HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion, Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2016-061)July 26, 2016
Agenda Item No. 15
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232,
kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: James Campbell, Principal Planner,
Jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3210
TITLE: Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion, Located at 3300 Newport
Boulevard and 475 32" d Street (PA2016-061)
ABSTRACT:
Olson Real Estate Group DBA, RD Olson Development requests amendments of the
General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP), 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:
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-88, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Adopting Addendum I to the Lido House Hotel Certified
Environmental Impact Report (PA2016-061);
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-89, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001
for the Lido House Hotel Project Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street (PA2016-061);
d) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-90, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Approving Coastal Land Use Plan No. LC2016-001 for
the Lido House Hotel Project Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street (PA2016-061);
e) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-91, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Approving Site Development Review No. SD2016-005,
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015 for the Lido House Hotel Project Located at
3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2016-061); and
15-1
Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061)
July 26, 2016
Page 2
f) Introduce Ordinance No. 2016-13, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Approving Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003
for the Lido House Hotel Project Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street (PA2016-061), and pass to second reading on August 9, 2016.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
DISCUSSION:
Background
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.
h5j
Vicinity Map
'�► �� ."
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
15-2
Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061)
July 26, 2016
Page 3
Zoning Code. Demolition and rough grading permits have been issued and the applicant
intends to complete construction of the hotel by the summer of 2017.
Site Plan
Wi-
_,.y r.. ' � a f• a s . a- �. *� ff ice... � ��
�CEPr. '`
-
--�a �c • a� roc -
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.
On June 23, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider
Addendum 1 to the Certified EIR and applications. At the conclusion of the meeting, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2020 (Attachment F) recommending adoption of Addendum 1 and
approval of the requested applications. Correspondence received is attached as
Attachment G.
Project Changes
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.
15-3
Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061)
July 26, 2016
Page 4
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 the internal 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. The plans provided by the
applicant show the expanded areas (Attachment H).
AmanrlmPnt.c
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.
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.
15-4
Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061)
July 26, 2016
Page 5
Table 1
Measure S Analysis for Statistical Area B-5
Amendments
Increased
Density
Increased
Intensity
Peak Hour Trip Increase
AM PM
GP 2010-005
0
15,103
45.4
60.5
GP 2011-003
1
4,053
12.7
16.8
GP 2011-010
0
1,188
2.7
3.7
GP 2012-005
7
0
0
0
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
amendment GP2016-001
0
4,745
0
0
Total
7
40,000
48.6
64.8
Vote Required?
No
No
No
No
Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit
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 are 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
Attachment D.
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 1 to the Lido
House Hotel final Environmental Impact Report for the modified project that is attached
to the draft resolution adopting the Addendum (Attachment A). 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.
0GIdrig IJre's
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.
15-5
Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061)
July 26, 2016
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -
Resolution Approving Addendum 1
Attachment B -
Resolution Approving GP2016-001
Attachment C
- Resolution Approving LC2016-001
Attachment D
- Resolution Approving Site Development Review SD2016-005 and
Conditional Use Permit UP2016-015
Attachment E - Ordinance Zoning Code Amendment CA2016-003
Attachment F -
Planning Commission Resolution 2020
Attachment G
- Correspondence
Attachment H
- Plans Showing Added Areas
15-6
Attachment A
Resolution approving Addendum 1
15-7
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
ADDENDUM 1 TO THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PA2016-061)
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved General Plan Amendment No.
GP2012-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001, Zone Code Amendment
No. CA2012-003, Site Development Review No. SD2014-001, Conditional Use Permit No.
UP2014-004, and Traffic Study TS2014-005 authorizing a 130 -room hotel called the Lido
House Hotel at the former City Hall site located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street ("Property");
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the approval of the Lido House Hotel project, the Lido
House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
("EIR") was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3;
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the City Council certified the adequacy and
completeness of the Lido House Hotel Final EIR (SCH No. 2013111022) by adopting
Resolution No 2014-80;
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. on behalf of Lido
House, LLC ("Applicant") with respect to the Property;
WHEREAS, 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 to increase the maximum
allowable floor area for the hotel by 4,745 square feet. The maximum allowable development
of the Property would increase from 98,625 square feet to 103,470 gross square feet for the
Lido House Hotel;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, if changes
occur to a project or its circumstances, or if new information becomes available after
certification of an EIR, an addendum to the certified EIR may be prepared and the City of
Newport Beach is not required to prepare a subsequent EIR to review the changes or new
information provided there are no new significant environmental impacts;
WHEREAS, upon receipt of the application for the increased floor area for the Lido
House Hotel ("Project"), the City of Newport Beach prepared Addendum 1 to the Certified
EIR for the Project, consistent with the requirements of CEQA;
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends the City Council
find that Addendum 1 to the Certified EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA;
WHEREAS, after considering the Certified EIR, the public testimony and written
submissions, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds
15-8
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 2
based upon facts, findings, and reasons provided in this resolution to support adopting
Addendum 1 to the Certified EIR;
WHEREAS, the modified project is consistent with and implements the General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Certified EIR reviewed 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;
WHEREAS, the modified Project does not increase development intensity or building
height or associated impacts beyond the levels considered in the Certified EIR;
WHEREAS, 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 the time of
adoption;
WHEREAS, 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;
WHEREAS, based on these findings, the Certified EIR and Addendum 1 to the
Certified EIR, the City Council has determined that no subsequent EIR is required or
appropriate under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. Addendum 1 to the Certified
EIR satisfies CEQA's environmental review requirements for the modified Project as
proposed by the applicant;
WHEREAS, based on the facts and analysis contained in Addendum 1 to the Certified
EIR, the City Council finds that the modified Project will not have, when compared to the
Certified EIR, any significant environmental impacts;
WHEREAS, the modified Project will not result in any significant environmental
impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in
connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the previously Certified EIR and the
Addendum 1 to the Certified EIR, and has concluded that the Addendum reflects the
independent judgment of the City;
WHEREAS, the City Council 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
15-9
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 3
bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to
a successful challenger;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2016, in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance the
Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020
recommending adoption of Addendum 1 to the Certified EIR and approval of the requested
applications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2016, in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance the NBMC.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts Addendum
1 and finds that the recitals provided above are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in support of the adoption of Addendum 1 to the Certified Lido House Hotel
EIR, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City
Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2016.
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
15-10
EXHIBIT A
Addendum 1 to the Lido House Hotel Certified EIR
15-11
U
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Lido House Hotel
1 Chi
June 17, 2016
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
15-12
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources.
15-13
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
15-14
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
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
15-15
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
15-16
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.
�2
15-17
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.
i:)3
15-18
NOT TO SCALE
Michael Baker
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Regional Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1
15-19
R
41.
s
Lf
P,� COast
�� ,�'� ., � - } �, w - `�, 4 ¢rte' '�Y : ` • ` ,
16,
s � i \ � ✓��.. ! �.a � � '� � � �Qir !� � Jim ����! Q•..i,; ;a •.'��. .� � � �`'' •. ��':::.t
• - r'7
r�ky.. ,f'! , `:;, v n : � • "'_+f ��" •<J`.e� a VL-� ` r1i • _ �' r '� a y�
ai•' y •A w + E1 it % ��s . � `-.1J� ! I�� ti �, !;! ,j�� [a
��, ,��a �I. �° rwH• X1.7. ..\%' `:y y _ a �� '\�?": �i+�,-. �`
FlnEey
• ` y s'• ��,4 ( p ECT . �y %�
..32nd- - re.e A
As
t,
Michael Baker I'- — - 'Ti fe
61Y stn nlrarr q. ,1'Section B-8
' ;,, '' xm"a` •,r' : ti _ •I !�
m45
FIVLFEY AVE. �, • .
W+rael aw .•r� —
Ur rcwwlr r
a >t
9$
vRmrkrr a_ 6
urc Me%] / v r t
N p..
• � T d
y �A
�
1 �.
al,
warusEa I ■ , r ",. TDA
arse
I r - E`AI. n.1 5C IwE-4i�"f:Sti I p.
� J F
' xa 0 o . e }
` � �,t.Q➢'tF r. M
f
nflsatf aw _ p.
f n¢ arvwur rf l
` 1 T -• '' a` ���=y____��- * � ire mur
f ` +
I ..fes
I
F1
14 F� P+R�C/,' ,a EN31M4 W �[IAFE ftg[ r 6-6 j, ••
E '� eC n q t: `'J sitar i,ur _ leamrn
L– - ve iaawl
Source: WATG Architecture I Landscape.
NOT TO SCALE
INTEINTERNATIONAL
rYYYY
05/16 • JN 153768
FROM APPROVED CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
PLANS: CDP #5-14-1785
AREA SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 AREA = 36,971 SF
LEVEL 2 AREA = 30,873 SF
LEVEL 3 AREA = 24,331 SF
LEVEL 4AREA = 12.550 SF
TOTAL = 98,725 Sr
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE = 88,725 SF
PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM AREAS:
RETAIL
858 Sf
RESTAURANT; FOOD$ BEVERAGE
3,155 SF
FUNCTION SPACE
4.453 SF
SPA 3 WELLNESS
1.925 SF
16,429 SF
GROUND LEVEL PARKING:
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES = 148
L2 L3
GUESTROOM SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 = 5 Guestro M
LEVEL 2 = 54 GWSIMOMS
LEVEL 3 = 48 GueslfoOMS
LEVEL 4 = 23 GUOSROOMS
TOTAL = 130 Guestroams
GUESTROOM MIX:
STQ KING =58
STD. DBL. QUEEN = 54
SUITES = 18
e
ROOF
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Previous Conceptual Plan
Exhibit 3
15-21
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
15-22
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 32nd
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 Project). 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).
15-23
U
-rnb +rw b% le*
iifrar aw
di tod".1
M
m
I
-"-4 �.
ti
Source: WATG Architecture I Landscape.
NOT TO SCALE
Michael Balser �'�
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DESIGN AS OF 4/1/2016
AREA SUMMARY:
GUESTROOM SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 AREA = 35,219 SF
LEVEL 1 = 5 Guestrooms
LEVEL 2 AREA = 30,845 SF
LEVEL 2 = 54 GUBSIFOOMS
LEVEL 3 AREA = 25,160 SF
LEVEL 3 = 50 Gusestrooms
LEVEL 4 AREA =12,245 SF
LEVEL 4 = 21 Guestruams
TOTAL =103,470 SF
TOTAL = 12Z Guesrrooms
(AREA INCREASE FROM CDP APPROVAL = 4.745 SF)
PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM
AREAS:
GUESTROOM MIX:
RETAIL
1.047 SF
STP. KING = 71
RESTAURANT 1 FOOD & BEVERAGE
3,200 SF
STD. DBL. QUEEN = 44
FUNCTION SPACE
3,527 SF
SUITES a 15
SPA & WELLNESS
1,925 SF
8,689 SF
GROUND LEVEL PARKING:
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES = 148
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Pronosed Conceatual Plan (Revised Proiect)
Exhibit 4
15-24
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 sitting 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.
X10
15-25
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Fm, .11139]9121►1911LTi�YKeri 211111106l02110IIdffl 0lkVA 121►I1:\III11111d20Ilzkylkh
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.
15-26
This page left intentionally blank.
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
X12
15-27
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
113
15-28
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
X14
15-29
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 BIO -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 BIO -2, BIO -3, and BIO -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
115
15-30
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.
X16
15-31
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
, 117
15-32
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.
X18
15-33
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
15-34
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.
120
15-35
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
X21
15-36
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.
22
15-37
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.
23
15-38
This page intentionally left blank.
Il
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
124
15-39
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.
125
15-40
This page intentionally left blank.
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
126
15-41
Attachment A — Traffic Impact Memorandum
15-42
15-43
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
Eddie Torres, Michael Baker International
Tom Huang, TE, Michael Baker International
June 15, 2016
We Make a Difference
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
Land Use (ITE Code)
Units
AM Peak Hour Rates
PM Peak Hour Rates
Daily
Trip
Rate
In Out Total
In Out Total
Hotel (310)
Room
0.31 0.22 0.53
0.31 0.29 0.60
8.17
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
MBAKERINTL.COM
14725 Alton Parkway I Irvine, CA 92618
Office: 949.8553505 1 Fax: 949.330.4130
15-44
We Make a Difference
Table 2
Project Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In Out Total
In Out Total
City Hall Complex'
118 20 138
17 116 133
1,121
130 -room HoteJ2
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.
ZSource: 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
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Lido _Addendum_Traf c-2016.06.15.docx 2 Traffic Impact Memorandum
15-45
Attachment B
Resolution approving GP2016-001
15-46
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GP2016-001 FOR THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
PROJECT LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475
32ND STREET (PA2016-061)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. on behalf of
Lido House, LLC ("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 of Newport Beach ("Property");
WHEREAS, 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
previously authorized the construction and operation of a 130 -room at the Property called
the "Lido House Hotel;"
WHEREAS, 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 ("Project");
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A-18,
proposed General Plan amendments are reviewed to determine if a vote of the
electorate is 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 City Charter Section 423. 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 is required for this amendment;
Measure S Analysis for Statistical Area B-5
Amendments
Increased
Density
Increased
Intensity
Peak Hour Trip Increase
AM PM
GP 2010-005
0
15,103
45.4
60.5
GP 2011-003
1
4,053
12.7
16.8
GP 2011-010
0
1,188
2.7
3.7
GP 2012-005
7
0
0
0
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
amendment GP2016-001
0
4,745
0
0
Total
7
40,000
48.6
64.8
Vote Required?
No
No
No
No
15-47
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2016, in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in
accordance the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2020 recommending adoption of Addendum No. 1 to the
Certified Environmental Impact Report and approval of the requested applications;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2016, in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance
with the NBMC;
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to the Certified Environmental Impact Report was
adopted by the City Council on July 26, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016- and the
recitals and findings made are incorporated herein by reference;
WHEREAS, 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;
WHEREAS, the increase in floor area allows larger lobby and circulation spaces,
an enclosed pre -function space, larger management offices, larger storage spaces, a
larger 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;
WHEREAS, the increased floor area does not increase the number of hotel
rooms and therefore, does not increase predicted traffic or parking demands for the
project. The predicted traffic to and from the proposed hotel, with this requested
amendment, remains less than what the former City Hall site generated;
WHEREAS, the increased floor area does not reduce publically visible open
space or decrease the parking provided; and
WHEREAS, the increased hotel floor area is located on the first and second level
and does not increase the height of the building. The proposed hotel remains consistent
with applicable standards provided in the CV -LV land use category, the Commercial
Visitor-Serving—Lido Village ("CV -LV") zoning district and Coastal Land Use Policy
4.4.3-1 that limits the height of development.
15-48
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 3
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves
General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, as depicted in Exhibit A, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3: General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001 shall be implemented
in a manner in conformity with the California Coastal Act.
Section 4: General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001 shall be effective upon
Coastal Commission certification of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001.
Section 5: Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines Section 15062, the changes to the Project are not substantial, as they do not
involve new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects, and therefore, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") does not need to be prepared. The City prepared and certified a final EIR for the
Project (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 Section 15164. The City prepared Addendum 1 to the
Lido House Hotel final EIR for the modified project concludes that no new environmental
impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval and
implementation of the larger hotel project.
Section 6: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach authorizes staff to
correct any typographical or scrivener's errors in compiling the final documentation,
without the need for further review or approval by the City Council.
Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
15-49
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 4
Section 8: This resolution shall be effective upon Coastal Commission
certification of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001, and the City Clerk
shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2016.
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
15-50
City Council Resolution No. 2016-_
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
General Plan Amendment No. GP2O16-001
Amend Table LU -2 to modify Anomaly Location #85 as shown in the following
table:
15-51
Table
Anomaly
LU2 Anomaly
Statistical
Locations
Land Use
Development
Limits(other)
Development Limit
Additional Information
Number
Area
Designation
Accessory commercial
floor area is allowed in
conjunction with a hotel
98,725
and it is included within
85
135
CV -LV
the hotel development
103,470 sf of hotel
limit. Municipal facilities
are not restricted or
included in any
development limit.
15-51
Attachment C
Resolution approving LC2016-001
15-52
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL LAND USE PLAN NO.
LC2016-001 FOR THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED AT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32ND STREET (PA2016-061)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. on behalf of
Lido House, LLC ("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 of Newport Beach ("Property");
WHEREAS, 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
previously authorized the construction and operation of a 130 -room at the Property called
the "Lido House Hotel;"
WHEREAS, 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 ("Project");
WHEREAS, 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 prepared Addendum No. 1 to the Lido
House Hotel final Environmental Impact Report for the modified project concludes that
no new environmental impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result from
approval and implementation of the larger hotel project.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2016, in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in
accordance the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2020 recommending adoption of Addendum No. 1 to the
Certified Environmental Impact Report and approval of the requested applications;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2016, in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance
with the NBMC;
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to the Certified Environmental Impact Report was
adopted by the City Council on July 26, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016- and the
recitals and findings made are incorporated herein by reference;
15-53
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 2
WHEREAS, amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan are legislative acts.
Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either
approval or denial of such amendments. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No.
LC2016-001 is consistent with General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001;
WHEREAS, the increase in floor area allows larger lobby and circulation spaces,
an enclosed pre -function space, larger management offices, larger storage spaces, a
larger 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;
WHEREAS, the increased floor area does not increase the number of hotel
rooms and therefore, does not increase predicted traffic or parking demands for the
project. The predicted traffic to and from the proposed hotel, with this requested
amendment, remains less than what the former City Hall site generated;
WHEREAS, the increased floor area does not reduce publically visible open
space or decrease the parking provided; and
WHEREAS, the increased hotel floor area is located on the first and second level
and does not increase the height of the building. The proposed hotel remains consistent
with applicable standards provided in the CV -LV land use category, the Commercial
Visitor-Serving—Lido Village ("CV -LV") zoning district and Coastal Land Use Policy
4.4.3-1 that limits the height of development.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby
resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001, as depicted in Exhibit A, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3: Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines Section 15062, the changes to the Project are not substantial, as they do not
involve new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects, and therefore, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") does not need to be prepared. The City prepared and certified a final EIR for the
Project (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 Section 15164. The City prepared Addendum 1 to the
15-54
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 3
Lido House Hotel final EIR for the modified project concludes that no new environmental
impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval and
implementation of the larger hotel project.
Section 4: Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001 shall be
implemented in a manner in conformity with the California Coastal Act.
Section 5: Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001 shall take
effect automatically upon Coastal Commission certification of the amendment as
conforming to the California Coastal Act, unless the Coastal Commission proposes
suggested modifications. In the event that the Coastal Commission approves the
Amendment with suggested modifications, City approval of the modified Amendment shall
require a separate action by the City Council following Coastal Commission approval. In
this case, the Amendment would become effective upon the effective date of the Coastal
Commission certification of the modified Amendment.
Section 6: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach authorizes staff to
correct any typographical or scrivener's errors in compiling the final documentation,
without the need for further review or approval by the City Council.
Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
Section 8: This resolution shall be effective upon Coastal Commission
certification of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001, and the City Clerk
shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2016.
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
15-55
City Council Resolution No. 2016-_
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
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 • 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 �5
CV -LV City of Newport Beach. A fire station is
allowed in its current location. Limited Use 103,470 gross square feet not
Visitor -Serving Overnight Visitor Accommodations and including 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).
15-56
Attachment D
Resolution approving
Site Development Review SD2016-005 and
Conditional Use Permit UP2016-015
15-57
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH APPROVING 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 (PA2016-061)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. on behalf of Lido
House, LLC ("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 of Newport Beach ("Property"). The subject property is described in
Exhibits A-1 and A-2 of this resolution;
WHEREAS, 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 previously authorized
the construction and operation of a 130 -room at the Property called the "Lido House Hotel;"
WHEREAS, 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 ("Project");
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2016, in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance the
Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020
recommending adoption of Addendum No. 1 to the Certified Environmental Impact Report
and approval of the requested applications;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2016, in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance with the
NBMC;
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 to the Certified Environmental Impact Report was
adopted by the City Council on July 26, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016- and the recitals
and findings made are incorporated herein by reference;
WHEREAS, Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit
No. UP2016-015 increases the maximum allowable floor area for the Lido House Hotel from
98,625 to 103,470 gross square feet consistent with the approval of General Plan
Amendment No. GP2016-001 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001.
15-58
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are incorporated
into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Site
Development Review No. SD2016-005, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015, based
upon the findings attached as Exhibit B and subject to the conditions of approval attached as
Exhibit C incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3: Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit
No. UP2016-015 shall be effective upon Coastal Commission certification of Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001.
Section 4: Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines
Section 15062, the changes to the Project are not substantial, as they do not involve new
significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects, and therefore, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") does not need to
be prepared. The City prepared and certified a final EIR for the Project (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 Section 15164. The
City prepared Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel final EIR for the modified project
concludes that no new environmental impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result
from approval and implementation of the larger hotel project.
Section 5: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach authorizes staff to correct
any typographical or scrivener's errors in compiling the final documentation, without the need
for further review or approval by the City Council.
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
15-59
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -
Page 3
Section 7: This resolution shall be effective upon Coastal Commission certification
of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001, and the City Clerk shall certify the
vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2016.
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
15-60
EXHIBIT A-1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
"LEASE PARCEL"
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 6 AND 7 IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, SAN
BFRNARDINO MERIDIAN IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A" AND "THE HUDSON" OF
MAP OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS
SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AND THAT
PORTION OF A 20.00 FOOT ALLEY, AS VACATED BY THAT CERTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 3280 OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED MARCH 11, 1946 IN
BOOK 1400, PAGE 189 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, ALL OF RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY
LINE OF SAID LOT 3, NORTH 00°09'03" EAST 128.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT
CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN AS "N89'15'30"E 90.00 FEET" ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 85, PAGES 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,.
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 1, THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4)
COURSES:
(1) NORTH 00°09'03" EAST 53.55 FEET,
(2) NORTH 39°53'38" WEST 108.61 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 351.15 FEET,
(3) NORTHWESTERLY 306.25 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
4958'10" AND
(4) NORTH 89°51'48" WEST 97.67 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER THAT
CERTAIN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014000378678, OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
1 OF 4
April 19, 2016
M.\Mapping\1100\04\Legals\LEASE\1100-004 Lease PL.docx
15-61
THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION THE FOLLOWING
TWO (2) COURSES:
(1) SOUTH 0026'22" WEST 47.25 FEET,
(2) NORTH 8831'14" WEST 8.13 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE SOUTH 01027'07" WEST 12.14 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 49026'59" WEST 22.96 FEET TO A POINT IS SAID EASTERLY LINE, SAID POINT BEING
ON A NDN -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2724.04 FEET, A RADIAL
LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 8233'58" WEST;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES:
(1) SOUTHERLY 89.31 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°52'43" TO
THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 58.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO
SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 84°26'40" EAST,
(2) SOUTHERLY 13.75 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13.35'10"
(3) SOUTH 1908'30" WEST 36.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 42.00 FEET,
(4) SOUTHERLY 10.88 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°50'20" TO
THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2736.04 FEET, A RADIAL
LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 85®41'50" WEST,
(5) SOUTHERLY 62.82 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°18'56" TO
THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 873.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE
TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 87000'46" EAST,
(6) SOUTHERLY 74.65 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04°53'58"
TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 37.00 FEET, A RADIAL
LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 82006'48" WEST,
(7) SOUTHERLY 9.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°18'33" TO
AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID EASTERLY LINE;
201`4
April 19, 2016
M;\Mapping\1100\04\Legals\LEASE\1100-004 Lease PL.docx
15-62
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF,
NON TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 39°29'57" EAST 40.40 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 37.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID
POINT BEARS SOUTH 17°24'48" WEST;
THENCE EASTERLY 9.24 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°18'32";
THENCE SOUTH 8653'44" EAST 46.04 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 2656'46" WEST 20.77 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 86°56'46" EAST 180.71 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 2656'46" EAST 21.18 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 8.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY 9.33 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 62055'02";
THENCE SOUTH 89051'48" EAST 118.46 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET;
THENCE EASTERLY 57.71 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04°43'26";
THENCE NORTH 3856'26" EAST 12.78 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 8244'09" EAST 9.41 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0715'51" EAST 5.48 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 84041'29" EAST 41.64 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00000'01" WEST 5.47 FEET;
3OF4
April 19, 2016
M:\Mapping\1100\04\Legals\LEASE\1100-004 Lease PL.docx
15-63
THENCE NORTH 8959'59" EAST 5.25 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 48.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS
NORTH 87°05'54" EAST;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 27.22 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
3229'36" TO A POINT OF NON -TANGENCY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS
NORTH 60°24'30" EAST;
THENCE NORTH 0043'.30" EAST 29.78 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89'58'22" EAST 9.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0000'08" EAST 81.62 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY NORTH 89050'57" WEST 12.85 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 171,504 SQUARE FEET, 3.972 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.
SUBJECT TO CONVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS AND
RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD, IF ANY.
DATED THIS (TLk DAY OF _AfAmt L� , 2016
. 4 ?1 �
KURT R. TROXELL, L.S. 7854
40F4
April 19, 2016
M:\Mapping\1100\04\LegaI51LEASE\1100-004 Lease PL.docx
15-64
<� >
I
Z— — VIA OPORTO-
72AC7 NJ, 1]
S'LY LINE _ `,SEE
PARCEL 1 J DETAIL "C" �+
P.M.B. 85/1 1\i1 lVL 35 / 4 V19 SHEET 2 OF 2
T.P.O.B. L
<{, � L20
s o L1 128.Dd�
N00'09'03°E 181.55'
\ L11
ALLEY VACATED PERiz� �p��O,-y4� \
BK. 1400, PG. 189, \ _ 1
O.R. REC. 3-11-46 e�� P.O.G., 14"E (R)
S'LY LINE
PARCEL 1
f P.M.B. 85/1
1
ti
Q
S WLY COR.
LOT 3, TR NO. 1117, rn
M.M. 35/48 I `� ❑
eo
r-
E'LY LINE OFFER OF C:
/I�� DEDICATIONRTOVOTHE ®CITY OF NEWPORT
c^�
�.� BEACH, FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY00
ul
�. SEE PURPOSES, INST NO. 2014000378678, 0. R, co
% DETAIL "A"
g' co SHEET 2 OF 2 j�
—
�
L� I
=a. / SEE Q 1
I« IIS+ f DETAIL rB, r
r� Ico c l SHEET 2 OF 2 1-
d� U) ❑
02 ( I I 1 f
C4
po
LU
LU
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NOTE: SEE LINE AND CURVE TABLE ON SHEET 3 OF 3
11E1�1 C \/►' H I B I T I /tr E 2 1 DATE: March 0' 2016
USCOE G/C` ' /�''j1 SCALE; 10'
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION JN: 1100.004.01
IILEASE PARCEL DRAWN BY: RJL
E N 6 t N E E R E N G CHECKED BY: JLU
16795 Von Korman, Suite IOD, Irvine, �Colifornio 92606 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
tel 949.474.19600 fox 949, 474.5315 ow ,fuscoe.com NEWPORT BEACH, CA SHEET 1 OF 3
M:\MAPPING\1100\04\LEGALS\LEASE\1100-044 LEASE BNDRY.DWG (04-18-16) 15-65
cta
W
00
00
X11
tn
zQ
J�
L
eo
r-
E'LY LINE OFFER OF C:
/I�� DEDICATIONRTOVOTHE ®CITY OF NEWPORT
c^�
�.� BEACH, FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY00
ul
�. SEE PURPOSES, INST NO. 2014000378678, 0. R, co
% DETAIL "A"
g' co SHEET 2 OF 2 j�
—
�
L� I
=a. / SEE Q 1
I« IIS+ f DETAIL rB, r
r� Ico c l SHEET 2 OF 2 1-
d� U) ❑
02 ( I I 1 f
C4
po
LU
LU
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NOTE: SEE LINE AND CURVE TABLE ON SHEET 3 OF 3
11E1�1 C \/►' H I B I T I /tr E 2 1 DATE: March 0' 2016
USCOE G/C` ' /�''j1 SCALE; 10'
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION JN: 1100.004.01
IILEASE PARCEL DRAWN BY: RJL
E N 6 t N E E R E N G CHECKED BY: JLU
16795 Von Korman, Suite IOD, Irvine, �Colifornio 92606 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
tel 949.474.19600 fox 949, 474.5315 ow ,fuscoe.com NEWPORT BEACH, CA SHEET 1 OF 3
M:\MAPPING\1100\04\LEGALS\LEASE\1100-044 LEASE BNDRY.DWG (04-18-16) 15-65
/ 11 g \
as rn �
}
f
OFFER OF DEDICJO.R.
INET. NO. 20140003%
� y
z 1
1
L3 L4
/ N87"05'54"E
--L19 L16\
/ L18 L17 G1 1
L �
i2s.o0'
f - N00*09'03"E 181.55' L15
k P.QC.
WILY COR. � L1 'f
LOT 3, TR NO. 1117,
M.M. 35/48 L1I2 Ltd
\ I /
� s
DETAIL "A"
SCALE: 1 =3O
DETAIL "Ct"
SCALE: 1"=4U'
" C7 I ��
583'34 39 W (R) '
N82ro6'48"W JPR�
C5 C64
DETAIL '"B"
SCALE: 1"=40'
EXHI p 1T 1 /fa _21 DATE: August ' 2019
//��,, p /y SCALE; 1 "-80'
����� SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1N: 1100.004.01
LEASE PARCEL DRAWN BY: RJL
E N G I R E E R 1 B G CHECKED BY: JLU
16795 Von Korman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
lel 949.474 1960 o fox 949 474.5315 o www.fuscoe.com NEWPORT BEACH, CA SHEET 2 OF 3
M:\MAPPING\1100\04\LEGALS\LEASE\1100-004 !_EASE BNDEtY.DWO (04-18-16) 15-66
M:\MAPPING\1100\04\LEGALS\LEASE\1100-004 LEASE BNDRY.DWG (04-18-16)
15-67
EXHIBIT B
Required Findings for
Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015.
Site Development Review
Finding:
A. Allowed within the subject Zoning district;
Facts in Support of Finding:
The site is within the CV -LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido Village) zoning
district and Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit
Requirements) allows visitor accommodations subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Finding:
B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria [below]:
a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any
applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the
use or structure;
b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious
relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development,
and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design;
c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures
on the site and adjacent developments and public areas;
d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access,
including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces;
e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use
of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and
f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance
with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protections); and
Facts in Support of Finding:
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
15-68
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 public spaces in
terms of bulk, scale and aesthetic treatments. The large setbacks identified in
statement B-2 above will help offset the taller portions of the proposed buildings.
Hotel buildings have been designed with a one, two and three story element along
Newport Boulevard while providing a significant setback from the street providing
areas for public access, landscaping, outdoor dining, and hotel use. The proposed
building is over 69 feet from the Newport Boulevard. The portions of the hotel
structure that will be three and four stories are located along the northerly and
easterly portion of the site away from public spaces and closer to the back of the
abutting shopping center that is developed with large buildings with heights close
to 35 feet. Additionally, these taller components will be approximately 240 feet from
planned residential uses east of Via Oporto. Based upon the project drawings, all
elevations of proposed buildings will include consistent architectural treatments,
articulation and modulation of building masses providing visual interest with a
coastal architectural theme specified by the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
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
15-69
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.
indin :
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 32nd 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
15-70
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 Suaaort of Findina:
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
15-71
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.
15-72
Finding:
F. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other
applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code.
Facts in Suaaort of Findina:
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.
indin :
G. The design, location, size, operating characteristics of the use are compatible with
the allowed uses in the vicinity.
Facts in SuDDort of Findina:
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.
15-73
Facts in SuDDort of Findina:
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.
Finding:
Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the
harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise
constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
Facts in SuDDort of Findina:
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.
15-74
EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
Site Development Review No. SD2016-005
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015
Planning Division
1. The hotel development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans
attached as Exhibit C to City Council Resolution No. 2014-82 except as modified by
applicable conditions of approval.
2. Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit No.
UP2016-015 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. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use
Permit No. UP2016-015.
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. SD2016-005
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004, including the conditions of approval
within Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the final approved Building Division
15-75
and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape
and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall
incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and
the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Municipal
Operations Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent
underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the
type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall
be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture -
sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a
continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be
located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the
Traffic Engineer.
11. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained
in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of
weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including
adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
12. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically
feasible.
13. Water leaving the project site due to over -irrigation of landscape shall be
minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code
and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit
the location, investigate, inform and notice the responsible party, and, as
appropriate, cite the responsible party and/or shut off the irrigation water.
14. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00
p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation the following morning.
15. Water 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
15-76
signs are prohibited.
18. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code.
Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No
direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or
create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area
lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 20
feet in height.
19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric
study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning
Division.
20. The property shall be illuminated for security and the site shall not be excessively
illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community
Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative
nuisance to surrounding property. The Community Development Director may
order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site
is excessively illuminated.
21. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an
evening inspection by the Planning Division to confirm control of light and glare
as required by applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the conditions of
approval.
22. The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated
by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons and
any events conducted on the project site, food service operations,
delivery/loading operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by
the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other
applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
23. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of consistent with the
Zoning Code and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
24. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and
outside of the facility and shall be routinely emptied. All trash shall be stored
within the building or within trash bins stored within trash enclosure(s).
25. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all
times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris
and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the
premises as necessary.
26. Storage of any materials outside of the buildings or in parking areas property
shall be prohibited.
15-77
27. The trash enclosure shall accommodate a minimum of four, 4 -foot by 6 -foot trash
bins and shall include doors and a roof structure to screen the contents of the
enclosure. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or
receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of
either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters,
if deemed necessary by the Planning Division.
28. The construction and equipment staging areas shall be located in the least
visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and/or
screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions.
29. A six -foot -high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction
site during construction. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly
stored on the site when not in use.
30. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department before implementation. Large construction vehicles
shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works
Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic
control equipment and flagman.
31. Construction activities which produce loud noise that disturb, or could disturb a
person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, shall be limited
to the weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., and Saturdays
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No such noise occurrences shall
occur at anytime on Sundays or federal holidays.
32. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may
arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the
Lido House Hotel project 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
15-78
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The
applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant
to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 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 (NO[) 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
15-79
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.
49. All security gates shall have a Knox -box override and an approved remote
opening device. Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01.
15-80
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
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
15-81
horizontal, open position, shall be provided with a minimum clear distance
between walls or between walls and door excluding return panels not less than
80 inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not
less than 51 inches with a 42 -inch side slide door as per California Building Code
Section 3002.
62. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Public Works Department
63. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
64. Construct new planned improvements along 32nd Street between Newport Blvd
and Lafayette Ave, including but not limited to, sidewalk, curb/gutter, striping,
signage, driveway, street light relocation, parking meter post relocation, and
roadway improvement. All work shall be per City Standards and approved by the
Public Works Director. The cost shall borne by the applicant.
65. The public pedestrian easement along Newport Blvd shall be a minimum of 8feet
in width and clear of any obstructions, unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works and the Community Development Departments.
66. Reconstruct the existing broken and/or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk
panels, curb and gutter, and driveway approaches along the Newport Blvd and
32nd Street frontages.
67. All existing curb ramps along the project frontages shall be upgraded to current
ADA standards.
68. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities and all non-standard
improvements within the public right-of-way and public property.
69. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. The
project driveways shall be designed to accommodate adequate vehicular sight
distance per City Standard STD -110-L. Walls, signs, and other obstructions shall
be limited to 30 inches in height and planting shall be limited to 24 inches in
height within the limited use areas.
70. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development
site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-
of-way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
71. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
15-82
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.
15-83
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.
15-84
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.
15-85
Attachment E
Ordinance Zoning Code Amendment CA2016-003
IWIN-001
CRIDINANCS NC. 20'16-_
AN
10'6-
AN C RDINANCE C R TH E CITY CC U NCIIJ C R THE CITY CH N EWPCRIT
BEACH, CA LIRC RNIA, A F PRCMIN G ZC NING CC DE AMENDMENT
NC. CM 016-003 RC R THE IJIDC H C USE HOTEIJ PRCJEC71 LOCATED
AT 3300 NEWFCRIT BCULEMARI] AND 475 32ND STREET (PA2016-
061;
WHEREASI, an application was file c by C Ison Re al Bstaie C roup, Inc. on be 1 alf of
Lido House, LLC Q"Applicant"; with rESIDE ci to properly located at i1'e riodheasi corner of
the intersection of Newport aoLlevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa PEnirisula in 1iE
Lido Tillage area of 111'E City of Newport Beach ("Rroperty");
WHEREASI, the Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Ame ridmE nt,
Coasllal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and amendments to Site
De velopmE rill Review No. SD20'14-C 01 and Conditional Use Rermit No. 2C14-004 that
authorize c the coristruction and opE ration of a '13C -room all l l• a Rroperty called the "Lic o
Hoy se Hotel;"
WHEREASI, the Applicant re quests a 4,74 5 square foot increase in tl• a maximum
aillowablEi dEiveloprrieint of the site from 98,625 sqLaue feEit to '10'1,470 gross square feEii
for tl- e Lido HOUSE F otEil ll" ProjEict";;
WHEREASI, tl- a Rlarining Commission held a public r Eiaring on JunEi 22, 2016, in
tl- e City Hall Council C harribEirs located at 1 C C Civic C entE r DrivE , NEiwporl Eea& ,
California. A nollicE of 11• E time, placEi and purpose of il' Ei public hearing was provided in
accordance the NEI%port BElaCI' Munieipail Codec ("I\BMC"). At ihEi coriclusion of ihEi
hEiaring, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt Planning
Commission REsolution No. 2020 recommending adoption of Addendum l\o. 1 io irEi
CEirtifiEid 9nvirorimEintal Impact Report and approval of the requEisled applications;
WHEREASI, thEi City Council I- a lc a public hearing on , my '46, 2C 16, in ft e C illy Fall
Council C1 arribffs IocaitEid at 'IOC Civic CE me r Drive, Newport Eea& , California. A
nolicEi of tl-Ei tirnei, place and purpose of the pcblic hearing vias provided in aecordaricE
il' E NBMC;
WHEREASI, AddEiridum No. 1 to t1`61 CEirtifieid Environmental Impact REiport was
adopted by tl- Ei City Council on my 26, 2016, by Resolution No. 20'16- ainc thEi
reciilals and findings made are incorporateid 1 eirein by reifEireneei;
WHEREAS, amEindrrieints to tl• a Zoning C odea area IegislatiWi accts. Wither thEi
City nor SNlaitei Rlarining Law sE11 forth any required findings for either approval or denial
01 SLch amE ndmeriils. coning Code AmendmEint No. LC2016-003 is consisteini with
General Plan Amendment No. CP2016-001 and Coasiail Lanc Use Man Amendment
No. LC2 0'16-C 0'1;
WHEREASI, IhE requesteid iricrEiaisEi in lloor area allows IaiigEui lobby and
circulailion spaces, an ericlosEd prEriunction spacE, IargEir mainaigement ofilices, lergEir
15-87
Ordinances No. 2C 16 -
Pagel 2
sioragE spacers, a largEr ancillary retail spaces, and twlc sligltly largEr hotel rcoms
without increasing the riurribEr cf I ctEl rcoms. Theses changers cc nstitutE a 4.8 peirceint
increases in flocr arEa compared tc the preivicLsly approved Wel plan. Tlei area
c evoted tc meeting roc rris is c ecreasing and 1 hese changers are miric n in nal t res and
shoulc enhances the Wel and the expenierice cf guesis and visitcrs;
WHERIEAEI, ile increased flocs area cces nct increase tl e number cf hotel
rooms arid therefc re, does rict iricreasei predictec traffic c r parking demands for i hes
Prc,ject. The predicted traffic to and frc rri the prc pc seed hotel, with this requested
change, will reirriain leiss than what tl ei former Ciiy Hall sites generated;
WHERIEAEI, ile increased flcor area dces not reidLce publically visible open
space crdecreaseihe parking prcvideid; arid
WHERIEAEI, the increasec hoieil flccr area is locatec cri ilei first and seccnd level
anc dces riot increase the height of ihei building. The proposeic hcieil remains consisteirii
with applicable standards provided in the Ccrrirriercial Visitcr-EleRiing—Lido Villages
I1"C\i-LV") land uses category, ihei CV -LV ocning district and Ccastal Larid Use Pclicy
4.4.21-1 chat limits the leighi cf develcpmeint.
NCW THEREFORE, the City Ccuricil cf the City of NEwport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: The recitals provic ec abcve area IIIUEl and correct and area
incorporated into the operative pari cf this ordinance.
Section 2: Ther City Ccc ncil cf the Ciiy of Newport Beach hereby apipioves
coning Code Amendmeirit No. CA20'16-00�I, as depicted in Exhibit A, vwhicl is atilached
heiretc and incc rporateid herEin by reference.
Election 3: Ther City Cc unci) of i he City cf Newpc d Beach authorizes staff tc
coruiect any typographical or scrivener's errors in compiling the final dccumentaiicri,
w itl c L i the need fc r furl hen reivieiw c r approval by the City Council.
Election 4: Pursuant tc Califc nriia Envirc rimental C uality Act (" CECIV,'
G uic elines Seciic n 15062, the cl ariges tc tl e Prc jeici area not substantial, as tl ey do not
involves new significarii efilects cii a substantial increase in the severity cf previcusly
ideiniifieid significant effects, anc therefc re, a subsequent Bnvironmerital Impact Report
it"EIR", dceis not neied tc bei prepared. The City prepared and ceirtifieid a final EIR fcn the
Projekt (IEICH#201311'1022). Slate COCA Guidelines allow fc r ihei c pdating and use cf a
piieviously certified BIR for projects chat have changed c r are diffeiient frcrri the previous
pncjeci. In cases where changers or additions occur with nc neiw significant
erivirc nmeintal impacts, an AdderidL m lo a previously cera ifiec EIR may be prepared
PL rsuant to COCA Guidelines Election 15164. The City prepared Adc eindum No. 1 to thea
Projeict's final EIR for the rricdified project conch des it at nc new erivironrrienial irripacis
15-88
Ordinance No. 2016 -
Page 3
and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval and implementation of the
requested additional square footage.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
Section 6: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other Sections,
Subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal
Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
Section 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. This ordinance shall be published pursuant to City Charter Section
414 and shall become final and effective upon the effective date of approval by the
California Coastal Commission of the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2016-003).
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach held on July 26, 2016, and adopted on August 9, 2016, by the following
vote, to -wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS
MAYOR
DIANE B. DIXON
ATTEST:
LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROV D�AS TO FORM:
CITY A EY'S OFFICE
C �-. )'
AARON ARP, CITY ATTORNEY
15-89
Ordinance Nci. 20116 -
Rage 4
EXHIEIIT A
Zor ing Cade Amer d ment N ci. CA2 016-00"1
Amend Sectior 20.14.010 QZoring Map Atoned fly Reierence] to mcbiiy Arcimaly
Location A85 as k1lows.
< r amaly
Deuelcipmeint
Llmit s
Deivedcipmer 1 lim,il (C ther)
Additior cd dnfcirmat,ion
Numfleir
E15
X51
jia3,4a0 sf of h ated
Acceissory ccimmercial 11aor aiea is alloweid in
ccriji riclian %iih a hotel ani( it is iricludec
with iri tH ei H atel c ev elopIrrieinit limit.
Municipal facilil ieis area nal i est i icl w cu
inicludeic in ariy devedapImeril limit.
15-90
Attachment F
Planning Commission Resolution 2020
15-91
RESOLUTION NO. 2020
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. CA20116-003, 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 (PA2016-061)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. An application was fled 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.
15-92
Measure S Analysis for Statistical Area B-5
Amendments Increased
Density
Increased
Intensity
Peak Hour Trip Increase
AM PM
GP 2010-005
0
15,103
45.4
60.5
GP 2011-003
1
4,053
12.7
16.8
GP 2011 -010
0
1,188
2.7
3.7
GP 2012-005
7
0
0
0
GP 2012-002
0
23,725
0
0
15-92
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020
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
amendment GP2016-001
0
4,745
0
0
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 201480 ("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 determined that 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.
15-93
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020
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.
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.
j. 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
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
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.
15-94
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020
Page 4
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 increased floor area does not reduce publically visible 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 with 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.
15-95
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020
Page 5
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23'd DAY OF JUNE 2016.
AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting, Lawler, Weigand, Zak
NOES: None
RECUSAL: None
ABSENT: None
:'E
15-96
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
r I
Maar area is allowed in
cordunction with a hotel
and it is included within
85
135
CV -LV
A4�7C
r'
the hots! ,development
103.470 sf of hotel
limit Municipal facilities
are not restricted or
r
included in any
development limit.
15-97
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:
15-98
Table
Plan Categories
Land Use Category
Uses Density/Intensity
The CV -LV category is intended to allow for
1
a range of accommodations (e.g. hotels,
motels, hostels), goods, and services
r t..
intended to primarily serve visitors to the
City of Newport Beach. A ire station is
CV -LV
allowed in its current location Llrrtited Use
103 470 `gross square feet not
Visitor -Serving
Overnight Visitor Accommodations and
including a fire` station. A fire
Commercial—
residences are not a!lowecf Note: The CV
station may not `occupy more
Lido Village
LV (Visitor Serving Commercta! Lido
an 10% of the total project
Village) category applies to the firmer City
site.
Ha!! Complex that -includes Fire Stat # 2
(3300 Newport `Squle%ard and 475 2nd
Street). ``
15-98
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.
Anomaly
Development
Development Limit fothell
Additional Information
Number
Limit t1fl—
_
Accessory commercial floor area is allowed in
_OjlJLL �tj on with a hotel and it is included
85
S
within the , hotel development limit.
103,470 sf of hotelMunicipal
facilities are not restricted or
included in any development limit.
15-99
EXHIBIT D
Required Findings for
Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 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 Servi,ragPCommercial - Lido,,Village) zoning
district and Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land UJses and Permit
Requirements) allows visitor accommodations subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit., ..'
Finding:
B. In compliance with all of the
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 effrdW t arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious
relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development;
and whether the relatrgr�shrp' s based ori standards of good design;
C, The carrfatibrbt}. rn terms of bulk, °scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures
ori the site ani adjacent developments and public areas;
d F The adequacy; ;,,efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access,
::Including dnve aisles, dnveways, and parking and loading spaces;
e The, adequacy arrd'efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use
of Water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and
f. The `protection of s►gnificant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance
with Section 200: 900 (Public View Protections); and
Facts in Su
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
15-100
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 fiat 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 aria 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 consistingd of hardscape"and landscaping between
the hotel and Newport Boulevard and 32n Street in compliance,with the proposed
open space standard.
3. The project is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces in
terms of bulk, scale and aesthetic treatments Th'OJarge setbacks identified in
oY hFa:. ry i.n1l .:uaex.f
statement B-2 above will help offset the taller portibns of the proposed buildings.
Hotel buildings have been designed with a one, two and three story element along
Newport Boulevard while providCng a significanfi setback from the street providing
areas for public access, landscaping, outdoor dining, and hotel use. The proposed
building is over 69 feet from tf e Newport ouI,evard ;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 corr'po,nents will be approximately 240 feet from
planned residential uses east of Via Oporto. Based upon the project drawings, all
elevations of proposed buildings Will °lnclu'de consistent architectural treatments,
articulation and moduldtion of building' masses providing visual interest with a
coastal architectu..ral 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 Tqe proposed project also retains the 10 existing tall date palm
trees, a.nd 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 alortg 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, onsite 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
15-101
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 bled 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 prdpose"d height of, the protect NO significant
public views through or near the project site are present in the immediate vicinity of
the site. For these reasons, the analysis co,riGlLf& that there will be no material
impact to public coastal views
Fi_ inding:
C. The proposed de
growth of the Crty,
public convenien0
,r
or working in the n
Facts in S
1.
architecturally plei
modulation to enl"
Desigr,.Guidelines
the hotel and Newt
seating and, landsc
connections fio._abt
+lopment is riot :;.,detrurre'htal to _ the harmonious and orderly
r endanger jeopardize; or otherwise constitute a hazard to the
health; ihterest, -safety, or general welfare of persons residing
7hborhoeEd of the proposed development.
;orsisfent with the Lido Village Design guidelines by providing
ng project with a coastal theme with articulation and building
Ice the urban environment consistent with the Lido Village
ie protect provides a large enhanced setback area between
itboulevard and 32nd Street that will include pedestrian paths,
�e,areas that will create a community focal point and providing
ria 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 onsite vehicles will
accommodate 100% of the project's anticipated parking demand based upon the
15-102
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 ears° west of a proposed
parking gate to accommodate short-term registration anal valet parking and vehicle
circulation without conflicting with vehicle accessrto 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 o avoid conflicts along 32nd Street.
5. Closing the site to unrestricted vehicular acees
32nd Street would discontinue direct vehicular a,
existing access gate located near Fire Station
access point, adequate vehicular access
o'"Vta
and emergency vehicles is currently provid d
Avenue and an existing driveway from Via U
trucks can access both parking ;:areas at Via L
contained in a letter from Fuscoe Engineering d<
as part of the Response to Comments within° the
by the public through the site to
ess ito Via Lido Piaza,through an
0 2,'Despite the closure of this
do•Plaza for cars, delivery trucks
r an existing driveway at Finley
:Large delivery trucks and fire
o Plaza based upon information
:d Apri1,,,27, 2014, that is included
e'ct to the,City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained within
(Outdoor Lighting) df�he Zoning Code.
fly enclosed or screened from view
omply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. All
andall conditions of approval shall be complied with.
fent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol
ort 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
15-103
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
commercial, retail, residential, and access the b,E
characteristics have been conditioned to maintair:'tl
use with surrounding land uses.
Finding:
E. The use is consistent with the General
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed 130 -room hotel protect is consistent
Serving Commercial -Lido Village` (CSV -LV) General Plai
LV (Visitor Serving Corny_ ercial Lido Village) Cga$t;
and the CV LV {Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido=-�/il
project site that provides f&. the horizontal or vertical
visitor accommodations, re idential, andlor civic uses.
are not limited:to,,,a comi`i l itycenter; public plazas,
parking..
of land uses including
I bay. The operational
Mi,bility of the proposed
Spe
,with the proposed Visitor
1 ;[.and use designation, CV -
3I` Land Use Plan category,
]age) zoning district for the
intermixing of commercial,
Civic uses may include, but
a fire station and/or public
2. The "project situ is not located within a Specific Plan area.
3. Thb ,proposed land use and zoning amendments and hotel is consistent with the
goals sand 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 ah&policies provided in the FEIR. The mitigation measures specified in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been incorporated as
conditions of abproval.
15-104
Finding:
F. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other
applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
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 p hotel be specified'),by Conditional Use
Permit with the purpose to ensure thatparking is adequately provided to meet
demand. The proposed surface parking lot''provides 148 parka, c (some
tandem) and through the use of valet parking that car facilitate addal on-site
vehicles will accommodate 100% of the +prolect,s` anticipated parkf g demand
based upon the parking analysis contained in SeC6On 5.5 Traffic/Circulation of the
Lido House EIR. Additionally, the parking lot ari`d vehicular access thereto has
been designed to accommodate''and provide safe access for passenger vehicles,
emergency vehicles delivery trucks, andrefuse collection vehicles, as determined
by the City Traffic Engineer. y..
4. The proposed hotel vill protide alco}�ol `sales in conjunction with late night hours and
as such, the operator is raquired to obtain an Operator License from the Police
Department pursuant to ,'Chapter 525;., 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 rn the vicinrtv'.>
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.
15-105
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 Boplevard at the signalized
intersection with Finley Avenue. Additionally, the site iysdirectly accessible from
32�d Street. Adequate public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and
utilities exist to accommodate the proposed ho Int as concluded by
the Lido House Hotel FEIR NO. ER2014 00.3(SCH#201111022). 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 32"d Street
Finding
I. Operation of the use at the,.:
harmonious and orderly grow
constitute a hazard to the pu
welfare of persons residing or
Facts in SUoport of Finding
1. See facts in support of Fi
k k,
2. The use authorizHd`rbv #
cation proposed %vould not be detrimental to the
rof the -;City, or eniYanger, jeopardize, or otherwise
c,co'nuen-19nce, health interest, safety, or general
9.rking in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
A, B, C,D, E, F and H above.
permit s not 'a nightclub and its prohibition will avoid
icts, nuisances, and police intervention potentially
15-106
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Development Review No. SD2016-005
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015
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. SD2016-005 and GoriditionaI Use Permit No.
UP2016-015 shall expire unless exercised with7n 2q `m`onths from the date of
approval of a Coastal Development Permitunless an extension is otherwise
granted by the Community Development Director or the Planning* Commission by
referral or appeal. a
3. Prior to the issuance of building
Commission is required.
4. The project is subject to all:;
unless specifically waived or
approval (from the Cal'iforhia Coastal
e City ordinances, policies, and standards,
:by the conditions of approval.
5. Development shall be implemented in compliance with all mitigation measures
contained within th6 approved Mitigation Mbnitoring;:aneporProgram o
d Reporting f the
Lido House Hotel, Final Environeridntal Impact Report No. ER2014-003
(SCH#2013111 022). `
6. The applicant shall complywith all federal, state, and local laws. Violation of any
of those laws in. `connection Owith the use may be cause for modification or
revocation of Site ,Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use
it No.'UP201
7. Ap,provai of this Site.,Development Review and Conditional Use Permit authorizes
a hotel which is ih'tended for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging, or
sleeping purposes' for periods of thirty (30) days or less. The selling of
timeshares or any :'ther form of fractional ownership of the hotel shall be
prohibited Additionaly, 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. SD2016-005
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.
15-107
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 are .85, shall be installed and maintained
in accordance with the approved landscape plan. A11 landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a healthy and growing condi#ion and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mowing and trimming. Aid 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 usdd whenever available, assuming it is economically
feasible.
13. Water leaving theproject site due to over irrigation of landscape shall be
minimized. !fan incident such as this.ts reported, a representative from the Code
and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit
the location, ;investigate; :inform acid ; notice the responsible party, and, as
appropriate, i,te. the responsible party a dlor shut off the irrigation water.
14. Watering shall be -Ad d"e-during the early"morning or evening hours (between 4:00
p.mj and 9 1.0'0 a1..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 td alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards.
Par"kinn areas and ve,'hicular driveways shall be swept on a weekly basis.
16. Prior to tfe, final ofhuilding 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.
15-108
1& 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 andrthe site,, shall not be excessively
illuminated based on the luminance recommendations* of the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America, or, ifJn`the opinion, of the Community
Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative
nuisance to surrounding property. The Community DevelopmentDirector may
order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon findind'that the site
is excessively illuminated.
21. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;"'the applicant shall schedule an
evening inspection by the Ili nnmg 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'responsrble for the control of noise generated
by the subject facility including, but nat}limited to, noise generated by patrons and
any events ;'donducted bn the project site, food service operations,
delivery/loading, operations,' and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by
the proposed use. shall compI-with the'!provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other
applicable ;noise control'requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
23.
ing Code a
Newport B(
24. Trash recepte
outside of,=:the
within the bui.lc
ipent shall be screened from view of consistent with the
call be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of
Munic,0 Code, Community Noise Control.
fo':r patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and
ty and shall be routinely emptied. All trash shall be stored
r within trash bins stored within trash enclosures).
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
15-109
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 equipmentand raterials shall be properly
stored on the site when not in use.
30. Traffic control and truck route plans sh,al be reviewed aril ;approved by the
Public Works Department before implementation. Large construction vehicles
shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Rublic Works
Department. Disruption caused by con"truction. work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall die mh., Mized by proper use of traffic
control equipment and flagman.. ,Y
31. Construction activities which produci loud noise:: that disturb, or could disturb a
person of normal sensitivity whoworks or resides m the vicinity, shall be limited
to the weekdays between the hogs of,-7':66,,am,. and ,6:30 p.m., and Saturdays
between the hours;of,8.00 a.m.Aho 6:0,G 'ep.m. N "'",such noise occurrences shall
occur at anytime on Sundays or federal "holidays.
i
32. To the fullpermitted by law`, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City its, City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agentsfrom and against°any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action,' suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
Inabilities, cb is -„and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may
'rise from or in any manner>'relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the
Lido douse Hotel project and Former City Hall Reuse Amendments including, but
not iimted to, the General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment No: LC2016-001, zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003,
Site Deveioprrment 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
15-110
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 consti"uction. 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
rfr
Access requirements. The construction plans must comply with the California
Green Building Standards Code. ,4 ;
34. A grading bond shall be required prior to'grading permit issua
35. A geotechnical report shall be submitted,to the Building Division for review prior
to grading permit issuance. 3
'S
36. Prior to the issuance of gradpp permits, a S",Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (N.01) to comply with the General Permit for
Construction Activities shall be `prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality
Control Board for approval amade part of the cq'ii
nd struction program. The
project applicant vVil[ protide the Citywithf8 copy ofi:ahe 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,pr.,oject's impact on water quality.
37. Prior, to issuance of gra'dihq""permits, .thb applicant shall prepare and submit a
Water.Quality Man:gement Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the
app"roval of fhe Buildin' Oepartment and Code and Water Quality Enforcement
Division. The 1NQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to ensure fihat no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements occur
38. A drainage and h "' rology study shall be submitted prior to grading permit
issuance ;f
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.
15-111
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. r,q
43. Fire hydrants shall be required to be located within 4004eet of all portions of the
building subject to the review and approval.,'pf he Newport Beach Fire
Department. Additional hydrants may be rppJred`J�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 jofre hydrants
consistent with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines.
45. A fire apparatus access road;. shall be pro'aded to within 150 feet of all exterior
walls of the first floor of the a lding. The route of the fire apparatus access road
shall be approved by the Fireb, �epartment. The 50 feet is measured by means
of an unobstructed route around the extefior,of the building. Newport Beach Fire
Department Guideline C.01 "Emergency l=ire Access• Roadways, Fire Lanes,
Gates and Barriers:"
46. Minimum width of a firm access roadway shall be 20 feet, no vehicle parking
allowed The width shallbe increased to 26 feet within 30 feet of a hydrant, no
vehicle parki1516
llowed: Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical
clearan,cev of ss than 13=feet, : inches. Newport Beach Fire Department
47 Apparatus access,,raads 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 anal 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 APM.pg surface and is capable of withstanding the weight of 72,000
pounds, NewportBeach 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.
15-112
49. All security gates shall have a Knox -box override and an approved remote
opening device. Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01.
504 Fire lanes shad 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:de'partment. 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 designe8,as per N.B.F.D. Guideline
F.04 "Private Hydrants and Sprinkler Supply,L�ne`'Undergrou'nd Piping."
53
54.
55.
57
W11
Standpipes systems shall be provided
905.
Hood Fire Suppression system will be rE
must be submitted to the fire department
A fire alarm system will be
Code Section 907.
Fire extinguis
California Fire
Public Safety? Radio
be provided''as.'per N
Premises identifi
California Fire.;Cc
immediately adJac
shall the numbers;
Fire,..places and
recommendations
rth in Cal ifornia'Fi're Code Section
poking appliances and plans
I prior to installation.
d shall be'Iirtstalled as per California Fire
uired and shail be ;located and sized as per the
3ge';(800 MHz firefighter's radio system) shall
Fire :�eaartment Guideline D.05.
on" shall be provided as City of Newport Beach amended
1 Section 505.1.1. Addresses shall be placed above or
t to 61,1 doors that allow fire department access. In no case
less than four inches in height with a one-half inch stroke,
pit clearances shall be provided as per manufacturer's
for 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
15-113
inches with not less than 5 -inch radius corner in the horizontal position. The
elevator car shall be of such a size to accommodate a 24 -inch by 84 -inch
ambulance gurney or stretcher with not less than 5 -inch radius corners, in the
horizontal, open position, shall be provided with a minimum clear distance
between walls or between walls and door excluding return panels not less than
80 inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not
less than 51 inches with a 42 -inch side slide door as per California Building Code
Section 3002.
62. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Public Works Department
63. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
64. Construct new planned improvements Wong 32nd street between'Newport Blvd
and Lafayette Ave, including but not limited to, sidewalk, curb/gutter, striping,
signage, driveway, street light relocation,�� Oarki`ng meter post relocation, and
roadway improvement. All work:sall be per City,Standards and approved by the
Public Works Director. The cost shall borne by the applicant.
65. The public pedestrian easemeht 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;Develo`p!n,pnt Departments.
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.
15-114
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 fie prepared and submitted for
review and approval prior to approval of the Gracing Plan, If studies show that
there are impacts based on the peak demand flows calculated improvements to
the City's infrastructures will be required ate;"the'Ycost 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,vDeyelopment 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 acro
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. Alllandscaping, h'ardscape, ground .cover, and trees within the project site and
along the Finley Ave,,, Newport Blvd, and 32nd Street frontages shall be
maintained by the aDDlica'ht.
81. "Remove pendant,fighting along Finley Ave to provide adequate vertical
Police Der)artment
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.
15-115
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,,,'orr'-signs of any kind di type, including
advertising directed to the exterior, 4fr' within, .promoting or 'indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays. of alcoholic beverages or
signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shali constitute a violation of this
condition..,
88. No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic ,beverage promotion shall be
allowed except when offered in :conjuncti6n _with food ordered from the a full service
menu.
5 J1.
89. No games or cohtests requiring or 'involving 'the consumption of alcoholic
beverages shall be permitted.
90. All persons sellih.g alcoholic beverages shall be over the age of 21 and undergo
and successfully complete a certified ;training program in responsible mefihods and
skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the
standards 6fthe:,,Cali6. is Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service
or other certifymg(licensir gbody, which the State may designate. Records of each
owner's, manager's;�and employee's successful completion of the required certified
training program slall,be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon
req aest:by a representative of the City of Newport Beach.
91. The operator=of thefacility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by
the subject facilityrincluding, 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.
15-116
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 or activity outside
the normal operational characteristics of the ap6roved 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 Cify, Newport Beach `,:
jl
�,.
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 percer'age or commission to a promoter or any other person
based upon m. aney collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of
admission charge is prohibited.
15-117
Attachment G
Correspondence
15-118
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
15-119
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
15-120
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Campbell, James
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:29 PM
Biddle, Jennifer
FW: Lido House Amendment
Follow up
Flagged
From: Susan Skinner [mailto:seskinner@me.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 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,
15-121
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 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.
15-122
Subject: FW: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Regular Meeting - June 23, 2016, 6:30
p.m.
From: V Lorenzen [mailto:valorenzen(abgmail.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 <Xampbellknewportbeachca.gov> 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) 644-3210 1 JcampbelI&neM portbeachca.gov
15-123
www.newportbeach ca. gov
From: Newport Beach News[ma iIto: noreply(d)newportbeachca.gov]
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
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.
■
15-124
FRED GAINES
SHERMAN L. STACEY
LISA A. WEINBERG
REBECCA A.THOMPSON
NANCI S. STACEY
KIMBERLY BIBLE
ALICIA B. BARTLEY
Mr. James Campbell
Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LAW OFFICES OF
GAINES & STACEY LLP
1111 BAYSIDE DRIVE, SUITE 280
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
June 20, 2016
Re: Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion (PA2016-061)
3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32" 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:
TELEPHONE
(949)640-8999
FAX
(949)640-8330
JUN 24 2016
DEVELOPMENT Q
CSP N blk'
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.
15-125
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,
Skt,rwuc,w L. Sf"
SHERMAN L. STACEY
SLS/sh
cc: Kim Brandt
Anthony Wrzosek
R. D. Olson
15-126
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[maiIto: dho@obermanassociates.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(@me.com; cynthia koller; Drew
Wetherholt; 'Fred Levine'; dhoCa)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
iapWy and fl no nc ru 1 Advison
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(a-)_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 9491476-0790 or the electronic address above, to
arrange for the return of the document(s) to us.
15-127
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.
15-128
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
15-129
June 23, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments
Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by:
Jim Mosher (iimmosher(aD-yahoo.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.
15-130
June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
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.
15-131
June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
,'t•7 7C� iii
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 Greenlight/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.
15-132
June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5
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 "visual"
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.
15-133
June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
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.
15-134
Subject: FW: Proposed Gen. Plan Amend. - Lido House Hotel
Attachments: 160622 Ltr re. LH.pdf
-----Original Message -----
From: Warren B Wimer fmailto:warren(@wwimer.coml
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
15-135
Warren &t 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, I
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 II. 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
15-136
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
15-137
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[mai Ito: dborowsky(a)merlone4eier.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 / 5827
Cell: 949 / 922 / 6506
Fax: 949 / 305 / 4144
Lic. # 00882780
www.MerioneGeier.com
15-138
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
2037 Seville Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92661
(949) 922-6506
15-139
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[mailto:sharonaboles(a)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 Proaosed 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
15-140
Subject:
FW: Lido House Hotel
From: charles remley [mailto:cnremley(a 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
15-141
Subject: FW: Another letter on the Lido House for tonight
Attachments: Lido House6-16(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
15-142
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
15-143
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:
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/county-715802-harbor-audit.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
15-144
Attachment H
Plans showing added areas
15-145
FINLEYAVE.
I '
�D■
LW
- ,
I i
-------------
- 4,140 SF
6/16/16
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDED PROPOSED AREAS - LEVEL 1
LEGEND:
0 INDICATES EXISTING HOTEL
0 INDICATES PROPOSED AREA
SUMMARY TABLE:
EXISTING HOTEL
98,725 SF
PROPOSED ADDED AREA
(4,140 SF L1 + 605 SF L2
4,745 SF
TOTAL PROPOSED HOTEL
103,470 SF
O CHANGE TO REQUIRED PARKING OR GUESTROOM COUNT
i�
:.j I I LEVEL 1
co W A T G IBL011
_I I
~u' NORTH
O ��
O � 1/16 1 0' OD 30"x42"
a
Lu
z
I `
F
m
i
I
-----------------,'
I — �
32nd. STREET
15-146
6/16/16
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDED PROPOSED AREAS - LEVEL 1
LEGEND:
0 INDICATES EXISTING HOTEL
0 INDICATES PROPOSED AREA
SUMMARY TABLE:
EXISTING HOTEL
98,725_ SF
PROPOSED ADDED AREA
(4,140 SF L1 + 605 SF L2
4,745 SF
TOTAL PROPOSED HOTEL
103,470 SF
*NO CHANGE TO REQUIRED PARKING OR GUESTROOM COUNT
111 vFumw t % I
NORTH
1/16" = 1'•0" 0 30'.42"
15-147