HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Former City Hall Complex Land Use Plan Amendments for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2013-031)
19-1
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY OF
February 9, 2016
Agenda Item No. 19
ABSTRACT:
Approval of amendments of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
the former City Hall Complex consistent with the California Coastal Commission’s
suggested modifications.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) Find that all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been
addressed in the previously certified Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH#2013111022), and that the changes reflective of the Coastal
Commission’s certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3 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 analysis does not need to be prepared;
c) Rescind Resolution Nos. 2014-81 and 2015-104 as they are not consistent with
the California Coastal Commission’s certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3 with
suggested modifications; and
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
PHONE: 949-644-3210, Jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: Former City Hall Complex Land Use Plan Amendments for the Lido
House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street (PA2013-031)
Former City Hall Complex Amendments (PA2012-31)
February 9, 2016
Page 2
19-2
d) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-29, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Accepting the Suggested Modifications from the
California Coastal Commission (LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3) and Approving Revised
General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002 and Revised Coastal Land Use Plan
Amendment No. LC2012-001 for the Former City Hall Complex Located at 3300
Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2012-031).
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to the approval of the requested amendments to the
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan.
DISCUSSION:
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, and Zoning Code (Amendments) changing the
land use from Public Facilities to a proposed mixed use designation. The CLUP
amendment also included changes to Policy 4.4.2-1 allowing for higher building heights.
On October 7, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the CLUP amendment with
suggested modifications (Attachment B). The Commission also approved the Coastal
Development Permit for the 130-room, Lido House Hotel.
On November 24, 2015, the City Council accepted the Coastal Commission’s
suggested modifications to the CLUP amendments and adopted revisions to the
General Plan and Zoning Code for consistency. However, staff omitted two provisions
that were required by the Coastal Commission. The omitted language only affects the
CLUP and no change to the General Plan and Zoning Code is necessary.
The first omitted provision to be added to the CLUP amendment is a note indicating that
the new CV-LV land use category applies to the former City Hall Complex. The
previously adopted land CV-LV land use category is shown with the additional note
underlined below.
Former City Hall Complex Amendments (PA2012-31)
February 9, 2016
Page 3
19-3
Table 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan Categories
Land Use Category Uses Density/Intensity
CV-LV
Visitor-Serving
Commercial –
Lido Village
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 City
of Newport Beach. A fire station is allowed in
its current location. Limited Use Overnight
Visitor Accommodations and residences are
not allowed. Note: The CV-LV (Visitor
Serving Commercial - Lido Village) category
applies to the former City Hall Complex that
includes Fire Station # 2 (3300 Newport
Boulevard and 475 32nd Street).
98,725 gross square feet not
including a fire station. A fire
station may not occupy more
than 10% of the total project site.
Although this provision is redundant to the map change that only applies the CV-LV to
the former City Hall and Fire Station property, staff has no objection to the note,as the
CV-LV is site specific.
The second omitted provision to be added to the CLUP amendment is a change to
Policy 4.4.2-1 that is very similar to the language the City originally approved in 2014.
The following language is the suggested modification from the Coastal Commission with
the City’s previously approved language in strikeout format with the omitted text from
the Coastal Commission underlined.
“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.
Former City Hall Complex Amendments (PA2012-31)
February 9, 2016
Page 4
19-4
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.
The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed
35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible
on-site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views
and providing new coastal view opportunities.
The purpose of allowing limited exceptions to the 35-foot height limit on this site is to
promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on-site open
space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and
providing new coastal view opportunities.”
The difference between these two provisions is not significant as the change only
applies to the project site and it does not modify, delay or otherwise jeopardize the
continued efforts to implement the Lido House Hotel.
The draft resolution includes both the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment and the
companion General Plan Amendment because they were previously adopted by one
resolution. There are no changes to the General Plan that were not previously
considered and adopted by the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(SCH#2013111022) for the proposed Lido House Hotel project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The analyses
showed that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable
impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with
the incorporation of several mitigation measures.
Staff recommends the City Council find the previously certified Final EIR adequate and
further find that, pursuant to 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. Therefore, no
additional environmental analysis or subsequent EIR need be prepared.
Former City Hall Complex Amendments (PA2012-31)
February 9, 2016
Page 5
19-5
NOTICING:
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of
property within 450 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. The agenda item has been noticed according to
the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers
the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Draft Resolution
Attachment B – Coastal Commission letter dated October 20, 2015
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
19-6
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
FROM THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-
3) AND APPROVING REVISED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
GP2012-002 AND REVISED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. LC2012-001 FOR THE FORMER CITY HALL COMPLEX LOCATED AT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32ND ST (PA2012-031)
WHEREAS, On April 24, 2012, the City of Newport Beach (City) initiated
amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), and Zoning Code
(collectively, Amendments) with respect to the former City Hall Complex (Property),
legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32 nd Street at 3300
Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street;
WHEREAS, the Amendments change the land use categories and zoning district
from Public Facilities to Mixed Use. Additionally, the CLUP amendment modifies Policy
4.4.2-1 allowing buildings to exceed the 35-foot Shoreline Height Limit;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the
appropriate tribal contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were
provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on October 4, 2012. The City
received an inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative
indicated that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading/construction if it is
determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate
any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources
on the Property. The Property is located within a highly developed area and has been
completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources are not
expected to occur. However, in the unlikely event that buried cultural resources or
human remains are discovered during excavation activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1
requires an archeologist and Native American Monitor be present during earth removal
or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities, and
as such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard;
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013, the City sent a surplus land notice consistent with
California Government Code Section 54222. No entities expressed an interest in
acquiring the Property for the development of affordable housing, parks and open
space, or schools;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 11, 2014,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Newport Beach Municipal
Code (NBMC). The environmental documents for the project comprising the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which
19-7
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
2
consists of Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings), Errata, staff
report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the
Planning Commission at these hearings;
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 1952 by a vote of 5-0 recommending certification of the Lido House Hotel Final EIR
(Commissioner Hillgren abstained and Commissioner Kramer absent) (ER2014-003,
SCH No. 2013111022) the Former City Hall Amendments (PA2012-031) and Lido
House Hotel (PA2013-217);
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 1953 by a vote of 5-0 recommending approval of the Former City Hall Amendments
(Commissioner Hillgren abstained and Commissioner Kramer absent) (PA2012-031)
without a mixed-use/residential component and approval of the Lido House Hotel
(PA2013-217);
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider the Amendments and a FEIR prepared for the project. A notice of the time, place
and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance with CEQA and the
NBMC;
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2014-80 certifying the Lido House Hotel FEIR No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
to be in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-
3;
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2014-81 approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002 and Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment No. LC 2012-001. These amendments were adopted contingent upon
approval by the California Coastal Commission;
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
2014-16 adopting Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2013-003;
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the City submitted Coastal Land Use Plan
Amendment No. LC 2012-001 (LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3) to the California Coastal
Commission;
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2015, the California Coastal Commission certified the
City’s application request (LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3) with suggested modifications to the
proposed CLUP land use category and Policy 4.4.2-1. The suggested modifications
changed the proposed CLUP land use category from Mixed-Use to Visitor-Serving
Commercial, Lido Village. This change in policy language allows for the same range of
allowed commercial uses as the City-approved amendment and prohibits all forms of
timeshares or fractional ownership visitor accommodations. The modification also does
not increase development intensity beyond what the City authorized. The suggested
19-8
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
3
modifications to CLUP Policy 4.4.2-1 provided increased setbacks from streets and
limited the area and size of structures that could exceed 35 feet in height. The
modification of CLUP Policy 4.4.2-1 is more restrictive than the City-approved
amendment but still allows the proposed Lido House Hotel;
WHEREAS, the certified FEIR showed that the proposed project would not result
in any significant and unavoidable impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced
to a less than significant level with the incorporation of several mitigation measures.
Although the proposed amendments have changed from “mixed-use” to “visitor-serving
commercial,” the modified amendments: 1) do not change the development potential or
intensity of use; 2) do not significantly change allowed uses; and 3) are more restrictive
in terms of setbacks and structure heights. Therefore, modifying the previously
approved amendments consistent with the Coastal Commission’s suggested
modifications are not substantial and the FEIR does not require revisions as the
changes to the project do not result in new impacts or increases in the severity of
impacts previously identified and addressed in the certified Lido House Hotel FEIR
(SCH No. 2013111022);
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to
consider modifications of the Amendments as a result of the Coastal Commission’s action.
A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing was provided in accordance with
the NBMC. Evidence both written and oral was presented to and considered by the
Planning Commission during the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 1999 by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1
abstaining recommending approval of the revised Amendments making them consistent
with the suggested modifications from the California Coastal Commission;
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to
consider the revised Amendments. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the
hearing was provided in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence
both written and oral was presented to and considered by the City Council during the
hearing;
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California to
consider the revised Amendments. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the
hearing was provided in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence
both written and oral was presented to and considered by the City Council during the
hearing;
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the
City nor State Planning and Zoning Law set forth any required findings for either
approval or denial of such Amendments otherwise found to be within the public interest;
19-9
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
4
WHEREAS, the Property is located in proximity to commercial services,
recreational uses, and transit opportunities with routine bus service provided along
Newport Boulevard. The proposed General Plan Amendment provides for variety of
land uses for the site including a luxury hotel that will promote revitalization of the Lido
Village area while ensuring neighborhood compatibility. The proposed hotel will serve
visitors and residents and increase access opportunities in the Coastal Zone;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment of Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.2-1,
as modified as suggested by the California Coastal Commission, to provide an
exception to the 35-foot height limit of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is necessary
and appropriate to accommodate the proposed intensity of use, significant open space
on the site and the project’s lack of impact to public views. This finding is based upon
the public view impact analysis within Section 5.2 (Aesthetics Light/Glare) of the Lido
House Hotel FEIR showing that there will not be a significant impact to protected public
views from General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designated vantages. Additionally,
there are no public views through the Property from abutting roadways and public
spaces; and
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 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 City Charter Section 423. The proposed General Plan Amendment is located
in Statistical Area B5. This is the fifth amendment that affects Statistical Area B5 since
the General Plan update in 2006. The four prior amendments are GP 2010-005, GP
2011-003, GP 2011-010, and GP 2012-005. The following table shows the increased
peak hour traffic trips, dwelling units and non-residential floor area attributable to the
subject amendment and eighty percent of the four prior amendments as required by City
Charter Section 423, and the resulting totals. Based upon these totals, a vote of the
electorate to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment for the City Hall site is not
required.
AM Peak
Trips
PM Peak
Trips
Dwelling
units
Non-residential
floor area
Prior Amendments (80%) 49 65 7 16,275
Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 23,725
Total 49 65 7 40,000
Exceed Threshold for Vote of the Electorate? No No No No
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 rescinds
Resolution Nos. 2014-81 and 2015-104 as they are not consistent with the California
19-10
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
5
Coastal Commission’s certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3 with suggested
modifications.
Section 3: Pursuant to 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 EIR does not need to be prepared.
Section 4: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has
reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as
shown on the Exhibit B, entitled Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Lido
House Hotel, Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
2013111022, which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves
General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002 as depicted in Exhibit C, which is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference.
Section 6: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001 as depicted in Exhibit D, which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Section 7: The Community Development Director is hereby directed to revise all
applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan figures to reflect the changes in the
land use designations upon the effective date of the amendments. Staff is also hereby
directed to correct any typographical or scrivener’s errors in compiling the final
documentation.
Section 8: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes
submittal of this resolution to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that
it is legally adequate and consistent with the Coastal Commission’s approval of LCP-5-
NPB-14-0831-3.
Section 9: The City’s certified Coastal Land Use Plan as amended by Coastal
Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001, shall be implemented in a manner fully in
conformity with the California Coastal Act.
Section 10: The approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002 shall
take effect immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
Section 11: The approval of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-
001 shall take effect automatically upon a determination by the California Coastal
Commission that the adoption of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001
by this resolution is legally adequate and conforms to the Coastal Commission’s
Certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3 on October 7, 2015.
Section 12: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
19-11
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
6
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 and phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
Section 12: 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 9th day of February 2016.
______________________
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
City Clerk
19-12
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
7
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3, 6 AND 7 IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT FILED IN THE
DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" WITH
THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 21 IN BLOCK 431
OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
PROLONGATION 400.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY
LINE AND LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A" OF SAID LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH
461.53 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE, AS
SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 108, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGES 1 OF
SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF
SAID CENTRAL AVENUE 401.79 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY OF SAID LOT 1 AND SAID
NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" 495.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED ATTACHED TO THAT
CERTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 3284 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH, A
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH11, 1946 IN BOOK 1404, PAGE130 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF SAID
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S
ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE
14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE, NOW KNOWN AS
32ND STREET, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THAT PORTION OF THE BULKHEAD LINE
ESTABLISHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1936 AND SHOWN ON THE WAR
DEPARTMENT MAP OF NEWPORT BAY SHOWING HARBOR LINE, EXTENDING BETWEEN
BULKHEAD STATION NO.124 AND BULKHEAD STATION NO.125; THENCE NORTH
27'30'00" WEST ALONG SAID BULKHEAD LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF LANCASTER'S
ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID "THE HUDSON"
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK"A"; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
19-13
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
8
PARCEL 3:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 35, PAGES 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE 20.00 FOOT ALLEY AS VACATED
BY RESOLUTION NO. 3280 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH 11, 1946 IN BOOK 1400, PAGE 189 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH
0'44'30" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST 170.97 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID 20.00 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SAID ALLEY 220.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 907,
AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGES 25 TO 36 INCLUSIVE OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH
89'15'30" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 907 AND SAID LOT 3,
A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH
COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 15, 1953 IN BOOK 2520, PAGE 577 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 4:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 35, PAGE 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH
0'44'30" WEST 74.46 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT TO THE MOST
SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LAND OF GRIFFITH COMPANY, A DISTANCE OF 69.945 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89'15'30" EAST 45.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30"
EAST 53.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5:
LOTS ONE (2) AND TWO (2) IN BLOCK “A” OF “LANCASTER’S ADDITION TO NEWPORT
BEACH’ AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
19-14
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
9
EXHIBIT B
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FACTS AND FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE
FORMER CITY HALL REUSE AMENDMENTS (PA2012-031) AS MODIFIED BY THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
1. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines (collectively,
CEQA), and in particular, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, require that a public agency consider t he
significant adverse environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and
make specific findings. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more
written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall
describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and
project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially
19-15
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
10
lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or
other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
Because, as explained below, all significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to
less than significant levels through adoption of mitigation measures, the City is not
required to also adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093.)
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Lido House
Hotel Project, SCH No. 2013111022 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other
information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts
in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach
(City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be
undertaken by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the
certification and/or approval of the following for the Lido House Hotel:
Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH#2013111022).
General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001.
Code Amendment No. CA2012-003.
Site Development Review No. SD2014-001.
Use Permit No. UP2014-004.
Traffic Study No. TS2014-005.
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the project.
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings.
19-16
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
11
(2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary
actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the
project’s objectives.
(3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related
to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done
specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the
environmental review for the project.
(4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that
were determined to be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP),
and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment
period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were
deemed significant for consideration at the project-specific level.
(5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City has determined
are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than
significant level through the imposition of Project Design Features,
standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure
compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project
and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where
potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant
levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard
conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an
acceptable level.
(6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for
the City’s actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California 92660. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the
Administrative Record for the project.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
Regionally, the project site is located near the Pacific Ocean in the west-central portion
of Orange County, within the City of Newport Beach. Locally, the project site is
generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and
32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City.
19-17
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
12
Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 55 (SR-55) and SR-1 (Pacific
Coast Highway). The primary local roadways providing access to the site are Newport
Boulevard, 32nd Street, and Finley Avenue.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of the requested legislative approvals (Amendments to
General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code,) for the project site, as well as
related for approvals of a, Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Traffic
Study. In order to allow for the development of a 130-room hotel on the project site,
amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are required to change
the project site land use designation to a “Visitor-Serving Commercial” designation that
provides for a range of accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and
services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. A fire station
is allowed in its current location. Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations and
residences are not allowed. Subsequent permits include a Coastal Development Permit
from the California Coastal Commission.
C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including
Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH#
2013111022). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections
15000 et seq.).
General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002: To allow the proposed 130-room
hotel development by changing the land use designation of the site from Public
Facilities (PF) to a new visitor-serving commercial land use category Visitor
Serving Commercial - Lido Village (CV-LV), and establish density and intensity
limits within Land Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, by establishing a
new anomaly location. The CV-LV designation provides for a range of
accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and services intended to
primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. A fire station is allowed in
its current location. Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations and
residences are not allowed. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will result
in the creation of a new Anomaly Location within Table LU-2, as indicated below,
and amend the Land Use Map to reflect the CV-LV land use designation for the
project site.
19-18
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
13
Table LU2
Anomaly Locations
Anomaly
Number
Statistical
Area
Land Use
Designation
Development
Limit (sf)
Development Limit
(other)
Additional Information
85
B5
CV-LV
98,725 sf hotel
Accessory commercial
floor area is allowed in
conjunction with a
hotel and it is included
within the hotel floor
area limit.
Municipal facilities are
not restricted or
included in any
development limit.
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001: allow the development
of a 130-room hotel by changing the land use designation of the site from Public
Facilities (PF) to a new Visitor-Serving Commercial - Lido Village (CV-LV) land
use category, and establish density and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1-1. The
proposed amendment also includes a change to Policy 4.4.2-1 to establish the
policy basis for higher height limits, as described below.
Table 2.1.1-1
Land Use Plan Categories
Land Use Category Uses Density/Intensity
CV-LV
Visitor-Serving
Commercial –
Lido Village
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
City of Newport Beach. A fire station is
allowed in its current location. Limited Use
Overnight Visitor Accommodations and
residences are not allowed. Note: The CV-
LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido
Village) category applies to the former City
Hall Complex that includes Fire Station # 2
(3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street).
98,725 gross square feet not
including a fire station. A fire
station may not occupy more
than 10% of the total project
site.
In order to establish a higher height limit, CLUP Policy 4.4.2-1 is also proposed to
be amended to add the following exception site:
“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.
19-19
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
14
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.
The purpose of allowing limited exceptions to the 35-foot height limit on this site
is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on-
site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views
and providing new coastal view opportunities.”
Code Amendment No. CA2012-003: To amend the Zoning Map of the
Zoning Code to replace the existing PF zoning designation for the site with a
new zone CV-LV designation (Commercial, Visitor-Serving – Lido Village) to
establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General
Plan Amendment. Development standards and allowed uses would also be
established.
Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will result in the creation of the
following new mixed-use zoning district:
CV-LV (Commercial, Visitor-Serving – Lido Village)
Purpose: The CVLV designation applies to the former City Hall Complex
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard
and 32nd Street. The CV-LV designation provides for a range of
accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and services
intended to primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. A fire
station is allowed in its current location. Limited Use Overnight Visitor
Accommodations and residences are not allowed.
Allowed Uses: A range of visitor accommodations, but no Limited Use
Overnight Visitor Accommodations or residential use, commercial uses
primarily intended to serve visitors and a fire station.
19-20
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
15
Maximum density/intensity: 98,725 gross square feet of hotel. Municipal
facilities are not restricted or included in this development limit.
Structure height: up to 55 feet with a flat roof and up to 60 feet with a
sloped roof. Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas,
spires, and similar structures may be up to 65 feet in height. Fire Station
No. 2 may be up to 40 feet in height and may include architectural
features up to 45 feet in height to house and screen essential equipment.
Building setbacks:
Newport Boulevard
Subterranean1 1 foot
Structures up to 35 feet 20 feet
Structures over 35 feet 60 feet
32nd Street2
Subterranean1 1 foot
Structures up to 35 feet 1 foot
Structures over 35 feet 70 feet
Interior2 Subterranean1 1 foot
Above grade 5 feet
1 Not more than 1 foot above abutting public sidewalk.
2 Setbacks do not apply to Fire Station No. 2
Open Space: 20% of the project site to be maintained as public open
space (e.g., public plazas, pedestrian promenades, outdoor recreational
spaces, patios, landscaping, etc.).
Parking and other development standards: Subject to Zoning Code
Development Review Process: Consistent with the Zoning Code – Site
Development Review (SDR) or Planned Development Permit (PDP).
The Final EIR identified all the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts of the Project to the public, responsible agencies,
trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals
and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project
implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB
would approve the project’s compliance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit
(2009-0009-DWQ) and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4)
permit.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Future
construction of the project would include demolition and construction requiring
permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance
odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 1113 (architectural coatings), 1403 (asbestos
emissions from demolition), and for future operation of the project, 1186
(street sweeping).
19-21
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
16
California Coastal Commission (CCC). The Coastal Commission will review
the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan amendment for consistency with th e
California Coastal Act. After a certification the proposed amendment as
consistent with the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission would review a
Coastal Development Permit application for the development and operation of
the proposed Lido House Hotel.
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final EIR is
provided as follows:
1. Enhance Newport Beach and Lido Village by creating a highly visible, iconic
development with distinctive architecture, significant landscaped areas, and
focal points to serve as a gateway to the Balboa Peninsula.
2. Help implement the City’s goal to revitalize Lido Village by creating a
catalytic development consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines that
enhances economic activity and contributes to Newport Beach’s reputation
as a premier destination for shopping and recreation.
3. Create a pedestrian oriented development that is physically well-connected
to the community while not significantly increasing traffic to the site when
compared to the prior use of the site.
4. Provide and enhance public access to the property by creating publically
accessible open space and visitor accommodations.
5. Provide needed services to residents and visitors including visitor
accommodations, recreational, personal services, shopping, dining, and
assembly opportunities.
6. Create a premier boutique hotel that is a financially viable operation.
7. Create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated April
28, 2014, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45-day
public review period, written responses to those comments, clarifications/changes to the
Final EIR, an Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive
environmental review of the Lido House Hotel project:
19-22
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
17
Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30-day
public review period from November 6, 2013, through December 5, 2013. The
NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of
Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s office and
on the City’s website on November 6, 2013.
During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional
suggestions on the content of the Lido House Hotel EIR. Attendees were
provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should
be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on Wednesday,
November 20, 2013, at the City of Newport Beach former City Council
Chambers, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 9266.
Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45-day
public review period (April 29, 2014 to June 13, 2014). The Draft EIR consisted of
analysis of the Lido House Hotel project and the technical appendices. On April
25, 2014, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was mailed to property
owners and occupants within 450-feet of the project site. The NOA was also sent
to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion
(NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to
public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s
office on April 29, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public
review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department,
Newport Beach Central Branch Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library,
Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and Newport Beach Corona del Mar
Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for download via the City’s website:
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/eir.
Preparation of a Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR,
responses to those comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
appended documents. The preliminary Response to Comments were provided
to the City Planning Commissioners on July 11, 2014, and posted on the City’s
website.
The Planning Commission held a study session on the Project on June 5, 2014,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A public hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2014, but to allow the
public additional opportunity to review the staff report, the hearing was continued
to August 7, 2014. The August 7, 2014 was canceled, so a special meeting was
conducted on August 11, 2014. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the public
hearing were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Draft Final
EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and
considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. Notice for this public
hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a
minimum of 450 feet of the project site and to all interested persons, agencies
and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in
advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item
19-23
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
18
appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on
the City website.
In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City provided written Responses to
Comments to public agencies on July 21, 2014, at least 10 days prior to certifying
the Final EIR.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 9, 2014, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in
accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence,
both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at
this hearing. Notice for the meeting was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all
property owners within a minimum 450 feet of the project site and to all interested
persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of
10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted
at City Hall and on the City website.
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
All project application materials submitted to the City by the Applicant and its
representatives;
NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
proposed project;
The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30-day NOP period;
The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to
Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all
supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, or other
materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR;
Written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the
45-day public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
All responses to the written comments submitted by agencies and members of
the public provided at the Planning Commission meeting on July 17, 2014,
Planning Commission public hearing on August 11, 2014, and City Council public
hearing on September 9, 2014;
The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the Planning
Commission meeting on July 17, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing on
August 11, 2014, and City Council public hearing on September 9, 2014;
All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the project;
All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other
planning documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR
19-24
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
19
prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee
Agencies.
The MMRP adopted by the City for the project; the Ordinances and Resolutions
adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project; and all documents
incorporated by reference therein;
These Findings of Fact adopted by the City for the project, any documents
expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and
Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport
Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant
The following impacts were evaluated in the EIR and determined to be less than
significant solely through adherence to the project design and standard conditions of the
City of Newport Beach.
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments
received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or
identified by the City indicating that the project would have an impact on the following
environmental areas:
(a) Aesthetic/Light and Glare: The project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on scenic vistas, or substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
scenic highway.
(b) Air Quality: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
(c) Biological Resources: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any special status species, sensitive natural community, federally protected
wetlands, or conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.
(d) Cultural Resources: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource, or disturb any human remains.
19-25
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
20
(e) Geology and Soils: The project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake
fault, and would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, and would
not conflict with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; create a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area as a result on
being within a private airstrip or an airport land use plan; interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; or expose people or structures
to wildland fires.
(h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge; alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site that would result in substantial soil erosion or
flooding; create runoff water that would exceed the existing or planned capacity
of the stormwater drainage systems; place housing within a 100-year floodplain;
expose people or structures to injury or death from flooding; or result in
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
(i) Land Use and Planning: The project would not divide an established community,
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the City’s General Plan
and Local Coastal Program CLUP, SCAG regional plans, Airport Environs Land
Use Plan, the California Coastal Act, or the City’s Municipal Code) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, or conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
(j) Noise: Project implementation would not generate excessive vibration levels to
nearby sensitive receptors, result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels, or expose people residing/working in the project area to excessive
noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan.
(k) Population and Housing: The project would not result in substantial increase in
population or housing.
(l) Public Services and Utilities: The project would not create significant impacts
related to fire protection, police protection, parks/recreation, schools, or library
services. In addition, the project would meet the City’s parkland dedication
requirements, and physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be
significant. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or
require the construction of new stormwater drainage/water/wastewater treatment
19-26
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
21
facilities, and would have sufficient water supplies to serve the project. Lastly,
the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and would comply with
Federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste.
(m) Transportation and Traffic: The project-generated traffic would not conflict with an
applicable congestion management program, result in a change in air traffic
patterns, substantially increases hazards due to a design feature, result in
inadequate emergency access, or conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Project implementation would close one existing vehicular
access point to Via Lido Plaza shopping center from 32nd Street. Lido Partners,
the owner of Via Lido Plaza, provided comments on the EIR indicating that
closing the access will negatively impact delivery truck and fire access. Two
comment letters were received from Lido Partners and written responses were
prepared and were included in the Final EIR. These comments and responses
and information presented by staff were considered by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The request to close through traffic to Via Lido Plaza at this
location is based on the applicant’s need for efficient operation of the hotel’s valet
parking lot and to avoid losing parking spaces. The issue of delivery truck access
and fire access was extensively evaluated and based upon the information in the
record (Draft EIR, Final EIR and information presented by staff during the
hearings); no significant impact to Via Lido Plaza or the community would result
with the project closing vehicle access from 32nd Street to Via Lido Plaza and no
mitigation measures necessary and further consideration of project alternatives
are not warranted.
5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR,
and the effects of the project were considered. As a result of environmental analysis of
the project and the identification of project design features; compliance with existing
laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures
(together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), all of the potentially significant
adverse impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than
significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that “Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as “Finding 1.” Where the City has
determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(2)—that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted
by that other agency,” the City’s finding is referred to herein as “Finding 2.”
19-27
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
22
A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare
(1) Potential Impact: Project construction activities could temporarily degrade the
visual character/quality of the site and its surroundings.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce visual character/quality impacts
from project construction activities to less than significant levels. The City hereby
makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AES-1 requires action to be taken prior to construction
activities in order to avoid adverse visual impacts from the stockpiling of
materials, construction traffic, and vehicle staging areas. Therefore, visual
character/quality impacts from construction activities would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition
permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development. The Construction Management Plan
shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging
areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with
opaque material), and haul route(s). Staging areas shall be sited
and/or screened in order to minimize public views to the maximum
extent practicable. Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts
to sensitive uses in the City.
(2) Potential Impact: Project implementation could degrade the visual
character/quality of the site and its surroundings.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce long-term visual character/quality
impacts from the proposed project to less than significant levels. The City hereby
makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AES-2 requires action to be taken prior to construction
activities in order to avoid adverse long-term visual impacts from the proposed
Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette. Therefore, long-term visual
character/quality impacts from project implementation would be less than
significant.
19-28
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
23
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-2: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for
new construction, the Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette
shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval. Landscaping shall complement the proposed
site design and surrounding streetscape and must also be
consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
(3) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could generate
additional light and glare beyond existing conditions.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce light and glare impacts from the
proposed project to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1
and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AES-3 requires action to be taken prior to construction
activities in order to avoid adverse visual impacts from light and glare from the
proposed project. Therefore, light and glare impacts from project implementation
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-3: All construction-related lighting shall be located and
aimed away from adjacent residential areas and consist of the
minimal wattage necessary to provide safety and security at the
construction site. A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of the grading or building permit application.
B. Air Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed
project could result in air pollutant emission impacts or expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to short-term
construction air emissions to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes
Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires one or more actions to be taken prior to and
during construction activities in order to avoid adverse air quality emission
impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires action to be taken prior to
19-29
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
24
construction activities to reduce impacts from fugitive dust from the hauling of
excavated or graded material. Therefore, short-term construction air quality
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the
Community Development Department shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust
prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and
Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive
dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the
following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts
on nearby sensitive receptors:
All active portions of the construction site shall be watered
every three hours during daily construction activities and
when dust is observed migrating from the project site to
prevent excessive amounts of dust;
Pave or apply water every three hours during daily
construction activities or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed
migrating from the site during site disturbance;
Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material
shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non-
toxic soil binders shall be applied;
All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended
when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;
Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved
immediately after construction is completed in the affected
area;
Track-out devices such as gravel bed track-out aprons (3
inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by
rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce
mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes.
Alternatively a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit
routes;
19-30
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
25
On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently
watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust prior to departing the job site; and
Trucks associated with soil-hauling activities shall avoid
residential streets and utilize City-designated truck routes to
the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded
material on-site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section
23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special attention to
Sections 23114(b)(F) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the
prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall
coordinate with the Community Development Department on
hauling activities compliance.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time;
however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied to the
project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review,
tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process.
C. Biological Resources
(1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could interfere with
the movement of a native resident or migratory species.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires all vegetation removal activities to be
scheduled outside of the nesting season to avoid potential impacts to nesting
birds; however, if vegetation removal is to occur during the nesting season, a
survey for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist would be
required. Further action is required if active nests are found on-site during
nesting season. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would
reduce potential impacts to migratory birds to a less than significant level.
19-31
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
26
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal
activities shall be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically
February 15 to August 15) to avoid potential impacts to nesting
birds. However, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the
nesting season, all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for
the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to
commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a
buffer of at least 300 feet for raptors shall be delineated, flagged,
and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by
the City.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction
process.
(2) Potential Impact: The project could conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires the City to locate an existing Ficus benjamina
tree or other suitable tree into a City park and dedicate the tree in the name of
William Lawrence “Billy” Covert. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires the City shall
to an existing tree in a very prominent location within a City park or at the new
Civic Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. Mitigation Measure BIO-4
requires the City to locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the
name of Walter and Cordelia Knott, and locate an existing tree in a prominent
location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it in honor of
the State of California. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures BIO-2
through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The City shall locate an existing Ficus benjamina
tree or other suitable tree into a City park and dedicate the tree in
the name of William Lawrence “Billy” Covert. Should an
19-32
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
27
appropriate tree not be found, the City shall attempt to transplant
the existing tree or plant a new tree of the same variety at an
appropriate location. The re‐dedicated tree shall have a permanent
marker or plaque. Every effort shall be made to involve the Covert
family in this process.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Because the Freedom Tree also cannot be
effectively transplanted, the City shall locate an existing tree in a
very prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic
Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. An appropriate
permanent marker or plaque shall be provided and the dedication
should be accomplished with community and veterans groups’
participation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Because the Walter Knott Tree and the California
Bicentennial Tree cannot be effectively transplanted, the City shall
locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the name
of Walter and Cordelia Knott. The City shall also locate an existing
tree in a prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic
Center and dedicate it in honor of the State of California. The re ‐
dedicated trees shall have permanent markers and every effort
shall be made to involve the Knott family and the community in the
process.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction
process.
D. Cultural Resources
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant impact to
unknown archaeological resources that could occur on-site.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires a professional archaeologist and a Native
American Monitor to be retained to monitor ground-disturbing activities,
determine potential to disturb cultural resources, and halt construction activities if
19-33
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
28
necessary. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would
reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor
appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall be present during
earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and
other excavation for utilities. If any earth removal or disturbance
activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the Project
proponent’s contractors shall cease all earth removal or
disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City
selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall
immediately notify the Director of Community Development. The
City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural
findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of
the City of Newport Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other
applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American
Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and
data/artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval would
apply to the proposed project:
The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified
archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to
establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and
recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been
prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of
the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above.
(2) Potential Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant impact to
unknown paleontological resources that could occur on-site.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires an Orange County Certified Paleontologist to
be appointed by the City of Newport Beach, and to prepare a Paleontological
Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or
disturbance activities at the project site. The requirements set forth in Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to
less than significant.
19-34
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
29
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: An Orange County Certified Paleontologist
appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a
Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior
to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site. The
City selected paleontologist shall be present during earth removal
or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other
excavation for utilities. Paleontological monitoring shall include
inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within
sensitive geologic sediments. If any earth removal or disturbance
activities result in the discovery of paleontological resources, the
Project proponent’s contractors shall cease all earth removal or
disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City
selected paleontologist who shall immediately notify the Community
Development Director. The City selected paleontologist shall
evaluate all potential paleontological findings in accordance with
the Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program
Monitoring, standard practice, the requirements of the City of
Newport Beach Historic Resources Element, and other applicable
regulations. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the City selected
paleontologist shall prepare a Final Monitoring and Mitigation
Report to be filed with the City and the repository to include, but not
be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and
monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils
collected (including an assessment of their significance, age,
geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a
confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality
maps and photographs, and an appendix of curation agreements
and other appropriate communications.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval would
apply to the proposed project:
The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified
archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to
establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and
recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been
prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of
the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above.
E. Geology and Soils
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed project may expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
19-35
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
30
(2) Potential Impact: The proposed project may expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismically induced
liquefaction and settlement.
(3) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project could be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project.
(4) Potential Impact: The proposed project may be located on expansive soil
creating substantial risks to life or property.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that these impacts
are less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation
measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California region and
proximity to active and potentially active faults, the project site would be likely to
be subject to significant ground motion, strong seismic ground shaking, and a
moderate potential for liquefaction due to seismic-induced settlement. Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 requires that all grading operations and construction associated
with the proposed project be conducted in conformance with the
recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation for the project, and
the City of Newport Beach and California Building Codes. In addition, the
geotechnical investigation provides recommendations to reduce impacts from
compressibility/static settlement, and expansive soils to less than significant
levels. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that risks
associated with strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, unstable geologic
units, and expansive soils are reduced to acceptable levels. As such, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: All grading operations and construction shall
be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included
in the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by
GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Lido House Hotel – City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013)
(included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by
reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and
construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the
California Building Code applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of
the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written
19-36
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
31
report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building
Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction
process.
(5) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project could encounter
corrosive soils potentially resulting in damage to foundations and buried
pipelines.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that these impacts
are less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation
measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, the soils on-site
would be very mildly corrosive to ferrous metals and possess a negligible sulfate
exposure to concrete. Consequently, metals structures in contact with the soil
may be subject to slight corrosion. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 provides
recommendations for reducing corrosion potential due to soil and groundwater.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during
preparation of the Final Soils/Geotechnical Engineering Report for the project.
Compliance with Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential
impacts associated with corrosive soils to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: All grading operations and construction shall be
conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in
the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by
GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Lido House Hotel – City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013)
(included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by
reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and
construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the
California Building Code applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of
the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written
19-37
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
32
report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building
Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of
Newport Beach Building Official or designee shall verify that the
City has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to
provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may
come in contact with on-site soils, project construction shall include
the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion
protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the
use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. Additional
site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible
presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be
performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and
enhance these recommendations. On-site inspection during
grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant
and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction
process.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the
public or environment through accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 address known and potential
hazardous materials conditions on the project site, and would require future
characterization and remediation of hazardous materials that may exist on the
property. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce risks
associated with on-site hazardous materials to an acceptable level. Impacts,
therefore, would be less than significant.
19-38
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
33
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey
shall be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the
presence or absence of asbestos containing-materials (ACMs). If
ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior
to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne
asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State
certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
1403.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: If paint is separated from building materials
(chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the
paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building
material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead-based
paint is found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead
Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume
hazard. Lead-based paint removal and disposal shall be performed
in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section
1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and
respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by
workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead-based paint
removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City
Engineer.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Any transformers to be removed or relocated
during grading/construction activities shall be evaluated under the
purview of the local utility purveyor (Southern California Edison) in
order to confirm or deny the presence of PCBs. In the event that
PCBs are identified, the local utility purveyor shall identify proper
handling procedures regarding potential PCBs.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: The Contractor shall verify that all imported soils,
and on-site soils proposed for fill, are not contaminated with
hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds in consultation
with a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist. If soils are
determined to be contaminated above regulatory thresholds, these
soils shall not be used as fill material within the boundaries of the
project site, unless otherwise specified by a regulatory agency that
has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup (e.g.,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Orange County Health Care Agency, etc.).
19-39
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
34
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: If unknown wastes or suspect materials are
discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed
to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall
comply with the following:
Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected
contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the
area;
Notify the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach;
Secure the area as directed by the Building Official; and
Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency’s Hazardous
Materials Division’s Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator
(or other appropriate agency specified by the Community
Development Director). The Hazardous Waste/Materials
Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further
actions that shall be taken, if required.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to existing hazardous materials contamination that are applicable to the
proposed project at this time; however, future project-specific conditions of
approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary
approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design,
and/or construction process.
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Grading, excavation, and construction activities associated
with the proposed project could impact water quality.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities for the proposed project could generate soil erosion as
well as on- and off-site transport via storm run-off or mechanical equipment.
Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or
other vehicle-related fluids on the project site could create stormwater pollution
and soil contamination impacts. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2
require the project to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent, and a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the State Water Resources Board,
19-40
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
35
respectively. Mitigation Measure HWQ-3 requires the project applicant to submit
a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the SWRCB upon completion of project
construction. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to water quality from short-term construction activities acceptable levels.
Impacts, therefore, would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as part of the
project’s compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of
Intent (NOI) shall be prepared and submitted to the State Water
Resources Quality Control Board (SWRCB), providing notification
and intent to comply with the State of California General Permit.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: The proposed project shall conform to the
requirements of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) (to be applied for during the Grading Plan process)
and the NPDES Permit for General Construction Activities No.
CAS000002, Order No, 2009-0009-DWQ, including implementation
of all recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs), as
approved by the State Water Resources Quality Control Board
(SWRCB).
Mitigation Measure HWQ-3: Upon completion of project construction, the
project applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the
State Water Resources Quality Control Board (SWRCB) to indicate
that construction is completed.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed project
at this time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be
applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site
development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or
construction process.
(2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result
in increased run-off amounts and degraded water quality.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project site would likely experience pollutant generation due to the proposed
land uses, potentially increasing the generation of suspended solids/sediments,
nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic
19-41
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
36
compounds, and trash and debris. Due to the fact that the Lower Newport Bay is
listed on the 303(d) list for chlordane, copper, DDT, indicator bacteria, nutrients,
PCBs, pesticides, and sediment toxicity, and has a TMDL for metals, nutrients,
pathogens, pesticides, priority organics, and siltation, the proposed development
could have a significant adverse impact to storm water quality. Mitigation
Measure HWQ-4 requires the project applicant to submit a Final Water Quality
Management Plan to ensure long-term operational water quality impacts form the
proposed project are mitigated to acceptable levels. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of the applicable mitigation
measures.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan for
approval by the Building Official that complies with the
requirements of the latest Orange County Public Works Drainage
Area Management Plan.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed project
at this time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be
applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site
development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or
construction process.
H. Noise
(3) Potential Impact: Grading and construction within the area could result in
significant temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receivers.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could temporarily
increase noise levels in the project vicinity and along nearby roadways.
Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce short-term construction noise impacts by
requiring mobile equipment to be muffled and requiring best management
practices for hauling activities. Mitigation Measure N-1 would also implement the
City’s Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, requiring construction activities to be
conducted during the City’s allowable construction hours. With implementation of
applicable mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
19-42
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
37
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure N-1: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building
Permit for new construction, Community Development Department
shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that:
All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
State required noise attenuation devices.
The Applicant shall provide a qualified “Noise Disturbance
Coordinator.” The Disturbance Coordinator shall be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. When a complaint is received, the
Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of
the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint
(e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement
reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed
acceptable by the City Development Services Department.
The contact name and the telephone number for the
Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on-site.
When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to
avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent
homes, etc.).
During construction, stationary construction equipment shall
be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receivers.
Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place
outside of the allowable hours specified by the City’s Municipal
Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction
is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays).
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval would
apply to the proposed project:
The project must comply with the exterior noise standards for
residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The exterior noise level
standard is 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM
19-43
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
38
and 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. An
acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that
demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise
Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to
the Community Development Department as part of the Site
Development Review permit application for each residential
structure. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards,
additional mitigation shall be required, which may include the
installation of additional sound attenuation devices as
recommended by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director.
The operator of the proposed commercial uses shall be responsible
for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including,
but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service
operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the
proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26
and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no
more than noise limits specified in Table 5.10-3 for the specified
time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher.
All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent
properties and adjacent public streets for each residential structure,
as authorized by a Site Development Review permit, and shall be
sound-attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound-
Amplifying Equipment requires a permit for use of any sound-
amplifying equipment and regulates the volume so sound-
amplifying equipment is not a nuisance to persons. The use of
sound-amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the
hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM.
I. Transportation and Traffic
(1) Potential Impact: Project construction would not cause a significant increase in
traffic for existing conditions when compared to the traffic capacity of the street
system.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
19-44
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
39
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate
traffic as a result of equipment being transported to the site and vehicular traffic
related to construction works and delivery of materials to the project site.
Construction related trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and
from the project site may result in minor traffic delays within the project area.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require implementation of a construction
management plan, consisting of a variety of measures to minimize traffic and
parking impacts upon the local circulation system. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRA-1 would reduce potential short-term traffic impacts from project
construction to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prior to Issuance of any grading and/or demolition
permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Department/City Traffic Engineer. The Construction
Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following:
Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption
to traffic circulation.
Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the
delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping,
windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours,
and proposed construction phasing plan for the project.
Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur
and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to
adjacent streets.
Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of
debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of
its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as
directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City
Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled,
tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas.
Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed
between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday
through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City
Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during
nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays.
Use of local streets shall be prohibited.
19-45
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
40
Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times
yield to public traffic.
If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement,
streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the
applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
All constructed-related parking and staging of vehicles shall be
kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on-
site or in public parking lots.
This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City
of Newport Beach requirements.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to project construction traffic that are applicable to the proposed project at
this time; however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied
to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction
process.
(2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the project would not conflict with the
requirements of Newport Beach municipal code chapter 20.40, off-street parking.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure TRA-2 requires the implementation of a Parking Management
Plan that would include restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide
signage, and addresses staff parking to ensure that parking is managed on-site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would reduce potential impacts
associated with parking supply during peak demand to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the
applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan for review and
approval by the Community Development Department. The
19-46
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
41
Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the
following and be implemented at all times:
Restrict all on-site parking spaces to either a time limit or a
valet parking arrangement.
Restrict access to on-site parking areas (with the exception of
visitor parking by the hotel lobby) to either valet staff, or guests
and visitors only through a manned gate, a gate with intercom
access, or a gate that reads the room keys.
Restrict parking for in-demand parking spaces by time limits.
The time limit should apply from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday
through Friday.
Post signs at locations where motorists can be redirected from
curb parking or desirable parking areas to convenient off-
street lots and structures.
Encourage on-site employee parking by providing free parking
on-site or providing incentives for using alternative modes of
transportation, such as providing free or discounted bus
passes; an employee bike rack, entering employees who take
the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle in a monthly raffle;
providing a monthly stipend for bicycle commuting; providing
carpool parking spaces, or other incentives.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to parking that are applicable to the proposed project at this time;
however, future project-specific conditions of approval may be applied to the
project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review,
tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process.
6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project
Planning Process
In addition to the guidance cited above regarding purpose and contents of an analysis
of alternatives to a proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that
an EIR should identify alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as
infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. According to the CEQA
Guidelines, the following factors may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
consideration: the alternative’s failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, the
alternative’s infeasibility, or the alternative’s inability to avoid significant environmental
19-47
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
42
impacts. One alternative that has been considered and rejected as infeasible is
discussed below.
One alternative that has been considered and rejected as infeasible is the
Alternative Location Alternative. The project site is available for development
because it is a vacant and underutilized site within the City of Newport Beach.
It is unlikely that the Applicant would be able to acquire another property
within the City on which to develop a project of similar size and scale to that
currently proposed. In addition, no significant and unavoidable impacts have
been identified to be associated with the proposed project. Therefore,
considering development of the project at an alternative location would serve
no purpose. Furthermore, it is a key objective of the proposed project, and a
key aspect of its design, to enhance the Lido Village area. As such, this
alternative has been rejected from further consideration by the City.
B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis
Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives, in addition to the
required No Project Alternative, were determined to represent a reasonable range of
alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and
have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects
of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.
No Project/No Build Alternative
No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative
Reduced Density Alternative
Mixed Use Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No
Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to
identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated.
Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and
determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant
and unavoidable impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an
alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. However, no
impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable after the
imposition of mitigation. Subsection 7.4 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR
identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
The proposed project is analyzed in detail in Chapter 7 of the DEIR.
19-48
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
43
1. Alternatives Comparison
Table 1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the
Proposed Project, below, provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts
associated with the project with the impacts of each of the proposed alternatives.
Table 1
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Project Impact
Alternative 1:
No Project/No Build
Alternative 2:
No Project/Existing
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Alternative 3:
Reduced Density
Alternative 4
Mixed use
Aesthetics/Light
and Glare
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Air Quality Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Greater (Potentially
Significant Impact)
Biological
Resources
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Cultural
Resources
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Geology and
Soils
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Less Than Significant Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Greater (Potentially
Significant Impact)
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Greater (Potentially
Significant Impact)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Land Use and
Relevant
Planning
Less Than Significant Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Noise Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Greater (Potentially
Significant Impact)
Public Services
and Utilities Less Than Significant Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Traffic and
Circulation
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Less
(Less Than
Significant)
Greater (Potentially
Significant Impact)
19-49
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
44
a) No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build
Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the
circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of
the CEQA Guidelines states that, “in certain instances, the No Project/No Build
Alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.”
Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative
(Alternative 1) assumes that no new development would occur within the project site.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would retain the project site in its current condition.
With this Alternative, the City Hall Complex would remain vacant and unimproved
although the City would likely continue very limited use of existing buildings suitable of
occupancy. The existing 60,600 square feet of administration/office floor area would not
be removed. The existing landscaping would be retained and maintained. Public open
spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities would not
be constructed along Newport Boulevard or 32 nd Street. None of the improvements as
part of the Lido House Hotel would be constructed. Under the No Project/No Build
Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP categories would not be amended.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/No Build Alternative’s
environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project is set forth in Subsection
7.1.1 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by
reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No
Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics/light and glare, air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and relevant planning, noise,
public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation. Water quality impacts under this
Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. Overall, the No Project/No Build
Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Development Alternative would not
attain any of the project’s basic objectives. An iconic development that would revitalize
the Lido Village and create a pedestrian oriented development would not be
constructed. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open
space, and visitor accommodations for visitor and residents of Newport Beach would
not be provided on the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would also not
create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax.
Feasibility: Since the No Project/No Build Alternative would allow the existing City Hall
Complex to remain vacant and unimproved, the feasibility of this Alternative would rely
on the economic feasibility of indefinite operation of these uses. No changes to the
existing conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely.
Finding: In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative
would reduce impacts to aesthetics/light and glare, air quality, biological resources,
19-50
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
45
cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards an d
hazardous materials, land use and relevant planning, noise, public services and utilities,
and traffic and circulation. Water quality impacts under this Alternative would be greater
than the proposed project. This alternative would fail to fully meet any of the project
objectives. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have fewer environmental
impacts than the proposed project, making it the environmentally superior alternative.
However, since the No Project/No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the project
objectives, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed project.
b) No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative
Description: The “No Project/Existing General Plan Land use Designation” Alternative
proposes development of what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on the property’s current
General Plan land use and zoning designations of “Public Facilities.” The Public
Facilities Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for public facilities,
including community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities,
libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools. Neither the General Plan
nor the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) identifies a
maximum development density or intensity for this use, but requires a Minor Use Permit
(MUP). The City does not currently have a need for municipal offices at this location
and does not plan to relocate the police station to the project site. Additionally, the City
sent a notice of surplus land to the school district, affordable housing advocates, and
park districts in accordance with Section 54222 of the Government Code and did not get
a response. Therefore, this Alternative assumed a development of 60,600 square feet
of municipally-sponsored uses that could include government offices, community
meeting rooms, and parking necessary to support on-site uses of a similar development
intensity as the former City Hall Complex. The development associated with this
alternative would include the demolition of the existing outdated structures, and would
construct a new modern facility that would serve the community for meetings,
recreation, and ancillary uses.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/Existing General Plan Land
Use Designation Alternative’s environmental impacts compared to those of the
proposed project is set forth in Subsection 7.1.2 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft
EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project,
as shown above in Table 1, the No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics/light and glare, air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, land use and relevant planning, and noise. Biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water
quality, public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation impacts would be similar
to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
would not attain the project’s fundamental objective to revitalize the Lido Village and
create a pedestrian oriented development. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities,
19-51
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
46
publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents
of Newport Beach would not be provided on the project site.
Feasibility: Although the No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Alternative would
be physically feasible, it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this
Alternative would yield a reasonable return on investment, as The No Project/No Build
Alternative would also not create City revenue through lease payments and transient
occupancy tax and is therefore less desirable than the proposed project.
Finding: This Alternative would not meet any of the project’s objectives. It would reduce
environmental impacts to aesthetics/light and glare, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
land use and relevant planning, and noise. However, it would result in similar impacts
related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, public services and utilities, and traffic and
circulation. Also, because it does not include the development of a hotel, this Alternative it
would not require a General Plan Amendment, CLUP Amendment, Zoning Code
Amendment, or a Conditional Use Permit. Moreover, it would not create City revenue
through lease payments and transient occupancy tax, and may be economically infeasible.
For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this
Alternative.
c) Reduced Density Alternative
Description: Under the Reduced Density Alternative, proposes the development of a
hotel use on the project site that would have approximately 108 rooms and would be three
floors. The Reduced Density would have the same basic building footprint, architecture,
open space areas, and vehicular access as the proposed project. The development
associated with this alternative would include the demolition of the existing outdated
structures. Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP
categories would still need to be amended similar to the proposed project.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Reduced Density Alternative’s
environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in
Subsection 7.2 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated
by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the
Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, and traffic and circulation. Aesthetics/light and glare, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality, land use and relevant planning, noise, and public services and
utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Density Alternative would attain
all of the project’s objectives provided it is financially viable. As with the proposed
project, a reduced density hotel project would help revitalize the Lido Village area and
create a pedestrian oriented development. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities,
publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents
19-52
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
47
of Newport Beach would also be provided on the project site but to a lesser degree
when compared to the proposed project.
Feasibility: As with the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be
economically feasible. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would create less City
revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax.
Finding: The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic and circulation. Impacts related to
aesthetics/light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and relevant
planning, noise, and public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed
project. While this Alternative would attain all of the project’s objectives provided it is
financially feasible, it would create less City revenue through lease payments and
transient occupancy tax. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is
preferred over this Alternative.
d) Mixed Use Alternative
Description: The Mixed Use Alternative would remove the existing City Hall Complex and
include the development of 99 multifamily dwelling units and 15,000 square feet of
commercial uses on the project site. Based on the number of dwelling units and
commercial space, the potential building footprint would likely be similar to the proposed
project and building heights would also be similar. This alternative would amend the
General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning Code designations from “Public Facilities” for the project
site.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Mixed Use Density Alternative’s
environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in
Subsection 7.3 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated
by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the
Mixed Use Alternative would result in greater impacts related to air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation. Aesthetics/light and glare, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology/water quality, land use and relevant planning, and public services and utilities
impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This Alternative would not reduce any
impacts compared to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Mixed Use Alternative would attain the
project’s objective to revitalize the Lido Village by creating a pedestrian-oriented
development; however, it would have a lesser overall economic impact to the
community. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open
space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents of Newport Beach would
not be provided on the project site.
19-53
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
48
Feasibility: As with the proposed project, the Mixed Use Alternative would be
economically feasible. However, the Mixed Use Alternative would not create City
revenue through the transient occupancy tax.
Finding: The Mixed Use Alternative would result in greater impacts related to air
quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation. Impacts related to
aesthetics/light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and relevant
planning, and public services and utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed
project. While this Alternative would attain all of the project’s objectives, it would have a
lesser overall economic impact to the community, and would not create City revenue
through the transient occupancy tax. For these reasons, the City finds that the
proposed project is preferred over this Alternative.
19-54
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
49
EXHIBIT C
General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002 (PA2012-031)
A. Amend Table LU1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add the
following land use category:
“Visitor-Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV)
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 City
of Newport Beach. A fire station is allowed in its current location. Limited Use
Overnight Visitor Accommodations and residences are not allowed.”
B. Amend Table LU-2 to add Anomaly Location #85 as shown in the following
table:
Table LU2 Anomaly Locations
Anomaly
Number
Statistical
Area
Land Use
Designation
Development
Limit (sf)
Development Limit
(Other) Additional Information
85 B5 CV-LV 98,725 sf of hotel
Accessory commercial
floor area is allowed in
conjunction with a hotel
and it is included within
the hotel development
limit. Municipal facilities
are not restricted or
included in any
development limit.
All existing provisions within Table LU-2 remain unchanged
19-55
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
50
C. Amend Figure LU6 (Land Use Map) as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard &
475 32nd Street only as depicted in the following diagram:
All related maps or diagrams within the General Plan shall be amended to maintain
consistency with the new land use category and Anomaly Location #85 as shown
above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within the General Plan that label the site
as “City Hall” shall be removed from the General Plan. Labeling the new City Hall
site as “City Hall” on any General Plan map or diagram is also authorized.
19-56
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
51
EXHIBIT D
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001 (PA2012-031)
A. Amend the Table 2.1.1-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan add the following land
use category:
Table 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan Categories
Land Use Category Uses Density/Intensity
CV-LV
Visitor-Serving
Commercial –
Lido Village
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
City of Newport Beach. A fire station is
allowed in its current location. Limited Use
Overnight Visitor Accommodations and
residences are not allowed. Note: The CV-
LV (Visitor Serving Commercial - Lido
Village) category applies to the former City
Hall Complex that includes Fire Station # 2
(3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd
Street).
98,725 gross square feet not
including a fire station. A fire
station may not occupy more
than 10% of the total project
site.
All other existing provisions within Table 2.1.1-1 remain unchanged.
19-57
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
52
B. Amend Coastal Land Use Plan Map 1 and Figure 2.1.5-1, as it relates to 3300
Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street as depicted in the following diagram:
All related maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan shall be amended to
maintain consistency with the new land use category as shown above. Additionally,
any maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan that label the site as “City
Hall” shall be removed from the Coastal Land Use Plan. Labeling the new City Hall
site as “City Hall” on any Coastal Land Use Plan map or diagram is also authorized.
19-58
RESOLUTION NO. 2016–##
53
C. Amend Coastal Land Use Policy 4.4.2-1 to add the following exception site:
“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.
The purpose of allowing limited exceptions to the 35-foot height limit on this site is to
promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on-site open
space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views a nd
providing new coastal view opportunities.”
19-59
Attachment B
Coastal Commission letter dated October 20, 2015
19-60
19-61
19-62
19-63