Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - Lido House Hotel Amendments - PA2016-061 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 23 2016 Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061) 3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street • General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001 • Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003 • Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015 APPLICANT: Olson Real Estate Group DBA, RD Olson Development OWNER: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner 949-644-3210, jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), and Zoning Code to increase the maximum allowable floor area for the previously approved, 130-room Lido House Hotel by 4,745 square feet. Additionally, the applicant seeks amendments of the previously approved Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the hotel to reflect the added floor area. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. — recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016- 001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003, Site Development Review No. SD2016-005, and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015 (Attachment PC1). INTRODUCTION In September of 2014, the City Council approved the 130-room, Lido House Hotel project to replace the former City Hall Complex located at the northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The City's approval included amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code and applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for hotel construction and operation. 1 Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061) Planning Commission, June 23, 2016 Page 2 In October 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the proposed CLUP amendment with suggested modifications and the Coastal Development Permit for the 130-room, Lido House Hotel. The City Council subsequently accepted the suggested modifications and approved modified amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. Demolition and rough grading permits have been issued and the applicant hopes to complete construction of the hotel by the summer of 2017. During the final design phase and preparation of construction documents, including a review of the plans by the hotel operator Marriott International, the applicant determined that additional floor area was necessary and desirable. DISCUSSION The General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code limit the total gross floor area for the site to 98,725 square feet. Any increase requires amendments to the land use plans and the Zoning Code. Additionally, the proposed CLUP amendment will require review and approval by the Coastal Commission. The changes to the approved hotel plans are as follows: 1. Enclosure of an exterior pre-function space in front of the ballroom with the actual ballroom space decreasing by 925 square feet. 2. Expansion of the lobby by pushing the entry doors out at both the north and south sides to enhance circulation space. 3. Expansion of the hotel management office areas to meet management needs. 4. Enlargement of the spa sitting area to create a more generous relaxation space. 5. Enlargement of"back of house" areas for improved circulation and storage. 6. Enlargement of two King Guestrooms into King Suites located on the second floor with no increase in the number of total guestrooms. 7. Increase to the proposed ancillary retail area by 191 square feet and a 5 square foot increase to the proposed restaurant. In summary, level 1 would be increased by 4,091 square feet and level 2 would be increased by 654 square feet for a total of 4,745 square feet. Amendments The General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code would be amended to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area for a hotel at the former city hall site from 98,725 square feet to 103,470 gross square feet. This is a 4.8 percent increase in floor area. No other changes would be made. The height of the expanded hotel would not change and it would be consistent with CLUP Policy 4.4.3-1, as approved by the Coastal Commission. The applicant believes the added area will enhance the experience and make the hotel more successful. 2 Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061) Planning Commission, June 23, 2016 Page 3 Charter Section 423 requires an analysis of the increased density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with a proposed General Plan Amendment to determine if a vote of the electorate is required. The net increases attributable to the proposed amendment are combined with 80 percent of the increases from prior amendments within the same statistical area. The inclusion of prior amendments is limited to the preceding 10 years. The specified thresholds are 100 dwelling units (density), 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity), and 100 peak hour trips (traffic). Increases from the proposed amendment and 80 percent of the 5 prior amendments within Statistical Area B-5 have been calculated and are shown in Table 1 below. Traffic for hotels is based upon the number of rooms and floor area increase requested does not increase the number of rooms. Therefore, no increase in the number of peak hour trips is anticipated. In conclusion, none of the thresholds would be exceeded with approval of the amendment and no vote would be required. Table 1 Measure S Analysis for Statistical Area B-5 Amendments Increased Increased Peak Hour Trip Increase Density Intensity 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 GP 2012-002 0 23,725 0 0 Total Prior Increases 8 44,069 60.8 81 80% of Prior Increases 7 35,255 48.6 64.8 100% of the proposed 0 4,745 0 0 amendment GP2016-001 Total 7 40,000 48.6 64.8 Vote Required? No No No No Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit The plans provided by the applicant show the expanded areas and provide a summary of the changes (Attachment PC2). The expanded hotel does not increase rooms or building height and would not increase traffic or parking demand above the previously approved hotel. It also does not reduce setbacks, change access, circulation or parking. The plan maintains the large open space area along Newport Boulevard including the two large ficus trees that are City Landmark Trees. The overall design and architecture of the hotel is nearly identical to the plans approved by both the City and the Coastal Commission and staff believes the changes to be minor in nature. In conclusion, staff believes facts to support the necessary findings for approval of both applications remain evident and are provided in the attached resolution recommending City Council approval. 3 Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061) Planning Commission, June 23, 2016 Page 4 Environmental Review The City prepared and certified a final Environmental Impact Report for the Lido House Hotel (SCH#2013111022). State CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and use of a previously certified EIR for projects that have changed or are different from the previous project. In cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164. The City has prepared Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel final Environmental Impact Report for the modified project (Attachment PC3). The analysis provided in the Addendum concludes that no new environmental impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval and implementation of the larger hotel project. Public Notice Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of 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: ff Submitted by: W fa J es Campbell, Principal Pla ner r n la Wisnest i,r1CP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC1 Draft Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of Modified Amendments PC2 Project Plans PC3 Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel Final EIR 4 ATTACHMENT PC1 Draft Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of Modified Amendments 5 V� QP �P RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2016-001, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2016-001, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2016-003, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2016-005, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2016-015 FOR THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32ND STREET THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 . An application was filed by Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. ("Applicant') with respect to 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 ("Property"). 2. The Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and amendments to Site Development Review No. SD2014-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-004 that authorized the construction and operation of a 130-room at the Property called the "Lido House Hotel." 3. The Applicant requests a 4,745 square foot increase in the maximum allowable development of the site from 98,625 square feet to 103,470 gross square feet for the Lido House Hotel. 4. 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 sixth amendment that affects Statistical Area B5 since the General Plan update in 2006. The five prior amendments are GP 2010- 005, GP 2011-003, GP 2011-010, GP 2012-005, and GP2012-002. The following table shows the increases attributable to the subject amendment, prior amendments, and the totals; and no vote would be required. Measure S Analysis for Statistical Area B-5 Amendments Increased Increased Peak Hour Trip Increase Density Intensity 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 GP 2012-002 0 23,725 0 0 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 Total Prior Increases 8 44,069 60.8 81 80% of Prior Increases 7 35,255 48.6 64.8 100% of the proposed 0 4,745 0 0 amendment GP2016-001 Total 7 40,000 48.6 64.8 Vote Required? No No No No 5. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2016, 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 the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION 1. On September 9, 2014, the City Council certified the adequacy and completeness of the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013111022) by adopting Resolution No 2014-80 ("Certified EIR"). 2. Upon receipt of the application for the increased floor area for the Lido House Hotel (project), the City of Newport Beach prepared Addendum No. 1 to the Certified EIR for the Project, consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). 3. The Community Development Department has determinedkthat the Addendum No. 1 complies with the requirements of CEQA. 4. After considering the Certified EIR, the public testimony and written submissions, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting Addendum No. 1: a. The modified project is consistent with and implements the General Plan. b. The Certified EIR reviews the existing conditions of the City and project vicinity; analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the development; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts from implementation of the development. c. The modified project does not increase development intensity or building height or associated impacts beyond the levels considered in the Certified EIR. d. Since the adoption of the EIR in 2014, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the EIR was certified for the project; and no substantial changes to the environmental setting of the project site have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has become available that was not known and that could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at that time of adoption. 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 e. Since no substantial changes to the circumstances or environmental setting have occurred, and since no new information relating to significant effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives has become available, the project does not require additional environmental review, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162. f. Based on these findings, the Certified EIR and Addendum No. 1, the Planning Commission has determined that no subsequent environmental impact report is required or appropriate under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. Addendum No. 1 satisfies CEQA's environmental review requirements for the modified project as proposed by the applicant. g. Based on the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that the modified project will not have, when compared to the Certified EIR, any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts. h. The modified project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. i. These factual findings are based on the Adopted MND, Addendum, and all documents referred in or attached to it, the submissions of the applicant, the records and files of the City's Community Development Department related to the project, and any other documents referred to or relied upon by the Planning Commission during its consideration of the project on June 9, 2016. j. The Planning Commission has considered the Certified EIR and the Addendum No. 1, and has concluded that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City. k. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. 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 increase in floor area will allow larger lobby and circulation spaces, an enclosed pre-function space, larger management offices, larger storage spaces, a larger 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 ancillary retail space, and two slightly larger hotel rooms without increasing the number of hotel rooms. These changes constitute a 4.8 percent increase in floor area compared to the previously approved hotel plan. The area devoted to meeting rooms is decreasing and these changes are minor in nature and should enhance the hotel and the experience of guests and visitors. 3. The increased floor area does not increase the number of hotel rooms and therefore, would not increase predicted traffic or parking demands for the project. The predicted traffic to and from the proposed hotel will remain less than what the former City Hall site generated. 4. The increase floor area does not reduce publically visual open space or decrease the parking provided. 5. The increased hotel floor area would be located on the first and second level and does not increase the height of the building. The proposed hotel would remain consistent applicable standards of the CV-LV zoning district and Coastal Land Use Policy 4.4.3-1 that limits the height of development. SECTION 4. 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. Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013111022) on file in the Community Development Department and incorporated herein by reference. 2. General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001 attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 5. Site Development Review No. SD2016-005, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016- 015 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Project plans attached as Exhibit "E". 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23`d DAY OF JUNE 2016. AYES: NOES: RECUSAL: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 11 EXHIBIT A General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001 Amend Table LU-2 to modify Anomaly Location #85 as shown in the following table: Table LU2 Anomaly Locations Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Development Limit Additional Information Number Area Designation Limits Other Accessory commercial floor area is allowed in -� conjunction with a hotel ooh,= and it is included within 85 B5 CV-LV the hotel development 103,470 sf of hotel limit. Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any development limit. 2� EXHIBIT B Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001 Amend Table 2.1.1-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan modify the following land use category: Table 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan Categories Land Use Category Uses Density/Intensity The CV-LV category is intended to allow for a range of accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and services intended to primarily serve visitors to the 98_725 CV-LV City of Newport Beach. A fire station is allowed in its current location. Limited Use 0 gross square feet not Visitor-Serving Overnight Visitor Accommodations and inncludcluding a fire station. A fire Commercial— residences are not allowed. Note: The CV- station may not occupy more Lido Village LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido than 10% of the total project Village) category applies to the former City site. Hall Complex that includes Fire Station # 2 (3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street). 13 EXHIBIT C Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003 Amend Section 20.14.010 (Zoning Map Adopted by Reference) to modify Anomaly Location #85 as follows. Anoma/v Development Development Limit(Other) Additional Information Number Limit s Accessory commercial floor area is allowed in 98-775 conjunction with a hotel and it is included 85 within the hotel development limit. 103.470 sf of hotel Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any development limit. EXHIBIT D Required Findings for Site Development Review No. SD 2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015. Site Development Review Finding: A. Allowed within the subject Zoning district, Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The site is within the CV-LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Village) zoning district and Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Lan 4ows and Permit Requirements) allows visitor accommodations sect to the ` Koval 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: 1. The proposed 130-room hotel project is consistent with the Visitor Serving Commercial-Lido Village (CV-LV) General Plan land use designation, CV-LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido Village) Coastal Land Use Plan category, and the CV-LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - 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 1� not limited to, a community center, public plazas, a fire station and/or public parking. 2. The proposed CV-LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido Village) zoning district includes setback standards (zero to 35 feet depending on height), open space (20% of the site) and building height standards (55 feet to flat roofs, 60 feet for sloping roofs and up to 65 feet for architectural features). The proposed hotel building will be setback more 69 feet from Newport Boulevard, more than 15 feet from 32nd Street, and more than 62 feet from the northerly (interior) property line all in excess of the proposed standards. The height of the sloping roof of the 4-story portion of the proposed hotel is less 58 feet, 5 inches and all other portions of the hotel are below this height. Lastly, the proposed site plan provides approximately 21.4% of the site as open space consisting of hardscape and landscaping between the hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street in compliance with the proposed open space standard. 3. The project is compatible with surrounding development and pulmospaces 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. 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 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. 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 1( 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. 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. 7. Consistent with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections), the Draft EIR (Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare) provides an analysis of potential impacts to public views from Sunset View Park, Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park. Based upon that analysis, the proposed hotel will blend into the urban background and not block any important focal points including the horizon within existing public views from these vantages. Additionally, there are other taller buildings in the vicinity suggesting that proposed building would not be out of character despite the proposed increase in building height. Specifically, 601 & 611 Lido Park Drive and 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: 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 32"d Street that will include pedestrian paths, seating and landscape areas that will create a community focal point and providing connections to abutting uses. 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. 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 17 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. 4. Direct vehicular access to Via Lido Plaza will be provided an existing driveway and easement located just west of the intersection of Finley Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The main entry to the hotel at Finley Avenue includes 16 parking spaces and area to accommodate approximately 23 cars west of a proposed parking gate to accommodate short-term registration and valet parking and vehicle circulation without conflicting with vehicle access to Via Lido Plaza. The parking control gate at 32nd Street is designed and setback sufficiently to accommodate 2 cars, fire vehicle access, and delivery trucks to avoid conflicts along 32nd Street. 5. Closing the site to unrestricted vehicular access by the public through the site to 32nd Street would discontinue direct vehicular access 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. 6. The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained within Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the Zoning Code. 7. Roof-top mechanical equipment will be fully enclosed or screened from view consistent with the Municipal Code. 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: 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 28 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. 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: 1. The proposed 130-room hotel project is consistent with the proposed Visitor Serving Commercial-Lido Village (CV-LV) General Plan land use designation, CV- LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido Village) Coastal Land Use Plan category, and the CV-LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - 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. 2. The project site is not located within a Specific Plan area. 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. 19 Findinq: 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: 1. See statements A-1, B-2, and B-7 in support of this finding. 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. 3. The Zoning Code specifies that parking for a hotel be specified by Conditional Use Permit with the purpose to ensure that parking is adequately provided to meet demand. The proposed surface parking lot provides 148 parking spaces (some tandem) and through the use of valet parking that can facilitate additional on-site vehicles will accommodate 100% of the project's anticipated parking demand based upon the parking analysis contained in Section 5.5 Traffic/Circulation of the Lido House EIR. Additionally, the parking lot and vehicular access thereto has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for passenger vehicles, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collection vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 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: 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. 20 Facts in Support of Finding: 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. 2. The site is directly accessible from Newport Boulevard at the signalized intersection with Finley Avenue. Additionally, the site is directly accessible from 32nd Street. 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. '9 Finding: 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. See facts in support of Findings A, B, C, D, E, F and H above. 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. 21 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-0015 Planning Division 1. The hotel development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans attached as Exhibit C 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 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. 22 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 shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. Parking areas and vehicular driveways shall be swept on a weekly basis. 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 architecturally compatible and made with high quality, durable materials. Can signs are prohibited. 23 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 shall be prohibited. 27. The trash enclosure shall accommodate a minimum of four, 4-foot by 6-foot trash 24 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 and Former City Hall Reuse Amendments including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003, Site Development Review No. SD2016-005, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016- 0015; 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) and Addendum No. 1 . This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The 215 applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Applicant shall not be required to indemnify the City from any lawsuit, or damages, costs, attorneys' fees, or other expenses related thereto, that is brought by any person or entity that is currently a party to litigation initiated by the City related to the former city hall site. 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. 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. 27 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 manufacturer's 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 22 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 pl ck and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Works Department ## 63. All improvements shall be constructed as reqired by Ordi a and the Public Works Department. 64. Construct new planned improvements along 32nd Street between wport 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. 29 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. 30 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. 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. 31 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. 32 ATTACHMENT PC2 Project Plans 33 V� QP �P 31{ 16/16/16 — -4-- ---------- LIDO - - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL CLEANAIR CLEANAIR FINLEYIAVE . ADDED PROPOSED AREAS - LEVEL 1 V41V I LEGEND I PA INDICATES EXISTING HOTEL D I \ I PA PA I P ® , clFgyq/q J D INDICATES PROPOSED AREA Q Q 00 w w � I , j PA I Q a PA SUMMARY TABLE : I • I w Q�� Qo�� _ EXISTING HOTEL 98 725 SF j ® © Front OM \ PROPOSED ADDED AREA 49745 SF ce - PA - - xpanElpn— 04,140 SF @ L1 + 605 SF @ L2 251 sf bby I Egigzpan EI°° P" \ ,� TOTAL PROPOSED HOTEL 103,470 SF Ee ROOM -_1 1 E z ® 60arh SALES *NO CHANGE TO REQUIRED PARKING OR GUESTROOM COUNT \ OE I LOBBY aEq \ � 1 PA I�Roxaro�, \ � SyntheUe Turf AO \i \ esxE P1 AN� uBwav eoARp PaR�oR I I ncpx' e e „H OEPi. \N Expansion � i 224 sf \ N/� 'ET ' • I >b� nl fill >6, • - Accouxn PA \ Pa ILIf \ l I \ Ro I PA Aw PA PA • � sf 2 sf l 9 IT , W I P"4140 SF SPMI: LEVEL 1 I a WALT G RROLSON I DEVELOPMENT �- PA I _ ❑ o �� I �_� x NORTH P" 1/16" = 1 '-0" @ 30"x42" O W Ro ate I nl B.O.H.Oft. I I , T �F \ 322EApsn5100 322 sf PA am PA PA $yltheU[ I I � I I Turf \ KIORY g L _ _ ® — — f , I _ ■I \ _ 189 sF R I I I I— I PA �eJ W I — - - w WAffR SP I D r IPe � � � P" O � I m — — — oeck� — — — I u --H rri M T-- I I I I 71 r1i Pre-Function I x , PA 1p� x / RM.MilL ie-2 sfsf I I B.O.H. D D L — \ PA EXPnn510n m m .O.H.Office I 2O1 Bill sf Expynsl0n — I . < < ------------------------ D D r r m m m m O oo , III n D I YWN PA A m spark Cdlxe t J 17 _Y r r Fri 36 sf p��� py(p � PA[ n D W Ro I to U A ® �® – I®l-r r r M 0i I . d _ I PA PA LA PA M PI � � PA PA I I I PA J PA L 1 ^\ JP\ \ - I I I � I � r � I o0 � DoD 32nd . STREET o 6/16/16 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDED PROPOSED AREAS = LEVEL 2 LEGEND : INDICATES EXISTING HOTEL INDICATES PROPOSED AREA II II SUMMARY TABLE : II II II II EXISTING HOTEL 98 725 SF PROPOSED ADDED AREA 4,745 SF LI ® ® I� �I ® ® I� �I 45140 SF@L1 + 605 SF @L2 E§ 6H Ll I Le ]l IL ® L TOTAL PROPOSED HOTEL 103,470 SF IIA L ILl L o ix ® ® ® *NO CHANGE TO REQUIRED PARKING OR GUESTROOM COUNT F� J (A Ir (I ELIa v 'm E A F 11 11 Ell _ Amlz� I ® ® ® I I I� ® 0 ®B SIKffi �I A Li I� ® ® ® I] ti--j 00 Tu, ® 00 00 i ® 605 SF �� WAT G Al RROLSON ADDED AREA TO b SPECIAL KING UNITS LEVEL 2 I ®— DEVELOPMENT 605 SF I I NORTH 1/16" = 1 '-0" @30"x4,2" NEW SUITE NEW SUITE e I 4 L J nn Lj Lj 0 0 0 —13 4 13 o � � O 0 00 / m 0 014 ' o = o � LEE �I m 17 LIJU 1-m] O O ATTACHMENT PC3 Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel Final EIR V� QP �P 3g ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Lido House Hotel June 17, 2016 s Fp RNP Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner Phone: (949) 644-3210 Email: Jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov 3J° Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. 40 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1 .1 Project Location ......................................................................................... 1 1 .2 Previous Environmental Document............................................................ 1 2.0 Description of Project Modifications ................................................................ 7 2.1 Addendum's Purpose and Need ................................................................ 7 2.2 Location of Project Modifications ............................................................... 8 2.3 Components of Project Modifications......................................................... 8 2.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review............................................ 11 3.0 Environmental Assessment............................................................................. 13 3.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare....................................................................... 13 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................ 14 3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 14 3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................... 15 3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 15 3.6 Geology and Soils.................................................................................... 16 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 17 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................... 17 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................... 18 3.10 Land Use and Planning............................................................................ 19 3.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................... 20 3.12 Noise........................................................................................................ 20 3.13 Population and Housing........................................................................... 20 3.14 Public Services ........................................................................................ 21 3.15 Recreation ............................................................................................... 21 3.16 Transportation/Circulation........................................................................ 21 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................... 22 4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion ........................................................... 23 5.0 Addendum Preparation Sources/References................................................. 25 41 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report EXHIBITS 1 . Regional Vicinity Map................................................................................................. 4 2. Site Vicinity Map......................................................................................................... 5 3. Previous Conceptual Plan .......................................................................................... 6 4. Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Project) ............................................................ 9 ATTACHMENTS 1 . Traffic Impact Memorandum 42 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION As Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the Lido House Hotel Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project'). The Newport Beach City Council certified the Lido House Hotel EIR (referred to herein as the "EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022)and approved the Lido House Hotel Project on September 9, 2014. After certifying the EIR, City Council granted the following project approvals: • 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 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 The Applicant is currently requesting amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet by 4,745 gross square feet. The new maximum would be 103,470 gross square feet. The proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the "Proposed Modified Project." This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach (City), in the western portion of Orange County; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map. The project involves a 4.25- acre site (3300 Newport Boulevard) 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; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT The City of Newport Beach prepared an EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from the Approved Project, which included approval of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. The EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the Page 11 -4-3 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City. The purpose of the EIR was to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects. The proposed 130-room Lido House Hotel would be constructed on the site of the former City Hall; refer to Exhibit 3, Previous Conceptual Plan. The proposed 98,725 square foot hotel would include meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool and recreational areas, and all required appurtenant facilities including, but not limited to on-site parking, landscaping, utilities, and adjoining public improvements. The project would also provide 148 surface parking spaces and would accommodate additional parking through active parking management including valet parking service. The project also included the reconfiguration of the public parking along 32nd Street by incorporating angled parking and increasing the overall street parking spaces from 79 to 80, and to improve the flow of vehicle circulation. The proposed structures would be approximately four-stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height. The project would also include public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities proposed to be located along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The Draft EIR for the proposed project was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on April 29, 2014, and ended June 13, 2014. A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on November 20, 2013 at the former City Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard. The City's Planning Commission then considered the Draft EIR on August 11, 2014, and the City Council approved the EIR on September 9, 2014. The EIR identified potential impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the project and provided measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified. On October 7, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the proposed City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment with suggested modifications. At the October meeting, the Coastal Commission also approved Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 for the Lido House Hotel. The "Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit' (the COP) included five standard conditions and eight special conditions. Special Condition No. 6 addressed lower cost overnight accommodations mitigation and a mitigation fee of $1,415,232.00. The fee would be paid to the Coastal Commission or other qualified entity to provide lower cost overnight accommodations in the area. The City proposed the Fostering Interest in Nature (FiiN) program as a recreation and educational program that would include overnight accommodations at the Newport Dunes Resort. Page 12 44 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report The Coastal Commission also modified the proposed CLUP land use category from Mixed Use (MU) to Visitor-Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV). Overall, the Coastal Commission approved the following: "Former City Hall Complex at 3300 Newport Blvd and 475 32nd Street (the site): • At least 75% of the total area of the site shall be 35 feet in height or lower. • Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height with the peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers up to 60 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not adversely impact public views. • Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may be up to 65 feet in height. • Buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the site. • Buildings and structures over 45 feet in height, architectural features, shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the total area of the site. • With the exception of a fire station, all buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall be setback a minimum of 60 feet from the Newport Boulevard right-of-way and 70 feet from the 32nd Street right- of-way. • A fire station may be located in its current location and may be up to 40 feet in height. A fire station may include architectural features up to 45 feet in height to house and screen essential equipment." Although the modified language was more restrictive than that proposed by the City, it did not change the approved Lido House Hotel project and it also would facilitate a future reconstructed fire station. As a result, the Planning Commission and staff had no concerns with the changes. When the City approved the CLUP amendment to mixed- use, the General Plan and Zoning Code were also amended. Given the change to the CLUP, the General Plan land use category and Zoning Code needed to be modified to be consistent. Given that the intensity of use did not change, there were no issues related to Charter Section 423 (Measure S). The changes to the allowed uses within the zoning district applicable to the project mirrored the CV (Commercial Visitor-Serving)zone. Staff also modified the development standards relative to the more restrictive height limits imposed by the Coastal Commission. On November 5, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Amendments as modified by the Coastal Commission. At the conclusion of a noticed public hearing, the Commission approved the amendments and made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999 recommending City Council approval of the proposed changes to the Amendments. Page 13 45 Lancaster 1 1 395 Palmdale Atlelanto 15 L 14 18 Victorville Apple Valley 247 1 Hesperia I I 138 1 1 L O S A N G E L E S I S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y 1 C O U N T Y San Fernando 1 / 5 San Burbank 15 Bernardino Pasadena 10 Glendora Rancho Fontana 2 Cucamonga 101 � Rialto Redlands 10 West Pam no Ontario 215 10 10 Covina —'---Z ___I ____ Oiam nd Chino Angeles 605 60 4Bar �' Riverside Whittier 710 57 Yorba 71 91 Moreno 60 1u5 Beaumont �.\ 110 5 ,� Fullerton 90 Linda I Norco Valley 91 91 Corona Torrance i Orange \� R I V E R S I D E 1 405 Garden Anaheim 55 \\ Perris C O U N T Y Grove ✓ 22 Sun 74 Hemet — Santa O O U N G Y City Long Ana Beach Irvine Huntington 405 Laka 215 Beach Elsinore 73 5 i 15 Newport 74 Beach 1 i Murrieta i Laguna Beach San Juan Temecula Capistrano ; �q C Dana -- Fi Point C O C Clemente Fallbrook FA N S A N D IE G O C O U N T Y Oceanslde� * -Project Site LIDO HOUSE HOTEL NOT TO SCALE I ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LIQ Regional Vicinity Map IN r[R NA n eNAi U116-JN 153168 Exhibit 1 40 N44-714 +1 `\ t + y lelY till �'� VI'• � Vii, �, ! / ,R�'�e♦� �V411�- A��' � �P��� �,y- �•� > tv-,� - Kyr � . .we. Y Y r ✓ ,> Pac' I ire„ •. r iT *�O►—.d; ��a 'Js' ' ;.. A• •`` 1/IC C08StHi �• �/ • n ♦ owe /.'. ��.,, i Y - '1�* � ,y.� "+j� tai✓ : • r y i _ PF` .4� • yk• , art' aA� r — 11 1 1 Michael Baker i• I •f _ _ e( C FROM APPROVED CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION PLANS:CDP#5-141785 ♦0.\YIS AREA SUMMARY: GUESTAOOM SUMMARY: LEVEL 1 AREA=30.891 SF LEVEL I=5 GlO .., LEVEL2AREA=30,8735F LEVEL 2=NGufi wm4 'i • LEVEL3AREA=24,331SF LEVEL 3=48 GVe6Mo i�:•ov® 1 -•�� r` pNp LEVEL 6 AREA.12.550 SF LEVEL4=230W WMS +a�nw l�.s.J TOTAL=BB.M65F TOTAL=130GuBgeeem0 m'•'Y 1+5. 6 MAKIMUM ALLOWABLE=98.725 SF PARTIAL LEVEL 7 PROGRAM AREAS: GUESTRooM MIX: RETAIL 656 SF STO.KING=58 i Q r .,, TD.DBL QUEEN-54 O +� .<I.�. k- RESTAURANT/FOOp&BEVERAGE Sf S G • . . ~ ' r FUNCTION SPACE 4AW 4A545f SUITES=1& o 'e r SPA&WELLNESS 1.925 SF f11 - PROPOSED H L rm.,,� 10.425 SF I • ® _ e e GROUND LEVEL PARKING: TOTAL PROWDED PARKING SPACES= 146 o N a o o a e • � GO Ff Z O .o ' L3 r NwSq r 9 f .swllLw l\ C _ --—--— ---- f .:�xNa lt'.oN .. }.wr Sounce: WATGATchitectum I Landscape. NOT TO SCALE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LIQ Previous Conceptual Plan IMTE9N.IIONAL OSI16•JN 153768 Exhibit 3 42 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 2.1 ADDENDUM'S PURPOSE AND NEED When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an addendum may be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]). 17 � 9 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report As discussed below, none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications. Circulation of an addendum for public review is not necessary (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision-making body (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)). CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the "No Project' alternative. The EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. 2.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The Project Modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site identified and described in the EIR for the Approved Project. The project site is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 321d Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City. 2.3 COMPONENTS OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The Proposed Modified Project is depicted in Exhibit 4, Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Proiect). It is identical to the Approved Project in the following respects: • Acreage for the development would remain unchanged (4.25 acres). • The number of guest rooms would remain unchanged (130 rooms). • The surface parking spaces would remain unchanged (148 spaces). The reconfiguration of the public parking along 32nd Street would also remain the same. • The proposed structures would remain largely unchanged (approximately four- stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height). 18 50 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DESIGN AS OF 4/1/2016 �.: w_ '—{ -- -� r', -.�_ AREA SUMMARY: GUESTROOM SUMMARY: LEVEL 1 AREA=35.218 SF LEVEL 1=5 G.,na.ms 4� LEVEL 2 AREA 30.848 SF LEVEL 2.51 Guesuoans ---' ---'-- LEVEL 3AREA=25.180 SF LEVEL S=50 Gueslrooms 1 LEVEL AREA=12,245 SF LEVEL 4=21 Gues9Poms TOTAL.103,41/8F TOTAL=190 Gumim"s 1 1 _ (AREA INCREASE FROM COP APPROVAL 4.745 SF) I PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM AREAS: GUESTROOM MIX: ' RETAIL 1.017 SF STD.KING=Tt _ ��NII...IINII RESTAURANT I FOOD d BEVERAGE 3.200SF STD.DBL.GUEEN=M FUNCTION SPACE 3.525 SF SUITES=15 SPAR WELLNESS 1.925 SF + e ane 9,899 SF F7 GROUND LEVEL PARKING: TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES= 148 u F tF.� �r I_ s.. -sAIAA j L3 35 STRWT Source: WATGArchitecture I Landscape. NOT TO SCALE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LIQ Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Project) INTEPN411ONAL 0.5116•JN 153568 Exhibit 4 51 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report • Construction phasing would be similar to the construction phasing described in the EIR. • The spa and wellness center are would remain unchanged (1,925 square feet). • Open space areas and setbacks would remain unchanged. • The ground level area increase is contained within the existing covered arcade areas and the second level area increase matches the same facade profile as the approved City and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) plans. The following describes those minor or technical changes that comprise the Proposed Modifications. The Proposed Conceptual Plan for the Proposed Modified Project differs from the Approved Project in the following respects: • The exterior pre-function space in front of the ballroom is proposed to be enclosed and become interior space. Similar to the pre-function space included in the CDP approved plans, this area is not calculated into the 'function space' area. The pre- function area has decreased in size from that shown in the approved CDP plans. • The Lobby is proposed to become larger by pushing the entry doors out at both the north and south sides. This would create more circulation space within the lobby. • The Front of House office area is proposed to be enlarged to add some Back of House offices. • The spa sifting area is proposed to be enlarged to create a more generous relaxation space. The proposed spa square footage remains unchanged. • The remaining level 1 proposed area increase is in the Back of House and enlarges office space as well as storage areas. • The level 2 proposed area increase is utilized to enlarge two King Guestrooms into King Suites. No increase in the quantity of total guestrooms is proposed. The Proposed Modified Project also requests any necessary amendments to the previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Hotel including Site Development Review No. SD2014-001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004, Traffic Study No. TS2014-005, and Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022). The proposed changes to the project are not substantial and do not involve new approvals or amendments to the Coastal Commission's certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3. Page 110 J�� Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 2.4 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed in the certified EIR, the Approved Project was determined to have no impact with regard to the following impact thresholds, which are therefore not analyzed in this EIR. • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Utilities and Service Systems The certified EIR established that, with mitigation, the approved project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Traffic and Circulation The EIR determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts. This Addendum will address changes resulting from implementation of the Proposed Modified Project on each of the environmental resource areas previously analyzed in the EIR. Page 111 63 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report This page left intentionally blank. Page 112 54 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the Proposed Modified Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the Approved Project. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the certified EIR. 3.1 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE The certified EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas or scenic highways. However, the certified EIR analyzed potential impacts associated with the degradation of existing visual character/quality and the introduction of light and glare. The certified EIR concluded that short-term construction activities could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts in this regard were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce impacts by requiring the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which specifies requirements for equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s). The Approved Project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site by replacing the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex with the proposed hotel and associated parkways/landscaping. However, according to the certified EIR, it would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings, given the compatible nature of the proposed building setbacks, massing and scale, building height, and retail/restaurant and hotel uses with the surrounding land uses. The certified EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure compliance with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. Additionally, the certified EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact from new sources of light or glare with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3 (which would reduce short-term impacts by orienting construction-related lighting away from adjacent residential areas and using minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site) and compliance with the City's Municipal Code, Section 20.30.070, which would reduce long-term (operational) light and glare impacts due to street lighting, security lights, and interior lights. The proposed modifications would increase the square footage of the front lobby, back of house and restrooms, and retail, and the decrease in proposed square footage of the restaurant and coffee shop, function space, fitness, and guestrooms. These nominal project changes would not result in substantial changes to the overall visual character/quality of the site and its surroundings, as analyzed in the certified EIR, as the Proposed Modified Project is still proposing a hotel and associated parkways/ landscaping, on a previously developed site, and within a heavily developed area. The Page 113 155 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report increase in square footage would not be visually noticeable as the ground level area increase is contained within the existing covered arcade areas and the second level area increase matches the same facade profile as the approved plans. The proposed modifications would not substantially increase new sources of light and glare, compared to that analyzed in the certified EIR as the types and sources of lighting, lighting levels, and building materials would remain substantially the same as the Approved Project. As concluded in the certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, AES-3 and adherence to the City's Municipal Code regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Because the proposed modifications do not alter the location of the development or increase the number of rooms, or increase building height, there would be no new impacts related to scenic vistas or scenic highways. No new Mitigation Measures are required. 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that no impact to farmland, timberland, agricultural, or forest land activity would result, as these types of resources do not exist on or near the project site. As was the case with the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would not result in any impacts to farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land. The Proposed Modified Project would result in the same land use and development as analyzed in the certified EIR, on the same project site. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts have been identified. 3.3 AIR QUALITY As determined in the certified EIR, short-term construction emissions from the Approved Project would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants, including PM10 and PM2.5, even in the absence of specific dust reduction measures. Nonetheless, because the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the certified EIR identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which describes SCAQMD-required dust reduction measures. The certified EIR also identified Mitigation Measure AQ-2 to reduce emissions associated with the hauling of excavated or graded material. With the implementation of AQ-1 and AQ-2, the certified EIR determined that construction emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Thus, impacts were considered less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. In addition, the Approved Project's operational air quality emissions would be below SCAQMD's thresholds. The certified EIR also determined that air quality impacts from the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ- 1 and AQ-2, with regard to cumulative short-term and long-term air emissions and Page 114 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report sensitive receptors. The Approved Project was also determined to be less than significant with regard to conflicts with an applicable Air Quality Management Plan and odors. Construction phasing for the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to the construction activities and phasing described in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the construction emissions would be similar to those modeled in the certified EIR. As such, construction emissions for all criteria pollutants after incorporation of the proposed modifications would be below SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. As the number of hotel guestrooms would be consistent with the certified EIR, (130 guestrooms), regional and localized operational air emissions would not change and would remain below SCAQMD thresholds. As noted in the Transportation/Circulation section of this Addendum, the certified EIR and Proposed Modified Project would generate the same number of daily trips and peak hour trips. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that no impacts to biological resources would result as the project site is already heavily developed and landscaped with ornamental vegetation. No sensitive species or habitat were determined to be present on-site. However, the ornamental vegetation within the landscaped areas has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian species. The certified EIR Mitigation Measure BI0-1 recommends vegetation removal activities to be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) or a qualified biologist may conduct a survey prior to commencement of clearing and provide an adequate buffer zone if active nests are detected. Additionally, it should be noted that the certified EIR determined that no Coastal Commission waters/wetlands are located within the project site. According to the certified EIR, six trees on the project site have been designated by the City of Newport Beach as "special trees". Mitigation Measures BI0-2, BI0-3, and BI0-4 provide guidance for relocating and rededicating the special trees that cannot be retained, reducing impacts to less than significant levels. The proposed modifications would result in the same land use and development footprint as the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in additional impacts to biological resources than what was already analyzed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that no impacts to historical resources would occur as a result of the Approved Project. The project site is currently developed with non-historic Page 115 `5J Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report structures and does not hold historical significance. Given the existing disruption from prior development and the geology of the project area, any archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources within the project site have likely been disturbed during the construction of the former City Hall. Nonetheless, compliance with General Plan policies and implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any resources that could be encountered during grading and construction of future development) and CUL-2 (requiring a Certified Paleontologist to be present during earth removal or disturbance activities occurring within paleontological sensitive Vaqueros, Topanga, and Monterey Formations) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the certified EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and/or human remains were less than significant with compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 and State and Federal regulations. The Proposed Modified Project would result in the same site disturbance activities as that previously identified in the certified EIR. The proposed modifications would not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would likely be subject to significant earthquake ground motion, given the seismic character of the southern California region and proximity to active and potentially active faults. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the project site has a moderate potential for adverse effects of liquefaction due to seismically-induced settlement. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach grading and building requirements, including the most current California Building Code (CBC), and City's Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality) and compliance with NPDES requirements. With the implementation of GEO-1, impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or unstable soil, and expansive soils were also concluded to be less than significant. According to the certified EIR, on-site soils would be considered corrosive to copper unless a corrosion engineer determines otherwise. Compliance with the Building Code and Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (which requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during preparation of the Final Soils/Geotechnical Engineering Report) would reduce potential impacts associated with corrosive soils to a less than significant level. The Approved Project would not have involved the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would result in this regard. Page 116 58 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report The proposed modifications would result in equivalent impacts regarding geology and soils, as the proposed development area would remain the same as that previously analyzed in the certified EIR. Further, the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in adverse effects involving the exposure of persons and property to seismic activity and landslides. Similar to that identified in the certified EIR, compliance with the City of Newport Beach grading and building requirements, including the most current CBC, and City's Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS As determined in the certified EIR, the Approved Project would result in approximately 2,031.2 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO2eq/yr) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold. The certified EIR determined that the project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to long-term GHG emissions. The number of hotel guestrooms associated with the proposed modifications would be consistent with the certified EIR. As such, GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Modified Project would be the same as what was analyzed in the certified EIR. GHG emissions from the Proposed Modified Project would remain below SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold, as disclosed in the certified EIR. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. As originally documented in the certified EIR, the City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In addition, the Proposed Modified Project would result in operational GHG emissions below the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in any impacts pertaining to wildland fires, given the project site's location in a heavily developed urban area. The Approved Project operations would also not result in any significant impacts involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, given that the Approved Project proposed a hotel land use. As the Approved Project proposed redevelopment of the former Newport Beach City Hall complex, built prior to 1978, the certified EIR analyzed potential accidental releases of hazardous materials that could be present on the development site, particularly during construction. The materials considered included asbestos or lead-based paint that may be present in existing on-site structures, PCBs in an on-site transformer, and contaminated fill materials. However, the certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-4, impacts Page 117 159 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report associated with these existing on-site materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-5 and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Impacts pertaining to an airport land use plan or a nearby private airstrip were determined to be not significant, as the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport Impact Zone. The certified EIR also determined that the Approved Project would not significantly impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed modifications would result in similar grading and construction activities as what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR. The certified EIR Mitigation Measures would still apply to the Proposed Modified Project. No substantial changes in the severity of impacts would result in this regard. As the project site location and the nature of the proposed operations would remain the same, potential impacts pertaining to the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not increase, compared to that analyzed in the certified EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, and HWQ-3, which would ensure adherence to construction requirements per the State, potential impacts pertaining to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and degradation of water quality during construction activities, would be less than significant. According to the certified EIR, drainage during construction and operations would have a less than significant impact on the existing storm drain infrastructure. Post-construction water quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, requiring the submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Impacts involving seiche or mudflow, would also be less than significant. Implementation of the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) would reduce potential impacts associated with the inundation by a tsunami to less than significant levels. Other impacts involving a 100-year flood plain, flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and groundwater depletion/recharge, would not result. The proposed drainage and impervious area associated with the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to what was previously considered in the certified EIR. Like the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with City and State regulations. The certified EIR Mitigation Measures would still apply to the Proposed Modified Project. Thus, potential impacts associated with construction activities and long-term operations would be less than significant. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Page 118 00 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in any impacts relating to the division of an established community or conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The certified EIR proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to eliminate inconsistencies (i.e., amend the land use designation from Public Facilities [PF] to Mixed-Use [MU] and increase new development bulk and height limits). The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project is not regionally significant based on the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) criteria. Similar to the CLUP amendments, the Approved Project included a General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendment to update the land use designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed-Use Horizontal 5 (MU-H5), which would allow for development limitations of 98,725 square feet of hotel use. The Approved Project also required a Zone Code Amendment to create a new mixed-use zoning district, Mixed Use — Lido Village (MU-LV), in order to implement the MU-H5 land use designation at the project site. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. The certified EIR determined that approval of a Land Use Element Amendment by the City would result in the project's compliance with the intended use and development limits for the MU-H5 designation. Lastly, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the Lido Village Design Standards. A less than significant impact would occur in regards to conflicting with an 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. However, the Coastal Commission modified the proposed CLUP land use category to Visitor-Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV) and made changes to Policy 4.4.3-1 making it more restrictive (not taller). The City accepted these changes subsequent to the Coastal Commission action and made the appropriate CEQA findings in a staff report for the November 24, 2015 City Council hearing. The proposed modifications would be consistent with the land uses considered in the certified EIR. However, the proposed modifications would result in deviations to the total square footage of the hotel from 98,725 square feet to 103,470 square feet; a total increase of 4,745 square feet. Although the increase is minimal, the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map amendment would need to be updated to increase the development limitations in regards to total square footage of a hotel. It should be noted that the current application is to amend the General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning to increase the maximum intensity of development by 4,745 square feet. Even with approval of the amendments, the increase to the project entitlements (site development review and Conditional Use Permit) are consistent with applicable land use plans/zoning. The added area does not change the height of the building. Therefore, the project is consistent with CLUP Policy 4.4.3-1 as certified by the Coastal Commission and adopted by the City Council. The current amendment does not include a request to modify the policy. The Page 119 �2 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment would reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. No new mitigation measures would be required. 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in no impacts pertaining to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state or to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource. As discussed in the certified EIR, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. The project location remains unchanged. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.12 NOISE Short-term construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant in the certified EIR with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the City's allowable construction hours (Municipal Code Section 10.28.040). Similarly, the certified EIR determined that operational noise impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project is not subject to an airport land use plan or private airstrip; therefore, no impacts result in this regard. The project footprint and construction activities for the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to those described in the certified EIR. As such, short-term construction noise would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, and compliance with the City's allowable construction hours. The Proposed Modified Project would have a similar footprint as the Approved Project; therefore, the guestrooms would not be more impacted by traffic noise along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Additionally, the operational noise characters would remain the same as the Proposed Project Modifications would not change the characteristics or function of the Approved Project and no additional traffic trips would be created. No new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required. 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in no impact to population growth. The proposed modifications would result in the same development of the Lido House Hotel. The net increase in square footage is primarily related to Back of House space and minor functional areas which would not increase the number of anticipated employees and would not lead to an increase in population growth beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required. Page 120 02 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES The certified EIR determined that the development of the Lido House Hotel and associated amenities would not increase the need for additional public services. Compliance with the provisions of the California Building Code, applicable State, City, and County code, and ordinance requirements for fire protection, as well as the General Plan Safety Element would reduce impacts to fire protection services during construction activities to less than significant levels. Additionally, the payment of statutory fees would reduce impacts to less than significant levels in regards to local school facilities. The Proposed Modified Project would increase the square footage of the front lobby, back of house and restrooms, and retail, and decrease the proposed square footage of the restaurant and coffee shop, function space, fitness, and guestrooms. These modifications are nominal and would not increase potential impacts to public services or facilities (i.e., fire protection services, police services, etc.) at the project site beyond that analyzed in the certified EIR. 3.15 RECREATION The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts in regards to recreational facilities. The Approved Project includes public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities, as well as recreational amenities (i.e. pool and workout room, etc.) for hotel guests. The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project did not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed modifications do not result in changes to land use or square footage of proposed public open spaces, landscape areas, and other amenities. The proposed decrease in square footage to the fitness center is nominal and would not induce additional impacts to recreational facilities. As concluded in the certified EIR, the Proposed Modified Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No new significant impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction-related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in 1,062 average daily trips (69 a.m. peak hour trips and 78 p.m. peak hour trips), resulting in less daily trips than the former City Hall Complex generated. As discussed in the certified EIR, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) for existing plus project Page 121 63 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report conditions according to agency performance criteria. Based on the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa performance criteria, a significant project impact occurs at a signalized study intersection when the addition of project-generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D)to a deficient operation (LOS E or F). The certified EIR determined that the increase in trips would not result in conflicts with an existing plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, or conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking would ensure that parking is managed on-site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes and emergency access was determined to be less than significant. No impacts are anticipated in regards to air traffic patterns or design hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's proposed site access location, off-site circulation features, parking configuration, or trip generation (as the project modifications would result in the same number of hotel guestrooms as the Approved Project); refer to Attachment A, Traffic Impact Memorandum. Thus, no changes to the impacts previously identified would result. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to wastewater treatment exceedances, the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities, water supplies, adequate capacity by the wastewater treatment provider, landfill capacity(with continued compliance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Elements [SRRE]). Further, the certified EIR determined that with implementation of Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 through HWQ-4, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in guestrooms at the project site compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would result in the same demand on utilities and service systems as compared to what was analyzed in the certified EIR. Additionally, the proposed drainage and impervious area would be similar to that previously considered in the certified EIR. Thus, no new impacts to water demand, the wastewater treatment capacity, or landfill capacity as a result of solid waste generation would result. No new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required. Page 122 04 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the changes to the Approved Project considered in the certified EIR constitute minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR has occurred. In addition, because the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts have been identified. Page 123 05 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. Page 124 00 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES California Coastal Commission, Addendum to the Item W9a, Application No. 5-14-1785 (RD Olson Development) for the Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 7, 2015, October 1, 2015. California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178. City of Newport Beach, Former City Hall Complex Land Use and Zoning Amendments for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street, and Authorization of Fostering Interest in Nature Program, November 24, 2015. Google Earth Maps, http://maps.google.com, accessed May 2016. Michael Baker International, Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Traffic Impact Memorandum, June 15, 2016. RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2014. RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 2014. WATG Architecture, Area Summary: Approved CDP Plans Vs. Proposed Plans, May 7, 2016. WATG Architecture, Exhibit 2 — Design as of 4/1/2016 in Conformance with Approved Overall Plans, May 7, 2016. Page 125 0-�L Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. Page 126 02 Attachment A — Traffic Impact Memorandum 09 V� QP �P �o • " - • We Make o Difference I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MEMORANDUM To: Eddie Torres, Michael Baker International From: Tom Huang, TE, Michael Baker International D..-A 9-CS7 Date: June 15, 2016 Subject: Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum -Traffic Impact Memorandum Introduction The Project Applicant is currently requesting amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet by 4,745 gross square feet. The new maximum floor area would be 103,470 gross square feet. However, the number of guestrooms remains unchanged at 130 rooms. The proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the 'Proposed Modified Project." This Traffic Impact Memorandum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant traffic related impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. Traffic Analysis The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction-related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in 1,062 average daily trips (69 a.m. peak hour trips and 78 p.m. peak hour trips), resulting in less daily trips than the former City Hall Complex generated; refer to Table 1, Trip Generation Rates and Table 2, Project Trip Generation. Table 1 Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates Daily Land Use(ITE Code) Units Trip In Out Total In Out Total Rate Hotel(310) Room 1 0.31 0.22 0.53 0.31 0.29 1 0.60 8.17 Source:ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9� Edition,2012. 14725 Alton Parkway I Irvine,CA 92618 M BA K E R I N T L.C O M Office:949.85535051 Fax:949.330.4130 We Make a Difference Table 2 Project Trip Generation Comparison AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Trips City Hall Complex' 118 20 138 17 116 133 1,121 130-room Hotel' 40 29 69 40 38 78 1,062 Net Trip Generation -78 9 69 23 -78 1 -55 -59 'Source:City of Newport Beach City Hall Reuse Project, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting,November 2012. 2Source:Approved Project trips estimated based on trip generation rates in Table 2. As noted above, for a hotel use, the trip generation is calculated on a per room basis, as all of the other features (i.e., retail, restaurant, spa, function space, and back of house) are ancillary functions that support the overall use of the hotel and do not generate additional trips of their own. As the proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's room count of 130 rooms, there would be no additional trips generated beyond what was projected in the certified EIR which are shown in line 2 of Table 3. As discussed in the certified EIR, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) for existing plus project conditions according to agency performance criteria. Based on the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa performance criteria, a significant project impact occurs at a signalized study intersection when the addition of project-generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D) to a deficient operation (LOS E or F). The certified EIR determined that the change in trips would not result in conflicts with an existing plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, or conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking would ensure that parking is managed on-site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes and emergency access was determined to be less than significant. No impacts are anticipated in regards to air traffic patterns or design hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Conclusion The proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's room count. As the room count would remain unchanged, there would be no additional trips generated beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. As no additional trips would be generated by the Proposed Modified Project, there would be no required changes to the approved site access location, off-site circulation features, or parking configuration. Thus, there would be no changes to the impacts previously identified in the certified EIR, no new impacts have been identified, and no new mitigation measures are required. Lido House Hotel in City of Newport Beach I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L udo_Ad&.dum Tafin2016 W.15.. Traffic Impact Memorandum 2 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) June 16, 2016 Comments regarding General Plan Amendment GP2016-001 Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for your time today. As the city council approaches GP 2016- 001, 1 would like you to know that I believe that the Section 423 limits for the Lido House hotel have been miscalculated. As you know, the General Plan did not ever allocate any density or intensity for the former City Hall site that will now be the site of the Lido House. I believe this to be in violation of Government Code 65302, which states with regard to General Plans that "The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan." Regardless, the statute of limitations for the original EIR is now past and there is a new land use designation and new density/intensity limits on this property. The question before us is how the Section 423 limits will be applied. The wording of the charter amendment indicates that the new square footage of a GPA will be compared against the square footage allowed in the General Plan. Since there was no square footage allocated in the General Plan for this location, it would be technically correct to consider that all 98,725 sq ft from the original plan should have been counted against Section 423. However, any reasonable person would look at this situation and consider that standard to be unfair to the applicant as there was an existing structure present. It is eminently reasonable to apply the existing square footage against the proposed square footage to come up with an additional entitlement of 38,125 sq ft that would be applied to the Section 423 standards. One building down, one building up. However, this is not how the city is calculating the Section 423 limits. Based an Urban Crossroads traffic study done in 2006 that considered a larger city hall, the city used 75,000 sq ft as the baseline allocation for the City Hall site. It is completely illogical that just because the City Council thought about possibly having a bigger building at the City Hall site, but did not add any such statement to the 2006 General Plan, that the vaguely considered new City Hall should act as the new standard for Section 423 planning. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) that any neutral party asked to adjudicate on this issue will prefer to use factual numbers rather than vague conceptual considerations and would thus agree that the appropriate numbers to use for Section 423 purposes are the actual square footage of the prior City Hall. Using these numbers, the original Lido House GPA pushed the Section 423 cumulative calculations to 58,468 sq ft above that allowed in the 2006 General Plan for area B5. 80% of that total is 46,854 sq ft, well above the 40,000 sq ft limit that triggers a Section 423 vote. Thus, if GP 2016-001 is approved, it must go to a vote of the people for final approval as outlined in policy A-18. Thank you, Susan Skinner 2042 Port Provence Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission -June 23, 2016 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) From: Campbell,James Sent: Tuesday,June 21, 2016 12:29 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Subject: FW: Lido House Amendment Fallow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Susan Skinner [mailto:seskinnerCulme.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 4:34 PM To: Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Kramer, Kory Cc: Torres, Michael; Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim; Campbell, James; Kiff, Dave Subject: Lido House Amendment To the members of the Planning Commission, I would like to call your attention to what seems to be an error in the Greenlight calculations being used for the Lido House. I did submit a letter to Jim Campbell about this, but know how busy things get and was concerned that it might not get read prior to Tuesday's meeting. I have another board meeting that I must attend and will not be there Tuesday. I hope that after you read this, you will agree that there is an addition legislative action required for this amendment: a section 423 vote for final approval. Thank you, Susan Skinner My letter: As the city council approaches GP 2016-001,I would like you to]mow that I believe that the Section 423 limits for the Lido House hotel have been miscalculated. As you know,the General Plan did not ever allocate any density or intensity for the former City Hall site that will now be the site of the Lido House. I believe this to be in violation of Government Code 65302,which states with regard to General Plans that"The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan." Regardless,the statute of limitations for the original EIR is now past and there is a new land use designation and new density/intensity limits on this property. The question before us is how the Section 423 limits will be applied. The wording of the charter amendment indicates that the new square footage of a GPA will be compared against the square footage allowed in the General Plan. Since there was no square footage allocated in the General Plan for this location, it would be technically correct to consider that all 98,725 sq ft from the original plan should have been counted against Section 423. However, any reasonable person would look at this situation and consider that standard to be unfair to the applicant as there was an existing structure present. It is eminently reasonable to apply the existing square footage against the proposed square footage to come up with an additional entitlement of 38,125 sq ft that would be applied to the Section 423 standards. One building down,one building up. However,this is not how the city is calculating the Section 423 limits. Based an Urban Crossroads traffic study done in 2006 that considered a larger city hall,the city used 75,000 sq ft as the baseline allocation for the City Hall site. It is completely illogical that just because the City Council thought about possibly having a bigger building at the City Hall site, 1 Planning Commission -June 23, 2016 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received but did not add any such statement to the 2006 General Plan,that the vaguely considerMgoet"TH Rlg6M9%gVRrlWe(fb?016-061) standard for Section 423 planning. I may be wrong,but I'm pretty sure that any neutral party asked to adjudicate on this issue will prefer to use factual numbers rather than vague conceptual considerations and would thus agree that the appropriate numbers to use for Section 423 purposes are the actual square footage of the prior City Hall. Using these numbers,the original Lido House GPA pushed the Section 423 cumulative calculations to 58,468 sq ft above that allowed in the 2006 General Plan for area B5. 80%of that total is 46,854 sq ft, well above the 40,000 sq It limit that triggers a Section 423 vote. Thus, if GP 2016-001 is approved, it must go to a vote of the people for final approval as outlined in policy A-18. 2 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Regular Meeting -June 23, 2016, 6:30 p.m. From: V Lorenzen [mailto:valorenzen(a)amail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:30 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: Re: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Regular Meeting - June 23, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Aren't we going a bit haywire on building in Newport Beach? It is beginning to look like New York City here in Newport Beach. (the work being done by Fashion Island.for instance.) Also three projects,large,economy size,within walking distance of Lido Isle. That aside,aren't we having a drought in California? Doesn't that fit in to the picture of massive building? Respectfully, Violet Lorenzen Box 2073 Newport Beach,Ca 92659 On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Campbell, James <JCampbell(anewportbeachca.eov>wrote: Lido House Hotel Update You probably are aware of the fact that the Lido House Hotel has started construction at the former City Hall site at the corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. You may not be aware of the fact that RD Olson has filed applications to amend the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and project entitlements to increase the floor area for the hotel.The requested increase is about 4.8 percent of what was previously approved and there will be no increase in rooms and the meeting rooms will be smaller.The height of the building will remain the same and parking and open space will not be reduced. The Planning Commission will be considering the request next week on Thursday,June 23, 2016, 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.The agenda and staff report that describes the project in more detail can be accessed by following the links below. If you have questions, please let me know.Thank you. James Campbell I Principal Planner City of Newport Beach I Community Development Department I Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach,CA 92660 (949)644-32101 Jcampbellknewportbeachca.gov 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received www.newportbeachea.gov Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) From: Newport Beach News [mailto:noreplvPnewportbeachca.00v] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 3:31 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Regular Meeting -June 23, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Regular Meeting -June 23, 2016, 6:30 p.m. AGENDA Post Date: 06/17/2016 3:30 PM mo Planning Division News Splash: The current Planning Commission Regular Agenda for the meeting on Thursday, June 23, 2016, is now available. The complete agenda packet, including staff reports, can be accessed HERE. For more information please call (949) 644-3200 or visit the Planning Commission Information Page. Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may be changed by accessing your News &Alerts account from the City website. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all Newport Beach, CA eNotifications. ■ 2 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) LAW OFFICES OF FRED GAINES GAINES & STACEY LLP TELEPHONE SBERMAN L.STACEY 1111 BAYsIDE DRIVE,SUITE 280 (949)640-8999 - LIsA A.WEBVBERO CORONA DEL MAR,CALIFORNIA 92625 FAX REBECCA A.TrIOMPSON (949)640-8330 NANCI S.STACEY KIMBERLYRIELE ALICIA B.BARTLEY 4cEIVED 11, June 20, 2016 COMMUNITY Mr. James Campbell JUN 21 2016 Principal Planner DEVELOPMENT City of Newport Beach G 100 Civic Center Drive SOP NEWOO ®o Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061) 3300 Newport Boulevard&475 32nd Street General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001 Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001 Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003 Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015 Dear Mr. Campbell: The undersigned represents R. D. Olson Development, the Applicant in the above referenced matters which are scheduled for public hearing before the Newport Beach Planning Commission on June 23,2016. I have had the opportunity to review the letter dated June 16, 2016 from Susan Skinner. Dr. Skinner claims that a vote of the people is required because the former City Hall site should have been evaluated for purposes of Section 423 of the City Charter by the then existing square footage of the former City Hall and not by an allocation to the former City Hall site of a General Plan authority for 75,000 square feet. However,the actions of which Dr. Skinner complains all took place almost two years ago. The City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted the resolution amending the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan on September 9,2014. The analysis of the action of the City Council relative to Section 423 was clearly spelled out in the staff reports and in City Council Resolution No, 2014-81 adopted September 9, 2014. The second reading of Ordinance No. 2014-16 making the zoning for the site consistent with the General Plan occurred on September 23, 2014. The statute of limitations to challenge the Final EIR was 30 days. (Pub.Res.Code §211676(c))The statute of limitations to challenge Resolution No. 2014-81 and Ordinance No. 2014-16 was 90 days. (Govt Code §65909(c)(1)). Each of these statutes of limitations has expired. I do not recall that Dr. Skinner raised any objections in 2014. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Mr. Jim Campbell City of Newport Beach June 20, 2016 Page 2 The California Coastal Commission approved Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 3-14 (LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3)and Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 on October 7, 2015. The statute of limitations to challenge those decisions was 60 days. (Pub.Res.Code§30801)The California Coastal Commission imposed several Special Conditions on Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785, including a payment by R. D. Olson Development to the City of the amount of$1,485,000 to operate a lower income student educational program at Newport Harbor. R.D. Olson Development has paid this amount and satisfied all other Special Conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission. In acting on LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3, the Coastal Commission required several technical modifications to Resolution No. 2014-81 and Ordinance No.2014-16. On December 8,2015, the City Council Adopted Ordinance No. 2015-35, and on February 9, 2016 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-29,which implemented the technical changes required by the Coastal Commission. Even if these technical amendments revived a statute of limitations for the original September 9,2014 amendment to the General Plan,the 90 day statute of limitations has still passed. Dr. Skinner presents complaints about matters which are final and no longer subject to challenge. As to the application which is before the Planning Commission on June 23,2016, analysis under Charter Section 423 must proceed from the finality of the prior decisions. Table 1 on page 3 of the Staff Report provides the calculation required by Section 423 to determine if a vote of the people is required. Since the total floor area is not over 40,000 square feet and the additional trips generated do not exceed 100 trips (with the current proposed amendment contributing no additional trips generated), Section 423 does not require a vote of the people. Please convey my letter to the City Attorney and to the Planning Commission for the hearing. I will not be in attendance at the Planning Commission. I believe that the facts recited above are not reasonably subject to dispute and I urge the Planning Commission to adopt the proposed action. Very truly yours, Sk,ur aL, L. Staezy SHERMAN L. STACEY SLS/sh cc: Kim Brandt Anthony Wrzosek R. D. Olson Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Comment to Agenda Item- Planning Commission meeting June 23 Attachments: Letter to City Planning Commission re Lido House Hotel and proposed GP Amendment 6-21-16.docx From: Denys Oberman rmailto:dho(alobermanassociates.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:33 PM To: Campbell, James; Brown, Leilani Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim; Dixon, Diane; Linda Klein; 'Kathryn Branman'; bobbief100(a me.com; cynthia koller; Drew Wetherholt; 'Fred Levine'; dho(a)obermanassociates.com Subject: Comment to Agenda Item- Planning Commission meeting June 23 Please distribute the attached to the Planning Commission and distribute to the public, and Enter into the Public Record in connection with Agenda items pertaining to the Lido House Hotel project, and related Amendments. Please confirm receipt and action taken as requested. Thankyou Denys Oberman et al Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOBERMAN $kCdggy prod F#�onc:al Adviser; OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949)476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax(949) 752-8935 Email: dho(o).obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above,to arrange for the return of the document(s)to us. 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) June 21, 2016 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach CA. Re. Comments re. Planning Commission Meeting of June 23, 2016--- Proposed Amendment to General Plan in re. Lido House Hotel Amendment PA 2016- 061 Members of the Planning Commission: We are residents of the Lido Village and Balboa Penninsula area. We have actively supported the Reuse of the former City Hall site as a boutique Hotel , and participated in what was an extensive public process, including testimony, comment and review of EIR/other Planning documents. The Community stakeholders were strong proponents of the Hotel as a preferred Reuse of the site, based on the following: • A Boutique Hotel is a use that is complementary to the surrounding uses, and would play a key role as a Destination Anchor to revitalize the area. • The hotel and included amenities would be used and enjoyed by both residents and visitors • The Hotel use provided for density/intensity of use with less Environmental and traffic impacts than those generated by either the former City Hall, or other potential Uses then under consideration( Apartments/Condos, residential mixed use) • The Hotel would provide a desirable balance between offering much needed revitalization and economic stimulus, and an aesthetic facility not detrimental to the Environment or surrounding community We actively supported the Reuse of the property as a Boutique Hotel, and specifically the team led by R.D. Olson. At the time of decision, the City Council listened to the People, and ratified this Use along with the Hotel project. Subsequently, the project was submitted to and received approval from ,the Coastal Commission. We request that the Planning Commission consider and move as follows: 1) We wish to voice support and request the Commission and the City's approval of the proposed modification to the GP which would enable additional space of approximately 4,000 sq ft. floor, to support required hotel operating functions. This addition does not create any additional adverse impact on the site or surrounding area. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) 2) We wish to comment on the ficus trees which are remaining on the property. These trees are "water hogs", and are not consistent with conditions established by the Coastal Commission that landscape palette be drought- tolerant/drought resistant.Nor are these native plants. We want to be a community which actively supports water conservation, so we request that the Commission approval an alternative landscape as may be proposed by the developer( RD Olson). 3) Finally, we wish to comment on the notes submitted by S. Skinner in connection with the proposed Amendment, and the project. While we may agree that the General Plan did not make as many specific provisions as would be desirable relative to both this project and the coastal areas en toto, the fact is that Reusue projects frequently require project-specific consideration to assure their economic viability, and integration with the now-current community. There was an extensive public process, and ample opportunity for any resident or stakeholder to provide comment as to the proposed Reuse of the property, and the specific project. The project has launched, and the community is anxious to see it completed and become and integral part of the Community. We respectively suggest that Ms. Skinner's attention be more constructively directed at securing a Specific Plan for Mariners Mile---or, that an initiative be launched to accelerate a broader update of the City's General Plan, to manage substantial growth in resident and visitor activity and retain our irreplaceable, precious community character and natural environments. Sincerely, Denys H. Oberman Linda Klein Kathryn Branman Cc: Citizens for Lido/Balboa Penninsula revitalization and community integrity Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) June 23, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 3 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EXPANSION (PA2016-061) General comments Before explaining my more serious concerns, I would like to point out it is nearly impossible for the public to verify that the present request is actually adding 4,745 square feet to what the public thought were the previously approved plans for the Lido House Hotel. Attachment PC2 ("Project Plans") shows shaded areas that presumably add to 4,745 square feet to something, however in many other areas (for example, the entire "back of house" area) the detailed layout of that something differs so greatly from the layout previously approved on Sheets 19 (Level 1) and 20 (Level 2) that it is difficult to see what distinguishes the shaded areas from other new areas. The public has to essentially take it on faith that the 2014 plans totaled 98,725 square feet and the new plans total 103,470 gross square feet, with the shaded areas of Attachment PC2 rather arbitrarily being taken as the "new" parts. It should also not go unsaid that this entire application seems to me a perversion of City Charter's Section 423 ("Greenlight") provision. While perhaps technically legal, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of the Charter. To explain, in 2014 the public was told that 98,725 square feet was the absolute maximum that could be built on this site within the Council's discretion to add to the General Plan without a public vote. And that was said to require adding 23,725 sf to Statistical Area B5. Now, two years later, we are being told that since under the rules of Section 423 only 80% of a previous amendment counts towards the cumulative Greenlight totals, the Council is fee to amend the General Plan a second time for the benefit of exactly the same development, adding 20%x23,725 sf= 4,745 sf—which we are told is magically, to the square foot, exactly what the developer needs to perfect the project. Since only 80% of the amount added by this new amendment will count towards the Greenlight totals for Area B5, will staff and the developer be coming back at the next Commission meeting with a proposal to amend the General Plan yet again to add 20%x4,745 sf = 949 sf to the same site? And then an amendment to add 20%x949 sf= 190 sf? And so on? Wouldn't it be more honest to just show us the final plan and then go through the charade of a series of nearly identical amendments designed solely to evade Greenlight? Or even more honest to have originally asked for enough for the developer to comfortably build what he envisioned and then asked the public to approve or deny it? Greenlight issues in detail Setting aside such shenanigans, my more serious concern is with the current Charter Section 423 status of this statistical area, and the compounding of past errors with the current proposal. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Moshetido House HoteP a3idfr5ents (PA2016-061) In short, I share many of the concerns expressed by Dr. Susan Skinner in Additional Materials 3a/3b, and particularly wish to emphasize that the proposed General Plan amendment, whether it needs a public vote itself, is, like its predecessors, inconsistent with City Charter Section 423 ("Greenlight") because it fails to specify the quantity of future development being approved for municipal facilities. Response to applicant's letter I note that in Additional Materials 3d, Sherman Stacey, representing the Lido House Hotel applicant, appears to suggest Dr. Skinner's concerns are irrelevant because of various statutes of limitations and contractual agreements attached to past City Council actions related to this property. This misses the point, since Dr. Skinner is not asking the Commission or Council to vacate past approvals, but rather is questioning the applicability of a Section 423 vote to the proposed new actions requested by PA2016-061. And since the trigger point for Greenlight votes relies on an accurate tally of all changes to the General Plan in the last ten years that have not been approved by voters, and since none of the Council actions cited by Mr. Stacey were approved by voters, the proper accounting of all increased General Plan allotments in Statistical Area B5 in the last ten years remains highly relevant, however the Council may have counted them at the time. Are we governed by a game of chicken? As the Commission is probably aware, this is part of a larger problem of several years of questionable Section 423 accounting that seriously affects the Greenlight status of recent development proposals in Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center), as well. The idea that after a Council approval, unless caught by an intensely vigilant public in a certain number of days, past errors in the Section 423 accounting become sacrosanct would mean that development allotments erroneously granted without voter approval never count at all toward the Greenlight limits. In other words, if not caught, the Council can add any amount of development to the General Plan without voter approval, and it achieves the same status as if voters had approved it. Our in still other words, we approve it by our silence. That is a result completely contrary to our Charter, and one in which governance devolves to a game of chicken between Council, staff and the public. I don't think that's a result any of us want. Specific problems in this area In the case of Statistical Area B5, there are two core problems with the past Greenlight accounting: 1. A failure to specify the maximum potential development being allotted for municipal facilities. 2. A failure to account for the fact that the 2006 allotment for an enlarged City Hall on the present site, whatever it may have been, was transferred to Statistical Area L1 by Measure B in 2008. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim MosheLido House HotePAw4dfr5ents (PA2016-061) Problem 1 As to Problem 1, neither City Charter Section 423 nor the implementing guidelines of City Council Policy A-18, first adopted in March 2001, provide any exemption for city facilities. Indeed, Definition G of Policy A-18 explicitly includes the General Plan designations "Public Facilities", "Private Institutions", "Open Space", "Parks and Recreation" and "Tidelands and Submerged Lands" as Non-residential Uses counting towards the 40,000 sf intensity/floor area Greenlight trigger, and Definition B requires all proposed amendments to "state the proposed entitlement in density and/or intensity and, in the case of intensity, the category of non- residential use." Such an explicit statement of the proposed limits is obviously necessary for evaluating the impacts of any amendment with respect to Section 423. Yet despite this clear directive, Measure V (the 2006 General Plan Update of Resolution 2006- 77, which was the last voter approval for anything in Statistical Area B5— or for that matter, for anything anywhere else in the City) failed to specify the intensity(maximum floor area) proposed for any of the sites designated for municipal use, including the old City Hall site — making it difficult to understand how the maximum potential traffic impacts could have been determined. In his opening paragraph, Mr. Stacey cites a "General Plan authority for 75,000 square feet." Such a number may indeed appear in an obscure footnote to an obscure appendix of an EIR, but it was never presented to, let alone approved by voters (see the above resolution). Problem 2 As to Problem 2, whatever development limit may have been assigned to the old City Hall site in November 2006, less than two years later, in February 2008, voters approved Measure B adding Section 425 to the City Charter, moving the City Hall from the old site in Lido Village to its new one in Newport Center. The Council implemented the voters' directive with GP2008-005 (Resolution No. 2008-97) in November 2008, but despite the Green light/Policy A-18 requirements, that General Plan amendment failed to specify either how much development allotment needed to be removed from the old site or added to the new site to accommodate the voter-approved move. The 23,725 sf listed in Table 1 of the current staff report as the amount added to the development limit for the Lido House Hotel site with GP 2012-002 (Resolution No. 2014-81) in September 2014 continues the fiction that prior to the 2014 amendment the site continued to enjoy a voter-approved limit of 75,000 for City Hall development. This is clearly erroneous since voters had moved the allocation for City Hall development out of Statistical Area B5 in 2008. As a result, the 2014 amendment presumably added considerably more than 23,725 square feet to what was allowed on the site in the wake of Measure B. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Moshetido House HotePfteoefidfients (PA2016-061) Proposal compounds prior problems with Greenlight accounting The present proposal compounds these two problems, both by claiming that adding still more square footage to Area B5 is possible without putting the area over the Greenlight intensity threshold (like Dr. Skinner I believe it was already substantially over the limit prior to the present proposal), and by continuing to say that on top of the already excessively large hotel development limit, municipal facilities can be allowed as an additional use that is "not restricted or included in any development limit." Specifically, it is impossible for me to understand how a meaningful CEQA analysis can be conducted, or the required Greenlight analysis of traffic impacts be performed, when the potential for municipal facilities development is completely unknown. Without a stated limit, how can one even begin to tell if the potential newly allowed development is greater or less than would have been allowed under the prior unspecified limit? Summary At least to me, it appears that changes to the General Plan that should have gone to Greenlight votes have instead been locked in by development agreements and contractual understandings. Such issues are not ones that admit of any easy solution; but difficult as it may be, until the existing issues have been equitably resolved it seems to me wholly inappropriate to make them worse by approving the present proposal. Comments on reading the proposed new Resolution Page 3 (handwritten 9): Paragraph (i) makes no sense to me. What "Adopted MND" is this referring to? And what consideration did the Commission give to the project on June 9, 2016? Page 4 (handwritten 10): • In the first Item 4, "increase" was presumably intended to read "increased' and "visuar' was probably meant to read "visible". • In the first Item 5, "consistent applicable' should be "consistent with applicable'. • Item 1: if the Addendum provided as Attachment PC3 to the staff report was prepared with the assistance of an outside consultant, it is not obvious who they were. They do not seem to identify themselves. • Item 6: there is no Exhibit "E" attached to the draft resolution. Would this be the same as the plans of Attachment PC2 to the staff report? Exhibit A(handwritten 12): The failure to specify a development limit for municipal facilities is inconsistent with Charter Section 423 and City Council Policy A-18. Exhibit C (handwritten 14): This carries forward the error just noted under Exhibit A, above. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Moshetido House HotePA94&dfients (PA2016-061) Considering the above noted inconsistency, I have not read the remainder of the draft resolution, but I would note Item 1 on handwritten page 22 refers to "the approved plans attached as Exhibit C of this Resolution." Exhibit C is definitely not plans. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Proposed Gen. Plan Amend. - Lido House Hotel Attachments: 160622 Ltr re. LH.pdf -----Original Message----- From: Warren B Wimer [mailto:warren@wwimer.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 22, 2016 12:45 PM To: Brandt, Kim; Campbell,James Cc: ddixon@newportbeach.gov Subject: Proposed Gen. Plan Amend. - Lido House Hotel All, Please see attached letter. Warren Wimer 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Warren Ft Nancy Wimer 221 Via Firenze Newport Beach, California 92663-4633 Telephone: (949) 673-4086 Facsimile: (949) 269-9181 June 22, 2016 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach CA. Subject: Proposed Amendment to General Plan in re. Lido House Hotel Amendment PA 2016- 061 Members of the Planning Commission: My wife and I are residents of Lido Isle. During the extensive qualification process and through the selection process among several proposed uses of the vacated City Hall real estate, in 2012, 1 was serving as a director of the Board of the Lido Isle Community Association. One of my responsibilities was to obtain community input and to convey that input to City Council and staff. In conjunction with that responsibility was the holding of a well attended proposer forum and a resident survey. The result was overwhelming support for the Lido House Hotel concept being proposed by RD Olson. After a one year absence from the Board, I was asked to return and completed a one year term as President of the Lido Isle Community Association in April of this year. During the pendency of this project attributable to the lengthy entitlement process, I have maintained a solid awareness of the feelings of the Lido community. Of course, there has been frustration with the length of time the process has entailed, with one comment being that it took longer to do the paperwork on this desired project than it took our country to mobilize and win World War 1I. Now the project is actually underway and everyone I have talked to is pleased it is finally happening. As I understand the current request,the parties that have a stake in the success of the hotel operation have concluded that permitting the use of an additional 4,000 square feet of floor space in the operational area of the hotel will materially support its functionality. I know of no one in the community that would object to an adjustment of the allowable buildable floor space to improve the functionality of the hotel. When the project was considered by the residents of the community, it was supported because the community wanted the best possible improvement, a one-of-a-kind quality boutique hotel that provides superior service. If an additional 4,000 square feet of functional floor area will facilitate that goal, it is my sincere belief that the community in general overwhelmingly is supportive of that goal. The community has been more focused on the overall plan and the prospect of a quality improvement than worried about a specific floor space constriction. This letter is written to express the general feeling that I have from neighbors, friends and community members that have followed the Lido House project. We want the project and the Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) operation of the hotel to be a success. In that regard, we respect the fact that as the design was finalized it became evident to the professionals that the operation of the hotel and its economic viability will be enhanced by allowing a relatively minor addition of floor space for operational purposes. The nature of the public approval process allows for varying inputs from citizens with differing views and agendas. That is how it should be. As volunteers and Commissioners you have the task of separating positive substantive input from pre-textual obstructionist offerings. The goal for the City should be to do all reasonably possible to support the efforts of the RD Olson Company and its substantial investment in our community. The developer should be allowed to move forward as detailed in the current proposed plan amendment to develop a beautiful— economically viable boutique hotel that will be an iconic positive asset to the greater Lido Village community. It has been a long time coming—and we certainly need it. Please approve the proposed amendment because approval will positively affect the project— hence, positively affect the community, the landlord City, the guests, the operations and the chance for economic success of the Lido House. Thank you for your volunteer service. Respectfully, Warren B. Wimer Lido Isle Resident Copy: Hon. Diane Dixon Kimberly Brandt James Cooper Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Lido House Hotel - General Plan Amendment Attachments: Letter to City Planning Commission re Lido House Hotel and proposed GP Amendment 6-22-16.docx From: Dennis Borowsky rmailto:dborowskyCdlmerlonegeier.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:14 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Brandt, Kim; Campbell, James Subject: Lido House Hotel - General Plan Amendment Hello Mayor Dixon, Ms. Brandt and Mr. Campbell, Please see the attached letter regarding the Lido House Hotel. Thank you. Dennis Borowsky Dennis Borowsky,CRX,CLS Vice President, Project Management MerloneGeier Partners 21791 Lake Forest Drive,Suite 203 Lake Forest,CA 92630 Tel: 949/305/4199 Direct: 949/356 15827 Cell: 9491922/6506 Fax: 949/305/4144 Lic.#00882780 www.MerloneGeier.com 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) June 22, 2016 City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Comments regarding Planning Commission Meeting of June 23, 2016- Proposed Amendment to General Plan in re: Lido House Hotel Amendment PA 2016-061 Members of the Planning Commission: I am a resident of the Balboa Peninsula Point and Board member of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association. I have actively followed and supported the reuse of the former City Hall site, which now has been approved for the Lido House Hotel. I, along with fellow BPPA Board members and neighboring residents are strong proponents of the Lido House Hotel, as this operation should provide a wonderful amenity to our community and revenue source to the City. I would like to voice support and request the Commission and the City's approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment which would enable additional space of approximately 4,000 sq ft. floor, to support required hotel operating functions. This addition does not create any additional adverse impact on the site or surrounding area. In addition, I would like to comment on the ficus trees which are remaining on the property. These trees require extensive water and are not consistent with conditions established by the Coastal Commission that landscape palette be drought tolerant /drought resistant, nor are these native plants. I request that the Commission approval an alternative landscape, as may be proposed by the developer (RD Olson). Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Dennis M. Borowsky OO 2037 Seville Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92661 (949) 922-6506 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Comments to Planning Commission Meeting of June 23, 2016, Proposed Amendment to General Plan, Lido House Hotel Amendment PA 2016-061 From: Sharon Boles rmailto:sharonaboles@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:05 PM To: Campbell, James; Brandt, Kim; Dixon, Diane Cc: 'Dustin Schmidt' Subject: Comments to Planning Commission Meeting of June 23, 2016, Proposed Amendment to General Plan, Lido House Hotel Amendment PA 2016-061 June 22, 2016 Re: Lido House Hotel and Proposed General Plan Amendment 6-22-16 Members of the Planning Commission: As a resident of West Newport Beach and nearby neighborhoods I urge you to approve the proposed modification to the General Plan and Amendment to the proposed plans for the Lido House Hotel. These requests for approximately 4,000 additional square feet are to support the operating needs of the hotel. This increase in floor space will not create an adverse impact to the site or to the surrounding area. The plans for this hotel, submitted by the RD Olson company and approved by the City and the Coastal Commission, are enthusiastically welcomed by the community as a huge step in revitalizing the area surrounding the old city hall site. The hotel and its facilities will be utilized by both residents and visitors and will have a positive impact on the entire neighborhood aesthetically and economically. Your approval of these requests will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Sharon Boles t Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Lido House Hotel From: charles remley [mailto:cnremley@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:31 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Lido House Hotel I cannot believe this.........we just get all the approvals in line for this new boutique hotel and now they want to enlarge it. If it needed to be bigger the developer should have presented it that way earlier. Let's not go through all this work only to have to redo it. Nancy Remley, Balboa t Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW:Another letter on the Lido House for tonight Attachments: LidoHouse6-16(2).docx -----Original Message----- From: Susan Skinner [mailto:seskinner@me.com] Sent:Thursday,June 23, 2016 6:47 AM To: Campbell,James Subject: Another letter on the Lido House for tonight Can you affirm that you got this? Thanks, Susan Skinner t Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) June 23, 2016 Dear Mr. Campbell, As I reflect on the issues of the Lido House's most recent GPA as related to Section 423, 1 would like to point out that the easiest way to deal with this at this time is to ask the applicant to withdraw their GPA and simply make the administrative action of transferring square footage from another property within the same statistical area to the Lido House to make up the 4745 square footage that they are requesting. This allows the applicant to reasonably move forward with their plans without having to resolve the issue of the Section 423 limits immediately and a is well established process within the city. May I make a suggestion about a location that likely has enough entitlements to transfer to the Lido House? The 2006 General Plan includes the land that is now Gateway Park (just over the bridge on Newport Blvd) as commercial property. This property was purchased and donated to the city and is now park land, but the original entitlement under the General Plan is what could be transferred (I believe). This would solve the issue for the Lido House without needing to take the time to work the Section 423 question through appropriate channels. I have no concerns about the hotel itself, which looks lovely. My only concern is that this is one of multiple instances in which the Section 423 standards seem to have been inappropriately applied. I would appreciate having a review of those Section 423 limits with resolution of the issue, as the next applicant will have to deal with it and it seems logical to be proactive prior to that time. Thank you, Susan Skinner 2042 Port Provence Place Newport Beach Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received Lido House Hotel Amendments (PA2016-061) Subject: FW: Condition of Approval From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:14 PM To: Weigand, Erik Cc: Torres, Michael; Campbell, James; Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: Condition of Approval Thank you Erik. We will distribute your suggestion. From: Weigand, Erik Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:14 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Torres, Michael; Campbell, James Subject: Condition of Approval Brenda, Recently the Auditor-Controller for the County of Orange discovered a secret discount program offered only to a select group of individuals at a hotel in Dana Point Harbor where the County has a vested interest. See story here: htto://m.ocreg ister.com/articles/cou nty-715802-harbor-aud it.html I would like to add a condition of approval that prevents city employees, Councilmembers, appointed city officials, and their families from receiving any form of discounted room rate unless it's offered to the general public or the City Council agrees to an arrangement with the hotel operator for a City sponsored event. The language would be as follows: "The hotel operator shall not offer discounted room rates and/or services to city employees, Councilmembers and appointed city officials, including discounts to spouses and family to the 2nd degree of consanguinity, unless the discount is offered to the general public, or if an arrangement is made between the City Council and the hotel operator for a city-sponsored event." Thanks, Erik Weigand 1 PLgj%Wugps�% - June 23, 2016 o ouse is - J - - r LIDO HOUSE HOTEL �nflown PUT LP 1 1 u �._ /, W � �u �� X111=1 ► - - / I��4 IFt - ' I I _ � _'L.�� ► ,t� ��, I _- a rwA �u1 � h N !M r- \ -W=.LIDO HOUSE HOTEL � '� r�� •� 101 g I W A T G Arrival View Newport Blvd Architecture I Landscape Newport Beach, CA I LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 1/16/ Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 �, em o. 3k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting LIDO H itLHotel Amendments (PA2016-061 ) FINLEY AVE. -- i - i - -- � � ADDED PROPOSED AREAS - LEVEL 1 LEGEND: INDICATES EXISTING HOTEL *�' a INDICATES PROPOSED AREA ISUMMARY TABLE: * I �� ® EXISTING HOTEL 98,725 SF PROPOSED ADDED AREA 1 4,745 SF -_� 4,140 SF L1+605 SF L2 - CJS ® '\ TOTAL PROPOSED HOTEL 103,470 SF , o \ O CHANGE TO REQUIRED PARKING OR GUESTROOM COUNT 4,140 SF o i LEVEL 1 W n T G m R0.0LSON UCV HLOI'Sf ENT 0 NORTH 0 _ , O - 1/16"=1'-0"a 30"x42" W Z ai —i L__ _J I I , e ® — i X�7 '',, - . v J'' i. '. i i 32nd. STREET 1/16/ Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 em o. 3k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting LIDO 1-160,4t� itLHotel Amendments (PA2016-061 ) ADDED PROPOSED AREAS - LEVEL 1 LEGEND: 0 INDICATES EXISTING HOTEL 0 INDICATES PROPOSED AREA SUMMARY TABLE: EXISTING HOTEL 98,725 SF PROPOSED ADDED AREA 1 4,745 SF C C 4,140 SF@ L1+605 SF L2 TOTAL PROPOSED HOTEL 1 103,470 SF GG ® ® m' *NO CHANGE TO REQUIRED PARKING OR GUESTROOM COUNT GE N .. AS — I G JO LL-I 605S L W n T G ROASON R PNEIgINGU LEVEL 2 uevuorsftNP SPECIAL KING UNITS 5F NORTH AS 4' 1/16'=1-0' 30'x42" �vl E.i C7 Jm7 C] Ll com m�