From: [email protected]
To: John P. Ramirez; John P. Ramirez; Planning
Cc: "Charlie Carnow"
Subject: Items 2-4, ZTA For Specific Plan Area 1
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:48:48 PM
Attachments: PC Comments_SPA1.final.pdf
Dear Chair Lopez and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), please carefully review the attached comments regarding the proposed Zoning Text Amendments (“ZTA(s)”) related to the 20-acre area known as Specific Plan Area 1 (“SPA 1”). In short, Local 11 has several concerns with the proposed ZTAs, which are not addressed in the Staff Report, including the following:
1. The proposed ZTA is in furtherance of a specific 121-room hotel project, which should seek a project-specific SPA 1 amendment with its other entitlements.
2. The original SPA never contemplates more than just one existing hotel in the area (i.e., the DoubleTree Hotel) that was built just three years before the City adopted the SPA 1 nearly 40 years ago.
3. There is substantial evidence that the new hotel and other regional-serving uses permitted under the ZTA would lead to potential impacts on construction noise, air impacts, vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, and induced demand for affordable housing that has gone entirely unanalyzed here.
4. The City has not considered a myriad of feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, such as those urged by numerous public agencies and even considered by the City in its more recent CEQA reviews.
5. We question why the City is only providing more flexibility for commercial uses and not residential uses (such as affordable housing) and not considering adding a hotel-specific Development Agreement (“DA”) requirement for any future hotel to ensure maximum public benefits and mitigate community impacts by hotel projects (as done in other nearby cities).
In sum, the proposed ZTA is a project-specific SPA amendment that does not qualify for a Common- Sense exemption under CEQA and is not remotely addressed in the City’s 4-page staff report. It seems that the proposed ZTA is an attempt to fast-track a key legislative approval for the anticipated 121-room hotel (i.e., SPA 1 amendment) without adequate CEQA review or public scrutiny. As such, Local 11 respectfully requests that the Planning Commission deny the entire action until the issues discussed in the attached comment letter are adequately addressed, including the submission of all entitlements requested for the 121-room hotel in a CEQA-compliant analysis.
Sincerely,
Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.
3993 Orange St., Ste. 201
Riverside, CA 92501
Office: 951-405-8127
Direct: 951-542-2735
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 4
www.gideonlaw.net
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message contains information from a law office and is attorney work product confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s)or entity(ies) named above. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
June 26, 2024
VIA EMAIL:
Planning Commission, City of Norwalk
c/o John P. Ramirez, ([email protected]; [email protected]) Planning Division, Community Development ([email protected])
RE: I TEMS 2-4, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED JUNE 26, 2024; ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 1
Dear Chair Lopez and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully provides the following comments1 to the City of Norwalk (“City”) regarding various proposed Zoning Text Amendments (“ZTA(s)”) to the Norwalk Municipal Code (“NMC”) § 17.09 et seq. related to development controls involving the 20-acre area known as Specific Plan Area 1 (“SPA 1”), including but not limited to allowing two hotels (in-lieu of just one hotel currently allowed) and allowing various new uses (e.g., entertainment venues, museums, outdoor events, lounges, clubs, etc.).
For the purpose of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),2 the City is utilizing the Common-Sense exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3). The Common-Sense exemption only applies where it can be “seen with certainty that there is no possibility’” that the activity in question “may have” a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).) This is fact-intensive, and the City has a high burden of demonstrating that the exemption applies,3 which can generally be defeated by as little as a reasonable argument that the Project might have a significant impact.4
In short, after reviewing the relevant documents,5 Local 11 has several concerns with the proposed ZTAs, which are not addressed in the Staff Report. First, the proposed ZTA is in furtherance of a specific 121-room hotel project, which should seek project-specific SPA 1 amendment with its other entitlements. Second, it is clear that the original SPA never contemplates more than just one existing hotel in the area that was built just three years before the City adopted the SPA 1. Additionally, there is substantial evidence that the hotel and other regional-serving uses would lead to potential impacts on construction noise, air impacts, vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”),
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., “p. #”) or PDF-page location (i.e., “PDF p. #”) 2 Including “CEQA Guidelines” codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq. 3 See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm’n (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386; see also CREED- 21 v. City of San Diego (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 488, 510 4 See e.g., Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 188 (agency must refute a reasonable argument against the exemption, to a certainty); Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644 (agency cannot rely on the absence of showing the possibility of adverse impact); Myers v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 413, 427 (explicit claims of adverse impacts, even if exaggerated or untrue, are sufficient to defeat the use of this exemption).) 5 Including but not limited to relevant “Staff Report(s)” and attachments (“ATT-##”) retrieved from the City website. (See https://norwalk.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=3796.) Item 2-4 Comments RE SPA 1 Zoning Text Amendments
June 26, 2024
greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, and induced demand for affordable housing that has gone entirely unanalyzed here. Nor has the City considered a myriad of feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Third, we question why the City is only providing more flexibility for commercial uses and not residential uses (such as affordable units) and not considering adding a hotel-specific Development Agreement (“DA”) requirement for any future hotel to ensure maximum public benefits and mitigate community impacts by hotel projects (as done in other nearby cities).
For these reasons, the proposed ZTA fails to qualify for a Common-Sense exemption under CEQA. The ZTA is clearly in furtherance of a specific hotel project known to City staff, which the 4- page Staff Report fails to mention, much less provide any CEQA analysis, or indicate any special circumstance warranting a special meeting of the Planning Commission. It seems that the proposed ZTA is an attempt to fast-track a key legislative approval (i.e., SPA 1 amendment) without adequate CEQA review or public scrutiny. Local 11 respectfully requests that the Planning Commission deny the entire action until the issues discussed below are adequately addressed, including the submission of all
entitlements requested for the 121-room hotel in a CEQA-compliant analysis.
1. THE STAFF REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED SPA 1 AMENDMENT AS A PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENTITLEMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF A 121-ROOM HOTEL PROJECT KNOWN TO THE CITY.
The City is well aware that a proposed 121-room Holiday Inn is seeking a new digital billboard pending resubmittal within the SPA 1 area, which is referenced as cumulative project number 4 in the City’s February 2024 Draft Environmental Review (“DEIR”) for the Norwalk Transit Village located east of the site (bounded in yellow). (See Fig. 1 DEIR excerpts below.)
Figure 1: Norwalk Transit Village DEIR,6 PDF pp. 74-75 (Tbl. 4-1, Exh. 4-1)
⩩⩩⩩
6 Norwalk Transit Village DEIR (Feb. 2024), https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279991-2/attachment/NDlxM-P- ejipeBvxluqEOY-OmO_6UTCJn8fkSm WbrleNXk82ZyDbweh_XmmkXiKQAJDNILY2HuMJ55Mc0 .
Item 2-4 Comments RE SPA 1 Zoning Text Amendments
June 26, 2024
It seems clear that the proposed ZTA and SPA 1 amendment is project-driven, given that it explicitly adds new language that allows additional hotel and billboard uses within the Commercial and “Parking/Utility” areas. (See Fig. 2 ZTA excerpts below.) The Staff Report fails to mention, much less provide any information about this proposed 121-room hotel pending resubmittal explanation of why the City is allowing Holiday Inn to avoid submission of a project-specific SPA 1 amendment along with its other entitlements. Under CEQA, this may amount to an inaccurate project description and lead to improper project piecemealing, whereby the full impacts of a development are masked by chopping up the overall project into smaller development projects.7
Figure 2: Staff Report ATT-A,8 pp. 7-9 (ZTA added language shown in bold underline)
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
⩩⩩⩩
7 A project’s CEQA review must assess “the whole of an action” to ensure that all of the project’s environmental impacts are considered. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378; see also Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730 [held use of “truncated project concept” violated CEQA where EIR was otherwise].) 8 Staff Report, ATT-A, https://norwalk.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/ historyattachment/?historyId= d1235780-9a4d-41cf-94c0-fe1cd072a42a.
Item 2-4 Comments RE SPA 1 Zoning Text Amendments
June 26, 2024
2. THE COMMON-SENSE EXEMPTION IS IMPROPER BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SPA NEVER CONTEMPLATED
TWO HOTELS IN THE AREA
Here, SPA 1 was adopted nearly 40 years ago in 1987. (Staff Report, p. 2.) The Staff Report does not mention what level of CEQA review was conducted back then, much less attach the underlying review to determine whether the proposed ZTA, which (as discussed above) would allow two hotels (in lieu of only one hotel) and a variety of new uses (e.g., entertainment venues, small amphitheaters, entertainment events, museums, outdoor events, restaurants, lounges and clubs, etc.). (Id., at pp. 2-3; Staff Report, ATT-A, pp. 9-10; Fig. 2 above [showing some of the proposed revised NMC §17.09.110.3].) These changes are significant for a variety of reasons.
First, the SPA area already has an 8-floor, 172-room Double Tree hotel built in 1984 located at 13111 Sycamore Drive (according to various reports).9 (See Fig. 3 Google Map image below.) It would seem that the SPA 1, adopted three years after this Double Tree hotel was built, clearly did not anticipate more than the one existing hotel within the SPA 1 area. As proposed, the ZTA would allow another hotel, such as the 121-room Holiday Inn with a digital billboard proposed at the same address as the Double Tree (likely to the south of the existing hotel within the “Parking/Utility Area” reverenced above in Figure 2). (See also Fig. 4 NMC excerpt below.) Thus, it is unlikely that the SPA 1 CEQA review covered this new 121-room hotel project.
Figure 3: Google Map Image
Figure 4: NMC § 17.09.010
9 See Travel Weekly, https://www.travelweekly.com/Hotels/Norwalk-CA/DoubleTree-by-Hilton-Los- Angeles-Norwalk-p3714248; Business Traveler News, https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Hotels/ Norwalk-CA/DoubleTree-by-Hilton-Los-Angeles-Norwalk-p3282373.
Item 2-4 Comments RE SPA 1 Zoning Text Amendments
June 26, 2024
Second, it is reasonable to assume that a 121-room will have air and noise impacts due to construction, which may impact sensitive uses like the residents on the other side of Sycamore Drive. (See Figs. 3 & 4 above.) Additionally, the hotel will increase VMTs and mobile emissions from hotel patrons and employees traveling to the SPA 1 area, which affects air quality and GHGs, as well as induce greater demand for housing (particularly affordable housing) by those employees working at the hotel that may affect the City’s jobs-housing balance. These are common issues that are subject to in-depth CEQA analysis, as evidenced by the City’s Norwalk Transit Village, which anticipated a 150-key hotel.10 None of this type of analysis is provided in the Staff Report.
Third, the proposed new uses (e.g., entertainment venues, small amphitheaters, entertainment events, museums, outdoor events, etc.) are often considered regional-serving development that, unlike local serving retail uses, typically leads to longer trips and greater VMTs that warrant consideration according to numerous public agencies, like the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”).11 These VMTs and associated mobile emissions affect air quality and GHGs, which have not been analyzed or considered in the Staff Report.
Fourth, since SPA 1 was adopted in 1987, significant changes have been made to how developments are analyzed and mitigated, particularly as they relate to impacts on VMTs and GHGs—even for the City.12 Additionally, numerous public agencies have recommended mitigation measures to reduce VMTs and their associated mobile emissions, such as those measures recommended by the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”).13 The City should consider new
10 See Norwalk Transit Village DEIR, supra fn. 7, PDF pp. 11-12, 38, 54-58, 245, 331, 345, 368, 381; see also DEIR, APP-11.6 Traffic and VMT Analysis, PDF pp. 28 (150-room hotel generating 1202 average daily trips), https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279991-2/attachment/a61xwc0Zc20Az_Y6P9NFviyIvLs_RONS- MJ4ksjhojKYPBxaZ2Ucnc7PCx5TIebfs2X2KkbUrSfKHsgK0; DEIR APP-11.7 Air Quality/GHG/Emissions/Energy Data, PDF pp. 87 (noting hotel component generating 1.6 million annual VMTs), https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/279991-2/attachment/z6-pt1hEAx- LzTE1SUSGGuhwCMGRSo229IMGZ6WimX3jM77otRqOAi2f-fcJOtXl0Q1L0FPJeIUi8sLV0. 11 See e.g., OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory, pp. 16-18, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf; LADOT (Aug. 2022) Transportation Assessment Guidelines, pp. 2-8 – 2-12 (event centers and regional-serving entertainment venues often attract regional trips and hotel should consider VMTs from both employees and patrons), https://ladot.lacity.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ 2020-transportation-assessment-guidelines_final_2020.07.27_0.pdf; County of Santa Barabra (Jun. 2022) VMT Tool, p. 3 (Evaluate VMT impacts of regional-serving retail projects, entertainment projects, or event Centers), https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/86c95216-2689-4392-ba76-424a51bedf06; San Francisco, VMT Memo, PDF pp. 10, 16 (hotels and large event centers (e.g., museums, sports arenas, or public parking garage) have atypical trip generation), https://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/ TIA_ Guidelines_VMT_Memo.pdf; LA County VMT Guidelines, PDF p. 9 (analyzing regional serving retail projects), https://pw.lacounty.gov/traffic/docs/Transportation-Impact-Analysis-Guidelines-July-2020-v1.1.pdf. 12 See e.g., Norwalk Transit Village DEIR, supra fn. 7, PDF pp. 104-105, 216, 221-225, 271-276 (noting various GHG and traffic demand management strategies).
13 See e.g., CAPCOA (Dec. 2021) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, pp. 31-32, 73, 76, 80-96, https:// www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010) Quantifying GHGs and Mitigation, pp. 64-74, https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/34123/CAPCOA-2010-GHG-Quantification-PDF; OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory, pp. 27, https:// opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf; SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR, pp. 2.0-18 –
2.0-71 (see project-level mitigation measures for air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts), Item 2-4 Comments RE SPA 1 Zoning Text Amendments
June 26, 2024
measures/strategies to ensure project impacts are minimized, such as requiring LEED certification or meeting Tier 2 CalGreen standards, implementing robust traffic demand management (“TDM”) measures in a mandatory commuter reduction program, incorporating solar panels and green roofs, as well as maximizing the use of native trees throughout the Site. These are but a few of the measures that have been left off the table because the City has not conducted any CEQA review for the proposed ZTA.
In sum, there is substantial evidence that the proposed ZTA may have a significant effect on the environment (e.g., noise, air quality, VMTs, GHGs, jobs/housing balance, etc.), and thus, the City has failed to meet its high burden of demonstrating the Common-Sense exemption applies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).14)
3. WHY IS THE CITY NOT CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL USES—LIKE HOUSING—OR GREATER PROTECTIONS AROUND HOTEL DEVELOPMENTS –LIKE A HOTEL-SPECIFIC DA REQUIREMENT
Currently, the SPA 1 allows “residential condominiums” in some areas of the SPA 1. (NMC §
17.09.090; see also Fig. 4 above.) While the ZTA increases flexibility for commercial uses (e.g., hotel, retail, entertainment), it does not allow any increased flexibility for residential uses, like allowing housing throughout the plan area maximizing affordable housing. Under the City’s recently adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element (“Housing Element”),15 the City has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of approximately 5,000 units, with roughly 60 percent of the units needing to be affordable at moderate-income levels or lower. (See Housing Element, p. 175.) In light of the high need for housing (particularly affordable), it seems that the City should reconsider the best and highest use of the Site—such as a mixed-use housing development. Furthermore, the City should consider more protections over hotels, not fewer protections than those minimal limits adopted nearly 40 years ago. To address impacts caused by any future hotel project and ensure maximum public benefits, the City should consider making hotel use contingent on entering into a hotel- specific Development Agreement (“DA”) pursuant to Gov. Code § 65865 et. seq., as done by other cities or disallowing hotel use in this area.16
In conclusion, the proposed ZTA is a project-specific SPA amendment that does not qualify for a Common-Sense exemption under CEQA. Local 11 respectfully requests that the Planning Commission deny the entire action until the issues discussed above are adequately addressed, including submission of all entitlement requested for the 121-room hotel in a CEQA-compliant analysis.
/ / /
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618; SCAG (Apr. 2024), pp. A-7 – A-48, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/exhibit_a_mmrp_ 508_final.pdf?1712003625; CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, 4, 7, 24, 29 & Appendix D, pp. 23, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-docu ments; CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B-Local Action, pp. 1-8, 7-9 & Appendix D, p. 2, https://www .arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf. 14 Supra fn. 3 & 4.
15 City (Nov. 2023) Housing Element,
https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28854/638361838696770000. 16 See e.g., Buena Park Entertainment Corridor Specific Plan, PDF pp. 35-39, https://cms7files1.revize.com/buenaparkca/Document_center/City%20Departments/Community%20devel opment/Planning%20Division/Codes,%20Ordinances,%20and%20Guidelines/ECSPupdated2019.pdf.
Item 2-4 Comments RE SPA 1 Zoning Text Amendments
June 26, 2024
Local 11 reserves the right to supplement these comments at future hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR comment period].) To the extent not already on the notice list, please place this office on the notification list for all notices of CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See e.g., Pub. Res. Code §§ 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the administrative record for the Project.
Sincerely,
__________________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson
Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11