HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Lido House Hotel - PA2013-217 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
August 11, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item No. 2
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, jcampbell@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 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 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. UP2014-004, and Traffic Study No.
TS2014-005 (Attachment No. PC-2).
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
August 11, 2014
Page 2
DISCUSSION
This item was continued from July 17, 2014 to August 7, 2014, at the request of staff in
order to provide the public additional time to consider all of the attachments to the July
17, 2014 staff report. The Commission listened to testimony from those in attendance at
the July 17th meeting and asked staff to reexamine the proposed general plan intensity
language as it relates to a hybrid hotel/residential project. The Commission also asked
staff to prepare written responses to a letter dated July 16, 2014, submitted on behalf of
Lido Partners and a letter dated July 17, 2014, submitted on behalf of community
groups including the Friends of Dolores and the Friends of City Hall. The letters and
responses prepared by staff are provided in Attachments PC-4 and PC-5.
The July 17th staff report is provided as Attachment PC-3. The complete report,
including attachments, may be viewed at:
htti):Hnovusagendar)ublic.newr)ortbeachca.gov/CoverSheet.asr)x?Item ID=3411 Weetin
qlD=551. The August 7th meeting was canceled due to the lack of quorum; therefore a
special meeting was scheduled for August 11, 2014.
Hybrid Intensity/Density Limit
The proposed project would create a new mixed-use land use and zoning designations
for the project site allowing a commercial/residential mixed-use project with up to 93
residential units and up to 15,000 square feet of commercial floor area or a maximum of
98,725 square feet of hotel use. Public facilities would also be allowed. The proposed
designation provides flexibility to either authorize a hotel or a mixed-use development.
Originally, staff had proposed language that would allow a hybrid-combination of
dwelling units and hotel rooms; however, the proposed language has created confusion
as to the maximum development limit. Therefore, staff recommends eliminating this
language and has modified the amendments within the attached resolution (Attachment
PC-2).
Parking
A speaker at the July 17, 2014, meeting expressed a concern that the project might
impact parking in the Finley Tract, which is located west of the intersection of Finley
Avenue and Newport Boulevard. However, the parking demand study indicates that the
148 on-site parking spaces will accommodate the proposed project and that no overflow
parking is expected to occur in the Finley Tract.
Lido Partners Letter
The central issue raised by Lido Partners relates to access to Via Lido Plaza across the
City's property to 32nd Street and Lido Partners' belief that the closure of the access
point will be detrimental.
3
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
August 11, 2014
Page 3
First, Lido Partners believes that that closing the existing access point will compromise
emergency fire access. On behalf of the Newport Beach Fire Department, Assistant
Chief Kevin Kitch has advised that he does not agree with this claim and that that
sufficient emergency access is provided by Newport Boulevard, Via Lido, and from
onsite parking areas that are accessible by the two vehicular driveways on the Lido
Partners property. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant in this
regard. Additionally, the proposed change in driveway access at Fire Station No. 2 will
not significantly change emergency vehicle responses times and they will remain within
nationally recognized standards adopted by the Newport Beach Fire Department.
Second, Lido Partners believes the change to delivery truck access would diminish the
long-term viability of the shopping center and negatively affect traffic on Via Lido. As
described in the Draft EIR, project implementation would close an existing access point
that has been used by delivery trucks servicing the Via Lido Plaza shopping center.
Use of the City Hall property to access the Lido Partners property was granted in 1964
with the City approving and recording a "Notice of Consent" for use of the area pursuant
to Civil Code Section 813. The purpose of the Notice of Consent was (and is) to advise
users of these access roads that their use is consensual and revocable at the will of the
owner of the City Property. Under Civil Code Section 813, the City may revoke the
Notice of Consent at any time by recording a notice of revocation. As indicated in the
Final EIR, the 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 from the
City's property, other than its existing permissive use pursuant to the Notice of Consent.
Vehicles are able to access Via Lido Plaza by the two other driveways servicing the
Lido Partners property. The largest delivery trucks cannot effectively use the Finley
driveway based upon the existing driveway design; however, smaller delivery trucks and
emergency vehicles can use the driveway. Based upon the analysis prepared by
Fuscoe Engineering included in the Final EIR, the largest trucks can access Via Lido
Plaza through the existing driveway on Via Lido. On-site maneuvering by trucks would
not be significantly different given the change in access. The number of trucks
accessing the site today, as well as what could be anticipated in the future should a
grocery store be re-established, is negligible from a traffic operational perspective. Tony
Brine, City Traffic Engineer, bases this conclusion on current and historical observations
of the shopping center when Pavilions was operating.
As indicated in the Final EIR and Attachment PC-4, the City has requested a judicial
determination as to whether the City must allow Lido Partners to access 32nd Street by
cutting across the City's property. The City does not believe that Lido Partners has any
such right of access; however, if the City is unsuccessful in the quiet title action, the City
would implement development of the site consistent with the judicial determination. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines do not require
the City to speculate as to how the project would be modified in advance of a judicial
determination. If the project is approved, all future modifications of the approved project
4
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
August 11, 2014
Page 4
would be subject to review and approval by the City and may require additional analysis
in accordance with applicable local regulations and CEQA.
Letter from Robert C. Hawkins
The letter suggests that the City has violated CEQA by not properly evaluating the
proposed project and also states that the Final EIR is "not ready for prime time."
Specifically, the letter suggests that the Draft EIR improperly focuses on only the Lido
House Hotel and inadequately addresses a mixed-use project that is authorized by the
proposed land use and zoning designations. Additionally, the letter indicates that the
impacts of a lease agreement between the City and the applicant have not been
analyzed and that because no "form lease" was included in the Final EIR, the project
description is incomplete. The letter also suggests that Final EIR's analysis of aesthetic
impacts is not properly addressed. Lastly, the letter suggests that the City used an
improper baseline for CEQA analysis and improperly referenced the Lido Village Design
Guidelines.
A written response to the letter is provided in Attachment PC-5. In summary, the City's
believes that it has complied with all of the requirements of CEQA and that the author's
conclusions are unsupported.
Lower Cost Overnight Accommodations
As discussed in the July 17- 2014 staff report, the California Coastal Commission may
identify a nexus between development of the proposed hotel project and an impact to
lower-cost accommodations and require mitigation proportionate to the identified
impact. Staff will be requesting the City Council to consider the development of a City
program where the funds could be used to create new lower-cost accommodations or
improves existing lower-cost accommodations in Newport Beach.
SUMMARY
As detailed in the July 17, 2014 Planning Commission staff report, 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.
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
August 11, 2014
Page 5
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: Submitted by:
W cjo'�-� r"'W'
J es Campbell, Principal Plariner 137 Wisnesl i,rCP, Deputy Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC-1 Draft Resolution recommending certification of the Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 20131111022), including:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated April 28, 2014
a. Appendices 11.1 through 11.9 dated April 28, 2014
2. Final EIR (Under separate cover, available at www.newportbeachca.00v\eir)
a. Introduction to Final EIR
b. Response to Comments
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
d. Errata
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 (available at www.newportbeachca.gov\eir)
PC-3 Planning Commission Staff Report, July 17, 2014
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
August 11, 2014
Page 6
PC-4 Letter submitted on behalf of Lido Partners by Gordon Hart and Buck Enderman
and staff response
PC-5 Letter submitted on behalf of Friends of Dolores by Robert Hawkins and staff
response
7�
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
g
Attachment PC-1
Draft Resolution recommending certification of the Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 20131111022), including:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated April 28, 2014
a. Appendices 11.1 through 11 .9 dated April 28, 2014
2. Final EIR
a. Introduction to Final EIR
b. Response to Comments
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
d. Errata
9
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
10
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 32" Street at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32"d 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).
11
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2
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. UP2014-004 - 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
12
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3
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 . On July 17, 2014, the Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a public hearing
for the project. However, to provide the public additional time to review the staff report,
the item was continued to August 7, 2014. The August 7, 2014 meeting was canceled
and a special meeting was scheduled for August 11, 2014.
12. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 11, 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
13
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 4
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
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 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Larry Tucker, Chairman
BY:
Jay Myers, Secretary
14
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 5
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.
15
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
2�
Attachment PC-2
Draft Resolution recommending project approval, including:
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
1-7
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
12
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. UP2014-004, 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
19
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2
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 32"d 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. UP2014-004 - 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.
20
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3
AM Peak PM Peak Dwelling Non-residential floor
Trips Trips units 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 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.
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. On July 17, 2014, the Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a public
hearing for the project. However, to provide the public additional opportunity to
review the staff report, the item was continued to August 7, 2014. The August 7,
2014 was canceled, so a special meeting was conducted on August 11, 2014.
8. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 11, 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.
21
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 4
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
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 August 11,
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;
22
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 5
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
(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 [below]:
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
23
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 6
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.
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.
24
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 7
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
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
25
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 8
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.
C-5 Closing the site to unrestricted vehicular access by the public through the site to
32"d 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 Fuscoe 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
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.
20
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 9
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.
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
27
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 10
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.
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:
22
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 11
I. 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:
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 15.401.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J-1 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 (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.
29
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 12
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
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.
30
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 13
5. Site Development Review No. SD2014-001 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-
004, 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".
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Larry Tucker, Chairman
BY:
Jay Myers, Secretary
31
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.
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
33
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. INTRODUCTION
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
34
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.
35
• Code Amendment No. CA2012-003.
Site Development Review No. SD2014-001.
• Use Permit No. UP2014-004.
• 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.
so
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.).
S7
• 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 Statistical Land Use Development Development Limit Additional Information
Number Area Designation Limit(sf) (other)
85 B5 MU-1-15 93 dwelling Accessory commercial
units and floor area is allowed in
15,000 sf conjunction with a hotel
commercial and it is included within
or 98,725 sf the hotel floor area limit.
hotel Municipal facilities are
not restricted or included
in an 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. Municipal facilities are not restricted or
included in any development limit.
S
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 City 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 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 open space and architectural diversity while
protecting existing coastal views and providing new
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:
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.
39
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. 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:
Subterranean' 1 foot
Newport Boulevard 1 stand 2nd floor2 20 feet
Above 2nd floor3 35 feet
Subterranean' 1 foot
32nd Street 1 st and 2nd floorz 1 foot
Above 2nd floor3 10 feet
Interior Subterranean' 1 foot
Above grade 1 5 feet
Not more than 1 foot above abutting public sidewalk.
21-26 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-
004: These applications would authorize the construction and operation of a
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.
40
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.
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.
41
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
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
42
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 the Project on June 5, 2014,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A public hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2014, but to allow the
public additional opportunity to review the staff report, the hearing was continued
to August 7, 2014. The August 7, 2014 was canceled, so a special meeting was
conducted on August 11, 2014. 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 , 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 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.
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;
• 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;
4s�
• 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 Planning Commission meeting on July 17, 2014,
Planning Commission public hearing on August 11, 2014, and City Council public
hearing on August_, 2014;
• The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the Planning
Commission meeting on July 17, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing on
August 11, 2014, and City Council public hearing on , 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.
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
44
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
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
45
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
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."
40
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
character/quality impacts from project implementation would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
47
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
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
42
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.
Alternatively a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit
routes;
• On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
49
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.
Mitigation Measures
50
Mitigation Measure 13I0-1: 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 BIO-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
51
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 BIO-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 13I0-4: 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
necessary. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would
reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
152
Mitigation 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.
Mitigation Measures
53
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.
54
(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
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
55
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
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
50
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
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.
57
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZA: 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
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.).
52
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.
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
(1) 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
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,
59
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
(SWRCB).
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.
00
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
01
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:
02
• 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.
X03
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.
04
• 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
05
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
00
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.
07
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 Similar Similar
and Glare with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than
Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant)
Less Than Significant Less Less Less
Air Quality g (Less Than (Less Than Less Than Greater(Potentially
with Mitigation Si nificant Significant) ( Significant Impact)
Significant) g ) Significant)
Biological Less Than Significant Less Similar Similar Similar
Resources with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than
Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant)
Cultural Less Than Significant Less Similar Similar Similar
Resources with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than
Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant)
Geology and Less Than Significant Less Similar Similar Similar
Soils with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than
Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant)
Greenhouse Gas Less Less Less
Emissions Less Than Significant (Less Than (Less Than (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 Similar Similar
Water Quality with Mitigation Significant Impact) (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than
Significant) 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)
Less Than Significant Less Less Similar Greater Potential)
Noise with Mitigation (Less Than (Less Than (Less Than ( y
g Significant)Significant) 9 ) 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 Less Similar Less
g Less Than (Less Than (Less an Greater(Potentially
Circulation with Mitigation ( (LThImpact)
Significant) Significant) Significant) Significant p )
02
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,
09
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
70
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
72
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.
72
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.
7-5
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-H5)
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:
Table LU2 Anomaly Locations
Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Development Limit
Additional Information
Number Area Designation Limit s Other
Accessory commercial
floor area is allowed in
93 dwelling units and conjunction with a hotel
15,000 sf commercial and it is included within
85 135 MU-H5 Or the hotel development
limit. Municipal facilities
98,725 sf of hotel are not restricted or
included in any
development limit.
All existing provisions within Table LU-2 remain unchanged
74
C. Amend Figure LU6 (Land Use Map) as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard &
475 32nd Street only as depicted in the following diagram:
-512
� �3531
�4
sol -510 '-` 3421 h 341
\'ro -508h`n ♦~ 34 35
s
o� a X506 411 m �r
RT-D `mss o CG-B 5341
r
_-502` - 3
a � n 30
W
500~_
FIN,
410 f v 4VF S '!r
112 t
pp° -<08 irz 3345 ° '!'!, 7
406 V2 3341 Q r�
_ 3337 1
00
-4p4� 3333 i RM-D 5�4
402 3326
3315
400
e112
00 3305 3300 M U M
CC-A'
® VIA MALAGA%° PI 8
as
2ND ST
RT. Ai
c e H>
3116 N
a
��
P P N
-, + a r U v il u �+
� ` ., 3112 � �l� � MU-H
M, 41+ 0
31CV_A SI j I I INI I I j� t
'Pod, C N
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.
:31-5
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:
. 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan Categories
-
Land Use Category Uses Density/Intensity
The MU category is intended to 93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf
provide for the development a mix commercial
of uses, which may includeeg neral. or
Mixed Use—MU neighborhood or visitor-serving 98.725 sf of hotel
commercial, commercial offices,
visitor accommodations, multi- or
family residential, mixed-use Municipal facilities are not restricted
development, and/or civic uses. or included in any development limit.
All existing provisions within Table 2.1.1-1 remain unchanged.
70
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:
� �` J531
507 -512 `41
,5 /.
-5100 3421 J;1S
l
J° —508` x, 3415 a n .ey J*?J
1 ^ JJ
TOS c-30� '�-311 m �r
RT-D 13405 CG-13 33ri
502 e
500
,N1 1-INLfY AVE a• 'S�
11011 L
bob 408_1/2 3345 00
4061/2 3311 P� p
3337 nO O
_404 3333 < RM-D
401
3325
i 3315
4001/2
400 3305 3300
CC-A
VIA MALAGA
9
////Y�o y A5 x PI-B
RT- -�- 32ND ST u
m
m
p 3116 0° < a ►r m }i' r�i i'n
> ♦ m 3112 I I IYl ; MU-HI
3110 i ---- -
E o CV-A i I I IPI I I ` S
S s
J P P N P + O O N
CN
fl 1F ff
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.
77
C. Amend Policy 4.4.2-1 as follows with deleted language in strikeeaut 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.
7R
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.
�J
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
20
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.
� �3531
$12 J4 341
507 510 2j 3415
40! -508 ~�3`5 C n �'y 34Z3
Je
so 1• c 506 3411 h J
l �� lP
so4_~ `3406 o CG 0.5 FAR 59 rl
x_SO2 a 3 n 3969
500~ n n'' •�' 9961
410_1/2 AVf L
4081/24 3345 0
3341 'A G
408 14 3337 °a
O
-404 3333
402 3325 RM 2178 SA 1 DU
/
400112~331$
400 3305 3300 MU-LV
CC 0.5 FAR
VIA MALAGA
CG C79'FARIM
S PI 0.75 FAR
475
R-2 Z
32ND ST j
ml° 3116 v r >r m N m
> ` A 3112 •i '< MU-CV/15TH ST
3110
° CV 0.5 FAR
CN 0.3 FAR V H P
Anomaly Development Development Limit(Other) Additional Information
Number Limit s
93 dwelling units and Accessory commercial floor area is allowed in
15,000 sf commercial conjunction with a hotel and it is included
85 or within the hotel development limit.
Municipal facilities are not restricted or
98,725 sf of hotel included in any development limit.
21
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."
22
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 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT Permit Requirements
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
See Part 7 of this title for land use definitions. MU-W1 (5)(6) MU-W2 MU-LV Specific Use Regulations
See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses.
Industry, Manufacturing and Processing,Warehousing Uses
Handicraft Industry P P P
Industry,Marine-Related P P I —
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 CUP CUP MUP
than 5,000 sq.ft.
Commercial Recreation and Entertainment CUP CUP P
Cultural Institutions P P —
Parks and Recreational Facilities CUP CUP P
Schools, Public and Pnvate CUP CUP —
Residential Uses
Single-Unit Dwellings
Located on 1st floor
Located above tat 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
7w7i_Mit Dwellings
Located on Ist 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 IS or fewer) P P P Section 20.48.070
Day Care, General — MUP — Section 20.48.070
Rs�
TABLE 2-9 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT Permit Requirements
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
See Part 7 of thistitle for land use definitions. Mi l (5)(6) MU-W2 MU-LV Specific Use Regulations
See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses.
Retail Trade Uses
Alcohol Sales(off-sale) MUP MUP PAUP Section 20.48.030
Alcohol Sales(off-sale),Accessory Only P P -
Manne Rentals and Sales
Boat Rentals and Sales P P .-
Marine Retail Sales P P
Retail Sales P P P
Visitor-SeMng Retail P P P
Seance Uses—Business, Financial, Medical,and Professional
ATMs P P
Emergency Health Facilities/Urgent Care — P —
Financial Institutions and Related SeMces(above 1st floor only) P P
Financial Institutions and Related SeMces(list floor)
Offices—Business P P P
Offices—Medical and Dental(above 1st floor only) — P —
Offices—Profession P P —
SeMce Uses—General
Animal Retail Sales MUP MUP — Section 20.48.050
Artists'Studios P P P
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Accessory Food SeMce(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 SeMce(no late hours)(3) MUP MUP MUP Section 20.48.090
Food SeMce(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
Marine Seances
Boat Storage CUP CUP —
Boat Yards CUP CUP —
Entertainment and Excursion Services P P —
Manne Service Stations CUP CUP —
Water Transportation Senices 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 SeMces,General P P P
Personal SeMces,Restricted MUP MUP —
Smoking Lounges
8J
TABLE 2-9 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT Permit Requirements
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
See Part 7 of thistitle for land use definitions. MU-W1 (5)(6) MU-W2 MU-LV Specific Use Regulations
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 Events Chapter 11.03
Temporary Uses LTP LTP I LTP Section 20.52.040
Uses Not Listed.Land uses that are not fisted 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 fnlerpretation).
(1) Mayonlybe located on lots with a minimum oftwo hundred(200)lineal feetof frontage an Coast Highway.Referto Section 20.48.130(Mixed-Use Projects)for
additional development standards.
(2) Mayonlybe located above a commercial use and not a parking use.Refer to Section 20.48.130(Mixed-Use Projects)foraddifional developmentstandards.
(3) Late Hours.Facilities with late hours shall mean facilities that offer service and am open to the public past 11:00 p.m.anydayof the week.
(4) Permitted or Minor Use Permit Required.
a. A minor use permit shall be required for any use located within five hundred(500)feet,property line to property line,of any residential miring district
b. A minor use permit shall be required for any use that maintains late hours.
(5) Approval of a minor site development reocw,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 impacts Gam their differing activities are fully In iUgated.
(6) A minimum of fifty(50)percent of the square footage of a mixed-use development shall be used for nonresidential uses.
(7) Applicants for City approval of a heliport or helistop shall provide evidence that the proposed heliport or helistop complies fillywith State of California perm it
procedures and with anyand all conditions of approval imposed bythe Federal Aviation Pdministration(FPA),the Arport Land Use Commission for Orange County
(ALUC),and bythe Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
25
Section "E"
Amend 20.22.030 (Mixed-Use Zoning Districts General Development Standards) to
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 MU-W7 (3) 1 MU-W2 MU-LV 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.ft. 20,000 sq.ft.
Non-mixed-use structures 10,000 sq.R. 2,500 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft.
Lot Width
Mixed-use structures 200 R. 25 ft. 200 ft.
Non-mixed-use structures 50 ft. 25 ft. 50 R.
Density(4) Minimum/maximum allowable density range for residential uses.
Lot area required per unit Minimum:7,260 sq.ft.per unit Minimum: 1,631 Maximum:2,167 N/A
Floor Area Ratio(FAR)(5) N/A
Mixed-use deyeicpmenl 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 Lida Manna Village
Min.0.35
Max.0.7 for nonresidential and
0.6 residential.
Nonresidential only 0.5 commercial only(3) 0.5 commercial only 96,725 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 Deer 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 structures
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 N/A 5 ft. 5 ft.
residential distract.
Rear adjoining an alley N/A 10 R. 70 R.
Bulkhead setback 10 R. 10 ft. 10 ft.
RIO
TABLE 2-11
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT
MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Open Space WA 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 20.30.060(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 3/12 roof pitch 55 ft.with flat roof,less than 3/12
roof pitch(7)
31 ft.with sloped roof,3/12 roof pitch or greater 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).
Outdoor Storage/Display See Section 20.48.140(Outdoor Storage,Display,and Activities).
Parking See Chapter 20.40(Oft-Street Parking).
Satellite Antennas See Section 20.48.190(Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities).
Signs See Chapter 20.42(Sign Standards).
Notes:
(1) Al devalopment and Me subdiNsion of land shall complywith the requirements of Title 19(Subdiaisions).
(2) The standards for minimum lot area and lot width are intended to regulate sites for development purposes only and are not intended to establish minimum dimensions
for the creation of ownership or leasehold(e.g.,condominium)purposes.
(3) Aminimum of fifty(50)percent of the square footage in a mind-use development shall be used for nonresidential uses.
(4) For the purpose of determining the allowable number of units,portions of legal lots that are submerged lands or tidelands shall be included inland area ofthe site.
(5) Portions of legal lots that are submerged lands or tidelands shall be included in the net area of the lot for the purpose of calculating the allowable floor area of structures.
(6) My combination of dwelling units and hotel roams provided It does notexceed 99 dwelling units or 98,725 sf of hotel use.Municipal facilities are not restricled bycr
Included In any development limit
(7) Architectural features such as comes,towers,cupolas,amms,and similar structures may e9Geed 55 feet by 10 feet
27
EXHIBIT "F"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Development Review No. SD2014-001
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004
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.
UP2014-004 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. UP2014-004.
7. Approval of this Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit authorizes
a hotel which is intended for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging, or
sleeping purposes for periods of thirty (30) days or less. The selling of
timeshares or any other form of fractional ownership of the hotel shall be
prohibited. Additionally, no portion of the hotel shall be rented or otherwise used
for residential purposes.
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
22
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004, 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
29
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
90
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. UP2014-004, 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
91
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.
Building 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.
92
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.
9�
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
9`f'
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.
95
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.
90
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.
97
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.
92
EXHIBIT "G"
Project Plans
Available at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/eir- in Lido House Hotel folder
99
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
zoo
Attachment PC-3
Planning Commission staff report, July 17, 2014
101
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
102
CITY 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, jcampbell@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).
103
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
� 9 1 -
Y
rs llas y �
A0 9
r
F
•
'0 —
ms aoi�- - • ��
]A
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
MLW, __ MU W,
45p 'R 9 CG 0.5 FAR
') - n -. tli� � '• yr �no ym
M NI H] o � h � '•� ,ary o �� ,�
SIT. "°M•vr RMIIOOUTACy ono _'y' RM R9B EAIOOs
4q
MPF ye, PF o'fd
�! CCMFAR ICC�SFAR
Eo CG .1 FA0. -°v CG 075 FAR
y $ VPI0.15 FAR
RT
-0
a
MU-H< W STH ST
• CV E • a I ,. CV 0.5 FAR a. e
le R
CN0.3FAR •^E E� 5 EiH1� CN 03FAR
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/15'h St club, residential
General Commercial & CG (General Commercial)&
EAST Office, restaurant
Multi-Famil Residential RM Residential Multi-Family)
WEST Corridor Commercial CC (Corridor Commercial Commercial, gas station
104
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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).
105
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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
100
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 5
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
1 O7
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 6
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 California 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.
102
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 7
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).
109
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 8
• 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.
110
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 9
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
Anomaly Locations (Excerpt from General Plan Table LU2)
Anom— Statistical Land Use Development Development Limit
Number Area Desianation Limits Other Additionallnformation
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 er 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.
222
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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 Increase Peak Hour Tri Increase
density�'� in intensity(Z 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 73) 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.
112
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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 Mal sis for Proposed Mixed-Use Project
Density Intensity Peak Hour Traffic
(Units) (Square Feet) 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 J No No No No
(1) General Plan Transportation Study, 3/22/2006, Urban Crossroads
Table 4
Measure S Analysis for Proposed Hotel Project
Intensity Peak Hour Traffic
Square Feet 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.
113
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 12
Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18)
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
114
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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
115
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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 Setback from
type Property Line
Newport Boulevard Subterranean 0 feet
1 s & 2nd floor 20 feet
Above 2nd floor 35 feet
32 nd Street Subterranean 0 feet
15 & 2nd floorTF 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
110
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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:
11�-
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 16
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
112
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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.
119
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 18
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. 15.40.030.8.1 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
120
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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: Submitted by:
W C,k �,l &C r". —
J es Campbell, Principal Pla ner r n a wsnesi i,rCP, Deputy Director
121
Lido House Hotel/Former City Hall Complex Amendments
July 17, 2014
Page 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
122
Attachment PC-4
Letter submitted on behalf of Lido Partners by Gordon Hart and Buck Enderman and
staff response
123
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
124
PAUL COMMENT LETTER 12.
I&LEIVED By
HASTINGS COMMUNITY
JUL 17 2014
1(415)856-7000 DEVELOPMENT cZ1
gordonhart@paulhastings.corn 5Y P
buckendemann@paulhastings.com OF NEWPORT 0�
July 16,2014 77670.00004
VIA EMAIL: JCAMPBELL@NEWPORTSEACHCA.GOV
VIA UPSOVERNIGHT
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:
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 Cityls responses'to the
package of comments and expert reports we submitted on behalf of Lido Partners on June 13,2014.1
I. 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 77th 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 12-1
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 riot raised in this letter do not waive any of the serious concerns communicated in Lido Partners'
June 13 letter.
P.M Naslings LLP 155 SCvond Sifedt I Twonty-Fowill Floar I San FI'PnCI4QO.CA 90105
'tc+Y A'I fi.e56T000 I www:paulhntltingn.Gam
Z��
P A.U L.
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16',2014
Page 2
In sum, the City's response's-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 theerrors in the EIR, and recirculate it so the public hassufficient 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 leftagain at
Lafayette, then left again at Via Lido, and then left again into Via Lido Plaza. Because the City 12
-9.
has ne'veranalyzed 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,Cily'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 pr6vide 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 12-2
the disposition of any"significant environmental issue" raised by commentators. Cal. Pub.Resources
Code e § 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
Z��
PAUL
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 ofa
detailed analysis in response ensures that stubborn problems or serious criticism are not 'swept under the 12-2
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 CEQXs 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 PortCommr'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 FAILSTO 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 Liont Of The Pending Litigation Exacerbate The Problem That
The Proiect 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 slates, "[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 12-3
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.
Z��
PAUL
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 bucks 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.Z This assumption misunderstands several crucial differences between Via
Lido and 32nd Street.
1. Via lido Is A Much Busier Road Than 32nd Street
Via Lido is a busy 5treetthat is the primary thoroughfare and access point for the 1,800 people, 12-4
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 a//large truck access to Via Lido Plaza.3 The City tries to sidestep this significant 12.55
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 causetrucks 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
Y.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.18-21).
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. SeeFinal 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.
122
PAUL.
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
Page 5
Alley"lacks routine vehicle use,"' 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 —give n 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 potentiallyvnsafe. According to
Exhibits 2A and 2B of the Fuscoe Engineering Memo,a truck traveling eastbound on.Via.Lido would neer)
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 rinto Lido Marina Village.6 Under both scenarios, access to Lido
Marina Village to the north of Via Lido Plaza is impacted:
12-5
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 wouldresult in the removal of parking."s 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 betweencustomers 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 Alleyaccess will somehow improve circulation is nonsensical.
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 confusethe 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.
6 Final EIR,at 2-58 (Response No. 8-17).
9 Final EIR at 2-53 (Response No. 8-2).
io Id.
2�9
PAUL
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 recirculatedfor 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 in[] 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, 12-6
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 SludiesAre 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:
1a-7
The City ignores the specific inpufparameters 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 vlc ratio is greater than 1.0, underestimates the Project's true traffic impacts. That the City
has per incorrect traffic analyses in the past, and that Caltrans overlooked the error in the
instance, does not give any measure of validation to the City's error.'3 The Cily_ 's analysis
remains incomplete and wrong, and underestimates true traffic impacts.
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•subrnitted no comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis).
ZSO
PAUL.
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." 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 12_8
Project." Table 5.5.17 has nothing to with whethera 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, 12-9
F, 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, 1024.26(1997) (holding that a project that resulted in an increase to traffic
that already exceeded established thresholds of significance contributes to acumulate 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 Cita-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 12-1
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 projectcould 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 12_11
weekends than during the week (unlike most,other hotels).18 Afteraccounting,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
'" Final EIR at 2-61 (Response Nm 8-27).
15 Draft EIR at 5.5-36 (Table 5.5-17), 5.5-39(Table 5.5.21),
'8 Final EIR at 2.61 (Response Nos. 8-27,
17 Final EIR at 2-61 (Response No: 8-30)..
78 Final EIR at 2-64 (Response No. 8-36)..
12�1
PAUL.
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. 12-11
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."19 Justifying Project traffic by claiming that the old City
Hall would have generated fewer trips is a purely academic exercise, however, particularly where 12-12
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 oiEl Dorado, 131 Cal. App. 3d 350, 354 (1 982) (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 12-13
Lido Plaza from the westbound lane of Via Lido.27' 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,claimsthat"[Via Lido Plaza] would not be impacted" because"the.parking provided for the 12-14
proposed site would result in no parking overflow,"this is,clearly Wrong.23 In fact, the City has
9 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),
2' 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 trafficto 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.
23 See Final EIR'at,2-57(Response No.8-15).
IS
PAUL.
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 Butthe.Citbyalso admits that the Project's retail 12=14
.uses are likely to drive high non-guest parking demand,2 .and sidesteps parking adequacy during
banquet events.27 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 theeast 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 506/6;"[have] been determined to meet [the 12-15
Fire Department's] needs"30
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 correspondenceor 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 1.48 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 1d.
27 Id.
28 Fuscoe.Engineering Memo at 1.
28 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).
0 Final EIR at 2-57 (Response Nos. 8-15, 8-16),2-65 to 2-66(Response Nos. 8-48, 8-58).
2SI-71
PAUL.
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.:" 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 noway of 12-16
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 couldpossibly 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 CEQ'A
responsibilities by simply referring to conclusory statements from unnamed City employees.13 This 12-17
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 12-18
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
31 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 issuesatthe Fire-Station,the City states,
that these changes were"welcomed" bythe 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)..
35 Final EIR at 2-54 (Response No: 8-3').
Z-7,4
PAUL
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 posthoc rationalization confuses CEOA'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 12-18
for developing a reasonable range of alternatives), Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents
Of Univ: of Cat.; 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400-01 (1988) (holding-thatan,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.3" 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 12-19
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.3B 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 12-20
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
J6 See, e.g., Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8-18').
"Final'EIR.at 2-58 (Response No: 8-20).
3B Final EIR at 2-62 to 2-63 (Response No. 8-33')..
2_2�5
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,
Gordon E. Hart, Buck B. Endemann
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP of PAUL HASTINGS LLP
GEH:BBE
130
ATTACHMENT A
trans,n `, U 1.i O n 5 tra nslu kions, Inc.
xe Filn.t
tike transFortationsolutions comb anD i.v�nc. CAF �,o 9x6xa
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. (Translations) 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 forthe Preparation of rrafrc 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.
12-21
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)
stales '917 the absence of field'measurements of peak-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 hourbut a recognizable peak does occur, 0.88 is a reasonable estimate for PHF."
Response 8=27:Asshown in Table 5.5-17, State Highway 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
12-22
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.
1�g
In tFc xa vs wAII
ino W 11M ha --'V�-
I �
-Mi the 6VOgew l
an vitt9CIO' ft,Midlimpw
- n PO
_)�*.0 fil 4.0'� A qjjj�dj I
1 h nes hoed ls on i !*,I_fiCCJNyj_3_INo puri.
Seicilan 5.010rft Q'rafkFAR'v
fkq '� n'how-flIftift
y cmadbuLle _111maNbclga
D to ft foRid I L pfutpund-I ptojh4ftMbnshM ffim�hoids 0IA'gnIflr
Is
kamcfm
Mfi,iq.ugjfia 8gv' 05, �kkp ww
4&*Mv 0goo hpwft acLo of a sweVOTAY N&dj#Omm mm p Oyfruw'qPi O:sem r1241
uums llw� ff°In v 0 a€_'i I_ v-'10)11 ve 5ft A*J?m rs.-Vt b o hu Ow-r i - '- .1 L
trarn qWWO!( USAX W-,,Q;a
ARW4, Che first :CAM 'imeM W th 15
WsW e,81kj�j Wed,ftsOoMprt reWid W�sOfWnL IqNkt M ei 1h,itnuid
A�rvruqmx p-gmfe1-9- is t swo pvwq;q'Jo'@O" v
M)a A"41i
ELd
ft?VR ONO Mfw (MA A two 06 Otpd
a0a -rmnyiram m ffwIwsiwIuKMAjwving all
Impam,
�oq
Alt-imp Op M 11 wo LitF
M'Amftys on IMP100-ShL6,As6ks mc ham aj,
12 Q-A
on, SL-?C fk
tra isiu,pions'
Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact at southbound Newport Boulevard at 2811,Street
intersection and the intersection was not identified for analysis.
12-24
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 perroom,.fhe
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 increas.'e
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, 91h Edition, the same manual,used 12-25
in the TIA,which,comparesdata.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)drips
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 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, 13 7'Cal.App.3d 350, 182 Cal.Rptr. X12-26
317 an approved plan conditions does not define the CEQA Baseline. Further. CiyofCarmel-by-the-Sea v County of
Monterey, 183 CalApp.3d229 Court of:Appeal, 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 VmV
prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach:
7110014(C:IDroptioxlTsolslProjeclslLido Hoese HolehCommenls:On'krC.Docx) 3
2J
,91hER11h kIAMS IiIi!dllft4 Mali 'tH'qMj dom hol PfOVIde qo"Iq fmljlOegmlglt IhO RW
1247
M- Om-brO.,rly A
C;Iln'Poll
milhe 1
j®y --Paid
fi�"q ri A 13 m I h,pw a!kl�q A wm 5 pNr rad'Fd 6 Oq I a u 5 L w i Lr 0 u W1 q, Ogg.I R L a jR.I.h,f�n. oau
R3005-15of lhu:HCH 42MV).sUdEp,11'ped M m.Inhirim, proglRAWkwifti phaielk
K@,we sWrOrmiml pedag&m
rm Na. swam awisStir, wffikhIbeltafFave-,
161 a ru m
Ps*mftr case,WoOld WMI061 mqm'
used mir
approved
bar'uhm'i['4[Y OrmewlMul nekk FOR%was df-wibmed 10 Ibe.GaIlkwa
Fn holl
Imal analysis cbmd'WAG='Iknq LO Ow HVA a We ratio gfuatOr llmRn.I
(glao- rdpirm s4.-SMqu I a aG Sis Cang&L r0ww 11M Om.CAI lErn ch,
- -1 - - [yoNff
'n'l in"Iftr2i q WW ug
dbiA:49l;i i u ma ri i l.hl 9 11 h i 12 a 2W ig,M-f,F�q-j!
-s-E f1m r�i L
A-5
pat dbdu 9,Ff
lisp fly s, bqWmMrda kd6�1 I lffi&�Wjbn q M,,,m4 a kokm a p Al
ffm Ila . WaTH -
rdrac[prow,mpad Qbu,:bbgedll ch um slidiing-mbie all'i-mPhuk d&Fm.WaHOm uA
141
gra. s�ut,o�s�
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
impactoccurs.This statement is based on 2osAngeles Uniried Scn. Dist. vCity orGosAngeles(1997)58 Cal:'App.4th 101.9;,and
Communities(ora Better Env?v Califacia 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 acumulative impact.
VmN
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 vlc 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 meat(949)232-
7954.
Sincerely,
tran 11u Ion inc.
r
Sandipa hail charjee,,P.E.,AICP
Principal
711612614(CADropboATsalslPmJac,sTldo Hause HolellComments On RTC.Docx) 5
142
-
Land Use: 310
Hotel
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 2000s 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
' atthe supporting facilities such aefull, empty, partially active, number afpeople attending a
meeting/banquet during observation may also be useful in further analysis of this land use.
o
Source Numbers
� 4' 5' 12, 13' 18' 55, 72' l7O. l87' 254' 20U. 202, 277' 28U. 3Ul. 3U0. 357' 422' 430, 5U7' 577, 728
`
Buttke, Carl H. Unpublished studies of building employment densities, Portland, Oregon.
Trip Generation, 9th Edition * Institute ofTransportation Engineers 603
14-71
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 pet Occupied Room
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation---
8.92 4.14 17.44 6.04
i
Data Plot and Equation Caution-Use Carefully-Small Sample Size
4,6oa
x
.
3.000 . . . ... . . . :. . . .. . . . . . . :. . . . . . ... . . . :. . . ... . . . .... . . '-
C
>
2,000
1,000 :. . . . :. . . .: . . . .:. . . . :. . ..: . . . .:. . . . :. . . .: . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ,- . . .. .
X
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=* **
it
E.,
604 Trip Generation,9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers
7
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
Trip Generation per Occupied Room
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
10.50 7.07 13.86 4.11
Data Plot and Equation Caution-Use Carefully-Small Sample Size
4,000
X
X:
3000 - - -- - ---
w
>
. . .
2,000 . . . . . . . .
-
X
i'000
180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340
X=Number of Occupied Rooms
X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2
Trip Generation,9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers 609
145
Page Intentionally Blank
140
IO
�F.Wpok
City of Newport Beach
°r Lido House Hotel
F
v 0 Environmental Impact Report
'4tno0V
12. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LIDO PARTNERS, DATED JULY 16,
2014.
12-1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the lead agency to provide written responses to a
public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an
environmental impact report. As noted in the comment, the Final EIR was posted on the
City's website on July 11,2014.
It should be noted that the Final EIR (including the response to public comments) was
mailed on July 22, 2014 and received by all commenters on July 23, 2014. The Final FIR
was distributed to all commenters, including public agencies and private parties. The project
is scheduled to be heard at the City's August 11, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing. The
City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for this project and the City Council
will make the final decision whether or not to certify the project. The City Council hearing
is tentatively scheduled for September 9, 2014. As indicated above, the Final FIR was
available to the Planning Commission 30 days before the Planning Commission meeting and
the Final EIR was provided to the all commenters 19 days before the Planning Commission
hearing. Furthermore, the Final FIR was published 60 days before the tentative September
9 City Council hearing date, more than complying with the 10 day standard in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088. Although the City Council hearing date is tentative at this time, the
final hearing date will be formally noticed.
The remainder of this comment contains introductory or general information. Please refer
to Responses 12-2 through 12-30.
12-2 The commenter's June 13, 2014 letter was fully addressed in the July 11, 2014 Final EIR
pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR Section 2. Response to
Comments, includes 59 individual responses to issues raised in the commenter's June 13, 2014
letter (refer to Responses 8-1 through 8-59 in the Section 2, Response to Comments, of the Final
EIR). The responses addressed individual comments in the three attachments to the
comment letter as well. Responses to technical issues such as traffic, truck
movements/circulation, and emergency access were addressed by the appropriate technical
personnel, which consisted of traffic engineers, civil engineers, and the Newport Beach Fire
Department.
12-3 The comment suggests that Responses 8-2 and 8-4 within the Final FIR are in some way in
conflict. As described in the Draft EIR, project implementation would close an existing
driveway across the project site that has previously been used by the public and occupants
and invitees of the adjacent Via Lido Plaza shopping center. This access has included use by
delivery trucks. Use of the driveway was granted in 1964 with the City approving and
recording a "Notice of Consent" for use of the driveway pursuant to Civil Code Section 813.
The purpose of the Notice of Consent was (and is) to advise users of these access roads that
their use is consensual and revocable at the will of the owner of the City Property. Under
Civil Code Section 813,the City may revoke the Notice of Consent at any time by recording
a notice of revocation. As indicated in the Final EIR, the City does not intend to revoke its
Letter 12 Response to Comments 18 July 2014
z47
�F,Wpo�
City of Newport Beach
F � Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Ca�IIDY�'
consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido
Partners has no right of access from the City's property, other than its existing permissive
use pursuant to the Notice of Consent. If the City is unsuccessful in the quiet title action,
the City would implement development of the site consistent with the judicial determination,
and speculating as to how the project would be modified in advance of a judicial
determination is not a CEQA disclosure issue. Potential future modifications of an
approved project would be subject to review and approval by the City and potentially the
Coastal Commission and may require additional analysis in accordance with applicable local
regulations and CEQA.
12-4 As noted in Response 8-12 of the Final EIR, although a negligible amount of trucks and
emergency vehicles may be re-routed, the volume would be minimal and would not create a
significant impact to adjacent City streets and parking. Additionally, as noted in the
comment, Via Lido has five lanes of traffic, including a dedicated left turn lane at the Lido
Plaza entry. Although Via Lido has more traffic than 32nd Street, it also has more capacity.
32nd Street only has one lane in each direction, which has less capacity for vehicles during
truck ingress/egress. Additionally, as indicated in Response 8-2, evidence exists that trucks
currently access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido.
12-5 Refer to Response 12-4, above. The Truck Turning Study prepared by Fuscoe Engineering
is intended to show only that a vehicle in the egress lane of the northerly Via Lido Plaza
driveway at Via Lido or the existing City Hall driveway at 32nd Street would prevent large
truck traffic from entering until the vehicle clears the lane.
The statement included in the comment in the third paragraph of the section stating "the
City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and
potentially unsafe" is false. Neither Fuscoe Engineering, nor any other consultant made any
such comment either on the exhibits or in the narrative response. The negligible volume of
trucks entering Via Lido Plaza would not lead to long wait times and significant traffic
impacts on Via Lido.
Regarding west bound traffic on Via Lido into the Via Lido Plaza, and the statement "a large
truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left-turn lane that was waiting to tum into
Lido Marina Village", the existing opposing driveways to Lido Marina Village and Villa Lido
Plaza are offset from each other and the potential to clip a vehicle turning left into Lido
Marina Village, by a west bound vehicle turning left into Villa Lido Plaza exists; however the
volume of trucks entering is minimal and the potential for conflicting left turn movements is
negligible (refer to Exhibits 2A & 2B, Ingress, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and is
included in Attachment 1 of this response').
1 As a follow up to their June 27, 2014 Truck Turn Study, Fuscoe Engineering generated additional sheets
(dated July 28, 2014) depicting the ingress and egress to Lido Plaza, including the existing condition, ingress travel for
the proposed condition and egress travel for the proposed condition. The truck turning envelopes were generated using
Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 3D, version 8.1. The turning envelopes were plotted on an
orthographic,geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey information of the existing city hall site.
Letter 12 Response to Comments 19 July 2014
148
IO
�F,Wpok
City of Newport Beach
°r Lido House Hotel
F
v 0 Environmental Impact Report
4t o0V
The City takes exception to the statement in the fourth paragraph "...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 kiosk mentioned is an
umbrella that is encroaching into the fire lane as indicated by the red curbs on both sides of
the drive aisle. Such a condition should not be used as limiting criteria. In any case the
umbrella can be moved to a location that does not encroach, effectively removing this issue.
Fuscoe Engineering adjusted the ingress drive simulations from Via Lido slightly easterly to
clearly show that the truck envelopes do not encroach into the parking areas. The vehicle
near the kiosk, shown in the image is not parked fully into the parking space and should not
be considered as an indication of the location of a typically parked vehicle. No parking
within the Via Lido Plaza would need to be changed as a result of truck entry from Via Lido.
12-6 The fact that large delivery trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido is not
"significant new information." As indicated in Response 8-2 of the Final FIR, evidence
exists that trucks currently access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido. Furthermore, the
commenter has provided no evidence that trucks do not already access Via Lido Plaza from
Via Lido. The commenter also does not provide any substantiation to contradict the Draft
FIR and does not show that there would be a significant number of trucks would access Via
Lido Plaza and cause vehicle conflicts.
The closure of the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the
project site to 32nd Street is also indicated in Section 5.5, Tra,(fic/Circulation, on page 5-5-22 of
the Draft FIR. The project description also explains that the Applicant has investigated the
feasibility of including an access gate that would only be open to use by delivery vehicles to
and from Via Lido Plaza. However, as explained in the project description, it is not under
consideration as part of the project application and is not a component of this project.
It should be noted that the neither the Truck Turning Study nor any responses indicated that
all truck traffic would go through the intersection of Via Lido and Lafayette Road or that the
large trucks would only access Via Lido Plaza from the westbound lane of Via Lido. These
routes were depicted in the Truck Turning Study as alternatives to using eastbound Via Lido.
12-7 The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was followed for signalized
intersections as recommended by Caltrans with respect to the analysis equations and
calculations of delay. While Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 provides estimated values for
certain input parameters, the application of the parameters in question varies from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on local characteristics or standard practice as
determined by the reviewing agency. For the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis, the
HCM input parameters applied are consistent with those assumed for other projects in the
City of Newport Beach which have been reviewed by Caltrans District 12. Additionally, the
saturation flow rate used in the analysis is consistent with the estimated value provided in the
Highway Capacity Manual, so that particular input parameter has not been "overlooked."
The sections containing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology do
provide additional analysis of all the study intersections analyzed using the HCM
Letter 12 Response to Comments 20 July 2014
i-�
�F.WPpR
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Ca�IIDY�O
methodology, including those study intersections where the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio
exceeds 1.0. As shown in these sections, the project was found to result in no significant
impacts at the study intersections where the v/c ratio exceeds 1.0.
The HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes
and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12.
12-8 As stated in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002):
"If an exis�tinQ [emphasis added] State highway facility is operating at less than the
appropriate target LOS, the ext [emphasis added] MOE should be maintained."
The original response to this comment (Response 8-27 of the Final FIR) refers to Table 5.5-
17 to show that for exis�tine conditions, all study intersections are operating at the
appropriate target LOS or better. Therefore, the claim made in Comment 8-27 that "these
intersections [study intersections 3 and 61 are already operating at less than appropriate LOS
must be mitigated to bring conditions to pre-Project levels of service" is incorrect. The
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) does not discuss mitigating to pre-
Project levels of service for the future conditions, as shown in Table 5.5-21.
As discussed in Response 12-7, the HCM analysis provided is appropriate for planning
purposes and is consistent with what has been acceptable by Caltrans District 12.
12-9 The proposed project is not forecast to "pile traffic into intersections." As documented in
the Lido House Traffic Impact Analysis in the Draft FIR (Exhibit 8a and 8b), the proposed
project is forecast to assign less than 50 peak hour trips to any State highway study
intersection analyzed, which is relatively low compared to existing and forecast traffic
volumes at the State highway study intersections, and results in delay changes of one second
or less to the deficient study intersections for future conditions.
The Caltrans guidelines state that if an intersection is already operating below the target LOS
for existing conditions, the existing MOE (delay in seconds/vehicle) should be maintained.
If an existing intersection is deficient and the project increases the delay, then it is considered
a significant impact. As shown in the Existing Plus Project analysis, there are no impacts.
Caltrans guidelines do not provide explicit thresholds for future (cumulative) conditions
when an intersection is already deficient. As discussed in Response 8-25, the project only
adds one second or less delay to the study intersections, and in some cases decreases delay.
Even if Caltrans required that the project maintain pre-project levels of service (LOS) for
study intersections operating below the appropriate LOS for future conditions, the addition
of the proposed project trips to such study intersections is not forecast to result in a
significant impact based on the pre-project levels of service being maintained as described
below.
Table 5.5-19 of the Draft EIR shows that for cumulative conditions, the only intersection
forecast to operate at deficient LOS is study intersection #3 (Superior Avenue at Balboa
Letter 12 Response to Comments 21 July 2014
150
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Ca�IIDY�'
Boulevard/West Coast Highway); with the addition of project trips, the same study
intersection is forecast to continue operating at pre-project LOS. Furthermore, the addition
of project trips to study intersection #3 is forecast to result in no change in delay compared
to pre-project conditions.
Table 5.5-21 of the Draft FIR shows that for General Plan buildout conditions, study
intersections #3, #6, #14, and #18 are forecast to operate at deficient LOS; with the
proposed project, these same study intersections are forecast to continue operating at pre-
project LOS. For forecast General Plan buildout conditions, the change in delay at the
deficient study intersections is generally in the fractions of one second, with two of the
deficient study intersections forecast to experience a decrease in delay, as a result of the
project's change in traffic patterns.
12-10 Based on transportation/traffic checklist item A in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
which considers whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,
the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant impact at the southbound
Newport Boulevard/28`s Street intersection since there are no applicable plans, ordinances,
or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of unsignalized
intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, this intersection was not identified
as a study intersection. The findings of the project's impacts and mitigation measures with
regard to other transportation/traffic guidance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
are addressed in Section 5.5.4 of the Draft EIR and are not affected by the exclusion of the
southbound Newport Boulevard/28`x' Street intersection as a study intersection.
12-11 The trip generation for the proposed project was appropriately based on trips generated per
room as provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2092. Trip generation for
hotels is commonly calculated based on the number of rooms provided, not the estimated
number of occupied rooms. Although ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2092 provides
weekend trip generation rates on a per occupied room basis,it specifies to use caution due to
the small sample size (based on only three studies).
As previously noted in Response 8-22 of the Final EIR, the Lido House Hotel Traffic
Impact Analysis has adequately analyzed the project's traffic impacts during the weekday
peak hours of the shoulder season (i.e., the time between the high and low season) in
accordance with City policy, which acknowledges and intentionally does not require analysis
of weekend summer conditions. The Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis has
therefore adequately followed the CEQA guidelines requiring consideration if the proposed
project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The "overriding
considerations" for not requiring analysis of weekend summer traffic conditions are built
into City policy (see City of Newport Beach General Circulation Element, Page 7-3, last
paragraph).
Letter 12 Response to Comments 22 July 2014
1151
�F,WPpR
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Ca�IIDY�O
12-12 The actual existing environmental conditions required by CEQA are contained in the Draft
FIR; the existing conditions scenario (Table 5.5-4 of the Draft EIR) defines the baseline for
project specific impact evaluation and the forecast year 2018 cumulative without project
conditions scenario (Table 5.5-9 of the Draft EIR) defines the environmental baseline for
cumulative impact evaluation. General Plan buildout without and with project conditions
volumes are based on the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) which accounts
for the redistributed trips associated with General Plan buildout conditions, which include
the location of the new City Hall complex. It should be noted that the analysis includes an
existing plus project scenario, cumulative plus project scenario, as well as the General Plan
plus project scenario. The project's traffic impacts were analyzed for all of these scenarios.
12-13 The alternative access scenario exhibit only shows that a truck route via 32' Street to
Lafayette Road and Via Lido is possible. The opinion that displaced delivery truck traffic
would be negligible is based on the fact that for typical neighborhood shopping centers,
deliveries do not occur on a daily basis, and when deliveries do occur, they are typically
during off-peak hours when the roadway system has more than sufficient capacity.
Emergency vehicle trips to a neighborhood shopping center occur even less frequently than
delivery truck trips. Therefore, the re-routing of delivery truck traffic and emergency vehicle
trips is not likely to affect the peak hours analyzed.
12-14 A parking study was prepared by Stantec and the findings were incorporated into Section
5.5, Traffic and Circulation of the Draft EIR (the parking study was also included in
Appendix 11.3, Tra,#ic L%pact Analysis/Parking Studv in the Draft EIR as well). The parking
study indicated that all of the proposed hotel uses would have adequate parking on-site,
including the hotel, restaurants, retail, and banquet usage. The rates were based on survey of
similar hotels, all with similar banquet and retail uses and the parking would meet all of the
on-site needs. Non-hotel uses, such as the retail uses, are recommended to provide parking
at the rate indicated by the City code, during the hours when they are in use. The City code
requirements are in place to provide the required number of parking spaces, and these
numbers would be adequate to meet the needs of both hotel guests, along with visitors and
residents. Additionally, as described in the Draft EIR, the project would include active
parking management, including valet services in order to ensure adequate parking would be
provided on-site to meet demand, especially during large events and banquets.
12-15 Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Kitch has evaluated the overall project including the closure of
the 32" Street driveway. He and his staff have participated with the review of the proposed
project in his capacity as the City of Newport Beach's Fire Code Official (Fire Marshal).
Assistant Chief Kitch has determined that the removal of the 32nd Street driveway will not
degrade emergency access to Via Lido Plaza. Adequate emergency access to Via Lido Plaza
is currently provided and will continue to be provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido,
and from onsite parking areas that are and will continue to be accessed by the two existing
vehicular driveways from Finley Avenue and Via Lido.
The comment states that, `Both Lido Partners and the City agree that closing the 32nd Street driveway
would reduce emergency access to the interior of the Via Lido property by 5001o, as the Finley Street entrance
Letter 12 Response to Comments 23 July 2014
152
�F,WPpR
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
ca�aos�o
is too small to accommodate any emergency vehicle larger than an ambulance." The comment goes on to
state that, "there is no disputing that the Fint Avenue entrance is too narrow for fire trucks, and that
closing the 32"d Street Alley removes one of only two waysfor larger emergency vehicles to access Via Lido
Pla.Za."
The City does not agree with these comments. The commenter cites correspondence
prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated June 27, 2014 (Attachment 1 to the responses to
Letter 8 in the FEIR), in support of the comment. The Fuscoe Engineering letter addresses
delivery truck access to Via Lido Plaza and does not discuss emergency vehicle access to the
Plaza. Assistant Chief Kitch finds this comment inaccurate as despite the fact that the Finley
Avenue access is preexisting and non-conforming in terms of width, access by all types of
Fire Department emergency vehicles is presently achieved and the project does not impact
this access. Emergency vehicle access through the conforming Via Lido driveway is
presently unobstructed. Emergency vehicle access to on-site parking areas would not rely
upon the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway access across the
project site to 32°d Street (refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-16 in the Final EIR).
Assistant Chief Kitch also disputes the commenter's unsupported claim that Fixe
Department response times will be degraded by the closure of the 32" Street driveway.
According to Fire Marshal Kitch, the driveway access would likely never be used by Fire
Station No. 2 personnel to access the commercial center. To do so would be to introduce
unneeded and unnecessary response delays based upon the configuration of the respective
sites. Chief Kitch believes there will be no significant degradation in response rimes to the
commercial center with this project's proposed changes. Response times will remain within
Newport Beach Fire Department response objectives that are provided in the Section 5.12.1
of the Draft FIR (page 5.12-1). The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of
the North Bay to reach 32d Street would be unchanged with the proposed modifications.
Given no change in distance, there is no reasonable or measurable way to state that response
times would change.
12-16 The comment states that, "the City admits that Via Oporto is nonconforming by modern
fire and safety standards, and that this non-conformity has spurred discussions with the Fire
Department to widen Via Oporto." The comment incorrectly states the City's response
provided in the Final EIR (Response 8-9 on page 2-56). Response 8-9 states:
"ilia Oporto was designed and constructed before Newport Beach Fire Department
Guideline C.01 was established. As such, the access roadway is considered preexisting and
non-conforming to today's standards. In the City of Newport Beach, rrrany such roads
exist; which is common tbroughout the state of California. City staff has been in active
discussion with the Fire Department on this specific issue. Increasing the width of the
travel lane for that portion of Via Oporto adfacent to Fire Station No. 2 is being
considered The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of the North Bay to
reach 32nd Street would be unchanged with the proposed modifications. Given no change
in distance, there is no reasonable or measurable way to state that response times would
change." (emphasis added)
Letter 12 Response to Comments 24 July 2014
ZJ5-S
IO
�F,Wpok
City of Newport Beach
°r Lido House Hotel
F
v 0 Environmental Impact Report
4tno0V
There are and have been no discussions to widen Via Oporto, but rather discussions have
occurred related to the possible need to modify the proposed plan to widen the travel lane
between the parked cars to better facilitate an EMT truck to travel from the new Fire Station
driveway south in Via Oporto to 32" Street. The widening of the travel lane can be
achieved by narrowing of the abutting sidewalks or relocating street parking spaces.
Historically, Fire Station No. 2 has operated with limited parking areas. When City Hall was
in operation, fire personnel had approximately 9 spaces available to it. Other spaces near the
station were used to park City Hall pool cars available for use by City employees. The
station property itself never accommodated full parking for all personnel during the shift
change. Operationally, the oncoming shift would park at City Hall or on the street until the
outgoing shift left. Staff would relocate the vehicles to available on-site parking spaces when
possible. When the City replaced the EMT truck that operated from the station, it was
necessary to store the vehicle in the parking area due to its larger size and the limited number
of available bays, and the parking lot was re-striped accommodating 5 vehicles. After City
Hall staff was relocated, station personnel did not have to rely on the use of street parking as
they had access to the City Hall parking lots. The current plan for the reconfigured fire
station parking area accommodates 7 vehicles and it can be expanded to 8 spaces.
Additionally, parking on the extended 32,d Street apron can accommodate 2 additional
vehicles while not affecting truck or apparatus pull out. While it would be desirable to
accommodate full parking for a shift change, continuing the historic practice where vehicles
are temporarily parked nearby is an acceptable operational issue and does not constitute a
significant environmental impact.
12-17 As described on page 5.12-28 of the Draft EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department has
evaluated the permanent closure of this driveway and it will not affect emergency access as
adequate fire access to Via Lido Plaza is provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and
private parking areas accessed by two existing vehicular driveways. Access to all portions of
Via Lido Plaza would be met by either public roadways such as Newport Boulevard and Via
Lido or by private roadways off of Finley Avenue and Via Lido.
This discussion in the Draft EIR includes a footnote citation that indicates that Kevin Kitch,
Assistant Chief, Life Safety Services Division, Newport Beach Fire Department, reviewed
the project on January 2, 2014; also refer to Response 12-15. Additionally, the written
correspondence is provided in the Draft EIR in Appendix 11.9, Utility Corre.00ndence.
Additional responses regarding the traffic analysis were provided by the City Traffic
Engineer,Tony Brine.
Comments provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department are based on their previous
experience and current operations for providing emergency services. As stated in Response
8-8 in the Final EIR, adequate and code compliant access is currently available, and has been
repeatedly provided over the years, through the parking areas accessed off of Finely Avenue
and Via Lido or directly from these two streets as well as Newport Boulevard. The 32°d
Street Driveway access is unlikely to ever be used by Fire Station No. 2 personnel to access
the commercial center. To do so would be to introduce unneeded and unnecessary response
Letter 12 Response to Comments 25 July 2014
154
�F.Wpok
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
ca�aos�o
delays based upon the configuration of the respective sites. There will be no degradation in
response time to the commercial center with this project's proposed changes.
12-18 Refer to Response 8-3 in the Final EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR, CEQA 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. The comment speculates as to the ramifications of closing the driveway
between Via Lido Plaza and 32"d Street. Additionally, CEQA requires the analysis of a
reasonable range of alternatives and is not required to consider every conceivable alternative
to a project. The "rule of reason" requires the FIR to set forth only those alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to ones that would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The Draft FIR does
not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts related to the closure of the 32"d Street
driveway. Therefore, an alternative to closing the 32°d Street driveway was not considered.
As described in Section 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Pro of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. All potential impact
were reduced to a less than significant level. However, the Draft EIR included an analysis a
reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced density, m xed-use, and two no build
alternatives.
12-19 As noted in Response 8-16, an analysis of project's consistency with the City's General Plan
and Coastal Land Use Plan is provided within Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Plan nine, of
the Draft EIR.
The comment argues that the project is inconsistent with the City's policy related to traffic
and circulation and specifically cites Goal 1.3 of the Circulation Element. An analysis has
been completed to show that trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza at the entrance off of
Via Lido. Goods movement generally refers to regional transport of goods and not
necessarily deliveries to a single shopping center. Nonetheless, nothing associated with the
proposed project, including the closure of the 32nd Street Driveway would prevent goods
movement and truck access to Via Lido Plaza. The proposed project would not require Via
Lido Plaza to make any physical changes to their site.
The comment also argues that there are numerous problems with requiring large trucks to
use the Via Lido entrance. However, as described in Response 8-2 in the Final EIR, trucks
using the 32"d Street driveway would experience the same conflicts as with the Via Lido
entrance.
12-20 The project would require the import of approximately 7,379 cubic yards of soil for grading
of the site. The project also requires cut and fill on-site, and additional soil (i.e., import) is
typically needed for compaction and/or to adjust the grade. The import of this amount of
soil would require 922 truck trips. It should be noted that these are round trips. This
number of truck trips was mentioned in the analysis because it represents the greatest
number of truck trips associated with construction. However, the analysis accounted for
Letter 12 Response to Comments 26 July 2014
155
t�F,WPpR
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Ca�IIDY�'
vehicle trips (including worker trips and material deliveries) associated with all phases of
construction. For example, the project would require approximately 10 to 70 worker trips
per day and up to 31 vendor round trips per day (depending on phase). Each of these trips
and various other aspects of the anticipated construction activities were analyzed within the
Draft FIR.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires a construction management plan. Nothing in this
mitigation measure would be considered deferral under CEQA. As indicated in the Draft
FIR and described in Response 8-34 in the Final FIR, all construction activities would be
required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires a construction
management plan that would include measures to minimize traffic and parking impacts upon
the local circulation system. These measures would address various topics including traffic
controls for street closures, routes for construction vehicles, hours for transport activities,
and various others. As required by CEQA, this measure has a timing mechanism (i.e., prior
to the issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits) and performance standards (i.e.,
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires the Construction Management Plan to address specific
topics and include specific requirements/prohibitions). The Construction Management Plan
would also identify the routs that the construction vehicles (including haul) trucks would
utilize. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 limits the hours for hauling and/or the transport of
oversize loads to off-peak hours to avoid traffic conflicts. The use of local streets would be
prohibited and haul trucks entering or exiting public streets are required to yield to public
traffic at all times.
12-21 Refer to Response 12-7, above.
12-22 Refer to Response 12-7, above. It is important to note, the average delay reported and
corresponding intersection Level of Service includes vehicles that pass through an
intersection without stopping. Effective signal coordination can enable a large number of
vehicles to move through an intersection without stopping, thereby offsetting a significant
amount of delay experienced by stopped vehicles.
12-23 Refer to Response 12-9, above. The statement that "a cumulative impact would occur by
the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility"is not a Caltrans threshold.
12-24 Refer to Response 12-10, above.
12-25 Refer to Response 12-11, above.
12-26 Refer to Response 12-12, above.
12-27 Refer to Response 12-7, above. Response 8-44 refers to and intends to reiterate Response 8-
26 indicating that the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) does not
provide specific input parameters. As noted in Response 12-7, while Chapter 10 of the
HCM 2000 provides estimated values for certain input parameters, the application of the
Letter 12 Response to Comments 27 July 2014
150
�F,WPpR
�o City Li Newport Beach
Li
do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
c4enoaF�
parameters in question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on local
characteristics or standard practice as determined by the reviewing agency.
12-28 Refer to Response 12-7, above. As explained in Response 12-7, the HCM input parameters
applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what
has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. Our understanding is that
Caltrans District 12 has not required pedestrian timing as an HCM input parameter for
planning purposes such as traffic impact studies because utilizing pedestrian minimum green
timing requirements would present an overly conservative analysis in which pedestrians are
assumed to cross each leg of a study intersection on every cycle during the peak hours.
12-29 Refer to Response 12-7, above. As explained in Response 12-7, the HCM input parameters
applied in the analysis are not an analytical error. The HCM input parameters applied in the
analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been
historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12.
12-30 Refer to Response 12-9, above.
Letter 12 Response to Comments 28 July 2014
S 57
�V.WPO
E o City of Newport Beach
F { Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
c4GGenYY�P
Attachment 1 — Fuscoe Engineering Memorandum
(July 28, 2014
Letter 12 Response to Comments 29 July 2014
115R
Irvine
Son
7 San Diego
_.
Ontario
� Los Angeles
EI Centro
1 C I N I I R I N 6 Danville
July 28, 2014
Mr. Anthony Wrzosek
Vice President, Planning & Development
R.D. Olson Development
2955 Main Street, Third Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Re: Response to Comments to Lido House Hotel Final EIR from Paul Hastings,
LLP, Sections III.6.2 and a Portion of III.0 as Noted Below
Dear Mr. Wrzosek;
At the direction of R.D. Olson Development, Fuscoe Engineering reviewed comments
received from Paul Hastings, LLP to the Lido House Final EIR. Our review was limited to the
sections listed above and only to those portions where Fuscoe Engineering has expertise.
Both sections relate to truck access to and from Villa Lido Plaza. The narrative below is our
response to those sections.
Fuscoe Engineering previously generated four sheets illustrating the existing condition (one
sheet), ingress travel for the proposed condition (two sheets) and egress travel for the
proposed condition (one sheet). The truck turning envelopes were generated using
Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 3D, version 8.1 . The turning envelopes
were plotted on an orthographic, geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey
information of the existing city hall site. In responding the access issues from Finley Street,
Fuscoe subsequently generated two additional exhibit sheets showing the largest vehicle
that can ingress from Finley Street and the largest vehicle that can egress to Finley Street.
Section 111.6.2.
The ingress exhibit (Exhibit 1) prepared by Fuscoe is intended to show only that a vehicle in
the egress lane of the northerly Via Lido Plaza driveway at Via Lido or the existing city hall
driveway at 32' Street will prevent large truck traffic from entering until the vehicle clears
the lane. Any conclusions regarding impacts on pedestrians and general vehicle traffic is
best left to a qualified Traffic Engineer familiar with the area and its associated traffic
patterns.
We respectfully take exception to the comment in the third paragraph of the section stating
"the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and
potentially unsafe". Fuscoe made no such comment either on the exhibits or in the
narrative response.
16795 Von Korman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 w .fuscoe.com
1�9
Letter to Anthony Wrzosek
July 28, 2074
Page 2
Regarding west bound traffic on Via Lido into the Via Lido Plaza (Exhibits 2A & 213), the
statement "a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left-turn lane that was
waiting to turn into Lido Marina Village". The existing opposing driveways to Lido Marina
Village and Villa Lido Plaza are offset from each other and the potential to clip a vehicle
turning left into Lido Marina Village, by a west bound vehicle turning left into Villa Lido
Plaza, exists with or without the proposed development.
We take exception to the statement in the fourth paragraph "...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 kiosk mentioned is an
umbrella that is encroaching into the fire lane as indicated by the red curbs on both sides
of the drive aisle. Such a condition should not be used as limiting criteria. In any case the
umbrella can be moved to a location that does not encroach, effectively removing this
issue. Fuscoe adjusted the ingress drive simulations from Via Lido slightly easterly to clearly
show that the truck envelopes do not encroach into the parking areas. The vehicle near the
kiosk, shown in the image is not parked fully into the parking space and should not be
considered as an indication of the location of a typically parked vehicle. No parking within
the Via Lido Plaza would need to be changed as a result of truck entry from Via Lido.
Section III.0—seventh (7th) bullet point. 'The City's analysis of traffic displaced from the
32nd Street Alley is inconsistent"
Fuscoe takes exception to the statement "The City's statements are contradicted by the
Fuscoe Engineering Memo,...". The alternative access scenario exhibit only shows that a
truck route via 32°d Street to Lafayette Road and Via Lido is possible and makes no claim
as to present or future traffic impacts on these streets.
Additional Study Sheets
Fuscoe was asked to investigate what size service vehicle could enter from the Finley Street
entrance to Via Lido Plaza (sheets 5 and 6). Our investigations indicate that 30-foot truck
can ingress from this entry point. However the same vehicles cannot egress via this entry
due to the existing parking lot medians interfering with the required maneuvering area.
The largest service trucks that can egress to Finley Street are panel trucks similar to FedEx
or UPS size delivery vehicles.
We hope that the information herein is beneficial. Please contact me if you have any
questions at (949) 474-1960.
Sincerely,
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
Mark Nero, P.E.
Project Manager
enclosures
100
TRUCK TURN STUDY - OLD CITY HALL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
LEGEND
r �
a
o a o 0
NEWPORT '° mw
BOULEVARD CA OLECAL—ss
-
NEWPORT
7LEVJARD r• a M®
J
'r rlB�•ABiO 771
711
ns C P 1 P qer VeNcle
n
•�T �1—�1-t1'FF, � J�.Ayl3' 14 �r� ' "J'Q�,� ' �•;('
PRO LIDO hiOT�L
tow
14v
.Hk
A
VIA LIDO PLAZA � t •
_ \ —VENIC!£CONFLICT
:1• I
VILLA WAY ---- - -- iq 40
• J
32nd STREET DRIVEWAY it lY 5 �il A SJ
�I
VEHICLE CONFLICT
AM A-IJ
VIA OPORTO L -
..
O
� C .N J
yTRUCK TURN STUDY t"LWA 990 0 NBBPOBT BODLEVARD
FusC • a.m.wz zz zor.
FUSCOE EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT
of! 330
B0➢5E HOTEL OE
E N 6 1 N E E 9 1 N 6 NBNPOM BEACH, CALIFORNIA oa�aa ,b. 100 ,1* ORnXw BB kN
u v v e r w
for: R.D. OLSON DEVBLOPENT B�Ex''
VNTEN70NALLY BLANK PAGE
TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
�A. 4
NEWPORT BOULEVARD ` - s ra - -
NEWPORT BOULEVARD �� _ -•
r-j 1Aii -♦
1 A4
I
I
41
4 '
PROPOSED VIA LIDO HOTEL
VT
� � • /
\' J/
(•1 j// / /, - ,` li
/,W • • �' � 6 aw
- - - ---- - % VIA LIDO PLAZAZia
r
i
t'
IHPROVF TURNING RADIUS RY / c
FCCONRGURING ENTRY CURBS PER_ v
COY OF NEWFORI BEACH
VALLA WAY / s+aeoaRDs.
Uoo omit, 2�
I Q
E
iY
4Y
VIA OPORTO y
lit '
'IINGRESS TRUCK TURN STUDY Dore yaz n xis.
mm wM�� sc® EXHIBIT 2A LD1DRD1RND8F leso
9900 NB6C DOULEV6ND
F IN O 1 6 F F 6 1 N 6 NENPORf DMBAR� CALIFORNLI RRavm.ec
tor. R.D. OLSON D6 PENT rf¢a
V
VNTEN70NALLY BLANK PAGE
TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
VIA LIDO PLAZA
i
VIMPROVE FUAMNG dA 3 BY
REC0NRGURING ENTRY CURBS FEE
—CITY Of NEWPORT BEA'I, I /
STANDARDS
VILLA WAY I — 5l
r
II O
L I
0N1
L f W
4r / st
� kY.; ftii
VIA OPORTO y�y
ie
N
•r y\fie
r \
4•
Y �S
- wil v
1, .
A
30' �I5So'
NIMH TRUCK TURN STUDY RA.X27
g..l - FUSCOF INGRESS EXHIBIT 2B c OB9EBOLE u Im
9900 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
L M 4 1 P F F F 1 M 6 HEMP ET BEACH. CAWFORNIA aRAXw Bt�/ v
:r ....: . x. .
for: R.D. OLSON OEV9WPENT 911�LSvlb'
VNTEN70NALLY BLANK PAGE
TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
� .
-------------
G r �� r
Fi ( /- - 1
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
J-4 tAll —210
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
1
I L --
I
9 Gul
I � I �
4 I PROPOSED VIA LIDO HOTEL r .
Lly
;,
VIA LIDO PLAZA
O i 4
- I
-J\ NkPROVE ENTRY CURBS BY
PER (•V aY / ;
RECONEIGCeING ENTRY ORT l PER / t'
_r CITY OF NEWPORT 0A CH
JIOI SiAN0AF05
VILLA WAY
� y
J4"Op°
L1 Rivfhar
VIA OPORTO -
(.. }LSI
"N
� =
F t4X. G 1 M F E N I N 6 TRUCK TUR
27,of. m0 BOHOTELFUSCOE EGRESS EXHIBIT 3 9900 RT BOULEVARD
NEMURT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA :
far: R.D. OL90N OEVELOPENT ^T.
• " _ � • � "� SHEETYM6
VNTEN70NALLY BLANK PAGE
TRUCK TURN STUDY — LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
INGRSS VIA FINLEY STREET 98s
IC� VIA LIDO PLAZA
3.94 20,01
SU9 rXal
Width------- U 8.53
Tmck
Track 8.53
Lock hu
Steering Akook Tlme Angle 315
1 •
_ THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE LARGEST VEHICLE
t ��� � THAT CAN ACCESS VIA LIDO PLAZA FROM
�.� FINLEY STREET. HOWEVER, THIS VEHICLE
CANNOT CLEANLY SS EGOE FINLEYLI STREET.
IT WOULD EGRESS TO VIA LIDO.
!0 ❑ _
9 ra
r
w0
w o o
a
I >
0 I �
L - - - w
0
1 Er
I i
I
V TRUCK TURN STUDY
=a - FUSc0E INGRESS N BOH9E HOTEL
9500 R) MORE
BOULEVARD
F X G 1 M F E N N 6 NEMPORI'BRACH, CALIFORNIA
for: R.D. OLSON OEVBIAPENT
I . 1 1, , I . r r SHEET�'of�
VNTEN70NALLY BLANK PAGE
TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
EGRESS TO FINLEY STREET
21 00
VIA LIDO PLAZA
Ci
262 11.15
LSU feet
Width8.53
Track
Track : 6.53
Lock to Lock Tme 6.0
—'�—� % Steering Angle 40.6
L
THIS IS TYPICAL OF THE LARGEST VEHICLE
\\ THAT CAN BOTH INGRESS & EGRESS
VIA
VPLAZA GTHIS IS
EQUIVALENT TO UPS/FEENSIZE
FINLE
DELIVERY VEHICLE.
O
p I F- -- ---- -
w
a
0 v^ \ E--
>
1 \
(L T-
�.
w o
z l ��
I - i
a 11
L - - - C
0
o
ErI
1
INGRESS TRUCK TURN STUDY -
FUSCOE B°°� HOTEL
•q�h+ _ 9500 NENPORT BOULEVARD + ; .
F N G 1 M F E N N 6 NE"ORI BRACH, CALIFORNIA .. ,. .x
for: R.D. OLSON OEVELOPENT ^
• - .' _ SHEET
VNTEN70NALLY BLANK PAGE
Attachment PC-5
Letter submitted on behalf of Friends of Dolores by Robert Hawkins and staff response
172;
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
174
COMMENT LETTER 13
LA.W OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS
July 17, 2014
Via Facsimile only
Bradley Flilgrin, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
c/o James L. 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 Impaet Report ('FEIR") for the Lido
House Hotel and the GenerieProiectaka Citv Nall Reuse Proiect(the"Projects").
Greetings
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to comment oil 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 Nall, a comnrnmity action group dedicated the preservation ofthe"City
Hall"site for civic purposes,and other community groups in The City in connection With diecaptioned
matter.
We.ofter these comments in [lie hopes of improving the FEIR and the Project, clarifying die
nature and the scope. of the Projects and the Project Description, and drawing the Commission's 13-1
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 FOR 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
Neaative Declaration for the original City Hall Re-use Project. Given that the Projectshave 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,eadier comments herein.
Also,we incorporate all other comments on the DEIR and the FEIR to the extent that they suplilement
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. 13-2.
Unfortunately; for all,of its promise, the FEIRcontinoes down fhe old disastrous;path. As the
Commission remembers,Commissioner Tucker asked at the hearing on theMND and the Projects,ally
1.4 Corhornre 1'1�;�,SIIitC 130
Newport Bench,California 92660
(919)65(L5550
Ras:(949)650-.1.1 81
Bradley Hilercn.Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
Jrpncs r-O)II11,I)CH,Scniqr Ph{mler -2- July,17,2014
doesn't the City wait until they have an applicant and a project that. it can analyze rattier 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 ahotel project. 'Unfollunately,tile DEIR does not 13-2
continue:this approach: itanalyzes 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 tiliie 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 most occur now and
engages in piecemeal.analysis which is forbidden by the California Environmental Quality Act,Public
Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. As Coin missionerTucker 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
ofsite development review for anotler.hearing? Such review must be done now for the chosen Project
which is the title of, the.FEI,R, the Lido House Hotel and not some amorphous Generic Project that
various Council Members may favor.
Con-clatively,theFEIR impermissibly ignores the impacts oftlieGenerieProject. For instance, 13-3
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 coinnienlator's preference that the Via, Lido
Plaza delivery trucks passthrough the City's property and ignores its effect on the hotel operations and
guests." .lrlowever,this Response ignores the impacts of the Generic Project which is also part of the
Project.. The F:EI Rrepeatedly ignores the Generic Project and analyzes the impacts of the Lido House
Hotel Project. However, if the Project is approved and the FBI R.is certified, the Generic Project will
be approved and its impacts will be regarded as completely analyzed. However, the FEtR 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 lease. Yet, the FEIR does not include.
any.form lease for the Generic Project or alease 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 tile hotel. A 11 of these 13-4
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 partof any development projectand which is part of the review ofthe hearing authority. For
instance, in the approval :for Norte Newport Center, the Planning Commission reviewed the
environmental document and the project which included a.developmentagreenrent. 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 CSrpurnte 111¢a,S0.ite.120
Newlwrr leach California,92660
(949)650-5550
Fax:(949)650-118 1
Z�7LO
11ndley Hilgren.Chair
Memberi of the Planning Commission
JgoIC$F_t;;nnpbel1,Seoinr Mo. -3. July 17,2014
Fifih,as indicated in our earl iercomments,the Project's licight wi I I create significant aesthetic
impacts including lightand glare,and shade and shadow impacts. As to the Former, lightaud glare,the:
Lido House.Hotel Project and tile Generic Project will expose visitors and guestshesidents to.Iights
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 Project.will have such impacts but regards them as temporary because the,sun and therefore
the shadows move. I fthis analysiswere adequate,there would be no shade impacts. ibloreover,.as we 13_5
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 ares xestaurants in the
vicinity. Although the DELR'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. Tile.FOR must be revised and recirculated to address these impacts.
Sixth, also highlighted in our earlier comments, the FEIR employs (lie 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 die 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 Rroject's land use impacts with the.
incorrect standard. That Report states:
"Absent a specified maximum intensity,file `plan to plan' analysis would indicate
that changes to the site's intensity-)mould not require voter approval; however, when
the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City commissioned a traft:ic 13-6
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 laird use impacts, see DEER', Table 5-4, page 5.4-50 Source Note that the
20061 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 file Projects' impacts violates
the requirements of CEQA: It requires that the analysis compare the impacts ofthe.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.CoastACMD").
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 13-7
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."
14Corporarehlaa1,SUite.120
Newporr Beach,Cilifornia 92660
(949)650-5550
Fax:(949)650-I:I S 1
1��
NreiticP.I 0--nun.Clew
ttewhcu or Iv Pl.iQhit)c Cpu.I.MA inti
lowv:<I:CawphelI.Senior I'lu ner I- lulu I'?,"Di i
exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for
approval or planned public inlprovcnlcilm"
DEIR_ page 5. I-12, However, the D1--1 It confusingly cm,ployS those Guidelines as regal dory
standards with :which PIX&cts must be determined to be consistent:
the Design Guidelines provide a basis for the evaluation and review of the
applicatiuns 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
dcvclopment review process where projects must be found consistent"
DL'•IR. page 5.1-13. -fh'is last sentence is internally contradictor': if the Guidelines are not
reeulatorv, then a project need not be consistent with them. Yet, the final clause maintains that all
projects including the Projecis must be found consistent with the Guidelines. These. Guidelines
have never had environmental review, environmental hearinas, nor any I'CgtllatOry LIPPI'OWIISa C.g.
Coastal. Commission approval.
`The DISI R continues this erroneous use of these Guidelines by stating that, because the
131'ojeet 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
I.Vview and their standards were determined to enhance tile environment Or tit least have no 13-7
significant impact on the environment. The City did not Conduct such a reviewand cannot now
employ these Guidelines as an analytical tool or mitigation tool for the Project.
The ILEI R contains numerous other errors and Omissions. .It is not ready fur prime time. On
behalf of ilic clients note above. QVC urge the COInIniSSiOi1 10 I'CjCCI the Projects and the FOR, Lind
return the FEIR and the Projects to Staffand the. Applicants fur further study and review, for
revision ul'the MIR and recireUlalion 1'01- public comment and review.
Thank you,again, for the opportunity to comment on the PL'I R. Please provide tis with notice
ofany responses to these comments and with notices of any and all hearings on the capu'oncJ project,
Further,this is also a written request fornwices pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Specifically, Public Re'S011l'Ce5 Cotte Section 21092.2. SI)CCif ically, pursuant to Section 21092.2. we-
rcquest that you provide us with a Cup), ol'any and all notices required pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.4, 21053,9, 21092. 21 103 and 21 152 relating to the captioned Project..
OfaOurse, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact tile.
Sincerely,
rrtCrs or• R a rr C. NA.',a�x1Ns
By: Robert C. Hawkins
RCI 1/k\\,
cc: Lcilani Brown. City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only)
Fi Corporate Phrn.$title 1$1
Newport Ilvaeh,Calili rim)926+60
(9,19)650.5550
Tis-1919)650-1181
172
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: Additional and Further Comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
("FMND") for the City Hall Reuse Project (the "Proiect").
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 13-8
21000 etseq.,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
2.1000 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:
13-9
"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
1j 9
Keith Curry,Mayor, y March''-6,1013
Members of the City Council
Final MND, page 1 of Responses to our January 17,2013 letter. This is incredible. It is also
factually incorrect.
At the January 1.7, 20'13 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 13-9
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 commentsi
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 anon-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 13-10
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
Newporr Beach,California 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1181
Zg�
keith Curry,Mayor March 26,2013
.Members of the City Council
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 promotewertical clustering resulting in increased open space
and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing
new coastal view opportunities."
D1v1ND, page t.l (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 13-10
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) 13-11
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 43-12
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
New orr Beach,California 92660
(949)650-5550
Fax:(949)650-1181
Zg2
Keith Curry,Mayor -4 .,
Members of die City Council March-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: 13-13
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 Manner'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 currentShorelineHeight 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 13-14
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,stales 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 Plan,Suite 120.
Newport Beach,Califomia 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1181
12
Keith Cum,Mayor
Members of the City Council -5-
Marclr?6,:?013
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 inr 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 13-14
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 4.1r 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 13-15
baseline. In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management
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,Calitornia 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-.1181
1g3
Keith Curry;Mayor
Members of the City Council •6- March.,-6,2013
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, 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.App.4th at p. 121; see City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 13-16
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 RailV. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority
(2012)205 Cal. App. 4" 552 petition for reviewrg anted 2012 Cal, LEXIS 7556(to the opposite
effect; opinion was depublished pending the Supreme Court review).
Hence, under South Coast AGMD, theFMND 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 to75,000 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
1 R4
Keith Curry;Mayur
Mumhers of the City CUuncif •7• March 26,.'--013
PN1ND; 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 CI-QA and with the direction of theSouth Coast AQMD Court.
Indeed, it inflates the traffic generated under existing,conditions and lessens the traffic impacts of
the project. The 171\041D 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 m6re traffic than existing conditions.
Moreover, the FMND seems confused on this point. In Response to our December 26;
201'3 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. I lowever, 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 13-17
planning require the preparation ofan.61R. Such an I IR would analyze correctly the ex"isting
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 ofPro_ject 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 alihough
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,
rICES F 13E :HAWKINS
Iiy: Robert C. 1-la% 'kins
RCH/kw
cc: Leilani.Brown, City Clerk (Via f=acsimile Only)
14 Corporate Plain,Suire 120
Newporr Beach,Catilornia.92660
(949)6505550
Fax!(949)650-1181
-125
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 chis facsimile message is information protected by anorney-client and/or the atiorneyfivork,
product privilege. It is intended only for the ase of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of
this having been sent byfacsimile. Ifthe person actually receiving tris facsimile or any otter 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 of the communication is strictly prohibited. /Jyou have received this communication in error,please immediately
notify,its by telephone and return the original message tous at the above address via U.S. Postal Service.
4 NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES.PLEASE TELEPHONE US
IMMEDIATELYAT(949).650-5550.
120
03/26/2013 2:51PN FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS 'LAW OFFICES 110001
xxxxxxxszxs*x**ssxsstx�ssxx*
ssx TX Result Report *x*
xxx*xxx*xx*xx**zsx*xz**x***s
TX complete.
Job No. 006.1
Address 6443039
Name
Start Time 03126 02:46 Ptd
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)650.1]a I
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: 7s
COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated.
Zg�
IO
�F,Wpok
City of Newport Beach
°r Lido House Hotel
F
v 0 Environmental Impact Report
4tno0V
13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C.
HAWIGNS, DATED JULY 17,2014.
13-1 The commenter states that the text of the Draft FIR is legible, as it is not written in italic
font throughout. The commenter also incorporates an earlier comment letter submitted for
the previously prepared Negative Declaration (not adopted) for a past project at the project
site (as discussed in detail on pages 3-4 and 3-5, Section 3.2, Background and History, of the
Draft EIR). Refer to Responses 13-5 through 13-17.
13-2 The City currently has a specific development application that has been submitted for the
project site, which is described in detail throughout Section 3.3, Pmiect Characterstic, of the
Draft EIR. Contrary to what the Commenter suggests regarding two development scenarios
considered as part of the proposed project, the Draft EIR only considers one development
application for a new hotel. As illustrated on Exhibit 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan, of the Draft
EIR, the project analyzed includes a new 99,625 square-foot hotel comprised of guestrooms,
public areas, and back of house (operational) areas. Guestrooms and suites, including a
Presidential Suite and extended stay suites and villas, would occupy levels two through four.
The rooftop patio would include a bar area, fire pit, and cabanas and provide views of the
bay and ocean. Other project-specific features included in Section 3.3 and analyzed in the
Draft EIR include the proposed architecture, open space and landscaping, and vehicular
access and parking. As required by CEQA, the proposed entitlements required as part of the
application for the project must also be considered in the environmental clearance
document,which have been discussed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR as well. It should be
noted that, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, Consideration and Discussion of
Alternatives to the Proposed Project, a mixed use development scenario was considered as part of
Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidek'nes Section
15126.6, requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the Draft
EIR included an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced density,
mixed-use,and two no build alternatives.
13-3 The Draft EIR considered the full scope of the application, as submitted to the City of
Newport Beach, and does not include any other potential project entitlement clearances not
discussed. Thus, no further environmental clearance documentation is required, upon
certification of the FIR, for the project, as proposed. Refer to Response 13-2 pertaining to
the proposed project analyzed as part of the Draft EIR; no Generic Project was considered,
but rather a specific site plan (the proposed Lido House Hotel), as illustrated in Exhibit 3-3,
Conceptual Site Plan, of the Draft EIR was analyzed.
The commenter suggests that the Draft FIR analyzes the development of a Generic Project
(as the proposed project), which is not the case. As discussed in Response 9-2, the City
Council selected R.D. Olson as the development team to pursue a hotel project at the
project site. The City Council executed an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with R.D.
Olson and R.D. Olson has submitted a Site Development Review and Conditional Use
Letter 13 Response to Comments 14 July 2014
IRR
�o City Li Newport Beach
Li
do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
c4enoaF�
Permit application consistent with their proposal and applicable Zoning Codes, which is the
subject of this EIR. Thus,implementation of the proposed project, as discussed in the Draft
EIR would not result in the development of a Generic Project, as suggested by the
commenter, but rather the development of the hotel as proposed.
13-4 As described on page 3-19 of Section 3.6,Agreements. Permits. and Approvals, of the Draft FIR,
a Lease was considered in the Draft EIR as part of the proposed project. Lease negotiations
are ongoing and have not been completed. Refer to Response 9-2.
13-5 Increased heights at the project site would result in similar lighting conditions as structures
of similar or higher building height in the project vicinity. Further, new shade/shadow
conditions were considered on page 5.2-35 of the Draft EIR, which concluded that, as
illustrated in Exhibit 5.2-12, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns, shade/shadow impacts would be
minimal, for a short period of time, and the areas shaded are not considered to be shadow-
sensitive (as these areas consist of surface parking lot and a portion of a commercial-retail
building). Thus, impacts in this regard are less than significant, as described in the Draft
EIR.
As illustrated on Exhibit 5.2-12, Proposed Sbade/Sbadow Patterns, of the Draft EIR, the on-site
public use area along Newport Boulevard would only be shaded in the morning hours.
Thus, the proposed public use areas along the western portion of the project site are not
anticipated to experience substantial shade as a result of the proposed structure. Further, as
depicted on Exhibit 5.2-12 of the Draft EIR, no shading of adjacent outdoor diners
associated with restaurant uses would result from the proposed structure; no impacts would
result in this regard. The adjacent retail store (West Marine) would be partially shaded;
however, this use is not considered to be shadow-sensitive.
With regard to increased vehicle headlights along Balboa Boulevard and surrounding
residential uses, the project would not result in an increase in vehicles (or associated vehicle
headlights) traveling along Balboa Boulevard (as illustrated on Exhibit 7, Forecast Percent Trip
Distribution of Proposed Project, of Appendix 11.3, Traffic Irrrpact Analyri /Parking Study, of the
Draft EIR). Further, as discussed on page 5.2-38 of the Draft FIR, vehicle headlights are a
source of nighttime lighting that was considered in the light and glare analysis for the
proposed project. Increased vehicle headlights along Newport Boulevard and 32"d Street
would appear similar to the existing lighting conditions currently experienced. Thus,impacts
in this regard would be less than significant.
13-6 The City of Newport Beach General Plan was adopted July 25, 2006 (as amended periodically)
and is the City's guide for community decision-making. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines
contains the Environmental Checklist form that was used during the preparation of this
EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it
would: conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, the Draft FIR considers the project's consistency
Letter 13 Response to Comments 15 July 2014
Zgq
�F,WPpR
�o City Li Newport Beach
Li
do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
c4enoaF�
with the City's adopted General Plan, as described in Impact Statements LU-1 through LU-
5, which includes Table 5.1-4, General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis. It should be noted that
the environmental analysis presented throughout the Draft FIR considers the project
impacts compared to the existing "on-the-ground" conditions, and does not analyze the
project via a "plan-to-plan" analysis approach. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, Project Setting
(Existing Conditions,), 60,600 square feet of administration/office floor area (previously used to
support the former City of Newport Beach City Hall), and the existing Fire Station No. 2
that is approximately 7,100 square feet, were considered in the Draft FIR. The existing
baseline condition that was utilized in the Draft EIR acknowledged that City Hall staff has
been relocated to the new Civic Center located at Newport Center in April of 2013. It is
noted that the City continues limited use of the property and various buildings including
community use of the former City Council Chambers for assembly purposes. Also, the
Draft EIR considered Fire Station No. 2 as currently on-site, staffed, and operational.
13-7 Refer to Response 7-4 pertaining to the City's Design Guidelines.. As discussed in Section 5.1,
Land Use and Relevant Plannine, and Section 5.2, AestheticslLg&t and Glare, where the project
considers consistency with the Design Guidelines,it is in the context of describing the project's
consistency with applicable land use plans and policies as well as describing the City's intent
for the visual character in the area. This consistency analysis describes the City's intent for
the character/quality of the area and whether or not the project is consistent with that intent
or not. The Design Guidelines are described as guidelines were applicable and not regulatory
requirements. Further, it should be noted that page 5-1 of the Design Guidelines states that
within the City of Newport Beach's Zoning Code, there are requirements for development
and new land uses to adhere to Design Guidelines. Section 20.16.020,paragraphs C through E,
require land owners to follow Design Guidelines or criteria as a condition of approval. Refer to
Response 7-4 pertaining to Coastal Commission approval.
13-8 The commenter has attached a letter (Exhibit "A" of Letter 13) that was previously
submitted as part of the Negative Declaration on March 26, 2013. The City of Newport
Beach has previously reviewed and responded to these comments. Per the request of the
commenter, this attached letter (Exhibit "A") has been responded to, to the extent that it is
applicable to this EIR in Responses 13-9 through 13-17 below.
13-9 The commenter has requested to be notified on all public correspondence for the project, as
required by CEQA and other laws. Notification to the public of circulation of the Draft
FIR has been conducted consistent with the CEaQA Guidelines Section 15087(a)(1). Refer to
Response 13-1 pertaining to the legibility of the Draft FIR.
13-10 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the
Draft EIR.
13-11 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the
Draft FIR.
Letter 13 Response to Comments 16 July 2014
490
t�F,WPpR
City Li Newport Beach
Li
F � do House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
c4enoaF�
13-12 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the
Draft FIR.
13-13 Page 5.2-11 of the Draft EIR specifically describes the existing heights of the surrounding
development, as currently constructed. As discussed on the last paragraph of page 5.2-35 of
the Draft EIR, project implementation would alter the visual character of the site and its
surroundings, as the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex would be replaced with the
proposed hotel and associated parkways/landscaping. Surrounding land uses provide a mix
of uses consistent with retail/restaurant and hotel uses focused toward a more visitor-
oriented character. The proposed project, with the proposed setbacks to Newport
Boulevard and 32nd Street, is considered compatible in massing and scale to the surrounding
uses. Further, the increase of building heights (up to 58.5 feet) would not result in a
substantial change in the character of the area, as surrounding buildings (particularly to the
north and east of the project site) include structures that can range from 12 to 110 feet. The
proposed building heights for portions of the structure located along Newport Boulevard
and 32"d street (up to 30 feet in height) would be similar to height as the surrounding
buildings to the west and south (generally ranging in height from 11 to 35 feet). Thus, with
implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure AES-2 (which would ensure
compliance with the Design Guidelines), implementation of the proposed project would result
in less than significant impacts pertaining to a degradation of character/quality at the project
site and surrounding area.
13-14 Refer to Response 13-7.
13-15 Refer to Response 13-6.
13-16 Refer to Response 13-6. As discussed in Section 5.5, Trq,#ic/Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the
project's traffic-related impacts were compared to the existing "on-the-ground" conditions,
and not a"Plan-to-Plan" analysis.
13-17 Refer to Response 13-16. Traffic associated with the existing on-site Fire Station No. 2 are
included in the existing traffic counts conducted as part of the Draft FIR. The analysis
assumes that this use would remain on-site during operations of the proposed project, as
discussed in Section 5.5, Tragic/Circulation, of the Draft FIR.
Letter 13 Response to Comments 17 July 2014
Correspondence
Item No. 2a Item No. 2.Oa
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
June 29, 2014
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO MEMBERS OF THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL; THE CITY MANAGER; THE CITY ATTORNEY,
AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING:
Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 2014—rescheduled twice,now August 11, 2014
City Council Meeting of August 19, 2014---now date uncertain, target second week
September, 2014
To: City of Newport Beach
Attention: Leilani Brown, City Clerk
Subject:General Plan Amendment and Zoning Revision to City Parcel Located at 3300
Newport Blvd (former site of the City Hall to be reused as a boutique Hotel), 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 to the public for prior review. We are concerned that the
Proposed Zoning Revision is inconsistent with prior public process concerning the reuse
of the subject parcel, the will of the People,and the policy position asserted by the City
Council of Newport Beach.
The Proposed Zoning Revision, from Public Facilities to Hotel use, was initiated 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
Correspondence
Item No. 2.Oa
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
June 29, 2014
Page two
People and ultimately approved by the City Council.
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(Nov. 2012). 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-H5)" 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."
Correspondence
Item No. 2.Oa
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
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 assembly uses is in
DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE with respect to this property.
The 20-month delay resulting from the City's departure from the direction stated to the
public is causing ongoing economic detriment and significant social cost toboth the City
and 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 93/99 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
Correspondence
Item No. 2.Oa
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
that the City will solicit another qualified Hotel team, and the People will back
another Boutique Hotel development consortium. The Hotel project, which is both
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 ---prior 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?
6. Where is the Operating Partner ,Loews/Destination Hotels & Resorts? Is the
Developer and/or the City working out of the public eye to do a "Bait and
Switch"? If there are issues with Loews/Destination, the Operator vetted and
endorsed by the public, the public needs to be informed of, and have the
opportunity to vet alternative .This is the most important member of the Team to
assure a successful rollout and ongoing operation.
The strategy described in the June 5th staff report and reflected in the draft EIR is ill-
founded and seems calculated to put at risk 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 the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting,so that the
City's clarification and position may be considered by the People of Newport Beach in
advance of the upcoming public hearings and approval process.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and prompt response.
Respectfully submitted,
Correspondence
Item No. 2.Oa
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
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 as the reuse of the former City Hall site.
Item No . 2b
To: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC RECORD
Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED
Correspondence
Item No. 2.Ob
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
From: Linda Klein [mai1to:lk1ein14@me.coml
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE HOTEL EIR
Leilani,
I am requesting that these public comments:
be placed in the public record
distributed to all Planning Commission members
distributed to all City Council members prior to the August I Ith meeting.
Respectfully,
Linda Klein
Resident Lido Island
Member Lido Island Community Assn
The City's delays of the hotel project for 20 months is costing our City MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS in unrealized revenue and leaving our Peninsula/Lido neighborhood
severely blighted.
Newport Beach residents have overwhelmingly chosen the boutique hotel. We know that a boutique
hotel is the crucial destination anchor for the Village and Peninsula to be successfully revitalized.
The city is trying to slam through amendments to the general plan and zoning that continue to include
residential WHY? This is not the will of the people. The people have overwhelmingly spoken for the boutique
hotel. The City Council ratified this decision before November 2012.
The hotel project draft EIR continues to reference both hotel and 93 to 99 residential units. It must
reference only the hotel.The EIR cannot go in two different directions at the same time.
The City claims that this 20 plus month delay is due to the Coastal Commission and other factors
beyond its control. The City hasn't even gone to the Coastal Commission yet! This is ludicrous. A competently
prepared EIR and presentation is what is needed here. The Coastal Commission will prefer the hotel to a large
dense traffic burdened residential complex.
i
Newport Beach stakeholders DEMAND that the City Council and staff—the entire team—be engaged
and onboard. Clean up the required land use amendments and the EIR, and move forward expeditiously NOW!
THE BOUTIQUE HOTEL IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE FOR
OUR ELECTED CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF TO BLOCK THE PROGRESS OF THIS URGENTLY
NEEDED REVITALIZATION IN OUR UNIQUE GEOGRAPHICALLY GIFTED BEACH AND BAY
AREA.
z
Correspondence
Item No . 2c
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall
Complex Amendments
August 11 , 2014, Planning Commission a �'ommenis
Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by:
Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 2. LIDO HOUSE HOTEL (PA2013-217)
I would like to offer two general comments, and then specific comments on the staff report.
General Comment 1: Inappropriate Land Use Designation
In public comment on non-agenda items at the City Council's July 22, 2014, meeting, Ms. Denys
Oberman asked why a residential component continues to be included in the proposed land use
designation when the Council has committed to building a hotel on the site.
According to the draft minutes (Volume 62 - Page 4): "In response to Council Member Petros'
question, City Attorney Harp confirmed that nothing, other than a boutique hotel, will be
developed on that site."
In the interest of clear planning, and in view of the City's stated plans, as well as the ease with
which the City Council can change land use designations (particularly for its own properties) it
would seem to me the simplest and most"logical" modification to the General Plan (and Coastal
Land Use Plan)would be to place the hotel portion of the property in the CV category ("Visitor
Serving Commercial," with a stated development limit) while the Fire Station portion should be
placed, separately, in the PF category ("Public Facilities," with its own stated development limit).
Although I do not personally favor a hotel as the highest and best use of the City's land, the
Planning Division's proposal to include a residential option which the City has no interest in
pursuing, as well as an unlimited public facilities feature, would seem to invite complications
with the California Coastal Commission (which is historically disinclined to encourage new
residential development in the Coastal Zone).
These features of the proposed General Plan Amendment also raise serious questions about
consistency and compatibility with the City Charter's Greenlight requirements (Section 423).
The Greenlight issues are two-fold:
1. The proposed General Plan amendment has swept up all the area's residential
allocation possible without a public vote onto this one site. The idea may be that the City
Council would later transfer that allocation back to locations in statistical area B5 where
it might actually be used, however the 93 dwelling units "approved" in the proposed
amendment seem to have been approved only in the absence of a hotel. So as long as
a hotel exists on this site, these residential units will be in a kind of Section 423 limbo,
and how they would be counted in Section 423 analyses for future General Plan
amendments in area B5 is unclear. In enacting Greenlight, the voters expected definite
amendments with clearly approved development limits. The proposed MU-LV land use
category is incompatible with that.
August 11, 2014, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
2. 1 am unaware of any exception in Charter Section 423 for public facilities, and indeed the
City Council's own Policy A-18 for implementing it includes a trip generation rate based
on square footage that must be considered for public facilities in general, as well as for a
number of specific public facility uses. At least in my view, the provision for unlimited
public facilities in the General Plan land use amendment—whether separately or in
addition to the other uses — requires voter approval.
Finally, as best I can tell the environmental evaluation of the residential option is relegated to six
perfunctory pages (7-22 through 7-27) in the EIR, while the impacts of unlimited public facilities
development does not seem to be considered at all. Heightening that concern, the table on
page 68 of the present staff report cites potentially significant impacts of the residential ("mixed
use") alternative for which no mitigation measures appear to be offered. That would not, to me,
seem an adequate environmental impact analysis to justify including either the residential or
unlimited public facilities options as approved land uses in the General Plan or Zoning Code.
With regard to my similar previous comments on the environmental issues, I find the City's
responses to them on pages 2-21 and 2-22 of the Final EIR to be non-answers tied to a specific
anticipated use rather than to the range of possibilities allowed by the proposed (and since
modified) General Plan amendment. In particular, they say development of the site is limited by
physical constraints, but make no effort to estimate the maximum quantity of public facilities
uses that could be constructed (with or without the other uses), or what their impact would be.
General Comment 2: Inconsistency with Shoreline Height Limitation
Ordinance
The staff report justifies the requested major exception to the City's 35 foot shoreline height
limitation policy by noting an absence, in its opinion, of significant impacts to public views from
General Plan designated public view points and a consistency with other structures in the area.
I believe this completely misstates the purpose of the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance,
which is not so much about views as about massing and density. The citizens who petitioned
the Council to enact that ordinance, which the City has now pledged to honor in its certified
Coastal Land Use Plan, did not want Newport Beach to become a Miami Beach or Atlantic City
with its harbor and beaches ringed with high-rise structures. I believe the buildings being cited
for consistency/compatibility with the present project are precisely those the citizens viewed with
alarm and wanted no more of. Using the buildings that awakened the need for a shoreline
height limitation to now justify penetrating the agreed to 35-foot height limit is deeply ironic.
Specific Comments
Changes to the staff report passages shown in italics are suggested in strikeeait underline format.
1. Handwritten page 21: 1 find Fact 5 (that no one else was interested in using the City's
surplus property) interesting. One wonders how much effort was made to find an interested
party. I would have hoped the City itself would have given more consideration to using it as
park/open space.
August 11, 2014, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
2. Page 22, Finding 4.2: "The proposed will hotel will serve visitors and residents and
increase access opportunities in the Coastal Zone." It might be noted that the findings extol
the purported benefits of the hotel and offer no specific reason(s)for including the residential
or public facilities options.
3. Page 24, Fact B-4: "Lastly, the building elevations inOudes include a lighthouse
architectural feature, simple gable roofs, tight overhangs, simple block massing, and wood
siding all with a clear coastal theme consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines."
4. Page 25, first paragraph: "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." See General Comment 2 under Shoreline Height Limitation
Ordinance, above.
5. Page 26, Fact C-5: "Closing the site to unrestricted vehicular access by the public through
the site to 32nd Street would discontinue direct vehisie vehicular access to Via Lido Plaza
through an existing access gate located near Fire Station No. 2."
6. Page 31: "5. Site Development Review No. SD2014-001, Conditional Use Permit No.
UP2014- 004, 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." [insert comma after"SD2014-001"]
7. Page 37, last sentence under B. Project Description: "Subsequent permit permits include
a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission."
8. Page 38, Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations), under "Development Limit (so": the format of the
entry does not make clear how the conjunctions "and' and "or" are intended to be read. If
the Council wants this dual designation, I would suggest: "(93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf
commercial) OR (98,725 sf hotel)".
9. Page 39, proposed CLUP Policy 4.4.2-1: on page 78 there is an additional Item B and the
inserted text is Item C.
10. Page 40: the setback limits, particularly for "Subterranean," differ from those later exhibited
on page 86
11. Page 73, under Finding: The first sentence appears to be contradicted by the second. I
suspect the first sentence is erroneous and should be deleted.
12. Page 74, amended Table LU2: the use of"and' and "or" is clearer, here, but different from
how the same table was presented on page 38.
13. Page 75: is the map being amended current? Weren't the land use designations in the
"triangle" to the east of the subject site recently changed?
14. Page 76:
a. The final "or" under"Density/Intensity' seems unintended. It does not appear in the
table as previously reproduced on page 38.
August 11, 2014, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
b. Unlike the other CLUP Land Use Plan Categories, the proposed MU "category" is so
specific it seems applicable only to this single site. It is also a particularly awkward
choice since the CLUP already has MU-H, MU-V and MU-W categories, which
logically would seem to be sub-categories of"MU," but apparently now are not.
Moreover, the EIR refers to the residential/commercial option, by itself, as the "mixed
use" option, and the hotel option as something different from mixed use.
15. Page 77: see comment on page 75, above: is the map being amended the current one?
16. Page 78: see comment on page 39, above.
17. Page 79, Section 2:
a. "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#85 as depicted in Section `B"below."
b. The third sentence is very awkwardly phrased, as if whole maps and tables are to be
"removed"from the Zoning Code, rather than simply removing the "City Hall" label.
18. Page 81: Again, is the map being amended the current one?
19. Page 86, under MU-LV:
a. "Mixed-use development" standard: "96 93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf commerciar
b. "Front" and "Side" setbacks differ from those listed on page 40.
20. Page 87: Footnote "(6)" is no longer compatible with the proposed General Plan category.
21. Page 91: Should Condition 32 (the indemnification clause) be limited to "the applicant' (R.D.
Olson Development per page 19), or should it include future assignees of the right to own or
operate the facility?
22. Page 94: "59. Fire places and fire pit clearances shall be provided as per
manufacturer's recommendations and/or California Mechanical Code requirements."
23. Page 97: "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 a
nightclub as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless the Planning
Commission first approves such permit."
Correspondence
Item No. 2d
Lido House Hotel and
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS Former City Hall Complex
Amendments
PA2013-217 and
PA2012-031
August 11, 2014
Via Facsimile and email (JCampbellknewportbeachca. og_v)
Larry Tucker, 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. As noted in
our earlier comment letter on the captioned Project, 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.
Please note that Attachment 5-C erroneously identifies the comments as those of our offices.
As required by law,we clearly identified our clients in this matter. Yet the Response document states:
"13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C.
HAWKINS, DATED JULY 17, 2014."
This is incorrect. The Responders' statement is inaccurate and unprofessional. We experienced
similar errors in our comments on the Back Bay Landing FEIR. This unprofessional conduct must
stop.
In addition, please note that, although we submitted the comments timely, City staff failed
to provide us with the Responses which were buried in the 200 page staff report. This does not
comply with the requirements of CEQA or other legal requirements including the due process
clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.
We continue to 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 improving the
City's environmental review process.
14 Corporate Plaza,Suite 120
Newport Beach,California 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1151
Larry Tucker,Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
James E,Campbell,Senior Planner -2, August 11,2014
First, in Response to Comment No. 13-2, the Responders maintain that the Project
Description is the hotel project. They deny our contention that the Project Description includes two
projects:
"Contrary to what the Commenter suggests regarding two development scenarios
considered as part of the proposed project, the Draft EIR only considers one
development application for a new hotel."
FEIR,handwritten page 188 (This section of the FOR appears at the end of the 200 page Staff
Report as Attachment PC-5 and our comments numbered as "Comment No. 13." For the purposes
of these comments, we refer to this"Attachment PC-5 as part of the FEIR.)
This is too cute by tons, and flies in the face of the Project Description in the DEIR and
spelled out in the proposed Table LU-2:
"Development Development Limit (other) Additional Information
Limit (sf)
Any combination of Accessory commercial
99 dwelling dwelling units and floor area is allowed in
units and hotel rooms provided conjunction with a hotel
15,000 sf it does not exceed 99 and it is included within
commercial dwelling units or the hotel floor area limit.
or 99,625 sf 99,625 sf of hotel use. Municipal facilities are
hotel not restricted or included
in any development limit."
DEIR,page 3-15. Despite the City receiving only one development application, two different
Projects are considered under the Project Description: the Hotel Project and the Generic Project.
The City has a duty to be truthful in its Responses to Comments: it breached that duty here. The
DEIR identifies this Project as a series of legislative approvals one of which is the General Plan
Amendment for the City Hall site. Table LU-2 sets forth this amendment. The Project is really two
projects or a myriad of project with"Any combination of dwelling units and
hotel rooms provided it does not exceed 99 dwelling units or 99,625 sf of hotel use."
Although staff has seeks to amend the proposed Table LU-2 to delete the provisions under
Development Limit(other), it retains the alternative Generic Project with dwelling units and
commercial space under the "Development Limit (sf)"in its proposed amendment of Table LU-2.
The Project is more than an hotel project. The Responders cannot ignore this; they seek to mislead
the decisionmakers and the public by their attempts to focus on an application and not on the
Project Description itself.
Worse yet, the Responders continue this ruse by attempting to confuse the decisionmakers
and the public by stating that the Generic Project is really one of the required Alternatives analyzed
in the EIR. It is part of the Project.
14 Corporate Plaza,Suite 120
Newport Beach,California 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1151
Larry Tucker,Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
James E,Campbell,Senior Planner -3, August 11,2014
"It should be noted that, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project, a mixed use
development scenario was considered as part of Section 7.0, Alternatives to the
Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an
EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives.Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the
Draft EIR included an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives,including
reduced density,mixed-use, and two no build alternatives."
FEIR,handwritten page 188. Again,the Generic Project is NOT one of the Alternatives which is
analyzed in the Alternatives section of the DEIR: as described in Table L U-2, it is part of the
Project Description as described in Section 3 of the DEIR, not one of the alternatives analyzed in
Section 7 of the DEIR! The Responders seek to mislead the decisionmakers and the public
regarding the Project Description. If the Project Description is not clear and concise as it is not
clear here, it undercuts the entire EIR and renders the environmental analysis meaningless: the EIR
fails to analyze the correct Project.
Response to Comment No.13-3 continues the illusions of Response to Comment No.13-2:
there are not two Projects; the EIR only analyzes the hotel project. See Table LU-2 which describes
the Generic Project. In addition, Response to Comment No. 13-3 ignores the full thrust of
Comment No. 13-3: the Project includes only legislative actions. As the DEIR discusses,the
Project is only for legislative approvals: Site Development Review or Planned Development Permit
still would need to be conducted. This is what is missing from the Project Description. It is
missing because the Responders still want to harbor hope for the Generic Project. As we noted in
our July 17, 2014 Comments and as Mr. Tucker said long ago, let's analyze the Project when we
have a developer. The City has a developer; the Project Description must include the full Project:
the legislative approvals as well as the site approvals.
Response to Comment No. 13-4 admits that the Project Description is incomplete. In order
to recommend that the EIR be certified by the City Council,the Planning Commission must
understand the full Project which includes the land lease for the Project. The Responders say:
. . a Lease was considered in the Draft EIR as part of the proposed project. Lease
negotiations are ongoing and have not been completed. Refer to Response 9-2 (sic).
FEIR,handwritten page 189. Comment No. 9-2 asks about the current zoning for the Project site
which the commentor believed had been changed for the Project. The Response to Comment No. 9-
2 simply repeats the history of the Project without any discussion of the lease. Hence, since the
Lease Negotiations have not been completed and the Lease is part of the Project Description, the
Planning Commission cannot make any recommendations regarding the EIR until the Project
Description is complete and the Lease is finalized. In order to make any recommendations to the
City Council, the Planning Commission must review and make recommendations on the Lease
which is part of the Project.
Regarding light and glare impacts, Response to Comment No. 13-5 simply repeats the
analysis found in the DEIR and ignores the trust of Comment No. 13-5. First, as to shade impacts,
14 Corporate Plaza,Suite 120
Newport Beach,California 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1151
Larry Tucker,Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
James E,Campbell,Senior Planner -4, August 11,2014
Response to Comment No. 13-5 blithely states that the areas which would be shaded as a result of
the Project are not shade sensitive because these areas are a parking area and commercial retail uses.
Unfortunately, this ignores the restaurant uses that would be affected with outdoor diners. Because
of such uses and persons,the DEIR and Response to Comment No. 13-5 is incorrect.
As for the shade impacts to the Project, Response to Comment No. 13-5 admits that the
Project site will suffer morning shade impacts. But this analysis is only for the Hotel Project. With
respect to the Generic Project, no site plan or any orientations for this generic project. So, the DEIR
must consider the worst case scenario: that the height of the generic project structure will create
substantial and adverse shade impacts. The DEIR must be revised to address this issue.
Comment No. 13-5 also raised the lighting impacts to sensitive receptors at the Project site:
the Hotel Project will brings visitors and guests to a busy street. Lights from the cars will impact
those visitors and guests adversely. Response to Comment No. 13-5 ignores that the Project will
bring sensitive receptors to the Project site who will be affected by auto lights. Instead, Response to
Comment No. 13-5 states:
"Increased vehicle headlights along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street would
appear similar to the existing lighting conditions currently experienced."
FEIR,handwritten page 189. This Responses ignores two problems: First,it assumes that the
Project will not bring more nighttime traffic to the Project site even though the current use is largeer
dark at night while the Hotel Project if successful will bring more traffic and the Generic Project
must be assumed to bring traffic under the worst case scenario.
Second, and probably more importantly, it ignores that the Hotel Project will bring guests
and visitors to the Project site at night whereas under the current civic use, the Project site is largely
dark at night and has no visitors. Hence, the Project will create significant lighting impacts by
bringing sensitive receptors, i.e. guests and visitors, to the Project site at night. The DEIR must be
revised to address and mitigate this significant impact.
Comment No. 13-6 addresses the DEIR use of an inappropriate baseline for analysis: the
2006 General Plan, The Response to Comment No. 13-6 states that the DEIR does not use this
baseline and
"As discussed in Section 3.1.2, Project Setting (Existing Conditions), 60,600 square
feet of administration/office floor area(previously used to support the former City of
Newport Beach City Hall), and the existing Fire Station No. 2 that is approximately
7,100 square feet,were considered in the Draft EIR."
FEIR,handwritten page 190. This is beside the point and fails to address the issues raised in
Comment No. 13-6. The fact that the DEIR includes the required discussion of the existing
conditions does not mean that it uses those conditions as the baseline to analyze the Project's
impacts. This baseline is required by CEQA.
As Comment No. 13-6 noted, both the Staff Report and the DEIR use the 2006 General Plan
for the environmental baseline: CEQA requires more. It requires the comparison to existing
14 Corporate Plaza,Suite 120
Newport Beach,California 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1151
Larry Tucker,Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
James E,Campbell,Senior Planner -5- August 11,2014
conditions. This means that the DEIR cannot use the additional 75,000 square feet which the 2006
General Plan added to the Project site but was never built. The DEIR must be revised to use the
appropriate environmental baseline. Also, the DEIR's land use, traffic and Section 423 discussion
must be revised to use the conditions on the ground rather than the 2006 General Plan to analyze the
Project's impacts.
Response to Comment No. 13-7 continues to fumble with the "City's Design Guidelines."
When has the City adopted "Design Guidelines?" This appears to be some sort of City-wide
guidelines for design.
No. Response to Comment No. 13-7 again wrestles with the Lido Village Design
Guidelines. Response to Comment No. 13-7 again admits that the Guidelines are not regulatory.
The reason for this is that the City has not complied with CEQA in the adoption of the Lido Village
Design Guidelines. Indeed, at the hearings on the Lido Village Design Guidelines, former Mayor
Henn who was the guiding force for the Lido Village Design Guidelines, repeatedly stated that
these are only guidelines and that they do force developers to do anything. Response to Comment
No. 13-7 admits this.
Yet, on the other hand, Response to Comment No. 13-7 states:
"Further, it should be noted that page 5-1 of the Design Guidelines states that within
the City of Newport Beach's Zoning Code, there are requirements for development
and new land uses to adhere to Design Guidelines. Section 20.16.020,paragraphs C
through E, require land owners to follow Design Guidelines or criteria as a condition
of approval."
FOR,handwritten page 190. The referenced sections of the Zoning Code do not specifically
reference the Lido Village Design Guidelines but refer to general ". . . criteria, guidelines, and
policies separate from this Zoning Code that may affect the use and development of land." Newport
Beach Municipal Code section 20.16.020(E). If the City had adopted the Lido Village Design
Guidelines with the appropriate procedures including CEQA compliance, they may indeed have
been regulatory. However, because the legislative history of the Lido Village Design Guidelines
makes clear, these are not regulatory: no amount of Staff s attempt to revise this history can change
it. Hence, the DEIR must be revised to explain carefully and correctly the impact of the Lido
Village Design Guidelines to the Project and that compliance to such Guidelines provides no
environmental analysis or review.
Comment No. 13-8 addresses our earlier comments to the City Council when the Council
determined that it would not move forward with the Generic Project alone. Response to Comment
No. 13-8 states that"The City of Newport Beach has previously reviewed and responded to these
comments." We never received such responses and none were ever made available during the
Council review period,because the Council determined that it would continue the matter. If such
Responses existed,why wouldn't the Staff simply provide us with those responses.
More importantly, those earlier comments apply to the Project because the Generic Project
which is part of this Project was the very same project.
14 Corporate Plaza,Suite 120
Newport Beach,California 92660
(949)650.5550
Fax:(949)650-1151
Larry Tucker,Chair
Members of the Planning Coin mission
lames F.Campbell,Senior Planner -V August 11,2014
The only substantive response to those earlier comments is Response to Comment No. 13-
13 which addresses height. This Response simply ignores facts and argues that the surrounding
neighborhood is of similar heights to the Project. The surrounding neighborhood complies with the
35 foot height limit established long ago. The Project does not.
And then Response to Comment No. 13-13 runs smack into the Lido Village Design
Guidelines which it admits are not regulatory and have not been shown to comply with CEQA.
"Thus, with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure AES-2 (which
would ensure compliance with the Design Guidelines), implementation of the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to a
degradation of character/quality at the project site and surrounding area."
FEIR, handwritten page 191. Who wrote this stuff`? How can compliance with Guidelines which
have never been shown to advance environmental protections be the measure of environmental
compliance for the Project? Come on! It cannot. If it weren't so important and so wrong, this
Response to Comment No. 13-13 would be laughable.
Compliance with these Guidelines does not ensure anything so the Project which will have a
significant impact without mitigation has no mitigation. The height of the Project remains a
significant and unmitigated Project impact.
As we said before, 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 FEI R 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,
14&A:
. HAWKINS
By: Robert C. Hawkins
RCH/kw
cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile and emailLBrown(rtinewportbeachea.goy)
14 Corpoiare Plaza,Suite 120
Newport Beach,California 92660
(949)650-5550
Fax:(949)650-1181
Correspondence
Item No . 2e
BURNS,MARLEIJE Lido House Hotel and Former
City Hall Complex Amendments
From: Campbell,James
Sent. Monday,August 11,20142:16 PM PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
To: Burns,Marlene
Cc: Wisneski,Brenda;Brandt,Kim;Mulvihill,Leonie;Brine,Tony
Subject. FW:Comments on Lido House Hotel Draft EIR- SCH 2013111022
Attachments: Johansen_responseLLH_finalEIRpdf;TRUCK TURN STUDY LIDO HOUSE HOTEL INGRESS EXHIBIT 2B -
8-11-14.pdf
For tonight.
From: Paul and Katey Johansen [mailto:pkiohansen@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:05 PM
To: Campbell, James
Cc: Paul Johansen
Subject: Re: Comments on Lido House Hotel Draft EIR- SCH 2013111022
Dear Mr.Campbell:
Attached please find a copy of comments I will present tonight at the Planning Commission Meeting.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Katherine Johansen
On Jun 13,2014,at 8:17 AM,Campbell,James<JCampbell(i newportbeachca. og_v>wrote:
>Thank you for your comments. Staff will prepare written responses to your comments and both the comments and responses will be
part of the public record and considered by both the Planning Commission and City Council before acting on the project. I will send
you the responses when completed. Let me know if you have any questions.
>Jim Campbell
>>On Jun 12,2014,at 9:07 PM,"Paul and Katey Johansen"<pkikiohansen@ca.rr.com>wrote:
>>Dear Mr. Campbell:
>>In accordance with California PRC 21165,1 am submitting comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed Lido House Hotel
project.
>>Please contact me if you wish to discuss my comments.
>>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project.
>>Best Regards,
>>Katherine Johansen
>>601 Lido Park Dr.,#3B
>>Newport Beach,CA 92663
>>TEL: 714-875-8245
1
>><comments on lido house hotel EIR.docx>
2
Katherine and Paul Johansen
601 Lido Park Drive, #313
Newport Beach, CA 92663
TEL: 714-875-8245
Email: pkjohansen@ca.rr.com
August 11, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: EIR for Lido House Hotel: Public Comments
SCH No. 2013111022
Statements made in Response to Comments 8-2 conflicts with statements made in
Response to Comments 6-1.
In my comments on the Draft EIR, I expressed concern over the potential for traffic
impacts from the project on the residential streets surrounding the project,
particularly along Via Lido southwest of Via Oporto, and Lafayette near the 32nd St
intersection. See my comment 6-1 in the Final EIR.
In the Final EIR, Staff responded in 6-1 with a general statement that"project-
related trips entering the Lafayette/32nd Street intersection is anticipated to be
negligible, and therefore the intersection was not identified for analysis".
However,in response 8-2 to the letter from Lido Partners, Staff acknowledged that
the closure of the 32nd Street Alley, currently serving as delivery access for Via Lido
Plaza,would require delivery trucks to reroute through this area to access Via Lido
Plaza -- expressly using 32nd St, Lafayette and Via Lido, making two noisy
stops/starts while passing upwards of 75 residences (including 16 new units at the
Lido Villas project). This rerouting of trucks serving an adjacent parcel IS a direct
effect of the proposed project and should have been analyzed in the EIR.
Further, Staff copped out in response 6-2, stating"[e]ven if the Lafayette/32nd
Street intersection were to be analyzed,there are no City established thresholds of
significance for stop-controlled intersections by which to evaluate the significance
of the project impact". So, no matter how much traffic changes result from a project,
as long as there are no signalized intersections you don't really care! Even if there
aren't significance criteria for stop-controlled intersections,there needs to be
quantification of the changes. Additionally, maybe the city should develop
standards for stop-controlled intersections. Diversion of commercial traffic into
residential areas might be a significant impact.
In response to my concern that added traffic in the area of Via Lido/Lafayette/32nd
St.would cause added noise (but it couldn't be quantified since there was no
Katherine and Paul Johansen
601 Lido Park Drive, #3B
Newport Beach, CA 92663
TEL: 714-875-8245
Email: pkjohansen@ca.rr.com
adequate traffic analysis), the city stated in response 6.3 that"[a]s noted above, the
number of project-related vehicles that might access the site from 32nd Street from
Vial [sic] Lido/Lafayette would be negligible, and would be far less than the number
of vehicles associated with the 0.3 dBA increase. Further,traffic volumes would
generally have to double to produce a noticeable increase in noise (3.0 dBA or
above).As such impacts in this regard would be less than significant". City also
stated that"...that noise produced on site (i.e., parking lots, rooftop bar, etc.) would
be masked by traffic noise emanating along Newport Boulevard, and would not
affect the residences along Via Lido." Staff made no mention of the noise from
diverted commercial traffic on the noise in this area.
The route for trucks accessing the Via Lido Plaza with the closure of the 32nd St
Alley, documented by the City's own contractor (FUSCOE Exhibit 2B), would require
trucks access Via Lido Plaza byway of 32nd Street (E/B) to Lafayette (N/B) to Via
Lido (W/B) making two stops in a short span immediately adjacent to a church and
a 10 story, 54 unit condominium complex with single pane windows and no air
conditioning (601 Lido Park Drive). Truck starts and stops are very noisy. There
was no analysis of this or any calculations provided to suggest whether there would
or wouldn't be a noticeable impact on residents at Lido Park Drive or along Via Lido.
Elsewhere it was stated that deliveries are done in off-peak hours. Generally off-
peak hours are when noise impacts are most noticeable to sensitive receptors. Also,
given the start/stop nature of the recommended path for large trucks by the City's
own contractor,the project would introduce new more variable or intermittent
noise to the residential environment. Generally, a noise which is more variable or
intermittent is regarded as more annoying or disturbing than a noise which is
continuous over the same time period despite equivalent noise exposure levels.
This SHOULD HAVE BEEN analyzed.
Common outdoor noise levels assume a diesel truck at 50 feet to be 90db in
operating mode. Braking noise approaching each stop, and noise from moving
through the gears after a stop may be higher, or at least more intrusive. I believe this
impact on the residences along the route will be significant unless mitigated.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Lido House
Hotel.
Katherine Johansen
601 Lido Park Drive, #3B
Newport Beach, CA 92663
N
A
b� C
N
d
CD C
� S
n
m f
N y
Z � -
CD Z
J
° ! — Cf)
� c
-------------
FO
- -----mID
\ r
zo
Cf)
N � N
90
La
N O
o N
J�� n
Correspondence
PFItem NO . 2f 14725 Alton Parkway
Lido House Hotel and Former City Hall mr�92618-2027
Amendments 949.472.3505
CONSULTING PA2013-217 and PA2012-031 www.rbf.com Fax
www.rbf.com
A�Company www.mbakercorp.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Eddie Torres - RBF Consulting
From: Giancarlo Ganddini, T.E. - RBF Consulting
Date: August 8, 2014
Subject: Lido House Hotel - Delivery Vehicle Ingress/Egress at Via Lido
As requested, this memorandum has been prepared to discuss the effects of delivery vehicle
ingress/egress for the Via Lido Plaza at Via Lido in relation to the Lido House Hotel project. As
currently planned, access to Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street would be closed as a result of the
proposed Lido House Hotel project. The effects of Via Lido Plaza delivery vehicles being re-
routed from 32nd Street to Via Lido are considered insignificant for the reasons discussed below.
Via Lido is expected to have more than sufficient capacity for any potentially re-routed delivery
vehicles to the Via Lido Plaza. Based on information provided by City of Newport Beach staff,
the Via Lido Plaza anchor tenant manager reports receiving two 40-foot tractor-trailer deliveries
per week in the early morning (before peak traffic hours) and approximately five deliveries per
week from "support vans." All deliveries for the anchor tenant currently ingress/egress at Via
Lido since it is the shortest, most convenient way to access their loading area. Therefore,
closing the Via Lido Plaza access via 32nd Street will have no effect on the anchor tenant
delivery operations, which likely receives the largest deliveries. Assuming other tenants have
similar delivery operations, it is likely that most delivery vehicles already ingress/egress at Via
Lido as well.
Based on the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis (RBF Consulting, April 15, 2014), the
intersection of Newport Boulevard at Via Lido is forecast to operate at Level of Service A for all
conditions analyzed, indicating there is more than sufficient capacity even during peak traffic
hours. For further consideration, a four lane roadway such as Via Lido conservatively provides
an approximate capacity of 24,000 vehicles per day. Based on an estimate of 8,100 vehicles per
day for General Plan buildout with project conditions, Via Lido is forecast to only utilize about
one third of its capacity. Therefore, the relatively few deliveries per day that may potentially be
re-routed from 32"d Street to Via Lido, if any, is nominal and insignificant in comparison to the
projected traffic volumes and available capacity on Via Lido.
Correspondence
Item No . 2g
From: Patricia Lamb [patlamb47@yahoo.com] Lido House Hotel and Former City
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:26 PM Hall Complex Amendments
To: Campbell, James; Dept - City Council; Kiff, Dave PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
Subject: Planning Commission Hearing August 11, 2014
Dear city officials:
We are Lido Isle residents unable to attend tonight's public hearing, but we wish to state our strong support for expediting the
construction of Lido House Hotel on the former City Hall site. We also object to the inclusion of an alternative plan to possibly build
apartment units there, specifically"4) Mixed Use project composed of 99 residential units and 15,000 square feet of commercial."
Additional high density housing would detract from the quality of life in this part of the city. Residents of West Newport have
expressed this viewpoint consistently to our city representatives. If for any reason the Lido House Hotel cannot be built, surely
another hotel operator can be found to develop the site as a boutique hotel.
In addition, we have concerns about the city's granting additional liquor licenses to more businesses in the Lido/Peninsula area.
The Lido House Hotel and future new restaurants to be leased in Lido Marina Village will presumably offer entertainment and also
serve alcohol. The party boats that are still under lease in Lido Marina Village provide music and alcohol. We believe those are
enough businesses providing entertainment and alcoholic beverages for this neighborhood.
We are also interested in the status of the proposed West Newport Community Center.
Thank you,
David and Patricia Lamb
801 Via Lido Soud
949 675 4406
file:///Fl/...2008-11-2014/Letters%20after%20the°/a20stafN/o20reporUPlanning%20Commission%20Hearing%20August%2011%202014.htm[08/11/2014 2:27:30 PM]
NjWr ,2j NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
"EACq
P.O. Box 1768, 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
PHONE: (949) 644-3104 FAX: (949) 644-3120 WEB: WWW.NBFD.NET
FIRE
SCOTT L. POSTER Correspondence
FIRE CHIEF Item No . 2g
Lido House Hotel and Former City
July 30, 2014 Hall Complex Amendments
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031
Jim Campbell, Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DEIR
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Firesafe Planning Solutions (FPS) provided Mr. Paul Hastings comments for the Lido House
Hotel Draft EIR focused on those portions of the EIR that discuss fire department
operations, impacts and access. These comments have been memorized as Appendix "C"
in a letter sent to you and received by the CDD this June 13th.
This letter will provide additional information and detail from the City of Newport Beach's
Fire Code Official regarding FPS' conclusion that the proposed project changes will
increase response times to emergencies in the Lido Plaza area.
1. FPS Via Oporto does not meet the city standards for a fire apparatus access
roadway.
Via Oporto was designed and constructed before Newport Beach Fire Department
Guideline C.01 was established. As such, the access roadway is considered
preexisting and non-conforming to today's standards. In the City of Newport Beach,
many such roads exist; this is common through the state of California. City staff has
been in active discussion with the Fire Department on this specific issue. Increasing
the width of the travel lane for that portion of Via Oporto adjacent to Fire station 2 is
being considered. The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of the
North Bay to reach 32nd street will be unchanged with the proposed modifications.
Given no change in distance, we have no reasonable or measurable way to state
that response times would change.
2. With limited access to Fire Station #2, there will be a need for fire apparatus to back
into the fire station from 32nd Street rather than pull straight through.
Fire Apparatus do not currently pull through the station; all apparatus back in. While
apparatus door failure is always a possibility, the designs of such systems provide
alternate methods to open and close apparatus doors in the event of a power outage
Jim Campbell
July 30, 2014
Page 2
of mechanical failure. This is true of every apparatus door located in any of the City's
eight fire stations.
3. Access to the commercial area off of Via Lido and bordering the hotel property to the
north is a concern with the project as configured.
The need for the alley access between Finley Avenue and 32nd Street to directly
access the commercial site was carefully evaluated. Access is a critical concern to
the fire department and the ability to access improved property in a manner that
meets the minimum requirements of the California Fire Code is essential.
In this case, it should be noted that the alley access was not a condition of approval
during the entitlement process for Via Lido Plaza. Adequate and code compliant
access is currently available, and has been repeatedly provided over the years,
through the parking areas accessed off of Finely Avenue and Via Lido or directly
from these two streets as well as Newport Boulevard. As a practical point the alley
access would likely never be used by fire station 2 personnel to access the
commercial center. To do so would be to introduce unneeded and unnecessary
response delays based upon the configuration of the respective sites. There will be
no degradation in response time to the commercial center with this project's
proposed changes.
4. The improvements on 32nd Street will include street trees which will reduce the 'line
of sight"view of the fire station for those traveling on 32nd Street and the view of
traffic when entering or exiting the fire stations.
The proposed changes to the front of Fire Station 2 on 32nd street are a welcomed
improvement. By realigning 32nd street and extending the apron area in front of the
station outward from the station towards 32nd street, line of sight of oncoming traffic
in both directions will be improved. This will result in increasing not only the safety of
the responding crews, but also their visibility to oncoming traffic, which would in turn
decrease and not increase, as FPS states, response times out of the station. The
intersection of 32nd street and Via Oporto is uncontrolled and relies upon yielding
traffic to allow fire apparatus to merge onto 32 d street during an emergency
response and the increased visibility of provided by the project will improve safety.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kitch, Fire Marshal
Life Safety Services Division
cc: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director
Lido House Hotel &
Land tlqe Plan Amendments
33oo Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street
In
_ ,..
: ;, —�r►"'`�' ,. � .err ,_ ,"',�:
r u
) - t� -*
Planning Commission — Public Hearing •'
August 11, 2014
Project Setting
-
• — I {
!
. is ••« - . 0 `, i� •_ ,
�• V
�'� e'g � .v � ; ; .- -' � •'� � � �, \ »`�✓ rel
i d` ti ..>, _,, •t" �_- _—_. • Ate•,
Overall Site Plan 0
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 119
I' 'LOr IIE Mi.RE170ElOIr RE6OP1 _
rS� rniemU ^ LOi VE axicrRtl E®r.EODiABORIP! ' INRINNI0'I"T
st sv� > aNSM° .ea
DID, 1110111
y t�«Lmsw
-- l �INdRSIN>e
- - � �� _. II v.m�»m°IR'r' vcl�i•:unuoaruL �®
••UE".` tl
NUETrtummuAOWTIIMIOETE41
•, \\�, .NmN .m,ea
AA ° S .Rroms IH vMy tl
w«I
= 0
Q
. • .1 � � t VIP NALAG4 _ ;`
+
rl r.
_ J
w•.wi.n.. �T r - -L uOiE.
' Naa'+•� r - •. �� inB GARNIN4 H.O.
L __ OROVOED BOUNDARY
NDAHE
RY
AS S..i.EIS N0ARY
AS SHOWN(IS IISBal/
RACES]I IS 6�1
r 1111 VLIEi E
1 �I F ' -- _ _ Q �F EO E11 RPRN N460AG E5
(O` PRO VOSEO BOR OE OF
VROAAS
ENOWNWNO SITE N 61LE MAN
WATG ® Overall Site Plan I Level 1 +o.o'
Newport Beach,CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 3
i
Hotel _
Plan
Cq`d]'o RN\
i.DO HOUSE HOTEL 21
FINLEY AVE. co
MBMY RELTPoOM
WON[M•SMSTROOX
{`
r M@ n Lanv MR
AULDA
___1:1 HOPING I ..) ] mw v.e�r.0 NOE I (� Rr IVAT@Dlxlxs
iXL "f..MROPNST. I 1' BIG I.I ..SSTORAOe
p XWRMM 'Si' 1 WSINRSemMRR
INAI ,[ ^I.x1
U'"NAGI v ♦� Bb.w0 f2PD.5lL1 I .. 1A IUNRION."TRY
SIR NY
l MAIX EALLROOM
BE]w r . ..R.NNRIPN
i nIE'T uass /
�_ .o D 4 r N ¢ COVERED FUNMOR ENTRr
(A".)- v P O I e BGARPROOX
1 ` )IJi T..NYVILLA uvm
p ! �LOADIxezoxE
}
a F,f V H]X
' TMRx
O P ® F � I. SBCURRVSRBC[IVIMO
I1�F�� ® ax1L IF)NM ]�1 M.R.S STOR [AO
1 D 3 yC AVND8L8R-&NOVSLA88PIN0
/ NIB
g D O rrvi ® PpFR� m MAIN RIC)A PoON
rYv 4�'.• ,r � M1. '• ,. ♦. mYBnV IIE Nnrou)FCE I I3. NAIN N.E.r.
D DEn raxca-nP.zns
]e Y.O.N OFFICES
I /// Z r • ry E` e iyd'FE O
p9W'HD I ■ B Q m'° II 1D CI.VLATNIN
RANIRATOv
_
1. FNMTOFFICES
w1a M,0K 111 P.1 A - I I. ]e -MCI'
4 Na NV MnR�.[tS. CI Wi Wid ' ]D ..."N
MW Q W
l N4AVL 10
JP1 I r. ITF T LW WOB S}ORAO[
r (- (\` ➢ PWLIC 11lVATORe
v
- 9 6PA
1 1 D V Y ` y
I`1 WOM[X'SFOOLR@RPoON
4 -
? IxEYPFD ) ppD[ ]] M[X 6POOL R[SROOM
rx )F mx[ssRGRaO
Lxl 1 x —° ~ n crtr rARx xD)O RExAx
1) p N P T I) V R GPE/RANERV
( eR ovr000v DlxlxP RRRAce
I' d?DxR s'4i wl _ b q w ONYROI..
.T fl O rINIRIADCUReaT
C ID-'tl'� i ryLgl - iRW YAtl I.I I Ltl� w IM[RNAL COVRIYARP
Ptt NKNBS EIDE SNIIM
M INNOT BM. -O ( E[�OOINI 9R 1 I. COV[R[O ARCD[
1 12
` RWE[xl Y
PIP BRM 4B PARKING SPACES
91E
♦♦ C f\ ..�.�_ _ OI
(IBTE N,IR]Q
I FIR WED WITH.THE
OV
I PROPERTY BOUNDARY
_ w
eEL VAZ Ai - AS SHOWN (33 TANDEM/
'I
Bh).z ` I' A n VALET SPACES 23.M F4 - -- ! -
1 II ]DEINL lY'LINIPIM�6 CgSMG 69 a4pEE P.1MwL x161Hp BE UN,
—W"RM[pRMxG Ei 9)ESy ypE l,yE PROPOSED OUTSIDECITY PARKING OF3 d$TA pnapasO xE �,. �i o.( ' '4Etal Es _
PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS
9xBE U3E (x;,,I] SNxB nls f SHOWN ON OVERALL SITE
L-------- PLAN
32nd Street Changes
HOUSE HOTEL I 10
I mtlrll.AGt
I
1 a
1 -
' r 1 f L<� i�l�n W[�. I�I.� .moi FISTING GMRiN4 fAUNi
J2d HRffT .vim .^.rr. .ov.f t>D I ♦ r
.f o [tu.o flat
�j
6
Partial Existing 32nd. Street Parking Plan
N F1
iI L FHE oEPt 1
�, i -� -_ r� � � to •�
t - t a
_____ `- ____ �E IF��pp__� -.�
Partial Proposed 32nd. Street Parking Plan
W A T G ® 32 St. Parking Exhibit Level 1 +o.o'
Newport Beach,CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 5
c .
Project Components
u
1. Amendments
■ General Plan - Public Facilities to Mixed Use (MU-H5)
■ Coastal Land Use Plan - Public Facilities to Mixed Use &
amendment of Policy 4.4.2-1 to allow taller buildings
■ Zoning District — Public Facilities to MU-LV
2. Lido House Hotel
• Site Development Review - Design and construction
• Conditional Use Permit — Hotel operations
Community Development Department August 1i, zoiq 6
�e`K'PUk
i
s,
Amendment Highlights
Public Facilities to Mixed-use provides flexibility to allow
hotel or mixed use project
Anomaly #85 created for up to 93 dwelling units and
15, 000 sf of commercial; or 98,725 sf of hotel . Provision
allowing combination of dwellings and hotel eliminated
Establishes an exception to 35-foot height limit policy, only
for the site, allowing buildings up to 55 ft, sloping roofs 6o
ft, and architectural projections 65 ft — no significant
impact to designated and protected public views
Charter Section 423 — no vote of the electorate
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 7
�e`K'PUk
i
s,
Lido House Hotel
Site Development Review & Conditional Use Permit for a 130-
room hotel including ancillary uses:
Restaurant, meeting rooms, bar/lounges, spa, and retail
Hotel includes recreational areas including a pool and event lawns
1-48 parking spaces and valet parking services when necessary to
increase the number of spaces
Enhanced front setback (2o% of the site as open space) includes
public walkways, event space, and an outdoor patio for the
restaurant to be controlled by the hotel operator — preserves ficus
trees and row of palms and provides pedestrian connections
Conditions of approval to ensure compatibility of use
Consistent with Lido Village Design Guidelines
Community Development Department August ii, zoic, 8
�e`K'PUk
i
1•
Environmental Impact Report
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Less than significant impact with mitigation
45-day comment period 4/29/2014 through 6/13/2014
All impacts less than significant
2 . Final EIR
Responses to Comments received during comment period —
additional responses prepared for later comments
No significant new information related to impacts, no recirculation necessary
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Errata (minor technical changes)
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 g
�e`K'PUk
i
s,
Lido House Hotel
s. Study Session Items
Use of ballroom roof for events — not requested
Trash enclosure — room to add more if necessary
Change to proposed height exception to CLUP policy — minor change
Residential/Hotel hybrid — eliminated
Control/use of open space — developer control with public access
Responses to Lido Partners & Friends of Dolores/City Hall
Discussion Items
Mixed-use amendment — why include a residential component?
Closure of access point to Via Lido Plaza - Fire & delivery access
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 10
Access
Plaza
mac,•
I ID
IF
�y / f
1 �If � ss / •.� lip � �
_ 1=
o 'r
w
�r MM
MALAGA
F
Rt " b . �
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 11
Recommendation
City Council Certification of the EIR
2 . Adoption of Land Use Plan and Zoning
Amendments
3 . Approval of Lido House Hotel
applications
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 12
�e`K'PUk
i
s,
Next Steps
City Council hearing tentatively
scheduled for September g, 2014
2 . Coastal Commission review and approval
required
Construction in anticipated in 2o16 - 2017
4. Hotel opening Summer of 2017
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 13
QUESTIONS ?
•
For more information contact:
Kim Brandt,Community Development Director or James Campbell, Principal Planner
949'644-322$ 949-644-321-0
kbrandtQa newportbeachca.gov jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Lido House Hotel
s
v.;
y.
Bob Olson, RD Olson Development -
Anthony Wrzosek, RD Olson Development
Greg Villegas, WATG, Project Architect
16
m Q
Amendments — PF to MU
3531
507 5112 3021 b 34'17
`fir Uz.. l sO so8 391.5 men pry �,5
56� "LAM" 'ro m -I 506 3411 - k� 50434°s = CG 0.5 FAR/y/���,/(g+�'�.rysotl�,JLUM.J 500 �'� PINIEY qy41072f"- ENO408133345 0
345 a406 V2 AV Yb Q 33776 404 3337 � a1b
402 3335 II >
9 d � 400 v2 3076 I RM
VI \ - 400 33455 3300 MU-H5
z
O.O. CC 0.5 FAR
32ND~ 1 _ j - ruNcn
.75
CG 0FAA R
675 � PI 0.75 FAR
STREET
° -
i Sf
1 / RT 32No5T
JJJ7 m
0 3116 � v
gores— ` : u-H4
n 3712M
'
°P 3110 _ J
29TH STREETS CV 0.5 FAR S o N >
S 1T1
zarH sr CN 0.3 FAR L
f� R ' 34
o � ,
-� ; 5 IPYN41 btl4Y y
Community Development Department August 11, zolq 17
�e`K'PUk
i
1•
General Plan Amendment
New Mixed - Use Category
"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 ."
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 18
Coastal • / Use •
s,
Amendment
New Mixed - Use Category
' The MU category is intended to provide for the
development a mix of uses, which may include general,
neighborhood or visitor-serving commercial,
commercial offices, visitor accommodations, multi -
family residential, mixed - use development, and/or civic
uses . "
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 19
Coastal • / Use •
s,
Amendment — Structure Height
Amend Policy 4.4.2-1 to provide :
"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 s.o 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."
Community Development Department August ii, zoic, 20
�e`K'PUk
i
s,
Zoning Code Amendment
Amend Sections 20 . 14. 020, 20 . 22 . o1o, and
20 . 14 . 010 to create and apply the MU - LV zoning
district to the site .
"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 . "
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 21
�e`K'PUk
i
s,
Zoning Code Amendment
Amend Section 20 . 22 . 020 to establish allowed uses
and permit requirements for the MU - LV zone .
Amend Section20 . 22 - 030 to establish development
standards for the MU - LV zone .
Open Space 20% of net acreage
Setbacks Newport Boulevard: 32nd Street:
20 ft. for buildings up to 26 ft. o ft. for buildings up to 26 ft.
35 ft. for taller structures lo ft. for taller structures
Building 55 feet, 6o feet for sloping roofs, and 65 feet for architectural
Height features
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 22
23
Background
July 2010 - Planning for Lido Village began
January 2011 - City Council approved Lido Village
"Alternative 5B" vision
January 2012 - City Council approved Lido Village Design
Guidelines
June 2012 - City Council initiates land use amendments for
City Hall property
September 2012 — City Council sets parameters for
amendments
October 2012 — RFQ process initiated
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 24
i . • ,
January 2013 — RFP process directed
January 2013 — Planning Commission recommends approval
of amendments
March 2013 — City Council postpones consideration of the
amendments
April 2013 — Proposals for development projects received
July 2013 — Exclusive negotiating agreement approved with
RD Olson
October 2013 — EIR process started
Community Development Department August 11, 2014 25
LIDD HOUSE HOTEL
GATEWAY TO LIDO VILLAGE ARD THE REWPORT PPIlIII SULA
CITU OF REIMPORT BEACH / CITU HALL SITE REUSE
AUGUST 11, RON
fill
I I I WATG
AGEIIDA
R.D. OLSOII
DPVPLOP ER T
HOTEL CORCPPT
PROJECT
BPRLPITS
oD. OLSOII I)FV
RD OLSOR DEVELOPV[ER T - OVERVIEW
BOB OLSOR RRD R.D. OLSOR
DEVELOPIIIERT - LOCRL PRSSIOR RIID
URIGUE HOTEL DEVELOPIIIERT
EMPERIERCE. LIVES OR BRLBOR
ISLRIID,
TRRC11 RECORD OF DEVELOPIRG RRD
011 RIRG SUCCESSFUL REM HOTELS
THRT REELECT THE LOCRL
P COIIIII URITU.
7 REM HOTELS OPERED Ill THE LRST 2q
MOR THS, PL US q CURRER TL U URBER
CORSTRUCTIOII,
WE HRVE OPERED RIID IRVESTED OVER
$200 IIIILLIOR IIi REM-BUILD
','® :1 HOSPITRLITU PROPERTIES SIRCE 2010
- =* RRD. OVER SgSO IIIILLIOR IRVESTED Ill
REIII-BUILD HOTELS SIRCE 8000,
AMRRIOTT RIURRD FOR "DEVELOPER OF
THE YERR 201q,of
it nnnllrrn rrnnrru nr_rnnn nr rrre n r r
t �� 791
R.DOLSOM
DEVELOPMENT
S IOWCASE HOTELS
PRSE'R HOTEL R SPR
HUD TIRG TOR BEACH, CA
URDER CIMSTRUCTIOn
t 250 ROOM HOTEL RRD SPA
s
• 'WGG Sb ,d
. .ro
Co
lu, v0
Aft All
n
L I .
SH01ilCASE HOTELS
_ RERRISSRRCE CLAD SPORT
ALISO VIEJO, CA
OPERED 2005
r 17q Room HOTEL R
a - 70,000 S.F. HERL TH CLUB
\ L
a 0 m - - -
u
Ir
MEN
rl
..
_=i.' �.' -.-wW .� �•� r i •-'°"'r`-gyp`,-= '' _ J .�
1
1
� F
... .
a
Ki; L
S 'OIWCASE HOTELS
SRR JIIRR CRPISTRRRO RESIDPTICE VIII
• d w� SRR JIIRR CRPISTRRIIO, Cd
OPERED 2012
100 ROOM HOTEL
C ,
AA
,r
Y
.c.
d
I
7 'I
n L
�1
wm �a '"i' : �`ah" i �i`. ~,..ka-...
ev+s,_ e,
_+.�s o- ✓:xnp ,i y. a � s ..m.,�:�,e�xAsTmrx. w.z ns.��
M,�
- - ---
�'"f,�✓�u?�� N�,���H�dt���`�N.c�NukN�.c��sz�k�.c�"�k'uk���ck #.
�.��^-a•<7t'�bt'-,�^,-',��Mz.'ygU 'xc#"-i,
,
M F,0 VAX nn
SOW
jrRw
IMP"Mr7w, Ma KPIN OFF At IF 11
y.l i
x x y
f'y, vim.
q� d
... Y _ 1pit
MU ON
` " R NO LIF.. " .Y# ,,aa . ' G3! ME sxms 'i
111F 11
ATR + g s A U-71 11111i"�r x 5 '
INS f a d �4< 04 �.;F k 4 ° � limp 11 _ L uX' � Ie§ S5
$ .. �,.. �
WIN '. xuu .ua..mc kc:�ryvuvss.� am.W�A t MP,.„a .�$ �.#� ron wanit, "t �!
Q� 011 silo 111 NMI I
sF u 1 aw 4 gqg 1 i RM g
2k. , `wm
a•<u.,.;;amu.
THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL PLAIT
10
• "LIDO HOUSE HOTEL"
100-ROOM UPSCALE BOUTIOUE HOTEL:
'
SERVES RS R TRUE GR TEUIRJ TO THE
RE'UIPORT PERIBSUL11.
' W.H. GRILL: THIS UPSCALE FULL SERVICE
RESTRURRRT WILL BER FOCAL POIRT OF
RCTIVIT'J FOR GUESTS ARD LOCALS ALIVE.
SPR R FI TRESS CER TER: THE SPR WILL
OFFER FRCIRLS, MRSSRGES, M1711ICURES,
PEDICURES, RIID WILL OVERLOOK THE
III TERIOR COUR TURRD OF THE HOTEL.
ARCHITECTURE: FITS III WITH LIDO
` VILLRGE ARD SURROURDIRG COMMURITIES
- WITH "REUIPORT RRUTICRL," SIMILRR TO
CRPE COD DESIGIIS.
BRY TO BERCH OUR PLRII SETS RSIDE
gPPROlfIMfl TEL J 0.7 ACRES FOR 11I1
ERHARCED SETBACK TO BE UTILIZED RS R
LRIIDSCRPIrD BUFFER WITH IMPROVED
- CIRCULRTIOD FOR PEDESTRIARS TO RHD;
FROM THE IIIRRIRR ARD THE B1rRCH.
BRLLROOM B MEETIRG ROOMS: LIDO HOUSE`
DESIGII TEAM
WATG
ORE OF THE UIORLD'S PREMIER
HOSPITRLITJ DESIGR FIRMS
1 k5,000 HOTEL ROOMS COMPLETED
SIGRIP'ICRIIT ORRRGE COURTU
ERPERIERCE
ISLAIID HOTIrL REWPORT BIRCH
• RITZ CRRLTOR LR6URl1 RIGUIL
• HURTT RIGIRCU HURTIRGTOR BIRCH
• HILTOR HURTIRGT0R BIRCH
MARRIOTT REUIPORT CORST VILLAS
r RECERT TRACK RECORD WITH RD OLSOR
DEVELOPIIIIrnT
,1 IRVIRI SPECTRUM HOTEL OPIRID Ill
JULY 201 O
PIISI'R HOTEL B SPR CURRIR TL U UDDER
f_T1A_:TR1fCTmn
��� �' -- � �..
-
1
a
1 I
JAI
UULLLLLW
LMOLSON W AT G
DEVELOPMENT
1 1
� a
Z� * s m, --r
' } TURNING BASIN
cc
SUNRISE
A JUNE 21
1
ao
at
V�
1.
?UNSET , � 1101 `•� SUNRISE
DEC 21 ,. � PROJECT _ �.
� wA,DEC 21
SITE V A MALAGA
1 " r
>' 2"`r STR EET u - ✓
� r .. .
C0I1 TENT DIAGRAMS
TO LIDO NEIGHBORHOODS
TO LIDO VILLAGES BAY
•VILLAGE 8 BAY
/(Pedestrian C,.I.t nthrough \ '
• •--��-f. • e»stingmiland path) \ ♦��
L • 1/
FINLEY AVE / 1 1
eft
jr%
�r 6 HOT) • //�'� j
BUS • :-------1ARRIVAL_.� !, •�' 1
STOP ; /
• �4b0 4b
\
41p
4� NEIGHBORHOOD
VEHICULAR
CONNECTIONS
\ \ \ OF i
• •�••• ¢
G
\ 1
COURTYARD >
i I
I � PUBLIC
\ NODES
• ' 1
\ 1
\ " 1 NEIGHBORHOOD
♦ -------------- 1 PEDESTRIAN
♦ •'•.......•ns. 5�kv� cE CONNECTIONS
I ♦�-------------• = ���.t•���[� � ..,.NTFY �-------�
1.
• \ r-
/ 32" STREET �•
/ ,jr
TO BEACH ~
LLOLSON _
DEVELOPMENT 16
OPER SPACE DIAGRAM
BUILDING
=f '
„ a
t \
.__
/ ; 1
� t l� ♦ J
t ool
� t t aLL
h I �
� � _ � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul� �I1
IHINXXHMXXXXMIHIM -
�IIgIN11111X _ _
32ND STREET -- -_---- -- -- --T---- --� � -
LULSON _
DEVELOPMENT
_ TREE ARALYSIS
F t
•FINE EY 4VE � -•
w7 _`
TREES TO BE -
(4)NORTH PALMS�� REMOVEj>
TO BE EVALUATED J
AND LEFT IN PLACE
n
(6)SOUTH PALMS
TO BE EVALUATED ._;..
AND MOVED b'
a
WESTWARD PER Q �
NEW SITE PLAN AS TREES TO
POSSIBLE REMAIN
EXISTING TREES
_ TO BE REMOVED L� �
_
772A �,^� ��i � I [��4,�F-. -� TYP. U.O.N
32ND STREETw
DALSON
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT 18
ETRE DEPARTMERT
ACCESS
MLEY AVE
___sae.r:,� l_ i i •. — _ __ :\ ..,
' y4
�` Pp PYWl i6
1 I � � MrK✓t�
1 ll�v YN�LPiw hY
MRouxY�-YYC.Il NWFTrII
1 1 I 1 1
1 [
1 1 I -. `� l0llr Mtl9
1 i I YN
1 I °
I
O ¢
�n[wxYnrwvx[usw p n � YVy�
rruMKwax:uw , � I
FFE DEFT, r
I I V
I -
s �b _ -
- - - -- -
w
D.OLSON
DEVELOPMENT 19
SERVICE ACCESS
U
FINLEY-AVE.
1 \\
Efy
I a \
1 1
1
I o o e- ❑ "d o O -C -9 d \
� o a
o
1 p
I I o
I
1 1 O
1 1 i 1
i 'I' FIRE DEPT.
l . . . . . . b .741
;i 1
.�
IF 32nd STREET
r
LLOLSON _
DEVELOPMENT
t _ m
- -
m � r Irr
r I 1 i
rr / r ► r
OROURD FLOOR PLAIT
, ROAR
OM1 MFR➢1L•OT Y'fl �8♦). 2�Y �, ? r ,!+ ] ON.
I....
'_edBvu I '- C'. aril - a h 6 - ••'y r WINKNI .
b H04FWSPESIPWM
If RINfS.1GC d NL WYQNIIL
ARNK
f `� Yxn•RXdezIWlt
NWAR s•AW ? ! } rI'_ h •L -, •. " \ a BVSNIFss(OEe[N
i' J'CJ�_�� k_✓l'a 1 {UI(lYA1FNNN
I "vlY Il�.� v I ` o ` B. \.1 -� 1 MNNBNIAttW
INS S. . v "'. �C C._s _
wa 'ar Wr,..-�� a {'� • i ■ h "� �..:,.. ;TT � <welEUEunuxwrw
. f � N _ .wowMRrN•r�YFL�
% L u ♦♦ a % �`. ri.rsEe.m�e�ivoo sFamnerceNvuw
� �v O r rYNB.MLWIOI � 1 IA. r E
� • • .• •�• •u,• • r� naNmY�•M a•s >7.
f • M• ._ 9br5:1 ♦ wrtrran i.E iL MFr
I ♦' .O a as
f
IOA
mw.°ia � !� -• _.-,.. ♦ I I FxcEL uoR
• KNPUFF S
N
vvrsL-oe:.r
sw'
eta! «omA. =,-z IS
.RocmR.ARK, w \ • x '..
_ Slwsrs u%
rnUirW vx' • �e ¢ M<FP1W
A !, 1\ :RRAIC4EVM1IUIS
.A
1 I � • J � YIJMFXS W[FNSIPRYI
X11 (\TJN} •• L� � 1 N� Md zNJIPESTIXW
♦ �-1��� . � .Bl L_LLJ V � XFSzeGAgU
F ( \� — I 't'IYPAiIN610 FEMAIN
FIRE DEPT. xnENMFMNN4,FMKF
I+mA Y'ANI _ �uwran eArt
It i'
8 xn,c�MLr
.in
NOTE
I"'A'
i`S ` _ _ Nn.•. PROWRTYBLNINiNE
OUNDARY
♦U]ZfF J , f Ti6<�uFn tet! ASSHOWN135TANMW
-1W.IIAx a p3R b¢1[YN]I4 - ^...0—'- ___ • _ VAL
,mw eiAu< I UeJ'ra
I 3 F' _ ` n� &1lIlYPAflNIHC SPACES
STFAM7 ""�"' v _ ' S1dE LM[ PROPOSHIOOi510E0i
FewT3e In lFua 9p1B ti n PROPLRtt BOUHOARYAS
' I® 1 4wRA® i[d[ SHOWN ON OVERALLLTE
=_ L SiFlw[ PLAN
R.QOLSON _
DEVELOPMENT 22
SFCORD FLOOR PLAIT
o ua
ONTO
rxera y �f
p � _ ' F MWi(MfE%N4510P�Q
•.ilf � I I _ � Y I�_. VYBLKFLLV�IUP
1J 1� �p Kfs VkXMX.
�I FIF[M[K6M E.P.
r c F�.' '� B4lPCgA p.1l
I
� I
> I
I 91 H3 \
I - - - - FIRE DEPT.
Ll 71
3 STREET vy
LLOLSON _ �3
DEVELOPMENT
THIRD FLOOR PLAIT
J1 I
nN�W�bt,M�M
1 � `.-J� ,may- - ` I I I (xl MRLFp4FNGASIMUM
A I - h e a AiNb RMIK[
FIF MCKIY EG.
�1. I � ' � bO�POIIMPUN
7 ® h I
c I
I I
0��
4
FIRE DEPT. �
—f b \�
t
4k
I
;�...
______3 STFi
nd
LLOLSON _
DEVELOPMENT 24
FOURTH 11 ' PLAR
1'66
0� �``.✓ `'�1= fir.
a.�
�IIIIIIIIP�
�(
_ nDEPT
J ;
�,1;llllllulnulllnllnmliiiiillup_miiiiii '° � `-- � • '
32nd SME�7
LLOLSIN 25
\w
LAIIDSCAPP PLAIT
_ - -. . � �i ��-, / •� xOroRE•BRTBXT[WN.
r —1— __ `__ �•.(� i Noio.covin cove.xo
FINLEY AVE. - s oeco[n ve Rev No
IARNIXo(YB WLC[6 BXOWN)
� RaRx xa ettess
aE%RRro... B
L rznu<e
N W Tx[ALMS
exI00LEOF[x
1 RR[92RV[o[.MTNO TR U
f � Q � �W OVTOOOR pR[RL1CF
el
Q, RR I'e
zOVNo[ROLe B[e..LL-I-
. I
ED
o
ED cl
o i D o611 k"
Z 1 I{I 6 fIPI R(O YVR I \
1 r, ]]�r_ — — i i 1 v� FIFE DEPT.
32nd STREET
�s �y
LLOLSON _
DEVELOPMENT --�
a ..
0
0
0
0
o
0
m
m
m
m
0 0
0 0 a
II I! I o ii� ii �
IIE4,
.. U IrrOF .►��� �� rsL'/i 1noiI �IInoil�loly�lli 1 INII II��!I 1I ul�l� !il�i�l'I I !1 1 I--
II Myra �IYIIIIIIIIWI�IIIIillllllllll'Y...7.�_ •=ww:�__��/��,^. e..u��.�..n i Y►Z�►4��►�►Zi0-� --- —
. lel i INI li��I I I I�I1i71�11�i��
0 0 0 0 m 0 0
®[ k /F� rrFIF
r
EAST ELEVATIOII
- x wood.c.Nle
TRE
WOOoxe ocn
SDRNE
..m.
QHITALLIGHTFDWRE
v RD AL xiuoe.
+ E RIDGE
58.5'
�6 1YP
LEC
Of
'9':.0 EVELa
255 bo
F..3
'SO
ME-
7MDEVEL< IMF 'C➢}�,v!.�a'tS✓R`5t'4�3
r�
o •
0
m •
m
0 0 0 0
0
FF
•• i� ��� I �,.,. L1 i.l LJ
�n tui nJi ��`
IIII IIII 1 li�wi� iU�►�■ ii il■ i', r �� � �'-
ai llll Illi II Mill ■ill wi■IilwwiNi■iil�iiiii� iii ��' i■ix -- +° ---
— - �d/►1 ►�1►�4/ . ���..._ . y.��/ 1/►111 ►�1. ' -.� �•����� ���o. - I�I ����I��
�� i I r'I. iI ; , I I■1 I■1 II VINCI4 'NII�
0 O m O O O m O
LA
k
- •-'y''"+CAwXM
SOUTH ELEYATIOII
�2,FOURCEMYun Dvuv
QiURV uIL
svAEf xAxoB
A MBRIC AW XIMO
L PIRR QNEN1 O AROWOOO51DING
ROE.RMENT.511AMEWTRARO WOOD
R LNX100EN ROOF.EIMYLATED
WOOD
FRI.EI O
rz .. 15
IILL
p aLNRLD stOXL
STAIR - Qn afw50 sro.G: 1.YLAVDuxE-
ROOF +)Ono a. pO �. N. Noun ons lO} BI BAEG
1� y go 111 an Ill 110 Mimi
Q IInimNI nCC ^ O aLWON.ONG ONE NGADGR
z 1' a C GRKK
RP'F21.V�, n�NN■N. W,OIW1 OMRALLIOM FI OR
0VGRfIGLPLAN}G
a o lUtllll IaiY
m EVEL +lO
o tt
LEVEL+ ono'
1 s
r
No IIIA alII NNo
nR
f-
ntfnnnnnn _
ii. Tr
VIII Id
R 9 N ! 1}
1 BALBOA PENINSULA I} LINDA ISLE I [I I HARBOR ISLAND I II I
SUITE I SUITE 1 SUITE I SUITE I SUITE
1 I 1 I I I
�w
v,
otosC RCEPT
GUEST EMPERIEffif
� r .
(
M�,iti w
., x
HOTEL GUEST EMPERIERCE
R OPERATIRG PLATFORM
OUR GORL — PROVIDE OUR GUESTS
'" ` " WITH THE URFORGETTRBLE
14
EMPERIERCE OF SPERDIRG THE
MIGHT III THE ULTIIIIRTE BERCH
a,r T
HOUSE III IIEtUPOR T BERCH
THE LOCK TIOII — GR TEIIIR U TO
n
IIEU[PORT PEIIIIISULR
THE PLRCE — THE O UIR TESSER TIRL
SOUTHERII CRLIFORBIR BERCH
HOUSE
— THE EMPERIERCE
A BERCH CRSURL BEIGHBORH00D ICOR'
FOR LOCALS RHO OUR ECLECTIC GUESTS
wl l li SOUTHERR CRLIFORRIR BERCH CASUAL
WITH R YACHT CLUB SOPHISTICATIIIII
- = 7
_- _ / • .
I Of
AM
�DMEVWFM NT
e
1 it
S �
A L uff"A& l 4&IYJ4EfJM
B IC,MEfl, IOOIIIMB FDIf
L9CMSBBB 9ffR
�CZECTICC�ATS,r
Al
T '
j
4
�a3'IIfkSX4`.S�.4UY'YY�
.w s^s. ;�, fisasan ^m,.ss-a .ems'^ ✓ u .a r. .�ua�> sv s�
NJ
ILI
g m ak mWOM
�t%
Ana., , .,-^3arv.!a.��m.�✓aaet�t..r1v m2tu ��r..., m r3 s. - eE. et F�x y,,,:,
DF
'";vw..,s�ma.;x ` ,',>,,, �*w,x,^• '&aas,^, n r<,,,r',r ,rR . .'• �
r -
17UIIIT�SS IITI
OIITX�T�
JfDIISTa r
1
1
�r
I:�F V ELt3S'^.�SY N'i'
I �
� � t
Y
jMENTCLIIB
_ • • SOPIIISTIC/QTIOII
�dLL MIZECMEST POOIIIS
Y011l�IIOlB,E,flJf,99MOIII
S.FPBBi9.rIgB AE 7I EAFff
„vri-s...
P" OJEC"EII FIT
t FMMTUT
ECOROMIC REREEITS
MILLIOIIS Ill DIRECT REVER UE TO
CITU
• GROURD LERSE PRJIIIEIITS
• TRHRSIEIIT OCCIIPRIICi.I THK (AVERAGE
RIIRIIRL: S1,012,000.00)
wSALES BIN
PROPER TU TRI€
VISITOR SPEIIDIRG: ADDITIORRL
DIRECT RIID IRDIRECT SPERDIIIC
FROM HOTEL CRESTS RIID
VISITORS TO THE HOTEL.
y ,w lit 4 SII EIT: S'IOO MILLIOR Ill TOTAL
ECUROIIIIC BEREFI T, MORE THRII
O IO TITHES GREATER' TH AI
» ,L KAPER TMEII T USE.
COMMURITY BEREFIT `
SIGIIIFICRII T PRIVR TE Ill VESTIIIEII T
z _ Ill LIDO VILLRGE
IlElU SIGIIRTARP GRTEIIIRY TO
IIEIUPOR T PERIRSULR
HIGH OURLITY LODGIRG FOR VISITORS
RRD FRIIIILIES OF LOCAL RESIDER TS
IIEIGHBORH00D FRIERDLY HOTEL
IF RIIIEIIITIES - RESTRURRIIT, BRA,
ROOF DECK, DRY SPR, RETAIL
ATTRRCTIRG lUELL HEELED VISITORS,
SIIIRLL BUSIIIESS COIIFERERCES, RRD
LEISURE GUESTSIIIHO SPERO MOREY
Ill LOCAL SHOPS, REST17UR171tTS
PUBLIC BRO TO BERCH OPER SPRCE
BETTER UTILIHRTIOR OF LIDO
THER TR.
::; inr.RFA.SR7 VRLIIIF nF gfl.IRCRIIT
mow, M,
ma�yµ. �y�, x,
Y `S,`TYSv^.Nl.zx]aus fi .: '@fTY... £8�v,`J�_ iWvg £Aba� .....,...-..-
331,, F� @°e p a � '�'2: £ �; � �� 33�.'N.4`.i4�.Q L'.'@'&, e•'�' 4 _� � Y @ cx.y .pq��
�v �•�a l <..w<�.. :N%G...aa'S` C: �u �. a.i; �.` (v..�:� x.'awMA6`t'fri`..4„c3±ip`w3'YA'. �.:.
3t .y, F
,y� •, vi..a v. .
3tw>x.i xsL u .xc�S:.aa. c `�
„sy. . .
"S.A=xa
r , 6+.f
t
an LOCRL: 111E KI101H REIIIPOII T BERCH.
_ 111E LIVE HERE.
HOTEL ERPER TS. IIII IO IIEL U
az - .- OIIRLIEIED TO BUILD RRD OPERRTE
�f THIS HOTEL,
ayy� ��
ACHIEVABLE PLRII: A RERLISTIC RIID
EIIIIRIICERBLE DEVELOPIIIEII T
L STRR TEG U WHICH WE RITE CER TRIII
WE CRIT EIIIRIICE, COIISTIIIICT, RIID
NEIGHBORHOOD
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIONS DELIVER TO THE COIL M VIII T U OF
DEIIIPOR T B RCH.
TRRCI€ RECORD: MORE REIII HOTELS
OPERED SIRCE THE RECESSIOD THRIII
All J SIRGLE DEVELOPER Ill THE
FBF - ICIEST.
.1,100 HOUSIF HOTEL
REUIPORT BBRCH, Cd
f
SO IMLL,
.ti
i
I I I WATG