HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - DSEIR for Pelican Hill ResortCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 13
August 24, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(DSEIR) for Pelican Hill Resort
ISSUE:
Should the City provide comments on the DSEIR?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Mayor to send the attached comment letter.
DISCUSSION:
The Irvine Company is proposing a new destination resort in Newport Coast, which
would consist of a 204 room hotel, 128 timeshare casitas, a recreation center and a new
golf clubhouse. Pursuant to the City's agreements with The Irvine Company and the
County of Orange, the County is the permitting authority for this project.
A subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) prepared the
attached comments on the DSEIR. Unfortunately, the full Committee was unable to
review them in detail due to time constraints of the public review period and the
extraordinary length of the EQAC meeting. The Committee does not recommend that
the DSEIR be revised as a new or subsequent EIR, as stated in item "a" of the
Summary of Concerns section of the memorandum. They did, however, wish the City
Council to consider the draft comments with regard to items "b" through "e" in the
Summary of Concerns.
I have prepared a shorter comment letter for the City Council's consideration, based on
comments from EQAC and City staff. Consistent with EQAC's recommendation, the
letter does not include any discussion of a new or subsequent EIR. Comments in the
letter are focused on providing accurate information on quantities of excavation and
Comments on DSEIR for Pelican Hill resort
August 24, 2004
Page 2
grading, and impacts of those activities, especially on Newport Beach streets, as well as
clarifying information related to aesthetics and traffic safety of the golf cart bridge,
biological resources, and noise.
Submitted by:
Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft letter
2. Memorandum from EQAC Subcommittee
Mayor
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor Pro Tern
Garold B. Adams
Council Members
Steven Bromberg
John Heffernan
Richard A. Nichols
Steven Rosansky
Don Webb
August 25, 2004
Mr. Chuck Shoemaker
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
DRAFT
County of Orange, Planning and Development Services
300 North Flower Street, Third Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048
Draft SEIR for the Pelican Hill Resort
Dear Mr. Shoemaker:
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunities we have been
given to participate in review of the proposed Pelican Hill Resort. Although,
pursuant to agreements concerning the annexation of Newport Coast, the
County of Orange retains land use regulatory authority, the Pelican Hill
Resort will be an important addition to Newport Beach, and the City wants to
ensure that the project will be well done and well received by the community.
Newport Beach has an Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), to
which the City Council has given the charge of reviewing EIRs on projects in
Newport Beach. EQAC reviewed the Draft SEIR for the Pelican Hill Resort
and offered comments for the Council's consideration. The comments in this
letter are based on EQAC's work and review by City staff, and identify areas
of the document that the City Council believes warrant further review as the
Final SEIR is prepared.
Excavation and Grading
Section 2.2.2 of the DSEIR states that, "The project will require
approximately 979,000 cubic yards of excavation and 1,540,000 cubic yards
of remedial grading." However, Table 2.2 -5 entitled "Pelican Hill Preliminary
Earthwork Quantities" shows that excavation will move over 1,750,000 cubic
yards of material and include remedial excavation of 1,400,000 cubic yards.
The City suggests that the preparer of the DSEIR confirm and clarify the
excavation and grading quantities, and verify the traffic, air quality and noise
impacts that may be generated by the correct quantities.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3004
Letter to Chuck Shoemaker
August 25, 2004
Page 2
Also with regard to excavation and grading, the DSEIR does not provide the
locations for either export or import of soil. These locations could affect
impacts in the areas noted above, in particular traffic on City streets. The
City requests that haul routes be reviewed a nd approved by our Public
Works Department before construction begins.
Aesthetics
Additional discussion of the aesthetic impacts of the golf cart bridge would be
helpful. Figure 3.1 -5d shows the Project from Pelican Hill Road at the
entrance to the Pelican Hill Driving Range. The visual quality rating system
indicates that contrasts are weak. However, in this view, the bridge cuts
across the viewshed with what appears to be a blank wall.
Biological Resources
The DSEIR states that biological resources were documented in previously
certified EIRs for the Newport Coast Planned Community. It also indicates
that a verification of resources on the proposed project site was conductE!d
by LSA Associates, Inc. in January of 2004 to document the current
conditions, which information is summarized in the DSEIR. We were unable
to find a reference to the LSA report; it should be included in the Final SEIR
Noise
The DSEIR states that construction noise and interior noise levels will comply
with the more restrictive City noise ordinance restrictions on construction.
However, Mitigation Measures MM -2 and MIN -3 state that the applicant shall
provide the County with evidence that construction and its attendant noise
will comply with the County's ordinance. These mitigation measures should
be changed to require compliance with the City's noise ordinance.
Transportation /Circulation
In earlier comments on the Coastal Development Permit, the City expressed
some concern that the golf cart bridge could hinder the visibility of the signal
indications for vehicles traveling south on Pelican Hill Road South toward the
signalized intersection at Newport Coast Drive. In addition, it could obstruct
visibility of vehicles stacking in the left -turn pocket from vehicles approaching
the intersections on Pelican Hill Drive South. We did not see this traffic;
safety issue addressed in the DSEIR, and encourage you to consider it.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR. I hope the City'E;
comments help to strengthen the document. We look forward to continuincl
Letter to Chuck Shoemaker
August 25, 2004
Page 3
to work with the County and the applicant as this project proceeds through
the permitting process and construction.
Sincerely,
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC ")
City of Newport Beach
From: Pelican Hill Resort Subcommittee; EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "DSEIR ") for the
Pelican Hill Resort Project (the "Project ")
Date: August 16, 2004
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR for the captioned
Project "located on approximately 119 acres of property approved for destination resort
uses in the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program. Specifically, the proposed project is
located within a portion of the Newport Coast Planned Community area, adjacent to the
north and south courses of the existing Pelican Hill Golf Club." The DSEIR proposes to
supplement the 1989 FEIR 511, the environmental document for Irvine Coast Planned
Community Phase I, and the 1991 FEIR 524, the environmental document for the
proposed Hyatt Resort at Pelican Hill.
We offer the following comments in the hopes of improving the DSEIR
and the Project.
1. Summary of Concerns.
a. The DSEIR should be revised as a new or subsequent EIR;
The DSEIR should be revised to provide a full analysis of land
use /planning, population and housing and recreation issues;
C. The DSEIR should be revised to discuss fully the construction
traffic including the truck haul route and require permitting from the:
City of Newport Beach to the extent that any City streets are
affected;
d. The DSEIR's impacts analysis should be revised to address fully
Project impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
noise, seismicity, traffic /circulation /parking, and hydrology;
e. The DSEIR's cumulative impacts analysis is inadequate and
should be revised.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 2
August 16, 2004
2. Introduction: EIR Standards.
An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary
environmental document which:
".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the
effects of the proposed project on the environment,
alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse
effects and to increase beneficial effects."
CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section
21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the
document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision - makers.)
Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy
standards for an EIR:
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decision- makers with information which
enables them to make a decision which takes account of the
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a proposed project need not be
exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the
light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among
experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR
should summarize the main points of disagreement among
the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but
for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full
disclosure."
Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare
conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District
Agricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied.).
In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of
the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the
degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR."
CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to
further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce
sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the
proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as
environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 3
August 16, 2004
Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must
provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or
event. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run
counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest
feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202
Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d
263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed
as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v.
Regents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that
environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where
genuine flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of
significant impacts: mitigation measures must really minimize an identified impact.
"Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity
commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and
possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan. (Citation omitted.) On the other hand, an
agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological
report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report.
(Citation omitted.) Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine 2004 Cal. App. 4t' 1261, 1276.
Also, the DEIR raises several issues regarding types of EIRs. The
Guidelines contemplate a `subsequent' EIR for an already existing project that is
approved in an EIR and that later experiences "substantial changes" either in the
project or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162. A "supplement" to an EIR is used instead of a
"subsequent" EIR if a subsequent EIR is necessary and "[o]nly minor additions or
changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project
in the changed situation." CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a)(2). "The supplement to
the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR
adequate for the project as revised." CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(b).
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21094 addresses the
preparation of a "tiered environmental impact report" for a "later project" which arises
after "a prior environmental impact report has been prepared and certified for a
program, plan, policy, or ordinance." Such a report is required if the lead agency
determines that the later project 44(1) is consistent with the program ... for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared and certified, (2) is consistent with
applicable local land use plans and zoning ..., and (3) is not subject to Section 21166."
Public Resource Code Section 21094(b).
"Tiering" refers "to the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such
as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ultimately
site- specific EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating
solely on the issues specific to the EIR subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 4
August 16, 2004
when the sequence of EIRS is: [P] (a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a
... site - specific EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15385.
3. A Supplemental EIR, A Subsequent EIR or a new EIR.
Section 1.2 addresses the type and purpose of the DSEIR:
"This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for
the proposed project evaluates the environmental topics
(sic) previously analyzed in Final EIR No. 511 (... certified
July 1989) and Final EIR No. 524 (... certified March 1991)
and addresses further refinements to the project design and
additional information available for the proposed project.
Since certification of FEIRs 511 and 524, the proposed
project has undergone modifications, thus requiring further
environmental analysis. Under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County,
acting as the Lead Agency for environmental review, must
evaluate potentially significant effects of the proposed
project. The County has determined that a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) is the appropriate
environmental document. As required by CEQA Guideline
Section 15160, this SEIR meets all the content requirements
for an EIR specified in Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The SEIR incorporates environmental analysis for the
project site and the surrounding area from prior EIRs as well
as setting forth the information required to address new or
changed components and circumstances described in the
Initial Study. The SEIR will identify any new potentially
significant impacts, and will identify feasible mitigation
measures to reduce or eliminate potential environmental
impacts."
That was easy: Say it, and it is so. Unfortunately, CEQA requires more: it requires
analysis and explanation rather than fiat.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides that, when an EIR has
been previously prepared, no subsequent EIR need to be prepared unless:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 5
August 16, 2004
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of
the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or
the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially
more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
( C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to
be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure
or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
As the DSEIR notes, Section 15163 provides that the Lead Agency, the County, may
prepare a Supplemental EIR if:
"(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162
would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR;
and
"(2) Only minor additions or changes would be
necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed
situation."
DSEIR, 1-4.
Regardless of whether the DSEIR meets the requirements of Article 9
entitled "Contents of Environmental Impact Reports," the DSEIR fails even to discuss
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 6
August 16, 2004
the requirements of Article 11 entitled "Types of EIRs," including failing to discuss or
analyze whether the DSEIR is the appropriate type of EIR. This failing is surprising
given the comments on the Notice of Preparation which comments that a supplemental
EIR, such as the DSEIR, is the wrong EIR for the analysis of the Project.
As indicated above, a supplemental EIR may be prepared if a subsequent
EIR is not required. However, significant and substantial changes - development of
Newport Coast, I -73, incorporation of Newport Coast in the City of Newport Beach,
transportation limitations within the County including within the City of Newport Beach –
require preparation of either a new or subsequent EIR. Hence, the Guidelines require a
different type of EIR. The DSEIR should be revised to discuss the County's decision
on the type of EIR and should prepare either a new or subsequent EIR.
An editorial comment: the DSEIR may be correct that Newport Coast and
the Project have been extensively analyzed in a myriad of environmental documents.
However, the multiplicity of documents creates its own problems: most of those
documents are not available to the public and are not reviewed by decision makers.
The only hope of full information for both the public and decision makers is preparation
of a new standalone EIR which will detail the Project, identify all impacts and propose
necessary and feasible mitigation. Further, the environmental document, whether the
DSEIR or the new EIR, must not only identify the permitting agency, i.e. the County, but
the implementing, inspecting and mitigation monitoring agency, e.g. the City ( ?). The
DSEIR should be revised to address all of these concerns.
4. Section 1: Introduction:
As discussed below, the Project is a tourist commercial and visitor serving
destination resort with a 204 room hotel now known as Pelican Hill Inn with attendant
amenities, 52 Upper Casitas /timeshares, 76 Lower Casitas /timeshares with a recreation
center, and a new golf clubhouse with associated improvements. The Project also
includes a 473 space parking structure for the Inn and a 312 space parking structure for
the new golf clubhouse. The Project requires four Coastal Development Permit
applications.
The DSEIR refers to environmental topics previously analyzed in Final
EIR No. 511 which evaluated construction impacts for 11 projects including 2,150
accommodations; and Final EIR No. 524 which addressed development of the Hyatt
Resort hotel with 450 rooms and parking for 747 cars. FEIR 511 did not specify the
particular use of the Project site; FEIR 524 provided additional details regarding the use
of the Project site.
In addition, Section 1.3.1 refers to the County's approval of the Irvine
Co.'s application for a Coastal Development Permit. In addition, this section also refers
to the several agreements between various agencies including the City of Newport
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 7
August 16, 2004
Beach. These agreements require that the County would retain authority over land use
approvals "until buildout of individual planning areas, at which time the planning
authority will be transferred to the City of Newport Beach." Also, the City of Newport
Beach agreed that the County's Local Coastal Program for the area would govern land
use decisions after annexation. Sections 1.3.2 through 1.3.7 discuss various
agreements and environmental documents which discuss planning efforts and
approvals for the Project area. The DSEIR fails to discuss any other jurisdictional
issues including building inspections and enforcement for any mitigation measures.
Section 1.4.2 discusses Project Objectives. Among other things, the
Objectives include:
Minimize conflicts with surrounding land uses through sensitive
land use planning and site development standards."
Provide open space and recreational opportunities for the nearby
populations and residential areas within the proposed development
areas."
Protect visual resources in the planned development area through
the protection of viewsheds and significant visual resources
through the implementation of sensitive grading practices, building
height restrictions, building arrangement on site, setback
requirements and landscape plans."
Section 1.6.5 addresses environmental issues which do not require
substantial additional analysis. Among these issues, this section lists several including
"land use and planning," .. population and housing," and "recreation." As discussed
below, these issues should be fully analyzed given the Project objectives. Without full
discussion of such issues, neither decision - makers nor the public cannot assess
whether the Project addresses the Project objectives. The DSEIR should be revised to
provide this full discussion of impacts on all applicable topics and, if necessary, propose
mitigation.
5. Section 2: Project Description.
The DSEIR states that the Project includes four (4) applications for
Coastal Development Permits ( "CDP ") for four separate uses: (1) Pelican Hill Inn and
attendant structures; (2) Pelican Hill Golf Club; (3) the Pelican Hill Upper Casitas which
are 52 timeshare units; and (4) Pelican Hill Lower Casitas which are 76 timeshare units,.
All are discussed below.
The Pelican Hill Inn covers 364,000 square feet with 702 parking spaces
with a 485 three level parking structure spaces and 217 surface parking spaces. The
Inn will include 204 bungalows /rooms that will be "terrraced" westward down the
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 8
August 16, 2004
terrain. The Hotel core includes a day spa with 17 rooms and other support uses,
restaurant uses of undetermined square footage; an existing 42,300 square foot event
center, and an event lawn. The entire Inn and attendant structures cover 35 acres with
a maximum height of thirty -five (35') feet.
The Pelican Hill Golf Club portion of the Project includes a new clubhouse
structure of approximately 21,850 square feet for service and storage with 14,650 upper
level facility with guest amenities including pro shop, lockers, offices, dining facilities
and other uses. Also, a 312 space, three level parking structure. The Clubhouse will
again be "terraced" into a downhill grade along its parcel. The existing driving range
and practice facilities will be retained though in a modified form. The current clubhouse
structures will ultimately be vacated and converted to other uses to support the
proposed Inn. Also, this Project feature will include a thirty (30') foot high golf cart
bridge over Pelican Hill Road South to provide cart access to the existing courses and
new clubhouse. "The bridge will include a 16 -foot wide path to allow for two -way golf
cart traffic." The Clubhouse and parking cover 37 acres.
The Upper Casitas consists of 52 timeshare units and developed as
"stacked flats" in two story structures with four units per building and detached one car
garages. As with the other structures, the upper timeshares will be "terraced" into the
slope along the north side of Pelican Hill Road South. Recreational amenities for these
timeshares are proposed at the Lower Casitas. As with the other structures, the
maximum height will not exceed 35 feet. The Upper Casitas will include 120,000
square feet with fifty -two garages in a parking structure and fifty -eight (58) surface
parking spaces. The Upper Casitas will cover twenty -one (21) acres and have a total of
110 parking spaces.
The Lower Casitas consists of seventy -six (76) timeshare units with
accessory spaces and 278 parking spaces (152 parking spaces in a parking structure
and 126 surface spaces). As before, the lower timeshares will be "terraced" into the
slopes of Pelican Hill, sought of Pelican Hill Road South and not to exceed thirty -five
(35') feet in height. The Lower Casitas will include recreational amenities among the
timeshare units.
Interestingly, Table 2.2 -1 states that the recreation center which the
DSEIR consistently shows is located in the Lower Casitas /timeshares covers 9,750 sq.
feet. However, the Project description for the Lower Casitas /timeshares provides
nothing specific for the recreation center. It merely states that the recreation center is
part of the Lower Casitas /timeshares which will be provided with an attended facility —
aka Recreation Center ? — with services provided for guests. The DSEIR should be
revised to resolve all inconsistencies including the recreational amenities of the Project
including the recreational center in the Lower Casitas /timeshares.
Section 2.2.2 addresses project details including "circulation /parking,
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 9
August 16, 2004
architecture /design standards, grading, utilities, drainage and water quality, and off -site
improvements.
As for circulation /parking, Section 2.2.2 states that primary access to the
Project will be Pelican Hill Road South. However, this section mentions nothing about
parking in and around this roadway. The Project provides on -site circulation through
private access drives throughout the Project.
Table 2.2 -2 provides a summary for parking. Overall, the Project provides
1,402 spaces. County parking requirements vary: County requirements requires 1,560
spaces without rate reduction forjoint use and 1,145 with rate reduction forjoint use.
The parking shortfall occurs for the Inn: the Project provides 702 spaces with 880
required.
Section 2.2.2 states that:
"The overall project mass grading will require approximately
979,000 cy [cubic yards] of excavation and 1,540,000 cubic
yards of remedial grading."
Emphasis supplied. This section defines "remedial grading" as "removal of existing (ir-
situ) soils unsuitable forthe support of structures, and their recompaction and
replacement." Excavation includes both cut and fill of the existing site.
However, Table 2.2 -5 entitled "Pelican Hill Preliminary Earthwork
Quantities" contains different figures for total excavation and remedial grading.
According to Table 2.2 -5, excavation will move over 1,750,000 cubic yards of material
and remedial excavation of 1,400,000 cubic yards. The DSEIR should be revised to
explain the difference in figures and analyze the full impacts of the correct figures
including full truck trips, i.e. round trips and not simply truck loads, air quality issues,
noise issues and related matters.
In addition to this on -site grading work, the Project will require import of
approximately 99,000 cubic yards of material "from an off -site location to the Inn."
However, the DSEIR fails to discuss the source of this imported fill material and its
quality. The DSEIR also fails to discuss the truck trips and transportation routes which
will be used for such import. We estimate that the truck trips for this import alone will
be over 6,000 trips one way or over 12,000 trips round trip. The DSEIR should be
revised to provide specific construction and truck routes as well as a discussion of truces:
trips. In particular, all construction transportation routes should avoid Pacific Coast
Highway and other affected corridors within the City of Newport Beach.
As for drainage, much of the drainage facilities have already been
constructed as part of previous improvements in the area. However, all of these
facilities drain into existing natural drainage courses north and south of Pacific Coast
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 10
August 16, 2004
Highway which then drain to the ocean. However, as the applicant and the County are
aware, several of these natural drainage courses are compromised and have
experienced significant erosion and water quality including siltation problems. The
Project will increase all such problems. The DSEIR should be revised to analyze such
impacts and provide necessary mitigation.
Further, Section 2.2.3 addresses "off -site improvements" for the Project.
The "off- site" improvements are in the vicinity of the Project. Moreover, many of the
improvements are actually mitigation for Project impacts. The DSEIR should fully
analyze all such "off- site" improvements to ensure that these Project features or
improvements do not themselves have impacts which may require mitigation. Missing
from this list is the off -site source of the imported fill material required for the grading
plan. The DSEIR should be revised to discuss the site fully and ensure that this aspect
of the Project does not have impacts which will require mitigation.
Importantly, Section 2.3.1 discusses discretionary actions including
grading permits and "haul route permit for import/export of soil." The DSEIR does not
currently indicate that soil will be exported. The DSEIR should be revised to discuss
the nature and extent of export materials and the ultimate destination for such exported
materials. In addition, the DSEIR currently indicates that the Project will require import
of material but contains no discussion of the location of that imported material. The
DSEIR should be revised to discuss this issue and alternative locations and, if
necessary, propose mitigation.
As for the haul route permitting issue itself, we encourage the applicant
and the County to avoid affected transportation corridors within the City of Newport
Beach. The preferred haul route is Newport Coast Drive to State Route 73. Any other
route will create significant and potentially unmitigated impacts within the City of
Newport Beach. Further, to the extent that the haul route will be along City of Newport
Beach streets, the applicant should apply for and City may issue such permit for an
approved route subject its own discretion and also subject to the appropriate terms and
conditions.
Finally and importantly, Table 2.2 -3 contains height limitations which
conflict with the text of the DSEIR. Table 2.2 -3 shows that the Inn and the Upper and
Lower Casitas /timeshares may rise to eighty (80') feet. This well exceeds the DSEIR's
representations. For instance, the DSEIR states that the Inn is located Planning Area
13C. It goes on to state "(t)he current design of the buildings proposed at the Inn,
including the bungalows, will not exceed 35 feet in height, which is the maximum height
allowed through the Declaration of Special Height Restrictions (August 1, 1997)."
However, Table 2.2 -3 shows height limits ranging from forty (40') feet to eighty (80) feet
for the Inn in Planning Area 13C. Likewise, Exhibit 2.2 -2 and Table 2.2 -3 shows that
the height limits for Planning Area 13D, the area for the Upper and Lower
Casitas /timeshares ranges from forty (40') feet to eighty (80') feet. However, as
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page I 1
August 16, 2004
indicated above, the DSEIR states that the maximum height of the timeshares —both of
them— is thirty -five (35') feet. The DSEIR should be revised to provide the correct
explanation of the important height limitations for all structures either eighty (80') feet o;-
thirty -five (35') feet.
6. Section 3.0: Environmental Impact Analysis.
a. Section 3.1: Aesthetics.
Section 1.4.2 states that one of the Project Objectives is protection
of visual resources. However, the DSEIR only analyzes public views. The DSEIR
indicates that it does not analyze the Project's impacts on private views. The DSEIR
should be revised to analyze the Project's impacts on all views so that decisionmakers
and the public may determine whether the Project achieves its goals.
Also, the DSEIR uses a visual quality rating system and a contrast rating
system to evaluate the Project's aesthetic impacts. Generally, Project features pass
both rating analyses. However, the Golf Course bridge fails but the DSEIR fails to
discuss the aesthetic impacts of such feature. DSEIR shows the bridge in Views 6 and
7. The Contrast Rating System indicates that the bridge contrast is strong in view 6
from the intersection of Newport Coast Drive and Pelican Hill Road toward the bridge
and the Golf Clubhouse. This System indicates that the contrast is strong. View 7
shows the Project from Pelican Hill Road at the entrance to the Pelican Hill Driving
Range. The system indicates that contrasts are weak. However, in view 7, the bridge
cuts across the viewshed like a large brick wall. The Rating System analysis is
incorrect. The DSEIR should be revised to analyze correctly the aesthetic impacts of
the Project including the bridge.
b. Section 3.2: Air Quality.
Section 3.2 addresses Project impacts on air quality. Short term air
quality impacts stem from Project grading and construction vehicle emissions. Section
3.2.3 notes that the United States Environmental Protective Agency estimates
emissions for construction activities for large construction projects. Apparently, the
DSEIR regards the Project as a large construction project.
The short term impacts from grading and construction vehicle emissions
exceed air quality standards. The DSEIR uses two time periods: daily emissions and
quarterly emissions. In generally, daily emissions exceed regulatory thresholds by
double or more for Nitrous Oxide and Particulate Matter less than 10 microns.
However, for quarterly emissions, NOX and PM10 continue to exceed regulatory
standards.
In addition, the DSEIR should include additional mitigation measures that
will significantly reduce the impact on air quality from construction equipment:
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 12
August 16, 2004
1. Require that all contractors shut all diesel engines that must idle longer
than 10 minutes; and
2. Require that all contractors use Biodiesel to cut pollutants by 20% or
more.
C. Section 3.3: Biological Resources.
The DSEIR states that biological resources were documented in
previously certified EIRs for the Newport Coast Planned Community. However, those
surveys were conducted in 1986 and 1987. The NOP for DSEIR stated that " (n)o
subsequent studies were done at the time of EIR certification because conditions
previously analyzed were felt not to have significantly changed except that the site had
been disturbed by construction activities for adjacent development projects." The
DSEIR states "(a) verification of resources on the proposed project was conducted by
LSA Associates, Inc. in January of 2004 to document the current conditions. This
information has been summarized below."
However, there is no reference in the entire Biological Resources - section
to the LSA report or any specific surveys that were conducted in January 2004 that
enabled a verification of resources on the proposed project. The LSA report should be
referenced in the text where it has been used to verify the findings of previously certified
EIRs, and the report should be included in the appendices to the DSEIR.
The NOP for the DSEIR stated "(s)ince certification of FEIRs 511 and
524, the NCCP has been adopted for the area. In addition, Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)
revegetation has occurred over parts of the project site within the Pelican Hill and Golf
Course special linkages. Some of the revegetated areas will be impacted by the
development. An updated biological assessment will be included in the EIR."
Emphasis added. Again, if the LSA report included an updated biological assessment,
there is no reference to it in the DSEIR.
The DSEIR states that the any `(d)irect and indirect impacts to and take of
Identified Species and covered habitats is authorized by the NCCP /HCP and the IA ..."
"The NCCP /HCP take authorization provides the means for long -term species
protection while allowing for reasonable project impacts." The text references Sections
1.43 and 9 of the NCCP /HCP IA. Page 3.3-4 In order to inform the reader of what the
long -term species protections are, at the very least, the DSEIR should include the
applicable sections of the NCCP /HCP IA as appendices to the document.
d. Section 3.4: Noise.
Section 3.4 addresses noise impacts of the Project. Section 3.4
discusses construction noise, garage door noise, and noise from special events.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 13
August 16, 2004
Among other things, the DSEIR states that construction and its attendant noise will
"comply with the more restrictive City noise ordinance restrictions on construction.
However, Mitigation Measure MM -2 states that the applicant shall provide the County
with evidence that construction and its attendant noise will comply with the County's
ordinance. Given that the DSEIR states that the Project will comply with City standards,
the DSEIR should be revised to include a mitigation measure that the applicant shall
provide the City evidence that such activities will comply with the City's noise
ordinance.
Likewise, the DSEIR states that the Project shall comply with the
restrictions of the City for interior noise levels. However, Mitigation Measure MM -3
states that the Project shall provide the County with evidence that the Project will
comply with the County's standards for interior noise. As before, the DSEIR should be
revised to include a requirement that the applicant provide the City with evidence that
the Project will comply with the City's noise restrictions on interior noise levels.
Further, the Event Lawn will be used for primarily for weddings,
ceremonies, and light receptions during the day and early evening. Events on the lawn
will not occur beyond 10PM. Pages 3.4.9 & 3.4.9 discuss amplified sound occurring at
the Event lawn - amplified sound is not allowed within the Current city of Newport
Beach. How will this comply with the City Noise Ordinance? And, ho will it comply with
any CC &R's for the developed area?
As for other noise generators, the DSEIR fails to consider noise levels
from the increased landscaping activities and maintenance. Such activities generate
substantial amounts of noise from lawnmowers to leaf blowers. The DSEIR should be
revised to address all such impacts and provide necessary mitigation.
e. Section 3.5: Seismicity.
Section 3.5 addresses seismicity or seismic conditions affecting the
Project. Previous environmental documents, FEIRs 511 and 524, attempted to address
seismic issues for the overall Newport Coast project. The DSEIR addresses this issue
to consider "the recently hypothesized San Joaquin Hills thrust fault." Although the
DSEIR discusses this recently hypothesized fault in existing conditions, the DSEIR fails
to analyze the Project's impacts on this fault potential.
The DSEIR should be revised to address this issue and, if necessary,
propose any necessary mitigation.
f. Section 3.6: Transportation /Circulation.
Section 3.6 addresses the Project's
transportation /circulation /parking issues. Section 3.6 fails to identify the levels of
service for any of the intersections within the study area. Appendix H which is the
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 14
August 16, 2004
March 2004 traffic analysis for the DSEIR also fails to discuss levels of service in its
analysis. However, according to the NOP for the DSEIR, the traffic studies conducted
for FEIRs 511 and FEIR 524 showed that all intersections studied would operate at a
LOS C or better with the exception of AM peak hour ICUs at four intersections. "These
intersections would operate at LOS D, which is considered acceptable by the County of
Orange for new and established intersections." The NOP states that "(t)he traffic study
analyzed a post -2010 timeframe corresponding to build out of local (Newport Beach
and Irvine) and County General Plans ..."
In August 2002, the City of Newport Beach annexed Newport Coast. The
annexation agreement entered into with the County of Orange on October 9, 2001
provided that the City will have full planning authority at build out. The intersections
should be analyzed using the traffic standards including levels of service for the City of
Newport Beach rather than those of the County of Orange. The final SEIR should
include such standards, fully discuss all Project related impacts on
transportation /circulation and propose necessary mitigation.
The essence of the DSEIR's traffic analysis is that the earlier
environmental documents, FEIRs 511 and 524, analyzed traffic for larger projects with
corresponding larger trip generation numbers. Because the Project is smaller than the
earlier proposals, the DSEIR concludes that the Project will have lower or negative trip
generation rates than the earlier proposals. However, this analysis does not go far
enough: the earlier rates were based in part upon roadway improvements which may
not yet exist. If so, then the Project will result in new roadway improvements which
themselves will require analysis. The DSEIR should be revised to analysis such
changes, discuss any impacts and provide necessary mitigation.
In addition, the parking analysis depends in part upon joint use parking
between the Golf Club and the Pelican Hill Inn. However, Section 3.6 fails to discuss
this joint use arrangement or analyze the validity of the proposed fifty (50 %) percent
reduction allowed because of the joint use arrangement. However, the DSEIR fails to
discuss this joint use arrangement in any detail and fails to justify the fifty (50 %) percent
reduction. The DSEIR should be revised to explain the arrangement, provide
justification for the parking reduction and, if necessary, provide necessary mitigation.
g.. Section 3.7: Hydrology/Water Quality.
Section 3.7 addresses the Project's impacts on hydrology and
water quality. Generally, the DSEIR provides a thorough analysis of such impacts with
useful and effective mitigation. The Project's proposal for water quality is state of the art
technology and definitely meets and /or beats all existing requirements.
However, we offer the following comments. First, the scope of the study
area is truncated: It fails to include any discussion of the Project's potential impacts in
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 15
August 16, 2004
the vicinity of the Buck Gully watershed. Although FEIR 511 and perhaps FEIR 524
addressed and studied hydrology in and around Buck Gully, the DSEIR contains no
such discussion. As all are aware, the City of Newport Beach and residents along this
gully have experienced substantial hydrology, water quality and erosion issues along
this area. The DSEIR should be revised to include a discussion of Buck Gully, any
Project impacts on that watershed, and any necessary mitigation.
Section 3.7 attempts to address the Morning Canyon Watershed issues.
Among other things, the DSEIR's Appendix J -2 includes a hydrology study for this
watershed. This study indicates that "the lower reach of Morning Canyon has a
constant drainage flow from approximately the golf course area to the beach."
However, this is a recent occurrence since the development in and around Newport
Coast. Historically, flows along Morning Canyon occurred only during periods of
substantial rainfall; generally the gully was dry. The DSEIR should be revised to
discuss historic drainage issues as well as the cumulative impacts of development on
drainage in Morning Canyon.
As for Beach Sand Replenishment, the DSEIR and corresponding
technical studies conclude that the affected watersheds offer "a very minor contribution
of beach sand" and will remain unaffected by the Project so "impacts would be less
than significant.." However, in its hydrology analysis, FEIR 524 states that the
"detention basins were designed to allow natural sediment loads to pass through the
system to minimize potential downstream scour and to replenish beach sand." FEIR
524, page 3.7.4. How will the new plan allow for the replenishment of sand from one of
the main sources, which is watershed runoff?
As for Project impacts, the DSEIR discusses site planning strategies.
Among other things, we recommend that the applicant and /or the County should
consider and /or require selecting materials that will help natural filtration and runoff
such as porous pavement for all impervious areas such as parking stalls, roadways,
and other traffic improvements.
Finally, the DSEIR proposes various mitigation measures in the form of
standard conditions, Project design features and separate mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure MM -1 indicates that prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant will implement a drainage plan with various features subject to the County's
approvals. In addition to this measure, the DSEIR should include a mitigation
monitoring plan or maintenance plan to ensure that the various facilities Including
cisterns, desilting facilities and other mitigation measures are properly maintained for
the life of the Project. Moreover, the City of Newport Beach should have input on such
plan and requirements for maintenance.
7. Section 4.0: Environmental Issues Not Requiring Substantial
Additional Analysis.
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 16
August 16, 2004
As indicated above, the DSEIR lists many areas which have already been
analyzed in earlier environmental documents. However, as also indicated above, one
of the Project objectives identified in the DSEIR is increased recreational opportunities
for area residents and visitors. However, the DSEIR contains no substantial additional
analysis of recreational impacts of the Project. It is difficult to understand how the
Project will advance this goal without detailed analysis. The DSEIR should be revised
to include such analysis.
In addition, the DSEIR reports "the proposed project would introduce a
reduced population to the area, thus requiring less land set aside for recreational uses"
compared to EIR's 511 and 524. However, this project will increase the overall square
footage by 45% and parking spaces by 89 %. This dramatic increase from the previous
EIR must be addressed as to how it will impact on the recreational resources in the
area, particularly Crystal Cove State Beach.
Also, the DSEIR proposes that population and housing impacts have
already been addressed in the earlier environmental documents. However, given the
new and substantial services provided by the Inn and the Golf Club, the DSEIR should
analyze the housing impacts of the Project on workers for the Project as well as
construction workers on the Project.
Further, the DSEIR provides a very brief discussion of land use and
planning, among other environmental issues, because the issue was "determined to be
adequately addressed in the previous EIRs and not requiring further analysis." Page 4-
1. However, the proposed Project consists of 126 casitas and villa units that are
timeshare units. Neither of the previous EIRs analyzed this type of timeshare land use.
FEIR 511 addressed, at a conceptual, program level, a Cottage Hotel / Casitas
component; and FEIR 524 did not address this type of land use at all. The final SEIR
should analyze the impacts of 126 timeshare units on surrounding land uses.
8. Section 6.0: Alternatives.
The DSEIR considers several design changes which were presented
during the scoping process as "alternatives" to the Project. None of these are true
alternatives. They are: (1) Movement of the Casitas to different locations; (2) relocation
of the recreational area and the entrance; (3) re- orienting the Upper Casitas to face
west; and (4) reducing the number of time shares. Another alternative which the DSEIR
should be revised to consider is the reduction in time shares and increase of the
Inn /hotel. This would further other goals including provide additional revenues to the
City of Newport Beach.
9. Other issues: Cumulative Impacts.
Throughout the DSEIR, cumulative impacts are addressed in the same
manner: the earlier environment documents, FEIRs 511 and 524, addressed the
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 17
August 16, 2004
cumulative impacts. The DSEIR's cumulative impacts analysis occurs as part of the
overall impacts analysis. However, the DSEIR's routine conclusion that the earlier
documents addressed the cumulative impacts cannot be sustained. The overall
environment has changed since FEIRs 511 and 524 were certified. FEIR 511 was
certified in 1889 and FEIR 524 in 1991. Substantial development has occurred in and
around Newport Coast since those developments including developments in nearby
cities including Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach. The DSEIR and all impacts
sections should be revised to provide an up to date cumulative impacts analysis and, if
necessary, provide adequate mitigation.
10. Conclusion:
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR for the
Project. We hope that these comments and others will assist the County in the final
DSEIR and the final Project.