 90% non-captive ratio, which IBI GROUP G -45 PAGE 41 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis is consistent with the ratio identified in a study of hotel parking published in Urban Land.' The 90% non - captive ratio results in a more conservative analysis and estimate of potential parking demand. Applying the 90% non - captive ratio to the 672 parking space demand assigned to the banquet/meeting facilities results in a final parking demand estimate of 605 parking spaces. Together, the hotel guest rooms and banquet facilities would be anticipated to have a combined parking demand of 801 spaces allocated as 605 spaces for the banquet facility and 196 spaces for the hotel guest rooms. However, this assumes that the peak time periods for parking demand for each use overlap. Shared Parking also forecasts peak parking demand by time period based on actual parking surveys of specific land uses. Table 5.12 summarizes parking demand for the Hyatt Newport hotel on an hourly basis for a typical weekday. Table 5.12: Hyatt Newport Hotel Off- Street Parking Demand Forecast Time Period 8:00 AM Hotel Guest Room Demand 176 BanquetWeeting Facility D - Nom.. ap Adjustment 90 . 302 478 307 9:00 AM 157 605 762 23 10:00 AM 137 605 742 43 11:06AM 137 605 742 43 12:00 PM 127 605 732 53 1:00 PM 127 605 732 53 2:00 PM 137 605 742 43 3:00 PM 137 605 742 43 4:00 PM 147 605 752 33 5:00 PM 157 605 762 23 6:00 PM 167 302 469 316 7:00 PM 167 181 348 437 8:00 PM 176 181 357 428 9:00 PM 186 60 246 539 10:00 PM 186 0 186 599 11:00 PM 196 0 196 - 589 Based on these forecast parking demand rates, at no time would the Hyatt Newport hotel exceed the project development plan for 785 parking spaces for use by the hotel guest rooms and ballroom /banquet facilities_ Additional analysis of the timeshare parking facilities is also necessary, as the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code requires 140 parking spaces for the timeshare units and clubhouse area. In the project site plan, 127 parking spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of the timeshare units. Possible timeshare overflow parking demand could be accommodated in the general hotel parking. Hourly parking demand forecasts from Shared Parking were used to estimate the peak parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated clubhouse facility. The results of this forecast are summarized in Table 5.13. ' Gerald Salzman, "Hotel Parking: How Much is Enough ?" Urban Land, January 1988 LI 1 11 I GI IBI GROUP G -46 PAGE 42 1 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5.13: Hyatt Newport Timeshare Off-Street Parking Demand Forecast Time Period 8:00 AM Timeshare Unit Demand 95 ClubhouselLounge Demand 10 Total Demand 105 Available Parking 22 9:00 AM 85 3 88 39 10:00 AM 74 3 77 50 11:00 AM 74 2 76 51 12:00 PM 69 34 103 24 1:00 PM 69 34 103 24 2:00 PM 74 11 85 42 3:00 PM 74 3 77 50 4:00 PM 80 3 83 44 5:00 PM 85 10 95 32 6:00 PM 90 19 109 18 7:00 PM 90 20 110 17 6:00 PM 95 24 119 8 9:00 PM 101 23 124 3 10:00 PM 101 20 121 6 Table 5.13 shows that the anticipated parking demand generated by the timeshare units and the associated clubhouse/lounge facility would not exceed the exclusive parking designated for the timeshare facilities. Additionally, overflow parking demand from the timeshare units and facilities could be accommodated in the general Hotel parking facilities. Table 5.14 summarizes parking demand for the entire Hyatt Newport hotel complex. Table 5.14: Hyatt Newport Total Off-Street Parking Demand Forecast Time Period 8:00 AM Hotel Demand 479 Timeshare Demand 106 Total Demand 585 327 9:00 AM 762 88 850 62 10:00 AM 742 78 820 92 11:00 AM 742 76 818 - 94 12:00 PM 732 103 835 77 1:00 PM 732 103 835 77 2:00 PM 742 85 827 85 3:00 PM 742 78 820 92 4:00 PM 752 83 835 77 5:00 PM 762 95 857 55 6:00 PM 469 109 578 334 7:00 PM 348 111 459 453 8:00 PM 358 119 477 435 9:00 PM 247 123 370 542 10:00 PM 186 121 307 605 IBI GROUP G_47 PAGE 43 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis , Based on the forecasted parking demand summarized in Table 5.14, the Hyatt Newport hotel would ' provide sufficient parking facilities to meet parking demand generated by the hotel and timeshare facilities. No significant impacts related to parking availability are identified. Timeshare Underground Parking Facilities The project site plan shows three timeshare buildings that are proposed to be served by subterranean parking located below the timeshare units. The buildings are TS -1, TS -2 and TS-4 on the project site plan (Figure 1 -2). Timeshare building TS -1 has an access aisle for subterranean parking that is about 325 feet in length. The access aisle for the subterranean parking to timeshare building TS-4 is over 500 feet in length, and the access aisle, for the subterranean parking to timeshare building TS -2 is about 75 feet in length. These three access aisles do not include vehicle turn around areas at their termination points, preventing vehicles that have entered the subterranean areas from turning around if no parking stalls are available. To address this issue, the three proposed subterranean parking facilities serving timeshare buildings TS -1, TS -2, and TS-4 should remove one proposed parking turnaround space near the terminus of the parking facility and designate this space as a location for vehicles to turn around an exit the subterranean parking area if no parking stalls are available. 1 i r1 As shown in the previous section, sufficient parking supply is provided on -site to serve the timeshare units and hotel uses. The removal of three parking stalls from the proposed project would not , significant impact parking available for the project. 1 1 Sai GROUP G -48 PAGE 44 ' ' . Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis . ' 6.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITITGATION MEASURES This section discusses the significant traffic impacts identified in this traffic impact analysis and provides mitigation measures to address each impact. 6.1 WITH PROJECT CONDITION No significant traffic impacts are identified for the With Project Condition at the 10 study intersections included in the traffic impact study. At all 10 intersections, the increase in V/C due to project traffic is less than the City of Newport Beach's significant impact threshold of 0.010. 6.2 SITE ACCESS AND PARKING The following improvements are recommended for site access and parking: • In order to ensure proper utilization of tandem parking spaces located in the parking garage, the proposed parking lot, and the southern portion of project site, a valet parking plan is required as part of the conditions of approval for the project. • A vehicle turnaround space in the timeshare underground parking facility must be provided for vehicles to turn around and exit the subterranean parking area if no parking stalls are available. • The applicant shall conduct a vehicle queuing analysis for any access driveway proposed to be controlled by access gates in the future. The queuing analysis would be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. ' IBI GROUP G_49 PAGE 45 Hyatt Newport Traffic Impact Analysis , TECHNICAL APPENDIX IBI GROUP PAGE 46 ' G -50 ATTACHMENT 8 Revised Site Plan . �5 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY n U • • �,qk SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. a, zoos FUSCOE C2 _� -Tm 17T9 { { JNJ r xx c / f f SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC. a, zoos FUSCOE C2 _� THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY n LJ • • �gy ATTACHMENT 9 October 23, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes 7,�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2008 Reaular Meetina - 6:30 D.M. INDEX L CALL om "ssioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and iligre II Commissioners were present. STAFF PRE NT: David Lepo, Planm Director Alford, Planni Manager ron Harp, As Attorney ony Brine, Traffic Engin Jaime Murillo, Associate Plan r Ruby Garciamay, Planning De ent Secretary 21UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Or. Bob Rush noted the forum on the settle nt agreement for Sober Living omes. He created videos of the debate forum d will distribute them to the None ommission. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 17, 2 8. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 9, 2008. ITEM NO.1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner roved Unsworth to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hiligren Noes: None I Absent: None ITEM NO.2 OBJECT: Hy att Regency Newport Beach Expansion (PA 2005 -212) PA2005 -212 1107 Jamboree Road Continued to Request to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. The proj9d 11/6/2008 ncludes the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom facility, a now 10,072- square400t spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering uilding, and a two -level parking garage. Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel rooms, the existing 3,190 -square-foot Terrace Ballroom, and the existing engineering and maintenance building, and removal o he existing nine -hole golf course. The project will require the following approval from the City: 1) Parcel Map No. 2007 -003 to reconfigure two existing lots, to lace the timeshare units on one parcel and the hotel on the other, and t tab fish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height; 2) Use Permit No. 5-046 to allow the expansion of the existing hotel, the timeshare developme to allow the proposed timeshare buildings and ballroom to exceed the 26-fi height limit; 3) Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 to allow commercial tandi :ing and to allow an architectural tower and tower feature on the propos nom to exceed the 35 -foot maximum height limit; and 4) Developmo mment No. 2005 -002 between the City and the operator of the timeshs Acipment relating to the amount of tax payable to the City for the right !panty of the timeshare units. Lepo reported that the applicant has requested the project part of this item tinued to the hearing of November 6th; however, it is recommended that nmission proceed with the hearing on the Environmental Impact Report. nmissioner Eaton noted he had been advised to disclose that he had event at the Hyatt on July 4, 2008, which was paid for by the a sistant City Attorney Harp noted the dollar amount does not consist of a interest. Murillo, Associate Planner, gave a brief review of the project and w of the staff report as it relates to the environmental review. Commission inquiry, he noted that the topic area of recreation was determinec be less than significant and not addressed further in the Draft EIR because the hole golf club is a commercial recreational facility for hotel use and the loss as not constitute a significant impact Staff will meet with the consultant and the camber of Commerce about the "draw" of the golf course for tourism. in Hadfield of the Planning Center and project manager of the EIR, added t addressed the typical thresholds that are used and determined that ;ct would not create additional demand that would have adverse impacts 3unding parks or recreational facilities in the City. The other opportunity ring the EIR is the Notice of Preparation to agencies and the public, and hot receive any responses regarding this issue. The applicant also presen there is a relatively low use of their golf course. orales Newmark of Government Solutions representing the applicants, noted tt rve asked for a continuance to November 6th. She stated this project is mfonnance with the General Plan, existing zoning, and was anticipated by I rters in November 2006 confirming 88 new hotel rooms/timeshares should lowed on this property. Harp noted, at Commission inquiry, a development agreement is in J should be completed in time for the November 6, 2008 meeting. A made available for Commission review. mmissioner Unsworth noted his concerns: whether the economic impacts i a measure of the significance of the project under CEQA; the impact on F ws and request for a modification; engineering -level reports on design dies; the Construction Management Plan, and, the findings on the parcel J grading plans with regard to heights. following information was in response to Commission inquiry: . The $2 Million payment to the City for Marina Park improvements is one o� the public benefits negotiated as part of the Development Agreement wit k �6� the applicant in exchange for the vested development rights to construct 1 project. This is not a mitigation measure and riot a result of any identifi impact. • The Development Agreement does not contain any mitigation measures. • Mitigation Measure 11 -2 restricting construction traffic during peak hoi has been prescribed to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. • Information is pending on the number of new employees required for 1 expansion. • There is no criteria for golf course use, and "undeveloped" is the Cosa category. • The trip generation rates are tailored to correspond to peak hour of tra volume on adjacent streets, which may not correspond to trip generation the site. • Citation of 5 persons per vehicle was made in a parking study submitted the project applicant, but was determined to be too aggressive. 1 prepared a new parking demand analysis based on rates published In Ut Shared Parking Manual. Vehicle occupancy was not utilized to devel parking rates in the Shared Parking Manual, however, if we do I calculation it works out to approximately 2 -3 persons per vehicle. • The General Plan analysis does not correspond to the analysis done for I Hyatt. The main difference is that the Hyatt traffic analysis was conduct based on existing volumes and applying a growth rate factor to arrive 2010 volumes. The General Plan analysis is based on projected ma volumes. • The construction traffic analysis utilizes a different trip distribution than I traffic analysis done for the project. comment was opened. i Mohachy - noted his concern about his views, the need for more the use of view simulations. i Vandersloot - noted the concerns of a recreation analysis in the EIR; the story poles; why a Coastal Development Permit is not part of the applic I the buffer to the environmentally sensitive area is not sufficient. Murphy - concerned about all the views. Murphy - loss of views will have an economic impact on his property, and, shares will impact traffic. e Bordas - asked for clarification on whether the height limitations were based natural or finished grades, concerned with lack of view simulations, golf course span to the public, construction hours, and Coastal Commission approval for i dification of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Berube - parking building built along Jamboree Road will impact views. ey Morris - concerned about noise, increased traffic, increased lighting, and view. ly Mohachy - concerned with view obstructions and potential problems parties, drinking, lighting and traffic. art Rush - the Development Agreement is a relative aspect of this disclosure is required of all who are involved. ublic comment was closed. Mr. Lepo noted that City policy is that there is no protection of private views. mmissioner McDaniel noted his conoem of view rights, development agreement d public input. Action was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissions Unsworth to continue this item to November 6, 2008. ommissioner Toerge asked for passes to the gated community of Sea Island for he Commissioners to use. yes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None ITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. C Councr7 Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that at the last Council meeting the a at of the revised Sejour restaurant was heard and the decision the Plan ' Commission, with modifications, was upheld; a secon reading on ban of Styrofoam cups; and, adopted revisions to the Safety Element the General Plan incorporating the Hazard Mitigatia Plan. b. Planning Commission repo Commissioner Eaton reported the Genera Plan update committee meets ry week. Commissioner Hawkins notec the Economic Development meets met and recommended to the C' Council that the outdoor dining incen in connection to parking woul be continued. C. Announcements on matters that Commission m bers would like pla on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. mmissioner Toerg asked for a report of all the accessory outdoor dining pe ' and location issued in the City since the ordinance was passed in 1991. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. RNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 n U 0 0 �b5 ATTACHMENT 10 November 6, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes 3b� 0 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY • 0 $61 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 6 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. OLL GALL C missioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillg All Commissioners were present. STAFF PR ENT: David Lepo, Pla ' g Director Patrick Alford, Plann Manager Aaron Harp, Assistant Attomey Tony Brine, Traffic Engine Jaime Murillo, Associate Plan r Ginger Varin, Administrative Ass ant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October , 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 23, 2008. ITEM NO.1 Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Approved Hawkins to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: I Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and . Hillgren Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expansion (PA 2005.212) ITEM NO.2 1107 Jamboree Road PA2005-212 Request to expand the existing Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel. The Recommended project includes the addition of 88 timeshare units, a new 800 -seat ballroom for approval facility, a new 10,072 - square -foot spa and fitness center, a new housekeeping and engineering building, and a two -level parking garage. Project implementation requires the demolition of 12 existing hotel rooms, the existing 3,190-square-foot Terrace Ballroom and the existing engineering '6q NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 and maintenance building, and removal of the existing nine -hole golf course. The project will require the following approvals from the City: 1) Parcel Map No. 2007 -003 to reconfigure two existing lots, to place the timeshare units on one parcel and the hotel on the other, and to establish finished grades for the purposes of measuring height; 2) Use Permit No. 2005 -046 to allow the expansion of the existing hotel, the timeshare development, and to allow the proposed timeshare buildings and ballroom to exceed the 26 -foot base height limit; 3) Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 to allow commercial tandem parking and to allow an architectural tower and tower feature on the proposed ballroom to exceed the 35 -foot maximum height limit; and 4) Development Agreement No. 2005-002 between the City and the operator of the timeshare development relating to the amount of tax payable to the City for the right of occupancy of the timeshare units. Jaime Murillo noted the change to a revised resolution that was handed out. In order to approve this project, a statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted; it would have to be determined that there is sufficient public benefits that outweigh the project impacts of construction noise that can not be mitigated due to the length of construction time. He then noted the benefits of the project and consistency with CIOSA. Continuing, he noted the following responses to Commission questions: Spa operation — managed by the hotel operator. Findinas for modification permit — Code allows architectural features to exceed maximum height limit with a modification permit but does not require specified findings. Reference to the 1989 amendment to the use permit that allowed previous expansion — parking demand analysis was prepared requiring 1.5 parking spaces per hotel room; however, in the event of special events requiring increased parking demand, contingency off -site parking would be made available. A similar condition has been proposed in the current resolution requiring approval of a special events permit for events with anticipated increased parking needs. View simulations — provided by the applicant. Response to City of Irvine comment letter — copy distributed to the Commissioners, to Irvine, and made available to the public in the lobby. Number of new employees — 53 to 63 new full -time employees are anticipated; an anticipated number of 25 -30 temporary sales employees during the first 2 -3 years of sales operation of timeshares. There may also be a need for an additional 20 part -time employees. Jobs created —jobs housing balance in the City is 1.0 as stated in the figures in the State of California Employment Development Department. Resolution — has been updated to include a statement of overriding considerations. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the operation of the timeshares. Mr. Murillo noted the applicant would discuss this; however, there are two separate entities. Page 2 of 13 by .F NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Commissioner Hawkins asked If there was an agreement between the timeshares and the entity operating them. Mr. Harp noted at the last meeting, Mr. Rush raised an issue regarding disclosure requirements related to Council Policy A 16 in regards to Mayor Selich and Council Member Rosansky. They both indicated that a reimbursement had been made to Government Solutions for the event attended at the Hyatt Coralee Newman of Government Solutions representing the applicant noted that view simulations had been taken and printed forms were distributed; she noted their comments on the resolution with strike -out and comments on the development agreement. Tom Naughton of Sunstone, principal in charge for the entitlement process noted the spa operation will be operated by Hyatt but Sunstone will reserve the right to lease 0 out to a third party. The timeshare operation will be operated by Hyatt or an affiliate to manage and market the sale of the timeshare units. Sunstone will reserve the right to choose a different operator when or if Hyatt were to exit the timeshare business. The timeshare facilities will have access to the hotel facilities but it is not likely that a hotel guest would be using the timeshare facilities. Commissioner Hawkins inquired if there would be a contractual agreement between the timeshare and the operating company. Mr. Naughton noted there will be a homeowners' association formed that would contract with the management company. He noted there would be conditions on the use of the timeshares; dues, services, and contribution to a reserve for replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment. Commissioner Eaton inquired about the investment. Mr. Naughton noted it is roughly $50 million. Coralee Newman then introduced members of their technical team who assisted with this project. Referring to Condition 9, as recommended by staff to lower the tower feature by five feet, they agree. She then presented a Power Point project overview on the project site, gardens on site with rare botanical specimens, and renovations that had been done in the 80's. She noted the Summer Jazz Series will remain in place; however the bigger Jazz Festival will discontinue once the remodel takes place. Views were then displayed of the 25 -acre lot depicting the orientation of Sea Island, tennis club, Harbor Coves, Bayview Landing Senior Housing, the Newport Dunes Resort and Back Bay Science Center. Julie Cavanaugh of Government Solutions gave an overview of the staff report and discussed the project objectives, building sites, and business Page 3 of 13 510 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Commissioner Hawkins asked if all circulation improvements for CIOSA have been made as well as the open space parcel dedication. He was answered, yes. Commissioner Hawkins then asked about the tandem parking and height measurements. Ron Sakahara of Lee Sakahara Architects noted grade will be measured from finished grade for the purposes of measuring height. He then discussed view simulations depicting the existing and proposed parking structure, ballroom and tower; and view sims taken from Harbor Cove and Sea Island. Commissioner McDaniel asked if there were lights proposed to be on the exterior timeshare buildings. Mr. Sakahara noted there will be ambient light coming from inside the timeshares themselves, but the buildings will not have exterior lighting. Commissioner Hawkins noted he had visited Sea Island, Commissioner Unsworth asked Mr. Sakahara if he could confirm the language on page 17 of the staff report, which states, °the cupola and tower feature will not block any private or public views.° Mr. Sakahara said he could confirm that as a true statement. Robert Kahn of RK Engineering Group stated the conclusions of the parking study prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were that parking and traffic circulation were adequate. Presently there are 655 parking spaces of which 70 are tandem spaces. The proposed project will have 912 parking spaces of which 498 will be tandem for the hotel and ballroom facilities through valet parking. Two new access points will be built for ballroom access and for additional ingress for the hotel facility. Referring to the Power Point exhibit he noted the valet parking, self- parking, timeshare and tandem parking areas. Discussion continued on the peak hour uses, Shared Parking Management Plan, potential surplus, off -site parking during special events and payment of ticket process. John Blamo of Ace Parking Management noted they would control parking through the use of cones, gate closurelopening and delineators for events. Paul Davit, General Manager of Hyatt discussed the valet program for the hotel and entrances off Back Bay Drive. Commissioner Hawkins expressed his concern of the letters of commitment regarding parking needs from The Irvine Company, Palisades Tennis Club and the Dunes. Page 4 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Mr. Kahn noted the requirement and conditions of a special event permit. He added that during construction 467 parking spaces must be maintained within the parking facilities. Commissioner Unsworth asked if the approximately 23 months construction activities as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations meant that the total construction time would be approximately 23 months or if each phase would be approximately 23 months. Tom Naughton answered the timeshare components will be built as they are sold out but the grading will be done all at once. Bill Delo, Traffic Engineer with IBI Group, sub - consultant for the City who prepared the traffic study and parking study included in the EIR. Referencing page 42 of the Traffic Study and hand - written page 24 of the staff report, he explained the shared parking comparisons between banquet facility use, hotel use and timeshare use. There was discussion on capture rate and shortage of demand. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the expansion of the ballroom and current usage. Mr. Davit noted it will serve as a mufti - functional facility; and, there is more demand for meeting space than room capacity.. Commissioner Peotter asked about the traffic concerns related to increase of ballroom facility and how it would be accommodated on Jamboree and in the General Plan Update. Ms. Newman noted the additional room asked for on this site was part of the CIOSA and part of the voters' approval of the General Plan in 2006. This hotel is in the General Plan as 479 keys. Mr. Delo explained the trip generation rates and how they fit within the existing City standards and guidelines for intersections that would be impacted by the expansion; and, addressed possible stacking impacts on Bads Bay Drive and Jamboree Road access both egress and ingress. Commissioner Toerge suggested moving the proposed entry to get the potential stacking of cars away from Jamboree Rd would be a benefit than aligning the driveways. Mr. Delo answered that the proposed driveway entry location provides for more on site queuing space available than if it was located to the west. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the Development Agreement (DA). Ms. Newman stated the DA was established to off -set transient occupancy fees because of the City Ordinance regarding timeshares. The calculation done was for $3 Million and another $2 Million fee established for Marina Page 5 of 13 I)?- NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 Park and an additional $1 Million allocated for water quality improvements in the Back Bay Dunes area. Benefits for the hotel is that the entitlement stay in place for a certain amount of years. Dennis O'Neil, representing the applicant to negotiate and draft the DA along with the ad hoc Committee appointed by City Council. The contract and agreement is in place on all points and conditions. There are a few items that we will be discussing with the Council at the appropriate time. Commissioner Unsworth, referencing paragraph 4.5 in the DA, asked if the development fees assessable against the property are oonsidered to be liens on the property once they are due. He also noted there is no definition for "Development Regulations" and that the duty of land owner to pay for legal expenses incurred by the City should be referenced in the resolution; Mr. Harp answered these fees would not be liens against the property Discussion continued on the timing of the fee payments. Mr. Harp clarified that the changes discussed by the speaker were done at the discretion of the City Mayor. These are issues to be discussed and detennkred at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Eaton asked about the revenue stream from entitled units as compared to a lump sum payment at the beginning. Tom Naughton answered the development of the timeshare units is the trigger for the payment of DA fees. We want to place the payment of those fees on the timing of the timeshares as they are completed. The proposed fee to the City in lieu of the TOT was based upon the discounted present day value of what the City would have received in TOT from the Timeshare units up until the expiration of their lease on the property, in 42 years. Ms. Newman noted there is a different lighting fixture that will be placed on top of the parking garage. Mr. Sakahara displayed and explained exhibits on the lighting standards and types to be used throughout the project as well as atop the parking structure. JoAnn Hadfield of the Planning Center talked about noise from maintenance building. Public Comment was opened. Josh Mohachy, Harbor Cove resident, noted his concerns of view impairment, dust, air pollution, noise, roof color, details of construction schedule, building heights and requested story poles. Richard Leuhers, President of the Chamber of Commerce noted his support of this oroiect for the followina reasons: Page 6 of 13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/08/2008 • Promote economic sustainability in the community. • Revitalization of hospitality product in the community. • The added trips on Jamboree Road will not be problematic. • The loss of the golf facility will not be an impact as this is only a nine- hole course and is not the best use for that valuable property and not a substantial loss to the community. • The existing ballroom can not accommodate today's audio equipment as the ceilings are very low and problematic. • The floor space is not large enough due to ancillary functions needed. Gary Scherwin, President of Conference and Visitors Bureau, noted his support for similar reasons stated, adding: • Meeting space is needed in the City. • The ballroom space Is needed in order to market this community and is an important competitive issue. • The additional rooms will not be as advantageous as getting more meeting space. Gay Morris of Sea Island, noted her concerns of quality of life, loss of property values, amount of traffic accidents on Jamboree, and questioned how the view simulations were taken. Debbie Hartunian of Harbor Coves, questioned why the view sims were stretched as it made the project look further away than it is; it seems a conflict of interest for Mr. O'Neil as he was a Council member when the CIOSA was approved by the City; and stated that the local residents pay taxes and we want to enjoy the area just as well. Sue Ellen Volpe of Sea Island noted the future residences to be built on Santa Barbara by The Irvine Company will impact traffic on Jamboree. This project appears to be able to cause traffic problems as the project is surrounded by residential communities and an environmentally sensitive Back Bay. This convention center will have a negative impact due to noise, traffic and lighting. She is concerned that her water view as well as neighbors' will be compromised. Jim Murphy resident of Sea Island noted view sims taken do not truly reflect their views and noted his concern of the traffic queuing. Michael Volpe resident of Sea Island noted the speed of vehicles coming down Jamboree and the amount of rear end traffics that occur. He suggested using more of Back Bay Drive and underground parking. Richard Barrabe of Sea Island distributed pictures he had taken and noted his concern about the traffic stacking, big RV park and SUVs'. Jan Vandersloot, representing SPON, referring to the staff report noted Newporter North Environmental Study Area qualifies as an Environmentally Page 7 of 13 '56 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 protection of ESHA is not adequately being represented in the EIR. Robert Hamilton a biological consultant from Long Beach retained by SPON distributed his report he had prepared this day. He pointed out the summary and conclusion regarding buffer, locations of coastal sage scrub and cattail marsh area. Fuel modification plans do not provide for the minimum 100 -foot buffer. Public Comment was closed Mr. Lepo noted, at Commission inquiry, noted there the report just handed out was not reviewed by staff; however, as he has confidence in the expertise of the City's consultant, there is no preponderance of evidence that would change the original determination of Glen Lukos Associates and the Planning Center. Tony Bonkamp of Glen Lukos Associates stated they prepared the biological surveys and noted the previous speaker may have had some outdated materials. Referencing exhibits, he noted the vegetation mapping and buffer areas, the process taken for the mapping and surveying of the special treatment areas as well as landscape materials to be used. Commissioner Eaton noted the fuel modification area is a compromise with the Fire Department objectives and the objectives of the biologist. Commissioner Toerge asked if studies have been made on the number of traffic accidents on Jamboree. Mr. Brine answered that since 2005 a total of 11 accidents have been reported to the Police Department, the majority of them being rear -end accidents. Ms. Newman noted that the noise will be reduced due to the three -day Jazz Festival going away. Lighting that currently exists will be removed and replaced with new lighting fixtures with shielding. There is a series of mitigation measures dealing with the construction impacts. There are no impacts to public views. The view sims were taken from many of the speakers' homes and represents a good sampling. If directed by the Planning Commission, we can take more view aims. Following a brief description of the community needs and project proposals asked that the Commission approve this application. Mr. Lepo, referring to the hand out of Ms. Newman of the conditions of approval, noted: • Accept the changes to Conditions 5, 24, 39 • Condition 46 the hours should be 8:00 a.m. Ms. Newman asked for a change to 7:00 a.m. for early deliveries of produce. They have no issue with the refuse pick up after 8:00 a.m. • Condition 60. 65. 67. 68 and 70 there is no basis as thev are from Page 8 of 13 0 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 • Condition 79 change can be approved. • Conditions 81, 83 and 84 changes can be approved. • Conditions 87, 89 and 90 there is no basis as they are from Public Works Department. • Condition 91 and 92 refers to all buildings and staff does not accept the changes as they are from Building Department. Mr. Lepo noted that between now and the Council meeting, these conditions can be confirmed with the other departments for clarification. Ms. Newman noted condition 91 is physically impossible; however, it will be a meet and confer item. Commissioner Toerge noted he had visited several of the sites. He is not compelled to compromise resident quality of life for municipal economic gain. He represents residents. He does not see view denigration or property value Impact. Traffic generated to this site is incorporated in the General Plan at the maximum capacity with review and traffic report done and approved by the City Council, Planning Commission and the voters. The nine -hole gaff course is not a regional attraction, although it is a shame to lose it. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH. No. 2006121052) and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 2007 -003, Use Permit No. 2005 -046, Modification Permit No. 2007 -095 and Development Agreement No. 2005 -002 and adopt the Statement of . Overriding Considerations with the following changes: • Condition 19 — 'Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be FAiNFAized prohibited.... • Condition 20 — Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation. • Condition 36 —Any proposed illumination of the new ballroom cupola and tower feature shad consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturtmnce to the views of the adjacent residents. The illumination shall be off at 10 p.m. and not illuminated earlier than 6 a.m.' • Proposed modifications submitted by the applicant with staffs concurrence: • Conditions 5, 24, 39 are okay; Condition 46 be re- worded deliveries of food products could occur as early as 7:00 a.m. but trash and refuse disposal is after 8:00 a.m. • Conditions 60, 65, 67, 68 and 70 not changed but City staff will meet and confer prior to Council meeting. • Condition 79 is okay to change. • Conditions 81, 83, and 84 are okay to change. Page 9 of 13 � j(D NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/06/2008 prior to Council meeting. • Condition 91 change is acceptable. • Condition 92 not be modified. Commissioner McDaniel noted he will not be supporting the motion. As a member of the Local Coastal Plan Committee for several years, is not convinced that timeshares qualify as visitor - serving. There is not a good understanding of the visual corridors for the neighbors but this does not qualify for the Local Coastal Plan. Commissioner Hillgren noted he will not be supporting the motion. He stated that Condition 9 needs to be addressed as there needs to an artful attraction for people to use Back Bay Drive so it should be 57 feet 6 inches. Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Unsworth to amend the main motion and delete Condition 9. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge Chairperson Peotter stated that the main motion now stands amended. Commissioner Eaton noted this is a very major project that has been thoroughly documented in the public hearing. The issue of the timeshares will be more fully discussed at the City Council and Coastal Commission. Commissioner Hawkins asked staff about Condition 84. Mr. Lepo noted that Condition 84 needs to be brought back to staff for a determination prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Toerge and Commissioner Hawkins noted they would amend his motion accordingly. Commissioner McDaniel noted the Coastal Commission has given the City parameters to live with and we need to be responsible as to what those are and deal with them to be given that gift of doing this ourselves. This is an issue that will be taken up someplace else, but at our level we need to be responsible for. Commissioner Toerge noted he served on the Local Coastal Committee an timeshares are considered visitor - serving. Commissioner Hillgren noted that in terms of the uses proposed he is proponent of the proposed uses and additional meeting spaces are worthy and believes timeshares work. The environmental review that has occurred successfully addresses the issues with CIOSA and so forth. I do know from experience that hotels are operating businesses and they need to work. I a not confident that the plan we have functions well and part of our responsibility is that we have a goal to have a great facility when all is said and done. I have Page 10 of 13 lI NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 11/06/2008 concerns that the parking and stacking are not as good as they could be and for those reasons will not support the motion. Chairman Peotter suggested restricting the high - pressure sodium fighting in the parking areas to match the street lights and recommends lowering the parking lot standards another 6 feet to a total height of 20 feet. It will mean more pole but they will be less intrusive. I suggest an amendment to the main motion to modify Condition 33. This was seconded by Commissioner Hawkins. Vote taken was to amend the main motion. Ayes: Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Hillgren I Noes: Eaton and Toerge Vote on main motion amended to delete Condition 9 and modify Condition 33. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter and Toerge Noes: I McDaniel and Hillgren OBJECT: City of Newport Beach (PA2008 -182) ITEM NO.3 PA2000 -182 City Hall A —An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to Recommend change the d use category from Open Space (OS) to Public Fadities (PF) Approval and an amend nt to the Newport Village Planned Community to change the land use design from Open Space to GovemmentaNinstitutional on 6.5 • acres generally bou ad by Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, the Central Branch of the ewport Beach Public Library, and the eastern prolongation of the cents rtin aratlon Drive. These amendments will limit land uses of the subject property to a administrative offices of the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Section 425 of Charter of the City of Newport Beach. Mr. Alford gave an overview of the staff rt. Public Comment was opened. Jan Vandersloot, representing SPON and Greenlig noted his issue of the statement that no Greenlight vote is required. As the ommission does not know the dimensions of the new City hall or traffic ge on, there are certain parameters that would trigger a Greenlight vote. are was no mention about the size of City hall in Measure B, nor was ; however, you don't know these. So you should not be saying a Greeniight to is not required. This has to wait for the specific project that will be the subje f the EIR. This amendment is premature and should be processed at the s e time the City haft project is actually approved as there may be changes size and expense. This should not be approved with the argument that a Greenlight vote is not required. Mr. Harp noted that there are two Charter amendments. Typically you would look at what was last in time and to the extent there is an issue, the City has no choice in the matter and has to amend the General Plan as a ministerial Page 11 of 13 Yk�