Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 - Lido House Hotel - PA2013-217CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 17, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 SUBJECT: Lido House Hotel (PA2013 -217) and Former City Hall Complex Amendments (PA2012 -031) 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street 1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 3. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 4. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 5. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001 6. Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 APPLICANT: R.D. Olson Development & City of Newport Beach PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner 949 - 644 -3210, jampbell@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to change the land use designation and zoning of the former City Hall site from Public Facilities to Mixed -Use and a Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Traffic Study for the development and operation of an upscale, 130 -room hotel. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Adopt the attached resolution recommending City Council certification of the Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH# 2013111022) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment PC -1); and 3) Adopt the attached resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012- 001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003, Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001, and Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 (Attachment No. PC -2). 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN VICINITY MAP CURRENT USE SITE ] 305 - PF (Public Facilities) % ­_ _ General Commercial CG General Commercial ,l p6a d Visitor - Serving CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) & Commercial uses, private SOUTH Commercial & MU -CV /15 St (Mixed Use Cannery Mixed Use Horizontal 4 Village/15th St club, residential General Commercial & CG (General Commercial) & EAST Multi-Family Residential RM Residential Multi-Family) 11.1 II WEST Corridor Commercial CC Corridor Commercial ` 6 I A ,A GENERAL PLAN ZONING ua 54, NI,> $u Aso, sl,s � .$ ni A. o us F LG 0.5 FA p9 � aa9 — CG 0.5 FAR P9 'IA C a'+m ilg S a�+ sPo .. oe ee rt ]ri yy aaa S me x >ue : 9` RM 3000! AC o ]w _>'; �� i gd RM IIAS SAIOU .mf PF PF CC 0.5 FAR FA CC p.SFAR °y VIA R0.)S FAR CG O.)S FAR " °x —Ji CG O.) FAR 8 xP10.)SF R / R RT n Y. I rrII MU M< 3 ° MU {y�,5TM 5T CNp1FAR C VV✓ R 6 E —_ �S �Tp1fr CN 03FAR' II. C Si R y EEE �I5 d= -161 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE SITE Public Facilities PF (Public Facilities) Government office, fire station NORTH General Commercial CG General Commercial Retail, office, theater Visitor - Serving CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) & Commercial uses, private SOUTH Commercial & MU -CV /15 St (Mixed Use Cannery Mixed Use Horizontal 4 Village/15th St club, residential General Commercial & CG (General Commercial) & EAST Multi-Family Residential RM Residential Multi-Family) Office, restaurant WEST Corridor Commercial CC Corridor Commercial Commercial, gas station 3 INTRODUCTION The former City Hall Complex (the "Property ") is approximately 4.25 acres in area and is located at the north -east corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street, and it is currently developed with office buildings and Fire Station #2. The General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Map designate the site for Public Facilities with no intensity limit. 1. General Plan Amendment ( "GPA "): The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU -H5) and establish density and intensity limits within Table LU -2 of the Land Use Element with the creation of Anomaly #85. The proposed amendment is within Exhibit B of Attachment PC -2. No other changes to the General Plan are proposed and all other provisions would remain unchanged. 2. Coastal Land Use Plan ( "CLUP ") Amendment: The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU) and establish density and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1 -1. The proposed amendment also includes a change to Policy 4.4.2 -1 to establish a policy basis for increased height limits. The proposed amendment is within Exhibit C of Attachment PC -2. No other changes to the CLUP are proposed and all other provisions would remain unchanged. 3. Zoning Code Amendment: The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the Property with a new zone MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) and establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment (Anomaly #85). Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. The proposed amendment is within Exhibit D of Attachment PC -2. No other changes to the Zoning Code are proposed and all other provisions would remain unchanged. 4. Site Development Review ( "SDR "): The application authorizes the development of a 4 -story, 130 -room hotel consistent with the proposed Zoning for the Property. The plans for the site include street improvements within 32nd Street between Newport Boulevard and Lafayette Avenue (Attachment PC -3). 5. Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP "): The application authorizes the operation of the hotel and its ancillary uses (restaurant and bar, rooftop lounge, spa including massage, meeting rooms, and retail use including the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages). Additionally, the CUP authorizes a parking management plan that includes controlled parking access and valet parking when necessary. 6. Traffic Study: Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) requires that a traffic study be prepared and findings be made if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). 4 Background Planning for the reuse of the existing City Hall Complex was initiated in the summer of 2010 by the City Council ( "Council') as part of a broader effort to revitalize Lido Village. The initial effort culminated with the January 2011, City Council approval of "Conceptual Plan 513" for the Lido Village area. The 5B Plan was a concept plan that provides a future vision for Lido Village including the existing City Hall Complex. The plan suggested the complete redevelopment of the 4 -acre complex with community services, market rate apartments, a fire station, and /or live -work units. The City then embarked upon the Neighborhood Revitalization process for several areas of the City including Lido Village. The process was guided by the City Council ad- hoc Neighborhood Revitalization Committee and a Citizens Advisory Panel. This process led to the adoption of the Lido Village Design Guidelines in January of 2012, which describe the overall design theme for future development within Lido Village. Planning for the site continued within a broader context taking into account other planned facilities in the broader West Newport area, possible improvements to the adjacent Via Lido Plaza, and surrounding streets. In consideration of these possibilities, an alternative development plan for Lido Village was prepared and considered by the Council in March 2012. The alternative plan included a lot line adjustment between the City Hall site and the adjacent Via Lido Plaza property, 92 market -rate apartments, 6,000 square feet of retail use, and a 512 -space parking structure. A key assumption of that alternative site plan was to create a pedestrian promenade (linkage) from the City's property across Via Lido Plaza to the Bay /Harbor area that recognizes existing building locations. The Council took no action on the alternative site plan. In April 2012, the Council directed staff to prepare necessary amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to support re -use of the site for a variety of potential land uses. Uses considered at that time included commercial, residential, and /or civic uses that could include a community center, public plazas, a fire station and/or public parking. In June 2012, the Council requested additional information regarding the possibility of using the site for a boutique hotel and after subsequent market and economic feasibility analysis, the Council included visitor accommodations in the land use mix. In September of 2012, the Council identified density and intensity limits for the proposed General Plan Amendment such that a vote of the electorate would not be required pursuant to Charter Section 423 ( "Measure S "). The Council also directed staff to issue a Request for Qualifications ( "RFQ ") to gauge the interest of the development community in the site. The City continued to process the proposed legislative amendments notwithstanding the ongoing RFQ process. The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") for the proposed amendments without a development project that was considered by the Planning Commission ( "Commission ") in January of 2013. The Commission 0 recommended approval of the proposed amendments; however, the consideration by Council of the amendments was delayed due to the submission of development proposals in response to the RFQ. The City also sent a notice of surplus land consistent with Government Code §54222. No entities expressed an interest in acquiring the site for the development of affordable housing, parks and open space, or schools. The City received 15 statements of qualifications in response to the City's RFQ, and in January 2013, the Council selected 6 teams (3 hotel developers and 3 mixed - use /housing developers) to prepare development proposals. Three proposals were submitted (2 hotels and 1 mixed -use project) in April of 2013, and in July 2013, after extensive public comment, the Council selected R.D. Olson as the development team to pursue a 130 -room hotel project. The Council executed an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with R.D. Olson and established an ad -hoc negotiating committee consisting of Council Members Hill and Selich. After that meeting, the ad -hoc committee, staff, and R.D. Olson conducted negotiations related to the terms of a long -term lease. These negotiations are ongoing. R.D. Olson submitted a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit applications consistent with their proposal and applicable Zoning Codes. Because the site development was now specified and no longer conceptual, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed hotel development and the proposed amendments rather than process the hotel proposal separately as originally anticipated. Therefore, the MND is no longer applicable and the ground lease will be considered by the Council if and when they take action to certify the Draft EIR and approved the proposed amendments and hotel applications (if appropriate). DISCUSSION The project consists of the proposed land use plan and zoning amendments described above and the construction of a 4- story, 130 -room hotel with a 148 - space, surface parking lot, and landscaping. The hotel will include outdoor recreational areas and a pool, meeting rooms, an event lawn, a restaurant with an outdoor patio, a lobby bar, a rooftop lounge, accessory retail area potentially including a small coffee shop, and a day spa. Active parking management will be provided as necessary including valet parking services. The majority of the parking lot will be controlled and gated for patron and valet access only. The project also includes an open space area between the hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street comprising just over 21 percent of the site. This enhanced setback area will be provide pedestrian paths and informal seating open to the public and landscaping. The project includes modifications to 32nd Street between Newport Boulevard and Lafayette Avenue and a portion of Via Oporto. Specifically, angled parking will be created on the north side of 32nd Street adjacent to St. James Church. Sufficient area for this row of parking currently exists as there is a superfluous eastbound left turn lane to Lafayette Avenue that will be eliminated. The eastbound and westbound travel lanes of 32nd Street will be shifted south within the existing right -of -way reducing the existing 0 jog in the street near where intersects Villa Way. Existing street parking along 32nd Street and Via Oporto displaced by these changes are relocated to the new angled parking near St. James Church such that there will be no net loss of on- street public parking spaces. Lastly, since the hotel site plan closes off access to an existing parking area behind Fire Station No. 2, a new driveway approach will be created on Via Oporto. Environmental Review A DEIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ( "CEQA "), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The impact analyses within the Draft EIR shows that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of several mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. Primary areas of concern were traffic, parking, public views, and shading. The traffic analysis concluded that area intersections would not be degraded and will operate at acceptable levels of service. No traffic improvements are required. It is important to note that the traffic analysis assumed existing conditions and that the site was generating no traffic despite very limited ongoing city use of the site because the City Hall operations relocated to the new Civic Center in 2013. It is also noteworthy that project - related daily and peak hour traffic will be less than the former City Hall use. The parking analysis shows that the 148 parking spaces proposed on -site will accommodate the use and valet parking will increase the amount of vehicles that can be parked on- site for larger events when necessary. Impacts to public views from General Plan designated vantage points were simulated and the analysis shows that although the project will be visible, the project will not block or impair those public views. Private views are not protected. Given the increased height of the project, a shading analysis was prepared and it shows that no sensitive uses will be shaded and that the additional shading is less than significant. The DEIR was released for public review and comment on April 29, 2014. The 45 -day public review period ended on June 13, 2014. During that period the City received 9 comment letters from agencies and individuals. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City has evaluated comments received on the Draft EIR, and has prepared written responses to the comments received during the public review period. The Final EIR, consisting of the DEIR, responses to comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and an "errata" to the DEIR with minor revisions to the DEIR, is attached as Attachment PC -4. 01 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The impact analyses within the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The 4 alternatives included in the EIR are: 1) No Project/No Build (no construction) 2) No Project/Existing General Plan (redevelopment with public facility) 3) Reduced Density (a smaller, 3 -story hotel) 4) Mixed Use project (a 99 units and 15,000 square feet of commercial) Given that the EIR determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the City need not make any findings as to why any project alternative, including the identified environmentally superior alternative, was rejected if the City chooses to approve the proposed project. The discussion of alternatives provides for an informed public discussion of the effects of the proposed project and alternatives; however, the only site development proposal is for a 130 -room hotel. Planning Commission Study Session The Planning Commission conducted a study session on June 5, 2014. There was a general consensus that the proposed design and architecture was acceptable. The Commission did not suggest any material changes to the site plan, floor plans, or elevation drawings. The Commission identified several topics for further consideration including: • Use of the ballroom roof for hotel events. The architect designed the facility without active use of the ballroom roof to avoid any potential conflicts with hotel rooms and to accommodate necessary equipment. R.D. Olson considered the use of the ballroom roof for events, and has chosen not to pursue it at this time given that it has not been a component considered in the Draft EIR. • Location and adequacy of the proposed trash enclosure. The proposed trash enclosure was located to enhance compatibility of on -site buildings. The enclosure was sized to accommodate four, 4 -foot by 6 -foot bins to accommodate anticipated waste with frequent pickup. Staff has included a requirement to include a roof to screen the contents of the enclosure. • Modification to CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -1. A slight change to the proposed amendment of CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -1 was suggested and is included as discussed below. Additionally, the proposed intensity limit was viewed as unclear and staff has included a change for clarity (discussed below). NA • Control of the pro osed open space areas between the hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32" Street. The open space setback area between the proposed hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street will be controlled by the hotel operator. They will be responsible for maintenance and security. The public will have access to walking paths, seating areas, and landscape areas with exception of the restaurant's outdoor patio and the lawn /deck area under the two large ficus trees. The public path will be at least 8 feet wide replacing a standard public sidewalk that would normally be located at the back of the curb, but many of the walking areas will be wider based upon the proposed site plan. The outdoor patio and the lawn /deck area under the two large ficus trees will be separated from areas open to the public by a low landscape hedge and or guardrails. The outdoor dining patio will be reserved for restaurant patrons who would not need to be guests of the hotel. Special Trees Per City Council Policy G -1 two Landmark Trees and four Dedicated Trees are located on the project site. It is the City's policy to retain City trees categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood Trees (Special Trees), which have historical significance, and /or contribute to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Requests to remove public trees other than Problem Trees are first reviewed by staff and then approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission ( "PB &R "). On June 3, 2014, the Commission reviewed R.D. Olson's request to remove four Dedicated Trees. The attached PB &R report provides additional information related to the nature of the trees and staff's recommendation to rededicate existing trees in other locations and for the trees on -site to be removed (Attachment PC -5). The two Landmark Trees (Ficus microcarpa "Nitida" trees) located on the front lawn will be preserved and incorporated into the future hotel plan. Staff recommended removal and the rededication of existing trees in various public places in the name and spirit of dedicated trees to be removed. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission approved the recommendation provided the removals are conducted after all final approvals are secured and at the last possible moment. Additionally, they indicated their desire that every effort should be made to retain the trees within the proposed redevelopment plan. The balance of the existing trees located on site will be removed with the exception of the tall row of palms located in proximity to Newport Boulevard. The four northerly palms will be protected in place and the southerly six palms will be slightly repositioned within the open space area thereby maintaining the row of trees. The City Arborist believes that the palm trees should readily survive the transplantation process. 0 General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment ( "GPA ") would apply a new mixed -use land use category to the project site. Additionally, it would establish a new Anomaly location within Table LU2 creating density and intensity limits. The proposed designation provides flexibility to either authorize the proposed hotel or a future mixed -use development should the hotel proposal be abandoned for any reason. The intensity language limits development as follows: Table 1 The upper limit of a potential mixed -use development would be 93 -units with up to and 15,000 square feet of commercial floor area or 98,725 square feet of hotel use. The "other' development limit was included to allow a mix of hotel and residential uses understanding that a hotel would include typical commercial uses such as a hotel restaurant, bar, retail, and a spa. The intent was to limit a mixed -use project consisting of a hotel and residential use to the maximum floor area specified (98,725 square feet). This development limit can be eliminated or the limit can be modified to provide, "Any combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms provided it does not exceed 93 dwelling units and of 98,725 sf of hotel use." The land use policy consistency analysis contained in the Draft EIR concluded no policy conflicts and staff believes future uses consistent with the proposed General Plan designation would be compatible with existing uses and surrounding commercial, mixed -use, and residential designations. These conclusions were reached considering the proposed increase in building height, setbacks, and open space within the context of the existing developed environment that includes several taller buildings and less than significant impacts to public views. Potential issues related to public views are discussed below in conjunction with the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. ' The intensity and density limits have been reduced based upon the Charter Section 423 analysis. 10 Anomaly Locations (Excerpt Table Anom— Statistical Land Use Desianation Develoament Limits Development Limit Other. Additional Information Number Area Accessory commercial Any combination of floor area is allowed in 93 dwelling units and dwelling units and conjunction with a hotel 15,000 sf commercial hotel rooms and it is included within 85 B5 MU -HS provided it does not the hotel development or exceed 93 dwelling limit. Municipal facilities 98,725 sf of hotel units and eF 98,725 are not restricted or sf of hotel use. included in any development limit. The upper limit of a potential mixed -use development would be 93 -units with up to and 15,000 square feet of commercial floor area or 98,725 square feet of hotel use. The "other' development limit was included to allow a mix of hotel and residential uses understanding that a hotel would include typical commercial uses such as a hotel restaurant, bar, retail, and a spa. The intent was to limit a mixed -use project consisting of a hotel and residential use to the maximum floor area specified (98,725 square feet). This development limit can be eliminated or the limit can be modified to provide, "Any combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms provided it does not exceed 93 dwelling units and of 98,725 sf of hotel use." The land use policy consistency analysis contained in the Draft EIR concluded no policy conflicts and staff believes future uses consistent with the proposed General Plan designation would be compatible with existing uses and surrounding commercial, mixed -use, and residential designations. These conclusions were reached considering the proposed increase in building height, setbacks, and open space within the context of the existing developed environment that includes several taller buildings and less than significant impacts to public views. Potential issues related to public views are discussed below in conjunction with the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. ' The intensity and density limits have been reduced based upon the Charter Section 423 analysis. 10 Charter Section 423 ( "Measure S') Charter Section 423 requires an analysis of the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with a proposed GPA. When increases in density, intensity, and peak hour traffic of a proposed GPA2 along with 80 percent of the increases of prior amendments exceed specified thresholds, the proposed GPA is considered to be a "major amendment" that requires voter approval. The specified thresholds are 100 dwelling units (density), 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity), and 100 peak hour trips (traffic). City Council Policy A -18 establishes the Guidelines for implementation of City Charter Section 423 and provides specific guidance as to the density, intensity and traffic thresholds for the analysis. The former City Hall Complex is located within Statistical Area B -5 and the City has approved four prior amendments. Table 1 identifies the increases in density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with the four prior amendments. Table 2 Statistical Area B -5: Prior Amendment Increases Amendment Increase in density(') Increase in intensitV2 Peak Hour rip Increase AM PM GP 2010 -005 0 15,103 45.4 60.5 GP 2011 -003 1 4,053 12.7 16.8 GP 2011 -010 0 1,188 2.7 3.7 GP 2012 -005 7 0 0 0 Total Increases 8 20,344 60.8 81 80% Total Increases 731 16,275 49 65 (1) Measured in dwelling units (2) Measured in gross floor area (3) Rounded up to nearest whole number The Public Facilities land use category of the General Plan does not permit residential uses, and as a result, the existing allowed residential density for any site so designated is zero. Eighty percent of prior amendment increases is 7 dwelling units, an amendment authorizing more than 93 units would exceed the threshold identified by Charter Section 423, and would require voter approval. The General Plan does not establish intensity limit for any sites designated Public Facilities. Rather, Land Use Policy 6.1.1 indicates that the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses will determine the type and size of necessary facilities. Absent a specified maximum intensity, the "plan to plan" analysis would indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval; however, when the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has 2 Increases above the maximum density and intensity, and associated peak hour trips, allowed by the General Plan prior to the amendment. 11 conservatively used the 2006 General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds. Tables 2 and 3 reflect staff's analysis as to development density and intensity, and the resulting peak hour trips, which would not require voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 423. Table 3 Measure S Anal sis for Proposed Mixed -Use Project Density (Units) Intensity (Square Feet) Peak Hour Traffic AM PM Existing General Plan land use maximum 0 75,0001) 166 214 Proposed Mixed -use project maximum 93 15,000 95 121 Amendment difference 93 60,000 -71 -93 Vote Required No No No No 80% of prior amendments 7 16,267 49 65 Total 100 16,267 49 65 Vote Required No No No No (1) General Plan Transportation Study, 3/22/2006, Urban Crossroads Table 4 Measure S Analysis for Proposed Hotel Project Intensity Square Feet Peak Hour Traffic AM PM Existing General Plan building area maximum 75,000) 166 214 Proposed Amendment area maximum 98,725 74 78 Amendment difference 23,725 -92 -136 Vote Required No No No 80 % of prior amendments 16,275 49 65 Total 40,000 49 65 Vote Required No No No (1) General Plan Transportation Study, 3/22/2006, Urban Crossroads The building area for the fire station was not counted in the intensity analysis. The basis for this assumption is that the majority of the fire station is a vehicle garage, and parking garages are not included in the calculation of floor area under the General Plan. Additionally, the Institute of Traffic Engineers ( "ITE ") does not identify peak hour trip generation rates for fire stations. Therefore, in consideration of the thresholds established by Charter Section 423, staff has concluded that the proposed GPA would not require voter approval provided the maximum density allocated is reduced to no more than 93 units and if the gross floor area is reduced to not exceed 98,725 square feet. 12 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB18) Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received tribal contacts from the NAHC and those contacts were provided notice regarding the proposed amendment on October 4, 2012. The City received an inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative indicated that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading /construction if it is determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources on the project site. The proposed project site is located within a highly developed area and has been completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources are not expected to occur. However, in the unlikely event that buried cultural resources or human remains are discovered during excavation activities, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would be implemented requiring an archeologist and Native American Monitor be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities, and as such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Coastal Land Use Plan The proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment provides a land use category that is consistent with the proposed GPA in terms of land use, density and intensity. Staff and the environmental consultant prepared a CLUP policy consistency analysis that is contained in the Draft EIR. The analysis concludes that there is no inconsistency with approval of the proposed CLUP amendment. Given the proposed intensity of use, the need to establish an increased height limit was identified. CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -1 provides a 35 -foot height limit and in order to consider a development project with higher building heights, an amendment to the policy is necessary. The following exception to the policy is proposed for consideration and it includes a change as identified during the previous study session: 4.4.2 -1. Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3, except for the following sites: "Mixed Use (MU) area located at 3300 Newport Boulevard (former City Hall Complex): Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not negatively materially impact public views. Peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet and architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and 13 similar structures may exceed 55 feet by 10 feet. The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities." The language of the amendment provides protection of coastal views. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies protect public views from certain roadways and parks. The Draft EIR (Section 5.2 Aesthetics /Light and Glare) provides an analysis of potential impacts to public views from designated viewpoints located nearby, specifically Sunset View Park, Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park. Other vantages where public views are protected were not included due to their extended distances from the project site. The proposed hotel is consistent with the proposed amendment and will be visible from Sunset View Park, Cliff Drive Park, and Ensign View Park; however, due to the distance and elevation of these vantage points in relation to the project site, the proposed hotel will blend into the urban background and not block any important focal points including the horizon within existing public views from these vantages. Additionally, there are other taller buildings in the vicinity suggesting that proposed building would not be out of character despite the proposed increase in building height. Specifically, 601 and 611 Lido Park Drive and 3388 Via Lido are taller than the proposed height increase. No significant public views through or near the project site are present in the immediate vicinity of the site. For these reasons, the analysis concludes that there will be no impact to public coastal views and no inconsistency with public view protection policies of the General Plan or CLUP. As a result, a finding of consistency with applicable policies of the Coastal Act can be made for the proposed amendment. The proposed CLUP amendment will require certification (approval) by the CCC. Certification of the amendment precedes the approval of a Coastal Development Permit for development of the proposed hotel. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act provides: "Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred." The City considered a public park including parking as a lower cost visitor public recreational opportunity; however, such a project would require significant capital investment, subsidy, and ongoing maintenance costs. Additionally, such a project was not supported as it did not meet community needs. An upscale hotel garnered significant community support, would serve visitors, increase access to recreational existing opportunities, provide an economic stimulus to the Lido Village area (an underperforming visitor- serving commercial area), and not require significant public capital investment but rather it would increase revenues to the City supporting the provision of public services to visitors, businesses, and residents. Implementation of the proposed project will not displace any lower cost visitor and recreational facilities as none exist on site. Market analysis for hotel use prepared by PKF Consulting in August 2012, suggests that the average room rates for the proposed 14 project would be above $200 per night initially and would increase as the hotel becomes more established in the market. This nightly room rate may not be considered lower - cost by the California Coastal Commission. If the Coastal Commission identifies a nexus between development of the proposed hotel project and an impact to lower -cost accommodations, mitigation proportionate to the impact may be requested. In that event, staff recommends the creation of a City- administered, lower -cost grant matching program where funds could be used to create new lower -cost accommodations or improve existing lower -cost accommodations. Zoning Code The proposed Zoning Code Amendment provides allowed uses and density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed mixed -use land use category of the proposed General Plan amendment. Given the proposed density and intensity of use and a concerted effort to preserve open space for public access, an increased height limit was viewed as necessary. Staff identified a principal limit at 55 feet to accommodate 4 -story development. Given structures of this height, increased setbacks, and a minimum open space requirement were included to promote more compatible development. Allowed Uses: Retail, commercial offices (non - medical), visitor accommodations, multi -unit residential, community center, fire station, public parking facility. Height: 55 feet to flat roofs measured to the top of parapet walls. The peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may be up to 60 feet in height and architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may be 65 feet in height. Setbacks: Location Structure type Setback from Property Line Newport Boulevard Subterranean 0 feet 1 s' & 2nd floor 20 feet Above 2nd floor 35 feet 32nd Street Subterranean 0 feet 15 & 2nd floor 1 foot Above 2nd floor 10 feet Interior Subterranean 0 feet Above grade 5 feet (') No more than 26 feet above existing grade (2) More than 26 feet above existing grade Open Space: Minimum 20 percent 15 Staff believes that the proposed zoning standards for uses, density and intensity, development standards, are appropriate for development of the site consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment. The proposed hotel meets all proposed development standards. Lido Village Design Guidelines The Lido Village Design Guidelines (Guidelines) are intended to be used when planning new construction or rehabilitation of existing development. The Guidelines describe elements that create a unifying "sense of place" while considering market conditions and business needs. The Guidelines are not meant to discourage unique or inventive designs and they are not regulatory; however, a finding of general consistency is required. The Guidelines identify the following goals for the site: • Quality outdoor spaces that are accessible to the public • Improve Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street interfaces creating a gateway to the village • Provide increase building heights with an emphasis on mixed -use zoning • Incorporate a dynamic tenant mix that maximizes value without compromising existing owners and their tenant mixes • Balance residential needs with visitor services • Use appropriate architectural styles • Emphasize pedestrian connections and public spaces The proposed amendments and hotel project meet these goals by providing publically accessible open space along Newport Boulevard and to a lesser degree 32nd Street. These areas will provide pedestrian paths and open space through the site connecting the site with the greater Lido Village area. Street setback areas provide open space, public access, and enhancements that will foster a unique sense of place and create notable gateway or focal point for the community. The improvements along 32nd Street, with the hotel and the modifications to the right -of -way, will enhance the 32nd Street edge condition and there will be no new loss of public, on- street parking. The proposed hotel with its ancillary uses maximizes value and will not compromise nearby commercial properties, but rather, visitors will walk and patronize area businesses providing a welcome economic stimulus. The architecture of the hotel as exhibited in the project plans is clearly consistent with the preferred coastal style identified by the Guidelines. Site Development Review ( "SDR') Pursuant to Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review), the City must make the following findings in order to approve the Site Development Review application: 10 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces, v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection); and 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Staff believes facts support each of the findings above with the approval of the amendments and adoption of the recommended conditions of approval. Draft findings are provided in the resolution recommending project approval (Attachment PC -2). The project provides publically accessibly open space creating pedestrian connections, consistency with the Lido Village Design Guidelines, adequacy of parking and provision of safe vehicle access, and less than significant impacts related to traffic and public views. Lido Partners, owner of the adjacent Via Lido Plaza shopping center, has expressed support for the project, but claims that the closure of an existing driveway that provides vehicle access from Via Lido Plaza to 32nd Street would be detrimental to their property. They contend that diminished access for emergency and delivery vehicles would make the shopping center unattractive for commercial tenants leading to diminished commercial viability, long -term vacancies, and potential decay of the Lido Village area, which would be contrary to goals of the General Plan. They provided a detailed comment letter to the Draft EIR and staff has provided specific responses to each of their comments. In summary, the Fire Department has determined that the gated access location leading across the property to 32nd is not required for fire access as it is provided by Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and from the two existing parking areas accessed from a driveway on Via Lido and from Finley Avenue. Delivery truck access to 17 Via Lido Plaza is currently provided through these two driveways and the gated access location that would be closed with the implementation of the proposed hotel project. The comment letter included a truck maneuvering diagram suggesting that the largest trucks allowable on public roads cannot access the site. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the issue and trucks can access Via Lido Plaza from both driveways; however, the larger trucks would need to use the Via Lido driveway due to an existing concrete island in the middle of the Finley Avenue driveway. The trucks would need to swing wide in the Via Lido right -of -way and use the entire Via Lido drive approach, but ultimately, the turning movement is possible and can be accomplished safely in the opinion of the Traffic Engineer. Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Section 20.52.020.E (Findings and Decision) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City must make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit: 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Staff believes facts support each of the findings above with the approval of the amendments and adoption of the recommended conditions of approval. Draft findings are provided in the resolution recommending project approval (Attachment PC -2). Issues of note are the operation of the hotel and its ancillary restaurants, bars, spa including massage, meeting rooms, and event areas. The Newport Beach Police Department indicates that the concentration of alcohol licenses in the project area exceeds City and County averages. Additionally, the crime reporting district in which the project is located shows higher than average alcohol - related crimes. Despite these concerns, alcohol service at hotels and their associated on -site uses is customary and significant alcohol - related incidents are not anticipated given the land use provided it is properly managed. Conditions of approval are recommended that require proper training of service personnel in responsible alcohol service, prohibition of outside promoters and profit sharing unless allowed by a special event permit, and prohibition of nightclubs. WfA Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) requires that a traffic study be prepared and findings be made if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips. Pursuant to Section 15.40.030.A, the City must make the following findings in order to approve the project: 1. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A (of Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code); 2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made: a. 15.40.030.B.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and b. 15.40.030.B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. 3. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. A traffic study, titled "Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis" dated April 15, 2014, was prepared by RBF Consulting under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and its implementing guidelines (Appendix 11.3 to the Lido House Hotel EIR). Project - related vehicle traffic is expected to increase by 1,062 daily trips, which includes approximately 69 AM peak hour trips and approximately 78 PM peak hour trips. It is important to note that this increase in traffic is predicted above a baseline of a zero trip as the site was considered vacant even though there have been limited activities occurring on -site that generate some limited traffic. Therefore, the trip increase forecasted represents a most conservative analysis. When comparing project - related traffic to the former City Hall use, daily traffic including both the morning and evening peak hours of the proposed project will be will be less that the former use. The traffic study evaluated 20 study intersections, several of which are located in Costa Mesa. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in 2017 (within 60 months) and the traffic analysis year is 2018, one year after opening consistent with the TPO. Utilizing the ICU analysis as specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that the intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. The implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach or the City of Costa Mesa. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the traffic study has been prepared in compliance with the TPO, subject to the 19 findings and facts in support of findings provided in the draft resolution recommending project approval (Attachment PC -2). Additional Correspondence The City received two letters after the close of the public comment period for the DER from Kathryn Branman, Linda Klein, and Denys Oberman suggesting that staff has inappropriately considered a mixed -use designation and zoning for the former City Hall site and has delayed the process. Although not required, staff prepared a response intended to address any apparent misunderstanding or miscommunication (Attachment PC -6). Summary The proposed project is consistent with the City's goals to revitalize Lido Village. The design is consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines and the use should not prove detrimental to the community with the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval. Additionally, the environmental analysis concludes that implementation of the project will not have a significant impact on the environment with adherence with the identified mitigation measures. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code provide flexibility to implement a hotel project or a mixed -use project should the effort to create a hotel be discontinued for any reason. Alternatives The Commission has the option to recommend changes to the proposed amendments or hotel project to address particular areas of concern. The Commission can continue consideration of the proposed amendments to a future date. Public Notice Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 450 feet of the boundaries of the site and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to the decision date, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: W k J es Campbell, rincipal Pla ner Submitted by: n a Wisnesi i, rICR Deputy Director 20 ATTACHMENTS PC -1 Draft Resolution recommending certification of the Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 20131111022) (separate due to bulk, available at www.newportbeachca.gov \eir in the Lido House Hotel folder) PC -2 Draft Resolution recommending project approval Exhibit A. Legal Description Exhibit B. CEQA Findings in support of project approval Exhibit C. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 Exhibit D. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 Exhibit E. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 Exhibit F. Conditions of approval Exhibit G. Project Plans PC -3 Project Plans PC -4 Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction to Final EIR Comments and responses to comments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Errata to the Draft EIR PC -5 Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission June 3, 2014, staff report PC -6 Additional correspondence 21 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 22 Attachment PC -1 Draft Resolution recommending certification of the Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 20131111022) 23 Page Intentionally Blank 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2014 -003 (SCH #2013111022) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR THE FORMER CITY HALL COMPLEX LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (PA2012 -031) LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32nd STREET; AND THE 130 -ROOM LIDO HOUSE HOTEL LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2013 -217) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On April 24, 2012, the City of Newport Beach initiated amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code with respect to the former City Hall Complex (the 'Property ") located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street. The amendments ( "Amendments ") are generally described as follows: a. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 - The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU -H5) and establish density and intensity limits within Table LU -2 of the Land Use Element by establishing a new anomaly location. b. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 - The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU) and establish density and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1 -1. The proposed amendment also includes a change to Policy 4.4.2 -1 to establish the policy basis for higher height limits. c. Zone Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 - The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the Property with a new zone MU -LV designation (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) to establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. 2. An application ( "Application ") was filed by R.D. Olson Development ( "Applicant') with respect to a portion of the Property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City (3300 Newport Boulevard), requesting approval of a site development review, conditional use permit, and traffic study for the development and operation of a luxury, 130 -room hotel that would include 99,625 square feet of building area comprised of guestrooms, public areas, and back of house (operational) areas (the Lido House Hotel). 25 The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the Project as proposed: a. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001- A site development review application for the development of a luxury, 130 -room hotel called the "Lido House Hotel' and all appurtenant facilities including landscaping, parking, and public open space along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Redevelopment of the Property includes the demolition of all structures on -site at 3300 Newport Boulevard but no demolition of Fire Station No. 2 and its appurtenant facilities. The project would include the provision of necessary utility connections to serve the proposed project and public improvements fronting the project site along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. b. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001 - A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of the proposed hotel and accessory/ancillary uses including the sale of alcoholic beverages and the establishment of on -site parking management including the use of valet parking services. Accessory and ancillary uses to the hotel include, but are not limited to, retail uses, restaurants and bars, meeting rooms, day spa facilities including massage, and guest recreational areas. c. Traffic Study TS2014 -005- A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. 3. The City previously prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2012111074) for Amendments prior to the selection of a development proposal and submission of the Application by RD Olson Development. Given that site development was specified and no longer conceptual, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed hotel development and the proposed Amendments rather than process the hotel proposal separately as originally anticipated. Therefore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not adopted. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K -3, it was determined that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "). 5. On November 6, 2013, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project. 6. On November 20, 2013, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the proposed Project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. 7. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2014 -003, SCH No. 2013111022) ( "DEIR ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, which, taking into account the comments 20 it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from. 8. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on April 29, 2014, and ending June 13, 2013. Notice of the availability of the DEIR was provided in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 9. On June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, on the DEIR and Project. 10. Staff of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the comments received on the DEIR during the public comment and review period, and prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on July 11, 2014, distributed the responses in accordance with CEQA. 11. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The environmental documents for the Project comprising the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") which consists of Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings), Errata, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings. 12. The Planning Commission has read and considered the DEIR and FEIR and has found that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines. 13. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 14. The mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures would be applied to the Project through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. SECTION 2. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach determines that, based on all information, both oral and written, provided to date, that there has not been any new significant information, data, or changes to the Project which either result in the creation of a new significant environmental impact, or the need to adopt a new mitigation measure, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or to 27 support a finding that the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the City Council certification of the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH No. 2013111022), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Chairman BY: Secretary WMA EXHIBIT A LIDO HOUSE HOTEL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER2014 -003 (SCH No. 2013111022) Consists of: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated April 28, 2014 2. Appendices 11.1 through 11.9 dated April 28, 2014 3. Final EIR a. Introduction to Final EIR b. Response to Comments c. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program d. Errata The complete Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at http : / /www.newportbeachca.gov /eir. 29 Page Intentionally Blank �o Attachment PC -2 Draft Resolution recommending project approval Exhibit A. Legal Description Exhibit B. CEQA Findings in support of project approval Exhibit C. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 Exhibit D. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 Exhibit E. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 Exhibit F. Conditions of approval Exhibit G. Project Plans 31 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE S2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2012 -002, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2012 -001, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2012 -003, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2014 -001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2014 -0014 -003, AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. FOR THE FORMER CITY HALL COMPLEX LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (PA2012 -031) LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32ND STREET; AND THE 130 - ROOM LIDO HOUSE HOTEL LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2013 -217) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On April 24, 2012, the City of Newport Beach initiated amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code with respect to the former City Hall Complex (the "Property "), legally described in Exhibit A, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street. The amendments are generally described as follows: a. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 - The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU -H5) and establish density and intensity limits within Table LU -2 of the Land Use Element by establishing a new anomaly location. b. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 - The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU) and establish density and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1 -1. The proposed amendment also includes a change to Policy 4.4.2 -1 to establish the policy basis for higher height limits. c. Zone Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 - The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the Property with a new zone MU -LV designation (Mixed -Use- Lido Village) to establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. 2. An application was filed by R.D. Olson Development ( "Applicant') with respect to a portion of the Property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 33 Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City (3300 Newport Boulevard), requesting approval of a site development review, conditional use permit, and traffic study for the development and operation of a luxury, 130 -room hotel that would include 99,625 square feet of building area comprised of guestrooms, public areas, and back of house (operational) areas (the Lido House Hotel). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the Project as proposed: a. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001- A site development review application for the development of a luxury, 130 -room hotel called the "Lido House Hotel' and all appurtenant facilities including landscaping, parking, and public open space along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Redevelopment of the Property includes the demolition of all structures on -site at 3300 Newport Boulevard but no demolition of Fire Station No. 2 and its appurtenant facilities. The project would include the provision of necessary utility connections to serve the proposed project and public improvements fronting the project site along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. b. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001 - A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of the proposed hotel and accessory /ancillary uses including the sale of alcoholic beverages and the establishment of on -site parking management including the use of valet parking services. Accessory and ancillary uses to the hotel include, but are not limited to, retail uses, restaurants and bars, meeting rooms, day spa facilities including massage, and guest recreational areas. c. Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 - A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. 3. Pursuant to Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18, proposed General Plan amendments are reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required because a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects in the same Statistical Area over the prior 10 years) exceeds certain thresholds provided in Section 423 of the City Charter. The proposed General Plan Amendment is located in Statistical Area B5 and this is the fifth amendment that affects Statistical Area B5 since the General Plan update in 2006. The four prior amendments are GP 2010 -005, GP 2011 -003, GP 2011 -010, and GP 2012 -005. If the amendment resulted in 99 units or 99,675 square feet of commercial development as originally proposed, it would exceed applicable thresholds and a vote of the electorate would be required. If the amendment density and intensity is reduced to 93 units and 98,725 square feet, a vote would not be required. The following table shows the increases attributable to the subject amendment and prior amendments and the totals. 34 4. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on October 4, 2012. The City received an inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative indicated that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading /construction if it is determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources on the project site. The proposed project site is located within a highly developed area and has been completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources are not expected to occur. However, in the unlikely event that buried cultural resources or human remains are discovered during excavation activities, Mitigation Measure CULA would be implemented requiring an archeologist and Native American Monitor be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities, and as such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 5. On April 25, 2013, the City sent a surplus land notice consistent with Government Code §54222. No entities expressed an interest in acquiring the site for the development of affordable housing, parks and open space, or schools. 6. On June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, on the DEIR and Project. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The environmental documents for the Project comprising the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") which consists of Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings), Errata, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION 1. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2014 -003, SCH No. 2013111022) ( "FEIR ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines 35 AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Dwelling units Non - residential floor area Prior Amendments (80 %) 49 65 7 16,275 Proposed Amendment 0 0 93 23,725 Total 49 65 100 40,000 Vote No No No No 4. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on October 4, 2012. The City received an inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative indicated that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading /construction if it is determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources on the project site. The proposed project site is located within a highly developed area and has been completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources are not expected to occur. However, in the unlikely event that buried cultural resources or human remains are discovered during excavation activities, Mitigation Measure CULA would be implemented requiring an archeologist and Native American Monitor be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities, and as such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 5. On April 25, 2013, the City sent a surplus land notice consistent with Government Code §54222. No entities expressed an interest in acquiring the site for the development of affordable housing, parks and open space, or schools. 6. On June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, on the DEIR and Project. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 17, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, Califomia. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The environmental documents for the Project comprising the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") which consists of Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings), Errata, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION 1. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2014 -003, SCH No. 2013111022) ( "FEIR ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines 35 and City Council Policy K -3, which described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from. 2. The Planning Commission considered the FEIR and found it considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. on July 17, 2014, recommending City Council certification of the FEIR and said resolution shall be incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. FINDINGS 1. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 2. The site is located in proximity to commercial services, recreational uses, and transit opportunities with routine bus service provided along Newport Boulevard. The proposed General Plan Amendment provides for variety of land uses for the site including a luxury hotel that will to promote revitalization of the Lido Village area while ensuring neighborhood compatibility. The proposed will hotel serve visitors and residents and increase access opportunities in the Coastal Zone. 3. The proposed amendment of Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.2 -1 to provide an exception to the 35 -foot height limit of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is necessary and appropriate to accommodate the proposed intensity of use, significant open space on the site and the project's lack of impact to public views. This finding is based upon the public view impact analysis within Section 5.2 (Aesthetics Light/Glare) of the Lido House Hotel FEIR showing that there will not be a significant impact to protected public views from General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designated vantages. Additionally, there are no public views through the site from abutting roadways and public spaces. SECTION 5. REQUIRED FINDINGS Site Development Review Finding: A. Allowed within the subject Zoning district; Facts in Support of Finding: A -1 The proposed 130 -room hotel including its proposed ancillary commercial uses (restaurant, bar, lounge, retail, meeting rooms and spa) project will be consistent with The MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) zoning district and Section 20.22.020 3� (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) with the adoption of Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 that will allow visitor accommodations subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria fbelow]: a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protections); and Facts in Support of Finding: B -1 The proposed 130 -room hotel project is consistent with the proposed Mixed Use Horizontal 5 (MU -H5) General Plan land use designation, proposed Mixed Use (MU) Coastal Land Use Plan category, and the proposed MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) zoning district for the project site that provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses could include, but are not limited to, a community center, public plazas, a fire station and /or public parking. B -2 The proposed MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) zoning district includes setback standards (zero to 35 feet depending on height), open space (20% of the site) and building height standards (55 feet to flat roofs, 60 feet for sloping roofs and up to 65 feet for architectural features). The proposed hotel building will be setback more 69 feet from Newport Boulevard, more than 15 feet from 32nd Street, and more than 62 feet from the northerly (interior) property line all in excess of the proposed standards. The height of the sloping roof of the 4 -story portion of the proposed hotel is less 58 feet, 5 inches and all other portions of the hotel are below this height. Lastly, the proposed site plan provides approximately 21.4% of the site as open space consisting of hardscape and landscaping between the hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street in compliance with the proposed open space standard. s: 7 B -3 The project is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces in terms of bulk, scale and aesthetic treatments. The large setbacks identified in statement B -2 above will help offset the taller portions of the proposed buildings. Hotel buildings have been designed with a one, two and three story element along Newport Boulevard while providing a significant setback from the street providing areas for public access, landscaping, outdoor dining, and hotel use. The proposed building is over 69 feet from the Newport Boulevard. The portions of the hotel structure that will be three and four stories are located along the northerly and easterly portion of the site away from public spaces and closer to the back of the abutting shopping center that is developed with large buildings with heights close to 35 feet. Additionally, these taller components will be approximately 240 feet from planned residential uses east of Via Oporto. Based upon the project drawings, all elevations of proposed buildings will include consistent architectural treatments, articulation and modulation of building masses providing visual interest with a coastal architectural theme specified by the Lido Village Design Guidelines. B-4 The project retains the two large ficus trees designated by Council Policy G -1 as Landmark Trees. The proposed project also retains the 10 existing tall date palm trees, and provides pedestrian areas, seating areas, and enhanced pavement increasing the aesthetic and use qualities of the setback area. The setback area also provides pedestrian connections from the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street along the streets in furtherance of the goals of the Lido Village Design Guidelines. Lastly, the building elevations includes a lighthouse architectural feature, simple gable roofs, tight overhangs, simple block massing, wood siding all with a clear coastal theme consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. B -5 Access to the site, on -site circulation, and parking areas are designed to provide standard -sized parking spaces consistent with the Zoning Code, 26- foot -wide, two - way driveways, and the minimum vehicle turning radius to accommodate and provide safe access for residents and guests (including the disabled), emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. B -6 The project is subject to the City's Water- Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 14.17 of NBMC) and compliance will be confirmed at plan check prior to issuing building permits. B -7 Consistent with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections), the Draft EIR (Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare) provides an analysis of potential impacts to public views from Sunset View Park, Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park. Based upon that analysis, the proposed hotel will blend into the urban background and not block any important focal points including the horizon within existing public views from these vantages. Additionally, there are other taller buildings in the vicinity suggesting that proposed building would not be out of character despite the proposed increase in building height. Specifically, 601 & 611 Lido Park Drive and MA 3388 Via Lido are taller than the proposed height of the project. No significant public views through or near the project site are present in the immediate vicinity of the site. For these reasons, the analysis concludes that there will be no material impact to public coastal views. Finding: C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1 The hotel project is consistent with the Lido Village Design guidelines by providing architecturally pleasing project with a coastal theme with articulation and building modulation to enhance the urban environment consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. The project provides a large enhanced setback area between the hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street that will include pedestrian paths, seating and landscape areas that will create a community focal point and providing connections to abutting uses. C -2 The project site is located in a developed commercial area with limited sensitive land uses located nearby. The overall height of the project will not materially impact any public views from General Plan designated vantages or significantly shade surrounding properties as demonstrated in Section 5.2 Aesthetics /Light and Glare of the Lido House Hotel EIR. C -3 The proposed surface parking lot provides 148 parking spaces (some tandem) and through the use of valet parking that can facilitate additional on -site vehicles will accommodate 100% of the project's anticipated parking demand based upon the parking analysis contained in Section 5.5 Traffic /Circulation of the Lido House EIR. Additionally, the parking lot and vehicular access thereto has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for passenger vehicles, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collection vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. C -4 Direct vehicular access to Via Lido Plaza will be provided an existing driveway and easement located just west of the intersection of Finley Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The main entry to the hotel at Finley Avenue includes 16 parking spaces and area to accommodate approximately 23 cars west of a proposed parking gate to accommodate short-term registration and valet parking and vehicle circulation without conflicting with vehicle access to Via Lido Plaza. The parking control gate at 32nd Street is designed and setback sufficiently to accommodate 2 cars, fire vehicle access, and delivery trucks to avoid conflicts along 32nd Street. S9 C -5 Closing the site to unrestricted vehicular access by the public through the site to 32nd Street would discontinue direct vehicle to Via Lido Plaza through an existing access gate located near Fire Station No. 2. Despite the closure of this access point, adequate vehicular access to Via Lido Plaza for cars, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles is currently provided by an existing driveway at Finley Avenue and an existing driveway from Via Lido. Large delivery trucks and fire trucks can access both parking areas at Via Lido Plaza based upon information contained in a letter from Fusco Engineering dated April 27, 2014, that is included as part of the Response to Comments within the FEIR. C -6 The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained within Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the Zoning Code. C -7 Roof -top mechanical equipment will be fully enclosed or screened from view consistent with the Municipal Code. C -8 The construction will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval shall be complied with. Conditional Use Permit Finding: D. The use is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1 The hotel with its restaurant, bar and lounges has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is maintained and that a healthy environment for residents and businesses is preserved. While the proposed hotel is located in an area which has a higher concentration of alcohol licenses than some areas, the hotel will not operate a "public premises" and appropriate licensing and enforcement will be administered by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The location of the project in relationship to residential zoning districts, day care centers, hospitals, park facilities, places of worship, schools, other similar uses and uses that attract minors has been considered. Operational conditions included recommended by the Police Department for the sale of alcoholic beverages including the requirement to obtain an Operator License will ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses and minimize alcohol related incidents. D -2 The subject property is located in an area with a variety of land uses including commercial, retail, residential, and access the beach and bay. The operational characteristics have been conditioned to maintain the compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. 40 Finding: E. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: E -1 The proposed 130 -room hotel project is consistent with the proposed Mixed Use Horizontal 5 (MU -H5) General Plan land use designation, Mixed Use (MU) Coastal Land Use Plan category, and the MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) zoning district for the project site that provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a community center, public plazas, a fire station and /or public parking. E -2 The project site is not located within a Specific Plan area. E -3 The proposed land use and zoning amendments and hotel is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. The City Council concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the FEIR. The mitigation measures specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been incorporated as conditions of approval. Finding: F. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1 See statements A -1, B -2, and B -7 in support of this finding. F -2 As conditioned, the proposed project will comply with applicable Newport Beach Municipal Code standards. See also statements C -6, C -7, and C -7 in support of this finding. F -3 The Zoning Code specifies that parking for a hotel be specified by Conditional Use Permit with the purpose to ensure that parking is adequately provided to meet demand. The proposed surface parking lot provides 148 parking spaces (some tandem) and through the use of valet parking that can facilitate additional on -site vehicles will accommodate 100% of the project's anticipated parking demand based upon the parking analysis contained in Section 5.5 Traffic /Circulation of the Lido House EIR. Additionally, the parking lot and vehicular access thereto has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for passenger vehicles, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collection vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 41 F -4 The proposed hotel will provide alcohol sales in conjunction with late night hours and as such, the operator is required to obtain an Operator License from the Police Department pursuant to Chapter 5.25. This requirement is included in the conditions of approval. Finding: G. The design, location, size, operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: G -1 See facts in support of Finding A, B, C, D, E and F above. Finding: H. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding: H -1 The project site is approximately 4.25 acres in size and can accommodate the proposed hotel building, and adequate parking based upon project's anticipated parking demand based upon the parking analysis contained in Section 5.5 Traffic /Circulation of the Lido House EIR. Additionally, the site also accommodated a large enhanced setback area comprising 21.4% of the site for public walkways, landscaping, and open space. H -2 The site is directly accessible from Newport Boulevard at the signalized intersection with Finley Avenue. Additionally, the site is directly accessible from 32nd Steet. Adequate public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and utilities exist to accommodate the proposed hotel development as concluded by the Lido House Hotel FEIR NO. ER2014 -003 (SCH #2013111022). The site includes Fire Station No. 2 and proposed modifications to the vehicle access of the fire station can be accommodated at Via Oporto and 32nd Street. Finding: Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: 42 1 -1 See facts in support of Findings A, B, C, D, E, F and H above. 1 -2 The use authorized by this permit is not a nightclub and its prohibition will avoid potential land use conflicts, nuisances, and police intervention potentially associated with nightclubs. Traffic Study In accordance with Section 15.40.030 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: J. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A [Chapter 15.40]. Facts in Support of Finding: J -1 A traffic study, titled "Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis" dated April 15, 2014, was prepared by RBP Consulting under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and its implementing guidelines (Appendix 11.3 to the Lido House Hotel EIR). Finding: K. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (8) can be made: 15.40.030.8.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and 15.40.030.8.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. Facts in Support of Finding: K -1 Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in 2017. If the project is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. K -2 The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on 12 of the 20 study intersections by one percent or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project and, therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared as specified by the TPO. The ICU analysis determined that the intersections identified will continue to operate at 4 3 satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. K -3 Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. Finding: L. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: L -1 No improvements or mitigation are necessary because implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. SECTION 6. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval and adoption of the following: 1. Findings related to the adequacy of the Final EIR in support of project approval attached as Exhibit `B ". 2. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by reference. 5. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014- 001, and Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 based upon the findings contained in this resolution and subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Project plans attached as Exhibit "G ". 44 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Chairman BY: Secretary 45 Page Intentionally Blank 40 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL1: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3,6 AND 7 IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" WITH THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 21 IN BLOCK 431 OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH ", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION 400.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A" OF SAID LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH 461.53 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 108, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGES 1 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE 401.79 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY OF SAID LOT 1 AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" 495.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED ATTACHED TO THAT CERTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 3284 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCHI1, 1946 IN BOOK 1404, PAGE130 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL2: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH ", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE, NOW KNOWN AS 32ND STREET, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THAT PORTION OF THE BULKHEAD LINE ESTABLISHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1936 AND SHOWN ON THE WAR DEPARTMENT MAP OF NEWPORT BAY SHOWING HARBOR LINE, EXTENDING BETWEEN BULKHEAD STATION NO.124 AND BULKHEAD STATION NO.125; THENCE NORTH 27'30'00" WEST ALONG SAID BULKHEAD LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF LANCASTER'S ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID "THE HUDSON" TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK "A "; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 47 PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGES 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE 20.00 FOOT ALLEY AS VACATED BY RESOLUTION NO. 3280 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH 11, 1946 IN BOOK 1400, PAGE 189 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST 170.97 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 20.00 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY 220.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 907, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGES 25 TO 36 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 89'15'30" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 907 AND SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 15, 1953 IN BOOK 2520, PAGE 577 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL4: THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST 74.46 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF GRIFFITH COMPANY, A DISTANCE OF 69.945 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'15'30" EAST 45.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30" EAST 53.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 5: LOTS ONE (2) AND TWO (2) IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH' AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA al EXHIBIT "B" CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FACTS AND FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE FORMER CITY HALL REUSE AMENDMENTS (PA2012 -031) AND THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL PROJECT (PA2013 -217) 1. The California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, CEQA), and in particular, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially 4� lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Lido House Hotel Project, SCH No. 2013111022 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the certification and /or approval of the following for the Lido House Hotel: Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH #2013111022). • General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001. 50 • Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003. • Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001. • Use Permit No. UP2014 -001. • Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005. These actions are collectively referred to herein as the project. A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. (3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be —as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period— either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration at the project- specific level. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of Project Design Features, standard conditions, and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level.. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. 51 B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the project. 2. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location Regionally, the project site is located near the Pacific Ocean in the west - central portion of Orange County, within the City of Newport Beach. Locally, the project site is generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City. Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 55 (SR -55) and SR -1 (Pacific Coast Highway). The primary local roadways providing access to the site are Newport Boulevard, 32nd Street, and Finley Avenue. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the requested legislative approvals (Amendments to General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code,) for the project site, as well as related for approvals of a, Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Traffic Study. In order to allow for the development of a 130 -room hotel on the project site, amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are required to change the project site land use designation to a "Mixed -Use Horizontal' designation, which allows for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a community center, public plazas, a fire station, and /or public parking. Subsequent permit include a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. C. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH# 2013111022). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). 152 • General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002: To allow the proposed 130 - room hotel development by changing the land use designation of the site from Public Facilities (PF) to a new mixed -use land use category, Mixed -Use Horizontal 5 (MU -H5), and establish density and intensity limits within Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, by establishing a new anomaly location. The MU -H5 designation provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a community center, public plazas, a fire station, and /or public parking. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will result in the creation of a new Anomaly Location within Table LU -2, as indicated below, and amend the Land Use Map to reflect the MU -H5 land use designation for the project site. Table LU2 Anomaly Locations Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limit (sf) Development Limit (other) Additional Information 85 B5 MU -1­15 93 dwelling Any combination of Accessory commercial neighborhood or visitor - serving or units and dwelling units and floor area is allowed in accommodations, multi - family 98,725 sf of hotel 15,000 sf hotel rooms provided conjunction with a hotel and /or civic uses. or commercial it does not exceed 93 and it is included within or 98,725 sf dwelling units or the hotel floor area limit. hotel 98,725 sf of hotel use. Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any development limit. • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001: allow the development of a 130 -room hotel by changing the land use designation of the site from Public Facilities (PF) to a new Mixed -Use (MU) land use category, and establish density and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1 -1. The proposed amendment also includes a change to Policy 4.4.2 -1 to establish the policy basis for higher height limits, as described below. Table 2.1.1 -1 Land Use Plan Categories Land Use Category Uses Density /Intensity Mixed Use — MU The MU category is intended to provide 93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf of for the development of a mix of uses, commercial which may include general, neighborhood or visitor - serving or commercial, commercial offices, visitor accommodations, multi - family 98,725 sf of hotel residential, mixed use development, and /or civic uses. or Any combination of 53 In order to establish a higher height limit, CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -1 is also proposed to be amended as reflected below: 4.4.2 -1 Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3, except for the following site sites. A. Marina Park located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard: A single, up to 73 -foot tall architectural tower that does not include floor area but could house screened communications or emergency equipment. The additional height would create an iconic landmark for the public to identify the site from land and water and a visual focal point to enhance public views from surrounding vantages. B. Former Citv Hall Complex located at 3300 Newport Boulevard: Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height provided it is demonstrated that development does not negatively impact public views. Peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet and architectural features such as domm buildings, structures, and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting coastal view opportunities. • Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003: To amend the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to replace the existing PF zoning designation for the site with a new zone MU -LV designation (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) to establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will result in the creation of the following new mixed -use zoning district: 54 dwelling units and hotel rooms provided it does not exceed 93 dwelling units and 98,725 sf of hotel use. Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any development limit. In order to establish a higher height limit, CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -1 is also proposed to be amended as reflected below: 4.4.2 -1 Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3, except for the following site sites. A. Marina Park located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard: A single, up to 73 -foot tall architectural tower that does not include floor area but could house screened communications or emergency equipment. The additional height would create an iconic landmark for the public to identify the site from land and water and a visual focal point to enhance public views from surrounding vantages. B. Former Citv Hall Complex located at 3300 Newport Boulevard: Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height provided it is demonstrated that development does not negatively impact public views. Peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet and architectural features such as domm buildings, structures, and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting coastal view opportunities. • Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003: To amend the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to replace the existing PF zoning designation for the site with a new zone MU -LV designation (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) to establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will result in the creation of the following new mixed -use zoning district: 54 MU -LV (Mixed Use — Lido Village) Purpose: The MU -LV designation applies to the former City Hall Complex located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The MU -LV designation provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include a community center, public plazas, fire station, and /or public parking. Allowed Uses: Retail commercial offices (non - medical), visitor accommodations, multi -unit residential, community center, fire station, public parking facility. Maximum density /intensity: 93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf commercial or 98,725 sf of hotel or any combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms provided it does not exceed 93 dwelling units or 98,725 sf of hotel use. Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any development limit. Structure height: 55 feet; however, peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet and architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may exceed 55 feet by 10 feet. Building setbacks: Newport Boulevard Subterranean' 1 foot 1s' and 211 floor2 20 feet Above 2nd floor3 35 feet 32nd Street Subterranean' 1 foot 1s' and 2nd floor' 1 foot Above 2nd floor3 10 feet Interior Subterranean' 1 foot Above grade 5 feet 1 Not more than 1 foot above abutting public sidewalk. 11-26 feet above abutting public sidewalk. 3 More than 26 feet above abutting public sidewalk. Open Space: 20% of the project site to be maintained as public open space (e.g., public plazas, pedestrian promenades, outdoor recreational spaces, patios, landscaping, etc.). Parking and other development standards: Subject to Zoning Code Development Review Process: Consistent with the Zoning Code — Site Development Review (SDR) or Planned Development Permit (PDP). • Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 $ Use Permit No. UP2014- 001: These applications would authorize the construction and operation of a 55 luxury, 130 -room hotel. The plan includes a open space along the Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street frontages and changes to 32nd Street including the modification of on- street parking between Newport boulevard and Via Oporto. • Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005: A project- specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the proposed 130 -room hotel development pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: • Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB would approve the project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit (2009- 0009 -DWQ) and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. • South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Future construction of the project would require permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 1113 (architectural coatings), 1403 (asbestos emissions from demolition), and for future operation of the project, 1186 (street sweeping). • California Coastal Commission (CCC). The Coastal Commission will review the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan amendment for consistency with the California Coastal Act. After a certification the proposed amendment as consistent with the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission would review an Coastal Development Permit application for the development and operation of the proposed Lido House Hotel. D. Statement of Project Objectives The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: 1. Enhance Newport Beach and Lido Village by creating a highly visible, iconic development with distinctive architecture, significant landscaped areas, and focal points to serve as a gateway to the Balboa Peninsula. 2. Help implement the City's goal to revitalize Lido Village by creating a catalytic development consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines that enhances economic activity and contributes to Newport Beach's reputation as a premier destination for shopping and recreation. 50 3. Create a pedestrian oriented development that is physically well- connected to the community while not significantly increasing traffic to the site when compared to the prior use of the site. 4. Provide and enhance public access to the property by creating publically accessible open space and visitor accommodations. 5. Provide needed services to residents and visitors including visitor accommodations, recreational, personal services, shopping, dining, and assembly opportunities. 6. Create a premier boutique hotel that is a financially viable operation. 7. Create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated April 28, 2014, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45 -day public review period, written responses to those comments, clarifications /changes to the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Lido House Hotel project: • Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day public review period from November 6, 2013, through December 5, 2013. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office and on the City's website on November 6, 2013. • During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional suggestions on the content of the Lido House Hotel EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on Wednesday, November 20, 2013, at the City of Newport Beach former City Council Chambers, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 9266. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45 -day public review period (April 29, 2014 to June 13, 2014). The Draft EIR consisted of analysis of the Lido House Hotel project and the technical appendices. On April 25, 2014, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was mailed to property owners and occupants within 450 -feet of the project site. The NOA was also sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office on April 29, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public M review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach Central Branch Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and Newport Beach Corona del Mar Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for download via the City's website: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/eir. Preparation of a Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and appended documents. The preliminary Response to Comments were provided to the City Planning Commissioners on July 11, 2014, and posted on the City's website. • The Planning Commission held a study session on June 5, 2014 and a public hearing for the Project on July 17, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Draft Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. Notice for this public hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum of 450 feet of the project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City provided written Responses to Comments to public agencies on July 21, 2014, at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. • The City Council held a public hearing on August 12, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. Notice for the meeting was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum 300 feet of the project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • All project application materials submitted to the City by the Applicant and its representatives; WfA • NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30 -day NOP period; • The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • Written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 45 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR; • All responses to the written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public provided at the July 17, 2014, Planning Commission Public Hearing; • The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the City Council public hearing on August 12, 2014; • All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies. • The MMRP adopted by the City for the project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • These Findings of Fact adopted by the City for the project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant in the DEIR The following impacts were evaluated in the DEIR and determined to be less than significant solely through adherence to the project design and standard conditions of the City of Newport Beach. 159 Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City indicating that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetic /Light and Glare: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, or substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. (b) Air Quality: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (c) Biological Resources: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special status species, sensitive natural community, federally protected wetlands, or conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. (d) Cultural Resources: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, or disturb any human remains. (e) Geology and Soils: The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, and would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, and would not conflict with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; create a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area as a result on being within a private airstrip or an airport land use plan; interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; or expose people or structures to wildland fires. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge; alter the existing drainage pattern of the site that would result in substantial soil erosion or flooding; create runoff water that would exceed the existing or planned capacity of the stormwater drainage systems; place housing within a 100 -year floodplain; expose people or structures to injury or death from flooding; or result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. (i) Land Use and Planning: The project would not divide an established community, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the City's General Plan IN and Local Coastal Program CLUP, SCAG regional plans, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the California Coastal Act, or the City's Municipal Code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 0) Noise: Project implementation would not generate excessive vibration levels to nearby sensitive receptors, result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, or expose people residing /working in the project area to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan. (k) Population and Housing: The project would not result in substantial increase in population or housing. (1) Public Services and Utilities: The project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection, police protection, parks /recreation, schools, or library services. In addition, the project would meet the City's parkland dedication requirements, and physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be significant. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or require the construction of new stormwater drainage /water /wastewater treatment facilities, and would have sufficient water supplies to serve the project. Lastly, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs, and would comply with Federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. (m) Transportation and Traffic: The project - generated traffic would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, result in a change in air traffic patterns, substantially increases hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the project were considered. As a result of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of project design features; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) —that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined — pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) —that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility 01 and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." A. Aesthetics /Light and Glare (1) Potential Impact: Project construction activities could temporarily degrade the visual character /quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce visual character /quality impacts from project construction activities to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure AES -1 requires action to be taken prior to construction activities in order to avoid adverse visual impacts from the stockpiling of materials, construction traffic, and vehicle staging areas. Therefore, visual character /quality impacts from construction activities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AES -1: Prior to issuance of any grading and /or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s). Staging areas shall be sited and /or screened in order to minimize public views to the maximum extent practicable. Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts to sensitive uses in the City. (2) Potential Impact: Project implementation could degrade the visual character /quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce long -term visual character /quality impacts from the proposed project to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure AES -2 requires action to be taken prior to construction activities in order to avoid adverse long -term visual impacts from the proposed Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette. Therefore, long -term visual 02 character /quality impacts from project implementation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AES -2: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for new construction, the Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. Landscaping shall complement the proposed site design and surrounding streetscape and must also be consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. (3) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could generate additional light and glare beyond existing conditions. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce light and glare impacts from the proposed project to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure AES -3 requires action to be taken prior to construction activities in order to avoid adverse visual impacts from light and glare from the proposed project. Therefore, light and glare impacts from project implementation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AES -3: All construction - related lighting shall be located and aimed away from adjacent residential areas and consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety and security at the construction site. A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the grading or building permit application. B. Air Quality (1) Potential Impact: Short -term construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in air pollutant emission impacts or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to short -term construction air emissions to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding %3 Mitigation Measure AQ -1 requires one or more actions to be taken prior to and during construction activities in order to avoid adverse air quality emission impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ -2 requires action to be taken prior to construction activities to reduce impacts from fugitive dust from the hauling of excavated or graded material. Therefore, short-term construction air quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Community Development Department shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust; Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance; Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non- toxic soil binders shall be applied; All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud /dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes. 04 Alternatively a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and Trucks associated with soil - hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and utilize City- designated truck routes to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ -2: All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Community Development Department on hauling activities compliance. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. C. Biological Resources (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could interfere with the movement of a native resident or migratory species. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure BIO -1 requires all vegetation removal activities to be scheduled outside of the nesting season to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds; however, if vegetation removal is to occur during the nesting season, a survey for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist would be required. Further action is required if active nests are found on -site during nesting season. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures BIO -1 would reduce potential impacts to migratory birds to a less than significant level. 05 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO -1: To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. However, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season, all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet for raptors shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the City. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (2) Potential Impact: The project could conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires the City to locate an existing Ficus benjamina tree or other suitable tree into a City park and dedicate the tree in the name of William Lawrence 'Billy' Covert. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 requires the City shall to an existing tree in a very prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. Mitigation Measure BIO -4 requires the City to locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the name of Walter and Cordelia Knott, and locate an existing tree in a prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it in honor of the State of California. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures BIO -2 through BIO -4 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BI0-2: The City shall locate an existing Ficus benjamina tree or other suitable tree into a City park and dedicate the tree in the name of William Lawrence "Billy' Covert. Should an appropriate tree not be found, the City shall attempt to transplant the existing tree or plant a new tree of the same variety at an appropriate location. The re- dedicated tree shall have a permanent marker or plaque. Every effort shall be made to involve the Covert family in this process. Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Because the Freedom Tree also cannot be effectively transplanted, the City shall locate an existing tree in a very prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. An appropriate permanent marker or plaque shall be provided and the dedication should be accomplished with community and veterans groups' participation. Mitigation Measure BIO -4: Because the Walter Knott Tree and the California Bicentennial Tree cannot be effectively transplanted, the City shall locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the name of Walter and Cordelia Knott. The City shall also locate an existing tree in a prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it in honor of the State of California. The re- dedicated trees shall have permanent markers and every effort shall be made to involve the Knott family and the community in the process. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. D. Cultural Resources (1) Potential Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological resources that could occur on -site. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure CUL -1 requires a professional archaeologist and a Native American Monitor to be retained to monitor ground- disturbing activities, determine potential to disturb cultural resources, and halt construction activities if 07 necessary. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. Mitiaation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL -1: An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and /or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Community Development. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and data /artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: • The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above. (2) Potential Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant impact to unknown paleontological resources that could occur on -site. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure CUL -2 requires an Orange County Certified Paleontologist to be appointed by the City of Newport Beach, and to prepare a Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. W: Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL -2: An Orange County Certified Paleontologist appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site. The City selected paleontologist shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of paleontological resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected paleontologist who shall immediately notify the Community Development Director. The City selected paleontologist shall evaluate all potential paleontological findings in accordance with the Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program Monitoring, standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Historic Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the City selected paleontologist shall prepare a Final Monitoring and Mitigation Report to be filed with the City and the repository to include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected (including an assessment of their significance, age, geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, and an appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: • The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above. E. Geology and Soils (1) Potential Impact: The proposed project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. (2) Potential Impact: The proposed project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismically induced liquefaction and settlement. (3) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. (4) Potential Impact: The proposed project may be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that these impacts are less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California region and proximity to active and potentially active faults, the project site would be likely to be subject to significant ground motion, strong seismic ground shaking, and a moderate potential for liquefaction due to seismic - induced settlement. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 requires that all grading operations and construction associated with the proposed project be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation for the project, and the City of Newport Beach and California Building Codes. In addition, the geotechnical investigation provides recommendations to reduce impacts from compressibility /static settlement, and expansive soils to less than significant levels. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would ensure that risks associated with strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, unstable geologic units, and expansive soils are reduced to acceptable levels. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEO -1: All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013) (included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and j -O construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (5) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project could encounter corrosive soils potentially resulting in damage to foundations and buried pipelines. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that these impacts are less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, the soils on -site would be very mildly corrosive to ferrous metals and possess a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete. Consequently, metals structures in contact with the soil may be subject to slight corrosion. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 provides recommendations for reducing corrosion potential due to soil and groundwater. Mitigation Measure GEO -2 requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during preparation of the Final Soils /Geotechnical Engineering Report for the project. Compliance with Mitigation Measures GEO -1 and GEO -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with corrosive soils to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GEO -1: All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013) (included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and 72 construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities. Mitigation Measure GEO -2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee shall verify that the City has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and /or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Potential Impact: The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or environment through accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 through HAZ -5 address known and potential hazardous materials conditions on the project site, and would require future 72 characterization and remediation of hazardous materials that may exist on the property. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce risks associated with on -site hazardous materials to an acceptable level. Impacts, therefore, would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal /OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing - materials (AGMs). If ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. Mitigation Measure HAZ -2: If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead -based paint is found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Lead -based paint removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead -based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure HAZ -3: Any transformers to be removed or relocated during grading /construction activities shall be evaluated under the purview of the local utility purveyor (Southern California Edison) in order to confirm or deny the presence of PCBs. In the event that PCBs are identified, the local utility purveyor shall identify proper handling procedures regarding potential PCBs. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: The Contractor shall verify that all imported soils, and on -site soils proposed for fill, are not contaminated with hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds in consultation with a Phase II /Site Characterization Specialist. If soils are determined to be contaminated above regulatory thresholds, these soils shall not be used as fill material within the boundaries of the project site, unless otherwise specified by a regulatory agency that 7-s G (1) has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Health Care Agency, etc.). Mitigation Measure HAZ -5: If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall comply with the following: Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area; Notify the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach; Secure the area as directed by the Building Official; and Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Materials Division's Hazardous Waste /Materials Coordinator (or other appropriate agency specified by the Community Development Director). The Hazardous Waste /Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to existing hazardous materials contamination that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. Hydrology and Water Quality Potential Impact: Grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project could impact water quality. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction activities for the proposed project could generate soil erosion as well as on- and off -site transport via storm run -off or mechanical equipment. Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other vehicle - related fluids on the project site could create stormwater pollution 74 and soil contamination impacts. Mitigation Measures HWQ -1 and HWQ -2 require the project to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the State Water Resources Board, respectively. Mitigation Measure HWQ -3 requires the project applicant to submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the SWRCB upon completion of project construction. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce impacts to water quality from short-term construction activities acceptable levels. Impacts, therefore, would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HWQ -1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as part of the project's compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Quality Control Board ( SWRCB), providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California General Permit. Mitigation Measure HWQ -2: The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (to be applied for during the Grading Plan process) and the NPDES Permit for General Construction Activities No. CAS000002, Order No, 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, including implementation of all recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs), as approved by the State Water Resources Quality Control Board (SW RCB). Mitigation Measure HWQ -3: Upon completion of project construction, the project applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the State Water Resources Quality Control Board ( SWRCB) to indicate that construction is completed. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. (2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in increased run -off amounts and degraded water quality. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. 75 Facts in Support of Finding The project site would likely experience pollutant generation due to the proposed land uses, potentially increasing the generation of suspended solids /sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. Due to the fact that the Lower Newport Bay is listed on the 303(d) list for chlordane, copper, DDT, indicator bacteria, nutrients, PCBs, pesticides, and sediment toxicity, and has a TMDL for metals, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, priority organics, and siltation, the proposed development could have a significant adverse impact to storm water quality. Mitigation Measure HWQ -4 requires the project applicant to submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan to ensure long -term operational water quality impacts form the proposed project are mitigated to acceptable levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure HWQ-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Building Official that complies with the requirements of the latest Orange County Public Works Drainage Area Management Plan. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. H. Noise (3) Potential Impact: Grading and construction within the area could result in significant temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receivers. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction activities associated with the proposed project could temporarily increase noise levels in the project vicinity and along nearby roadways. Mitigation Measure N -1 would reduce short-term construction noise impacts by requiring mobile equipment to be muffled and requiring best management practices for hauling activities. Mitigation Measure N -1 would also implement the 70 City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, requiring construction activities to be conducted during the City's allowable construction hours. With implementation of applicable mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure N -1: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit for new construction, Community Development Department shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that: • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices. • The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 -hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City Development Services Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site. • When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). • During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and /or federal holidays). City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: 77 The project must comply with the exterior noise standards for residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The exterior noise level standard is 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. An acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the Site Development Review permit application for each residential structure. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards, additional mitigation shall be required, which may include the installation of additional sound attenuation devices as recommended by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The operator of the proposed commercial uses shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than noise limits specified in Table 5.10 -3 for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets for each residential structure, as authorized by a Site Development Review permit, and shall be sound - attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound - Amplifying Equipment requires a permit for use of any sound - amplifying equipment and regulates the volume so sound - amplifying equipment is not a nuisance to persons. The use of sound - amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM. I. Transportation and Traffic (1) Potential Impact: Project construction would not cause a significant increase in traffic for existing conditions when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate traffic as a result of equipment being transported to the site and vehicular traffic related to construction works and delivery of materials to the project site. Construction related trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the project site may result in minor traffic delays within the project area. Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would require implementation of a construction management plan, consisting of a variety of measures to minimize traffic and parking impacts upon the local circulation system. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would reduce potential short -term traffic impacts from project construction to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure TRA -1: Prior to Issuance of any grading and /or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department/City Traffic Engineer. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following: • Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. • Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. • Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction - related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays. • Use of local streets shall be prohibited. Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and /or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All constructed - related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on- site or in public parking lots. This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach requirements. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to project construction traffic that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the project would not conflict with the requirements of Newport Beach municipal code chapter 20.40, off - street parking. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure TRA -2 requires the implementation of a Parking Management Plan that would include restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking to ensure that parking is managed on -site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with parking supply during peak demand to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure TRA -2: Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The G: • Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following and be implemented at all times: Restrict all on -site parking spaces to either a time limit or a valet parking arrangement. Restrict access to on -site parking areas (with the exception of visitor parking by the hotel lobby) to either valet staff, or guests and visitors only through a manned gate, a gate with intercom access, or a gate that reads the room keys. Restrict parking for in- demand parking spaces by time limits. The time limit should apply from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Post signs at locations where motorists can be redirected from curb parking or desirable parking areas to convenient off - street lots and structures. Encourage on -site employee parking by providing free parking on -site or providing incentives for using alternative modes of transportation, such as providing free or discounted bus passes; an employee bike rack, entering employees who take the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle in a monthly raffle; providing a monthly stipend for bicycle commuting; providing carpool parking spaces, or other incentives. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to parking that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping /Project Planning Process In addition to the guidance cited above regarding purpose and contents of an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. According to the CEQA Guidelines, the following factors may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration: the alternative's failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, the alternative's infeasibility, or the alternative's inability to avoid significant environmental M impacts. One alternative that has been considered and rejected as infeasible is discussed below. • One alternative that has been considered and rejected as infeasible is the Alternative Location Alternative. The project site is available for development because it is a vacant and underutilized site within the City of Newport Beach. It is unlikely that the Applicant would be able to acquire another property within the City on which to develop a project of similar size and scale to that currently proposed. In addition, no significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified to be associated with the proposed project. Therefore, considering development of the project at an alternative location would serve no purpose. Furthermore, it is a key objective of the proposed project, and a key aspect of its design, to enhance the Lido Village area. As such, this alternative has been rejected from further consideration by the City. B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. • No Project /No Build Alternative • No Project /Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative • Reduced Density Alternative • Mixed Use Alternative An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant and unavoidable impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. However, no impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable. Subsection 7.4 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed project is analyzed in detail in Chapter 7 of the DEIR. 22 1. Alternatives Comparison Table 1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project, below, provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts associated with the project with the impacts of each of the proposed alternatives. Table 1 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Alternative 1: General Plan Land Alternative 3: Alternative 4 Project Impact No Project /No Build Use Designation Reduced Density Mixed use Aesthetics /Light Less Than Significant Less Less (Less Than Similar Similar and Glare with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant) Air Quality Less Than Significant g Less (Less Than Less (Less Than Less (Less Less Than Greater (Potentially with Mitigation Si nificant g ) Significant) g ) Significant) Impact) Biological Less Than Significant Less Similar (Less Than Similar Similar Resources with Mitigation (Less Than Significant) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Significant) Cultural Less Than Significant Less Similar (Less Than Similar Similar Resources with Mitigation (Less Than Significant) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Significant) Geology and Less Than Significant Less Similar (Less Than Similar Similar Soils with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant Less (Less Than Less (Less Than Less (Less Than Greater (Potentially Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant Impact) Hazards and Less Than Significant Less Similar Similar Similar Hazardous with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than Materials Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant) Hydrology and Less Than Significant Greater (Potentially Similar (Less Than Similar Similar Water Quality with Mitigation Significant Impact) Significant) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Land Use and Less Less Similar Similar Relevant Less Than Significant (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than Planning Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant) Noise Less Than Significant with Mitigation g Less (Less Than Less (Less Than Similar (Less Than Greater Potential) ( y Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant Impact) Public Services Less Similar Similar Similar and Utilities Less Than Significant (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant) Traffic and Less Than Significant g Less Similar (Less Than Less Greater (Potentially Circulation with Mitigation ( Less Than Significant) Significant) ( L Than (Less an Significant) Significant Impact) g p ) a) No Project/No Build Alternative Description: In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project /No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, "in certain instances, the No Project/No Build Alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the No Project /No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that no new development would occur within the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would retain the project site in its current condition. With this Alternative, the City Hall Complex would remain vacant and unimproved although the City would likely continue very limited use of existing buildings suitable of occupancy. The existing 60,600 square feet of administration /office floor area would not be removed. The existing landscaping would be retained and maintained. Public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities would not be constructed along Newport Boulevard or 32nd Street. None of the improvements as part of the Lido House Hotel would be constructed. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP categories would not be amended. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project /No Build Alternative's environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 7.1.1 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No Project /No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and relevant planning, noise, public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation. Water quality impacts under this Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Development Alternative would not attain any of the project's basic objectives. An iconic development that would revitalize the Lido Village and create a pedestrian oriented development would not be constructed. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitor and residents of Newport Beach would not be provided on the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would also not create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax. Feasibility: Since the No Project /No Build Alternative would allow the existing City Hall Complex to remain vacant and unimproved, the feasibility of this Alternative would rely on the economic feasibility of indefinite operation of these uses. No changes to the existing conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely. Finding: In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project /No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, biological resources, M cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and relevant planning, noise, public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation. Water quality impacts under this Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. This alternative would fail to fully meet any of the project objectives. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, making it the environmentally superior alternative. However, since the No Project /No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the project objectives, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed project. b) No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative Description: The "No Project/Existing General Plan Land use Designation" Alternative proposes development of what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on the property's current General Plan land use and zoning designations of "Public Facilities." The Public Facilities Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for public facilities, including community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools. Neither the General Plan or the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) identifies a maximum development density or intensity for this use, but requires a Minor Use Permit (MUP). The City does not currently have a need for municipal offices at this location and does not plan to relocate the police station to the project site. Additionally, the City sent a notice of surplus land to the school district, affordable housing advocates, and park districts in accordance with Section 54222 of the Government Code and did not get a response. Therefore, this Alternative will assume a development of 60,600 square feet of municipally- sponsored uses that could include government offices, community meeting rooms, and parking necessary to support on -site uses of a similar development intensity as the former City Hall Complex. The development associated with this alternative would include the demolition of the existing outdated structures, and would construct a new modern facility that would serve the community for meetings, recreation, and ancillary uses. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project /Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 7.1.2 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and relevant planning, and noise. Biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not attain the project's fundamental objective to revitalize the Lido Village and create a pedestrian oriented development. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically 215 accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents of Newport Beach would not be provided on the project site. Feasibility: Although the No Project /Existing General Plan Land Use Alternative would be physically feasible, it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this Alternative would yield a reasonable return on investment, as The No Project/No Build Alternative would also not create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax. Finding: This Alternative would not meet any of the project's objectives. It would reduce environmental impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and relevant planning, and noise. However, it would result in similar impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation. Also, because it does not include the development of a hotel, this Alternative it would not require a General Plan Amendment, CLUP Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, or a Conditional Use Permit. Moreover, it would not create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax, and may be economically infeasible. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this Alternative. c) Reduced Density Alternative Description: Under the Reduced Density Alternative, proposes the development of a hotel use on the project site that would have approximately 108 rooms and would be three floors. The Reduced Density would have the same basic building footprint, architecture, open space areas, and vehicular access as the proposed project. The development associated with this alternative would include the demolition of the existing outdated structures. Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP categories would still need to be amended similar to the proposed project. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Reduced Density Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 7.2 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic and circulation. Aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant planning, noise, and public services and utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Density Alternative would attain all of the project's objectives provided it is financially viable. As with the proposed project, a reduced density hotel project would help revitalize the Lido Village area and create a pedestrian oriented development. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents Na of Newport Beach would also be provided on the project site but to a lesser degree when compared to the proposed project. Feasibility: As with the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be economically feasible. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would create less City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax. Finding: The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic and circulation. Impacts related to aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant planning, noise, and public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed project. While this Alternative would attain all of the project's objectives provided it is financially feasible, it would create less City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this Alternative. d) Mixed Use Alternative Description: The Mixed Use Alternative would remove the existing City Hall Complex and include the development of 99 multifamily dwelling units and 15,000 square feet of commercial uses on the project site. Based on the number of dwelling units and commercial space, the potential building footprint would likely be similar to the proposed project and building heights would also be similar. This alternative would amend the General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning Code designations from "Public Facilities" for the project site. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Mixed Use Density Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 7.3 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the Mixed Use Alternative would result in greater impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation. Aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant planning, and public services and utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This Alternative would not reduce any impacts compared to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Mixed Use Alternative would attain the project's objective to revitalize the Lido Village by creating a pedestrian- oriented development; however, it would have a lesser overall economic impact to the community. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents of Newport Beach would not be provided on the project site. Feasibility: As with the proposed project, the Mixed Use Alternative would be economically feasible. However, the Mixed Use Alternative would not create City revenue through the transient occupancy tax. Finding: The Mixed Use Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic and circulation. This Alternative would result in greater impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation. Impacts related to aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant planning, and public services and utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed project. While this Alternative would attain all of the project's objectives, it would have a lesser overall economic impact to the community, and would not create City revenue through the transient occupancy tax. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this Alternative. MA EXHIBIT "C" General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 (PA2012 -031) A. Amend Table LU1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add the following land use category: "Mixed Use Horizontal 5 (MU -1-15) The MU -H5 designation applies to the former City Hall complex located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The MU -H5 designation provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a community center, public plazas, a fire station and /or public parking." B. Amend Table LU -2 to add Anomaly Location #80 as shown in the following table: All existing provisions within Table LU -2 remain unchanged :2 Table Anomaly LU2 Anomaly Statistical Locations Land Use Development Limit s Development Limit Additional Information Number Area Designation Other Accessory commercial Any combination of floor area is allowed in 93 dwelling units and dwelling units and conjunction with a hotel 15,000 sf commercial hotel rooms and it is included within 85 135 MU -H5 Or provided it does not exceed 93 dwelling the hotel development limit. Municipal facilities 98,725 sf of hotel units and 98,725 sf are not restricted or of hotel use. included in any development limit. All existing provisions within Table LU -2 remain unchanged :2 C. Amend Figure LU6 (Land Use Map) as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street only as depicted in the following diagram: �. J5; 507 -512 > 3421 510 _ \JQ -508 ---2!!5 J 506 X11 RT3405 •D u --D 502 s° n 500 01 NI t r Avf I1 2� 108_1/2 3345 4061/7 3341 3337 -404 3113 402 3325 — — 3315 400 112 400 3305 CC -A / G O n RT -E . bm C N O 0 n O Jv VIA MALAGA v, m MU- All related maps or diagrams within the General Plan shall be amended to maintain consistency with the new land use category and Anomaly Location #85 as shown above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within the General Plan that label the site as "City Hall" shall be removed from the General Plan upon relocation of City Hall operations from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive. Labeling the new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any General Plan map or diagram is also authorized. 9L) 32ND 5T 3116 31 a 12 ; 3110 CV -A e �F re VIA MALAGA v, m MU- All related maps or diagrams within the General Plan shall be amended to maintain consistency with the new land use category and Anomaly Location #85 as shown above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within the General Plan that label the site as "City Hall" shall be removed from the General Plan upon relocation of City Hall operations from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive. Labeling the new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any General Plan map or diagram is also authorized. 9L) EXHIBIT "D" Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 (PA2012 -031) A. Amend the Table 2.1.1 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan add the following land use category: .- Land Use Category Uses Density /Intensity 93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf commercial The MU category is intended to or Provide for the development a mix of uses, which may include general, 98.725 sf of hotel Mixed Use — MU neighborhood or visitor - serving or commercial, commercial offices, Any combination of dwelling units visitor accommodations, multi- and hotel rooms provided it does not family residential, mixed -use exceed 93 dwelling units and 98,725 development, and/or civic uses. sf of hotel use. Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any development limit. All existing provisions within Table 2.1.1 -1 remain unchanged. 9:L B. Amend Coastal Land Use Plan Map 1, Figure 2.1.5 -1, as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street only as depicted in the following diagram: 153 - 512 507 ` . 3421 - 510 \ 1 & 506 f `3415 l �oJ a ,506 `3411 RT -D` 3405 m_502` m 500 n° 9�1, _010 EINtEY AVE _1/2 bep 006_1/2 3345 0061!2 3341 - 3337 -404 3133 402 3325 3315 400 112 400 3305 CC -A pt � G �p RT -E w F b� C N 0 0 0 0 0 JJ .n VIA MALAGA N . M U -Ho W All related maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan shall be amended to maintain consistency with the new land use category as shown above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan that label the site as "City Hall" shall be removed from the General Plan upon relocation of City Hall operations from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive. Labeling the new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any Coastal Land Use Plan map or diagram is also authorized. 92 32ND ST = m S 3116 i �!n morW.r Wm m 3111 I I Y 3110 CV -A o rail �I �l LA i' i I l ,n f, VIA MALAGA N . M U -Ho W All related maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan shall be amended to maintain consistency with the new land use category as shown above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan that label the site as "City Hall" shall be removed from the General Plan upon relocation of City Hall operations from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive. Labeling the new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any Coastal Land Use Plan map or diagram is also authorized. 92 C. Amend Policy 4.4.2 -1 as follows with deleted language in °•-0ut and new language underlined: 4.4.2 -1. Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3, except for the following sites. A. Marina Park located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard: A single, up to 73 -foot tall architectural tower that does not include floor area but could house screened communications or emergency equipment. The additional height would create an iconic landmark for the public to identify the site from land and water and a visual focal point to enhance public views from surrounding vantages. B. Back Bay Landing at East Coast Highway /Bayside Drive: A single, up to 65- foot -tall coastal public view tower, that will be ADA- compliant and publicly accessible, to provide new coastal and Upper Newport Bay view opportunities where existing views are impacted by the East Coast Highway Bridge, other existing structures and topography.' C. Mixed Use (MU) area located at 3300 Newport Boulevard (former City Hall Complex): Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not materially impact public views. Peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet and architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may exceed 55 feet by 10 feet. The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities. ' Subsection B related to the Back Bay Landing site was adopted by the City Council on February 11, 2014, by Resolution No. 2014 -12 but has not been certified (approved) by the California Coastal Commission as of June 2014. 9 3 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 94 EXHIBIT "E" Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 (PA2012 -031) Section 1: Amend Section 20.14.020 (Zoning Districts Established) to establish the "MU -LV" within Table 1 -1 as highlighted in Section "A" below. All existing provisions of Section 20.14.020 and Table 1 -1 remain unchanged. Section 2: Amend Section 20.14.010 (Zoning Map Adopted by Reference) to change the zoning district of 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street establish Anomaly #85 as depicted in Section "B" below. All related zoning maps or diagrams shall be amended to maintain consistency with the new zoning district as shown above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within Zoning Code that label the site as "City Hall" shall be removed from the Zoning Map upon relocation of City Hall operations from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive. Labeling the new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any Zoning Map or diagram is also authorized. Section 3: Amend Section 20.22.010 (Purposes of Mixed -Use Zoning Districts) to add Subsection G as provided in Section "C" below. All existing provisions of Section 20.20.010 remain unchanged. Section 4: Amend Subsection C of Section 20.22.020 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) to add allowed uses and establish permit requirements for the MU -LV zoning district within Table 2 -9 as highlighted in Section "D" below. All existing provisions of Section 20.20.020 remain unchanged. Section 5: Amend 20.22.030 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts General Development Standards) to add development standards for the MU -LV zoning district within Table 2 -11 as highlighted in Section "E" below. All existing provisions of Section 20.20.030 remain unchanged. 95 Section "A" Amend Section 20.14.020 (Zoning Districts Established) to establish the "MU -LV" within Table 1 -1 as follows: Table 1 -1 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts MU-V Mixed -Use Vertical MU -V Mixed -Use Vertical MU -MM MU -DW Mixed -Use MU -H Mixed -Use MU -CV /15th Street MU -LV Mu-W1 Mixed -Use Water MU -W Mixed -Use Water - Related MU -W2 5o Section "B" Amend Section 20.14.010 (Zoning Map Adopted by Reference) to change the zoning district of 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street and establish Anomaly #80 as follows. _ 1 J531 507 „5101 `3421 4� - 508 ` � 5 >` O� v,506 ��11 � c 504 13405 -502 s° 3 t 7 j 500 5,,1� EINIEY AVE 9 4101q �— �CH 408_1,1 3345 406 1q 3341 '� - I 3337 _ 404 3333 402 _ 3325 400112 3315 400 3305 + 3300 CC 0.5 FAR I) 4, / 9ji O N R -2 a1 CN 0.3 FAR j J1 i6 n 3112 ° 3110 � CV�R JJ ' a �� L 7 a A 400 0 a �WP5S MU -LV � VIA MALAGA CG 0.75 FAR ns S USPI 0.75 FAR 37N0 5T PO Y Ps PyyP al yNy RMU- CVII5TH ST J N N Si r �I PI PI NI PI HI + OI O O W JI ul 'i ul ul � o i u 7F N u Anomaly Development Limit s Development Limit (Other) Additional Information Number 93 dwelling units and Any combination of Accessory commercial floor area is allowed in 15,000 sf commercial dwelling units and hotel conjunction with a hotel and it is included 85 rooms provided it does not within the hotel development limit. or exceed 93 dwelling units or Municipal facilities are not restricted or 98,725 sf of hotel 98,725 sf of hotel use. included in any development limit. 97 Section "C" Amend Section 20.22.010 (Purposes of Mixed -Use Zoning Districts) to add Subsection G as follows: "G. The MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) zoning district. This district applies to the former City Hall complex located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The MU -LV designation provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include a community center, public plazas, fire station and /or public parking." • r Section "D" Amend Subsection C of Section 20.22.020 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) to add allowed uses and establish permit requirements for the new MU -LV zoning district within Table 2 -9 highlighted as follows: TABLE 2 -9 ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Permit Requirements P Permitted by Right CUP Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.52.020) MUP Minor Use Permit (Section 20.52.020) LTP Limited Term Permit (Section 20.52.040) — Not allowed' Land Use li (5)(6) MU -W2 MU4.V Specific Use Regulations See Part 7 of this title for land use definitions. See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses. Industry, Manufacturing and Processing, Warehousing Uses Handicraft Industry P P P Industry, Marine - Related P P — Research and Development P P — Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly /Meeting Facilities Small -5,000 sq. ft. or less (religious assembly may be larger than 5,000 s . ft. CUP CUP MUP Commercial Recreation and Entertainment CUP CUP P Cultural Institutions P P — Parks and Recreational Facilities CUP CUP P Schools, Public and Private CUP CUP — Residential Uses Single -Unit Dwellings Located on 1st floor Located above 1st floor P (1) P (2) — Section 20.48.130 Multi -Unit Dwellings Located on 1st floor P Located above 1st floor P (1) P (2) P Section 20.48.130 Two-Unit Dwellings Located on 1 st floor Located above 1st floor P (1) P (2) — Home Occupations P P (2) P Section 20.48.110 Care Uses Adult Day Care Small (6 or fewer) P P P Child Day Care Small (S or fewer) P P P Section 20.48.070 Day Care, General — MUP — Section 20.48.070 I I TABLE 2 -9 ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Pe rmit Requirements P Permitted by Right CUP Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.52.020) MUP Minor Use Permit (Section 20.52.020) LTP Limited Term Permit (Section 20.52.040) — Not allowed" Land Use MU -W1 (5)(6) MU -W2 Ml Specific Use Regulations See Pad 7 of this title for land use definitions. See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses. Retail Trade Uses Alcohol Sales (off -sale) MUP MUP P,tUP Section 20.48.030 Alcohol Sales (off- sale), Accessory Only P P P Marne Rentals and Sales Boat Rentals and Sales P P P Marine Retail Sales P P P Retail Sales P P P Visitor-Serving Retail P P P Service Uses — Business, Financial, Medical, and Professional ATMs P P P Emergency Health Facilities /Urgent Care — P — Financial Institutions and Related Services (above 1st floor only) P P P Financial Institutions and Related Services (1st floor) P Offices— Business P P P Offices — Medical and Dental (above 1st floor only) — P Offices—Profession P P — Service Uses — General Animal Retail Sales MUP MUP — Section 20.48.050 Artists' Studios P P P Eating and Drinking Establishments Accessory Food Service (open to public) P P P Section 20.48.090 Fast Food (no late hours) (3)(4) P /MUP P /MUP P /MUP Section 20.48.090 Fast Food (with late hours) (3) MUP MUP MUP Section 20.48.090 Food Service (no alcohol, no late hours) (3)(4) P /MUP P /MUP P /MUP Section 20.48.090 Food Service (no late hours) (3) MUP MUP MUP Section 20.48.090 Food Service (with late hours) (3) CUP CUP CUP Section 20.48.090 Take -Out Service — Limited (3) (4) P /MUP P /MUP P /MUP Section 20.48.090 Health /Fitness Facilities Small -2,000 sq. ft. or less P P P Maintenance and Repair Services P P P Marne SeMCes Boat Storage CUP CUP — Boat Yards CUP CUP — Entertainment and Excursion Services P P — Manne Service Stations CUP CUP — Water Transportation Services P P — Personal Services Massage Establishments MUP MUP MUP Chapter 5.50 Section 20.48.120 Massage Services, Accessory MUP MUP MUP Section 20.48.120 Nail Salons P P P Personal Services, General P P P Personal Services, Restricted MUP MUP — Smoking Lounges 100 TABLE 2 -9 ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Permit Requirements P Permitted by Right CUP Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.52.020) MUP Minor Use Permit (Section 20.52.020) LTP Limited Term Permit (Section 20.52.040) — Not allowed Land Use MU -W1 (5)(6) MU -W2 MU IV Specific Use Regulations See Part 7 of this title for land use definitions. See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses. Visitor Accommodations Hotels, Motels, Bed and Breakfast Inns, and Time Shares CUP CUP CUP Transportation, Communications, and Infrastructure Parking Facilities MUP MUP MUP Communication Facilities P P P Heliports and Helistops (7) CUP CUP — Marinas Title 17 Marina Support Facilities MUP MUP — Utilities, Minor P P P Utilities, Major CUP CUP CUP Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Chapter 15.70 Other Uses Accessory Structures and Uses MUP MUP MUP Outdoor Storage and Display MUP MUP MUP Section 20.48.140 Personal Property Sales P P P Section 20.48.150 Special Eents Chapter 11.03 Temporary Uses LTP LTP I LTP Section 20.52.040 Uses Not Listed. Land uses mat are not listed in the table above, or are not shown in a particular tuning district, are not allowed, except as otherwise provided by Section 20.12.020 (Rules of Interpretation). (1) May only be located on lots with a minimum oftwo hundred (200) lineal feet offrontage on Coast Highway. Refer to Section 20A8.130 (Mead-Use Projects) for additional development standards. (2) Mayonly be located above a com menial use and not a parking use. Refer to Section 20.48.130( Mixed -Use Projects) for additional developm ant standards. (3) Late Hours. Facilities with late hours shall mean facilities that offer service and are open to the public past 11:00 p.m. any dayof the week. (4) Perm itted or Minor Use Permit Required, a. Aminor use pens its hall be required for any use located within five hundred( 500) feet, properbline to property line, of any residential mining district. b. A minor use permits hall be required for any use that maintains late hours. (5) Approval of a minor site developm antreview, in compliance with Section 20.52. 080, shall be required prior to any development to ensure that the uses are fully integrated and that potential im pacts from their differing activities are fully mitigated. (6) Aminimum of fifty (50) percent of the square footage of amixed -use development shall be used for nonresidential uses. (7) Applicants for Cityapprovel of a heliport or helistop shall provide evidence that the proposed heliport or helistop complies fully with State of California permit procedures and with anyand all conditions ofapproval imposed bythe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), and bythe Cal Vans Dimsion of Aeronautics. 101 Section "E" Amend 20.22.030 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts General Development Standards) tc add development standards for the new MU -LV zoning district within Table 2 -11 highlighted as follows: TABLE 2 -11 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT MIXED -USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Feature VIL)i (3) 1 MU -W2 fill Additional Requirements Lot Dimensions (1)(2) Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot. Lot Area Mixed -use structures 20,000 sq. R. 2,500 sq. R. 20,000 sq. ft. Non -mixed -use structures 10,000 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot Width Mixed -use structures 200 ft. 25 ft. 200 ft. Non -mixed -use structures 50 ft. 25 ft. 50 ft. Density (4) Minimum /maximum allowable density range for residential uses. Lot area required per unit Minimum: 7,260 sq. R. per unit Minimum: 1,631 Maximum: 2,167 N/A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (5) N/A Mixetl -use development Min. 0.35 and Max. 0.5 for Min. 0.35 and Max. 0.5 for 99 dwelling units and 15,000 sf nonresidential uses. nonresidential. commercial (6) Max. 0.5 for residential uses. (3) Max. 0.75 for residential uses. Max. 1.0 for mixed-use projects Lido Marina Village Min. 0.35 Max. 0.7 for nonresidential and 0.8 residential. Nonresidential only 0.5 commercial only (3) 0.5 commecial only 198,725 sf of hotel (6) Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section 20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions. Front 0 0 Newport Boulevard: 0 ft. for below grade structures 20 ft. for structures up to 26 feet in height 35 ft. for structures oser 26 feet in height Side 0 0 32nd Street: 0 ft. for below grade structures 0 ft. for structures up to 26 feet in height 10 ft. for structures over 26 feet in height Interior: 0 ft. for below grade structures 5 ft for above grade stmctues Side adjoining a residential 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. district Rear 0 0 5 ft. Rear residential portion of N/A 5 ft. 5 ft. mixed use Rear nonresidential adjoining a WA 5 ft. 5 ft. residential district. Rear adjoining an alley N/A 10 R. 10 R. Bulkhead setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 9 /1'7 TABLE 2 -11 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT MIXED -USE ZONING DISTRICTS Open Space N/A I N/A 1 20% of property Common open space Minimum 75 square feet /dwelling unit. (The minimum dimension (length and width) shall be 15 feet.) Private open space 5% of the gross floor area for each dwelling unit. (The minimum dimension (length and width) shall be 6 feet.) Minimum distance between detached structures on same lot. Separation Distance 10 ft. 1 10 ft. 0 ft. Height Maximum allowable height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.3D.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) for height measurement requirements. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase In Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit. 26 ft. with flat roof, less than 3112 roof pitch 31 ft. with sloped roof, 3/12 roof pitch or greater 55 ft. with flat roof, less than 3/12 roof pitch (7) 60 ft. with sloped roof, 3/12 roof pitch or greater (7) Fencing See Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). Landscaping See Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards). Lighting See Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting). Outtloor Storage /Display See Section 20.48.140 (Outdoor Storage, Display, and ActiNties). Parking See Chapter 20.40 (Off-Street Parking). Satellite Antennas See Section 20.48. 190 (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities). Signs See Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards). Notes: (1) At dewlopment and the subdlmsion of land shall comply with the requirements of The 19 (SubdiNsions). (2) The standards for minimum lot area and lot width are intended to regulate sites for dev lopment purposes only and are not intended to establish minimum dimensions for the creation of ownership or leasehold (a j, condominium) purposes_ (3) Aminimum of fifty (50) percent of the square footage in a mixed -use development shall be used for nonresidential uses. (4) For the purpose of determining the allowable number of units, porters of legal lots that are submerged lands or tdelands shall be included inland area ofthe site. (5) Portions oflegal lots that are submerged lands or tidelands shall be included in the net area ofthe letter the purpose ofcalculabng Me allowable floor area ofstructures. (6) My combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms prdmded it does not exceed 99 dwelling units or 9a,725 sfof hotel use. Municipal facilities are not restricted by or included in any rleyelopment limit (7) Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may exceed 55 feel by 10 feet 1Os INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE -104 EXHIBIT "F" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001 Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 Planning Division 1. The hotel development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans attached as Exhibit G of this Resolution except as modified by applicable conditions of approval. 2. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval of a Coastal Development Permit unless an extension is otherwise granted by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission by referral or appeal. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, approval from the California Coastal Commission is required. 4. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 5. Development shall be implemented in compliance with all mitigation measures contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Lido House Hotel, Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH #2013111022). 6. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for modification or revocation of Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001. 7. Approval of this Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit authorizes a hotel as that term is defined by Section 3.16.020 the Newport Beach Municipal Code. No portion of the hotel shall be rented or otherwise used for residential purposes or rented for more than 30 days consecutive days. The selling timeshares or any other form of fractional ownership of the hotel shall be prohibited. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 9. A copy of the Resolution approving Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 105 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001, including the conditions of approval within Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the final approved Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Municipal Operations Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 11. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 12. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 13. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform and notice the responsible party, and, as appropriate, cite the responsible party and /or shut off the irrigation water. 14. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation the following morning. 15. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 16. Prior to the final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Planning Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plan. 17. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 - L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. All signs shall be 100 architecturally compatible and made with high quality, durable materials. Can signs are prohibited. 18. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. 20. The property shall be illuminated for security and the site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative nuisance to surrounding property. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 21. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Planning Division to confirm control of light and glare as required by applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the conditions of approval. 22. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons and any events conducted on the project site, food service operations, delivery/loading operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code 23. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of consistent with the Zoning Code and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 24. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the facility and shall be routinely emptied. All trash shall be stored within the building or within trash bins stored within trash enclosure(s). 25. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises as necessary. 26. Storage of any materials outside of the buildings or in parking areas property ZO7 shall be prohibited. 27. The trash enclosure shall accommodate a minimum of four, 4 -foot by 6 -foot trash bins and shall include doors and a roof structure to screen the contents of the enclosure. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. 28. The construction and equipment staging areas shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 29. A six - foot -high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. 30. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. 31. Construction activities which produce loud noise that disturb, or could disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, shall be limited to the weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No such noise occurrences shall occur at anytime on Sundays or federal holidays. 32. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Lido House Hotel project (PA2013 -217) and Former City Hall Reuse Amendments (PA2012 -031) including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003, Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -001, Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations and the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH #2013111022). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or •: proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Buildinq Division 33. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department for demolition and construction. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. The construction plans must comply with the California Green Building Standards Code. 34. A grading bond shall be required prior to grading permit issuance. 35. A geotechnical report shall be submitted to the Building Division for review prior to grading permit issuance. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 37. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 38. A drainage and hydrology study shall be submitted prior to grading permit issuance. 39. A wheelchair accessible path of travel shall be provide from Finley Ave, Newport Blvd, and 32nd street including public transportation areas to all guest rooms and facilities. Proposed wood shingles shall be Class A. 40. Fire Sprinkler System shall be Type 13. 109 Fire Department 41. A fire flow determination consistent with Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline B.01 "Determination of Required Fire Flow" shall be required for the proposed buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. The fire flow information shall be included on final building drawings. 42. All weather access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. 43. Fire hydrants shall be required to be located within 400 feet of all portions of the building subject to the review and approval of the Newport Beach Fire Department. Additional hydrants may be required dependant on fire flow calculations. All existing and proposed fire hydrants within 400 feet of the project site shall be shown on the final site plan. 44. Blue hydrant identification markers shall be placed adjacent to fire hydrants consistent with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines. 45. A fire apparatus access road shall be provided to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the first floor of the building. The route of the fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the Fire Department. The 150 feet is measured by means of an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01 "Emergency Fire Access: Roadways, Fire Lanes, Gates and Barriers." 46. Minimum width of a fire access roadway shall be 20 feet, no vehicle parking allowed. The width shall be increased to 26 feet within 30 feet of a hydrant, no vehicle parking allowed. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches. Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. 47. Apparatus access roads must be constructed of a material that provides an all weather driving surface and capable of supporting 72,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus and truck outrigger loads of 75 pounds per square inch over a two foot area. Calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer shall certify that the proposed surface meets the criteria of an all weather driving surface and is capable of withstanding the weight of 72,000 pounds, Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. 48. Vehicle access gates or barriers installed across fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with the Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines and Standards C.01 "Emergency Fire Access: Roadways, Fire Lanes, Gates, and Barriers." The minimum width of any gate or opening necessary or required as a point of access shall be not less than 14 feet unobstructed width. As amended by Newport Beach, California Fire Code Section 503.6.1. 110 49. All security gates shall have a Knox -box override and an approved remote opening device. Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. 50. Fire lanes shall be identified as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.02. 51. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required and shall be installed as per California Fire Code Section 903. 52. The underground fire line will be reviewed by the fire department. A separate submittal is required which requires an "F" Permit. The underground fire line is a separate submittal (cannot be part of the overhead fire sprinkler plans, nor precise or rough grading plans) and must be designed as per N.B.F.D. Guideline F.04 "Private Hydrants and Sprinkler Supply Line Underground Piping." 53. Standpipes systems shall be provided as set forth in California Fire Code Section 905. 54. Hood Fire Suppression system will be required for cooking appliances and plans must be submitted to the fire department for approval prior to installation. 55. A fire alarm system will be required and shall be installed as per California Fire Code Section 907. 56. Fire extinguishers are required and shall be located and sized as per the California Fire Code. 57. Public Safety Radio System Coverage (800 MHz firefighter's radio system) shall be provided as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline D.05. 58. Premises identification shall be provided as City of Newport Beach amended California Fire Code Section 505.1.1. Addresses shall be placed above or immediately adjacent to all doors that allow fire department access. In no case shall the numbers be less than four inches in height with a one -half inch stroke. 59. Fire places and fire pit clearances shall be provided as per manufactures recommendations and /or California Mechanical Code requirements. 60. Awnings and canopies shall be designed and installed as per California Building Code Section 3105 with frames of noncombustible material, fire - retardant - treated wood, wood of Type IV size, or 1 -hour construction with combustible or noncombustible covers and shall be either fixed, retractable, folding or collapsible. 61. All building and structures with one or more passenger service elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings. The medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher 24 inches by 84 111 inches with not less than 5 -inch radius corner in the horizontal position. The elevator car shall be of such a size to accommodate a 24 -inch by 84 -inch ambulance gurney or stretcher with not less than 5 -inch radius corners, in the horizontal, open position, shall be provided with a minimum clear distance between walls or between walls and door excluding return panels not less than 80 inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches with a 42 -inch side slide door as per California Building Code Section 3002. 62. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Works Department 63. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 64. Construct new planned improvements along 32nd Street between Newport Blvd and Lafayette Ave, including but not limited to, sidewalk, curb /gutter, striping, signage, driveway, street light relocation, parking meter post relocation, and roadway improvement. All work shall be per City Standards and approved by the Public Works Director. The cost shall borne by the applicant. 65. The public pedestrian easement along Newport Blvd shall be a minimum of 8feet in width and clear of any obstructions, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and the Community Development Departments. 66. Reconstruct the existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels, curb and gutter, and driveway approaches along the Newport Blvd and 32nd Street frontages. 67. All existing curb ramps along the project frontages shall be upgraded to current ADA standards. 68. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities and all non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and public property. 69. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. The project driveways shall be designed to accommodate adequate vehicular sight distance per City Standard STD - 110 -L. Walls, signs, and other obstructions shall be limited to 30 inches in height and planting shall be limited to 24 inches in height within the limited use areas. 70. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right - of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 71. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements 112 72. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the main (corporation stop) and all unused sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at property line. 73. All new and existing water services (ie. domestic, landscaping, or fire) shall have its own water meter and shall be protected by a City approved backflow assembly. 74. All new and existing sewer laterals shall have a sewer cleanout installed per STD - 406 -L. 75. Water and Wastewater demand studies shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to approval of the Grading Plan. If studies show that there are impacts based on the peak demand flows calculated, improvements to the City's infrastructures will be required at the cost of the development. 76. All parking stalls and drive aisle widths shall be per City Standards 805 -L -A and 805 -L -B. 77. A Valet Operations Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Future changes to the plan shall also require the review and approval. 78. All valet operation shall be accommodated on -site. 79. Tandem parking spaces shall be signed and used for valet parking only. They may be used for long term reserved parking. They should not be used for public parking. 80. All landscaping, hardscape, ground cover, and trees within the project site and along the Finley Ave, Newport Blvd, and 32nd Street frontages shall be maintained by the applicant. 81. Remove pendant lighting along Finley Ave to provide adequate vertical clearance. Police Department 82. State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control license types classified as "Public Premises" shall be prohibited. 83. If required by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the applicant shall provide the Chief of Police a statement of facts showing why the issuance of alcohol licenses for the proposed project would serve public convenience or necessity. 113 84. Approval of this Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit does not permit the hotel or its restaurants, bars, lounge, or assembly areas to operate as nightclub as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless the Planning Commission first approves such permit. 85. Prior to the issuance of final building permits, the operator as well as future operators of the hotel shall obtain an Operator License pursuant to Chapter 5.25 (Operator License) of the Municipal Code. The Operator License may be subject to additional and /or more restrictive conditions to regulate and control potential late -hour nuisances associated with the operation facility. 86. Prior to occupancy and operation of the proposed hotel and its ancillary uses, a comprehensive security plan shall be submitted to the Newport Beach Police Department for review and approval. 87. There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 88. No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed except when offered in conjunction with food ordered from the a full service menu. 89. No games or contests requiring or involving the consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 90. All persons selling alcoholic beverages shall be over the age of 21 and undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 91. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Pre- recorded music may be played in the tenant space, provided exterior noise levels outlined below are not exceeded. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 114 92. That no outdoor sound system, loudspeakers, or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the hotel, hotel restaurant or lounge facility. 93. The operator is required to take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance within the facility, adjacent properties, or surrounding public areas, sidewalks, or parking lots of the restaurant, during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the establishment surrounding residents. 94. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 95. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 96. There shall be no on -site radio, televisions, video, film, or other electronic media broadcasts, including recordings to be broadcasted at a later time, which include the service of alcoholic beverages, without first obtaining an approved Special Event Permit issued by the City of Newport Beach. 97. Any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the applicant, operator, owner or his employees or representatives share in any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge is prohibited. 98. The operator of the establishment shall not share any profits or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or the sale of drinks. 115 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 110 EXHIBIT "G" Project Plans <Insert final plans recommended for City Council approval> 117 Page Intentionally Blank 112 Attachment PC -3 Project Plans 119 Page Intentionally Blank 120 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL City of Newport Beach / City Hall Site Reuse July 2, 2014 DESTINATION ,q" 2�2 V BLANK PAGE 122. LIDO HOUSE HOTEL City of Newport Beach / City Hall Site Reuse July 2, 2014 WATG Project # 134024 Prepared by RROLSON DEVELOPMENT Contact: Anthony Wrzosek 949.271.1100 DESTINATION /IUC HOTELS & RESORTS WATG Architecture I Landscape Contact: Gre Ville as 949 .174.800 s a dgn +esi o.,en. � n-� ,iss 123 V BLANK PAGE 124 TABLE of CONTENTS CONTEXT 41 Design Narrative 5 1 Design Narrative (cont) 61 Regional Context 71 Site View Corridors 81 Site Analysis 91 Context Diagrams io Landscape & Hardscape Diagram ii Existing Tree Analysis 121 Fire Deptartment Site Access Analysis 131 Service Access Analysis 141 Existing Conditions - ALTA Survey 151 Existing Conditions - Topographic Survey 161 Preliminary Ground Lease Plan 171 Property Line & Setback Plan 18 1 Overall Aerial Rendering ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 19l Overall Site Plan I Level i 201 32nd Street Parking Exhibit 211 Public Floor with Landscape Background Level i 221 Guestroom Floor Level 2 231 Guestroom Floor Level 3 241 Rooftop Lounge Level 4 251 Overall Roof Plan 261 Guestroom Plans 271 Townhouse Units 281 Public Interior Imagery 291 Guestroom Interior Imagery LANDSCAPE PLANS 30 Overall Landscape Plan 31 Enlarged Arrival Plan 32 Enlarged Public Park Plan 33 Enlarged Courtyard Plan ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 341 North Elevation + Character Images 35 1 East Elevation + Character Images 361 West Elevation + Character Images 371 South Elevation 381 Arrival Rendering at Dusk 391 Appendix: Project Data 125 V BLANK PAGE 120 LANDSCAPE / PARK DESIGN BAY TO BEACH PARK Like the hotel site itself, Bay to Beach Park serves as a transition from Newport Bay to the Parific Ocean. The goal of the park is to create an accessible active public space in the heart of Newport Beach and a strong pedestrian connection to the surroundingneighborhood. Bay to Beach Park is a place to meet friends on the way to the beach, hang out and surf the internet in the shade of a historic ficus tree, enjoy amp of coffee on the wood deck and soak up a touch of Newport Beach art and history. The park is organized around a pathway that leads from the beach and the intersection of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard north to Finley Avenrre where it will connect with Lido Village. Along the way will be series of creative outdoor spaces that will provide respite and tell the history of Newport Beach. The park concept is based on a metaphorical transect from the Bay to the Beach. The parkcloser to 32nd Street contains beach elements such as palm trees. sea shell paving and dune grasses. Moving north, the beach transitions to the bay portion of the park closer to Finley Avenue, which is characterized by native California plantings, sycamore trees, sedimentary seat walls and a boardwalk. Interpretive pylons along the walkway provide lighting and tell the colorful history of Newport Beach. Beneath the two historic ficus trees, which are carefully preserved and integrated into the design, are two gathering spaces -the Lawn and the Deck- both of which are extensions of a residential backyard. The oval- shaped Lawn is defined by a stepped sedimentary seat wall and has moveable chairs for sunning and casual conversation. The Deck under one of the ficus trees is a built -up wood deck with creative seating and chars and close proximity to the outdoor dining terrace at Lido House where food and beverage may be served. The Deck under one of the ficus trees is a buin -up wood deskwith creative seating and chairs and close proximity to the WK Grill outdoor dining terrace where food and beverage may be served. This is a superb setting where the Lido House will provide Wi-Fi to its guests and locals for work or simply surfing the net free of charge. Materials at Bay to Beach Park are natural and honest in form with a functional purpose. Public art is an important part of this space, including poetic expressions etched into the concrete paving describing the natural beauty of the Ocean and Bay. Site furnishings are constructed of wood recovered from the demolition of City Hall and repurposed into benches and light standards. Clear definition of the space from Newport Boulevard is important. Pedestrian safety and sound attenuation are critical to the success of the park and addressed with terra forms and plantings adjacent to Newport Boulevard. LIDO HOUSE LANDSCAPE DEsaON Arriving at Lido House is like arriving at a Newport Beach home The scale is residential and the details reflect attention to what is important. Brick pavin& wood details. and catenary pendant lighting over the street establish the threshold and define the arrival. An elegant water feature at the porte cochere creates sound to mask car rwise on Newport Boulevard and helps defines the space. The interior courtyard hasall of the amenities one would expect in the background of a gracious Newport home. Guests walkingout of the main hotel lobby will be enticed by a double -sided outdoor fire place which serves as a visual focal point and organizing element for the courtyard space. Once outside, guests will enjoys great pool for the familywith lap swimming. places for children to play, cabanas, palm trees and placesto relaxout of the sun. Guests at the pool can enjoy a glass of wine from the pool bar and enjoy hors d'oeuvres at the terrace which spills out from the main restaurant The backside of the double -sided fire place becomesthe backdrop for an event lawnwhich will host weddingreceptions asweli as corporate functions. Finally. the fountain courtyard near the meeting breakout rooms provides a more intimate space for smaller events. LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 4 DESIGN NARRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN A CHARACTER The site planning, character development and landscape design of Lido House address the primary goals of the City, Lido Village Master Plan and Lido Village Design Guidelines. Lido House is planned to bea unique, upscale project superbly designed to provide a sense of place and quality destination experience for the residrmts and visitors of Newport Beach. The Lido House project is in substantial conformance with the City's proposed General Plan Amendment No. GPaoiz -ooz, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LCzoi2 -oc t, and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 and is consistent with the planning and zoning guidelines cited in the City's RFP. SITE PLANNING The hotel has been designed with full consideration of the surrounding unique urban and residential context along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and utilizes the existingvehicular streets and intersections for guest arrival, service access, and pedestrian connectivity to the City amenities such as Lido Village.the Marina and Beach area. all while sitting comfortably into a lush but sustainable landscaped environment. Hotel guests enter the site off the newly embellished intersection of Finley Street from Newport Boulevard. This creates an enhanced'gateway' entry experience for Lido Village as well as for the hotel entry experience. A generous landscaped pedestrian access in a park -like setting fronts Newport Boulevard connectingthe intersection at ;2nd Street alongthe hotel edge and Newport Boulevard and up to the Lido Village area with opportunities for seatingand gathering for events. The substantial existingficus trees have been maintained and incorporated into the site design with the opportunity for locating City artwork or a monument at the corner of 3znd Street and Newport Boulevard. Hotel service will enter Off ;2nd Street sharing the Fire Department access way. Off - street parking along 32nd Street has been maintained and enhanced to provide continued access to neighboring commercial and hotel functions. All pedestrian edges will be enhanced to provide'connectivity' m the surtoundingcommercial and City functions and seeks to provide a solution to the Lido Village Design Guideline Cornerstones of Unification, flexibility, Visual Appeal, and economic/environmental Sustainability while being sensitive to the res idential and commercial neighborhoods surrounding the site. The configuration mitigates traffic, noise, and view concerns while enhancingthe pedestrian connectivity and resident /visitor experience to Newport Beach. The massing of the building also preserves maximum sun exposure for the courtyard pool. HOTELDESION The Newport Maritime Hotel design addresses the City's goals and objectives in a contextual meaningful, elegant and upscale manner. The architectural character honors Newport's unique marine heritage as well asthe Newport Eclectic aesthetic and combines classic quality tactile materials such as used brick wood siding, trim work, iron work, and historic architectural roof elements such as dormers and copulas. The architecture also recalls the residential vernacular of local coastal homes, and the hotel's residential scale humanizes the project within its commercial context. The four -story massing of the building creates a sense of arrival at the entry- while stepping down in sale and providing architectural articulation along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street to be intone with the surrounding urban context. The guestroom levels overlook the interior pool courtyard and lush landscaping. allowing marina and oceanviews from the upper levels. These upper levels are set back awayfrom the street edges to allow for a pedestrian scaled edge, especially along 32nd Street. and an excellent backdrop for views into the site, and for upper level view out from the site; as well as protecting existing views from neighboring sites. The Hotel arrival sequence is intended to decompress the guest by moving away from bury edge of Newport Boulevard and bring the guest into the site, to a generous porte cochere drop -off, and ultimately into the lobby which opens up to an internal courtyard, lobby lounge/bar, restaurant, spa, meeting rooms, and hotel. The hotels signature restaurant, WK Grill, is strategically located at the corner of Finley and Newport to maximize visibility and capitalize on its proximity to the valet drop -off. The WK Grill outdoor terrace also spills out into the landscaped park area. The ballroom and meeting space can be accessed through the lobby but also have a separate entrance on 32nd Street which facilitates large group events. INTERIOR DESIGN Takingoues from the history and culture of Lido Village and Lido Isle, the interiors for the Lido House Hotel are sophisticated yet casual, reminiscent of a beach cottage with a coal, slightly contemporary vibe. The lobbywill feature lots of comfortable, soft seating groups which will create a central gathering place where guests feel that they can hang out- mingle and relax. Furnishings are a mix of clean tailored pieces, juxtaposed with loose and natural textures and silhouettes. The color palette has beachy undertones of ocean blues and aquas with a touch of rich browns and grayish purples for a hint of masculinity. Additional beach- inspired accents pop up via a striped nautical carpet runner, a rope chandelier and a reception deskwith inlaid capiz shell. Art and accessories pay direct homage to the local area, with a Lido Isle library" - bookshelves of eclectic local finds, local art collections inweathered frame displays and a focal wall, depicting a map of the area handdrawn in chalk. The restaurant and other recreation areas will continue to enhance the residential feel with a dining room style table setup and perhaps even some cozy hammocks scattered throughout the property. The guestroomstake on a lighter, airy vibe in tones of coral, navy and seafoam offset by sandy neutrals and pops of bright white for a mildly modern hint. Texture will play a larger role, with a woven desk and chair, seagrass headboard, and beams and doors with a reclaimed wood feel. The rooms will have a very indoor/outdoor vibe highlighted by a coastal-inspired accent chairs and light fixtures. 127 V BLANK PAGE 12R THE PLACE/ THE QUINTESSENTIAL SOUTHERN r.A= IFORNIA BEACH NOOSE The development of a hotel's physical place requires exceptional care and creativity. Public spaces must clearly convey and define the property's personality in the consumer's mind, and the hotel itself must contain an authenticity which speaks to the fabric of Newport Beach. Lido House has been conceived as a beach house on a grand scale, the latest in along tradition of Newport,' Balboa vacation homes. The hotel will have a strong residential feel; casual, comfortable yet very stylish, with public spaces designed to be more like intimate rooms within a well - designed home. The hotel's Newport Maritime design with its shingled exterior, steeply peaked roofs and white trim reinforces the residential scale. The property will reflect what is unique and special about Newport's arch itecturalvernacular. In its true form, the hotel will feel as if it were built overtime and will be appropriate for its setting and central location. The architectural plan purposely captures indoor and outdoor opportunities where guests flow throughout the propertyvia its colonnades, courtyards and Bay to Beach Park. The domestic architecture provides an excellent transition from the commercial area in Lido Village to the residential neighborhood in Newport and the Balboa Peninsula. The interiors feel. like those of a beach house, wellappointed, colorful, comfortable and organic spaces. LIDO HOUSE HOTEL I 5 DESIGN NARRATIVE A HOTEL RICH IN AMENITIES Like any great house, Lido House features avariety of personalized spaces with several key amenities for guests: LOBBY The lobby of Lido House will feel residential in scale and include a coffee baroo serve guests in the morning. The space is designed with large windows and operable french doors to allow the wonderfully landscaped areas and climate outside to ace rnpany and be part of the indoor space. The charter in the lobby lounge and courtyards from guests and locals will enliven the space. WK GRILL RESTAURANT Lido House will be a great hotel with a great restaurant. With a commanding visual presence from Newport Boulevard, WK Grill, the hotel's upscale three -meat restaurant will be a focal point of activity. WK Grill is named for oil baron W.K. Parkinson who first created Lido Isle by dredging Newport Bay. The lobtrybar will have an immediate connection to the hotel's reception area and will be a major gathering place for locals and guests, with a casual yet upscalevibe. The restaurant and bar will spill out to the courtyard and into covered landscaped terraces facing Newport Boulevard which will activate and embrace the new Bay to Beach Park. W KGrill will serve breakfast, lunch and dinner, featuring the freshest Southern California local ingredients and a commitment to healthy eating. In the evening the restaurant will transform to a casual upscale dining experience with cuisine prepared by one of Newport's finest culinary arts top chefs. We envision a food and beverage so special that it will be featured in local and national publications such as Food & Wine, Orange Coast and OC Weekly magazine. The WK Grill will have igo indoor and 6o outdoor seats. SPAAND FITNESS CENTER Hotel guests and local residents will enjoy progressive spa services including massage, facials, manicure and pedicure treatments. The Spa and Fitness Center overlooks and surrounds the pool courtyards, with the Fitness Center opening onto the lush grounds which can be used for indoor/outdo" exercise activities. COURTYARD AND POOL The hotel will be organized around a central courtyard with outdoor pool and hot tub. It has spacious decks and turf areas with the pool as the central part of this oasis. providing an exercise amenity for the swimming enthusiasts as well as a refreshing reprieve for sunbathers. ROOFTOP PATIO Lido House will feature a dramatic rooftop patio and with views of the bay and the ocean. There will be no better place for guests to relax and enjoy summer sunsets, fabulous views and a cool ocean breeze. The bar area, fire pit and cabanas will be a sought -after active hot spot for locals and guests. The rooftop patio will also feature The Ultimate Cabana located in the circular tower at the corner of the building, offering the best views from the entire property. BALLROOM AND MEETING ROOMS Lido House will have a separate building housing its meeting facilities that is detached from the residential areas of the hotel. It will include a sub divisible ballroom and board room and individual breakout rooms. The pre - function space will open up to the courtyard for outstanding event space. The pre - function space is purposely designed to enable convenient coffee and beverage breaks for meeting attendees and larger areas for social events and cocktail receptions. RETAIL SPACE Lido House is envisioned to feature attractive retail storefronts alonggznd Street which wilt help activate the commercial areas along the street GUEST ROOMS Well - appointed guestrooms and suites occupy levels two through four, with the Presidential Suite uniquely positioned to provide beach and ocean views through the 32nd Street view corridor. There are also rr extended stay suites typically located at the corners of the buildings. These rooms have separate bedrooms, dining areas and livingrooms. 129 V BLANK PAGE 130 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 16 WATG Architecture I Landscape Regional Context Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 131 V BLANK PAGE 132. s' A WATG Architecture I Landscape u .. l ilk I: f 1- 171 a xE_ s A 's v •I r LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 7 Site View Corridors Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 133 V BLANK PAGE z314 s . ` �A WATG Architecture I Landscape Im G ( 1 / I a a= / 98 rasa v� y v • �\ t'4 �. 4v Y w{ v If LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 8 r I 4. ffib A Site Analysis Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 13,E V BLANK PAGE 130 a'. ,,,a J I Al } TO LIDO • VILLAGE & BAY (Pedestrian Circulation through • existing wall and path) FINLEY AVE I ( Ike HOTEL • q — • • RRIVAL ST 1 • _ 1 , 0 - Ifi. I • ED 8 • E3> <E] 'i • 1 JT ENHANCED 1 SETBACK • Nay � -fit yf TO BEACH WATG Architecture I Landscape I=> 8 • = f ED Q =� :■ 4', . . ��nuu�utu■. ! TO LIDO VILLAGE & BAY N 1 I I I I 1 Public Transit ♦/ I I Pedestrian Circulation ® Public Node f - - -- Hotel Vehicular Circulation 1 'ttttttttt.tt. - NOT TO SCALE 1 _ 1 \ 1 I Ij 11 11 11 I' 1 11 1 11 � 11 a I 11 Q I I .N Y •������. �M i i I I I I Public Transit -- -- -- I I Pedestrian Circulation ® Public Node f - - -- Hotel Vehicular Circulation Hotel Entry Point 'ttttttttt.tt. Hotel Service Vehicle Circulation Private Hotel Courtyard Public Vehicular Circulation LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 9 NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOOD VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS i Lido House XOtlI (Project Site) NEIGHBORHOOD PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS Context Diagrams Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL1S7 V BLANK PAGE z-?�g LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 10 WATG Architecture I Landscape Total Site Area (Including Fire Dept. Site) 181,916 SF (4.18 Acres) Landscape £r Hardscape (36.8 %) 66,896 SF (1.53 Acres) r - -i Parking (34.2 %) L _ . J (Includes Drive Aisles) 62,267 SF (1.43 Acres) Building Coverage (29.0 %) (RoofLimits) 52,753 SF 0.21 Acres) Indicates Landscape& T1iiiiiiiiiiiiiiir Hardscape @ front of project (21.4 %) 38,96oSF. (o.89 Acres) r 'i Indicates limits of Public L — — J Easement if required by Public Works. If required, the width will be no greater than the existing sidewalk along 32nd Street. Landscaping Coverage 38,293 SF (21.0 %) Landscape & Hardscape Diagram Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL Z39 V BLANK PAGE 1-40 " T � -,L � _ i I I II(4) NORTH PALMS r TO BE EVALUATED j AND LEFT IN PLACE I I I I � I I � I I I a I i w (6) SOUTH'PALMS' j TO BE EVALUATED AND MOVED WESTWARD PER j j NEW SITE PLAN I AS POSSIBLE I• r I I j I I� I • I I I I� 1•r� ..`. kEES TO BE • ■■■■ ■■■■ - TREES TO REMAIN TREE TO BE REMOVED (THE FREEDOM TREE) TREE TO BE REMOVED (THE LAWRENCE COVERT TREE) i al�jg - ---------- - - - - -- — I � 3•a�I���7��1 WATG Architecture I Landscape LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 11 \� e - _ - Q a • It Ar Imo" r NOTE: ALL EXISTING TREES TOBEREMOVED- _____ _– TYPICAL U.O.N. 61�1 1 s. Existing - Tree Analysis Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 141 �5 I –F I-N-L E Y- i I I AV E - II(4) NORTH PALMS r TO BE EVALUATED j AND LEFT IN PLACE I I I I � I I � I I I a I i w (6) SOUTH'PALMS' j TO BE EVALUATED AND MOVED WESTWARD PER j j NEW SITE PLAN I AS POSSIBLE I• r I I j I I� I • I I I I� 1•r� ..`. kEES TO BE • ■■■■ ■■■■ - TREES TO REMAIN TREE TO BE REMOVED (THE FREEDOM TREE) TREE TO BE REMOVED (THE LAWRENCE COVERT TREE) i al�jg - ---------- - - - - -- — I � 3•a�I���7��1 WATG Architecture I Landscape LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 11 \� e - _ - Q a • It Ar Imo" r NOTE: ALL EXISTING TREES TOBEREMOVED- _____ _– TYPICAL U.O.N. 61�1 1 s. Existing - Tree Analysis Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 141 V BLANK PAGE 1-42. io I G 117al 11110 I I i� t y9 I I I I� I I 1 I I DIST =9 T. 3LDGG FA( DEIS'FULLYACCESSIBLE FROM NEWPDRT BLVD (150'TO ARC) I I I I I I I F.F. — \1 BIOJS 11 F NOTE: INTERIOR COURTYARD WILL REOUPE STANDPIPES WE i0 EXCEEDING 150' FIRE ACCESS F J—r Rp/ FIRE LANES IL � U, I I C6 -77 --------------- `- - - - - -- M -s'rF; I T - - - -- WATG Architecture I Landscape FIRE DEPT. ACCESS It' WIDE LANES AT GATE. 31' MDTH FOR 60' ON EITHER SIDE - FIRE LANE ACCESS MRWGH SITE EXTERIOR BUILDING WITHIN 150' THROUGHOUT. CONNECTS TO NEWPORT BLVD AND 32ND. STREET, FIRE DEPT ACCESS I 20' WIDE F- O � O � � O � FS FIRE TRUTo Q DISTANCE i0 — I I S .. - -.M 0 =r------- C_'iD- N-LMfi —I — - - — — — ISFULLY ACCESSBLE SINGLE LANE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 112 KI LM. - - - - ----------------- --��I� I� - -- ----- - - - - -- Fire Department Site Access Analysis Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL143 0 =r------- C_'iD- N-LMfi —I — - - — — — ISFULLY ACCESSBLE SINGLE LANE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 112 KI LM. - - - - ----------------- --��I� I� - -- ----- - - - - -- Fire Department Site Access Analysis Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL143 V BLANK PAGE 144 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 13 WATG Architecture I Landscape Service Access Analysis Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL145 V BLANK PAGE 1-40 BHT J xwN� �o�. rRa r ms ip 1 S \ 3 m LEAD ARE a+sz NAIL IN x ALI x.SxEP arm.NP.uuN1 PER nes Q 5'BW: ix °dOPx LE NI P,fl 3) NO M ` rRger \ \ \ �o \ No � I AD 11 A, APPRIS NIL \ ffx OTYINN,•v SOONNm G 1k °ES ;ILA So \ PER OA. ISO T \ m eP =d l °p I "'N" E P LEE – D \ b' — — RN 37REET LA1 � r I - I,., �E >a• NALS NIPS AAI f RAE ARE IL 4. So g » , «Po. Ar ,.a. o - - -- es- ----- `-- --__`I o� . o.N. —I PII Z ° S,R ALLEY .� I e�"� I a II�P PO jo SECTION 28 i. 6 5, 1 R. 16 W. S. B. M. RAE °M° AREA LIS AS o \ I Z s LOT a PARCELI x °O Si65< _ �7 k /� -ax.I .,A. 1. LS 5� O M y 1�, E�OLES xlr AS PEe n *r Exc INN' m PRO V •10 -VIA MALAGA — PARCEL 4 SEE DETAIL 'A' ABWE RRNi j <O 6' Sw.l° INEC 11 . ME 9]q RE.� S-114SS - NeSI ss E°S � HUDSON EDxD,ra.a, RK OR INKI N°% 04 \ "" o _�l NIS 'n x— — 0�].Y 'yin _ 'A m ' RARE 3 ° =A 32nd � AMME `,ANµ STREET I r"10 xlv"o.1"MA 1 °` xe Soar -. RE, a a i ( � '' 6 (FORMERLY 31; WASHINGTON AVENUE) - - - - -1- a r 1 T, - P�,c``� Q ' Aj I '- 1 Q 0' So s° ].-SN PA S.- xfl. LLN W. PARCEL 3 Nil mst STREET —J I °ass 9300 NECIW EU B 1 0 rte' I z ° .es.l' Ell _ xM�TA'AN �„ 1° 1 NrS,. °N„x.E - N.s° n =NO iv xx` max,° I 1411 a xY , /,. eE^° ; •i w PARCEL 2 sw..: so, - - -0. NAL'i W °M Sa xd , SINS1A w .S,Ex s . m Ie*Al xEw°N .. s /1. E MB — xAM51 AS in AS PEe n *r Exc INN' m PRO V •10 -VIA MALAGA — PARCEL 4 SEE DETAIL 'A' ABWE RRNi j <O 6' Sw.l° INEC 11 . ME 9]q RE.� S-114SS - NeSI ss E°S � HUDSON EDxD,ra.a, RK OR INKI WATG Architecture I Landscape A` PARCEL N 3 PARCEL 4 1 I I a / N GRAPHIC SC® ES ALL 1. (ME LA x0 11111 / S i °x.NNE.° ONE LSO PARK DRIVE c.s. E. IS, LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 14 Existing -ALTA Survey Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEIII N°% 9ssA _�l NIS 'n x— — 0�].Y 'yin 32nd � AMME `,ANµ STREET I 1 \ i 6 (FORMERLY 31; WASHINGTON AVENUE) $�� 1 ` °.5i° »<,/ N� PEx. P..P. ]an1 -a P�,c``� Q ' Aj I '- 1 Q 0' xON AST > °m° "wxe 1.°LI ].-SN PA S.- xfl. LLN W. mst STREET 411 of: 9300 NECIW EU B 1 A[Mk[SXf[! io NAV.M'R01#o 19IFE! WATG Architecture I Landscape A` PARCEL N 3 PARCEL 4 1 I I a / N GRAPHIC SC® ES ALL 1. (ME LA x0 11111 / S i °x.NNE.° ONE LSO PARK DRIVE c.s. E. IS, LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 14 Existing -ALTA Survey Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEIII V BLANK PAGE 14R — ___ _ r I � I ., / «/ / - •! / -o - f -_ 010 - O 0 ( _CA_ ,99Z09) 99 _ - -____ _--------------- _ e(-A Sm I),I_S L- 0_ _ Z IIi II I ii II f —{� 02"'.cN P _ 1, - BUILDING II� TO -_ ------ - - - - - - - - . - ° f o •l /: / i r o I �� L L;� ^,ry ,,,, � r / / / - - el-rro- orr REMA _ - - - - __ _ __ _ ___ - a ----------------- GGNORTH nmc g@ III I I t Geese a Ala II II ./ r i�/ e i 8 / .� r II TsV6 Ili li it zl :Ab - I� II - Ig II ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISEWIM Bg ii R r ,; L II III II JI i ii i o r rrl t I'i y ---- — —_I- I_ \. _ �� / Mq` v22�� r •�{' - -��g ------ Ii -_iI Q �; N b r =N r l - \\ - I z I I 3lJNIS1el� f A8015 I I � II LLSY3 _ Itlll Itll _ gl Ig _ _ 1 vl i I _ I I ______ e _.__ _ — _ __--- _ _ 71 1 1 _PTO —�_^ __ I ° II f I� > _ -�� /Tgi -- - - - - - -- CIEVA:rinoe L- HOCIM3N - e 4 _` P 4I I o l 1 I gEl PaEP�m a„ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FRDD —Oi2 3481 VIA LDO CONSULTING, INC.. ® NEWPORT BEACH cvr eG:xewnlNc.� CALIFORNIA WATG Architecture I Landscape LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 11S Existing - Topographic Survey Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 14 9 V BLANK PAGE 150 J FUSCOE 1 Y 4 1 Y 1 l l I Y i td]9sven COrmon, sNe loo m, <ulil"mo93Wb u1969.9]<.191O o. ye9991]9.Sd15 .�..,.YY�..mm I I Q II I J //yOy� c v n K O a I a 0 3 Z 569'51'48 "E 144.56' 92.71' I NOO'27'00 "E 47.79' N89'33'00"E 7.65' I M 1p BATA PROVmED BY CITY OF p Cn NEWPORT BEACH Nln m ON O PARCEL 'A' AREA = 0248 AC J� (STREET WIDENING) S-13'35'10" R= 58.00' PARCEL 'B' L= 13.75' a 14'50'20" R= 42.00' L= 10.88' ] �-' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY PER BATA PROVmED BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ON O Iny nn I ro li J 8=14'18'33" R= 37.00' PARCEL 'B' L =9.24' AREA = 0.016 AC "W (STREET WIDENING) �N39'29'57 40.40' �, -- _ N86- 56'46"W 15.3 12.23' '$45'. t�14 °1832 49.94' R- 37.00' L =9.24' L - L - S26'56'46 "E 21.08' 1. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN HERON ARE TAKEN FROM THE ALTA MAP SURVEYED BY FUSCOE ENGINEERING DATED NOV. 12, 2002 AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN PREPARED BY WATG ARCHITECTS. 2. EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE NOT SHOWN. PARCELI AREA = 3.802 AC (LEASE PARCEL) 500'09'03 "W 53.55' WILY LINE OF FORMERLY 'THE HUDSON' PER LANCASTERS AUDI ➢ON TO NEWPORT BEACH PER MM 5/14 O ir O IZ O \ 589'50'57 "E LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 16 Ndy-ol AD W C1u C£ PARCEL 2 AREA = 0.152 AC S26'56'46 "E _ _ _ _ _ (LEASE PARCEL) _ 21.18' N89 '51'48 ;W T-8- 18.46' N8523'S9 °E x44413" 74.86' A= 62'55'02" R= 700.00' R =8.50' L= 57.87' L =9.33' 32nd - _ STREET PUBLIC BTREEf --- - - - - -- - - - --��ar J ?� LEGEND I> PARCEL BOUNDARY (EXISTING) - - -- PARCEL BOUNDARY (PROPOSED) - STREET CENTERLINE - - - - RIGHTOFWAY 142 °57'46"E 89 °47'3"E 11.67 62.25' I .• • • .• SCALE: 1 PRELIMINARY GROUND se 7:2,2014 LEASE EXHIBIT V4.0 Exhibit Date 7Po2/2014 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL NEWPORT BEACH, CA G„E.,,, LX H P, , G )Cpnxry /� T PRELIMCROUNDt SLV4,0 .DWG (07 -03.14 11:051]PM) PICN¢S by! Mcfk N�,o Preliminary Ground Lease P l a n W Architecture I Landscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 15-1 12.85' 589'50'57 "E 77.15 - - � � VI 7 T- MAZA-G)V- o. p tNO OW On NO � - S89 °58'22 "E O h 9.24' PARCEL 3 o N00'4 AREA = 0.268 AC C, o I (FIRE STATION) 29 78' 29.78' o O �= 31°00'19" R= 48.00 �N89 °4736 "E 94.60' � L =25.97 4= 91'12'25" I 9R =1 n nn' Ndy-ol AD W C1u C£ PARCEL 2 AREA = 0.152 AC S26'56'46 "E _ _ _ _ _ (LEASE PARCEL) _ 21.18' N89 '51'48 ;W T-8- 18.46' N8523'S9 °E x44413" 74.86' A= 62'55'02" R= 700.00' R =8.50' L= 57.87' L =9.33' 32nd - _ STREET PUBLIC BTREEf --- - - - - -- - - - --��ar J ?� LEGEND I> PARCEL BOUNDARY (EXISTING) - - -- PARCEL BOUNDARY (PROPOSED) - STREET CENTERLINE - - - - RIGHTOFWAY 142 °57'46"E 89 °47'3"E 11.67 62.25' I .• • • .• SCALE: 1 PRELIMINARY GROUND se 7:2,2014 LEASE EXHIBIT V4.0 Exhibit Date 7Po2/2014 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL NEWPORT BEACH, CA G„E.,,, LX H P, , G )Cpnxry /� T PRELIMCROUNDt SLV4,0 .DWG (07 -03.14 11:051]PM) PICN¢S by! Mcfk N�,o Preliminary Ground Lease P l a n W Architecture I Landscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 15-1 V BLANK PAGE 1-152 00�W %ITOO' F.F. '_� �� ` S89'58'22 "E II .' 9.24' I 1 i, '� A= 14'18'33„ -,-r- I _ - - -- - /� p ,,NNLLYY 44 - N 43'30"E R_ 37.00' PARCEL :CBs -,_ `° �'� NP Cf iS- s DDITI 29.78' I L =9.24' AREA = 0.016 AC TO NEWPORT BEACH PER MM 5/1 ., 'ry N3 '29'57"W - FSTREET WIDENING) \\ R=48.00" 40.40' 15 =1" T0�^ L -25.9T 786'56'46 "W 172.05' LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 117 I nvl PROF HOTS (4 1 SITE - r. Critel \ STAn 8.5' WI 9' WID VALE O � 85W s' wID O HANC 9' WID EL SEE PRELIMINARY GROUND O ALL S LEASE PLAN SHEET FOR 85W PROPERTY DINIENSIONS AND 9' WIC PARCEL FF-ORMATION PROPETRTY LIFE WITH FM / DEPT. PARCEL - 181.918 SF PROPERTY LINE WTMOUT FIRE DEPT. PARCEL - T70.247 OF 589'50'57 "E / 12.85' S8 7•'E 77.1 77.15 � e VIA Iw _- � r MALE 00 'EY O N j O U N O p O Ip r - lo Z AREA = 0.268 AC o C� (FIRE STATION) o 0 N89'47'36 "EI z 94.60' 15-3 789 51 48 W 510.82 PARCEL 2 \:,- j ` -'�y` N EX:72' F - 12.23 N88:,•45••W AREA = 0.152 AC- _ N42'ST46 "E 526'56'46 "E -__ (LEASE PARCEL) _ - - - 11.67' X14'18 32" 49g,.g', - - 526'56'46' E 89'47'-' -- - - - - - - - 1.08' - 9751_ - - - - - 785'21'59 "E aN -' R= 37.00T U LIGREE PARKING 21.18' 789'5148 "W 118.46' 4.44 13 "� S6 "E - -. L =9.24' - .3 2nd STRE_ I_ :6255'02" R=700.00' 7 •88 62:25 tl E LANE I1 - R =8.50' L =578 SINGLE LANE PROPOSE TO REMOVE 5 C L =9.33' T SERNCE ACCESS PARR LEL SPACES W / \ T G 0 25' 150, 1100, Architecture I Landscape Property Line & Setback Plan Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTf.,L5-2 -A 'iu 171 CITY PROPOS NEWPORT BE �, S89'51'48 "E 144.56' K1Dp� 92.71' x 9581101, MIIiZalE �FIN EY N B EX: 6.9'F I "E /jam\ \357.7 NOO'27'00 5' J• 47.79 6'1'_9•, n''7\ FIRE DEPT ACCESS I- �' AIDE 789'33'00' E -g LANES AT GATE. 7.65' `\306 3+' MOTH FOR 60' ON EITHER SIDE 743'47'33' E _ - 2S' -FIRE LANE ACCESS THROUGH SITE. 24.57• II -- - - EXTERIOR BUILDING MTHIN 150' THROUGHOUT CONNECTS TO NEWPOR, I y BLVD AND 32uD. srRter. v. v.J ('�T -J I a Q I� BIKE RACK I® U 1 -- I PT ACCESS N IIIL -4�1 - - _ ■ a -D.7s 70,_2„ WIDE rn �, F.F "' >w. W vT o N �� PARCEL A • J J m "T Jam` II AREA = 0.248 AC 63' -10" m" s _ , " - i ,m, ��ss I "•''•' �-' STREET WIDENING ( ) PROP ED HOTEL 41100 FF X O secs nm�• � zU 9. M W A= 13'35'10" s, m� R= 58.00' L =13.75 v DPARCE� ,q <' N N19'09'08 "E ._M 36.43 ❑ "' AREA = 3.802 AC (LEASE PARCEL) " ❑ O Ir -, A= 14'50D''2020° � R= 42.00' ...� ,tOD' Fr p 500'09'0 L =10.88• [11 N.,.. FE7 : -. d 'j' .55' _K.,q I NOTE: INTERIOR COURTYARD f - w r MILE REQUIRE 5TANDPIPES DUE TO EXCEEDING 150' FIRE ACCESS - rn°s»wes .e FROM Fl RE LANES ra, O a Lro gm.esa � ro I�Iry� O I CC PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LLI II I 4 DATA PR BEAC BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ❑ �sxraa Z LU sC T is' T11 O ( °30()0 9E0 lmm 3 1 S 00�W %ITOO' F.F. '_� �� ` S89'58'22 "E II .' 9.24' I 1 i, '� A= 14'18'33„ -,-r- I _ - - -- - /� p ,,NNLLYY 44 - N 43'30"E R_ 37.00' PARCEL :CBs -,_ `° �'� NP Cf iS- s DDITI 29.78' I L =9.24' AREA = 0.016 AC TO NEWPORT BEACH PER MM 5/1 ., 'ry N3 '29'57"W - FSTREET WIDENING) \\ R=48.00" 40.40' 15 =1" T0�^ L -25.9T 786'56'46 "W 172.05' LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 117 I nvl PROF HOTS (4 1 SITE - r. Critel \ STAn 8.5' WI 9' WID VALE O � 85W s' wID O HANC 9' WID EL SEE PRELIMINARY GROUND O ALL S LEASE PLAN SHEET FOR 85W PROPERTY DINIENSIONS AND 9' WIC PARCEL FF-ORMATION PROPETRTY LIFE WITH FM / DEPT. PARCEL - 181.918 SF PROPERTY LINE WTMOUT FIRE DEPT. PARCEL - T70.247 OF 589'50'57 "E / 12.85' S8 7•'E 77.1 77.15 � e VIA Iw _- � r MALE 00 'EY O N j O U N O p O Ip r - lo Z AREA = 0.268 AC o C� (FIRE STATION) o 0 N89'47'36 "EI z 94.60' 15-3 789 51 48 W 510.82 PARCEL 2 \:,- j ` -'�y` N EX:72' F - 12.23 N88:,•45••W AREA = 0.152 AC- _ N42'ST46 "E 526'56'46 "E -__ (LEASE PARCEL) _ - - - 11.67' X14'18 32" 49g,.g', - - 526'56'46' E 89'47'-' -- - - - - - - - 1.08' - 9751_ - - - - - 785'21'59 "E aN -' R= 37.00T U LIGREE PARKING 21.18' 789'5148 "W 118.46' 4.44 13 "� S6 "E - -. L =9.24' - .3 2nd STRE_ I_ :6255'02" R=700.00' 7 •88 62:25 tl E LANE I1 - R =8.50' L =578 SINGLE LANE PROPOSE TO REMOVE 5 C L =9.33' T SERNCE ACCESS PARR LEL SPACES W / \ T G 0 25' 150, 1100, Architecture I Landscape Property Line & Setback Plan Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTf.,L5-2 -A V BLANK PAGE 21-2_-, NL Ilk i WATG Architecture I Landscape F II� �Y4g LtlLI m sq ci • , 7. f� WIL kl%o' I'l w w op� .. - E qq Am:kmb.- LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 18 Aerial View I Overall Site Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 ,53 V BLANK PAGE 1154 1L I) r F I I n r� l {'1 n r I r RCEV AVE I Iv wam.w� WATG Amnlmcum I Landscape iAIXO� LOT LlE O+n- FEE OEPf LOT1 BIPI6 H]/f LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 19 OLGAOINGZONE OTRASH TPASH OC FINGTOREMAIry CONTROL GATE sOi RROVOSEU CURB CUT ON DEGREE PU 61IC PARKING NOTE: 196 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS SHOWN (35 TANDEM/ VALET SPACES X 33.6 %) BO CITY PARKING SPACES PROPOSED OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN Overall Site Plan I Level 1 +o.o' Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL:LS5 Mlwlilffla 15Fro J r�, 32nd STFEET Partial Existing .32nd. Street Parking Plan iii Tj r L - - — — — — — as -:- WATG k6i .1 . . . I u 'd ' ' HOUSE HOTEL 1 20 EXISTING :T:*0490 6T*L11 I...-.L T-LL V/ MEET t " - 12® - PROPOSED PARKING COUNT .. .. ....... A 450�REEII�MVARDSTAL� M �ALLEI — -------- - - - - -- — — — — — — — — _— W r¢TAL Partial Proposed 32nd. Street Parking Plan T 1. pr isw 1W 32 St. Parking Exhibit I Level I +o.o' Newport Beach. CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL:L,57 L If V 7 L MEET t " - 12® - PROPOSED PARKING COUNT .. .. ....... A 450�REEII�MVARDSTAL� M �ALLEI — -------- - - - - -- — — — — — — — — _— W r¢TAL Partial Proposed 32nd. Street Parking Plan T 1. pr isw 1W 32 St. Parking Exhibit I Level I +o.o' Newport Beach. CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL:L,57 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 2152 I ON 1 XLYPORU I_ REUmE) EA.P: _ 60 MORE PARKING ®6 < ARE CEP1. ACCESS la' WM LANES AT GTE. ]I' MOM EDIT W W EITHER SEE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 21 I' h h h. Y h I. Ih' Y O a O S PON U vxW ENTRY LOBBY RETAIL COFFEE BAR MEN'S RESTROOM WOMEN'SRESTROOM LOBBY BAR ALL DAY DINING PRIVATE DINING MAIM KITCHEN B STORAGE BUSINESSCENTER FUNCTION ENTRY MAIN BALLROOM PRE - FUNCTION COVERED FUNCTION ENTRY BOARDROOM TWO STORY VILLA, LEVEL 1 LOADING ZONE "ASH SECURITY B RECEIVING M.R. E STORAGE LAUNDRY B HOUSEKEEPING MAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM MATH M.E.P. B.O.H.OFFICES B.O.M. CIRCULATION SERVICE ELEVATOR FFORT OFFICES CONCIERGE RECEPTION LUG GAGE STORAGE PUBLIC ELEVATORS SPA WOMEN'S POOL RESTROOM MEN'S POOL RESTROOM FITNESS S CANDID CAFE /BAKERY OUTDOOR DINING TERRACE CONTROLGATE PROPOSED CURB CUT INTERNAL COURTYARD COVEREDARCADE NOTE: 148 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS SHOWN (35 TANDEM/ VALET SPACES X 23.6 %) 9xtlC I.WE 80 CITY PARKING SPACES PROPOSED OUTSIDE OF ® PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS ENRE DUE SHOWN ON OVERALL SITE PLAN W A T G D 15' 150, 1001 Public Floor I Level 1 +o.o' ATchaFCwT<, I LaNAscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL i69 jil� WIN I lill"11111 11111 �:11 I loo IV JC1 A I Y9� . F Rai � u a /I k31K— I II I ] T 1 I � I I 1 I lv I _ WATG A,ch,tcnare I L IdsL.Iyc ( l S• P � O ITT I o z" I so' I of O 7 I' 1 I x FIRE DEPT. LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 22 1 NING GUESTROOM ] DOUBLEDUEEN GUESTROO t EXTENDED STAY SUITE OPEN TO ABOVE S TWO STORY VILLA, LEVEL] 6 HOUSEKEEPING STORAGE T PUBLIC ELEVATOR • ICEB VENDING • ELECTRICALS M.E.P. 10 BALLROOM ROOF 11 BOARDROOM ROOF A I I 1Yry �3 Guestroom Floor Level 2 +15.o` Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL i &l o z" I so' I of O 7 I' 1 I x FIRE DEPT. LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 22 1 NING GUESTROOM ] DOUBLEDUEEN GUESTROO t EXTENDED STAY SUITE OPEN TO ABOVE S TWO STORY VILLA, LEVEL] 6 HOUSEKEEPING STORAGE T PUBLIC ELEVATOR • ICEB VENDING • ELECTRICALS M.E.P. 10 BALLROOM ROOF 11 BOARDROOM ROOF A I I 1Yry �3 Guestroom Floor Level 2 +15.o` Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL i &l 2 &2 u -V LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 23 - 1 KING 0UESTRO0M E 1 DOUBLE OUEEM GUESTROOM l E %TENDED ET AY SUITE / OPEN TOBELOW • SUITE TERRACE • NOUEEKEEPIHGETORAGE [ I 1 ) PUBLIC ELEVATOR ` • ICE VENDING • ELECTRICAL A M.E.P. M1 ID BALLROOM ROOF i H BOARDROOM ROOF y VILLAS' TERRACE IL O `si I W A T G T° 25' 1 SD' Guestroom Floor I Level 3 +25.5` Ar,1,,i,a,,_ Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTELI &3 1614 CJ M LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 24 1 _ lll-D KING GUESTROOM 1 DOUBLE QUEEN GUESTROOM 1 E %TEND ED STAY SUITE 1 O PRESIDENTIAL SUITE 1, © HOUSEKEEPING STORAGE PUBLIC ELEVATOR ICERVENOING • ROOF LOUNGE LOUNGE PANTRY I 10 OBSERVATION TOWER ' R SUITE TERRACE jI 13 BALLROOM ROOF I' K 1T BOARDROOM ROOF �_ H VILLAS'ROOF 0= IL 0 WAT G ®° 5' Sd Rooftop Lounge I Level 4 +36.o` Architecture I Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 165 will 11 111 ��Fl 111111 Ill loo (7) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 25 OGUESTROOM ROOF O ROOFLOUMGE O SUITE TERRACE 1 GALUIOOM ROOF S BOARDROOM ROOF E VILLAVROOF /TERRACE SURFACE PARKING • MASH WATc Architecme I Lardscap_ 0 5' 50' 100, Overall Plan Roof +46.5` Newport Beach, CA LIDO HOUSE HOTEL2C,7 INTENTIONALLY Z &g �_ i C 'c 113-0 13 -U KING DOUBLE QUEEN GUESTROOM GUESTROOM 391 GSF 453 GSF WATG 1 o 2 20' 1/8 " =1' A,chit,m,r I Landscape L LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 26 MODULE & KEY COUNT TOTAL MODULES: 133 STANDARD KING: 58 DOUBLE QUEEN: 54 (1.5 MODULES) EXTENDED STAY SUITES: 12 (3 MODULES) PRESIDENTIAL: 1 EXTENDED STAY VILLAS: 5 TOTAL KEYS: 130 23' -0" EXTENDED STAY SUITE 696 GSF Guestroom Plans I Typical & Suite Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 269 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 170 -- - PO RCH AIDS) WPM 8' -6" 12' -6" LEVEL LIVING ROOM & KITCHEN 550 GSF INTERIOR 140 GSF EXTERIOR Wn T G o z zo• Archrtcaure 1 - antlsapc LEVEL 2 BEDROOMS 752 GSF INTERIOR 60 GSF EXTERIOR LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 27 �WIWWWWW� I I I I I I I I I I ROOF TERRACE 12'-6" 21' -0" LEVEL 3 ROOF TERRACE 40 GSF INTERIOR 380 GSF EXTERIOR 0 M TOTAL INTERIOR UNIT AREA: 1,342 GSF TOTAL EXTERIOR TERRACE AREA: 580 GSF Extended Stay Villa I Unit Plan Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1�g WWiIu ENTRY FRONT I� PORCH 8' -6" 12' -6" LEVEL LIVING ROOM & KITCHEN 550 GSF INTERIOR 140 GSF EXTERIOR Wn T G o z zo• Archrtcaure 1 - antlsapc LEVEL 2 BEDROOMS 752 GSF INTERIOR 60 GSF EXTERIOR LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 27 �WIWWWWW� I I I I I I I I I I ROOF TERRACE 12'-6" 21' -0" LEVEL 3 ROOF TERRACE 40 GSF INTERIOR 380 GSF EXTERIOR 0 M TOTAL INTERIOR UNIT AREA: 1,342 GSF TOTAL EXTERIOR TERRACE AREA: 580 GSF Extended Stay Villa I Unit Plan Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1�g mmomal 172 E.7 �y I Tailored Pieces Interact with Casual, Loose & Natural Textures Slightly Masculine, yet still Beachy Color Scheme in Public Areas I• Comfortable Soft Seating Croups for a Living Room feel and Easy Transitions between the Indoor& Ourdoor Spaces Eclectic Bookshelves with a beachy library Feel �n I iwir. I C � 7 [��nluuwr Slightly Nautical Striped Runners M AME Focal Art Wall featuring Map of Lido Isle in Chalk l � � e 114 ow �� I nteresting local art Collections in Weathered Display Framev LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 28 Suable Beach - Inspired Accents like a Rope Chandelier or Shell Console Unique & Intimate Design for the WK Grill Retaurant with Day -to -Night Transition sfa design Interior Imagery I Public Areas Newport Beach, LIDO HOUSE HOTEL173 ]Mg i W "All AL -174 I C� MI fi=1 0 r qW : i+ Natural 1 s of Coral, Navy & Seafoam in both a Soft and a Bold Scheme Coastal - Inspired Pieces Beach Cottage Casual LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 29 I �Lr.•_ Clean, Contemporary Bath t Overall feel is a Casual Beach Vibe with Contemporary Sophistication Woven Desk Seagrass Bed or Headboard Textured Character Beams, Doors or Wall - coverings sfa design Interior Imagery I Guestrooms With �tnesloro asscxiares Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTELi ,5 :L7C, �,_j J LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 30 ENTRY ROAD MOTORCOURT GATEWAY ARRIVAL MOTOR COURT DECORATIVE PAVING PARKING (I48 SPACES SHOWN) GATED PARKING ACCESS EXTERIOR PATIO RECLAIMED WOOD BENCHES SERVICE LOADING ZONE WOOD DECKING LAWNTERRACE FORMAL LAWN WITH PALMS MAIN POOL 8 DECK PRESERVED EXISTING TREES OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE FOCAL WATER FEATURE MOUNDED NATIVE GRASSES SEA GLASS 8 SHELL PAVING PARKOATEWAY Y r' A WATG Architecture I Landscape 11 5' So' loo' Landscape PLAN I Overall Site Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL:L7 0 f OW N "UNAIM 170 J -Il I l I 1 4 I ®�lv C S � r I � C / ;: 1 �' r q ;L3 fI I C!O s _ I 1 1 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 31 :RICK PENDANT LIGHTING Y BRICK PAVING w1N^r + 3 GATEWAY WOOD TRELLIS - 3 WATER FEATURE T I OS GUESTPARKING OENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION OPARK GATEWAY MONUMENTS RECYCLED WOOD BENCH �< •� JJy SEATING SEA GLASS, SAND AND SHELL PAVING 'PLANKS" INTERPRETIVE PYLONS 11 INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE / /�� 12 OUTDOOR DECK WITH FIRE PIT T �l O SPECIMENTREE •\ 1 O FANPALM Y SYCAMORE TREES 16 DUNE BERM PLANTING / V / / .. IL J �O ❑ ❑ 0 0 n 1 -o ❑ o n, tb l 1xI W A T G 0 �51 150, = Landscape PLAN I Arrival Court ArchIIOCWre I Lin(I6cAFle Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL1�9 .O r t- l �. I V f I I� 11 r• n., I � ,I j I is 1t' I I x s i rF I lip. �\ f 4 U I > ) IA I ) O ° s l ° �® - �� l � LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 32 RRD:NPAVING WOODDECNWITN SEATING LAWN TERRACE MOVEABLE FURNITURE 5 SEDIMENTARY SEAT WALL PARK GATEWAY M ONUMENTS 1 \ ` O) RECYCLED WOOD BENCH OSEATING El 16 SEAGLASS,SANDAND D y 1 LEI SMELL PAVING 'PLANKS" II l 9 ETIIV WAYTEOR N FS INERARCTVE "TUBE lI ll11 lI lI 11 \I f II EKISTNG TREES 1 FAN PALM .� lJ SYGMORE TREES 0 0 0 1 DUNE SERN PLANTING IF '! EVENT MWN 1 ,6 MAIN POOL DECK 6 CITY PARKING TORfiMAIN vJV ° s� W A T G ®° 5' iso, TGD• Landscape PLAN I Public Park Architecture I Landscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 121 ,jb, y wfm (7 O.. 1' r J �0 ul .� ' 1 *l?; LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 33 OI BRICK POOL DECK OSWIMMING POOL WIT. STEPPED SWIM OUTS ODATE PALMS Oa POOLCAEANAS b OUTDOOR RNR /KITCHEN ' 6 SPECIMEN TREE J FIREPLACE 8 SPA P EVENTLAWN 10 COURTYARD WITH FOUNTAIN COVERED WALKWAY / If PRIVATE ENTRY B FRONT YARD PRIVATE FRONT PORCH LOW�L YING LANDSCAPE GROUNDCOVER W A T G (D 10 125' 50' 10011 Landscape PLAN Courtyard Amtnte ure I Landscape Newport Beach, CA LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 183 I ' 1 *l?; LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 33 OI BRICK POOL DECK OSWIMMING POOL WIT. STEPPED SWIM OUTS ODATE PALMS Oa POOLCAEANAS b OUTDOOR RNR /KITCHEN ' 6 SPECIMEN TREE J FIREPLACE 8 SPA P EVENTLAWN 10 COURTYARD WITH FOUNTAIN COVERED WALKWAY / If PRIVATE ENTRY B FRONT YARD PRIVATE FRONT PORCH LOW�L YING LANDSCAPE GROUNDCOVER W A T G (D 10 125' 50' 10011 Landscape PLAN Courtyard Amtnte ure I Landscape Newport Beach, CA LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 183 104 Cyll LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 34 W A T G ,t a' 16, 5o North Elevation I Arrival Architecture I Landscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ZQ� leo C 0 t LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 35 " METAL LOUVERS UX] FIBER CEMENT CAVE DETAIL OGLASS HANDRAIL OFABRIC AWNING S FIBER CEMENT: SIMULATED WOOD 6101HG F FIBER CEMENT: SIMULATED WOOD PCCENi T RIM CEMENT ROOF: SIMULATED WOOD SHINGLES Oe F.C. OR FRR: SIMULATED WOOD TRELLIS p CULTURED STONE ID CULTURED STONE: 6IMUUTED LIMESTONE EASE U CULTURED 6TOM E STONE HEADER BRICK �'•` . ,,,,,,,,, 7" i t W n T G East Elevation I Hotel AILnlleaGrt I LindscapD Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 127 n-Alk I WE M LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 36 CAWNIMG CEMENT: SIMULATED WOOD SIDING CEMENT'. SIMULATED WOOD ACCENT TRIM IT ROOF: SIMULATED WOOD SHINGLES i FED. SIMULATED WOOD TRELLIS REDSTONE RED STONE: S MULATEO LIMESTONE BASE RED STONE STONE HEADER W A T G o a 16• islyl West Elevation I Newport Blvd Architecture I Landscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL I8J Mina �e4 n ''• STAIR ROOF D amp" nnry L V r I No Mqq I 6O� _ E R. OPP MIME k duIII''.:,II1I1/ IIGi'�Ilil n�, pl1i�ITjill;l�lunpul pIp I IInR'I tNIUP;!IA ill �n IIPN';II I: 94111111 W6'V. 0111�pTll�;Il;Ni!I. �I iM4IUd� LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 37 1 METALLOUVERS S FIBER CEMENT EA1 EDETAIL S GLASS HANDRAIL A FABRIC AWNING 6 FIBER CEMENT: SIP ULATED WOOD SIDING FIBER CEMENT: 511 ULATED WOOD ACCENT TRIM CEM NT ROOF: SIMULATED • WOODSHINGLES • F.C.Oq FRF: SIMUL LTSO WOOD TRELLIS ID CULTURED STORE 11 CULTUREDSTONE: IMULATEDLIME- tl STONE BASE 14 CULTUREDSTOXE TONE HEADER IA BRICK BALBOA PENINSULA I LINDA ISLE 1 BAY ISLAND I HARBOR ISLAND I BACK BAY 1 SUITE 1 SUITE 1 SUITE 1 SUITE I SUITE 1 I 1 1 I I I W A T G e 4' 16' S. Elevation Extended Stay Villas ArchltlLtlIe I La,d,,rp� Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL jqj INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 192 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 38 WATG Architecture I Landscape Arrival View I Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 193 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE ?94 r) G MODULE & KEY COUNT TOTAL MODULES: 133 STANDARD KING: 58 DOUBLE QUEEN: 54 (1.5 MODULES) EXTENDED STAY SUITES: 12 (3 MODULES) PRESIDENTIAL: 1 EXTENDED STAY VILLAS: 5 TOTAL KEYS: 130 PROPOSED PROPOSED ZONING DATA PROJECT DATA LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1 39 PROPOSED AREA PROGRAM R,,,.. rb� .,- " . Guesuoom Areas: Proposed Hotel Development - Concept Design': Guestrooms 8 Corridors 69,944 Guestraom support 3,392 Total Guestroom 73.336 Parking spaces provided on site (1.1 x 130 Rooms) =148 Spaces Public Areas: Setbacks per proposed zonfli Front: (Newport Blvd.): 0' at basement, 20' to 26' -0" in ht, 35' above 26'-0" in ht Food 8 Beverage 3.195 Function Space 4,453 Lobby Areas 1,065 Retail 875 Spa f Fitness 2.979 Public Circulation 8 Misc 5,080 Total Public Space 17,647 (Total site = 186,154 sf - 13,068 sf (0.3 acres) = 173,086 sf _ _ 173,086 x 20 %= 340617 sf required Open Space on Site) fronting Newport Blvd. and all parking areas. The design Provides a total 38,9.60__sf (0.89 acres) for landscape and hardscape setback. Back of House Areas: _ Administrative 2,240 Food 8 Beverage B.O.H. 1,750 Function Support 700 Employee Facilities 160_ Housekeeping Facilities 1,070 Mechanical Areas 11500 BOH Misc 8 Circulation 1,222 Total Back of House 8.61_ TOTAL PROGRAM: Proposed City Zoning Criteria': MU -LV Proposed Hotel Development - Concept Design': Rattail Total Gross Area of Development per proposed Zoning. __Gros_. Total Gross Area of Development Allowable = 99,625 sf _ Total Gross Area of Development: Total Gross Area of Proposed Development = 99,826 sf F.A.R (including estimate for the existing Fire Station) = 0.541 In Conformance Parking spaces provided on site (1.1 x 130 Rooms) =148 Spaces Setbacks per proposed zonfli Front: (Newport Blvd.): 0' at basement, 20' to 26' -0" in ht, 35' above 26'-0" in ht Setbacks per Development: Front (Newport Blvd). 69' -1" SB In Conformance Side: (32n° Street): 0' at basement, 20' to 26' -0" in ht., 10' above 26' -0" in ht Interior: 0' at basement, 5' at Interior Lots Side: (32" Street): 19' -1" SB and 2T -3" 58 _ Intarlon 51' -0" SB (Porte Cochere) -- - In Conformance In Conformance Rear: 5' Rear: 111'-0" S8 In Conformance Open Space Requirement per proposed Zoning 20% open space excluding the 0.3 acre area fronting Newport Blvd. Open Space Requirement per Development: 71.0% total open space provided = 129,163 of (incl. the 0.3 acre area 13,068 sf In Conformance (Total site = 186,154 sf - 13,068 sf (0.3 acres) = 173,086 sf _ _ 173,086 x 20 %= 340617 sf required Open Space on Site) fronting Newport Blvd. and all parking areas. The design Provides a total 38,9.60__sf (0.89 acres) for landscape and hardscape setback. _ Height Limits per proposed Zoning: Height Limits per Development: 4 Storey's maximum 46' -0" to Rat roofs from Natural Grade 58' -5" to sloping roofs graeter than 3:12 and elevator over -runs In Conformance 55' to flat roof from Natural Grade 60' to sloping roofs greeter than 3:12 and elevator over -runs 65' to architectural features such as domes, spires, cupolas, etc. Easements per proposed Zoning Maintain existing 120' easem m ent at Finley Street to Lido Commercial Plaza area In Conformance 58' -5" to architectural features such as domes, spires, cupolas, etc. In Conformance Easements per Development: Existing 120' easement at Finley Street to Lido Commercial Plaza area - Maintained Iln Conformance Twee - . ve .i, , w ri wpur, Blvd. open area and 0.3E acres devoted for the Fire Station site to remain. W n T G Project Data Ardnteau,c I t „ro... Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL z9$ 091 WIN` 11 1 to s9& B.D.OLSON DEVELOPMENT DESTINATION 4uP HOTELS 6 RESORTS WATG Architecture I Landscape sfa design go 197 Attachment PC -4 Final Environmental Impact Report Introduction to Final EIR Comments and responses to comments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Errata to the Draft EIR (separate due to bulk, available at www.newportbeachca.gov \eir in the Lido House Hotel folder) 199 Page Intentionally Blank 200 Attachment PC -5 Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission June 3, 2014, staff report 201 Page Intentionally Blank 202 oa�WPOR� CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH �q< %FORN'P PB &R Commission Staff Report Agenda Item No. June 3, 2014 TO: Parks, Beaches &. Recreation' Commission FROM: Municipal, Operations Department Mike Pisani, Acting Municipal Operations Director 949 644- 3055, mpisani @newportbeachca.gov TITLE: Special Tree Removal Request — 3300 Newport Blvd.. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission consider the removal of four Special trees — Dedicated Trees located at the former City Hall site,, 3300 Newport Boulevard. If the removals are approved, staff has identified four existing City trees to be dedicated in place of the removed trees. DISCUSSION: There are four Special Trees — Dedicated Trees located at the former City Hall site, 3300 Newport Boulevard. Special `frees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in page 2 of the G -1 'Policy. The planned redevelopment of 'the site requires the removal or transplant of four existing Special trees- 'Dedicated trees. Working with the Community Development Department, staff reviewed the trees- planned for removal to evaluate if any would' be viable for relocation or transplantation. The Community Development Department compiled a final report of the findings and recommendations (Attachment A). The first tree, Ficus benjamina; located in front of the old Council Chambers, was dedicated to Lawrence William Covert, a long -time City employee who served as the City's tree superintendent and General Services Director in the 1950's and 1960's. Ficus benjamina is defined as a Problem Tree in Council Policy G -1 due to excessive hardscape or utility damage from its excess root system. In its place, the City will dedicate a Moreton Bay Fig tree, a member of the Ficus family, at .Eastbluff 'Park in honor of Mr. Covert. 203 Special Tree Removal Request— 3300 Newport Blvd. June 03, 2014 Page 2 The second tree, Pinus halepensis, was dedicated to Walter Knott, the co- founder of Knott's Berry Farm, in 1961. Due to age and past pruning, the tree is not in good condition nor recommended for transplantation. Staff recommends dedicating an Italian Stone Pine in the "M" Street Median in Mr.. Knott's honor. Another Pinus halepensis tree„ dedicated for the California Bicentennial in 1969, is the only tree for proposed removal without a plaque. Similar to the previous Pinus halepensis, this tree is not a good candidate for relocation and staff recommends dedicating an Italian Stone Pine tree at Irvine Terrace Park for the California Bicentennial, and installing a new plaque. Lastly, the "Freedom Tree" is a Harpephyllum caffrum and was dedicated for the United States Bicentennial in 1976. Although the tree is in good condition, the species is not a good candidate for relocation as it would not likely survive transplantation. Staff recommends dedicating a prominent Sycamore tree at Irvine Terrace Park in honor of the U.S. Bicentennial. If the removals are approved, as well as the locations and trees for dedication, staff will move forward with the rededication and moving of the plaques. Staff has attempted to notify the original honorees or families, for whom the trees were dedicated, of the pending removals and rededications. However, Staff has not been able to find a contact for the Covert family. Members of the Knotts family have shown interest in the rededication process, and staff will continue to make an effort to involve all families or community in the process. Additionally there are two Special Trees - Landmark Trees on the old City Hall site. These trees will not be removed, but rather worked into the new development plan. NOTICING: Council Member Mike Henn has received a copy of this report. In addition the surrounding property owners were notified of the Commission Meeting related to these removals via postcard. The attached poster (Attachment C) was posted on the trees for removal tree the week of May 27. Submitted by: Mike Pisani, Acting Director Municipal Operations Department 204 Special Tree Removal Request — 3300 Newport Blvd, June 03, 2014 Page 3 Attachments: A. Special Trees — City Hall Complex Report B. Special Trees Report, related maps and photographs C. Tree poster D. Map of Planned Redevelopment 205 Special Trees City Hall Complex 3300 Newport Boulevard O� ��WIP�RT 1 9G /F0RN November 16, 2012 ATTACHMENT A 200 Special Trees - City Hall Complex, 3300 Newport Boulevard City Council Policy G -1 provides guidance to the City regarding public trees. The policy establishes provides definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards, and supplemental trimming of City trees. City trees are an important part of the character and charm of the entire City and provide environmental benefits as well. Regular care, trimming, root pruning, maintenance, and programmed replacement are necessary to preserve this charm while at the same time protecting views consistent with Council Policy G -3 and preventing public and private property damage. Policy G- 1 classifies public trees in three categories: Special Trees, Problem Trees, and All Other Trees. All trees located on -site fall into one or more of these categories. Policy G -1 identifies two types of Special Trees: Landmark Trees and Dedicated Trees; and two (2) Landmark Trees and four (4) Dedicated Trees are identified on -site. Council Policy G -1 can be found here: http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov /Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =2464 A. Landmark Trees Two Ficus microcarpa "Nitida" trees are located between Newport Boulevard and City Hall buildings and are depicted in the photograph below. According to the City Arborist, the species is a reasonable candidate for relocation and if proper care is taken, a tree may survive transplantation; however, Council Policy G -1 designates Ficus microcarpa "Nitida" as a Problem Tree because of excessive hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system. City of Newport Beach I November 16, 2012 Special Trees - City Hall Complex, 3300 Newport Boulevard B. Dedicated Trees 1. The Ficus benjamina tree below was dedicated to Lawrence William Covert. Billy Covert was a long -time City employee who served as the City's tree superintendent and General Services Director in the 1950's and 1960's. According to the City Arborist, the species is a reasonable candidate for relocation if proper care is taken and a tree may survive transplantation; however, Council Policy G -1 designates Ficus benjamina as a Problem Tree because of excessive hardscape or utility damage due to its excessive root system. City of Newport Beach I November 16, 2012 Special Trees - City Hall Complex, 3300 Newport Boulevard 2. The Pinus halepensis tree below was dedicated to Walter Knott, the co- founder of Knott's Berry Farm, in 1961. The tree is not in pristine growing condition due to age, past pruning, and the proximity the adjacent pine tree. The City Arborist indicates the species is not a good candidate for relocation and the tree would not likely survive. City of Newport Beach I November 16, 2012 2P9 Special Trees - City Hall Complex, 3300 Newport Boulevard 3. The Pinus halpensis tree below was dedicated for the California Bicentennial. No dedication plaque remains. The species is not a good candidate for relocation as the tree would not likely survive. L A City of Newport Beach I November 16, 2012 210 Special Trees - City Hall Complex, 3300 Newport Boulevard 4. The Harpephyllum kaffrum below was dedicated for the United States Bicentennial in 1976 and it is named "The Freedom Tree." The tree is in a good growing condition and the species is not a good candidate for relocation as it would not likely survive transplantation according to the City Arborist. City of Newport Beach I November 16, 2012 211 Special Trees - City Hall Complex, 3300 Newport Boulevard C. Issue Redevelopment of the site could lead to the removal of most if not all trees on site including_ the 6 designated. Special Trees. D. Recommendations 1. Develop a Tree Management 'Program that would include the removal, relocation or preservation of all existing trees or landscape materials. The removal or relocation of designated Special Trees shall be subject to Council Policy G -1 and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission or City Council approval. 2. Every effort should be taken to avoid significantly impacting the 2 Landmark Trees. Should future development of the site put the Landmark Trees in jeopardy, the trees should be transplanted to an acceptable location on -site provided there are located to minimize future damage to hardscape or underground utility systems. As an alternative, the trees can be relocated to an appropriate off -site location. In the event that the trees do not remain on -site, the City should consider planting 2 replacement specimen trees of any variety on- site that would be eligible to be designated as Landmark Trees. 3. The City should locate an existing Ficus benjamina tree in a City park and dedicate the tree in the name of Lawrence William Covert. Should an appropriate tree not be found, the City will attempt to transplant the existing tree or plant a new tree of the same variety at an appropriate location. The re- dedicated tree should have a permanent marker or plaque. Every effort should be made to involve the Covert family'in this process. 4. The Walter Knott Tree and the California Bicentennial Tree cannot be effectively transplanted. The City should locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the name of Walter and Cordelia Knott. The City should also locate an existing tree in a prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it in honor of the State of California. The re- dedicated trees will have permanent markers and every effort should be made to involve the Knott family and the community in the process. 5. The Freedom Tree also cannot be effectively transplanted. The City should locate an existing tree in a very prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. An appropriate permanent marker or plaque will be provided and the dedication should be accomplished with community and veterans groups' participation. 6. All other trees or other landscaping should be incorporated on -site within new development to the extent practical. If existing trees or landscaping are not being utilized in new designs, the City should salvage and transplant whatever it deems appropriate and then consider offering remaining salvageable landscaping to the public at auction provided the cost of landscape salvage is the responsibility of the successful bidders. City of Newport Beach I November 16, 2012 212 �r,whtikT: TO: FROM: Municipal Operations. Acting Municipal Operations Director Parks /Trees Superintendent SUBJECT: Tree Removal Review - Special Trees PROPERTY OWNERS) / REQUESTER INFORMATION: Name: Community Development Department Location of trees: 3300 Newport Boulevard Huuuun xesour= MAY 2 2 2014 Recewcd by: rM L May 15, 2014 As part of the redevelopment of the former City Hall site, six trees have been identified by Council Policy G -1 as Special Trees (see attached reports, photos, and maps): four Dedicated Trees (various species) are requested for removal and rededication at other locations, and two Landmark Trees are requested for retention and to be protected in place. Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in page 2 of the G -1 Policy. The Community Development Department put together a final report of the findings and recommendations. These trees are listed as Special Trees, which necessitates the recommendation of the Municipal Operations Director, Risk Manager, the City Manager, and PB &R Commission approval prior to removal (Policy G -1). Although the trees are in good condition, staff concurs with the removal requests for rededication of the Dedicated Trees. Due to the age and species, the trees would not likely survive transplantation. REPLACEMENT TREE($): N/A DESIGNATED TREE(S): N/A ACTING MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS DIRECTOR - COMMENTS / RECOMMENDATIONS: (Z- 6,,- o _ de A'rna F cJ (sew HP_.rc Signature: VV</V � Date: .5;-Zl (�l 213 RISK MANAGER- COMMENTS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Signature: Ivu U CITY MANAGER - COMMENTS / RECOMMENDATIONS: 1�--Ak/ Signature: Date: Date: �{ Z g I (`) 214 =: Municipal Operations Department TREE INSPECTION REPORT Name: Community Development Department Locations of trees: 3300 Newport Boulevard Request: As part of the redevelopment of the former City Hall site, six trees have been identified by Council Policy G -1 as Special Trees (see attached reports, photos, and maps): four Dedicated Trees (various species) are requested for removal and rededication at other locations, and two Landmark Trees are requested for retention and to be protected in place. Botanical/ Common Names: • Ficus benjamina - Weeping Fig • (2) Pinus halepensis - Aleppo Pine • (2) Ficus microcarpa Nitida' - Indian Laurel Fig (retain) • Harpephyllum caffrum - Kaffir Plum Designated Street Tree: N/A Estimated Trees Value: $21,440 Damage: N/A Parkway: Concrete Brick Turf ( ) Other Comments: Special Trees may be considered for removal in conjunction with a City Council approved beautification project utilizing the Removal of City Trees procedures noted in page 2 of the G -1 Policy. The Community Development Department put together a final report of the findings and recommendations. These trees are listed as Special Trees, which necessitates the recommendation of the Municipal Operations Director, Risk Manager, the City Manager, and PB&R Commission O;roval prior to removal (Policy G -1). Inspected by: , Caw OY�Date: May 15, 2014 John Conway, Urban Forester 225 Recommendation: Although the trees are in good condition, staff concurs with the removal requests for rededication of the Dedicated Trees. Due to the age and species, the trees would not likely survive transplantation. Reviewed by: o Date: May 15, 2014 Dan P. Sereno, Parks and Trees Superintendent 210 a gA A g' A l NI I SCI 1% Lze£ Opp .) is F W ASS ��kwM sssss `u i be, a toff OA19 1N0dM3N Fl N as ,-70n 069 J,*:', LS SOS 05 f09 l05 Qa j 9L6 x o n BZt UP LZt 934 SZt S zzt etb LIP O3b Sts Ot9 9tb 9tv "- IN �s ofaoao BVE06 �� eot evL04 N 0 Bb500 EOb ,oa9 tab v a 5 t 0 y V O 0 U m ozo LIS 0 � o F- v `m a SLS O 0 0 W 'O 0 p d 349 d O4S V_ O 4, 0 O 909 O 909 b v • 909 LOS k; x -V—O O y 0 bos LOS f09 o 0-m-] OS v 0 yY e >�, szpr reff 0 � Y 'o v u sy�, D r O O PC 3t a toff OA19 1N0dM3N Fl N as ,-70n 069 J,*:', LS SOS 05 f09 l05 Qa j 9L6 x o n BZt UP LZt 934 SZt S zzt etb LIP O3b Sts Ot9 9tb 9tv 9wu IN � Ott BVE06 �� eot evL04 N 0 Bb500 EOb ,oa9 tab v Z 5 9L -0 m ozo LIS 0 � o o `m a SLS PIS 0 0 zls fIs 349 O4S L9 0t9 909 am 909 tos • • 909 LOS gas 909 bos LOS f09 zos 0-m-] OS ON AVM Y111A m ro Oct et eo Szb ezb let v 9w bzb Ltb N 9to LH LOPE Ott LM ect J I ECI N j 9L6 x o n BZt UP LZt 934 SZt szr zzt etb LIP O3b Sts Ot9 9tb 9tv 9wu IN Llb Ott BVE06 �� eot evL04 N 0 Bb500 EOb ,oa9 tab r' a�f 0 S � S `eyM1 9 OPb�yo $P� iii �^M1 ^M1M1 ^M1O ^ ^0 Qo- ^AM1 ^ y�0 !V1 ^a,A I05 L y� V V A, u 0 c �Ory O E N °m 5 I05 L y� V V A, u 0 c o O E N 0 m N w N 0 v v Z 0 -0 m $ 0 � o o `m a a a 0 0 0 US IOS tos • • I05 L y� V V A, u .y t O �tiVVy� Proposed Rededication - Walter Knott Tree lit _< M c �. OEMY'1 ` rj" `ANA0A AVp j, €'. J 211j, z a f. 2117 e Newport Beach Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of G I S Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. ° 0 40 80 Imagery: 2009 -2013 photos provided by Eagle Feet Imaging www.eagleaedal.com 21- M Street Park - Proposed Rededication Walter Knott Tree 229 Proposed Rededication - Freedom Tree Newport Beach GIS 0 20 40 U Feet C7<IFOAN`' Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Imagery: 2009 -2013 photos provided by Eagle Imaging www.eagleaerial.com 220 Irvine Terrace Park - Proposed Rededication Freedom Tree 221 �t r • f Proposed Rededication - California Bicentinneal Tree e Newport Beach O GIS GN 0 40 80 Feet I Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to any results obtained in its use. Imagery: 2009 -2013 photos provided by Eagle Imaging www.eagleaerial.com 222 Irvine Terrace Park - Proposed Rededication California Bicentinneal Tree 223 Proposed Rededication - Lawrence Covert Tree 224 �. � "� ,� �. ,, . s t � 'R f: , . �� -c; ,:, ;,: �, . �,.. � Syr .y � r .: �f �'� �'k: � £a � �, Y """iii������ T� — �F' m �_ »5�4¢ti� "`� i � � ��� v Fr I cb'- y.� - -::,;, �: y .::.�.:- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THE PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR THE REMOVAL OF THIS TREE AT THE June 3, 2014 (6:OOPM) MEETING AT THE CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL THE MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT AT (949) 644 -3055 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THE PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR THE REMOVAL OF THIS TREE AT THE June 3, 2014 (6:OOPM) MEETING AT THE CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL THE MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT AT(9'ATTACHMENT C 220 I I - -4 t I 1 1 0 jW > x 1v� 0 C00 mZlQ O mww m3� w O o _ _ f fi If--] it ` - Fic `r CrS i�_17 Od VIA W= W=> a > O ' � O 7 � W J ! • w, � LLI 6o� e � � I I - -4 t I 1 1 ! -d 1 _ l I I I I I I I z__I. I W m Ow > No FK jW > 1v� C00 mZlQ mww m3� w f W= W=> a > O ' � O 7 � W J ! • w, � LLI 6o� e � � -0 m m l __ ! -d 1 _ l I I I I I I I z__I. I W m Ow > No FK Z Q w W C 1 V I - 0 l l 1: W ZQm WZ ix WOV — 0-- - - - - -- U I a�Z <DO Jw awl xC >��N «.. �O w Dwo3 N z (a s w Z mO dM3N NW ;a �0a °a3za t V W O c j O Q x O � o ^` J V 1 � R c� J-+ `; a w z W W 2 N O Z N M ATTACHMENT D 227 jW > F f W C00 mZlQ mww m3� w OLL OJT W= W=> � F- ¢tu Z Q w W C 1 V I - 0 l l 1: W ZQm WZ ix WOV — 0-- - - - - -- U I a�Z <DO Jw awl xC >��N «.. �O w Dwo3 N z (a s w Z mO dM3N NW ;a �0a °a3za t V W O c j O Q x O � o ^` J V 1 � R c� J-+ `; a w z W W 2 N O Z N M ATTACHMENT D 227 Page Intentionally Blank 22R Attachment PC -6 Additional correspondence 229 Page Intentionally Blank 2--7�o PROPOSED LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD & 475 32ND STREET As we approach the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the redevelopment of the old City Hall property located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street, the community has raised several questions regarding the land use entitlement process. This information sheet is intended to answer the most frequently asked questions. What is the Purpose of the Proposed Mixed -Use Land Use and Zoning Designations? The City Hall site is presently designated as Public Facilities, which allows governmental offices and other type of civic functions. This designation does not allow any commercial and /or residential development, so the redevelopment of the old City Hall property necessarily requires the City to consider a new land use designation for the property. City staff first outlined the Mixed -Use land use categories and zoning designation to the City Council on April 24, 2012, when the City Council initiated the amendment process. At that time, the proposed Mixed -Use designations were considered unique to the City Hall property and necessary to provide for the operation of the Lido Fire Station in conjunction with the future development of the City Hall property. The proposed Mixed -Use designations provide flexibility to consider a wide range of development options. This is especially important when there is a non - residential component to the development. The proposed Lido House Hotel project illustrates this point, in that the proposed hotel project in conjunction with the retention of the Lido Fire Station in its current location are consistent with the proposed Mixed -Use designations. Both the Planning Commission and City Council may consider a refinement to the proposed land uses within the Mixed -Use designations as part of their deliberations on the project. Why has both a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Draft Environmental Impact Report Been Prepared? Following City Council's initiation of the amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate redevelopment of the old City Hall site, in June 2012, Staff began undertaking environmental review of the Mixed -Use land use amendments although at that time, a precise development plan had not been suggested or approved by City Council. Therefore, City staff prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration with an analysis that was limited to the potential impacts of the land use plan and zoning amendments (i.e. Mixed -Use land use designation changes) and no analysis of a specific development project was included. The draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and proposed Mixed -Use amendments were considered by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2013. After the public hearing, the Commission recommended to City Council approval of the land use plan and zoning amendments and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Around this same time, the City Council narrowed its consideration of development proposals and issued a Request for Proposals to pre - qualified developers on February 5, 2013. Given the forthcoming responses to the RFP, on March 26, 2013, the City Council continued indefinitely the consideration of the proposed mixed -use amendments and did not take any action to approve or modify the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Mixed -Use amendments, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Instead, following its selection of the RD Olson team and its proposal for a the development of a, 130 - room hotel in July 2013, the City Council executed an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with RD Olson and established an ad -hoc negotiating committee to guide the preparation of a long -term ground lease for the site. Because the hotel development proposal had been selected, specific development plans were contemplated and foreseeable. As such, a comprehensive evaluation of both the proposed hotel development and proposed mixed -use land use designation amendments should be completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prior to City Council approval. Given the development proposal, City staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be the appropriate document for this comprehensive evaluation. The EIR will be considered in place of the draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration that was recommended by the Planning Commission. At the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, City staff will be requesting action on the Environmental Impact Report. Has the Decision to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report Slowed Down the Project? Staff does not believe the preparation of a Draft EIR has slowed the Project down. The decision to postpone consideration of the proposed amendments to evaluate the amendments together with the proposed Lido House Hotel in the Draft EIR is consistent with CEQA. The proposed hotel project is now beyond being conceptual, and is far enough in the planning process for it to be appropriately evaluated as part of the legislative approvals that serve to facilitate the redevelopment. Rather than slow down the process, the Draft EIR provides for a thorough evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project as well as consider project alternatives. Why Does the Environmental Impact Report Include Alternatives that the Community Does Not Support? CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require an Environmental Impact Report to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The 4 alternatives included in the EIR are: 1) No Project /No Build 2) No Project /Existing General Plan 3) Reduced Density (a 3 -story hotel) 4) Mixed Use project composed of 99 residential commercial. units and 15,000 square feet of The discussion of alternatives provides for an informed public discussion of the effects of the proposed project and alternatives, however, the only site development proposal is for a 130 - room hotel. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts and all potential impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. What is the Proposed Project Schedule? July 17, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing August 12, 2013 City Council Public Hearing August 2014 Submit Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to Coastal Commission April 2015 Coastal Commission Action on Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment April 2015 Submit Coastal Development Permit Application for Hotel Construction October 2015 Coastal Commission Approval of Coastal Development Permit June 2016 Initiate Construction August 2017 Project Completion This Project includes a General Plan Amendment. Does this Project Require a Vote? Pursuant to City Charter Section 423, a General Plan Amendment may require the vote of the electorate if it is considered to be a "major amendment', as that is defined by Section 423. The proposed General Plan Amendment as recommended by City staff is not considered to be a "major amendment' as it is within the thresholds established by City Charter Section 423. Therefore, it does not require a vote by the City of Newport Beach electorate in order to be effective. We hope this information answers frequently asked questions about the process. If there are additional questions or you need further information, please contact James Campbell, Principal Planner, at 949- 644 -3210 or Iampbell@newportbeachca.eov. COMMUNITY JUL 0 ? 2014 To: City of Newport Beach- Planning Commission; City Council p� DEVELOPMENT vT P Date: July 2, 2014 yOP NEWPo\6 COMMENTS: Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for The Lido House Hotel PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE PARTIES REFERENCED ABOVE AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD We would like to thank the City staff for their efforts to assemble a comprehensive set of documents associated with this project. The scope of our comments includes both Staff Report recommendations associated with amendments /modifications to the General Plan and the Zoning Code( report dated and distributed June 5, 2014), and the draft EIR(DEIR), version as presented to the Planning Commission in study session of June COMMENTS TO PROPOSED GP LUE AMENDMENT AND ZONING CHANGES - Staff proposes to modify the GPLUE, and the City zoning code to include a new zoning designation identified as, MU -HU5 , to enable the reuse of the former City Hall Site(zoned as PF) for a Hotel use and specific project. The proposed land use and zoning designations are overly broad.We appreciate the desire for some flexibility, which a general Commercial or even Mixed Use type zoning could provide. However, there are uses in the proposed language which the public expressly objected to in numerous hearings and testimony associated with the reuse: a) Assembly use - Incompatible with the surrounding uses contributing to revitalization, b) Residential /mixed use(aka "Dwelling units ") —there is already an abundance of dense residential uses in the Lido /Balboa Penninsula area. What is needed is a Use such as a Hotel, which serves as a Destination Anchor for the Lido village revitalization, and benefits residents and visitors alike. c) Public /civic buildings or facilities- There are already more than enough city facilities including recreational and civic centers to serve this area d) There is lack of clarity regarding the current Fire Station. This should be established as a separate PF if it is to remain ... or separated in any event for clarity. We request that, consistent with the Will of the People and policy direction established by the City Council when the Hotel use was approved, these above - referenced uses be eliminated from the proposed definition of the new zoning designation and GPLUE amendment; that they not be included as permitted uses on the site. 234 Page 2 COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED DRAFT EIR- On page 1 -2 of the Introduction, first full paragraph states that "the proposal would require.... if approved would allow the property to be developed with EITHER a Mixed- use(Commerical /residential) building or a Hotel." We object to this dual potential use proposal - - -it is inconsistent with the Will of the People and Council direction, and, causes confusion as to the character of the project subject to Coastal Review that could put the initial submittal at risk.(the character and impacts associated with Residential /mixed use and Hotel are NOT the same). 2. In section 1.3 Goals and Objectives, we request that the proposed project goals statement be modified to conform and make a clearer, more compelling presentation to the Coastal Commission, specifically: - Second bullet-add ...... contributes to Newport Beach's Lido and Balboa Penninsula area.." - Delete reference to Lido Village Design Guidelines, as they are not a regulatory element - Fourth bullet- delete "open space " -- -there is plenty of open space with the beach, bay, park areas on the Balboa Penninsula and in close proximity to the Hotel site. - Fifth bullet: eliminate "personal services" and "assembly" as they are not part of the parcel Use as reviewed and approved by prior public process( anything resident in the Hotel is part of that Use) - Sixth bullet: Modify to state "financially successful" or "sustainable" rather than "viable" 3. General comment on sections regarding Impacts and Mitigation: -The section should be reorganized and stated so that impacts associated with Construction and Operations /long term are clearly delineated, along with appropriate mitigation measures -A key Impacts critical to address is that of Traffic and Parking. While referenced in several not obvious places in the DEIR, we recommend that it be directly stated that, the Intensity and traffic, parking impacts associated with the Hotel project are not significantly different and potentially slightly less, than those associated with the prior use as a City Hall Complex. Parking to be addressed with similar approach. 4. Section 3.1 ,Project Location and Setting- the discussions in the staff report and the DEIR are somewhat confusing, and we request clarification. -Does the "project site" INCLUDE the Fire Station, or only the Former City Hall? Are both the City Hall complex and the Fire Station considered to be on the same Parcel? -Does the proposed revised GP include BOTH sites /elements? Zoning? 235 Pg. 3 COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED DEIR -The DEIR scope is stated to be that of, Lido House Hotel project. If so, then, unless the Fire Station is On -site, it should be removed from reference as such and instead be "adjacent ". 5. On pg and table 3 -2, Proposed Hotel- The hotel is described as including "extended stay" suites and villas. The public has consistently objected to the .'extended stay' designation, as it potentially blurs with other types of residential - type uses. We request that the "extended stay " characterization be eliminated from the Project description - -- suites and villas is adequate 6. On page 3 -8. Architecture section- The second paragraph incorrectly references a "Lido Village Master Plan " -- -there is none to public knowledge. Please eliminate this reference, to avoid confusion and unnecessary risk of challenge. 7. Comment regarding Design- Concern was identified by both the public and the Commission in the study session regarding the proposed design of the site including an open area for visitor, resident and public access. This area as currently proposed has no buffer from the sidewalk and street, and subjects both the hotel and those enjoying the area to ongoing stream of security and nuisance issues that would be detrimental to the project and the public. To facilitate the safety and management of the site environment, we recommend that a Landscape buffer be included in the project design for all areas adjacent to Newport Blvd and 32nd street. The buffer should be at shrubs and trees of at least 5 -6 ft. in height. 8. Section 5.1.2- Regulatory setting- -The "Design guidelines" as referenced for Lido village, or for that matter, are NOT regulatory, and should not be presented or inferred to be such. This, and similar statements introduce unnecessary risk to the project and vulnerability to CEQA -based challenge. -We have previously requested that the city provide clarification and response as to referenced approval processes. We request that as part of the record and the Planning Commission hearing, that clarification be provided as to the required Coastal Commission - related approved plans and status, target timline on their submittals( LCP Implementation Plan etc.) 2--210 Pg. 4 COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED DRAFT EIR 9. Discussion of Alternative Uses - We understand that CEQA requires a discussion of alternative uses for a project. With recognition to that requirement, and the objective of facilitating regulatory review and approval of the Hotel project, we request the following clarifications included in the DEIR discussion: • 1. No Project- The reasons that this alternative was not selected need to be more definitive(eg., existing blight, environmental degradation, fails to promo • The City of Newport Beach, and in particular the Balboa Penninsula area already have more than adequate parks, public facilities, residential uses. We need complimentary uses that will serve residents and visitors, and provide for economic revitalization of the area • Proposed use, less intensity(Hotel 108 rooms)- We question why this should be introduced. The project is not economically feasible at this room level, and does not optimize level of visitor benefit that the site can accommodate 10. Superior Use - The stated Superior uses are not appropriate. The No project No build is not an option,as the current facility on the site is not safe /not compliant with seismic requirements. The Superior Uses discussion is limited, and infers that the proposed Project is not a desirable Use or option. CEQA identifies and considers Environmental factors including not just physical associated with building density or intensity, but also traffic /parking, socioeconomic etc. The current DEIR discussion as presented does not further interests of the public or the project. There are numerous reasons why the Proposed Project is the Superior Use: • Maximum benefit to both residents and visitors • Provide additional services to the Balboa /Lido coastal area that is currently underserved - - -- has no Hotel of this type with amenities, that can be family serving (and by definition city at large) • The project Project creates no additional Traffic or Parking impact beyond its "current Use" (eg City Hall site when occupied). This was noted by staff and should be reasserted in this section. We request that our comments be considered and incorporated into the EIR and LUE, Zoning amendments prior to submittal to the City Council or the Coastal Commission- for the benefit of the residents, the public, and the city. Thank you. Denys H. Oberman MA Urban Planning, MBA Kathryn Branman, Attorney Linda Klein ASID Cc:Residents of Newport Beach, Lido Isle and Balboa Penninsula in support of successful Lido Village Revitalization and a Boutique Hotel reuse of the former City Hall Site, Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach and other stakeholders Cc: Dave Kiff-City Manager Kim Brandt - Community Development L. Mulvill -City Attorney �f June 29, 2014 v'SO[IVED er. COMMUNITY JUN 3 4 2014 03 DEVELOPMENT .r OFN6WPOR' PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL; THE PLANNING COMMISSION; THE CITY MANAGER; THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: City Council Meeting of July 1, 2014 and July 8, 2014; Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 2014 City Council Meeting of August 19, 2014 To: City of Newport Beach Attention: Leilani Brown, City Clerk Subject: Zoning Revision to City Parcel Located at 3300 Newport Blvd (former site of the City Hall), and The Lido House Hotel Project EIR Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission: We have recently become aware of a change in the Proposed Zoning Revision and EIR approach for the Lido House Hotel project that staff introduced to the public at the June 5, 2014 Planning Commission Study Session. This document was not, as far as we could determine, available for prior review. We are concerned that the Proposed Zoning Revision is inconsistent with prior public process concerning the reuse of the subject parcel, and the policy position asserted by the City Council to the People of Newport Beach. The Proposed Zoning Revision, from Public Facilities to Hotel use, was administered in the Fall of 2012. During that time period, there was resounding oral and written public testimony by the People of Newport Beach in favor of a Boutique Hotel, and opposing Residential /Mixed Use or other reuse alternatives under consideration by the City, which, at the time, appeared to be understood by you, the City's leadership. The understanding was memorialized with the City Council's public statement of commitment to the Hotel use. Thereafter, RFPs were solicited, at the behest of Council, for the Boutique Hotel. In addition and despite objection from the public, Council members Rush and Selich also requested RFPs for Residential /Mixed Use. Another public hearing /Council meeting ensued, and the Boutique Hotel project, in particular the team of RDOlson Development, Destination Hotels /Resorts, and WATG was resoundingly favored by the public in testimony, and approved by the City Council. 239 June 29, 2014 Page two In response to the will of the People of Newport Beach, and after commissioning expert analysis to validate the market and economic feasibility of the proposed Hotel use, the City Council ratified the decision to proceed with a Boutique Hotel as the preferred and designated new use for the site in late September 2012. Staff then proceeded to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which was submitted to the Council and reviewed in a public hearing shortly thereafter. The City staff advised the public that a Hotel use was enabled and encompassed by their then - stated description of the proposed zoning change as "general commercial'. The People of Newport Beach were advised that the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment needed to be ratified by the Coastal Commission prior to proceeding with the Lido Hotel project. We were advised that CLUP would be promptly completed and submitted to the Coastal Commission by early summer of 2013, in anticipation of a subsequent submission of the project- specific EIR for the Boutique Hotel project. We also understood that the parcel rezoning and a General Plan Land Use Amendment would need to be completed to facilitate the project. We were stunned to discover at the June 5th Planning Commission Study Session, that the zoning modification from Public Facilities to General Commercial use had not only not been completed, but that both zoning and the EIRS were not being pursued in the manner in which the public had been led to believe they were to occur. It was our understanding that the June 5th Study Session was for the express purpose of considering a Draft EIR focused on the specific project of, The Lido House Hotel. The People of Newport Beach are now being presented with a significant and troubling departure from the path previously defined to the public by the City. Behind the scenes and utterly without adequate public process, the City leadership has apparently unilaterally decided to (1) hold up and modify the proposed re- zoning of the 3300 Newport Blvd parcel and (2) comingle the submittal of the LCUP with that of the specific EIR for the Lido House Hotel project. The Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element proposed by staff, that are of significant concern are summarized below: a. The addition of a "Mixed use horizontal (MU -1­15)" land use category: The designation is stated to apply specifically to the former City Hall complex. It provides for "horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses were defined to include but not be limited to: community center, public plazas, a fire station and/or public parking." 240 June 29, 2014 Page three b. The addition of an "Anomaly Location #80 which characterizes Development limits associated with: "99 dwelling units and 15,000 commercial sq ft (residential /mixed use) OR 98,625 sq. ft of Hotel." The inclusion of Residential /Mixed use, community center, and public parking are in DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE with respect to this property. The 18 -month delay resulting from the City's departure from the direction stated to the public is causing ongoing economic detriment and significant social cost to the People of Newport Beach. Instead of being within a year of a renaissance in Lido and the Balboa Peninsula, complete with the accompanying revenue to the City, the site stands vacant except for the loiterers, smokers and vagrants. The timely progression and completion of the Hotel project, intended to function as a much - needed Destination Anchor, is key to the success of other surrounding revitalization efforts in Lido Village and the Peninsula area. Having been rudely shocked on June 5th by the City's actions, and with the recognition that the GPLU amendments and LCUP approvals are prerequisites to the approval of The Lido House Hotel project, the People of Newport Beach must now object to an ill - constructed, vague and ambiguous EIR which, in its current form, puts the project at unnecessary risk. (Specific comments regarding the EIR will be submitted in a separate document). With respect to the process being pursued by the City now, we request that you, the City Leadership provide written response as to the following questions immediately: 1. Who directed staff to alter and delay the 3300 Newport Blvd. rezoning and accompanying submittals for regulatory approval? 2. Why has the City altered the land use /zoning scheme from "general commercial" which we were told encompasses hospitality, to include a "kitchen sink of uses" (including multi - family residential, civic, or mixed -use development), which were resoundingly OPPOSED by the People of Newport Beach? 3. Why does the City continue to reference the use of Residential /dwelling units as an alternative to the Boutique Hotel, when the People of Newport Beach categorically oppose any residential use on the city hall site? If the current Olson /Destination,WATG project cannot or will not be built, the people expect that the City will solicit another Hotel team, and the People will back another Boutique Hotel development consortium. The Hotel project, which is both 241 June 29, 2014 Page four resident and visitor serving, will no doubt be substantially more acceptable to the regulators than a dense Residential project. 4. What is the current timetable for submission of the various required Land Use Zoning amendments to the Coastal Commission - -- rip or to, or in conjunction with, the broader, proposed GPLUE Amendment that is subject to voter review and approval in November 2014? 5. What happens to the Boutique Hotel project if the California Coastal Commission rejects the CLUP, and /or the voters reject the GPLUE Amendments in November? The strategy described in the June 5th staff report and reflected in the draft EIR is ill - founded and seems calculated to doom the future of this valuable area of our City. It certainly poses a grave risk to the regulatory approval of the Hotel project, and it most certainly does not reflect the expressed desire of the People of Newport Beach. Had the City not deviated from the publically expressed process, the Hotel project would doubtless be under way by now. We respectfully request that City's response to our questions and this correspondence be furnished prior to July 15, 2014 so that the City's clarification and position may be considered by the People of Newport Beach in advance of the upcoming public hearings on July 17,2014. Thank you in advance for your consideration and prompt response. Respectfully submitted, Kathryn H. K. Branman, Attorney - Lido resident Denys H. Oberman, MAUrban Planning, MBA- Peninsula resident Linda Klein, Designer - Lido resident Cc: City -wide residents in support of the Lido Village /Peninsula revitalization and a Boutique Hotel on the former City Hall Site. 242 The Gas Company A *Sempra Energy utility- July 10, 2014 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: James Campbell 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806 -6114 V'SCk{VED By, COMMUNITY JUL. 10 2014 p� DEVELOPMENT PGA Op NEWPO ?j 0 Subject: Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel Project; Newport Beach; SCH# 2013111022 Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a Public Utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, Q4� Armando Torrez Planning Supervisor SouthEast Region - Anaheim Planning & Engineering AT /ps EIR.d.c 2 43 PAUL HASTINGS Correspondence Item No. 6a Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments PA2013 -217 and PA2012 -031 1(415) 856 -7000 gordonhart@paulhastings.com buckendemann @paulhastings.com July 16, 2014 VIA EMAIL: JCAMPBELL @NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV VIA UPS OVERNIGHT Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Comments on the Final EIR for the Lido House Hotel Project Dear Mr. Campbell: COMMUNITY JUL 17 2014 DEVELOPMENT G, �oF NEWPOvkl 0� 77670.00004 On behalf of Lido Partners, we submit the following comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") for the Lido House Hotel ( "Project ") proposed to be developed on the former City of Newport Beach ( "City ") City Hall property. In particular, this letter focuses on the City's responses to the package of comments and expert reports we submitted on behalf of Lido Partners on June 13, 2014.' INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The City's responses suffer from the adverse effects of an obvious "rush job" to produce the document before the previously - scheduled July 17th Planning Commission hearing. In our experience, it is virtually unprecedented to hold a hearing on a Final EIR barely a month after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EIR for a controversial project. Even more egregious is providing the public and the Planning Commissioners only four business days to review the Final EIR before the hearing. The Final EIR was posted on the City's website Friday afternoon, July 11th, which we learned by checking the City's website —no direct notice was provided to us as a commenter that the City's response to comments was available. Frankly, this rush to judgment gives the impression that the City is acting more like an advocate on behalf of a project on its own property that would produce substantial lease income for the City than a neutral decision maker exercising its independent judgment to ensure that CEQA's legal requirements are being scrupulously followed. Our June 13th comments demonstrated that the Draft EIR failed to analyze and mitigate for significant environmental impacts arising from the closure of an alleyway linking 32nd Street with Via Lido Plaza (the "32nd Street Alley "), and also failed to adequately analyze a number of other impacts unrelated to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley. As discussed below, the City's responses unwittingly reinforce our position that the EIR is riddled with serious errors. In addition, the responses disclose startling new information that all large delivery vehicle traffic to Via Lido Plaza will be re- routed to Via Lido, a busy street that provides the primary access to Lido Isle and its 1,800 residents, without providing any analysis of the significant impacts of this major change in traffic patterns. ' Lido Partners continues to stand by its comments submitted to the City on June 13, 2014. Any issues raised or not raised in this letter do not waive any of the serious concerns communicated in Lido Partners' June 13 letter. Paul Hastings LLP 1 55 Second Street I Twenty-Fourth Floor I San Francisco. CA 94105 t: +1.415.856.7000 1 w .paulhastings.mrn MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 2 In sum, the City's responses fail to provide the meaningful analysis required in response to specific evidence showing that the Project will have several significant environmental impacts not considered in the Draft EIR, thus jeopardizing the adequacy of the Final EIR. For these reasons, the City should correct the errors in the EIR, and recirculate it so the public has sufficient time to review and comment upon the significant new information raised in the Response to Comments. Specifically, the City has failed to provide a reasoned, good faith analysis of several issues, including but not limited to the following: • The City's new information regarding its intentions with respect to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley in light of the pending litigation exacerbates the problem that the Project Description is not "finite, stable, and accurate." • The City contends that Via Lido Plaza will have sufficient delivery access by using only the Via Lido driveway, despite acknowledging that turning safely into this driveway can be done only from the westbound lane of Via Lido. The responses ignore several key differences between Via Lido and the existing access from 32nd Street, however, and overlook that delays on Via Lido are more likely to be encountered and more likely to disrupt the surrounding community. • The City's responses disclose for the first time that safe entry into Via Lido Plaza will require all large delivery trucks to turn left from Newport Boulevard onto 32nd Street, then left again at Lafayette, then left again at Via Lido, and then left again into Via Lido Plaza. Because the City has never analyzed the significant traffic impacts of this circuitous route with regard to the Lido Isle community, this new information requires the recirculation of the EIR. • The City's inadequate responses to Lido Partners' comments on the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis ( "Traffic Impact Analysis ") and Parking Study for the Lido House Hotel ( "Parking Study") confirm that both such analyses are fatally flawed. • Regarding the insufficiency of emergency access to Via Lido Plaza, the City simply refers back to prior, non - specific, and unattributed discussions with the Newport Beach Fire Department, which supposedly previously assured the City that the Project would not significantly affect emergency access. The Response to Comments provides no evidence to support this conclusion, and fails to provide a reasoned analysis to justify rejecting the conclusions of the independent fire safety expert Firesafe Planning Solutions that were included with Lido Partners' comments to the Draft EIR. • While a lead agency must evaluate comments on a draft EIR and prepare written responses disposing of any "significant environmental issue," the City improperly chose to ignore several of Lido Partners' comments that indicated serious deficiencies in the EIR's analysis. II. THE CITY MUST PROVIDE A DETAILED, WELL- REASONED ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS CRITICIZING A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A lead agency must evaluate comments on a draft EIR and prepare written responses describing the disposition of any "significant environmental issue" raised by commentators. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21091(d). The requirement to respond to comments helps ensure that a lead agency "fully consider[s] the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 3 informed and open to public scrutiny, and that public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful." City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 904 (2009) (citations omitted). The lead agency is required to provide specific responses when a public comment raises an objection about a specific environmental issue. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15088(c), 15204(a). "Such responses must include a description of the issue raised `and must particularly set forth in detail the reasons why the particular comments and objections were rejected and why the [agency] considered the development of the project to be of overriding importance. "' Dunn - Edwards Corp. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 19 Cal. App. 4th 519, 534 (1993) (citations omitted). "The requirement of a detailed analysis in response ensures that stubborn problems or serious criticism are not 'swept under the rug. "' Santa Clarita Org. for Planning v. County of L.A. 106 Cal. App. 4th 715, 723 (2003) (citation omitted). Detailed responses must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis of the comment received, because "[c]onclusory statements unsupported by factual information" frustrate CEQA's informational purpose and may render the EIR legally inadequate. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088(c); see Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel -by- the -Sea, 202 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615 -617 (2012) (invalidating EIR because of insufficient responses to comments and finding that the City's "effort to conjure up reasons now is too late. "). Well- reasoned responses are particularly important when experts have submitted critical comments on a project. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commr's, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1367 (2001) (invalidating Final EIR where defendant Port "perfunctorily discredited" plaintiff's expert without providing any contrary analysis). III. THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IS DEFICIENT AND FAILS TO FULLY CONSIDER THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. The City's Muddled Responses Regarding Its Intentions With Regard To The Closure of the 32nd Street Alley In Light Of The Pending Litigation Exacerbate The Problem That The Project Description Is Not "Finite. Stable. and Accurate" In our June 13 comments, we accurately, and unequivocally, stated that "[t]he legal deficiencies in the Draft EIR ... do not turn on whether a license or easement exists, and are distinct from the legal claims at issue in the litigation." By contrast, the City's responses regarding the relevance of the property rights disputed in the litigation are equivocal and confusing. Response 8 -2 states, "[t]he City does not intend to revoke its consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido Partners has no right of access to the City's property, other than its permissive use that may be revoked by the City at any time." However, Response 8 -4 states, "Until such a judicial determination is made, the City intends to exercise its rights to determine how its property is managed and used," and then states that retaining access to the 32nd Street Alley is "not part of the proposed project." Reconciling these statements is not easy, but the most logical conclusion appears to be that if the City loses its lawsuit and Lido Partners does not consent to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley, then the Project cannot be built. However, given the fact that the original proposal for the Project did not assume the closure of the 32nd Street Alley, we find it difficult to believe that the developer and the City would not find a way to proceed with the Project if they were unable to close the 32nd Street Alley. Therefore, we think it is disingenuous, and inconsistent with CEQA's public disclosure requirements, for the City to not disclose to the public how the Project would be modified if it loses its litigation and is unable to close the 32nd Street Alley. MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 4 B. The City's Insistence That Via Lido Can Accommodate Large Truck Traffic Ignores the Obvious Differences Between 32nd Street and Via Lido In several of its responses, the City acknowledges that large trucks cannot access Via Lido Plaza from the Finley Avenue entrance and justifies closing the 32nd Street Alley by suggesting that using the Via Lido entrance for delivery and emergency access will be just as convenient as the existing access from the 32nd Street Alley.2 This assumption misunderstands several crucial differences between Via Lido and 32nd Street. Via Lido Is A Much Busier Road Than 32nd Street Via Lido is a busy street that is the primary thoroughfare and access point for the 1,800 people that live on Lido Isle. At the point of entrance into Via Lido Plaza, which lacks a traffic signal, Via Lido has five lanes of traffic, including a dedicated left turn lane, and must accommodate incoming and outgoing customer traffic to Via Lido Plaza and Lido Marina Village, the large commercial center to the north. There is also substantial pedestrian traffic there, including over the crosswalk at the conjunction of Via Oporto, Via Lido, and the entrances to Via Lido Plaza and Lido Marina Village. Any extra traffic or disruptions on Via Lido, particularly if large tractor - trailer delivery trucks are rerouted to Via Lido, have the potential to significantly impact a great number of people, including disrupting the nearby Via Lido /Via Oporto intersection used by City paramedic units and causing back -up issues at the Via Lido /Newport Boulevard intersection. 32nd Street, on the other hand, is a much less traveled, two lane side road, which is one of many reasons why the 32nd Street Alley works so well for large trucks pulling in and out of Via Lido Plaza. 2. Entering Via Lido Plaza From Via Lido is Much More Difficult Than Entering From 32nd Street The City admits that it takes only a single car exiting Via Lido Plaza from the Via Lido driveway to completely block all large truck access to Via Lido Plaza.3 The City tries to sidestep this significant impact by building a strawman, noting that a vehicle exiting the 32nd Street Alley could also cause the same effect. But this ignores the reality that the Via Lido entrance is used heavily by shoppers and visitors, and is thus much more likely to be clogged with cars and pedestrians that will constantly restrict delivery access and cause trucks to idle in the middle of Via Lido for the time it takes the entrance to clear. On the other hand, even the City recognizes that, even after Project completion, the 32nd Street 2 See, e.g., Final EIR at 2 -51 to 2 -54 (Response Nos. 8 -2, 8 -3); 2 -56 (Response No. 8 -14); 2 -58 to 2 -59 Response No. 8 -21). Final EIR at 2 -52 (Response No. 8 -2); Final EIR, Attachment 1 at 1, Exs. 2A, 2B (hereinafter " Fuscoe Engineering Memo'). The City and Lido Partners also agree that large delivery vehicles could not use the Finley Avenue entrance to access Via Lido Plaza. See Final EIR at 2 -52 (Response No. 8 -2); Fuscoe Engineering Memo at 1. The City claims, however, that Finley Avenue does "not preclude access by trucks that are smaller and more maneuverable." Final EIR at 2 -52 (Response No. 8 -2). This Response misses the point, however. Via Lido Plaza's commercial tenants depend on delivery vehicles of all sizes, including large delivery trucks, to deliver anything from boats (West Marine) to foodstuffs (the several restaurant tenants). Putting aside whether wholesalers could even honor a tenant's request for a smaller delivery vehicle, the main loading dock in the rear of Via Lido Plaza is sized to accommodate the unloading of large delivery vehicles. MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 5 Alley "lacks routine vehicle use ,,4 therefore posing a much lower risk of creating significant traffic impacts from idled delivery trucks. The City's argument that neither the Via Lido entrance nor the 32nd Street Alley has a traffic signal is similarly specious —given the differences in configuration and use, the 32nd Street Alley requires no traffic signal to offer safe, regular access to Via Lido Plaza. In short, the City's comparison of Via Lido and 32nd Street fails to offer any meaningful evaluation of the suitability of Via Lido for delivery truck access to Via Lido Plaza, where more traffic and longer wait times will lead to significant traffic impacts. Assuming that an exiting vehicle eventually clears the Via Lido driveway, the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and potentially unsafe. According to Exhibits 2A and 2B of the Fuscoe Engineering Memo, a truck traveling eastbound on Via Lido would need to swing into the left lane to make the right turn into Via Lido Plaza. Because the wide swings required to maneuver a large truck into position could tie up three lanes of traffic at once, resulting in an unsafe condition, this access can hardly be considered feasible or practical. While entering Via Lido Plaza from westbound Via Lido may be technically possible, a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left -turn lane that was waiting to turn into Lido Marina Village .6 Under both scenarios, access to Lido Marina Village to the north of Via Lido Plaza is impacted. The City also admits that the Via Lido entrance is too narrow, and that the curb bears existing scuff marks where vehicles have failed to execute the turn with sufficient clearance .7 Exhibits 2A and 2B to the Fuscoe Engineering Memorandum confirm the hazards presented by this narrow entrance, showing that a large truck entering from Via Lido would clip the valet kiosk and any car parked in the first or last parking stalls that front the eastern face of Via Lido Plaza. The City's own experts therefore contradict the City's assertion that "Via Lido Plaza would not need to make any physical changes to their site that would result in the removal of parking .,,8 Although the City proposes improving the Via Lido entrance and curb to accommodate the entry of larger vehicles,9 it offers no binding mitigation measure to mitigate this traffic and circulation impact to a level of less than significant. Finally, even assuming that a large delivery vehicle manages to enter Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido, there are additional impacts associated with accessing Via Lido Plaza's loading dock. While the City claims that accessing the loading dock from Via Lido is preferable because it requires a "single backing maneuver," 10 this ignores the fact that entry through Via Lido places truck traffic directly in front of the Via Lido Plaza storefronts (including anchor tenant West Marine), clogging the parking lot and placing a hazard between customers and their vehicles. Moreover, the current traffic patterns within Via Lido Plaza have worked without any necessary mitigation for over 50 years; for the City now to suggest that terminating the 32nd Street Alley access will somehow improve circulation is nonsensical. 4 Final EIR at 2 -57 (Response No. 8 -16). 5 Final EIR at 2 -56 (Response No. 8 -14). 6 Fuscoe Engineering Memo, Exs. 2A, 2B. Final EIR at 2 -53 (Response No. 8 -2). The City also appears to confuse the concepts of driveway width and turning radius. See Final EIR at 2 -64 (Response No. 8 -35). While the Via Lido entrance (28.9 feet) is wider than the 32nd Street Alley entrance (21.2 feet), trucks making a right from Via Lido will be force to make a tighter turn than trucks turning left from 32nd Street, due to the difference in turning radii attributable to right turns and left turns. 8 Final EIR at 2 -58 (Response No. 8 -17). 9 Final EIR at 2 -53 (Response No. 8 -2). 10 Id. MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 6 3. The Increased Use of Via Lido and the Via Lido Entrance to Via Lido Plaza is Significant New Information That Requires Recirculation of the EIR If significant new information is added to an EIR during the public comment and response period, the EIR must be recirculated for further review and comment. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088.5(a), (d). "A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence ino the administrative record." 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15088.5(e). Here, the City's responses disclose for the first time that large delivery trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza only from the westbound lane of Via Lido, which will cause significant traffic hardships. This new piece of significant information was never mentioned in the Draft EIR or any other Project document, and will likely come as an unwelcome surprise to the 1,800 people on Lido Isle who must now compete with tractor - trailer trucks on the main access road to the island. Because Via Lido is a busy road, and because the Via Lido entrance is unable to safely and efficiently receive large vehicles without significant blockage, disruption, and delay, these trucks have the potential to cause significant impacts to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The revelation that Via Lido and Lafayette —which have rarely if ever been used by delivery trucks servicing Via Lido Plaza —will now service all large truck traffic is new information that requires recirculating the EIR for additional review and comment." C. The City's Response to Lido Partners' Comments on the Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis Confirms That Both Studies Are Fatally Flawed To assist with its review of the City's Response to Comments, Lido Partners engaged traffic engineer Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., principal of Translutions, Inc., to review the adequacy of the City's responses and the Fuscoe Engineering Memo. Mr. Bhattacharjee's conclusions are attached to this response as Attachment A, and are incorporated by reference herein. The major deficiencies in the City's Response, which should be corrected and recirculated for additional public comment, include the following: The City ignores the specific input parameters in the Highway Capacity Manual ( "HCM "), thus underestimating current traffic impacts. Despite the City recognizing that Caltrans recommends using the HCM, 12 the City somehow overlooks the specific input parameters that the HCM requires, including saturation flow rates, minimum green times and pedestrian timing requirements, and peak hour factors. Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 contains various input parameters, and Chapter 16 explains how to use the parameters to perform the methodology accurately. The City's failure to use input parameters, or to further analyze intersections where the v/c ratio is greater than 1.0, underestimates the Project's true traffic impacts. That the City has performed incorrect traffic analyses in the past, and that Caltrans overlooked the error in this instance, does not give any measure of validation to the City's error. t3 The City's analysis remains incomplete and wrong, and underestimates true traffic impacts. 11 Additionally, the City should recirculate the EIR due to the fatal flaws in the Traffic Impact Analysis, discussed below. 12 Final EIR at 2-61 (Response No. 8 -26), 2 -65 (Response Nos. 8 -44 to 8 -46). 13 See id. (claiming that the Traffic Impact Analysis was performed consistent with the City's other studies, and observing that Caltrans submitted no comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis). MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 7 City Response No. 8 -27 refers to the wrong table. Lido Partners' commented that the Draft EIR, Table 5.5 -21, wrongly concluded "no significant impact" for intersections 3 and 6. In response, the City pointed to a different table, Table 5.5 -17 as evidence that there are no existing traffic impacts relating to existing deficiencies.14 The City's response completely misses the point, however, as Table 5.5 -21 estimates long -term traffic deficiencies under the general plan build -out, while Table 5.5 -17 measures existing conditions at the (shorter term) completion of the Project.15 Table 5.5 -17 has nothing to with whether a significant impact will occur at intersections 3 and 6 with respect to the long time horizon of the general plan build -out. Table 5.5 -21 therefore remains incorrect and misleading, and should be corrected. In any event, with regard to existing conditions at the time the Project is completed, Table 5.5 -17 likely underestimates traffic impacts due to the City's failure to conduct a proper HCM analysis. The City misunderstands the cumulative impact analysis for traffic. In its comments, Lido Plaza explained that the City is not free to pile traffic into intersections simply because those intersections are already experiencing deficient levels of service. Under the City's misguided understanding, however, significant traffic impacts occur only if the addition of Project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of service ( "LOS ") to move from LOS A, B, or C, to LOS D, E, F.16 Under the City's theory, adding any number of cars to an intersection already operating at LOS D, E, or F could never cause a significant impact. Quite simply, that analysis makes no sense and is legally wrong. See, e.g., Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1024 -28 (1997) (holding that a project that resulted in an increase to traffic that already exceeded established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulate impact). The City wrongly claims that significant traffic impacts cannot exist if they cannot be measured by a City- determined threshold. The City claims that because unsignalized, stop - controlled intersections have no City- determined thresholds of significance, the Cit� was justified in failing to analyze the southbound direction of Newport Boulevard at 28th Street. 7 This is incorrect. An intersection should be analyzed as a study intersection regardless of whether the City has a standard of significance, as significant impacts can still occur in the absence of a City - issued threshold. See, e.g., 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15065 (requiring a mandatory finding of significance if substantial evidence indicates that any of the conditions in subsections (a) through (c) are present); Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland, 195 Cal. App. 4th 884, 896 (2011) (describing Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as an "Environmental Checklist Form" that may be used in determining whether a project could have a significant effect on the environment). The City refuses to acknowledge that a weekend traffic analysis will more accurately estimate the Project's traffic impacts. The City's factors used to calculate daily rate trips ignore the fact that the Project, as a resort hotel, is likely to have much greater occupancy on the weekends than during the week (unlike most other hotels). 18 After accounting for occupied rooms, the trip generation rate for weekends is significantly higher than for weekdays. Because peak hotel use is likely to correspond with peak beach traffic (and peak shopping at Via Lido 14 Final EIR at 2 -61 (Response No. 8 -27). " Draft EIR at 5.5 -36 (Table 5.5 -17), 5.5 -39 (Table 5.5 -21). 16 Final EIR at 2 -61 (Response Nos. 8 -27, 8 -28). 17 Final EIR at 2-61 (Response No. 8 -30). 18 Final EIR at 2-64 (Response No. 8 -36). MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 8 Plaza), the City should conduct a weekend traffic analysis. While City policy may prefer basing traffic assumptions on "shoulder season," the City fails to provide any overriding considerations explaining why the City should ignore the most significant traffic impacts to be caused by the Project, which undoubtedly will occur on weekends during the summer. The City improperly uses approved plan conditions to define the CEQA baseline. In trying to clarify why several intersections showed the "without project" intersection capacity utilization ( "ICU ") as higher than the "with project" ICU, the City states that "[t]his occurs because the General Plan buildout analysis accounts for buildout of the City of Newport Beach according to the General Plan Land Use designations. "t9 Justifying Project traffic by claiming that the old City Hall would have generated fewer trips is a purely academic exercise, however, particularly where a new City Hall facility has been completed on the other side of town. Further, determining the environmental baseline by using an approved general plan condition, rather than actual existing environmental conditions, violates CEQA. See Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal. App. 3d 350, 354 (1982) (stating that "CEQA nowhere calls for evaluation of the impacts of a proposed project on an existing general plan; it concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment, defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area. "). The City's analysis of traffic displaced from the 32nd Street Alley is inconsistent. The City inaccurately states that delivery truck traffic will not be displaced from the 32nd Street Alley onto nearby streets, or states (without evidence or supporting analysis) that such displacement will be "negligible "20 The City's statements are contradicted by the Fuscoe Engineering Memo, however, which shows an "alternative access scenario" where trucks are routed from eastbound 32nd Street, north onto Lafayette Road, northwest onto Via Lido, before finally turning left into Via Lido Plaza from the westbound lane of Via Lido.21 Because the 32nd Street Alley provides direct access to the rear of Via Lido Plaza, there is currently no reason for delivery trucks to take the circuitous 32nd Street/Lafayette/Via Lido route (requiring three additional left turns) suggested by Fuscoe Engineering. Under all circumstances, forcing trucks to use the Via Lido entrance would necessarily result in the displacement of vehicles to City streets that otherwise would not have such truck traffic.22 Doing so will also exacerbate traffic on Via Lido, the major access road for Lido Isle. • The City's responses to parking comments are inconsistent and incomplete. Although the City claims that "[Via Lido Plaza] would not be impacted" because "the parking provided for the proposed site would result in no parking overflow," this is clearly wrong .21 In fact, the City has 19 Final EIR at 2 -60 (Response No. 8 -25), 2 -65 (Response No. 8 -42). 20 Final EIR at 2 -56 to 2 -57 (Response Nos. 8 -13, 8 -16). 21 Fuscoe Engineering Memo at 2. 22 Under similar reasoning, the City also claims that greater hotel traffic impacting the Finley easement is "speculative at best." Final EIR at 2 -59 (Response No. 8 -22). But while most employees at the old City Hall complex used the 32nd Street entrance, the area of the Finley easement will serve as the hotel's main entrance. On weekends, when combined traffic to the hotel and Via Lido Plaza will be heaviest, there is a substantial risk of traffic problems at the Finley entrance, potentially overburdening the easement. 21 See Final EIR at 2 -57 (Response No. 8 -15). MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 9 admitted that on -site parking will be inadequate to accommodate the hotel's banquet facilities .24 Regarding the Parking Study, the City's comments indicate confusion over whether or not parking is adequate. On one hand, the City claims that parking is adequate assuming a 1:1 car:room ratio and 35 parked cars for the restaurant. 25 But the C1 also admits that the Project's retail uses are likely to drive high non -guest parking demand ,2 and sidesteps parking adequacy during banquet events .21 While Lido Partners commented on the question of staff parking, the City provided no concrete answers. D. The City Fails to Provide Any Meaningful Information on its Communications with the Newport Beach Fire Department As discussed in Lido Partners' comments on the Project's Draft EIR, closing the 32nd Street Alley would negatively impact emergency access to Via Lido Plaza and the Fire Station located to the east of the Project site. Both Lido Partners and the City agree that closing the 32nd Street Alley would reduce emergency access to the interior of the Via Lido Property by 50 %, as the Finley Street entrance is too small to accommodate any emergency vehicle larger than an ambulance .28 Lido Partners also noted that Via Oporto does not meet City standards for a fire apparatus access roadway. In response, the City merely states that the Newport Beach Fire Department evaluated the permanent closure of the 32nd Street Alley and determined that the closure would not impair or otherwise affect emergency access to Via Lido Plaza. 29 The City also claims that any modifications to the Fire Station, including the reduction of parking by approximately 50 %, "[have] been determined to meet [the Fire Department's] needs. "" Significantly, the City fails to attribute or provide the source of these comments from the Fire Department or provide any specific support for their substance. Lido Partners submitted a report from independent fire safety experts that raised serious questions about the safety ramifications of terminating the 32nd Street Alley. It is hardly sufficient for the City to say in response that it spoke to some unknown person at the Fire Department before these comments were even received, and that this person said that closing the 32nd Street Alley was acceptable. While there is no disputing that the Finley Avenue entrance is too narrow for fire trucks, and that closing the 32nd Street Alley removes one of only two ways for larger emergency vehicles to access Via Lido Plaza, the City provides no reasoned response as to how the Fire Department response time to Via Lido Plaza will not be degraded. Nor does the City make available any correspondence or documentation from the Fire Department showing that the appropriate analyses and evaluations were performed. 24 See Draft EIR at 5.5 -48 ( "It is not anticipated that the hotel would require more than the 148 parking spaces proposed, with the exception of nights with banquet usage. ") (emphasis added); see also Final EIR at 2 -62 (Response No. 8 -31) ( "However, this 0.8 per room parking does not include banquet usage. "). 25 Final EIR at 2-62 (Response No. 8 -31). 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Fuscoe Engineering Memo at 1. 29 Final EIR at 2-52 (Response No. 8 -2), 2 -55 (Response No. 8 -8), 2 -56 (Response No. 8 -11), 2 -65 Response Nos. 8 -38, 8 -39), 2 -66 (Response No. 8 -57). ° Final EIR at 2-57 (Response Nos. 8 -15, 8 -16), 2 -65 to 2 -66 (Response Nos. 8 -48, 8 -58). MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 10 The City also admits that Via Oporto is non - conforming by modern fire and safety standards, and that this non - conformity has spurred discussions with the Fire Department to widen Via Oporto.31 But widening Via Oporto is not included as a mitigation measure. Moreover, the City ignored Lido Partners' request to clarify how paramedic units will access the Fire Station from Via Oporto, and fails to respond to Lido Partners' comment that the confluence of hotel delivery traffic, fire trucks, and passenger traffic on 32nd Street presents a public safety issue. Because the City simply states that the Fire Department has approved closing the 32nd Street Alley, but fails to provide any further details, the public has no way of knowing whether the Fire Department is aware of or considered the unintended effects that such a closure would have. The City's responses also do not satisfactorily address parking impacts arising from the reconfiguration of the Fire Station. While the City states that the Newport Beach Fire Department has approved its reduction in parking by approximately 50 %, there is no analysis or explanation of how this reduction could possibly continue to meet the needs of the fire station, accommodate shift changes, or be sufficient for visitors .32 In sum, where the City stands to profit significantly from a development project on City land, and the public raises specific questions regarding public safety, the City cannot satisfy its CEQA responsibilities by simply referring to conclusory statements from unnamed City employees.33 This opaqueness renders the Final EIR legally inadequate. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15151 (requiring EIR to make a "good faith effort at full disclosure. "). E. The City Ignores Several Comments Indicating Severe Deficiencies in the Project's Environmental Analysis The City's Response to Comments ignores several of Lido Partners' other comments on specific environmental issues. Those omissions include but are not limited to: The City fails to analyze a feasible alternative to closing the 32nd Street Alley. While acknowledging that preserving the 32nd Street Alley is feasible, the City offers no explanation why the Draft EIR failed to analyze an alternative that preserved the 32nd Street Alley, such as the project configuration depicted in the July 2013 Project site plan. The City's response instead argues that retaining the 32nd Street Alley would negatively affect hotel operations and guests .34 This response is precisely backwards, as CEQA's purpose is to evaluate a Project's impacts on the environment, not the environment's impacts on the Project. Nor has the City pointed to anything in the Project's objectives that suggests incompatibility with the 32nd Street Alley. The City also claims that "[o]nly those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project." 35 If this were the case, however, the City would never have to analyze any 3' Final EIR at 2 -56 (Response No. 8 -9). 32 See Final EIR at 2 -57 (Response No. 8 -15). 33 In another example, in response to Lido Partners' comment regarding the potential for narrowing of 32nd Street and new landscaping to cause traffic and visibility issues at the Fire Station, the City states that these changes were "welcomed" by the Fire Department. Final EIR at 2 -56 (Response No. 8 -11). There is no indication that the Fire Department is a subject matter expert in this sort of traffic analysis, however, and no indication why the City's traffic engineer failed to respond to Via Lido's comment. 34 Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8 -17). 3s Final EIR at 2-54 (Response No. 8 -3). MXAIN HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 11 feasible alternatives so long as it concluded that the Project, as proposed, would have no significant environmental impacts. The City's post hoc rationalization confuses CEQA's requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives with the requirement to identify the environmentally superior alternative. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.6 (establishing guidelines for developing a reasonable range of alternatives); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400 -01 (1988) (holding that an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of alternatives even if the project's significant environmental impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures). The City fails to offer any meaningful response on the Project's inconsistency with local land use plans. Rather than respond to Lido Partners' critiques of the Project's compliance with local land use plans, the City simply refers back to the same inadequate analysis in the Draft EIR .36 The City has no meaningful rebuttal to Lido Partners' comments that the effects associated with closing the 32nd Street Alley run contrary to nearly all of the City's policies related to traffic and circulation. Under the City's Land Use Element and other applicable local land use plans, "full consideration" must be given to land uses on adjacent properties. The City completely fails to explain how the Project gave any consideration to Via Lido Plaza -- except to admit that while preserving the 32nd Street Alley is feasible, it should instead be closed for reasons that remain unclear. While the City claims that "[n]o evidence has been provided" to support the assumption that the Project will disadvantage West Marine or limit Via Lido Plaza's ability to host a grocery store ,,37 the City admits that extinguishing the 32nd Street Alley will leave only the Via Lido entrance as a possible truck access point to the property. As described above, however, there are numerous problems with requiring large trucks to use the Via Lido entrance, which make such use impractical and unsafe. The Project at a minimum will require a significant change in how Via Lido Plaza is serviced by truck delivery. But that effect on Via Lido Plaza is simply ignored in the EIR. The City is unable to clarify demolition and construction activities associated with the Project. While Lido Partners commented that the Project failed to sufficiently describe the process of demolition and construction, the City's Response merely recites the equipment to be used in demolition and construction efforts .38 The City continues to fail to explain why the Project requires so much soil, how the 900+ soil hauling trips will access the Project site, and how many non -soil truck trips will be required to transport building materials. Each of these omissions compounds the failures of the Traffic Impact Analysis to accurately measure the increased traffic attributable to the Project. Regarding deferred mitigation, the City does not offer any additional specificity or measureable criteria to ensure that demolition and construction impacts will be measured, evaluated, or mitigated, or any reason why mitigation must be deferred to the Construction Management Plan. IV. CONCLUSION Lido Partners is disappointed that the City has provided such an inadequate amount of time for the public to address the continuing deficiencies in the Project's environmental analysis. The City's 36 See, e.g., Final EIR at 2 -58 (Response No. 8 -18). 37 Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8 -20). 33 Final EIR at 2-62 to 2 -63 (Response No. 8 -33). PAUL HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 12 Response to Comments fails to provide the meaningful analysis required in response to specific evidence showing that the Project will have several significant environmental impacts not considered in the Draft EIR. For these reasons, the City should correct the errors in the EIR, and recirculate it so the public has sufficient time to review and comment upon the significant new information raised regarding the traffic on Via Lido. Sincerely, -9"', C. �WT-- Gordon E. Hart of PAUL HASTINGS LLP GEH:BBE Buck B. Endemann of PAUL HASTINGS LLP ATTACHMENT A translutions t e transportation solutions company... July 16, 2014 Mr. Gordon E. Hart, Partner Paul Hastings LLP 55 Second Street, Twenty -Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94105 Subject: Review of Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel Dear Mr. Hart: translutions, Inc. 2a rilare California 92620 Translutions, Inc. ( Translutions) has reviewed the responses made by the City on comments made on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the underlying Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Parking Study for the proposed Lido House Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. Below are our evaluation and follow up comments on the responses: Response 8 -26: The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic impact Studies (2002) is a general guide for statewide Caltrans policy which states that the Highway Capacity Manual methodology should be used to evaluate signalized intersections, but does not provide specific input parameters. The State Highway analysis has been prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. Furthermore, the Draft EIR was distributed to Caltrans for review and no comments were received. The fact that Caltrans recommends using the HCM, by itself, means that HCM procedures should be followed. HCM specifically includes saturation flow rates, minimum green times, and PHFs. Chapter 10 of the HCM2000 (Page 10 -8) states In the absence of field measurements ofpeak -hour factor (PHF), approximations can be used For congested conditions, 0.92 is a reasonable approximation for PHF. For conditions in which there is fairly uniform flow throughout the peak hour but a recognizable peak does occur, 0.88 is a reasonable estimate for PHF " Response 8 -27: As shown in Table 5.5 -17, State High way Existing With Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS, of the Draft EIR, all existing State Highway study intersections are shown to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS A, B, or Q. Therefore, the traffic impact analysis is correct in identifying no significant traffic impacts related to existing deficiencies. Due to the incorrect PHFs and minimum green times, the analysis is incorrect. Anyone driving the intersections will agree that the average stopped delays at the intersections are greater than 35 seconds during peak hours. Response 8.28: There is a distinction between deficient intersection operation and a significant impact. The impact thresholds and significance criteria established by the City of Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa, and Caltrans agencies have been clearly defined in Section 5.5.3 of the Draft EIR. The agency - established thresholds of significance allow for situations where project traffic may contribute to a deficient intersection; however, the impact is not considered significant if the project contribution is below a certain threshold. As documented in the Draft EIR, the proposed project is not forecast to trigger any agency - established thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. The response is inadequate. The EIR states that Caltrans "endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities" it does not require that LOS D (shall) be maintained. For this analysis, the following traffic threshold of significance is utilized: A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E or F). Although the first part of the statement in the EIR is correct, the second part related to significant impact is not a threshold established by Caltrans, the owner of the facility. The threshold stated in the EIR for Caltrans facilities, "A significant project Impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition ofproject- generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E or F) °is not a Caltrans threshold, but an arbitrary threshold created by the City. Based on this threshold, if a State Highway operates at unsatisfactory conditions (LOS D or worse), a project could add as many cars as it wishes without having an impact. Therefore, the significant project impact criteria selected is incorrect. It would mean that if a facility is operating at LOS F, a project could add thousands of cars and not have an impact. Since Caltrans does not have a sliding scale of impact determination (unlike Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which allow an increase in v/c ratio), a cumulative impact would occur by the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility. Response 8 -30: The southbound direction of Newport Boulevard at 28th Street is an unsignalized, stop controlled intersection. The City of Newport Beach has no thresholds of significance for unsignalized intersections. 711612014 (C1DropboxlTso1s\Projects\L1do House HoteAComments On RTC.Docx) Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact at the southbound Newport Boulevard at 28th Street intersection and the intersection was not identified for analysis. Absence of a City determined threshold does not mean that an impact cannot occur. When thresholds of significance are not present, the guidance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines apply Response 8 -36: Refer to Response 8 -22, above. When utilizing daily rates for trips generated per room, the Saturday trip generation is only about one - quarter percent higher than weekday trip generation (8.19 for Saturday compared to 8.17 for weekdays). The weekday peak hour conditions analyzed in the traffic impact analysis for the shoulder season is consistent with City policy. Hotels generally have a higher occupancy rates during weekdays, whereas the trip generation data shows a slight increase in weekend trips. The "hotel" use in this case is mostly for vacation purposes, and therefore, it is likely that more rooms will be occupied during weekends. Please see attached pages from the ITE Trip Generation, gin Edition, the same manual used in the TIA, which compares data for occupied rooms. The trip generation rate (based on occupied rooms) is significantly higher during weekends than on weekdays. Due to the nature of this hotel, it is anticipated that weekend trips will be significantly higher and therefore a weekend analysis should be conducted, especially since background (non - project) trips are also higher during the weekend. Response 8 -42: Refer to Response 8 -25, above. The decrease in intersection capacity utilization (ICU) during with project conditions is due to the change in land uses, which would have fewer trips. Additionally, different methodologies were used for these forecast scenarios This response appears to mean that the traffic analysis includes a comparison of the proposed project with the General Plan which includes the City Hall in the model. This has been deemed to be improper based on CEQA case law. Based on Environmental Planning and Information Council (EPIC) v County of El Dorado County, 137 Cal App.3d 350, 782 Cal. Rptr. 317an approved plan conditions does not define the CEQA Baseline. Further, CilyofCarmel-by- the -Sea v County of Monterey, 183 CaLApp.3d 229 CourtofAppeal, Sixth District, rules that existing zoning and zoned density do not define the baseline. Response 8 -44: Refer to Response 8 -26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections; however this manual does not provide specific input parameters. The analysis was prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. 711612014 (C1DropbWTso1s\Prcjeds\Lido House HoteKonnnnents On RTC.Docx) 3 It is interesting that the response states that "this manual fHCM] does not provide specific input parameters'. The HCM (2000) has approximately 1200 pages of information. Chapter 10 of the HCM2000 (Page 10 -8) states 'In the absence of field measurements ofpeak -hour factor (PHF), approximations can be used For congested conditions, 0. 92 is a reasonable approximation for PHF For conditions in which there is fairly uniform flow throughout the peak hour but a recognizable peak does occur, 0.88fs a reasonable estimate for PHF 'Therefore, the HCM does include specific input parameters, which the traffic analysis for the project has ignored. Response 8 -45: Refer to Response 8 -26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections. The analysis was also prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach Page 16 -5 of the HCM (2000) states "If pedestrian timing requirements exist, the minimum green time for the phase is indicated and provided for in the signal timing ". Since the intersections around the project have significant pedestrian activity, minimum green times should be input in the analysis. Else, the analysis shows a much better level of service on paper whereas the reality in this case, would be much worse. Response 8 -46: Refer to Response 8 -26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections, and the modeling is consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. It should also be noted that the Draft EIR was distributed to the California Department of Transportation during the 45 -day public review period, and no comments were received from that agency. An analytical error not being noticed does not make the analysis correct. According to the HCM, a vlc ratio greater than 1.0 (atleast) requires additional analysis. Stating that the analysis is consistent to other analyses in the City of Newport Beach does not mean that the analysis is correct. Response 8 -47: Refer to Response 8 -27, above. There is a distinction between deficient intersection operation and a significant impact. As documented in the Draft EIR, the proposed project is not forecast to trigger any agency- established thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. The City is correct in stating that there is a distinction between deficient intersection operation and a significant impact. However, there is a difference between a direct project impact (i.e. based on the sliding scale of impact determination used 711612014 (C1DropboxlTso1s\Projects\L1do House HoteAComments On RTC.Docx) 4 by the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa) and cumulative impacts. If a facility operates at unsatisfactory LOS under existing conditions (or any without project condition) and a project adds traffic to the unsatisfactory operations, a cumulative impact occurs. This statement is based on LosAnge /es Unified Sch. Dist. vQy of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, and Communities for a Better EnO vCalifornia Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, which ruled that a project that results in an increase to an impact that already exceeds established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulative impact. Further, for Caltrans facilities, the significance criteria selected by the City is incorrect. It would mean that if a facility is operating at LOS F, a project could add thousands of cars and not have an impact. Since Caltrans does not have a sliding scale of impact determination (unlike Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which allow an increase in v/c ratio), a cumulative impact would occur by the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility. Although there might not be direct significant impacts from the project, significant cumulative impacts are likely to be shown if the analysis is conducted correctly. We hope you will find this information helpful. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (949) 232- 7954. Sincerely, trap u to' Inc. 'u P.E., AICP Principal 711612014 (C1Dropbox\Tso1s\ProlectsT1do House HoteKomments On RTC.Docx) WMIUMMI C Description Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreation- al facilities (pool, fitness room), and /or other retail and service shops. Some of the sites included in this land use category are actually large motels providing the hotel facilities noted above. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320) and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses. Additional Data Studies of hotel employment density indicate that, on the average, a hotel will employ 0.9 employees per room.' Thirty studies provided information on occupancy rates at the time the studies were conducted. The average occupancy rate for these studies was approximately 83 percent. The hotels surveyed were primarily located outside central business districts in suburban areas. Some properties contained in this land use provide guest transportation services such as airport shuttles, limousine service, or golf course shuttle service, which may have an impact on the overall trip generation rates. The sites were surveyed between the late 1960s and the 200Os throughout the United States. For all lodging uses, it is important to collect data on occupied rooms as well as total rooms in order to accurately predict trip generation characteristics for the site. Trip generation at a hotel may be related to the presence of supporting facilities such as convention facilities, restaurants, meeting /banquet space and retail facilities. Future data submissions should specify the presence of these amenities. Reporting the level of activity at the supporting facilities such as full, empty, partially active, number of people attending a meeting /banquet during observation may also be useful in further analysis of this land use. Source Numbers 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, 55, 72, 170, 187, 254, 260, 262, 277, 280, 301, 306, 357, 422, 436, 507, 577, 728 ' Buttke, Carl H. Unpublished studies of building employment densities, Portland, Oregon. Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 603 Hotel (310) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 4 Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 216 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation-- - 8.92 4.14 - 17.44 6.04 Data Plot and 4,000 3,000 N C W F- N U L > 2,000 N [A ttl N J Q 1,000 Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size x M 0- 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 , 280 X = Number of Occupied Rooms X Actual Data Points - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2 =' . 604 Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers Hotel (310) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Saturday Number of Studies: 3 Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 250 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting rip Generation per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 10.50 7.07 - 13.86 4.11 uata riot ano w a i` m a� m 4,000 3,000 r rrr caution - use carefully - small sample size X 1,000 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 260 290 300 310 320 X = Number of Occupied Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given 330 340 - -- -- Average Rate R2 = .... Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers 609 i I X 1,000 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 260 290 300 310 320 X = Number of Occupied Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given 330 340 - -- -- Average Rate R2 = .... Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers 609 From: V Lorenzen [valorenzen @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:12 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: 3300 Newport Blvd. Correspondence Item No. 6b Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments PA2013 -217 and PA2012 -031 We now have Lido Marina Village down the street. This will impact traffic, both auto and pedestrian, which is already heavy and cumbersome. Do we really need 130 more rooms in so close an area. What is wrong with making the grounds of the old City Hall a park. We don't need anymore congestion, people, cars and all that goes along with those things. Dream on, Violet. The only thing we must think about is the tax base of course Violet Lorenzen Lido resident ��CeIVED 8 . COMMUNITY JUL. 17 2014 C) DEVELOPMENT G-Z' kO,c fVEWPOO file: / / /Fl / ... 013 /PA2013- 217/05- public %20meetings /04 -PC %2007 -17- 2014 / Correspondence/ 3300 %20Newpon %20BIvd..htm[07 /17/2014 8:56:15 AM] Correspondence Item No. 6c BURNS,MARLENE Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall complex Hmenamenrs tYrom: Brad Hillgren <bhillgren @highrhodes.com> Sent. Thursday, July 17, 201411:36 AM PA2013 -217 and PA2012 -031 To: 'O'Hara' Cc: Burns, Marlene Subject. RE: RD Olson proposed General Plan Amendment Thank you for your comments. Due to a previous business relationship with a member of the applicant's team, I have recused myself from this public hearing item. I have passed your comments on to the staff for inclusion in the public record. Brad Hillgren HIGH RHODES INVESTMENT GROUP Brad Hillgren www.HighRhodes.com From: O'Hara [mailto:5oharasCalamail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:11 AM To: BHillgren @HighRhodes.com Subject: RD Olson proposed General Plan Amendment Project File No.: PA2013 -217 and PA2012 -031 Activity No.: G132012 -002, LC2012 -001, and CA2012 -003, SD2014 -001 and UP2014 -001 Zone: Current: PF (Public Facilities) Proposed: MU -LV (Mixed Use, Lido Village) General Plan: Current: PF (Public Facilities) Proposed: MU -H5 (Mixed Use, Horizontal 5) Location: 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street, Northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Applicant: RD Olson Development Dear Planning Commissioners: I am not able to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, I submit this email as my citizen input on the above referenced matter. I support a General Plan Amendment to accommodate the boutique hotel proposed by the RD Olson Development group. I believe that the addition of a well- designed and well- managed high quality boutique hotel will enhance the surrounding area both aesthetically and economically. I do NOT support an alternative mixed use concept that may accommodate up to 99 residential units. If you approve the General Plan Amendment, I ask that you limit the possible uses to the boutique hotel concept that has been presented to the City Council, Planning Commission and citizens of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Catherine O'Hara 127 Via Undine Newport Beach, CA 92663 Correspondence Item No. 6d LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments PA2013 -217 and July 17, 2014 PA2012 -031 Via Facsimile only Bradley Hilgrin, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o James E. Campbell, Principal Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor, Bay "C" Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Lido House Hotel and the Generic Project aka City Hall Reuse Project (the "Projects "). Greetings Thank you for the opportunity to comment to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and other community groups in the City in connection with the captioned matter. We offer these comments in the hopes of improving the FEIR and the Project, clarifying the nature and the scope of the Projects and the Project Description, and drawing the Commission's attention to issues that the Commission first raised in the initial Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND "). First, we congratulate the City on the FEIR: unlike the previous MND, the FEIR is not italicized. The FEIR is much easier to read. Nonetheless, the FEIR has problems as discussed below. Second, please find attached hereto as Exhibit "A," our comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original City Hall Re -use Project. Given that the Projects have not really changed -that is, the FEIR still analyzes the Project as proposed and analyzed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Hall Reuse Project, we incorporate those earlier comments herein. Also, we incorporate all other comments on the DEIR and the FEIR to the extent that they supplement and do not contradict these comments. Third, as the Commission well remembers, the MND was a disaster which the City saw fit to abandon: it was in all italics and impossible to read; it failed to analyze crucial Project features; it engaged in piecemeal analysis; and it failed to analyze fully the Projects' impacts and mitigation measures. Unfortunately, for all of its promise, the FEIR continues down the old disastrous path. As the Commission remembers, Commissioner Tucker asked at the hearing on the MND and the Projects, why 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1151 Bradley Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission James E. Campbell, Senior Planner - 2, July 17, 2014 doesn't the City wait until they have an applicant and a project that it can analyze rather than conducting environmental review on the legislative proposals? We welcomed and agreed with Commissioner Tucker's common sense approach. Now the City has spent hundreds of staff hours and thousands of tax dollars to determine that a hotel use is the appropriate use for the former City Hall site. The Executive Summary appears to embrace this approach and describes the Project as a hotel project. Unfortunately, the DEIR does not continue this approach: it analyzes two projects: the Lido House Hotel; or a mixed use residential and commercial use (the "Generic Project "). The City determined that it would pursue a hotel use when it spent time and money seeking applicants to submit proposals. The City Council also decided on the applicant which is the applicant here. Why is the City continuing to analyze the Project as residential/mixed use? Given that the City has a project and a developer, why delay site development review for another approval? All of these impermissibly delays the full environmental review that must occur now and engages in piecemeal analysis which is forbidden by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. As Commissioner Tucker asked long ago, why don't we wait for a project and a developer? The City has satisfied these issues, why delay the environmental review of site development review for another hearing? Such review must be done now for the chosen Project which is the title of the FEIR, the Lido House Hotel and not some amorphous Generic Project that various Council Members may favor. Correlatively, the FEIR impermissibly ignores the impacts of the Generic Project. Forinstance, in Response to Comment 8 -3 regarding the need to preserve emergency access to Via Lido Center, the FEIR states that Comment 8 -3 reflects "... reflects the commentator's preference that the Via Lido Plaza delivery trucks pass through the City's property and ignores its effect on the hotel operations and guests." However, this Response ignores the impacts of the Generic Project which is also part of the Project. The FEIR repeatedly ignores the Generic Project and analyzes the impacts of the Lido House Hotel Project. However, if the Project is approved and the FEIR is certified, the Generic Project will be approved and its impacts will be regarded as completely analyzed. However, the FEIR fails to do this: it focuses solely on the Lido House Hotel Project. Fourth, the Project involves a land lease between the City and the proposed developer of the Lido House Hotel. Also, the Generic Project will also involve a lease. Yet, the FEIR does not include any form lease for the Generic Project or a lease for the Lido House Hotel Given that the lease is part of the Project, the FEIR must analyze the lease and its impacts on the environment including the change in possessory interests, the term of these possessory interests, remedies on default including the ability to seize the Hotel in the event of a default and the inability of the City to operate the hotel. All of these are part of the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project: a full description of the Project includes the terms of these agreements. Indeed, the lease is the same as a development agreement which is part of any development project and which is part of the review of the hearing authority. For instance, in the approval for North Newport Center, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental document and the project which included a development agreement. The same must happen here: because the lease is part of the Project, the Commission and the public need to review and comment on this part of the Project. Without it, the Project description is fatally incomplete. See Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 116. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1151 Bradley Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission James E. Campbell, Senior Planner - 3, July 17, 2014 Fifth, as indicated in our earlier comments, the Project's height will create significant aesthetic impacts including light and glare, and shade and shadow impacts. As to the former, light and glare, the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project will expose visitors and guests /residents to lights from passing vehicles on Balboa Blvd. These impacts likely may be able to be mitigated the FOR contains no such mitigation measures now. As to the shade and shadow impacts, the FEIR concedes that the Project will have such impacts but regards them as temporary because the sun and therefore the shadows move. If this analysis were adequate, there would be no shade impacts. Moreover, as we earlier commented, the Project shade and shadows will affect the Project's own open space and will make the area dark and dingy. It will also affect the outdoor diners at the area restaurants in the vicinity. Although the DEIR's discussion of aesthetic impacts concludes that these are not shade sensitive uses, that conclusion is incorrect. The shade and shadows from the Projects will adversely affect outdoor dining in the area as well as the commercial experience at Via Lido Plaza including the new West Marine store. The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to address these impacts. Sixth, also highlighted in our earlier comments, the FEIR employs the wrong environmental baseline with which to determine the Projects' impacts. This error continues the erroneous practice employed in the MND. The DEIR is not even candid as to its use of the erroneous environmental baseline; the July 17, 2014 Staff Report for the Commission ( "2014 Commission Staff Report") is somewhat more candid but nonetheless continues to analyze the Project's land use impacts with the incorrect standard. That Report states: "Absent a specified maximum intensity, the `plan to plan' analysis would indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval; however, when the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has conservatively used the 2006 General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 2014 Commission Staff Report, handwritten pages 11 -12. The DEIR uses this same "plan to plan" comparison to determine land use impacts, see DEIR, Table 5 -4, page 5.4 -50 Source Note that the 2006 General Plan is the basis for the Land Use Analysis Table 5 -4. This use of the 2006 General Plan with the non - existing but planned 75,000 square feet to analyze the Projects' impacts violates the requirements of CEQA: It requires that the analysis compare the impacts of the proposed Projects with the conditions on the ground today, that is without the non- existent 75,000 square feet proposed in the 2006 General Plan. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ( "South Coast AQMD "). Seventh, the FEIR also continues to use improperly the Lido Village Design Guidelines as standards for approval rather than suggested guidelines. The DEIR recognizes their proper role: "The Lido Village Design Guidelines (December 2011) (Design Guidelines) are to be used as a guide by owners who intend to renovate or rehabilitate existing structures, are planning for new construction, or have decided to make significant exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for approval or planned public improvements." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1151 Bradley I- lilgrcn, Chair \lember; o the. Planning Conuniseiun Junes F. Camplidl, Senior Planner - 4 - exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for approval or planned public improvements." DEIR, page 5.1 -12. However, the DEIR confusingly employs these Guidelines as regulatory standards with which projects must be determined to be consistent: "The Design Guidelines provide a basis for the evaluation and review of the applications by property owners or tenants to the City of Newport Beach.These Guidelines are not regulatory and are intended to be a component of the City's development review process where projects must be found consistent" July 17.'_014 DEIR, page 5.1 -13. This last sentence is internally contradictory: if the Guidelines are not regulatory, then a project need not be consistent with them. Yet, the final clause maintains that all projects including the Projects must be found consistent with the Guidelines. These Guidelines have never had environmental review, environmental hearings, nor any regulatory approvals, e.g. Coastal Commission approval. The DEIR continues this erroneous use of these Guidelines by stating that, because the Project must comply with the Guidelines, the Project has no impact on land use, aesthetics and other environmental resources. This might be true if the Guidelines had been subjected to environmental review and their standards were determined to enhance the environment or at least have no significant impact on the environment. The City did not conduct such a review and cannot now employ these Guidelines as an analytical tool or mitigation tool for the Project. The FEIR contains numerous other errors and omissions. It is not ready for prime time. On behalf of the clients note above. we urge the Commission to reject the Projects and the FEIR, and return the FEIR and the Projects to Staff and the Applicants for further study and review, for revision of the FEIR and recirculation for public comment and review. Thank you; again, for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR. Please provide us with notice of any responses to these comments and with notices of any and all hearings on the captioned project. Further, this is also a written request for notices pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically, Public Resources Code Section 21092.2. Specifically, pursuant to Section 21092.2, we request that you provide us with a copy of any and all notices required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4, 21083.9, 21092, 21 108 and 21 152 relating to the captioned Project.. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, FFl[CES OF R B T C. HAWKINS 7 By: Robert C. Hawkins RCI -1 /kw cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only) 14 Corporate 111aza, Su ire 120 Newport Bcae6, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Exhibit "A" LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS March 26, 2013 Via Facsimile Only Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Newport Residents United Again, a community group based on the original Newport Residents United which lobbied in the early 1970s to establish the original height limit for the Coastal Zone, the Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and others in the City in connection with the captioned matter. We have commented on the captioned DMND several times and offer these additional further comments on the captioned document. First, although we have repeatedly requested that you provide us with all notices in connection with the captioned matter, we have yet to receive any such notices. Please comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. Again, as throughout this process, the City has failed to provide us with notice required by CEQA and other laws. Second, the Response to our January 17, 2013 Letter Comment 4 states that: "This comment suggesting that the IS/MND was unreadable is the only comment received that indicated the reviewer had difficulty reading and understanding the information and analysis presented in the document. The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, the California Coastal Commission and other responsible public agencies and/or interested individuals and organizations. With the single exception of this commenter, the City did not receive any comments from any other recipient of the IS /MND that indicated reviewers had difficulty reading the document or that it prevented them from understanding the findings and recommendations included in the environmental analysis. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not necessary." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 Keith Curry, Mayor March 26. 2013 Members of the City Council '2. Final MND, page 1 of Responses to our January 17, 2013 letter. This is incredible. It is also factually incorrect. At the January 17, 2013 hearing, all of the public commenters criticized the readability of the DMND. Moreover, at the hearing, staff reported on the project and then introduced the MND preparer, Mr. Keeton Kreitzer. Mr. Kreitzer discussed the MND. The very first question asked of the EIR preparer, Keeton Kreitzer, concerned the italicized document. Chairman Michael Toerge asked: "Why was the document in italics ?" (Emphasis in the original.) Mr. Kreitzer responded that he had a computer glitz and the entire document printed in italics. He said that it was not to mislead, to confuse or to make the document less readable. Chair Toerge responded that "it certainly did make the document much less readable." See audio minutes of the January 17, 2013 meeting (the audio minutes are not measured so we cannot provide a location in the audio minutes) (Emphasis supplied). Other members of the public including Jim Mosher and Denys Obermann also criticized the readability of the document. Given these comments including the Planning Commission Chair's comments, the document must be recirculated for public review and comment. We note that the City has attempted to cure this defect retroactively by providing the FMND in non - italic font. Unfortunately, this is not appropriate and cannot cure the problem. The public commented on the italicized document, and the italics made the document unreadable. The City Council will now have the luxury of the non - italicized document but the public was not given this opportunity during the public comment period which closed the day after Christmas 2012. Given that the City has now circulated a non - italicized version of the document, the City must recirculate this reformatted document for public review and comment. As for the Responses to Comment Nos. 5 and 6, although they state that they are analyzing the Project's impacts on the worst case scenario, the Responses fail to do this. First, the proposed shade - shadow analysis was not part of the DMND, and the public has not had the opportunity to review and comment on this study. The FMND without italics and with the shade study must be revised and recirculated for public review and comment. Second, the shade study is incomplete. The Project description includes increasing the Shoreline Height Limits from thirty -five (35') feet to fifty-five (55') with sloping roofs and elevator towers to sixty (60') feet and architectural features to sixty -five (65') feet. The shade analysis displays only shade for the fifty -five (55') feet, not the higher sloped roofs, elevator towers and architectural features. Moreover, no one verifies that the shadows are correct and that the analysis correctly shows the shadows generated at the site and surrounding areas. This City has suffered from unscrupulous persons who have fudged height issues: Andrew Goetz; the entitlement persons for the Mormon Temple; and others. We need a reliable shade analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project, not some seat -of- the - pants, rush -rush analysis. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Keith Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013 Members of the City Council .3. Third, even this seat -of- the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis shows shade impacts: the open space on the Project site will be permanently shaded. As we indicated in our original comment letter, the DMND states: "The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities." DMND, page I 1 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 ( "Additionally, the purpose for allowing taller buildings is clearly described within the draft amendment; `...to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities. "' However, Response to Supplemental Comment No. 6 states: "It is important to note that the City of Newport Beach has determined that shadow sensitive uses include, but are not limited to, residential, recreational and park areas, plazas, schools, and nurseries. Furthermore, the City considers that a significant impact related to shadows occurs when 50 percent of shadow sensitive use or area is in shade /shadow for at least 50 percent of the time between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) between late October and early April or between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) between early April and Late October." Section 7.0 of the FMND, page 2. However, the seat -of- the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis fails to analyze the impacts on the Project site open space areas, e.g. the park areas. The FMND recognizes these as shade sensitive areas, but the analysis shows that this area will be in shade for most of the day. Yet, the FMND fails to recognize or appreciate this Project impact. At the January 27, 2013 Planning Commission, we commented regarding such impacts. Planner Campbell stated that Project impacts on the Project site were not impacts that needed to be analyzed, addressed, or mitigated. However, the FMND is replete with analysis of such impacts including impacts regarding air quality and noise. For instance, Section 4.8(e) concerning Hazards considers and discusses whether the Project will expose Project residents to hazards including noise. Section 4.12(a) discusses the potential impact that the Project may create by exposing Project residents to unwanted noise. Section 4.3(e) discusses the potential that the Project may expose residents to objectionable odors. Here, the Project and its huge shadow eliminates the benefit of the open space included in the Project Description and which necessitates the Project's need to exceed the height limit. The Project's exceeding the height limit actually will create a significant and unmitigated impact: the shadow which undercuts and destroys the benefit of the open space. This is a significant Project impact which requires mitigation. Indeed, it likely will require modification of the Project to comply with the current height limits which likely will have no such shade impacts. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CAtomia 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council - 4 - Match ., -6, ., -013 Fourth, the Shoreline Height Ordinance and Limitation arose due to citizen action. In the early 1970s, a group of Newport Beach residents including Joe and Judy Rosener formed "Newport Residents United ( "NRU ")." According to Allen Beek who testified on behalf of NRU when the Council passed the height limit, one of the reasons NRU proposed the height limit was the construction of the massive condominium towers near the Lido Isle Bridge. However, FMND maintains that the Project with its height exceeding the current ordinance is consistent with these large condominiums which gave rise to the height ordinance in the first place. For instance, the discussion of Aesthetics notes: "Several other taller residential, office, and a mixed use building are also located in the vicinity of the project and within the view." FMND, page 28. See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 Also, see Exhibits 4.1 -1 through -7 which show that the only building penetrating the Shoreline Height Limit is the 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums which led to the Shoreline Height Ordinance. Further, Exhibits 4.1 -8 through -11 also show projects built before the Shoreline Height Ordinance which are not in the vicinity of the Project but are on Pacific Coast Highway in an area known as Mariner's Mile. The other structures reference in the graphic entitled "Lido Village Building Height Analysis" in Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 show that the vast majority of structures in the vicinity of the Project are within the Shoreline Height Limit, not in excess of those limits. Only two properties shown on this Analysis are as high or higher than the proposed Project: 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums. The FMND cannot use these anomalies to show consistency with surrounding development. Indeed, the Mariner's Mile projects are not in the vicinity of the Project site and should not be considered at all. Further, the 601 Lido Condominiums is unusual as shown in the Exhibits 4.1 -1 through -7. Without more, these anomalies cannot in and of themselves set the standard. The standard is far lower: it is the current Shoreline Height Limit of thirty -five (35') feet. Fifth, as indicated in our original comments, the FMND refers to the Lido Village Design Guidelines as regulatory. See Mitigation Measure 4.1 -1 and other references in the FMND which state that the Guidelines "prescribe" standards of development. These references occur throughout the FMND. Nonetheless, Response to Comment No. 15 states that: "The characterization in the Draft IS/MND that the guidelines as regulatory in nature was unintentional. Rather, the discussion of the Lido Village Design Guidelines was intended to illustrate that future development must be found to be consist with the design guidelines for approval." FMND, Response to Friends' December 26, 2013, page 10. This is very confusing. The first sentence in this Response suggests that the Guidelines are not regulatory; the second states that the Guidelines are regulatory. The City cannot have it both ways: if the Project must be found to be consistent with the Guidelines, then they are regulatory. If they are not regulatory, then the Project need not be consistent with the Guidelines. Given that the FMND relies upon the 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, Califomia 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Keith Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013 Members of the City Council ' S' regulatory understanding of the Guidelines, the Guidelines are part of the Project and must be analyzed in the FMND. Indeed, Response to our January 17, 2013 letter Comment No. 9 concerning the Guidelines states that: "It is acknowledged that the Lido Village Design Guidelines are not regulatory. As indicated in the guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is responsible for design review and project implementation. Project must adhere to adopted General Plan, zoning policies, and regulations, which outline requirements specific for individual parcels within Lido Village, including the City Hall property. Nonetheless, the Lido Village Design Guidelines are intended to influence the theme and character of that development. To that end, the guidelines addressed all aspects of future land use that may occur within Lido Village, including edge conditions, pedestrian connection, open space, sustainability, architecture, landscaping, etc., to ensure that the objectives articulated in the document are achieved. In addition, guidance is also provided to achieve the desired visual character and aesthetic quality within Lido Village, even though all improvements occurring with the affected area are subject to applicable regulations and permitting process imposed by the City' General Plan, zoning code and related ordinances, and other related regulatory requirements. Finally, the guidelines are intended to provide design guidance for future development and redevelopment "...with the assurance that others who follow will be held to the same or similar unifying set of standards. "Thus, while they are not regulatory, they include guidance for promoting compatibility and minimizing land use conflicts through the implementation of planning and design solutions that also reduce potential adverse effects." FMND, Response to January 17, 2013 Comment No. 9, page 4 (Emphasis supplied.) Again, this does not really address the question. This Response recognizes that the Guidelines are not regulatory and only provide guidance. However, if so, then how can the FMND rely on compliance with the Guidelines to mitigate Project impacts? See Mitigation Measure 4.1 -I. They cannot. Hence, the FMND contains an analysis which requires further discussion regarding the Guidelines and their mitigation of the Project's impacts. Indeed, as we indicated in our December 26, 2013 Comment, the Project really includes the Guidelines, and the environmental document must be revised to address this aspect of the Project. Sixth, the FMND fails to analyze the Project's impacts on the existing environment. That is, it improperly compares the Project's impacts, not to the existing environment, but on a hypothetical General Plan environment. This is legal error. Recently, the California Supreme Court decided the CEQA issue of environmental baseline. In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Ouality Mana eg ment Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ( "South Coast AOMD ") , the Supreme Court held that the environmental baseline is CEQA is generally the existing conditions on the ground. There, the South Coast Air Quality Management District prepared a negative declaration for a refiner project by Conoco - Philips. Among other things, the District argued that the environmental 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council .6- March ., -6, ., -013 baseline was maximum output of the refinery which had valid permits to operate it at the site even though the refinery had yet to be built. Among other things, ConocoPhillips argued that failure to use the maximum permitted operations as a baseline would violate ConocoPhilips vested rights and contravene CEQA's statute of limitations. The Court reviewed the case law and stated: A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework. This line of authority includes cases where a plan or regulation allowed for greater development or more intense activity than had so far actually occurred, n6 as well as cases where actual development or activity had, by the time CEQA analysis was begun, already exceeded that allowed under the existing regulations. n7 In each of these decisions, the appellate court concluded the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the "existing physical conditions in the affected area" (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal. App. 3d at p. 354), that is, the "`real conditions on the ground "' (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.AppAth at p. 121; see City of Carmel -by- the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at p. 246), rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to a plan or regulation." Id. at 320 -21. The Court held that: "Applied here, this general rule leads to the conclusion the District erred in using the boilers' maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline. By treating all operation of the boilers within the individual limits of their permits to be part of the environmental setting, or baseline, the District ensured that no emissions from increased boiler operation would be considered an environmental impact so long as no single boiler operated beyond its permitted capacity." Id. at 322. See Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 552 petition for review granted 2012 Cal. LEXIS 7556 (to the opposite effect; opinion was depublished pending the Supreme Court review). Hence, under South Coast AOMD, M the FND uses an improper baseline to assess impacts including traffic impacts. The FMND states: "When the City's General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City had commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, based on the General Plan 2006 Update traffic (land use) assumption used to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the project site, the City determined that such future redevelopment/reuse of the City Hall Complex property would not require voter approval for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council - 7 - March'' -6, 2013 FMND, page 112. The FMND uses this "General Plan" analysis to determine the baseline for the Project instead of the existing conditions on the ground today which is 54,000 square feet including the Fire Station. See City Council Study Session presentation, page 2. This does not comply with the requirements of CEQA and with the direction of the South Coast AOMD Court. Indeed, it inflates the traffic generated under existing conditions and lessens the traffic impacts of the project. The FMND must be revised to consider the Project's impacts on traffic and other issues based upon a comparison with the existing conditions. Likely, the Project will generate substantially more traffic than existing conditions. Moreover, the FMND seems confused on this point. In Response to our December 26, 2013 Comment No. 34, the FMND states that: "Fire Station No. 2 is an existing use that currently generates traffic to and from the site as a result of home -to -work trips. Those trips currently exist and are reflected in the baseline traffic for the Project." FMND, Response to Comment No. 34, page 14. However, it is unclear under the General Plan baseline whether or not the Fire Station traffic was not allocated to another site. In conclusion, the FMND is totally inadequate. Good and sound policy reasons and good planning require the preparation of an EIR. Such an EIR would analyze correctly the existing environmental setting including the 54,000 square foot current City Hall structure, would clearly state the Project objectives which include adequate open space for this public site, would analyze all impacts including shade impacts, would include adequate mitigation, would include a discussion of Project alternatives which is necessary for the Project to go forward, and would allow the City to override any significant an unmitigated impacts. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the FMND. As before and although ignored for this hearing, PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH NOTICE OF ANY RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS IN A NON - ITALICIZED FORMAT AND WITH NOTICES OF ANY AND ALL HEARINGS ON THE CAPTIONED PROJECT AND FMND. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ICES F BE . HAWKINS By: Robert . Hawkins RCH/kw cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only) 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650.11 &1 Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 FAX COVER SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER Leilani Brown, City Clerk (949) 644 -3039 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: Friends Date: March 26, 2013 Documents: Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7* COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated. The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney - client and/or the attorney /work product privilege. /t is intended only for the use ofthe individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthe communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. *NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT (949) 650 -5550. 03/26/2013 2:51PM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES lao 001 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx TX Result Report xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TX complete. Job No. 0061 Address 6443039 Name Start Time 03/26 02:46 PM Call Length 04'12 Sheets 8 Result OK Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Reach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 FAX COVER SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: LAME I FAX NUMBER I PHONE NUMBER Leila»i Brown, City Clerk ' 1 (949) 644 -3039 1 1 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client(Matter: Friends Date: March 26, 2013 Documents: Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7" COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated. 'T t7 INBOUND NOTIFICATION : FAX RECEIVED SUCCESSFULLY ** TIME RECEIVED REMOTE CSID DURATION PAGES STATUS July 17, 2014 1:49:55 PM PDT 9496501181 394 14 Received 07/17/2014 1:42PM FAX 9496501161 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES (A0001/0014 Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 F= (949)650.1181 FAX COVER SHEET TRANSMIT7TED TO: Correspondence Item No. 6d Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex, Amendments PA2013 -217 and PA2012 -031 NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3229 Leilani Brown, City Clerk (949) 644 -3439 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: Friends Date: July 17, 2014 Documents: Comments on Lido House Hotel Project and Generic Project FEIR Pages: 13* COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated, 7,he information contained in Ibis facsimile message is information protected by alinroeyclienl and /or the olmrneylwork product privilege. It is intended onlyfor the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of ihis hawing been sent by facsii,7ite. if the person actually receiving this faOsiMile or any olher reader of ille facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent respnnslble to deliver it to the named recipient, tiny use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received (his communication in error, please immediately notify its by lelephone and rentrn the original message to us at the ub6ve addresv via U.S, parlal Service. v N0,1, COUNTING COVI?R SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TF1,EPHONE l}S IMMEDIATELY AT (949) 650.5550, 07/17/2014 1:42PM FAX 9496501191 HAWKINS LAVE OFFICES 20002 /0014 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS July 17, 2014 Via Facsimile only Bradley Hilgrin, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o James E. Campbell, Principal Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor, Bay "C" Newport Beach, California 92600 Re: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (°°FEIR "1 for the Lido HouscHotel and the Generic Project aka City Hall Reuse rroiect (the "1'roi cts „L Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hal I” site for civic purposes, and other community groups in the City in connection with the captioned matter. We offer these comments in the hopes of improving the FEIR and the Project, clarifying the nature and the scope of the Projects and the Project Description, and drawing the Commission's attention to issues that the Commission first raised in the initial Draft and final Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND'). First, we congratulate the City on the FEIR: unlike the previous MND, the FEIR is not italicized. The FEIR is much easier to read. Nonetheless, the FEIR has problems as discussed below. Second, please find attached hereto as hxhibit "Ai" our comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original City Hall Re -use Project. Given that the Projects have not realty changed - that is, the FEIR still analyzes the Project as proposed and analyzed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Hall Reuse Preject, we incorporate those earlier comments herein. Also, we incorporate al I other comments on the DE] R and the FEIR to the extent that they supplement and do not contradict these comments. Third, as the Commission well remembers, the MND was a disaster which the City saw fitto abandon: it was in all italics and impossible to read; it failed to analyze crucial Project features; it engaged in piecemeal analysis; and it failed to analyze fully the Projects' impacts and mitigation measures. 14 (.:urporntc Plaw. Seim 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 6505550 Fax; (949) 650,1181 07/17/2014 1:42PM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 120003/0014 Brx16py l lilpren, Cl +nlr Members of the Plaooing Commivnlon James E. Camphell, Senior Planner l • July 17. 2014 Unfortunately, for all of its promise, the FFlR continues down the old disastrous path. As the Commission remembers, CommisaioncrTuoker asked at the hearing on the MND and the Projects, why doesn't the City wait until they have an applicant and a project that it can analyze rather than conducting environmental review on the legislative proposals? We welcomed and agreed with Commissioner Tucker's common sense approach. Now the City has spent hundreds of staff hours and thousands of tax dollars to determine that a hotel use is the appropriate use for the former City Hall site. The Executive Summary appears to embrace this approach and describes the Project as a hotel project. Unfortunately, the DEIR does not continue this approach: it analyzes two projects: the Lido House Hotel; or a mixed use residential and commercial use (the "Generic Project'). The City determined that it would pursue a hotel use when It spent time and money seeking applicants to submit proposals. The City Council also decided on the applicant which is the applicant here. Why is the City continuing to analyze the Project as residential /mixed use? Given that the City has a project and a developer, why delay site development review for another approval? All of these impermissibly delays the full environmental review that must occur now and engages in piccetneal analysis which is forbidden bythe California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et scq. As Commissioner Tucker asked long ago, why don't we wait for a project and a developer'? The City has satisfied these issues, why delay the environmental review of site development review for another hearing'? Such review must be done now for the chosen Project which is the title of the FEIR, the Lido House Hotel and not some amorphous Generic Project that va1'ious Council Members may favor. Correlatively, theFEIRimpermissiblyignorestheimpactsoftheGenericProject. Forinstanee, in Response to Comment 8-3 regardingthe need to preserve emergency access to Via Lido Center, the FEi R states that Comment 8 -3 reflects "... reflects the commentator's preference that the Via Lido Plaza delivery trucks pass throughthe City's property and ignores its effect on the hotel operations and guests." Llowover, this Response ignores the impacts of the Generic Project which is also part ofthe Project. The FEI R repeatedly ignores the Generic Project and analyzes the impacts ofthe Lido House Motel Project. I lowever, if the Project is approved and the FBIR is certified, the Generic Project will be approved and its Impacts will be regarded as completely analyzed. However, the FEIR fails to do this: it focuses solely on the Lido House i-fotel Project. Fourth, the Project involves a land lease between the City and the proposed developer of the Lido House Hotel. Also, the Generic Project will also involve a lease. Yet, the i''EIR does not include any form lease for the Generic Project or a lease for the Lido (-louse Hotel. Given that the lease is part ofthe Project, the FEIR must analyze the lease and its impacts on the environment including the change in possessory interests, the term of these possessory interests, remedies on default including the ability to seize the Hotel in the event of a default and the inability of the City to operate the hotel. All ofthese are part ofthe Lido (louse Hotel Project and the Generic Project: a full description of the Project includes the terms of these agreements. indeed, the lease is the same as a development agreement which is part of any development project and which is part of the review of the hearing authority. For instance, in the approved for North Newport Center, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental document and the project which included a development agreement. The same must happen here: because the lease is part ofthe Project, the Commission and the public need to review and 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650,5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 07/17/2014 1:43PM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 20004/0014 Drnrlley Hil--rnn, Chnir MeudaeIN OF the Planning Comm4 ion Jamee 6. Campbell, senior Planner -3 � July 11,':014 cornment on this part of the Project. Without it, the Project description is fatally incomplete, See Save `Para v. City of West I loll wood(2008) 0 Cal. 4th 116. Fifth, as indicated in our earlier comments, the Project's height will create significant aesthetic impacts including light and glare, and shade and shadow impacts. As to the former, light and glare, the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project will expose visitors and guests/residents to lights from passing vehicles on Balboa Blvd. These impacts likely may be able to be mitigated the FEiR contains no such mitigation measures now, As to the shade and shadow impacts, the FEIR concedes that the Projeotwi II have such impacts but regards them as temporary because the sun and therefore the shadows move. If this analysis were adequate, there would be no shade impacts. Moreover, as we earlier commented, the Project shade and shadows will affect the Project's own open space and will make the area dark and dingy. it will also affect the outdoor diners at the area restaurants in the vicinity. Although the DEIR's discussion of aesthetic impacts concludes that these are not shade sensitive uses, that conclusion is incorrect. The shade and shadows from the Projects will adversely affect outdoor dining in the area as well as the commercial experience at Via Lido Plaza including the new West Marine store. The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to address these impacts. Sixth, also highlighted in our earlier comments, the FEIR employs the wrong environmental baseline with which to determine the Projects' impacts. This error continues the erroneous practice employed in the MND. The DEIR is not even candid as to its use of the erroneous environmental baseline; the July 17, 2014 Staff Report for the Commission ( "2014 Commission Staff Report") is somewhat more candid but nonetheless continues to analyze the Project's land use impacts with the incorrect standard. 'That Report states: "Absent a specified maximum intensity, the `plan to plan' analysis would indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval; however, when the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has conservatively used the 2006 General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 2014 Commission Staff Report, handwritten pages I I -12. The DEIR uses this same "plan to plan" comparison to determine land use impacts, see DEIR, Table 5 -4, page 5.4 -50 Source Note that the 2006 General Plan is the basis for the I,and Use Analysis Table 5 -4. This use of the 2006 General Plan with the non - existing but planned 75,000 square feet to analyze the Projects' impacts violates the requirements of CEQA: It requires that the analysis compare the impacts of the proposed Projects with the conditions on the ground today, that is without the non- existent 75,000 square feet proposed in the 2006 General Plan. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Ai OualityManagement District (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ( "South Coast A MfY). Seventh, the FEIR also continues to use improperly the Lido Village Design Guidelines as standards for approval rather than suggested guidelines. The DEIR recognizes their proper role: '11-re Lido Village Design Guidelines (December 2011) (Design Guidelines) are to be used as a guide by owners who intend to renovate or rehabilitate existing structures, are planning for new construction, or have decided to make significant 14 Corporntr. 111aza, Suite 120 Newport t3each, CAfornis 92060 (949) 650-5550 Fix: (949) 650.1181 07/17/2014 1:44PM FAX 9496501191 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES IR0005/0014 11railty H1(wtn, Chair Manlius oi'the Planning Conmissim, jamrs E. Campbell, $anior Planner 3. july I7,' -014 comment on this part of the Project. Without it, the Project description is fatally incomplete. SocSave 'Para v. City of West Hollywood(2008) 45 Cal. 4th 116. Fifth, as indicated in our earlier comments, the Project's height will create significant aesthetic impacts including light and glare, and shade and shadow impacts. As to the former, light and glare, the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project will expose visitors and guests /residents to lights from passing vehicles on Balboa Blvd. These impacts likely may be able to be mitigated the FEIR contains no such mitigation measures now. As to the shade and shadow impacts, the FBIR concedes that the Project will have such impacts but regards them as temporary because the sum and therefore the shadows move. If this analysis were adequate, there would be no shade impacts. Moreover, as we earlier commented, the Project shade and shadows will affect the Project's awn open space and will make the area dark and dingy. It will also affect the outdoor diners at the area restaurants in the vicinity. Although the DEIR's discussion of aesthetic impacts concludes that these are not shade sensitive uses, that conclusion is incorrect. The shade and shadows from the Projects will adversely affect outdoor dining in the area as well as the commercial experience at Via Lido Plaza including the new West Marine store. The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to address these impacts. Sixth, also highlighted in our earlier comments, the FEIR employs the wrong environmental baseline with which to determine the Projects' impacts. This error continues the erroneous practice employed in the MND. The DEIR is not even candid as to its use of the erroneous environmental baseline; the July 17, 2014 Stal•I' Report for the Commission ( "2014 Commission Staff Report ") is somewhat more candid but nonetheless continues to analyze the Project's land use impacts with the incorrect standard. That Report states: "Absent a specified maximum intensity, the `plan to plan' analysis would indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval; however, when the General Plan Update was approved In 2006, the City commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City I lall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has conservatively used the 2006 General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 2014 Commission StafrReport, handwritten pages 11 -12. The DEIR uses this same "plan to plan" comparison to determine land use impacts, seQ DEIR, Table 5 -4, page 5.4-50 Source Note that the 2006 General Plan is the basis for the Land Use Analysis Table 5 -4. This use of the 2006 General Plan with the non - existing but planned 75,000 square feet to analyze the Projects' impacts violates the requirements of CFQA: it requires that the analysis compare the impacts of the proposed Projects with the conditions on the ground today, that is without the non - existent 75,000 square feet proposed in the 2006 General Plan. Communities fora [3etfer Environment y. South Coast Air _ ua it Management Disirict(2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ( "South Coast AOMD "), Seventh, the FEIR also continues to use improperly the Lido Village Design Guidelines as standards for approval rather than suggested guidelines, The DEIR recognizes their proper role: "The Lido Village Design Guidelines (December 20 11 ) (Design Guidelines) are to be used as a guide by owners who intend to renovate or rehabilitate existing structures, are planning for new construction, or have decided to make significant 14 Corporate FIRM, Suire 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (N9) 650 -5550 Fax (949) 650.11&1 07/17/2014 1:44PM FAX 9496501161 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES Exhibit "A" LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS March 26, 2013 Via Facsimile Only Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Greetings: 00006/0014 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Newport Residents United Again, a community group based on the original Newport Residents United which lobbied in the early 1970s to establish the original height limit for the Coastal Zone, the Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21 000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and others in the City in connection with the captioned matter. We have commented on the captioned DMND several times and offer these additional further comments on the captioned document. First, although we have repeatedly requested that you provide us with all notices in connection with the captioned matter, we have yet to receive any such notices. Please comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. Again, as throughout this process, the City has failed to provide us with notice required by CBQA and other laws. Second, the Response to our January 17, 2013 Letter Comment 4 states that: "This comment suggesting that the IS/MND was unreadable is the only comment received that indicated the reviewer had difficulty reading and understanding the information and analysis presented in the document. The ISIMND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, the California Coastal Commission and other responsible public agencies and/or interested individuals and organizations. With the single exception of this commenter, the City did not receive any comments from any other recipient of the IS /MND that indicated reviewers had difficulty reading the document or that it prevented them from understanding the findings and recommendations included in the environmental analysis. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not necessary." 14 Co purare Plam, Suire 120 Ncwpotr Beach, Callfornla 0260 Fax: 0f/17/2014 1:45PM FAX 9498501101 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 120007/0014 Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Com,cil d • Mareh ,, .6, ., 201.1 Final MND, page 1 of Responses to our January 17, 2013 letter. This is incredible. It is also factually incorrect. At the January 17, 2013 hearing, all of the public commenters criticized the readability of the DMND. Moreover, at the hearing, staff reported on the project and then introduced the MND preparer, Mr, Keeton Kreitzer. Mr, Kreitzer discussed the MND. The very first question asked of the EIR preparer, Keeton Kreitzer, concerned the italicized document, Chairman Michael Toerge asked: "Why was the document in italics ?" (Emphasis in the original.) Mr. Kreitzer responded that he had a computer glitz and the entire document printed in italics. He said that it was not to mislead, to confuse or to make the document less readable. Chair Toerge responded that "it certainly did make the document much less readable," See audio minutes of the January 17, 2013 meeting (the audio minutes are not measured so we cannot provide a location in the audio minutes) (Emphasis supplied), Other members of the public including Jim Mosher and Denys Obermann also criticized the readability of the document. Given these comments including the Planning Commission Chair's comments, the dooument must be recirculated for public review and comment. We note that the City has attempted to cure this defect retroactively by providing the FMND in non - italic font. Unfortunately, this is not appropriate and cannot cure the problem. The public commented on the italicized document, and the italics made the document unreadable, The City Council will now have the luxury of the non - italicized document but the public was not given this opportunity during the public: comment period which closed the day after Christmas 2012. Given that the City has now circulated a non - italicized version of the document, the City must recirculate this reformatted document for public review and comment. As for the Responses to Comment Nos. 5 and 6, although they state that they are analyzing the Project's impacts on the worst case scenario, the Responses fail to do this. First, the proposed shade - shadow analysis was not part of the DMND, and the public has not had the opportunity to review and comment on this study. The FMND without italics and with the shade study must be revised and recirculated for public review and comment. Second, the shade study is incomplete. The Project description includes increasing the Shoreline Height Limits from thirty -five (35') feet to fifty -five (55') with sloping roofs and elevator towers to sixty (60') feet and architectural features to sixty-five (65') feet. The shade analysis displays only shade for the fifty -five (55') feet, not the higher sloped roofs, elevator towers and architectural features. Moreover, no ono verifies that the shadows are correct and that the analysis correctly shows the shadows generated at the site and surrounding areas. This City has suffered from unscrupulous persons who have fudged height issues; Andrew Goetz; the entitlement persons for the Mormon Temple; and others. We need a reliable shade analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project, not some seat -of- the - pants, rush -rush analysis. 14 Cvrpomte Plan, Suite 120 (949) 650.5550 Fax, (949) 650-1181 07/17/2014 1:45PM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES IM0008 /0014 Kridi Curry, Mayor March 26. 2013 Members of the City cuundl 3 Third, even this scat -of- the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis shows shade impacts: the open space on the Project site will be permanently shaded, As we indicated in our original comment letter, the DMND states: "The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities." DMND, page I I (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No, 4 ( "Additionally, the purpose for allowing taller buildings is clearly described within the draft amendment; '...to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities. "' However, Response to Supplemental Comment No. 6 states: "It is important to note that the City of Newport Beach has determined that shadow sensitive uses include, but are not limited to, residential, recreational and park areas, plazas, schools, and nurseries. Furthermore, the City considers that a significant impact related to shadows occurs when 50 percent of shadow sensitive use or area is in shade /shadow for at least 50 percent of the time between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) between late October and early April or between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m, Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) between early April and Late October," Section 7.0 of the FMND, page 2. However, the seat- of -the- pants, rush -rush shade analysis fails to analyze the impacts on the Project site open space areas, e.g, the park areas, The FUND recognizes these as shade sensitive areas, but the analysis shows that this area will be in shade for most of the day. Yet, the FMND fails to recognize or appreciate this Project impact. At the January 27, 2013 Planting Commission, we commented regarding such impacts. Planner Campbell stated that Project impacts on the Project site were not impacts that needed to be analyzed, addressed, or mitigated, however, the FMND is replete with analysis of such impacts including impacts regarding air quality and noise. For instance, Section 4.8(e) concerning hazards considers and discusses whether the Project will expose Project residents to hazards including noise. Section 4.12(a) discusses the potential impact that the Project may create by exposing Project residents to unwanted noise. Section 4.3(e) discusses the potential that the Project may expose residents to objectionable odors. Here, the Project and its huge shadow eliminates the benefit of the open space included in the Project Description and which necessitates the Project's need to exceed the height limit. The Project's exceeding the height limit actually will create a significant and unmitigated impact: the shadow which undercuts and destroys the benefit of the open space. This is a significant Project impact which requires mitigation. Indeed, it likely will require modification of the Project to comply with the current height limits which likely will have no such shade impacts. I Corparare Phm, suire 120 (949) 650.5550 law (949) 650.1181 07/17/2014 1:46PM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 00009 /0014 Keith Curry. Mayor Members of dw ary cuumil .4- Marcl126, ?013 Fourth, the Shoreline Height Ordinance and Limitation arose due to citizen action. In the early 1970s, a group of Newport Beach residents including Joe and Judy Rosener formed "Newport Residents United ( "NRU ")." According to Allen Beek who testified on behalf of NRU when the Council passed the height limit, one of the reasons NRU proposed the height limit was the construction of the massive condominium towers near the Lido Isle Bridge. However, FMND maintains that the Project with its height exceeding the current ordinance is consistent with these large condominiums which gave rise to the height ordinance in the first place. For instance, the discussion of Aesthetics notes: "Several other taller residential, office, and a mixed use building are also located in the vicinity of the project and within the view." FMND, page 28. See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 Also, see Exhibits 4.1 -1 through -7 which show that the only building penetrating the Shoreline Height Limit is the 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums which led to the Shoreline Height Ordinance. Further, Exhibits 4,1 -8 through -11 also show projects built before the Shoreline Height Ordinance which are not in the vicinity of the Project but are on Pacific Coast Highway in an area known as Mariner's Mile. The other structures reference in the graphic entitled "Lido Village Building Height Analysis" in Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 show that the vast majority of structures in the vicinity of the Project are within the Shoreline Height Limit, not in excess of those limits, Only two properties shown on this Analysis are as high or higher than the proposed Project: 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums. The FMND cannot use these anomalies to show consistency with surrounding development. Indeed, the Mariner's Mile projects are not in the vicinity of the Project site and should not be considered at all. Further, the 601 Lido Condominiums is unusual as shown in the Exhibits 4.1 -1 through -7. Without more, these anomalies cannot in and of themselves set the standard. The standard is far lower: it is the current Shoreline Height Limit of thirty -five (35') feet Fifth, as indicated in our original comments, the FMND refers to the Lido Village Design Guidelines as regulatory. See Mitigation Measure 4.1 -1 and other references in the FMND which state that the Guidelines "prescribe" standards of development. These references occur throughout the FMND. Nonetheless, Response to Comment No. 15 states That: "The characterilcation in the Draft IS/MND that the guidelines as regulatory in nature was unintentional. Rather, the discussion of the Lido Village Design Guidelines was intended to illustrate that future development must be found to be consist with the design guidelines for approval." FMND, Response to Friends' December 26, 2013, page 10. This is very confusing. The first sentence in this Response suggests that the Guidelines are not regulatory; the second states that the Guidelines are regulatory. The City cannot have h both ways: if the Project must be found to be consistent with the Guidelines, then they are regulatory. If they are not regulatory, then the Project need not be consistent with the Guidelines. Given that the FMND relies upon the 14 Corporate Flans, Suite 120 Newport Beach, Calitomia 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax:(949)6504181 07/17/2014 1:48Pti FAX 9498501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 20010/0014 Kelch Carry, Mayor .51 March ±6, 2013 Members of The City Council regulatory understanding of the Guidelines, the Guidelines are part of the Project and must be unolyzed in the FMND. Indeed, Response to our January 17, 2013 letter Comment No. 9 concerning the Guidelines states that: "it is acknowledged that the Lido Village Design Guidelines are not regulatory. As indicated in the guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is responsible for design review and projeot implementation, Project must adhere to adopted General Plan, zoning policies, and regulations, which outline requirements specific for individual parcels within Lido Village, including the City Hall property. Nonetheless, the Lido Village Design Guidelines are intended to influence the theme and character of that development. To that end, the guidelines addressed all aspects of future land use that may occur within Lido Village, including edge conditions, pedestrian connection, open space, sustainability, architecture, landscaping, etc„ to ensure that the objectives articulated in the document are achieved. In addition, guidance is also provided to achieve the desired visual character and aesthetic quality within Lido Village, even though all improvements occurring with the affected area are subject to applicable regulations and permitting' process imposed by the City' General Plan, zoning code and related ordinances, and other related regulatory requirements. Finally, the guidelines are intended to provide design guidance for future development and redevelopment "...with the assurance that others who follow will be held to the same or similar unifying set of standards. "Thus, while they are not regulatory, they include guidance for promoting compatibility and minimizing land use conflicts through the implementation of planning and design solutions that also reduce potential adverse effects," FMND, Response to January 17, 2013 Comment No, 9, page 4 (Emphasis supplied,) Again, this does not really address the question. This Response recognizes that the Guidelines are not regulatory and only provide guidance. However, if so, then how can the FMND rely on compliance with the Guidelines to mitigate Project impacts? See Mitigation Measure 4,1 -1. They cannot. Hence, the FMND contains an analysis which requires further discussion regarding the Guidelines and their mitigation of the Project's impacts. Indeed, as we indicated in our December 26, 2013 Comment, the Project really includes the Guidelines, and the environmental document must be revised to address this aspect of the Project. Sixth, the FMND fails to analyze the Project's impacts on the existing environment. That is, it improperly compares the Project's impacts, not to the existing environment, but on a hypothetical General Plan environment. This is legal error. Recently, the California Supreme Court decided the CEQA issue of environmental baseline. In Communities for a Better Environment v Seuth Coast Air Oualitv Management iC (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ( "South Coast AQMD ") , the Supreme Court held that the environmental baseline is CEQA is generally the existing conditions on the ground. There, the South Coast Air Quality Management District prepared a negative declaration for a refiner project by Conoco - Philips. Among other things, the District argued that the environmental 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Bench, California 97660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 07/17/2014 1:47PM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 1D0011 /0014 Keith Ourry, Mayor Mmlrhers of fie Clry Councll 16. March 26, 2013 baseline was maximum output of the refinery which had valid permits to operate it at the site even though the refinery had yet to be built. Among other things, Conocophdlips argued that failure to use the maximum permitted operations as a baseline would violate ConocoPhilips vested rights and contravene CBQA's statute of limitations. The Court reviewed the case law and stated: A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework. This line of authority includes cases where a plan or regulation allowed for greater development or more intense activity than had so far actually occurred, n6 as well as cases where actual development or activity had, by the time CEQA analysis was begun, already exceeded that allowed under the existing regulations, n7 In each of these decisions, the appellate court concluded the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the "existing physical conditions in the affected area" (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal. App, 3d at p. 354), that is, the "`real conditions on the ground "' (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.AppAth at p. 121; see City of Carmel -by- the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at p. 246), rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to a plan or regulation." Id. at 320 -21. The Court held that: "Applied here, this general rule leads to the conclusion the District erred in using the boilers' maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline. By treating all operation of the boilers within the individual limits of their permits to be part of the environmental setting, or baseline, the District ensured that no emissions from increased boiler operation would be considered an environmental impact so long as no single boiler operated beyond its permitted capacity. Id. at 322. See 1JeieMors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Constructio11,A uthority (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4� 4 552 petition for review granted 2012 Cal, LEXIS 7556 ( the opposite effect; opinion was depublished pending the Supreme Court review), Hence, under 5glIth Coast AOMD, the FMND uses an improper baseline to assess impacts including traffic impacts. The FMND states: "'When the City's General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City had commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, based on the General Plan 2006 Up the date traffic (land use) assumption used to analyze the traffic impacts associated with project site, the City determined that such future redevelopment/reuse of the City Hall Complex property would not require voter approval for the purpose of analyzing, the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 14 Corporate Plaza, Sulte 170 Newport Beach, Calllbmia 92660 (949) 6505550 Fax: (949) 6501181 OT/17/2014 1:47PM FAX 9498501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES Z0012 /0014 ICcub Corry, Mayor Nionbcr,• of rbc Clty C:otw6l Marel, I6, 201 S FMND, page 112. The FMND uses this "General III all" analysis to ciLte -nine the baseline for the Project instead of the existing conditions on the ground today which is 54,000 square feet including the f ire Staten. See City Council Study Session presentation, page 2. '1' his does not comply with the requirements ol'C.LQA artd with the direction of the South Coast AUMD C01.119, Indeed; it inllates the ttaRic generated under existing conditions and lessens the lraf le impacts of the project. "file I"MND must be revised to consider the Project's impacts on traffic and other issues based upon a comparison wide the existing conditions. Likely, the Project will generate substantially snore traffic than existing conditions. Moreover, ilia F \4ND seems confused on this point. In Response to our December 261 ?U13 Comment No. 34; the FMND states d1w: "Fire Station No. 2 is an existing use that currently generates traffic to and from the site as a rosalt of home -to -work trips. 7hes u'ips currently exist and am i'C11 cCled nt dll'^ 17flSchlle tra l'(5c fm' the 1'I-trjucl." FNIND. Response to Comment No. 34, pttgt; 14. l lowover, it is unclear under the General Plan baseline whether or not the Fire Slution uaflic was out allocated to another Site. in conclusion, the MIND iN totally inadcquelc. Good and sound policy reasons and good planning require; the prepat`,tlion al'an EIR. Such an G;IR would analyze correctly the existing environmental setting including the 54,000 square foot current City 1 -1o11 su'uctUre, would clearly state the Project objectives which include adequaw open space for this lutblic site, would analyze all impacts including, shade impacts, would include adequate mitigation, would include a discussion of Project alternatives which is necessary for the Project to gn forward, and would allow the City to override any si;mil'ieanl an unmitigated impacts. 'thank you, again, I'or the opportunity to comment on the VMND, As before and although ignored for this Iwaring, PLEASE, PROVIDE US WiTH NOTICE OF ANY 'RESPONSFS TO THESE COMMENTS IN A NON - ITALICIZED FORMAT AND WITI -1 NOTICES OF ANY AND ALL 1-11.,A:RINGS ON THE CAPTIONED PROTECT AND FMNA. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact nn, Sincerely, •.ICES F t311 HANYKINS By: Robert C. I- lawkins RCi I /kw cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only) 14 C=orporate Plana, Suiry 120 Newport ncntli, C;ahiunalq 92660 (949) 650:5550 Fax; (940) 650,118 1 07/17/2014 1:47PM FAX 9498501181 HAWKIHS LAW OFFICES Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newpon Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650 -5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 FAX COVER. SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: 1210013/0014 NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER Leilani Brown, City Clerk (949) 644.3039 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: Friends Date: March 26, 2013 Documents; Comments on CC Agenda Item No, 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7* COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated. 7'he information contained in this facsimile ntessuge is information protected by aaorney -cliem and/ar the onorneylivork pPOduct prlvdege. ht is buended only for the tea of the Individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been seat by facsimile, ifthe person actually receiving This facsimile or any other reader ofthe facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient. any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strwily prohibited Ifyou have received this communication In error, please immediately notify its by telephone and return the original message to us it the above address via US postal Service. * NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT (949) 650.5550. 07/17/2014 1:48PM FAX 9496501191 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES IR0014/0014 3)09/2nla 9•91Pa Fau Adee5011e1 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES eo001 if YYiiix YYiixxxYxxYixYYYii ** xYY TX Result Report xYY x�tiiixti Yii�YWYxxixiYxi YYYY rX complete. JOh N0. 0061 Address 6443033 Home Start Time 03/26 02;46 PM Call Length 04'12 Sheets e Result OK Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, Califamia 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fnx: (949) 650-1181 FAX C 0 V E R SHE E 1 TItANSMITCED TO: NAME FAX NUMBER PNONCNUMBER Lollani Drown, !City Clerk (949) 644.3039 From: Robert C, Hawkins ClientlMattor: Friends Datc: March 26, 2013 Documents, Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages, 7• COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 17, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 Correspondence Item No. 6e Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments PA2013 -217 and PA2012 -031 SUBJECT: Lido House Hotel (PA2013 -217) and Former City Hall Complex Amendments (PA2012 -031) 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street 1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 3. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 4. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 5. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -004 6. Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 7. Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 APPLICANT: R.D. Olson Development & City of Newport Beach PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner 949 - 644 -3210, jampbell @newportbeachca.gov Several attachments to the staff report for this hearing were not available on the City's website when the complete report was transmitted to the Planning Commission on Friday, July 11, 2014, although complete copies of the report were available at City Hall and at the library. The discrepancy was not discovered until the morning of July 16, 2014, at which time staff immediately corrected the error. As a result, the public may not have had sufficient time to review the complete report including the Final Environmental Impact Report and a continuance is warranted. RECOMMENDATION Continue this item to the August 7, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Correspondence Item No. 6f Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments A2013 -217 and PA20 -031 new r t h a non-profit corporation owners a 5 S o C i a t i o n July 16, 2014 Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bob McCo4rey, Chairman Re: Agenda Item 6, Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter is written on behalf of the Newport Beach Dock Owners Association. We are a non- profit corporation dedicated to improving the environs of Newport Harbor and surrounding areas. We are not opposed to the hotel project proposed at this location, but we are opposed to the City of Newport Beach suing a business owner for its own benefit and we are opposed to the Planning Commission and City Council using the Planning process to decrease the quality of life in the Via Lido area. It is our understanding that the owner of Via Lido Plaza, Fritz Duda Company, has used the driveway between the Fire Station and the former City Hall Property for tens of years for truck deliveries, fire department access, and circulation. It is also our understanding that the original site plan for the Via Lido Hotel preserved this important access point. We learned that after this original plan was selected by the City, the City of Newport Beach sued Fritz Duda Company to prevent use of the driveway and pushed through a plan without the access. This is shocking and appalling that the City would use the legal system for its own pecuniary benefit to the detriment of a long time business owner. We condemn these types of tactics with residents and business owners. As if that wasn't bad enough, the City is now pushing this plan through the Planning process at lightning speed and asking this Planning Commission to rush through an approval with no study or preservation of the driveway. Even if the City ultimately prevails in its lawsuit, the Planning Commission must preserve the quality of life for residents of Newport Beach. The Planning Commission is the voice of the residents against the heavy- handed tactics of City Staff. The Planning Commission should continue this item and direct Staff to preserve the driveway to preserve the quality of life for the residents of the Peninsula and Lido Island. The environmental documents failed to study the impacts of closing this access point on the environment and should not be approved. Sincerely, 1 '*—,, D Bob McCaffrey Chairman