Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials received after PC Packet distributionMaterial(s) received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed, or received at the meeting. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public. ..G &� October 22, 2008 lo•A3AY is wh* -,§:> Community Development www.ci.irvine.ca.us City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623 -9575 (949) 724 -6000 10010 410 FILE COPY" aoo zZZ 110 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Expansion of the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Dear Mr. Lepo: The City of Irvine has had the opportunity to review the draft Environmental Impact Report and the Hyatt Newporter Parking Review prepared in support of the proposed expansion to the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on projects in adjacent jurisdictions that have the potential to result in impacts to the City of Irvine. The City was offered this opportunity for review earlier this year. That review resulted in a letter dated March 4, 2008 indicating that the City had no comments on the project at that time. At this time, after further detailed review, the City has concluded that there are several substantive issues that need to be addressed before taking any action on this request or making any recommendation on the environmental documentation. The City would suggest that without making changes to the draft Environmental Impact Report as outlined by the comments provided below, the analysis contained in that document is flawed. We respectfully request that these comments be forwarded to your Planning Commission to be considered as a part of their deliberations on this project, and be made a part of the formal public record. The following are the City of Irvine's Comments on Chapter 5 -11, Transportation and Appendix L to the draft Environmental Impact Report. The study area boundary consists of 10 intersections. At the intersection of Jamboree /San Joaquin Hills Road, which is at the boundary of the study area, the trip distribution shows that 40 percent of the project traffic extends north on Jamboree. At the intersection of MacArthur /Coast Highway, the trip distribution shows that 10 percent of the project traffic extends to the north on MacArthur. This means that 50 percent of the project traffic comes from, or is headed north out of the study area boundary. The intersection of Jamboree /MacArthur is two and a half PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. David Lepo October 22, 2008 Page 2 miles from this intersection. This intersection has been forecast to operate at unacceptable levels of service in future horizon years in other studies. Newport Beach has identified physical improvements for the intersection of Jamboree/MacArthur; however, they are not yet fully funded. The study area boundary will need be expanded to include the intersection of Jamboree/MacArthur. 2. Explain why was TRAFFIX used to provide the ICU's instead of NBTAM to forecast the traffic volumes. 3. This traffic study was done with a methodology that compares the trip generation of the Hyatt from the previously approved 1992 Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) that included an expansion of 68 rooms, with the trip generation of this project that is a net increase of 76 rooms. Previous comments made by attorneys representing Newport Beach, to the City of Irvine, on numerous traffic studies and environmental documents, have taken issue with similar methodology, wherein the trip generation of a project's entitled uses was compared with the proposed intensity of the current project. Newport Beach needs to further evaluate the project's full impacts of the 76 net new units (88 new timeshare units minus the 12 existing villas that are being removed) and not provide a comparison between the "phantom trips" generated by some un -built future intensity and the proposed project. 4. The City understands that the Hyatt has previously contributed its fair share to the CIOSA improvements. Explain why an expansion to any of the 11 CIOSA projects would not be subject to a proportional increase in their fair share contributions to CIOSA. 5. Revise the traffic analysis to provide an existing plus project scenario evaluation for CEQA compliance purposes. 6. Revise the traffic analysis to provide a separate evaluation of the project's contribution without considering the cumulative projects (those approved and not yet constructed projects and the reasonably foreseeable unapproved projects) so that the project's impact to intersection ICU's can be isolated from these other developments. 7. Even though a small expansion at this hotel does not trigger the threshold for an impact, the cumulative projects do contribute to forecast deficiencies at several intersections. Does the City of Newport Beach have a program for addressing these forecast deficiencies that are not attributed to any specific projects? 8. Page 1 of the Traffic Study, Table ESA: The year 2012 should be provided on the "without project" and "with project' columns to correspond to those shown in Table 4.4, and to explain why the ICU's are higher than the existing year. Mr. David Lepo October 22, 2008 Page 3 In addition to these comments, if there was a Response to Comments document prepared as a component of the draft Environmental Impact Report for this project, we would appreciate receiving a copy of that document electronically. The City looks forward to a complete and comprehensive response to the comments contained in the letter. The City also expects that the draft Environmental Impact Report will be dutifully and responsibly updated and revised to address these issues in order to achieve some measure of compliance with CEQA. We are happy to make ourselves available for further consultation on these matters should you require further clarification. Sincerely, TIM GEHRICH, AICP Manager of Development Services cc: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Douglas Williford, Director of Community Development Manuel Gomez, Director of Public Works Kerwin Lau, Project Development Administrator Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst Timor Rafiq, Rafiq and Associates Diane Jakubowski, Rafiq and Associates Steve Weiss, Principal Planner Michael Philbrick, Senior Planner Murillo, Jaime From: Barry D. Eaton [eaton727 @earthlink.netj Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:58 AM To: Alford, o, Jaime FILE COP Y Cc: Alford, Patrick; Lepo, David; Brine, Tony Subject: Respone Document (FEIR) on Proposed Hyatt NB Expansion Jaime, I have now (finally) finished reviewing the 400+ pages of this document. (I had read the 500+ page original Draft EIR when it was first distributed to me last Spring.) As you might expect, I do have some questions about the response document. Inasmuch as the first hearing is less than 40 hours from now, and will be continued, I would hope that you could use this email as a prompter for answers at the meeting. Initially, let me state that I am really appreciative that you and the consultant took the comments received on the DEIR seriously, and that you made a substantial effort to respond to them in a meaningful way. Too often, I have read "dismissive" response documents that didn't appear to make a real effort at meaningful responses. That is certainly not the case here. I'll list my questions in the order that they appear in the document: 1) Response A2 -1 (page 2 -12) lists what is called a "mitigation ", which is apparently a provision of the proposed Development Agreement (which we have not seen); and that would require a payment of $2M to the City, to provide recreational facilities at Marinapark or some other location, in lieu of what otherwise might be required by the Coastal Commission as the provision of lower cost accommodations. This raises several questions in my mind: a) Is this a proposed Mitigation Measure? If so, why is it not given a MM number, and listed as a revision to the original DEIR? If it is not? What is it? b) Is this proposal an attempt to indicate that recreational facilities are an equal or better solution to the issue of lower cost accommodations than actual lower cost accommodations would be? c) It is unclear to me whether this document is even acknowledging the need for lower cost accommodations in the Coastal Zone. Is it? d) Are there other provisions of the proposed Development Agreement that could be considered "mitigations" or amelioration of the impacts of the project? If so, what are they? 2) Response A4 -3 (page 2 -21) states that both the ITE and NBTAM hotel traffic generation rates take into account all ancillary uses on a hotel property. See questions 11) - 13), and 16) & 17) hereinbelow. 3) Response 01 -24 (page 2 -49) indicates that the intersection of San Joaquin and Jamboree will operate at an unsatisfactory level of service, and will be impacted by the construction traffic of the proposed project; but that because construction traffic is not permanent, this impact is not considered significant. Does CEQA permit an otherwise significant impact to be deemed not significant, just because it's temporary? (Also see questions 14) & 15) hereinbelow.) 4) However, Response 01 -40 (page 2 -53) indicates that this same impact is not significant because construction traffic will be restricted 1 during the peak hour (by MM 11 -2). Does this obviate the response to 0 -24? 5) Response 03 -5 (page 2 -63) notes that the parking analysis utilizes a "more conservative parking ratio for ballroom facilities ". See questions 11) - 13) hereinbelow. 6) Response R11 -4 (page 2 -139) states that "the number of new employees required to support expansion would be minimal "; and therefore the need for employee housing doesn't need to be addressed in the EIR. What is "minimal ", and on what data is this conclusion based? How many new employees are anticipated to be required upon buildout? 7) Response Rll -35 (page 2 -152) refers to itself. What was intended here? 8) Item 18. of Response Rll -39 (page 2 -156) states that the golf course was originally estimated for flow quantity purposes as "commercial zoning "; but could also be estimated based on "undeveloped property ". Why couldn't such an estimate be based on its actual use as a Golf Course? 9) Item 2. of Response Rll -45 (page 2 -161) notes the traffic generation comparison to the Newport Beach Marriot. See question 17) hereinbelow. 10) Item 8. of Response Rll -45 (page 2 -163) appears to me to be quite unresponsive to the comment (page 2 -136) - almost as if it was addressing some other comment. Are you entirely satisfied with this response? 11) In the summary of the revision to the parking study (page 3 -2) the original study is noted to assume that a parking ratio of 1 space per 5 occupants in the ballroom is utilized; and that "This assumption is very aggressive... ", and that "It is likely that the actual rate would fall somewhere between the standard 1.2 occupant figure and 5 occupants per vehicle cited in the applicant's parking study." I would agree with this. But this discrepancy is never again referred to; and, in fact, the parking figure is lowered even further in the revised study (see questions 12) & 13) hereinbelow). Why? Doesn't this need to be addressed? If not, why not? 12) Further, on page 3 -3, the method utilized to reduce the assumed parking demand even further is justified by comparison to a study noted in the footnote at the bottom of that page (dealing with hotel parking); but that study is not utilized anywhere else in this parking analysis. What does that study say about the assumed 1 space per 5 occupants, and the further reduction proposed herein by the assumption that even that number can be further reduced by counting some of the room parking against that ratio? 13) Further, Table 5.11 -7, on page 3 -4, provides hourly parking estimates for both the ballroom facilities and guest rooms, but assumes that the ballroom and meeting facilities are in greatly reduced usage after 5:00 PM. Why? If the very large ballroom expansion is proposed (in part) to meet the community demand, as projected in the 1997 City sponsored study (as indicated in several of the responses), isn't that because the community need was especially exemplified by the need for large evening functions? If so, wouldn't both the total parking demand and the PM peak hour traffic be increased considerably? If so, what would the revised numbers be? 14) Both the calculated LOS in 2010 (page F -22) and in 2012 (page G -28) estimate that 4 NB intersections will be operating at unacceptable levels by those years: Jamboree /PCH at level F, and Dover /PCH, MacArthur /PCH, and Jamboree /San Joaquin at level E. Is this consistent with the General Plan forecasts? I don't remember any of these intersections so predicted in the General Plan traffic model. If they 2 are inconsistent, why is that the case? 15) Further, the Construction traffic analysis (Appendix F) concludes that the construction impact will have a significant effect on Jamboree /San Joaquin, whereas the Hotel Traffic Analysis (Appendix G) finds no such impact. Is that only because the construction impact was calculated as a percentage of the 2010 number, which was lower than the 2012 number utilized for the hotel calculation? 16) Further still, the hotel calculations (on page G -32 & 33) conclude that there will be a lower PM peak hour traffic generation after completion of the 800 occupant ballroom than during the construction of it. Is this really realistic? (Also see the following question.) 17) Part of the extremely low PM peak hour traffic generation from the project appears to be justified by a comparison with the NB Marriot Hotel (page G -37); which was counted on a Thursday, September 14, 2006, which was not in the summer, not on a weekend, and when there was apparently a day meeting in the meeting facilities, but not an evening function. Is this really a reasonable comparison? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. I look forward to your responses at the meeting. Barry 3 10/23/2008 15:58 FAX 2134810352 UNITTE-HEEREE LOCAL 11 IA002 /004 awix P 11 P C n RE(:AIIED I�t FILE COPY October 2151, zoos OCT 2 3 MODE Mr. Scott Peotter, Chairman Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92,563 Re: Notice of Public Kmring for the Hyatt Regency Newport Beach Expal, .ion (PA2005-2I2) and Environmental Irr;oact Report. Dear Chairman Peotter and members of the Planning Commission of the Cit. of Newport Beach: UNITE HERE represents hotel employees throughout California. We would ike to raise several issues related to the Hyatt Newport Beach Expansion and the Environmental .Inpact Report (EIR) accompanying the project. We feel these issues need be resolved prior o acceptance and certification of the final EIR and granting of other approvals by the City of IN. :wport. Timeshares and the Coastal Act: Many of UNITE HERE's members work in hotels along the California coast: ne and their families often live in nearby coastal neighborhoods. As participants in the st,. e's tourism industry, we recognize the value of the coastline as a resource and attraction : )r visitors. We are concerned with the inclusion of 88 new timeshare units in the propos: 3 project. We concur with the issues raised in the January 16a', 2007 letter from Coastal Cc emission Analvst Liliana Roman, responding to the EIR Notice of Preparation. Ms. Roman not s that Newport Beach's Coastal Land Ilse Plan (LUP) does not specifically authorize timesh: tea in the Visitor Serving Commercial Zone and notes the need for a LUP amendment to allow them. Encouragement of Low:r Cost Visitor Accommodations: We believe that the proj .,-ct's timeshare component may violate Section 3021 of the State Coastal Act which state,, that "lower cost visitor and recreational facilities sh. Il be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." We do not believe that timeshare • fulfill this requirement because tha.y are geared towards a small, affluent se ment of the copulation. As Coastal Commission analyst Liliana Roman notes in a March 25 ', 2008 lettei "time share units are not considered to be lower -cost visitor accommodations and therefore do of have priority over Iower -cost visitor accommodations in the coastal zone. Therefore the Ci i should consider requiring the remaining entitlements granted under CIOSA to be reserved for he provision of on-site lower cost visitor accommodations. Where such provision isn't feasib -, appropriate mitigation /off -sets should be required in order so that lower -cost visitor actor modations can be provided elsewhere in a coastal area." ❑ Main Office 0 Garden Grove Office ❑ k rport Office 464 S Lucas Ave, Ste 201 13252 Garden Grove Blvd Ste 200 463 W Imperial Hwy Los Angeles, CA 90017 -2074 Garden Grove CA 92843 Ingl: wood CA 90304 (213) 481 -8530 • FAX (213) 481 -0352 (714) 750 -4373 • Fax (714) 750 -2683 (31r: 671 -0720 • Fax (31O) 671 -5021 10/23/2008 15:59 FAX 2134810352 UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 IM003 /004 1A'e also believe that the timeshare project will only worsen Newport Beach lack of lower cost visitor accommodations. According to an August 8`h, 2006 Coastal Commis on memorandum prepared for the Commission's "Condominium -Hotel Workshop," the major ty of Newport Beach's visitor acconurlodations at the time (9 of 16) were classified as "lux ry." In contrast, only 3 Newport Beach accommodations were classified as "low cost." The e Idition of timeshares will only increase Newport Beach's status as a playground for w: rlthy visitors. Visitor - Serving Commercial Recreational Facilities: The timeshare compon,:nt may violate the Coastal Act's policy of encourage g visitor - serving uses and public access to the coastline because timeshares are sometimes on 1 accessible to their owners, and not tourists, who are seeking overnight accommodations while r siting the coastline. Coastal Commission aralyst Liliana Roman notes that "the project results in i net loss of traditional hotel rooms �n the property; and the loss of capacity for fixture ac..itional traditional hotel rooms on the prol:erty that may be necessary to accommodate future d,: nand. This raises concerns with regard to Coastal Act Sections 30222 and 30223 which, respe::ively, encourage use of private lands suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facil Jes designed to enhance public oppor t, cities for coastal recreation, and encourage reserving tpiand areas necessary to support re�:reational uses.... Commission staff is supportive of ime share developments in genera commercial or other land use designations, however usually not in visitor serving zones a; they are only considered "quasi" visitor serving corn ared to regular hotel rooms." Proximity to an Enviro;imentally Sensitive Habitat Area: It is unclear whether th project is properly buffered to protect the adjacent 1. )per Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). As '-oastal Commission analyst Liliana Roman notes, the city's Coastal Land Use Plan .UP) contains: ... policies rec: airing coastal resource protection (ie., provide apprr ariate buffer areas and setbacks, shield and direct exterior lighting away to mini: size impacts to wildlife, prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel nodification within the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), etc. The DEIR impact analysis states that there is no ESHA on -site and that the p. eject design would result in complete avoidance of adjacent off -site coastal sage hrub ESHA with a 50 -foot r,inimum buffer area between developed areas and , ff -site CSS. However, it appears that vegetation and fuel modification is propos, d in the 50- foot ESHA buffer area. Development adjacent to ESHA must be cor patible with the continuance of the ESHA. Coastal LUP policy calls for bu£fe: areas to be maintained wit$ exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitions habitat, not as a fuel modifi,:ation zone. Fuel modification requirements to addre::: fire hazard should set back (within Project boundaries and outside of buffets: so that the buffer areas serve their intended function of protecting ESHA from ti a disruption of habitat value::." Parking Analysis: The project applicant commissioned a study to determine parking needs gene ated by the project, both during and after th:: construction phase. We question one assumption m; le in the study, 10/23/2008 16:00 FAX 2134810352 UNITE HERE LOCAL 11 IM004/004 which was also noted in section 5.11 -21 of the draft EIR: The parking analysis and the project's site plan call for one parking dace per five occupants for t ie proposed hotel banquet facilities. This assumptior 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 t :hicle. While it is reasonable to assume that some conference/banquet attend( :s would be guests at the ho el, some events in the ballroom facilities would attr ;t significant numbers of visitors who are not staying at the hotel. It is likely th:! the average vehicle occupw:.cy rate for the ballroom/banquet facilities would fal between the standard 1.2 oo upant figure and the 5 occupants per vehicle figuri cited in the applicant's parking study. It is difficult to believe that attendees of a function at the Hyatt Regency bal oom would typically arrive in cars hacked with 5 people. An analysis based on such a qt, !stionable assumption may dramatically underestimate the actual parking demands gen: rated by the project, especially since the ballroom will accommodate up to 800 people, and the h( el, including the 88 new timeshares, will only have 479 rooms. We believe that another analysis hould be conducted with a more reasonable assumption, such as the 1.2 vehicle occupancy rate c: ed above. Finally, we concur with points raised by other people who have submitted co oments regarding increased noise (due to construction and attendance at ballroom events), traf: c (especially along Jamboree Road), the loss of a greenbelt and recreational opportunities from i e elimination of the existing 9 -hole golf course, and the potential loss of views for nearby Sea! Island residents. We believe these issues must be addressed and resolved prior to the acceptar a and certification of the final EIR and oth .r approvals for this project. Please keep me informer about any other public hearings where this project and EIR will be discussed. Please also con act me at (2 13) 4004283 if you want to discuss these issues. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 'Andy ee UNITE HERE 464 S. Lucas Avenue, #201 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 400 -4283 Phone (213) 481 -0352 Fax andylee2[a'•.aol.com CC: Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, City of Newport Reach