The City also admits that Via Oporto is non -conforming by modern fire and safety standards, and that this non -conformity has spurred discussions with the Fire Department to widen Via Oporto.31 But widening Via Oporto is not included as a mitigation measure. Moreover, the City ignored Lido Partners' request to clarify how paramedic units will access the Fire Station from Via Oporto, and fails to respond to Lido Partners' comment that the confluence of hotel delivery traffic, fire trucks, and passenger traffic on 32nd Street presents a public safety issue. Because the City simply states that the Fire Department has approved closing the 32nd Street Alley, but fails to provide any further details, the public has no way of knowing whether the Fire Department is aware of or considered the unintended effects that such a closure would have. The City's responses also d❑ not satisfactorily address parking impacts arising from the reconfiguration of the Fire Station. While the City states that the Newport Beach Fire Department has approved its reduction in parking by approximately 50%, there is no analysis or explanation of how this reduction could possibly continue to meet the needs of the fire station, accommodate shift changes, or be sufficient for visitors.32
12-1 S
In sum, where the City stands to profit significantly from a development project on City land, and the public raises specific questions regarding public safety, the City cannot satisfy its CEQA responsibilities by simply referring to conclusory statements from unnamed City employees.33 This 12-17 opaqueness renders the Final EIR legally inadequate. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15151 (requiring EIR to make a "good faith effort at full disclosure.").
E. The City Iqnores Several Comments Indicating Severe Deficiencies in the Proiect's Environmental Analysis
The City's Response to Comments ignores several of Lido Partners' other comments on specific environmental issues. Those omissions include but are not limited to:
The City fails to analyze a feasible alternative to closing the 32nd Street Alley. While acknowledging that preserving the 32nd Street Alley is feasible, the City offers no explanation why the Draft EIR failed to analyze an alternative that preserved the 32nd Street Alley, such as the project configuration depicted in the July 2013 Project site plan. The City's response instead argues that retaining the 32nd Street Alley would negatively affect hotel operations and guests.34 This response is precisely backwards, as CEQA's purpose is to evaluate a Project's impacts on the environment, not the environment's impacts on the Project. Nor has the City pointed to anything in the Project's objectives that suggests incompatibility with the 32nd Street Alley. The City also claims that "[o]nly those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project."35 if this were the case, however, the City would never have to analyze any 31 Final EIR at 2-56 (Response No. 8-9).
32 See Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8-15).
33 In another example, in response to Lido Partners' comment regarding the potential for narrowing of 32nd Street and new landscaping to cause traffic and visibility issues at the Fire Station, the City states that these changes were "welcomed" by the Fire Department. Final EIR at 2-56 (Response No. 8-11).
There is no indication that the Fire Department is a subject matter expert in this sort of traffic analysis, however, and no indication why the City's traffic engineer failed to respond to Via Lido's comment. 34 Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8-17).
35 Final EIR at 2-54 (Response No. 8-3).
12-1 S
PA U L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
feasible alternatives so long as it concluded that the Project, as proposed, would have no significant environmental impacts. The City's past hoc rationalization confuses CEQA's requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives with the requirement to identify the environmentally superior alternative. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.6 (establishing guidelines for developing a reasonable range of alternatives); Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400-01 (1988) (holding that an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of alternatives even if the project's significant environmental impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures),
The City fails to offer any meaningful response on the Project's inconsistency with local land use plans. Rather than respond to Lido Partners' critiques of the Project's compliance with local land use plans, the City simply refers back to the same inadequate analysis in the Draft EIR.36 The City has no meaningful rebuttal to Lido Partners' comments that the effects associated with closing the 32nd Street Alley run contrary to nearly all of the City's policies related to traffic and circulation. Under the City's Land Use Element and other applicable local land use plans, "full consideration" must be given to land uses on adjacent properties. The City completely fails to explain how the Project gave any consideration to Via Lido Plaza —except to admit that while preserving the 32nd Street Alley is feasible, it should instead be closed for reasons that remain unclear. While the City claims that "[n]o evidence has been provided" to support the assumption that the Project will disadvantage West Marine or limit Via Lido Plaza's ability to host a grocery store,"37 the City admits that extinguishing the 32nd Street Alley will leave only the Via Lido entrance as a possible truck access point to the property. As described above, however, there are numerous problems with requiring large trucks to use the Via Lido entrance, which make such use impractical and unsafe. The Project at a minimum will require a significant change in how Via Lido Plaza is serviced by truck delivery. But that effect on Via Lido Plaza is simply ignored in the EIR.
The City is unable to clarify demolition and construction activities associated with the Project. While Lido Partners commented that the Project failed to sufficiently describe the process of demolition and construction, the City's Response merely recites the equipment to be used in demolition and construction efforts.38 The City continues to fail to explain why the Project requires so much soil, how the 900+ soil hauling trips will access the Project site, and how many non -soil truck trips will be required to transport building materials. Each of these omissions compounds the failures of the Traffic Impact Analysis to accurately measure the increased traffic attributable to the Project. Regarding deferred mitigation, the City does not offer any additional specificity or measureable criteria to ensure that demolition and construction impacts will be measured, evaluated, or mitigated, or any reason why mitigation must be deferred to the Construction Management Plan.
IV. CONCLUSION
Lido Partners is disappointed that the City has provided such an inadequate amount of time for the public to address the continuing deficiencies in the Project's environmental analysis. The City's 36 See, e.g., Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8-18).
37 Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8-20).
38 Final EIR at 2-62 to 2-63 (Response No. 8-33).
12-18
12-19
12-20
PAUL
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
Response to Comments fails to provide the meaningful analysis required in response to specific evidence showing that the Project will have several significant environmental impacts not considered in the Draft EIR. For these reasons, the City should correct the errors in the EIR, and recirculate it so the public has sufficient time to review and comment upon the significant new information raised regarding the traffic on Via Lido.
Sincerely,
J"', C. �Wqr-'
Gordon E. Hart
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP
GEH:BBE
Buck B. Endemann
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP
ATTACHMENT A
trans utions
the transportation solutions company._.
July 16, 2014
Mr. Gordon E. Hart, Partner
Paul Hastings LLP
55 Second Street, Twenty -Fourth Floor,
San Francisco, California 94105
Subject: Review of Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel Dear Mr. Hart:
transiutions, Inc.
Ld filar*
1—i , Ceiifo is 9z620
Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) has reviewed the responses made by the City on comments made on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the underlying Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Parking Study for the proposed Lido House Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. Below are our evaluation and follow up comments on the responses:
Response 8-26: The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) is a general guide for statewide Caltrans policy which states that the Highway Capacity Manual methodology should be used to evaluate signalized intersections, but does not provide specific input parameters. The State Highway analysis has been prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach.
Furthermore, the Draft EIR was distributed to Caltrans for review and no comments were received.
The fact that Caltrans recommends using the HCM, by itself, means that HCM procedures should be followed. HCM specifically includes saturation flow rates, minimum green times, and PH Fs. Chapter 10 of the HCM2000 (Page 10-8) states "In the absence of field measurements of peak -hour factor (PHF), approximations can be used For congested conditions, 0.92 is a reasonable approximation for PHF For conditions in Which there is fairly uniform flow throughout the peak hour but a recognizable peak does occur, 0.88 is a reasonable esttinate for PHF " Response 5-27: As shown in Table 5.5.17, State Highway Existing With Project Conditions AMIPMPeak Hour Intersection LOS, of the Draft EIR, all existing State Highway study intersections are shown to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS A, B, or C). Therefore, the traffic impact analysis is correct in identifying no significant traffic impacts related to existing deficiencies. 12-21
12-22
�traamalutionis
Due to she inaarred PHFs amd ninisnurn green limes- she analysis is incormcl. Anyone ddy" the intersections will a thM iheaverage 51opped Map at Me inremedans are -greater thw 35 sees duHPg peak hm rs. 112-22 Respn5e 8.29; There i5 a disfiwHonn belwecn deficient ir,ter5wiort opeirmicin arwd a sir lkanl impact. The imps lhresnoids and 5irifcanae criteria estWished by the City of Newport Beach, Cily of Costa Mesa. and Caltrarn agencies have keen clears de fed in SKlion 5-5.3of the E+rA EIR. The agency -established 11hreshokK of signifitalceallow For SilwOoas where pro�ecl Valk may contribiute to a defcianl j"mlion; howem. the 11ripact Is not cre+n�d signifKmi if the pit wniribulian is helaw a-ceKa:ln Ih bold- Ai dxurrkem@4 in the Draft EIR, the peoposed prg3 ed is rrol forest to trigger any agenPy-es 1shed dweslields of significance for Iraffic impacts.
The response is inadequate. The EIR slates that Cavarrs 'ems rQ rr air a rarer toy ar rhe rraraskn 34 t OS C aF4 � O5 D Dn _91mo hpsoy fe es'• &r 6(aes [a rav rf ar t 05 0 ( ) be ff&#A3.i�qed. Far As an3w. #W- foff6 ig lrafk rhrakno d of n7m�i2 a r.S uf
A w am pr r spa W occaFs a r a SW h4V rwy wc1v r war rha ffiw csUrh+e 05mi her kvef dWML- ade a_-;ffrrorr ro dkffW hTrM facW dtiYM A OSA 5 or Q 10 defrtie (WS a r= ar F)
Although the first part of the stalemreot ip d w EIR i5 Owe2t. the surd part relatEd tc significant imW is not a threshold eslablis?W by Uwm. tyre owrir of to bdW. The lhwshou slag in fho'EIR for C'.eilrans faHAWS. -A somt pr*0 MW MW of -a SWO HVMVy Zdy WedW WkAro 0,10 -0of OPW 9MMd #PS sWMe -6000 s?ud.y.OW(Se0on 10 OWW ROM ax opMo n a OSA A oe C) 0 d0bihW qwr = (WS 0. F DrF)-is rtoi a Oaltroo thmsrm hA am orhititarfirtireshold mated by to Oily. Rased on This �Lmeshold, if a State Midhway oWra al un5afisfadory Md4fl&s iLOS D-or wor t_ a pr-ojo could aM as manycars as A wWW viitto l hg q are Impact.
Therefam. the sjnifi�nt project ffnpect criteria $@Wad is inc mia 4 would mean that if afocilq Is aperetir�q et LO5 E, a pmlacL old add thousands of cars and not t m an impaci. Since Cattrrans does mA have a sliding sale of wnpad detemrkWkn {urMa Nawpod Beach and Costa Mesa, which allow an t w naase in vk ratio}. a cumulative onpad would occur by+the addition dany tames ID a Catlrans facility. 1 2-23
Response 13•30: The soulhbound c irectmn of Newport Boulevard al 28th Street is an unsignali2ed. stop carrtroiled 12-24
intersection, The City of Newport Reach has no thresholds of sigrriticance for unsignaliied interse-utions. ' IWGId IC ZkopW:•solrPrgcdalM -imsePLaW GrffwLiGn VC [*�.-
trati ons
e eh et.�..aFnn.as�nn .n�us�nn. camp.•n��...
Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact at the southbound Newport Boulevard at 28th Street intersection and the intersection was not identified for analysis.
Absence of a City determined threshold does not mean that an impact cannot occur, When thresholds of significance are not present, the guidance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines apply.
Response 8-36: Refer to Response 8-22, above. When utilizing daily rates for trips generated per room, the Saturday trip generation is only about one -quarter percent higher than weekday trip generation (8.19 for Saturday compared to 8.17 for weekdays). The weekday peak hour conditions analyzed in the traffic impact analysis for the shoulder season is consistent with City policy.
Hotels generally have a higher occupancy rates during weekdays, whereas the trip generation data shows a slight increase in weekend trips. The "hotel' use in this case is mostly for vacation purposes, and therefore, it is likely that more rooms will be occupied during weekends. Please see attached pages from the ITE Trip Generation, 90, Edition, the same manual used in the TIA, which compares data for occupied rooms. The trip generation rate (based on occupied rooms) is significantly higher during weekends than on weekdays. Due to the nature of this hotel, it is anticipated that weekend trips will be significantly higher and therefore a weekend analysis should be conducted, especially since background (non -project) trips are also higher during the weekend.
Response 8-42: Refer to Response 8-25, above. The decrease in intersection capacity utilization (ICU) during with project conditions is due to the change in land uses, which would have fewer trips. Additionally, different methodologies were used for these forecast scenarios.
This response appears to mean that the traffic analysis includes a comparison of the proposed project with the General Plan which includes the City Hall in the model. This has been deemed to be improper based on CEQA case law. Based on Environmental Planning and Information Council (EPIC) v. County of El Dorado County, 131 Cal.App, 3d 350, 182 Cal. Rptr. 377an approved plan conditions does not define the CEQA Baseline. Further, City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. County of Monterey, 183 Ca1,App.3d 229 Court ofAppeal, Sixth District, rules that existing zoning and zoned density do not define the baseline,
12-24
12-25
12-25
Response 8-44: Refer to Response 8-26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections; however this manual does not provide specific input parameters. The analysis was 12-27 prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. 711612014 (C:0ropboxJso1slProjectslLido House HotellComments On RTC.docx)
� ty
11 b WWWWig thatUbrae states thal'this mermg JFICWJ dues that provide spec input p,ararrreters', The FPCM OW has ap aarrraely 12DO pW of rrformelkim CNVIer 10 of Uie HCMM j 104) stab ffie a�so" of ft d rt sr rrrela' dpook-doer farm' (PHFI aApmAwky s cart be rimed fir cwWqWc m 6 :92 8 a "a1 Ova& r & PW for mrkmm k7 OW mWe b VrftYW #X'&0.0
MaVWX O pW doeS OrCiff. 0. jS r7 WjRWW eOTWe & P8F 7k400M. Me HCM OWS ink SpWk input p meters. which the Vef is analy* for the pmoct has ignored.
Respnnse 8-45: Refer to Response 9-26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual melhlodol was used for signalized interseciOns. The analysis was arso prepared oansistent with other traffic impact stud" that hub been approved by the City of Newrpw Beach.
Ham 16-5 of the HGM (21)DO) stales 'If pedevrian timing mquirernenls mast, the minlnw green firm for Lne phase Is hrdeabo d and provided for in the signal iini W. ,5irre Ow intwseviorns around the proWl haws significant pedestrian a lft. rain imam green lines should be iiW in the analysis. Elsa, th* anafyais shows a nych better level of Berke on papr w+ wmn the rmelb in ttk case, would be mm:h wane.
:Response M6: Refer to Response 8,26. aboMe. The Hi�hw ty Capacity Manual methadology was used for sir Wed iffbmseciorts, and the InnoDWIng is CwSi wil wilh Other traffic impact Sludres that Kaye been approved by ftCity of Nemxrl Beub.11 should also be naiad Mail The Draft EIR was distribAW to the Caldiomia pmtrrM m of Tiairksporlatim dw the 46 r p 0lic eoview Miod, aAd no comment were remlyed tarry that agef -
An anahyt;ul ewer robeing WkO does nol make the analysis a w t. Aomc&q to me HCM, a Yk rake gma4er than 1.0 fal kw.Wrequim additional ark**. "IN that the analy&is Is consisbml in otharara"in the My o4Nawpart Seach dom no car 1W IM anatyso is cw
Responw &47: Wer to Response S-27, abawe. There is a distinction betwcw deficient inlerst*etion flperatiorr and a signif"nl impact. As documented in the Draft EIR, the propo5ed prgjcct is net fofBcast to trigger My ager&7- e5tablished thresholds of signi�liicance for isalfic impacts - The City is owed in stating that theFe is a diakwion b M EKm dffkWrTt kbraK ion operago and a sigrift t iinpa& However- there is a diflerer+m between a directt inpad (La. braWon the sliding soale al ink delenrrin�n trkd �c OMPb=TidWCU Lxz Nana 1-10�On RTC amm
12-27
1-8
12-29
12-30
�tf ajj�!"]'!'S1[3tions
! c! Sla�dh M11uT�vn! cam Fany..
by the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa) and cumulative impacts. If a facility operates at unsatisfactory LOS under existing conditions (or any without project condition) and a project adds traffic to the unsatisfactory operations, a cumulative impact occurs. This statement is based on Los Angeles unified 5ch. Dist. v City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, and Communities fora Better Env't v California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, which ruled that a project that results in an increase to an impact that already exceeds established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulative impact. 12-30
Further, for Caltrans facilities, the significance criteria selected by the City is incorrect. It would mean that if a facility is operating at LOS F, a project could add thousands of cars and not have an impact. Since Caltrans does not have a sliding scale of impact determination (unlike Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which allow an increase in vlc ratio), a cumulative impact would occur by the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility. Although there might not be direct significant impacts from the project, significant cumulative impacts are likely to be shown if the analysis is conducted correctly.
We hope you will find this information helpful. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (949) 232- 7954.
Sincerely,
tran lu i,n ,Jnc.
Sandipa hat�harjee, P.E., A I C P
Principal
7/1612014 (C:0ropboxJso10rojectslLido Mouse HoteRComments on RTC.docx)
ARTMIRM-MI1;
Hotel
Description
Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreation- al facilities (pool, fitness room), and/or other retail and service shops. Some of the sites included in this land use category are actually large motels providing the hotel facilities noted above. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320) and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses.
Additional Data
Studies of hotel employment density indicate that, on the average, a hotel will employ 0.9 employees per room.'
Thirty studies provided information on occupancy rates at the time the studies were conducted. The average occupancy rate for these studies was approximately 83 percent.
The hotels surveyed were primarily located outside central business districts in suburban areas.
Some properties contained in this land use provide guest transportation services such as airport shuttles, limousine service, or golf course shuttle service, which may have an impact on the overall trip generation rates.
The sites were surveyed between the late 1960s and the 2000s throughout the United States.
For all lodging uses, it is important to collect data on occupied rooms as well as total rooms in order to accurately predict trip generation characteristics for the site.
Trip generation at a hotel may be related to the presence of supporting facilities such as convention facilities, restaurants, meeting/banquet space and retail facilities. Future data submissions should specify the presence of these amenities. Reporting the level of activity at the supporting facilities such as full, empty, partially active, number of people attending a meeting/banquet during observation may also be useful in further analysis of this land use.
Source Numbers
4, 5, 12, 13, 18, 55, 72, 170, 187, 254, 260, 262, 277, 280, 301, 306, 357, 422, 436, 507, 577, 728 ' Buttke, Carl H. Unpublished studies of building employment densities, Portland, Oregon.
Trip Generation, 9th Edition 0 Institute of Transportation Engineers 603
Hotel
(310)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 4
Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 216
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Room
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation- -
8.92 4.14 - 17.44 6.04
uata Niot ana equation
4,000
w
c
w
F-
3,000
1,000
0 uouflon - use Carefully - small sample size
X
x
i
110 120 130 440 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 _ 280 X = Number of Occupied Rooms
X Actual Data Paints
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
------ Average Rate
R2 _ ****
604 Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers
Hotel
(310)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms
On a: Saturday
Number of Studies: 3
Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 250
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Room
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
10.50 7.07 - 13.86 4.11
uata Niot ana equation
4,000
3,000
w
.I
H
2,000
1,000
Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size
X
X,
-----------------------------------
----------------------------
X
180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 X = Number of Occupied Rooms
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
--m--- Average Rate
R2 = .***
Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 609
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
12. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LIDO PARTNERS, DATED JULY 16, 2014.
12-1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the lead agency to provide written responses to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. As noted in the comment, the Final EIR was posted on the City's web site on July 11, 2014.
It should be noted that the Final EIR (including the response to public comments) was mailed on July 22, 2014 and received by all commenters on July 23, 2014. The Final EIR was distributed to all commenters, including public agencies and private parties. The project is scheduled to be heard at the City's August 11, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for this project and the City Council will make the final decision whether or not to certify the project. The City Council hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 9, 2014. As indicated above, the Final EIR was available to the Planning Commission 30 days before the Planning Commission meeting and the Final EIR was provided to the all commenters 19 days before the Planning Commission hearing. Furthermore, the Final EIR was published 60 days before the tentative September 9 City Council hearing date, more than complying with the 10 day standard in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Although the City Council hearing date is tentative at this time, the final hearing date will be formally noticed.
The remainder of this comment contains introductory or general information. Please refer to Responses 12-2 through 12-30.
12-2 The commenter's June 13, 2014 letter was fully addressed in the July 11, 2014 Final EIR pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR Section 2, Wonse to Comments, includes 59 individual responses to issues raised in the commenter's June 13, 2014 letter (refer to Responses 8-1 through 8-59 in the Section 2, Wonse to Comments, of the Final EIR). The responses addressed individual comments in the three attachments to the comment letter as well. Responses to technical issues such as traffic, truck movements/circulation, and emergency access were addressed by the appropriate technical personnel, which consisted of traffic engineers, civil engineers, and the Newport Beach Fire Department.
12-3 The comment suggests that Responses 8-2 and 8-4 within the Final EIR are in some way in conflict. As described in the Draft EIR, project implementation would close an existing driveway across the project site that has previously been used by the public and occupants and invitees of the adjacent Via Lido Plaza shopping center. This access has included use by delivery trucks. Use of the driveway was granted in 1964 with the City approving and recording a "Notice of Consent" for use of the driveway pursuant to Civil Code Section 813.
The purpose of the Notice of Consent was (and is) to advise users of these access roads that their use is consensual and revocable at the will of the owner of the City Property. Under Civil Code Section 813, the City may revoke the Notice of Consent at any time by recording a notice of revocation. As indicated in the Final EIR, the City does not intend to revoke its Final • August 2014 2-102 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido Partners has no right of access from the City's property, other than its existing permissive use pursuant to the Notice of Consent. If the City is unsuccessful in the quiet title action, the City would implement development of the site consistent with the judicial determination, and speculating as to how the project would be modified in advance of a judicial determination is not a CEQA disclosure issue. Potential future modifications of an approved project would be subject to review and approval by the City and potentially the Coastal Commission and may require additional analysis in accordance with applicable local regulations and CEQA.
12-4 As noted in Response 8-12 of the Final EIR, although a negligible amount of trucks and emergency vehicles may be re-routed, the volume would be minimal and would not create a significant impact to adjacent City streets and parking. Additionally, as noted in the comment, Via Lido has five lanes of traffic, including a dedicated left turn lane at the Lido Plaza entry. Although Via Lido has more traffic than 32nd Street, it also has more capacity. 32nd Street only has one lane in each direction, which has less capacity for vehicles during truck ingress/egress. Additionally, as indicated in Response 8-2, evidence exists that trucks currently access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido.
12-5 Refer to Response 12-4, above. The Truck Turning Study prepared by Fuscoe Engineering is intended to show only that a vehicle in the egress lane of the northerly Via Lido Plaza driveway at Via Lido or the existing City Hall driveway at 32nd Street would prevent large truck traffic from entering until the vehicle clears the lane.
The statement included in the comment in the third paragraph of the section stating "the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and potentially unsafe" is false. Neither Fuscoe Engineering, nor any other consultant made any such comment either on the exhibits or in the narrative response. The negligible volume of trucks entering Via Lido Plaza would not lead to long wait times and significant traffic impacts on Via Lido.
Regarding west bound traffic on Via Lido into the Via Lido Plaza, and the statement "a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left -turn lane that was waiting to turn into Lido Marina Village", the existing opposing driveways to Lido Marina Village and Villa Lido Plaza are offset from each other and the potential to clip a vehicle turning left into Lido Marina Village, by a west bound vehicle turning left into Villa Lido Plaza exists; however the volume of trucks entering is minimal and the potential for conflicting left turn movements is negligible (refer to Exhibits 2A & 2B, Ingress, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and is included in Attachment 1 of this response4).
4 As a follow up to their June 27, 2014 Truck Turn Study, Fuscoe Engineering generated additional sheets (dated July 28, 2014) depicting the ingress and egress to Lido Plaza, including the existing condition, ingress travel for the proposed condition and egress travel for the proposed condition. The truck turning envelopes were generated using Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 31), version 8.1. The turning envelopes were plotted on an orthographic, geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey information of the existing city hall site.
Final • August 2014 2-103 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
The City takes exception to the statement in the fourth paragraph "...showing that a large truck entering from Via Lido would clip the valet kiosk and any car parked in the first or last parking stalls that front the eastern face of Via Lido Plaza." The kiosk mentioned is an umbrella that is encroaching into the fire lane as indicated by the red curbs on both sides of the drive aisle. Such a condition should not be used as limiting criteria. In any case the umbrella can be moved to a location that does not encroach, effectively removing this issue.
Fuscoe Engineering adjusted the ingress drive simulations from Via Lido slightly easterly to clearly show that the truck envelopes do not encroach into the parking areas. The vehicle near the kiosk, shown in the image is not parked fully into the parking space and should not be considered as an indication of the location of a typically parked vehicle. No parking within the Via Lido Plaza would need to be changed as a result of truck entry from Via Lido. 12-6 The fact that large delivery trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido is not "significant new information." As indicated in Response 8-2 of the Final EIR, evidence exists that trucks currently access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido. Furthermore, the commenter has provided no evidence that trucks do not already access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido. The commenter also does not provide any substantiation to contradict the Draft EIR and does not show that there would be a significant number of trucks would access Via Lido Plaza and cause vehicle conflicts.
The closure of the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32 d Street is also indicated in Section 5.5, Trafikl Circulation, on page 5-5-22 of the Draft EIR. The project description also explains that the Applicant has investigated the feasibility of including an access gate that would only be open to use by delivery vehicles to and from Via Lido Plaza. However, as explained in the project description, it is not under consideration as part of the project application and is not a component of this project.
It should be noted that the neither the Truck Turning Study nor any responses indicated that all truck traffic would go through the intersection of Via Lido and Lafayette Road or that the large trucks would only access Via Lido Plaza from the westbound lane of Via Lido. These routes were depicted in the Truck Turning Study as alternatives to using eastbound Via Lido. 12-7 The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was followed for signalized intersections as recommended by Caltrans with respect to the analysis equations and calculations of delay. While Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 provides estimated values for certain input parameters, the application of the parameters in question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on local characteristics or standard practice as determined by the reviewing agency. For the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis, the HCM input parameters applied are consistent with those assumed for other projects in the City of Newport Beach which have been reviewed by Caltrans District 12. Additionally, the saturation flow rate used in the analysis is consistent with the estimated value provided in the Highway Capacity Manual, so that particular input parameter has not been "overlooked." The sections containing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology do provide additional analysis of all the study intersections analyzed using the HCM Final • August 2014 2-104 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
methodology, including those study intersections where the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0. As shown in these sections, the project was found to result in no significant impacts at the study intersections where the v/c ratio exceeds 1.0.
The HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. 12-8 As stated in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Trafc Impact Studies (2002):
"If an existing [emphasis added] State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing [emphasis added] MOE should be maintained." The original response to this comment (Response 8-27 of the Final EIR) refers to Table 5.5- 17 to show that for exit conditions, all study intersections are operating at the appropriate target LOS or better. Therefore, the claim made in Comment 8-27 that "these intersections [study intersections 3 and 6] are already operating at less than appropriate LOS must be mitigated to bring conditions to pre -Project levels of service" is incorrect. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) does not discuss mitigating to pre - Project levels of service for the future conditions, as shown in Table 5.5-21.
As discussed in Response 12-7, the HCM analysis provided is appropriate for planning purposes and is consistent with what has been acceptable by Caltrans District 12. 12-9 The proposed project is not forecast to "pile traffic into intersections." As documented in the Lido House Traffic Impact Analysis in the Draft EIR (Exhibit 8a and 8b), the proposed project is forecast to assign less than 50 peak hour trips to any State highway study intersection analyzed, which is relatively low compared to existing and forecast traffic volumes at the State highway study intersections, and results in delay changes of one second or less to the deficient study intersections for future conditions.
The Caltrans guidelines state that if an intersection is already operating below the target LOS for existing conditions, the existing MOE (delay in seconds/vehicle) should be maintained.
If an existing intersection is deficient and the project increases the delay, then it is considered a significant impact. As shown in the Existing Plus Project analysis, there are no impacts.
Caltrans guidelines do not provide explicit thresholds for future (cumulative) conditions when an intersection is already deficient. As discussed in Response 8-25, the project only adds one second or less delay to the study intersections, and in some cases decreases delay.
Even if Caltrans required that the project maintain pre -project levels of service (LOS) for study intersections operating below the appropriate LOS for future conditions, the addition of the proposed project trips to such study intersections is not forecast to result in a significant impact based on the pre -project levels of service being maintained as described below.
Table 5.5-19 of the Draft EIR shows that for cumulative conditions, the only intersection forecast to operate at deficient LOS is study intersection #3 (Superior Avenue at Balboa Final • August 2014 2-105 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Boulevard/West Coast Highway); with the addition of project trips, the same study intersection is forecast to continue operating at pre -project LOS. Furthermore, the addition of project trips to study intersection #3 is forecast to result in no change in delay compared to pre -project conditions.
Table 5.5-21 of the Draft EIR shows that for General Plan buildout conditions, study intersections #3, #6, #14, and #18 are forecast to operate at deficient LOS; with the proposed project, these same study intersections are forecast to continue operating at pre - project LOS. For forecast General Plan buildout conditions, the change in delay at the deficient study intersections is generally in the fractions of one second, with two of the deficient study intersections forecast to experience a decrease in delay, as a result of the project's change in traffic patterns.
12-10 Based on transportation/traffic checklist item A in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which considers whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant impact at the southbound Newport Boulevard/28'h Street intersection since there are no applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of unsignalized intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, this intersection was not identified as a study intersection. The findings of the project's impacts and mitigation measures with regard to other transportation/traffic guidance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are addressed in Section 5.5.4 of the Draft EIR and are not affected by the exclusion of the southbound Newport Boulevard/28`h Street intersection as a study intersection. 12-11 The trip generation for the proposed project was appropriately based on trips generated per room as provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. Trip generation for hotels is commonly calculated based on the number of rooms provided, not the estimated number of occupied rooms. Although ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 provides weekend trip generation rates on a per occupied room basis, it specifies to use caution due to the small sample size (based on only three studies).
As previously noted in Response 8-22 of the Final EIR, the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis has adequately analyzed the project's traffic impacts during the weekday peak hours of the shoulder season (i.e., the time between the high and low season) in accordance with City policy, which acknowledges and intentionally does not require analysis of weekend summer conditions. The Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis has therefore adequately followed the CEQA guidelines requiring consideration if the proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The "overriding considerations" for not requiring analysis of weekend summer traffic conditions are built into City policy (see City of Newport Beach General Circulation Element, Page 7-3, last paragraph).
Final • August 2014 2-106 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
12-12 The actual existing environmental conditions required by CEQA are contained in the Draft EIR; the existing conditions scenario (Table 5.5-4 of the Draft EIR) defines the baseline for project specific impact evaluation and the forecast year 2018 cumulative without project conditions scenario (Table 5.5-9 of the Draft EIR) defines the environmental baseline for cumulative impact evaluation. General Plan buildout without and with project conditions volumes are based on the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) which accounts for the redistributed trips associated with General Plan buildout conditions, which include the location of the new City Hall complex. It should be noted that the analysis includes an existing plus project scenario, cumulative plus project scenario, as well as the General Plan plus project scenario. The project's traffic impacts were analyzed for all of these scenarios. 12-13 The alternative access scenario exhibit only shows that a truck route via 32"d Street to Lafayette Road and Via Lido is possible. The opinion that displaced delivery truck traffic would be negligible is based on the fact that for typical neighborhood shopping centers, deliveries do not occur on a daily basis, and when deliveries do occur, they are typically during off-peak hours when the roadway system has more than sufficient capacity.
Emergency vehicle trips to a neighborhood shopping center occur even less frequently than delivery truck trips. Therefore, the re-routing of delivery truck traffic and emergency vehicle trips is not likely to affect the peak hours analyzed.
12-14 A parking study was prepared by Stantec and the findings were incorporated into Section 5_5, Traffic and Circulation of the Draft EIR (the parking study was also included in Appendix 11.3, Trac Impact Analvsisl Parking Study in the Draft EIR as well). The parking study indicated that all of the proposed hotel uses would have adequate parking on -site, including the hotel, restaurants, retail, and banquet usage. The rates were based on survey of similar hotels, all with similar banquet and retail uses and the parking would meet all of the on -site needs. Non -hotel uses, such as the retail uses, are recommended to provide parking at the rate indicated by the City code, during the hours when they are in use. The City code requirements are in place to provide the required number of parking spaces, and these numbers would be adequate to meet the needs of both hotel guests, along with visitors and residents. Additionally, as described in the Draft EIR, the project would include active parking management, including valet services in order to ensure adequate parking would be provided on -site to meet demand, especially during large events and banquets. 12-15 Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Kitch has evaluated the overall project including the closure of the 32nd Street driveway. He and his staff have participated with the review of the proposed project in his capacity as the City of Newport Beach's Fire Code Official (Fire Marshal).
Assistant Chief Kitch has determined that the removal of the 32nd Street driveway will not degrade emergency access to Via Lido Plaza. Adequate emergency access to Via Lido Plaza is currently provided and will continue to be provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido, and from onsite parking areas that are and will continue to be accessed by the two existing vehicular driveways from Finley Avenue and Via Lido.
The comment states that, `Both Lido Partners and the City agree that closing the 32nd Street driveway would reduce emergency access to the interior of the Via Lido property by 5001o, as the Finley Street entrance Final • August 2014 2-107 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
is too small to accommodate any emergency vehicle larger than an ambulance. " The comment goes on to state that, "there is no disputing that the Finley Avenue entrance is too narrow for fire trucks, and that closing the 32"d Street Alley removes one of only two ways for larger emergency vehicles to access Via Lido Pla.Za. "
The City does not agree with these comments. The commenter cites correspondence prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated June 27, 2014 (Attachment 1 to the responses to Letter 8 in the FEIR), in support of the comment. The Fuscoe Engineering letter addresses delivery truck access to Via Lido Plaza and does not discuss emergency vehicle access to the Plaza. Assistant Chief Kitch finds this comment inaccurate as despite the fact that the Finley Avenue access is preexisting and non -conforming in terms of width, access by all types of Fire Department emergency vehicles is presently achieved and the project does not impact this access. Emergency vehicle access through the conforming Via Lido driveway is presently unobstructed. Emergency vehicle access to on -site parking areas would not rely upon the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway access across the project site to 32nd Street (refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-16 in the Final EIR).
Assistant Chief Kitch also disputes the commenter's unsupported claim that Fire Department response times will be degraded by the closure of the 32"d Street driveway.
According to Fire Marshal Kitch, the driveway access would likely never be used by Fire Station No. 2 personnel to access the commercial center. To do so would be to introduce unneeded and unnecessary response delays based upon the configuration of the respective sites. Chief Kitch believes there will be no significant degradation in response times to the commercial center with this project's proposed changes. Response times will remain within Newport Beach Fire Department response objectives that are provided in the Section 5.12.1 of the Draft EIR (page 5.12-1). The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of the North Bay to reach 32"d Street would be unchanged with the proposed modifications.
Given no change in distance, there is no reasonable or measurable way to state that response times would change.
12-16 The comment states that, "the City admits that Via Oporto is nonconforming by modern fire and safety standards, and that this non -conformity has spurred discussions with the Fire Department to widen Via Oporto." The comment incorrectly states the City's response provided in the Final EIR (Response 8-9 on page 2-56). Response 8-9 states:
"Via Oporto was designed and constructed before Neavpori Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01 was established. As such, the access roadway is considered preexisting and non -conforming to today's standards. In the City of Newport Beach, many such roads exist; which is common throughout the state of California. City staff has been in active discussion with the Fire Department on this specific issue. Increasing the width of the travel lane for that portion of Via Oporto adjacent to Fire Station No. 2 is being considered. The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of the North Bay to reach 32nd Street would be unchanged with the proposed modifications. Given no change in distance, there is no reasonable or measurable way to state that response times would change. " (emphasis added)
Final • August 2014 2-108 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
There are and have been no discussions to widen Via Oporto, but rather discussions have occurred related to the possible need to modify the proposed plan to widen the travel lane between the parked cars to better facilitate an EMT truck to travel from the new Fire Station driveway south in Via Oporto to 32nd Street. The widening of the travel lane can be achieved by narrowing of the abutting sidewalks or relocating street parking spaces.
Historically, Fire Station No. 2 has operated with limited parking areas. When City Hall was in operation, fire personnel had approximately 9 spaces available to it. Other spaces near the station were used to park City Hall pool cars available for use by City employees. The station property itself never accommodated full parking for all personnel during the shift change. Operationally, the oncoming shift would park at City Hall or on the street until the outgoing shift left. Staff would relocate the vehicles to available on -site parking spaces when possible. When the City replaced the EMT truck that operated from the station, it was necessary to store the vehicle in the parking area due to its larger size and the limited number of available bays, and the parking lot was re -striped accommodating 5 vehicles. After City Hall staff was relocated, station personnel did not have to rely on the use of street parking as they had access to the City Hall parking lots. The current plan for the reconfigured fire station parking area accommodates 7 vehicles and it can be expanded to 8 spaces.
Additionally, parking on the extended 32nd Street apron can accommodate 2 additional vehicles while not affecting truck or apparatus pull out. While it would be desirable to accommodate full parking for a shift change, continuing the historic practice where vehicles are temporarily parked nearby is an acceptable operational issue and does not constitute a significant environmental impact.
12-17 As described on page 5.12-28 of the Draft EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department has evaluated the permanent closure of this driveway and it will not affect emergency access as adequate fire access to Via Lido Plaza is provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and private parking areas accessed by two existing vehicular driveways. Access to all portions of Via Lido Plaza would be met by either public roadways such as Newport Boulevard and Via Lido or by private roadways off of Finley Avenue and Via Lido.
This discussion in the Draft EIR includes a footnote citation that indicates that Kevin Kitch, Assistant Chief, Life Safety Services Division, Newport Beach Fire Department, reviewed the project on January 2, 2014; also refer to Response 12-15. Additionally, the written correspondence is provided in the Draft EIR in Appendix 11.9, Utility Cofffs ondence.
Additional responses regarding the traffic analysis were provided by the City Traffic Engineer, Tony Brine.
Comments provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department are based on their previous experience and current operations for providing emergency services. As stated in Response 8-8 in the Final EIR, adequate and code compliant access is currently available, and has been repeatedly provided over the years, through the parking areas accessed off of Finely Avenue and Via Lido or directly from these two streets as well as Newport Boulevard. The 32nd Street Driveway access is unlikely to ever be used by Fire Station No. 2 personnel to access the commercial center. To do so would be to introduce unneeded and unnecessary response Final • August 2014 2-109 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
delays based upon the configuration of the respective sites. There will be no degradation in response time to the commercial center with this project's proposed changes. 12-18 Refer to Response 8-3 in the Final EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR, CEQA requires an EIR to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The comment speculates as to the ramifications of closing the driveway between Via Lido Plaza and 32nd Street. Additionally, CEQA requires the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. The "rule of reason" requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The Draft EIR does not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts related to the closure of the 32nd Street driveway. Therefore, an alternative to closing the 32nd Street driveway was not considered.
As described in Section 7, Alternatives to the Probosed Pro ect of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. All potential impact were reduced to a less than significant level. However, the Draft EIR included an analysis a reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced density, mixed -use, and two no build alternatives.
12-19 As noted in Response 8-16, an analysis of project's consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan is provided within Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of the Draft EIR.
The comment argues that the project is inconsistent with the City's policy related to traffic and circulation and specifically cites Goal 1.3 of the Circulation Element. An analysis has been completed to show that trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza at the entrance off of Via Lido. Goods movement generally refers to regional transport of goods and not necessarily deliveries to a single shopping center. Nonetheless, nothing associated with the proposed project, including the closure of the 32nd Street Driveway would prevent goods movement and truck access to Via Lido Plaza. The proposed project would not require Via Lido Plaza to make any physical changes to their site.
The comment also argues that there are numerous problems with requiring large trucks to use the Via Lido entrance. However, as described in Response 8-2 in the Final EIR, trucks using the 32nd Street driveway would experience the same conflicts as with the Via Lido entrance.
12-20 The project would require the import of approximately 7,379 cubic yards of soil for grading of the site. The project also requires cut and fill on -site, and additional soil (i.e., import) is typically needed for compaction and/or to adjust the grade. The import of this amount of soil would require 922 truck trips. It should be noted that these are round trips. This number of truck trips was mentioned in the analysis because it represents the greatest number of truck trips associated with construction. However, the analysis accounted for Final • August 2014 2-110 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
vehicle trips (including worker trips and material deliveries) associated with all phases of construction. For example, the project would require approximately 10 to 70 worker trips per day and up to 31 vendor round trips per day (depending on phase). Each of these trips and various other aspects of the anticipated construction activities were analyzed within the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires a construction management plan. Nothing in this mitigation measure would be considered deferral under CEQA. As indicated in the Draft EIR and described in Response 8-34 in the Final EIR, all construction activities would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires a construction management plan that would include measures to minimize traffic and parking impacts upon the local circulation system. These measures would address various topics including traffic controls for street closures, routes for construction vehicles, hours for transport activities, and various others. As required by CEQA, this measure has a timing mechanism (i.e., prior to the issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits) and performance standards (i.e., Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires the Construction Management Plan to address specific topics and include specific requirements/prohibitions). The Construction Management Plan would also identify the routs that the construction vehicles (including haul) trucks would utilize. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 limits the hours for hauling and/or the transport of oversize loads to off-peak hours to avoid traffic conflicts. The use of local streets would be prohibited and haul trucks entering or exiting public streets are required to yield to public traffic at all times.
12-21 Refer to Response 12-7, above.
12-22 Refer to Response 12-7, above. It is important to note, the average delay reported and corresponding intersection Level of Service includes vehicles that pass through an intersection without stopping. Effective signal coordination can enable a large number of vehicles to move through an intersection without stopping, thereby offsetting a significant amount of delay experienced by stopped vehicles.
12-23 Refer to Response 12-9, above. The statement that "a cumulative impact would occur by the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility" is not a Caltrans threshold. 12-24 Refer to Response 12-10, above.
12-25 Refer to Response 12-11, above.
12-26 Refer to Response 12-12, above.
12-27 Refer to Response 12-7, above. Response 8-44 refers to and intends to reiterate Response 8- 26 indicating that the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Trafc Impact Studies (2002) does not provide specific input parameters. As noted in Response 12-7, while Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 provides estimated values for certain input parameters, the application of the Final • August 2014 2-111 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
parameters in question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on local characteristics or standard practice as determined by the reviewing agency. 12-28 Refer to Response 12-7, above. As explained in Response 12-7, the HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. Our understanding is that Caltrans District 12 has not required pedestrian timing as an HCM input parameter for planning purposes such as traffic impact studies because utilizing pedestrian minimum green timing requirements would present an overly conservative analysis in which pedestrians are assumed to cross each leg of a study intersection on every cycle during the peak hours. 12-29 Refer to Response 12-7, above. As explained in Response 12-7, the HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are not an analytical error. The HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. 12-30 Refer to Response 12-9, above.
Final • August 2014 2-112 Response to Comments
S
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Attachment 1— Fuscoe Engineering Memorandum
(July 28, 2014)
Final • August 2014 2-113 Response to Comments
'r1i�l Irvine
7 San Diego
FLos Angeles
USCOE Ontario
El Centro
E N B 1 N E E R I N 6 Danville
July 28, 2014
Mr. Anthony Wrzosek
Vice President, Planning & Development
R.D. Olson Development
2955 Main Street, Third Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Re: Response to Comments to Lido House Hotel Final EIR from Paul Hastings, LLP, Sections 111.113.2 and a Portion of III.0 as Noted Below Dear Mr. Wrzosek;
At the direction of R.D. Olson Development, Fuscoe Engineering reviewed comments received from Paul Hastings, LLP to the Lido House Final EIR. Our review was limited to the sections listed above and only to those portions where Fuscoe Engineering has expertise.
Both sections relate to truck access to and from Villa Lido Plaza. The narrative below is our response to those sections.
Fuscoe Engineering previously generated four sheets illustrating the existing condition (one sheet), ingress travel for the proposed condition (two sheets) and egress travel for the proposed condition (one sheet). The truck turning envelopes were generated using Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 3D, version 8.1. The turning envelopes were plotted on an orthographic, geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey information of the existing city hall site. In responding the access issues from Finley Street, Fuscoe subsequently generated two additional exhibit sheets showing the largest vehicle that can ingress from Finley Street and the largest vehicle that can egress to Finley Street.
Section III.B.2.
The ingress exhibit (Exhibit 1) prepared by Fuscoe is intended to show only that a vehicle in the egress lane of the northerly Via Lido Plaza driveway at Via Lido or the existing city hall driveway at 32nd Street will prevent large truck traffic from entering until the vehicle clears the lane. Any conclusions regarding impacts on pedestrians and general vehicle traffic is best left to a qualified Traffic Engineer familiar with the area and its associated traffic patterns.
We respectfully take exception to the comment in the third paragraph of the section stating "the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and potentially unsafe". Fuscoe made no such comment either on the exhibits or in the narrative response.
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com
Letter to Anthony Wrzosek
July 28, 2074
Regarding west bound traffic on Via Lido into the Via Lido Plaza (Exhibits 2A & 213), the statement "a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left -turn lane that was waiting to turn into Lido Marina Village". The existing opposing driveways to Lido Marina Village and Villa Lido Plaza are offset from each other and the potential to clip a vehicle turning left into Lido Marina Village, by a west bound vehicle turning left into Villa Lido Plaza, exists with or without the proposed development.
We take exception to the statement in the fourth paragraph "...showing that a large truck entering from Via Lido would clip the valet kiosk and any car parked in the first or last parking stalls that front the eastern face of Via Lido Plaza." The kiosk mentioned is an umbrella that is encroaching into the fire lane as indicated by the red curbs on both sides of the drive aisle. Such a condition should not be used as limiting criteria. In any case the umbrella can be moved to a location that does not encroach, effectively removing this issue. Fuscoe adjusted the ingress drive simulations from Via Lido slightly easterly to clearly show that the truck envelopes do not encroach into the parking areas. The vehicle near the kiosk, shown in the image is not parked fully into the parking space and should not be considered as an indication of the location of a typically parked vehicle. No parking within the Via Lido Plaza would need to be changed as a result of truck entry from Via Lido.
Section III.0 — seventh (7th) bullet point. "The City's analysis of traffic displaced from the 32nd Street Alley is inconsistent"
Fuscoe takes exception to the statement "The City's statements are contradicted by the Fuscoe Engineering Memo,...". The alternative access scenario exhibit only shows that a truck route via 32nd Street to Lafayette Road and Via Lido is possible and makes no claim as to present or future traffic impacts on these streets.
Additional Study Sheets
Fuscoe was asked to investigate what size service vehicle could enter from the Finley Street entrance to Via Lido Plaza (sheets 5 and 6). Our investigations indicate that 30-foot truck can ingress from this entry point. However the same vehicles cannot egress via this entry due to the existing parking lot medians interfering with the required maneuvering area.
The largest service trucks that can egress to Finley Street are panel trucks similar to FeclEx or UPS size delivery vehicles.
We hope that the information herein is beneficial. Please contact me if you have any questions at (949) 474-1960.
Sincerely,
FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC.
Mark Nero, P.E.
Project Manager
enclosures
TRUCK TURN STUDY -
OLD CITY HALL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
26 Lis
71 ilk
NEWPOR
T BOULEVARD
7j'
01. Elliot
VILLA WAY
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
rIVI VVL.V VIM L.IVV I IV I L.L.
C-
.' iik
Pt .: T
32nd STREET DRIVEWAY
ft IL _
VIA OPORTO
EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1
LEGEND
r i
NEWPORT
BOULEVARD
15.00 45.00
3.00 20.00
CA LEGAL-65 feet
Tractor Width : 8.50 Lock to Lock Time : 6.0
Trailer Width : 8.50 Steering Angle : 26.3
Tractor Track : 8.50 Articulating Angle : 70.0
Trailer Track : 8.50
22.74 16.75
�oy I - -7--e-1-aw- -li-
4.59 12.47 3.06 9.42
B—AUTO feet Composite Passenger Vehicle
Width . 7.71 Width 6.33
Track : 7.71 Track 6.33
Lock to Lock Time 6.0 Lock to Lock Time 6.0
Steering Angle : 47.8 Steering Angle 26.4
�v iiw�
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
L
TRUCK TURN STUDY
- LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
w
C
01 c:)
VILLA WAY
moll
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
0 Z
7 I _
OIL
A
f� If
i
I
PROPOSED VIA LIDO HOTEL
—1 I
�O
1\0
INGRESS
Z\000�
.6
ii
r
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
r
w r
�' •� � \�<_,;.% � � ±� :SST
i
At
i
VIA OPORTO
r
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
00 TRUCK TURN STUDY -LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
VILLA WAY
M.
q
.,,,'I
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
f _i
"+ e
!-.,Tj-mL
INGRESS
L
- t=r��►i . fir:
*,014,9r,:Ill1f�aMV
._ VIA LIDO PLAZA
/® a
>
I ROVE RNING RADIUS BY ry `�►
RECONFIGURING ENTRY CURBS PER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
J STANDARDS.
It C7
Y
. O
VIA OPORTO
t
t
I
e�• w ` .ice ...�r�. -
0 N
Oro'
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
TRUCK TURN STUDY
- LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
or%
^TI
I l
.`C
,I
1 fiplNL--_
r
BO I ILEVA,
'4D
_ a = NEWPORT
1 ,
PROPOSED VIA LIDO HOVEL
L-
.;r .
L
ILI
r
n
IY 11 ��•
11 II .I, •
►i F
II
�I
II I
.,,,'I
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g
(114) a00Z Moan
N30`dM-1
lN) aooz MON3
_ I
Ffl `►�' -t
EGRESS
1\
BOULEVARD
Al
I � lit •� '� � � �- i
Alf Ab
Ap
Ap
/VIA LIDS PLAZA d . �►
AL
LTA r2weT- • : •
EXHIBIT 3
r + �
IMPROVE TURNING RADIUS BY `.�►
RECONFIGURING ENTRY CURBS PER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STANDARDS._
Ir I loll:- - k14 �/p0
A•
A.1
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
C
TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
INGRSS VIA ❑INLEY STREET 2986
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I i
I j
I I
I I
I I
I I
FUSCOE
N E E R I N G
INGRESS
�k Time 6.0
gle 31.5
AL OF THE LARGEST VEHICLE
CESS VIA LIDO PLAZA FROM
T. HOWEVER, THIS VEHICLE
NLY EGRESS TO FINLEY STREET.
4ESS TO VIA LIDO.
0 5 10 20 40
GRAPHIC SCALE
f u 1 1
L
e t h i n k i n g
C
TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
EGRESS TO ❑INLEY STREET
.;
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I /
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
FUSCOE
N E E R I N G
INGRESS
8.53 8.53
6.0 40.8
HE LARGEST VEHICLE
.SS & EGRESS TO VIA
LEY STREET. THIS IS
� / FEDEX SIZE
i�
i
0 5 10 20 40
GRAPHIC SCALE
f u 1 1
L
e t h i n k i n g
COMMENT LETTER 13
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS
July 17, 2014
Via Facsimile only
Bradley Hilgrin, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
c/o James E. Campbell, Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor, Bay "C"
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Lido House Hotel and the Generic Project aka City Hall Reuse Project (the "Projects" Greetings:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and other community groups in the City in connection with the captioned matter.
We offer these comments in the hopes of improving the FEIR and the Project, clarifying the nature and the scope of the Projects and the Project Description, and drawing the Commission's attention to issues that the Commission first raised in the initial Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND").
First, we congratulate the City on the FEIR: unlike the previous MND, the FEIR is not italicized. The FEIR is much easier to read. Nonetheless, the FEIR has problems as discussed below.
Second, please find attached hereto as Exhibit "A," our comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original City Hall Re -use Project. Given that the Projects have not really changed that is, the FEIR still analyzes the Project as proposed and analyzed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Hall Reuse Project, we incorporate those earlier comments herein.
Also, we incorporate all other comments on the DEIR and the FEIR to the extent that they supplement and do not contradict these comments.
Third, as the Commission well remembers, the MND was a disaster which the City saw fit to abandon: it was in all italics and impossible to read; it failed to analyze crucial Project features; it engaged in piecemeal analysis; and it failed to analyze fully the Projects' impacts and mitigation measures.
Unfortunately, for all of its promise, the FEIR continues down the old disastrous path. As the Commission remembers, Commissioner Tucker asked at the hearing on the MND and the Projects, why 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-55.50
Fax: (949) 6.50-1181
13-1
13-2
Bradley Hilgren, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
James E. Campbell, Senior Planner - 2
]lily 17, 2014
doesn't the City wait until they have an applicant and a project that it can analyze rather than conducting environmental review on the legislative proposals? We welcomed and agreed with Commissioner Tucker's common sense approach.
Now the City has spent hundreds of staff hours and thousands of tax dollars to determine that a hotel use is the appropriate use for the former City Hall site. The Executive Summary appears to embrace this approach and describes the Project as a hotel project. Unfortunately, the DEIR does not continue this approach: it analyzes two projects: the Lido House Hotel; or a mixed use residential and commercial use (the "Generic Project"). The City determined that it would pursue a hotel use when it spent time and money seeking applicants to submit proposals. The City Council also decided on the applicant which is the applicant here. Why is the City continuing to analyze the Project as residential/mixed use? Given that the City has a project and a developer, why delay site development review for another approval?
All of these impermissibly delays the full environmental review that must occur now and engages in piecemeal analysis which is forbidden by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et sett. As Commissioner Tucker asked long ago, why don't we wait for a project and a developer? The City has satisfied these issues, why delay the environmental review of site development review for another hearing? Such review must be done now for the chosen Project which is the title of the FEIR, the Lido House Hotel and not some amorphous Generic Project that various Council Members may favor.
Correlatively, the FEIR impermissibly ignores the impacts ofthe Generic Project. Far instance, in Response to Comment 8-3 regarding the need to preserve emergency access to Via Lido Center, the FEIR states that Comment 8-3 reflects "... reflects the commentator's preference that the Via Lido Plaza delivery trucks pass through the City's property and ignores its effect on the hotel operations and guests." However, this Response ignores the impacts of the Generic Project which is also part of the Project. The FEIR repeatedly ignores the Generic Project and analyzes the impacts of the Lido House Hotel Project. However, if the Project is approved and the FEIR is certified, the Generic Project will be approved and its impacts will be regarded as completely analyzed. However, the FEIR fails to do this: it focuses solely on the Lido House Hotel Project.
Fourth, the Project involves a land lease between the City and the proposed developer of the Lido House Hotel. Also, the Generic Project will also involve a lease. Yet, the FEIR does not include any form lease for the Generic Project or a lease for the Lido House Hotel. Given that the lease is part ofthe Project, the FEIR must analyze the lease and its impacts on the environment including the change in possessory interests, the term of these possessory interests, remedies on default including the ability to seize the Hotel in the event of default and the inability of the City to operate the hotel. All of these are part of the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project: a full description of the Project includes the terms of these agreements. Indeed, the lease is the same as a development agreement which is part of any development project and which is part ofthe review of the hearing authority. For instance, in the approval for North Newport Center, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental document and the project which included a development agreement. The same must happen here: because the lease is part of the Project, the Commission and the public need to review and comment on this part of the Project. Without it, the Project description is fatally incomplete. See Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 116. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax: (949) 650-1181
13-2
at]
DOW
Bradley Hilgren, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
James E. Campbell, Senior Planner 3
]lily 17, 2014
Fifth, as indicated in our earlier comments, the Project's height will create significant aesthetic impacts including light and glare, and shade and shadow impacts. As to the former, light and glare, the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project will expose visitors and guests/residents to lights from passing vehicles on Balboa Blvd. These impacts likely may be able to be mitigated the FEIR contains no such mitigation measures now. As to the shade and shadow impacts, the FEIR concedes that the Project wiII have such impacts but regards them as temporary because the sun and therefore the shadows move, If this analysis were adequate, there would be no shade impacts. Moreover, as we earlier commented, the Project shade and shadows will affect the Project's own open space and will make the area dark and dingy. It will also affect the outdoor diners at the area restaurants in the vicinity. Although the DEIR's discussion of aesthetic impacts concludes that these are not shade sensitive uses, that conclusion is incorrect. The shade and shadows from the Projects will adversely affect outdoor dining in the area as well as the commercial experience at Via Lido Plaza including the new West Marine store. The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to address these impacts.
Sixth, also highlighted in our earlier comments, the FEIR employs the wrong environmental baseline with which to determine the Projects' impacts. This error continues the erroneous practice employed in the MND. The DEIR is not even candid as to its use of the erroneous environmental baseline; the July 17, 2014 Staff Report for the Commission ("2014 Commission Staff Report") is somewhat more candid but nonetheless continues to analyze the Project's land use impacts with the incorrect standard. That Report states:
"Absent a specified maximum intensity, the `plan to plan' analysis would indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval; however, when the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has conservatively used the 2006 General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 2014 Commission Staff Report, handwritten pages 11-12. The DEIR uses this same "plan to plan" comparison to determine land use impacts, see DEIR, Table 5-4, page 5.4-50 Source Note that the 2006 General Plan is the basis for the Land Use Analysis Table 5-4. This use of the 2006 General Plan with the non -existing but planned 75,000 square feet to analyze the Projects' impacts violates the requirements of CEQA: It requires that the analysis compare the impacts of the proposed Projects with the conditions on the ground today, that is without the non-existent 75,000 square feet proposed in the 2006 General Plan. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ("South Coast AQMD"}.
Seventh, the FOR also continues to use improperly the Lido Village Design Guidelines as standards for approval rather than suggested guidelines. The DEIR recognizes their proper role:
"The Lido Village Design Guidelines (December 2011) (Design Guidelines) are to be used as a guide by owners who intend to renovate or rehabilitate existing structures, are planning for new construction, or have decided to make significant exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for approval or planned public improvements."
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax: (949) 650-1181
13-5
13-6
13-7
Srttllet 1-1ilI!rt:n, Chair
Wild+vrn of the Ptannlnz Cnmmi:uu:e
larne-. I:. C'alnpbell. Sr»im Planner • i
exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for approval or planned public improvements."
❑EIR, page 5.1-12. However, the DEIR confusingly employs these Guidelines as regulatory standards with which projects must be determined to be consistent:
"The Design Guidelines provide a basis for the evaluation and review of the applications by property owners or tenants to the City of Ne%k port 13each.These Guidelines are not regulatory and are intended to be a component of the City's development review process where projects must be Found consistent" Idly 17. 2014
DEIR, page 5.1-13. This last sentence is internally contradictory: if the Guidelines are not regulatory. then a project need not be consistent with them. Yet, the Final clause maintains that all projects including the Projects must be found consistent with the Guidelines. These Guidelines have never had environmental review, environmental hearings, nor any regulatory approvals, e.g.
Coastal Commission approval.
The DEIR continues this erroneous use of these Guidelines by stating that, because the Project must comply with the Guidelines. the Project has no impact oil land use, aesthetics and other environmental resources. '['his might be true if the Guidelines had been subjected to environmental review and their standards were determined to enhance the environment or at least have no significant impact on the environment. ']'he City did not conduct such a review and cannot now employ these Guidelines as an analytical tool or mitigation tool for the Project.
The FF] R. contains numerous other errors and omissions. It is not ready for prime time. On hchalf'ofthe clients note above, we urge the Commission to reject the Projects and the I=EIR, and return the FI:1R and the Projects to S ta ff and the Applicants for lirrther study and review, for revision of the FE:I R and recirculation for public comment and review.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR. Please provide us with notice of any responses to these comments and with notices of any and all hearings on the captioned project.
Further, this is also a written request for notices pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically. Public Resources Code Section 21092.2. Specifically, pursuant to Section 21092.2, we request that you provide us with a copy ofany and all notices required pursuant to Public Resources Code Scction 21080.4, 2 I083.9, 21092, 21108 and 21152 relating to the captioned Project.. ❑fcourse, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
O
FFICES OF R Q i
C. I AWKINS
By: Robert C. Hawkins
RCI 1/kw
cc: I_eilani Browi-L City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only)
14 Corporarc Plaza, S1IIIC 120
Newport Bvitch, C alilctrnta 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax. (949) 650.1181
13-T
Exhibit "A"
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAW KINS
March 26, 2013
Via Facsimile Only
Keith Curry, Mayor
Members of the City Council
c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: Additional and Further Comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ("FMND") for the City Hall Reuse Project (the "Project") Greetings:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Newport Residents United Again, a community group based on the original Newport Residents United which lobbied in the early 1970s to establish the original height limit for the Coastal Zone, the Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and others in the City in connection with the captioned matter.
We Have commented on the captioned DMND several times and offer these additional further comments on the captioned document.
First, although we have repeatedly requested that you provide us with all notices in connection with the captioned matter, we have yet to receive any such notices. Please comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. Again, as throughout this process, the City has failed to provide us with notice required by CEQA and other laws.
Second, the Response to our January 17, 2013 Letter Comment 4 states that:
"This comment suggesting that the IS/MND was unreadable is the only comment received that indicated the reviewer had difficulty reading and understanding the information and analysis presented in the document. The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, the California Coastal Commission and other responsible public agencies and/or interested individuals and organizations. With the single exception of this commenter, the City did not receive any comments from any other recipient of the IS/MND that indicated reviewers had difficulty reading the document or that it prevented them from understanding the findings and recommendations included in the environmental analysis. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not necessary."
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650.1181
13-8
13-9
Keith Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013
Members of the City Council �
Final MND, page 1 of Responses to our January 17, 2013 letter. This is incredible. It is also factually incorrect.
At the January 17, 2013 hearing, all of the public commenters criticized the readability of the DMND. Moreover, at the hearing, staff reported on the project and then introduced the MND preparer, Mr. Keeton Kreitzer. Mr. Kreitzer discussed the MND.
The very first question asked of the EIR preparer, Keeton Kreitzer, concerned the italicized document. Chairman Michael Toerge asked: "Why was the document in italics?" (Emphasis in the original.) Mr. Kreitzer responded that he had a computer glitz and the entire document printed in italics. He said that it was not to mislead, to confuse or to make the document less readable. Chair Toerge responded that "it certainly did make the document much less readable." See audio minutes of the January 17, 2013 meeting (the audio minutes are not measured so we cannot provide a location in the audio minutes) (Emphasis supplied). Other members of the public including Jim Mosher and Denys Obermann also criticized the readability of the document. Given these comments including the Planning Commission Chair's comments, the document must be recirculated for public review and comment.
We note that the City has attempted to cure this defect retroactively by providing the FMND in non -italic font. Unfortunately, this is not appropriate and cannot cure the problem.
The public commented on the italicized document, and the italics made the document unreadable. The City Council will now have the luxury of the non -italicized document but the public was not given this opportunity during the public comment period which closed the day after Christmas 2012. Given that the City has now circulated a non -italicized version of the document, the City must recirculate this reformatted document for public review and comment.
As for the Responses to Comment Nos. 5 and 6, although they state that they are analyzing the Project's impacts on the worst case scenario, the Responses fail to do this. First, the proposed shade -shadow analysis was not part of the DMND, and the public has not had the opportunity to review and comment on this study. The FMND without italics and with the shade study must be revised and recirculated for public review and comment.
Second, the shade study is incomplete. The Project description includes increasing the Shoreline Height Limits from thirty-five (35') feet to fifty-five (55') with sloping roofs and elevator towers to sixty (60') feet and architectural features to sixty-five (65') feet. The shade analysis displays only shade for the fifty-five (55') feet, not the higher sloped roofs, elevator towers and architectural features.
Moreover, no one verifies that the shadows are correct and that the analysis correctly shows the shadows generated at the site and surrounding areas. This City has suffered from unscrupulous persons who have fudged height issues: Andrew Goetz; the entitlement persons for the Mormon Temple; and others. We need a reliable shade analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project, not some seat -of -the -pants, rush -rush analysis. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax; (949) 650.1181
13-9
13-10
Keidi Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013
Members of the City Council .3
Third, even this seat -of -the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis shows shade impacts: the open space on the Project site will be permanently shaded. As we indicated in our original comment letter, the DMND states:
"The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities."
DMND, page l 1 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 ("Additionally, the purpose for allowing taller buildings is clearly described within the draft amendment; `...to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities."' However, Response to Supplemental Comment No. 6 states:
"It is important to note that the City of Newport Beach has determined that shadow sensitive uses include, but are not limited to, residential, recreational and park areas, plazas, schools, and nurseries. Furthermore, the City considers that a significant impact related to shadows occurs when 50 percent of shadow sensitive use or area is in shade/shadow for at least 50 percent of the time between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) between late October and early April or between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) between early April and Late October."
Section 7.0 of the FMND, page 2. However, the seat -of -the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis fails to analyze the impacts on the Project site open space areas, e.g. the park areas. The FMND recognizes these as shade sensitive areas, but the analysis shows that this area will be in shade for most of the day. Yet, the FMND fails to recognize or appreciate this Project impact.
At the January 27, 2013 Planning Commission, we commented regarding such impacts.
Planner Campbell stated that Project impacts on the Project site were not impacts that needed to be analyzed, addressed, or mitigated. However, the FMND is replete with analysis of such impacts including impacts regarding air quality and noise. For instance, Section 4.8(e) concerning Hazards considers and discusses whether the Project will expose Project residents to hazards including noise. Section 4.12(a) discusses the potential impact that the Project may create by exposing Project residents to unwanted noise. Section 4.3(e) discusses the potential that the Project may expose residents to objectionable odors.
Here, the Project and its huge shadow eliminates the benefit of the open space included in the Project Description and which necessitates the Project's need to exceed the height limit. The Project's exceeding the height limit actually will create a significant and unmitigated impact: the shadow which undercuts and destroys the benefit of the open space. This is a significant Project impact which requires mitigation. Indeed, it likely will require modification of the Project to comply with the current height limits which likely will have no such shade impacts. 14 Corporate Plara, Suite 120
Newport Beach, Cahlbrnia 92660
(949) 654.5550
Fax: (949) 650-118 I
13-10
13-11
13-12
Keith Curry, Mayor 4 March ?6, ?�13
Members of the City Council
Fourth, the Shoreline Height Ordinance and Limitation arose due to citizen action. In the early 1970s, a group of Newport Beach residents including Joe and Judy Rosener formed "Newport Residents United ("NRU")." According to Allen Beek who testified on behalf of NRU when the Council passed the height limit, one of the reasons NRU proposed the height limit was the construction of the massive condominium towers near the Lido Isle Bridge. However, FMND maintains that the Project with its height exceeding the current ordinance is consistent with these large condominiums which gave rise to the height ordinance in the first place. For instance, the discussion of Aesthetics notes:
"Several other taller residential, office, and a mixed use building are also located in the vicinity of the project and within the view."
FMND, page 28. See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 Also, see Exhibits
4.1-1 through -7 which show that the only building penetrating the Shoreline Height Limit is the 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums which led to the Shoreline Height Ordinance. Further, Exhibits 4.1-8 through -11 also show projects built before the Shoreline Height Ordinance which are not in the vicinity of the Project but are on Pacific Coast Highway in an area known as Mariner's Mile.
The other structures reference in the graphic entitled "Lido Village Building Height Analysis" in Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 show that the vast majority of structures in the vicinity of the Project are within the Shoreline Height Limit, not in excess of those limits. Only two properties shown on this Analysis are as high or higher than the proposed Project: 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums.
The FMND cannot use these anomalies to show consistency with surrounding development. Indeed, the Mariner's Mile projects are not in the vicinity of the Project site and should not be considered at all. Further, the 601 Lido Condominiums is unusual as shown in the Exhibits 4.1-1 through -7. Without more, these anomalies cannot in and of themselves set the standard. The standard is far lower: it is the current Shoreline Height Limit of thirty-five (35') feet.
Fifth, as indicated in our original comments, the FMND refers to the Lido Village Design Guidelines as regulatory. See Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 and other references in the FMND which state that the Guidelines "prescribe" standards of development. These references occur throughout the FMND. Nonetheless, Response to Comment No. 15 states that:
"The characterization in the Draft ISIMND that the guidelines as regulatory in nature was unintentional. Rather, the discussion of the Lido Village Design Guidelines was intended to illustrate that future development must be found to be consist with the design guidelines for approval."
FMND, Response to Friends' December 26, 2013, page 10. This is very confusing. The first sentence in this Response suggests that the Guidelines are not regulatory; the second states that the Guidelines are regulatory. The City cannot have it both ways: if the Project must be found to be consistent with the Guidelines, then they are regulatory. If they are not regulatory, then the Project need not be consistent with the Guidelines. Given that the FMND relies upon the 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650•5550
Pax. (949) 650.1181
Wok K3
13-14
Keith Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013
Members of the City Council 5
regulatory understanding of the Guidelines, the Guidelines are part of the Project and must be analyzed in the FMND.
Indeed, Response to our January 17, 2013 letter Comment No. 9 concerning the Guidelines states that:
"It is acknowledged that the Lido Village Design Guidelines are not regulatory.
As indicated in the guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is responsible for design review and project implementation. Project must adhere to adopted General Plan, zoning policies, and regulations, which outline requirements Specific for individual parcels within Lido Village, including the City Hall property. Nonetheless, the Lido Village Design Guidelines are intended to influence the theme and character of that development. To that end, the guidelines addressed all aspects of future land use that may occur within Lido Village, including edge conditions, pedestrian connection, open space, sustainability, architecture, landscaping, etc., to ensure that the objectives articulated in the document are achieved. In addition, guidance is also provided to achieve the desired visual character and aesthetic quality within Lido Village, even though all improvements occurring with the affected area are subject to applicable regulations and permitting process imposed by the City' General Plan, zoning code and related ordinances, and other related regulatory requirements.
Finally, the guidelines are intended to provide design guidance for future development and redevelopment "...with the assurance that others who follow will be held to the same or similar unifying set of standards."Thus, while they are not regulatory, they include guidance for promoting compatibility and minimizing land use conflicts through the implementation of planning and design solutions that also reduce potential adverse effects."
FMND, Response to January 17, 2013 Comment No. 9, page 4 (Emphasis supplied.) Again, this does not really address the question. This Response recognizes that the Guidelines are not regulatory and only provide guidance. However, if so, then how can the FMND rely on compliance with the Guidelines to mitigate Project impacts? See Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, They cannot. Hence, the FMND contains an analysis which requires further discussion regarding the Guidelines and their mitigation of the Project's impacts. Indeed, as we indicated in our December 26, 2013 Comment, the Project really includes the Guidelines, and the environmental document must be revised to address this aspect of the Project.
Sixth, the FMND fails to analyze the Project's impacts on the existing environment. That is, it improperly compares the Project's impacts, not to the existing environment, but on a hypothetical General Plan environment. This is legal error.
Recently, the California Supreme Court decided the CEQA issue of environmental baseline. In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ("South Coast A MD") , the Supreme Court held that the envirorunental baseline is CEQA is generally the existing conditions on the ground. There, the South Coast Air Quality Management District prepared a negative declaration for a refiner project by Conoco -Philips. Among other things, the District argued that the environmental 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, Calitomia 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650- 1181
13-14
13-15
Keith Curry, Mayor
Members of the City Council • 6 - March 26, 2013
baseline was maximum output of the refinery which had valid permits to operate it at the site even though the refinery had yet to be built. Among other things, ConocoPhillips argued that failure to use the maximum permitted operations as a baseline would violate ConocoPhilips vested rights and contravene CEQA's statute of limitations.
The Court reviewed the case law and stated:
A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework. This line of authority includes cases where a plan or regulation allowed for greater development or more intense activity than had so far actually occurred, n6 as well as cases where actual development or activity had, by the time CEQA analysis was begun, already exceeded that allowed under the existing regulations. n7 In each of these decisions, the appellate court concluded the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the "existing physical conditions in the affected area" (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal. App. 3d at p. 354), that is, the "`real conditions on the ground"' (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.AppAth at p. 121; see City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at p. 246), rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to a plan or regulation." Id. at 320-21. The Court held that:
"Applied here, this general rule leads to the conclusion the District erred in using the boilers' maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline. By treating all operation of the boilers within the individual limits of their permits to be part of the environmental setting, or baseline, the District ensured that no emissions from increased boiler operation would be considered an environmental impact so long as no single boiler operated beyond its permitted capacity." Id. at 322. See Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4" 552 petition for review granted 2012 Cal. LEXIS 7556 (to the opposite effect; opinion was depublished pending the Supreme Court review).
Hence, under South Coast AQMD, the FMND uses an improper baseline to assess impacts including traffic impacts. The FMND states:
"When the City's General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City had commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, based on the General Plan 2006 Update traffic (land use) assumption used to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the project site, the City determined that such future redevelopment/reuse of the City Hall Complex property would not require voter approval for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds."
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, Califomia 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax: (949) 650.1181
ii [CIS [.1
Keith Curry, Mayor
Members of titre City Council .7. March 25, 2013
FMND, page 112. The FMND uses this "General Plan" analysis to determine the baseline for the Project instead of the existing conditions on the ground today which is 54,004 square feet including the Fire Station. See City Council Study Session presentation, page 2. This does not comply with the requirements of CEQA and with the direction of the South Coast AQMD Court.
Indeed, it inflates the traffic generated under existing conditions and lessens the traffic impacts of the project. The FMND must be revised to consider the Project's impacts on traffic and other issues based upon a comparison with the existing conditions. Likely, the Project will generate substantially more traffic than existing conditions.
Moreover, the FMND seems confused on this point. In Responsc to our December 26, 20 13 Comment No. 34, the FMND states that:
"Fire Station No. 2 is an existing use that currently generates traffic to and from the site as a result of home -to -work trips. Those trips currently exist and are reflected in the baseline traffic for the Project."
FMND, Response to Comment No. 34, page 14. However, it is unclear under the General Plan baseline whether or not the Fire Station traffic was not allocated to another site.
In conclusion, the FMND is totally inadequate. Good and sound policy reasons and good planning require the preparation of an EIR. Such an EIR would analyze correctly the existing environmental setting including the 54,000 square foot current City Hall structure, would clearly state the Project objectives which include adequate open space for this public site, would analyze all impacts including shade impacts, would include adequate mitigation, would include a discussion of Project alternatives which is necessary for the Project to go forward, and would allow the City to override any significant an unmitigated impacts.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the FMND. As before and although ignored for this hearing, PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH NOTICE OF ANY RESPONSES
TO THESE COMMENTS IN A NON -ITALICIZED FORMAT AND WITH NOTICES OF ANY AND ALL HEARINGS ON THE CAPTIONED PROJECT AND FMND.
Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
TICEAFIBIEA. WKINS
By: Robert C. Hawkins
cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only)
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax; (949) 650.1181
13-17
Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins
110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax: (949) 650-1181
FAX COVER SHEET
TRANSMITTED TO:
NAME
FAX NUMBER
PHONE NUMBER
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
(949) 644-3039
From: Robert C. Hawkins
Client/Matter: Friends
Date: March 26, 2013
Documents: Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7*
COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated.
The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney -client and/or the attorney/work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. * NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT (949) 650-5550.
03/28/2013 2:51PM FAX 8488501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES Z0001 *** TX Result Report ***
TX complete.
Job No.
0061
Address
6443039
Name
Start Time
03/26 02:46 PM
Call Length
04'12
Sheets
8 Result
OK
Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins
110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Newport Reach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax: (949) 650- l 1 S 1
FAX COVER SHEET
TRANSM 177TED TO:
NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER
Leilani Brown, City Clerk (949) 644-3039
From: Robert C. Hawkins
Client/Matter: Friends
Date: March 26, 2013
]documents: Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7*
COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated.
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C.
HAWKINS, DATED JULY 17, 2014.
13-1 The commenter states that the text of the Draft EIR is legible, as it is not written in italic font throughout. The commenter also incorporates an earlier comment letter submitted for the previously prepared Negative Declaration (not adopted) for a past project at the project site (as discussed in detail on pages 3-4 and 3-5, Section 3.2, Background and History, of the Draft EIR). Refer to Responses 13-8 through 13-17.
13-2 The City currently has a specific development application that has been submitted for the project site, which is described in detail throughout Section 3.3, Project Characteristics, of the Draft EIR. Contrary to what the Commenter suggests regarding two development scenarios considered as part of the proposed project, the Draft EIR only considers one development application for a new hotel. As illustrated on Exhibit 3-3, Concotual Site Plan, of the Draft EIR, the project analyzed includes a new 99,625 square -foot hotel comprised of guestrooms, public areas, and back of house (operational) areas. Guestrooms and suites, including a Presidential Suite and extended stay suites and villas, would occupy levels two through four.
The rooftop patio would include a bar area, fire pit, and cabanas and provide views of the bay and ocean. Other project -specific features included in Section 3.3 and analyzed in the Draft EIR include the proposed architecture, open space and landscaping, and vehicular access and parking. As required by CEQA, the proposed entitlements required as part of the application for the project must also be considered in the environmental clearance document, which have been discussed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR as well. It should be noted that, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project, a mixed use development scenario was considered as part of Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Pn2posed Proect, of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the Draft EIR included an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced density, mixed -use, and two no build alternatives.
13-3 The Draft EIR considered the full scope of the application, as submitted to the City of Newport Beach, and does not include any other potential project entitlement clearances not discussed. Thus, no further environmental clearance documentation is required, upon certification of the EIR, for the project, as proposed. Refer to Response 13-2 pertaining to the proposed project analyzed as part of the Draft EIR; no Generic Project was considered, but rather a specific site plan (the proposed Lido House Hotel), as illustrated in Exhibit 3-3, Concatual Site Plan, of the Draft EIR was analyzed.
The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR analyzes the development of a Generic Project (as the proposed project), which is not the case. As discussed in Response 9-2, the City Council selected R.D. Olson as the development team to pursue a hotel project at the project site. The City Council executed an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with R.D.
Olson and R.D. Olson has submitted a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Final • August 2014 2-135 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Permit application consistent with their proposal and applicable Zoning Codes, which is the subject of this EIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed project, as discussed in the Draft EIR would not result in the development of a Generic Project, as suggested by the commenter, but rather the development of the hotel as proposed. 13-4 As described on page 3-19 of Section 3.6, Agreements, Permits, and Approvals, of the Draft EIR, a Lease was considered in the Draft EIR as part of the proposed project. Lease negotiations are ongoing and have not been completed. Refer to Response 9-2. 13-5 Increased heights at the project site would result in similar lighting conditions as structures of similar or higher building height in the project vicinity. Further, new shade/shadow conditions were considered on page 5.2-35 of the Draft EIR, which concluded that, as illustrated in Exhibit 5.2-12, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns, shade/shadow impacts would be minimal, for a short period of time, and the areas shaded are not considered to be shadow - sensitive (as these areas consist of surface parking lot and a portion of a commercial -retail building). Thus, impacts in this regard are less than significant, as described in the Draft EIR.
As illustrated on Exhibit 5.2-12, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns, of the Draft EIR, the on -site public use area along Newport Boulevard would only be shaded in the morning hours.
Thus, the proposed public use areas along the western portion of the project site are not anticipated to experience substantial shade as a result of the proposed structure. Further, as depicted on Exhibit 5.2-12 of the Draft EIR, no shading of adjacent outdoor diners associated with restaurant uses would result from the proposed structure; no impacts would result in this regard. The adjacent retail store (West Marine) would be partially shaded; however, this use is not considered to be shadow -sensitive.
With regard to increased vehicle headlights along Balboa Boulevard and surrounding residential uses, the project would not result in an increase in vehicles (or associated vehicle headlights) traveling along Balboa Boulevard (as illustrated on Exhibit 7, Forecast Percent Trip Distribution of Proposed Project, of Appendix 11.3, DR& Impact Analysis/Parking Study, of the Draft EIR). Further, as discussed on page 5.2-38 of the Draft EIR, vehicle headlights are a source of nighttime lighting that was considered in the light and glare analysis for the proposed project. Increased vehicle headlights along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street would appear similar to the existing lighting conditions currently experienced. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
13-6 The City of Newport Beach General Plan was adopted July 25, 2006 (as amended periodically) and is the City's guide for community decision -making. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, the Draft EIR considers the project's consistency Final • August 2014 2-136 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
with the City's adopted General Plan, as described in Impact Statements LU-1 through LU- 5, which includes Table 5.1-4, General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis. It should be noted that the environmental analysis presented throughout the Draft EIR considers the project impacts compared to the existing "on -the -ground" conditions, and does not analyze the project via a "plan -to -plan" analysis approach. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, Proiect Setting (Existing Conditions), 60,600 square feet of administration/office floor area (previously used to support the former City of Newport Beach City Hall), and the existing Fire Station No. 2 that is approximately 7,100 square feet, were considered in the Draft EIR. The existing baseline condition that was utilized in the Draft EIR acknowledged that City Hall staff has been relocated to the new Civic Center located at Newport Center in April of 2013. It is noted that the City continues limited use of the property and various buildings including community use of the former City Council Chambers for assembly purposes. Also, the Draft EIR considered Fire Station No. 2 as currently on -site, staffed, and operational. 13-7 Refer to Response 7-4 pertaining to the City's Design Guidelines.. As discussed in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, and Section 5.2, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, where the project considers consistency with the Design Guidelines, it is in the context of describing the project's consistency with applicable land use plans and policies as well as describing the City's intent for the visual character in the area. This consistency analysis describes the City's intent for the character/quality of the area and whether or not the project is consistent with that intent or not. The Design Guidelines are described as guidelines were applicable and not regulatory requirements. Further, it should be noted that page 5-1 of the Design Guidelines states that within the City of Newport Beach's Zoning Code, there are requirements for development and new land uses to adhere to Design Guidelines. Section 20.16.020, paragraphs C through E, require land owners to follow Design Guidelines or criteria as a condition of approval. Refer to Response 7-4 pertaining to Coastal Commission approval. 13-8 The commenter has attached a letter (Exhibit "A" of Letter 13) that was previously submitted as part of the Negative Declaration on March 26, 2013. The City of Newport Beach has previously reviewed and responded to these comments. Per the request of the commenter, this attached letter (Exhibit "A") has been responded to, to the extent that it is applicable to this EIR in Responses 13-9 through 13-17 below. 13-9 The commenter has requested to be notified on all public correspondence for the project, as required by CEQA and other laws. Notification to the public of circulation of the Draft EIR has been conducted consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a)(1). Refer to Response 13-1 pertaining to the legibility of the Draft EIR. 13-10 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR.
13-11 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR.
Final • August 2014 2-137 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
13-12 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR.
13-13 Page 5.2-11 of the Draft EIR specifically describes the existing heights of the surrounding development, as currently constructed. As discussed on the last paragraph of page 5.2-35 of the Draft EIR, project implementation would alter the visual character of the site and its surroundings, as the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex would be replaced with the proposed hotel and associated parkways/landscaping. Surrounding land uses provide a mix of uses consistent with retail/restaurant and hotel uses focused toward a more visitor - oriented character. The proposed project, with the proposed setbacks to Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street, is considered compatible in massing and scale to the surrounding uses. Further, the increase of building heights (up to 58.5 feet) would not result in a substantial change in the character of the area, as surrounding buildings (particularly to the north and east of the project site) include structures that can range from 12 to 110 feet. The proposed building heights for portions of the structure located along Newport Boulevard and 32"d street (up to 30 feet in height) would be similar to height as the surrounding buildings to the west and south (generally ranging in height from 11 to 35 feet). Thus, with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure AES-2 (which would ensure compliance with the Design Guidelines), implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to a degradation of character/quality at the project site and surrounding area.
13-14 Refer to Response 13-7.
13-15 Refer to Response 13-6.
13-16 Refer to Response 13-6. As discussed in Section 5.5, Trai-c/Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the project's traffic -related impacts were compared to the existing "on -the -ground" conditions, and not a "Plan -to -Plan" analysis.
13-17 Refer to Response 13-16. Traffic associated with the existing on -site Fire Station No. 2 are included in the existing traffic counts conducted as part of the Draft EIR. The analysis assumes that this use would remain on -site during operations of the proposed project, as discussed in Section 5.5, Traflic/Circulation, of the Draft EIR.
Final • August 2014 2-138 Response to Comments
3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Uorting Checkli t, has been prepared for the Lido House Hotel Project (the project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the Lido House Hotel project file.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure.
Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation.
Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps:
• The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance.
• Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures.
• Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.
Final 9 August 2014 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
• The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.
Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals.
Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Final 0 August 2014 3-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Table 1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials Date Remarks
AESTHETICS
AES-1
Prior to issuance of any grading and/or
Applicant/
Prior to
Director of
Prior to Issuance
demolition permits, whichever occurs
Contractor
Issuance of
Community
of Grading/
first, a Construction Management Plan
Grading/
Development
Demolition
shall be submitted for review and
Demolition
Permits
approval by the Director of Community
Permits
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.
AES-2
Prior to issuance of a building or grading
Applicant/
Prior to
Director of
Prior to Issuance
permit for new construction, the
Contractor
Issuance of
Community
of Grading/
Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette
Grading or
Development
Construction
shall be submitted to the Director of
Building
Permits
Community Development for review and
Permits
approval. Landscaping shall complement
the proposed site design and surrounding
streetscape and must also be consistent
with the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
AES-3
All construction -related lighting shall be
Applicant/
Prior to
Director of
Prior to Issuance
located and aimed away from adjacent
Contractor
Issuance of
Community
of Grading
Final 9 August 2014 3-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
residential areas and consist of the
Grading or
Development
Permit/
minimal wattage necessary to provide
Building Permit
During
safety and security at the construction site.
Construction
A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall
be approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to
issuance of the grading or building permit
application.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BI0-1
To the extent feasible, all vegetation
Applicant/
Prior to
Director of
Prior to Issuance
removal activities shall be scheduled
Contractor
vegetation
Community
of a Grading
outside of the nesting season (typically
removal
Development
Permit; During
February 15 to August 15) to avoid
Construction
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.
BIO-2
The City shall locate an existing Ficus
City Recreation
Prior to
Recreation and
Prior to Issuance
benjamina tree or other suitable tree into a
and Senior
Issuance of
Senior Services,
of Grading/
City park and dedicate the tree in the
Services,
Grading/
Municipal
Demolition
name of William Lawrence `Billy" Covert.
Municipal
Demolition
Operations
Permits
Should an appropriate tree not be found,
Operations
Permits
Department,
the City shall attempt to transplant the
Department, and
and
existing tree or plant a new tree of the
Community
Community
same variety at an appropriate location.
Development
Development
Final 9 August 2014 3-4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
The re -dedicated tree shall have a
Department
Department
permanent marker or plaque. Every
effort shall be made to involve the Covert
family in this process.
BIO-3
Because the Freedom Tree also cannot be
City Recreation
Prior to
C Recreation
Prior to Issuance
effectively transplanted, the City shall
and Senior
Issuance of
and Senior
of Grading/
locate an existing tree in a very prominent
Services,
Grading/
Services,
Demolition
location within a City park or at the new
Municipal
Demolition
Municipal
Permits
Civic Center and dedicate it as The
Operations
Permits
Operations
Freedom Tree. An appropriate
Department, and
Department,
permanent marker or plaque shall be
Community
and
provided and the dedication should be
Development
Community
accomplished with community and
Department
Development
veterans groups' participation.
Department
BIO-4
Because the Walter Knott Tree and the
City Recreation
Prior to
Recreation and
Prior to Issuance
California Bicentennial Tree cannot be
and Senior
Issuance of
Senior Services,
of Grading/
effectively transplanted, the City shall
Services,
Grading/
Municipal
Demolition
locate an existing tree within a City park
Municipal
Demolition
Operations
Permits
and dedicate it in the name of Walter and
Operations
Permits
Department,
Cordelia Knott. The City shall also locate
Department, and
and
an existing tree in a prominent location
Community
Community
within a City park or at the new Civic
Development
Development
Center and dedicate it in honor of the
Department
Department
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.
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
CUL-1
An archaeologist and a Native American
Applicant/
During Grading
Director of
Prior to Issuance
Monitor appointed by the City of
Contractor
Community
of a Grading
Newport Beach shall be present during
Development
Permit; During
earth removal or disturbance activities
Grading
Final 9 August 2014 3-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
CUL-2
An Orange County Certified
Community
Prior to Earth
Community
Prior to Earth
Paleontologist appointed by the City of
Development
Removal or
Development
Removal or
Newport Beach shall prepare a
Director
Disturbance
Department/
Disturbance
Paleontological Resource Monitoring and
Activities
Applicant/
Activities/
Mitigation Program prior to earth removal
Contractor
Upon Discovery
or disturbance activities at the project site.
of
The City selected paleontologist shall be
Paleontological
present during earth removal or
Resources
disturbance activities related to rough
grading and other excavation for utilities.
Paleontological monitoring shall include
inspection of exposed rock units during
Final 9 August 2014 3-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
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
Final 9 August 2014 3-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
1h
AL
Initials
Date
Remarks
communications.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
TRA-1
Prior to Issuance of any grading and/or
Applicant/
Prior to
Community
Prior to Issuance
demolition permits, whichever occurs
Contractor
Issuance of
Development
of Grading/
first, a Construction Management Plan
Grading/
Department;
Demolition
shall be submitted for review and
Demolition
City Traffic
Permits; During
approval by the Community Development
Permits
Engineer
Construction
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
Final • August 2014 3-8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
haul routes clean and free of
debris, including but not limited
to gravel and dirt as a result of
its operations. The Applicant
shall clean adjacent streets, as
directed by the City Engineer (or
representative of the City
Engineer), of any material which
may have been spilled, tracked,
or blown onto adjacent streets or
areas.
• Hauling or transport of oversize
loads shall be allowed between
the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00
PM only, Monday through
Friday, unless approved
otherwise by the City Engineer.
No hauling or transport will be
allowed during nighttime hours,
weekends, or Federal holidays.
• Use of local streets shall be
prohibited.
• Haul trucks entering or exiting
public streets shall at all times
yield to public traffic.
• If hauling operations cause any
damage to existing pavement,
streets, curbs, and/or gutters
Final 0 August 2014 3-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
TRA-2
Prior to issuance of Certificates of
Applicant/
Prior to
Community
Prior to Issuance
Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a
Contractor
Issuance of
Development
of Certificates of
Parking Management Plan for review and
Certificates of
Department
Occupancy
approval by the Community Development
Occupancy
Department. The 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
Final 0 August 2014 3-10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
Final 0 August 2014 3-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials Date Remarks
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1
Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit,
Applicant/
Prior to
Community
Prior to
the Community Development
Contractor
Finalization of
Development
Finalization of
Department shall confirm that the
Grading Plans,
Department
Grading Plans,
Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
Building Plans,
Building Plans,
specifications stipulate that, in compliance
and
and
with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive
Specifications;
Specifications;
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled
During
During
by regular watering or other dust
Construction
Construction
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 at least twice daily 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
Final • August 2014 3-12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
shall occur if dust is observed
migrating from the site during
site disturbance
• Any on -site stockpiles of debris,
dirt, or other dusty material shall
be enclosed, covered, or watered
twice daily, or non -toxic soil
binders shall be applied;
• All grading and excavation
operations shall be suspended
when wind speeds exceed 25
miles per hour;
• Disturbed areas shall be replaced
with ground cover or paved
immediately after construction is
completed in the affected area;
• Track -out devices such as gravel
bed track -out aprons (3 inches
deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide
per lane and edged by rock berm
or row of stakes) shall be
installed to reduce mud/dirt
trackout from unpaved truck
exit routes. Alternatively a
wheel washer shall be used at
truck exit routes;
• On -site vehicle seed shall be
Final 0 August 2014 3-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
AQ-2
All trucks that are to haul excavated or
Applicant and
Prior to
Community
Prior to Issuance
graded material on -site shall comply with
Contractor
Issuance of a
Development
of a Grading
State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling
Grading Permit,
Department
Permit; During
Loads on Highways), with special
During
Construction
attention to Sections 23114(b)(F) and
Construction
(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.
NOISE
N-1
Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit
Applicant/
Prior to
Community
Prior to Issuance
or Building Permit for new construction,
Contractor
Issuance of
Development
of Grading or
the Community Development
Grading or
Department
Building Permit
Department shall confirm that the
Building Permit
Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
Final 9 August 2014 3-14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
Final 0 August 2014 3-15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
• 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
Munic pal 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).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1
All grading operations and construction
Contractor
Prior to
City Building
Prior to
shall be conducted in conformance with
Commencement
Official or
Commencement
the recommendations included in the
of Grading
Designee
of Grading
geotechnical report for the proposed
Activities
Activities/
project site prepared by GMU
During
Geotechnical, Inc., titled Dort of
Construction
Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel —
Cidy Hall Site Reuse Pr ject, 3300 Neavport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California
Final 9 August 2014 3-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
(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 report, subject to review by
the City of Newport Beach Building
Official or designee prior to
commencement of grading activities.
Recommendations in the Dort of
Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel —
City Hall Site Reuse Priect, 3300 Newport
port Beach, California
Boulevard, City of New
are summarized below.
Site Preparation and Grading
The project site shall be precise graded in
accordance with the City of Newport
Beach grading code requirements (and all
other applicable codes and ordinances)
and the following recommendations. The
geotechnical aspects of future grading
plans and improvement plans shall be
reviewed by a Geotechnical Engineer
Final 9 August 2014 3-17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
prior to grading and construction.
Particular care shall be taken to confirm
that all project plans conform to the
recommendations provided in this report.
All planned and corrective grading shall
be monitored by a Geotechnical Engineer
to verify general compliance with the
following recommendations.
• Demolition and Clearinr. Prior to
the start of the planned
improvements, all materials
associated with the existing
buildings to be removed,
including footings, floor slabs,
and underground utilities, shall
be demolished and hauled from
the site. The existing asphalt
pavement sections, which are
inadequate and severely
damaged, shall also be
demolished. The old asphalt and
base materials generated from
the removal of the existing
pavement sections shall be either
recycled or collected and hauled
off -site.
All significant organic and other
decomposable debris shall be
removed if on -site dredge fill
materials are used as new
compacted fill. Any oversize
Final 0 August 2014 3-18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
rock materials generated during
grading shall be collected and
hauled off -site. Cavities and
excavations created upon
removal of subsurface
obstructions, such as existing
buried utilities, shall be cleared
of loose soil, shaped to provide
access for backfilling and
compaction equipment, and
then backfilled with properly
compacted fill.
If unusual or adverse soil
conditions or buried structures
are encountered during grading
that are not described within the
Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Lido House Hotel —City Hall Site
Reuse Project, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach,
California, these conditions shall
be brought to the immediate
attention of the project
geotechnical consultant for
corrective recommendations.
• Corrective Grading — Building.
Existing dredge fill materials
shall be overexcavated to a depth
of at least four feet below the
existing grades and these
excavated materials shall be
Final 0 August 2014 3-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
kb
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
replaced as properly compacted
fill placed at a minimum relative
compaction of at least 92
percent as determined by
American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Test
Method D 1557 and at 2 percent
above optimum moisture
content.
• Corrective Grading — Exterior
Parking. Driveway, and Hardscabe
Areas. In order to provide
adequate support of proposed
exterior improvements such as
parking lots and driveways, and
hardscape features such as
patios, walkways, stairways and
planter walls, the existing ground
surfaces in these areas shall be
overexcavated to a depth of at
least two feet below the existing
grades and shallow foundations.
These excavated materials can
then be replaced as properly
compacted fill at a minimum
relative compaction of at least 92
percent as determined by ASTM
Test Method D 1557 at 2
percent above optimum
moisture content.
Final 0 August 2014 3-20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
Temporary slope Stability
During site grading, temporary laid back
slopes up to approximately 4 to 5 feet in
height are expected to be created during
the construction of proposed low
retaining walls. Temporary slopes to a
maximum height of 4 feet may be cut
vertically without shoring subject to
verification of safety by the contractor.
Deeper excavations shall be braced,
shored or, for those portions of the
sidewalls above a height of 4 feet, sloped
back no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical). In addition, no surcharge loads
shall be allowed within 10 feet from the
top of the temporary slopes. All work
associated with temporary slopes shall
meet the minimal requirements as set
forth by the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health
(CAL/OSHA).
Post Grading and Ground Improvement
• Utility Trenches.
- Utility Trench Excavations. Soils
above the groundwater level
shall be laid back at a
maximum slope ratio of 1.5:1,
horizontal to vertical. In
addition, surcharge loads shall
Final 0 August 2014 3-21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
ResponsibilityAL
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
not be allowed within 10 feet
of the top of the excavations.
For deeper trenches,
groundwater will be
encountered and the
contractor shall develop an
approach for dewatering,
shoring, and addressing
shallow groundwater
conditions. Sumping and
pumping of free water from
open excavations is not
expected to result in dry and
stable trench conditions due
to the close proximity of the
adjacent bay; therefore, a
dewatering system shall be
designed, installed, and
operated by an experienced
company specializing in
groundwater dewatering
systems.
The dewatering system shall
be capable of lowering the
groundwater surface to a
depth of 5 feet below the
bottom of the trenches.
Before implementing a
dewatering system, a
dewatering test program shall
be conducted to evaluate the
Final 0 August 2014 3-22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
feasibility and efficiency of the
proposed dewatering system.
Dewatering shall be
performed and confirmed by
potholing or other means
prior to trench excavation.
Dewatering operations shall
also comply with all NPDES
regulations.
Temporary shoring shall be
required below the water table
where saturated soils are
encountered or where vertical
trench sidewalls are desired.
Shoring shall consist of metal,
plywood, and/or timber
sheeting supported by braces
or shields. Lateral pressures
considered applicable for the
shoring design will depend on
the type of shoring system
selected by the contractor and
whether the site is dewatered.
Specific design values shall be
calculated once the type of
shoring is determined.
The contractor shall retain a
qualified and experienced
registered engineer to design
any shoring systems in
accordance with CAL/OSHA
Final 0 August 2014 3-23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
criteria. The shoring engineer
shall evaluate the adequacy of
the shoring design parameters
provided in the Report of
Geotecbnical Investigation, Lido
House Hotel —City Hall Site
Reuse Project, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach,
California and make
appropriate modifications as
necessary. The design shall
consider local groundwater
levels and that groundwater
levels may change over time
as a result of tidal influences.
Utility Trench Subgrade
Stabili.Zation. Prior to pipeline
bedding placement, the trench
subgrades shall be firm and
unyielding. If unsuitable
subgrade soils are
encountered, the contractor
shall consult with the project
Geotechnical Engineer to
provide subgrade stabilization.
Stabilization may generally
consist of the placement of
crushed rock or processed
miscellaneous base. Crushed
rock, if used, shall be encased
in filter fabric. Specific
recommendations would be
Final 0 August 2014 3-24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
dependent on actual
conditions encountered.
- Utility Trench Backfill. Backfill
compaction of utility trenches
shall be such that no
significant settlement would
occur. Backfill for all
trenches shall be compacted
to at least 92 percent relative
compaction subject to
sufficient observation and
testing. Flooding in the
trench zone is not
recommended. If native
material with a sand
equivalent less than 30 is used
for backfill, it shall be placed
at near -optimum moisture
content and mechanically
compacted. Jetting or
flooding of granular material
shall not be used to
consolidate backfill in
trenches adjacent to any
foundation elements.
Where trenches closely
parallel a footing (i.e., for
retaining walls) and the trench
bottom is located within a 1
horizontal to 1 vertical plane
projected downward and
Final 0 August 2014 3-25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
outward from any structure
footing, a minimum P/2-sack
concrete slurry backfill shall
be utilized to backfill the
portion of the trench below
this plane. The use of
concrete slurry is not required
for backfill where a narrow
trench crosses a footing at
about right angles.
• Suraace UrainW. Surface drainage
shall be carefully controlled to
prevent runoff over graded
sloping surfaces and ponding of
water on flat pad areas. All
drainage at the site shall be in
minimum conformance with the
applicable City of Newport
Beach codes and standards.
Foundation Design
The following preliminary foundation
design recommendations are provided
based on anticipated conditions at the
completion of anticipated grading;
however, these recommendations are
based on conceptual plans that may be
revised during the plan check process.
Ultimate construction and grading within
the project site shall be in accordance with
all applicable provisions of the grading
Final • August 2014 3-26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
and building codes of the City of
Newport Beach, the applicable CBC, and
all of the recommendations of the project
civil and geotechnical consultants
involved in the final site development.
• Geoteebmeal Design Parameters for
Mat Foundations. To minimize
the adverse effects of
earthquake -induced settlements
and provide repairable
foundation systems after the
design earthquake, structural
mat slab(s) are recommended to
support the proposed structures.
- Corrective Grading. Existing fill
and alluvial soils shall be
excavated beneath the entire
footprint of the structures to a
minimum depth of at least 4
feet below the planned mat
foundation. Removals shall
extend laterally to at least 5
feet from the base of the
outside of the mat foundation.
Artificial fill/alluvium derived
from the excavated soils shall
be compacted to a minimum
of 92% relative compaction
per ASTM 1557.
- Design Parameters. An
Final 0 August 2014 3-27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
allowable net static bearing
capacity of 2,000 pounds per
square foot may be used for
design of the mat
foundation(s). A lateral
sliding coefficient of 0.35 is
recommended. The mat
thickness and amount of
reinforcement shall be
determined by a Registered
(Structural) Engineer in the
State of California.
• Moisture Vapor Barriers. Due to
the existing shallow
groundwater table, a vapor
barrier equivalent to Stego 15
shall be utilized and installed in
accordance with the Report of
Geotechnical Investigation, Ijdo
House Hotel —City Hall Site Reuse
Pr ject, 3300 Nenport Boulevard,
City ofNenportBeach, California.
• Wlater Vapor Transmission. The
moisture vapor barrier is
intended only to reduce
moisture vapor transmissions
from the soil beneath the
concrete and is consistent with
the current standard of the
industry for construction in
Final 0 August 2014 3-28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
southern California. It is not
intended to provide a
"waterproof' or "vapor proof'
barrier or reduce vapor
transmission from sources
above the barrier. Sources
above the barrier include any
sand placed on top of the barrier
(i.e., to be determined by the
project structural designer) and
from the concrete itself (i.e.,
vapor emitted during the curing
process).
• Floor Coverings. Prior to the
placement of flooring, the floor
slabs shall be properly cured and
tested to verify that the water
vapor transmission rate (WVTR)
is compatible with the flooring
requirements.
• Concrete. Minimum Type II/V
cement along with a maximum
water/cement ratio of 0.50 and
a minimum compressive
strength of 4,000 psi shall be
used for all structural
foundations in contact with the
on -site soils. In addition, wet
curing of the concrete as
described in American Concrete
Final 0 August 2014 3-29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
du
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
Institute (ACl) Publication 308
shall be considered. All
applicable codes, ordinances,
regulations, and guidelines shall
be followed in regard to
designing a durable concrete
with respect to the potential for
detrimental exposure from the
on -site soils and/or changes in
the environment.
• Site Wall and Retaining Wall Design
Criteria.
- Retaining Wall Design
Parameters. Retaining walls
shall be designed in
accordance with the
calculations provided in the
Report of Geotechnical
Investigation, Lido House Hotel —
City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300
port Boulevard, City of
New
New
port Beach, California.
- Screen Walls. For standard
screen walls on flat ground,
footings shall be a minimum
of 24 inches deep below the
lowest outside adjacent grade.
Wall foundations shall be
reinforced with two #4 bars
top and bottom, and joints in
Final 0 August 2014 3-30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
the wall shall be placed at
regular intervals on the order
of 10 to 20 feet. The wall
foundation shall be underlain
by at least a 2-foot-thick
section of engineered fill.
• Pole Foundations. Pole
foundations shall be at least 18
inches in diameter and at least 3
feet deep; however, the actual
dimensions shall be determined
by the project structural
engineer based on the design
parameters provided in the
Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Lido House Hotel —City Hall Site
Reuse Project, 3300 Nenport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach,
California.
• Swimming Pool and Shia
Recommendations.
- Allowable Bearing and Lateral
Earth Pressures. The pool and
spa shells may be designed
using an allowable bearing
value of 1,500 pounds per
square foot. Due to the low
expansive nature of the on -
site soils, pool and spa walls
Final 0 August 2014 3-31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
�gwPo.4
� T City of Newport Beach
d� Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
shall be designed assuming
that an earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid having a
density of 75 pounds per
cubic foot is acting on the
outer surface of the pool
walls. Pool and spa walls shall
also be designed to resist
lateral surcharge pressures
imposed by any adjacent
footings or structures in
addition to the above lateral
earth pressure.
- Settlement. It is anticipated that
the swimming pool would be
underlain by engineered fill.
The swimming pool shall be
supported by a minimum of 2
feet of engineered fill. The
project structural engineer
shall consider resisting
buoyancy forces due to the
potential groundwater table
oscillations, which may occur
during the life time of the
pool.
- Temporary Access Ramps. All
backftll placed within
temporary access ramps
extending into the pool and
spa excavations shall be
Final 0 August 2014 3-32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
properly compacted and
tested in order to mitigate
excessive settlement of the
backfill and subsequent
damage to concrete decking
or other structures placed on
the backfill.
- Pool and Spa Bottoms. If
unsuitable soils are
encountered, the bottom of
the pool or spa excavation
may need to be overexcavated
and replaced to pool subgrade
with compacted fill. As an
alternative, the reinforcing
steel in the area of a transition
area may be increased to
account for the differences in
engineering properties and the
potential differential behavior.
- Plumping. All plumbing and
spa fixtures shall be absolutely
leak -free. Drainage from deck
areas shall be directed to local
area drains and/or graded
earth swales designed to carry
runoff water to the adjacent
street. Heavy-duty pipes and
flexible couplings shall be
used for the pool plumbing
system to minimize leaking
Final 0 August 2014 3-33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
which may produce additional
pressures on the pool shell. A
pressure valve in the pool
bottom shall be installed to
mitigate potential buildup of
pressure.
- Cement Types. For moderately
corrosive soils, cement shall
be Type II/V and concrete
shall have a minimum water
to cement ratio of 0.50.
• Pool and Spa Decking.
- Thickness and Joint Spacing.
Concrete pool and spa
decking shall be at least 5
inches thick and provided
with construction joints or
expansion joints every 6 feet
or less. All open construction
joints in pool and spa decking
shall be sealed with an
approved waterproof, flexible
joint sealer. Pool and spa
decking shall be underlain by
a layer of crushed rock, gravel,
or clean sand having a
minimum thickness of 5
inches.
Final 0 August 2014 3-34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
M
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
ResponsibilityAL
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
- Keinforcement. Concrete pool
and spa decking shall be
reinforced with No. 4 bars
spaced 18 inches on centers,
both ways. The
reinforcement shall be
positioned near the middle of
the slabs by means of
concrete chairs or brick.
Reinforcing bars shall be
provided across all joints to
mitigate differential vertical
movement of the slab
sections. Structurally tying
the decking to the pool wall is
highly recommended and
would require structural
reinforcement of the decking
and consideration for
additional loading on the pool
wall. If doweling is not
performed, differential
movement shall be
anticipated.
- Subgrade Preparation. Subgrade
soils below concrete decking
shall be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction
of 92% and then thoroughly
watered to achieve a moisture
content that is at least 2%
over optimum. This moisture
Final 0 August 2014 3-35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
content shall extend to a
depth of approximately 12
inches into the subgrade soils
and be maintained in the
subgrade during concrete
placement to promote
uniform curing of the
concrete. Moisture
conditioning shall be achieved
with sprinklers or a light spray
applied to the subgrade over a
period of several days just
prior to pouring concrete.
Soil density and presoaking
shall be observed, tested, and
accepted by a Geotechnical
Engineer prior to pouring the
concrete.
• Concrete Flatwork Design.
- Thickness and Joint Spadng.
Concrete walkways and patios
shall be at least 4 inches thick
and provided with
construction joints or
expansion joints every 5 feet
or less. Concrete walkways
and patios shall be underlain
by a 4-inch-thick layer of
Class 2 crushed aggregate base
(CAB), crushed miscellaneous
base (CMB), or clean sand
Final 0 August 2014 3-36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
having a sand equivalent of at
least 30, which shall then be
placed on top of the soil
subgrade, moisture
conditioned to at least 2%
over optimum moisture, and
compacted to at least 90%
relative compaction.
- Reinforcement. Concrete
walkways and patios shall be
reinforced with No. 3 bars
spaced 18 inches on centers,
both ways. The
reinforcement shall be
positioned near the middle of
the slabs by means of
concrete chairs or brick.
Reinforcing bars shall be
provided across all joints to
mitigate differential vertical
movement of the slab
sections. Walkways and
patios shall also be dowelled
into adjacent curbs using 9-
inch speed dowels with No. 3
bars or '/a -inch steel or
fiberglass bars at 18 inches on
centers. If doweling is not
performed, differential
movement shall be
anticipated.
Final 0 August 2014 3-37 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
- Subgrade Preparation. The
subgrade soils below concrete
walkways and patios shall be
compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 92%
and then thoroughly watered
to achieve a moisture content
that is at least 2% over
optimum. This moisture
content shall extend to a
depth of approximately 12
inches into the subgrade soils
and be maintained in the
subgrade during concrete
placement to promote
uniform curing of the
concrete. Moisture
conditioning shall be achieved
with sprinklers or a light spray
applied to the subgrade over a
period of several days just
prior to pouring concrete.
Soil density and presoaking
shall be observed, tested, and
accepted by a Geotechnical
Engineer prior to pouring the
concrete.
• Pavement DMen Considerations.
- As
pbalt Pavement Design. Based
on an anticipated R-value of
40, which shall be obtained
Final 0 August 2014 3-38 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
after precise grading of
pavement subgrade areas, the
following pavement
thicknesses shall be
anticipated:
Asphalt pavement structural
sections shall consist of CMB
or CAB and asphalt concrete
materials (AC) of a type
meeting the minimum City of
Newport Beach requirements.
The subgrade soils shall be
moisture conditioned to a
minimum 2% above the
optimum moisture content to
a depth of at least 6 inches,
and compacted to at least 92%
relative compaction (per
ASTM 1557). The CMB or
CAB and AC should be
compacted to at least 95%
relative compaction (per
ASTM 1557).
- Concrete Pavement Design.
Driveways and appurtenant
Asphalt
Aggrega
Location
R-
Value
Traffic
Index
Concrete
to Base
inches
inches
Car
Pazking
40 4.0
3.0 4.0
Stalls
Drive
Aisles
40 5.5
4.0 6.0
Final 0 August 2014 3-39 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
concrete paving, such as trash
receptacle bays, would require
Portland cement concrete
(PCC) pavement. Assuming a
Traffic Index (TI) of 6 to 7, a
design section of 8 inches of
PCC over 6 inches aggregate
base (AB) shall be adequate.
The AB shall be Class 2
compacted to a minimum of
95% relative compaction as
per ASTM D 1557.
- Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)
Alternative Pavement for Parking
Areas. For re -grading of
parking areas it is
recommended that the most
efficient pavement
rehabilitation alternative to
replacement with a
conventional asphalt over
base pavement section would
be to utilize what is called
"full depth reclamation"
(FDR) utilizing a 12-inch-
thick section of site reclaimed
on -site AC and AB mixed
with 6% cement to provide
the new base for a new 4-
inch-thick AC layer to be
paved on top.
Final 0 August 2014 3-40 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
- Permeable Interlocking Concrete
Pavement (PICP). The
structural base thickness for
permeable interlocking
concrete pavers in designated
parking areas shall be
designed by the project civil
engineer in order to meet
storage requirements. This
minimum section assumes a
TI of up to 6.3 (assumes a TI
of 5.5 for the mixed use of the
drive areas in this portion of
the site) and calls for a 31/8
inch (80 mm) concrete paver,
over compacted layers of 2
inches of bedding course sand
(ASTM No. 8 aggregate), over
4 inches of ASTM No. 57
stone as open -graded base,
over 6 inches of ASTM No. 2
stone as open -graded sub
base, over a Class 1 geotextile
fabric (highest strength) per
AASHTO M-288. A Class 1
geotextile fabric (highest
strength) shall be placed both
vertically at the sides of all
PICP excavations and on top
of the compacted subgrade
soil below the stone sub -base
layer in order to protect the
bottom and sides of the open -
Final 0 August 2014 3-41 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
graded base and sub -base.
This geotextile fabric must
meet AASHTO M-288 Class
1 geotextile strength property
and subsurface drainage
requirements (see attached
Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 from
Manual (2011) for AASHTO
M-288 requirements).
- Concrete Interlocking Vehicular
and Pedestrian Pavers. Portions
of the project site would
utilize 31/8-inch-thick (80 mm.)
vehicular concrete
interlocking pavers placed on
a section of at least 1-inch-
thick bedding sand. These
vehicular pavers are also
planned in order to provide
City of Newport Beach Fire
Department vehicle access
capable of supporting 72,000
pounds of imposed loading.
The on -site soil subgrade in
these site vehicular areas shall
be scarified to a depth of 6
inches, moisture conditioned
to at least 2% above the
optimum moisture content,
and compacted to at least
92% relative compaction. A
Final 0 August 2014 3-42 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi
600X or equivalent shall be
placed on top of the
compacted subgrade across
the entire vehicular
interlocking paver area. Based
upon the on -site soils having
an estimated R-value of 40, a
12-inch-thick layer of Class 2
CAB, CMB, or equivalent
shall be moisture conditioned
to at least optimum moisture
and compacted to at least
95% relative compaction in
order to support the
interlocking pavers. Concrete
bands adjacent to the
vehicular interlocking pavers
shall consist of a design
section of 8 inches of PCC
over at least 6 inches of AB or
equivalent, moisture
conditioned to at least
optimum moisture, and
compacted to at least 95%
relative compaction.
In certain designated site
pedestrian areas, 2%-inch-
thick (60 mm.) concrete
interlocking pavers placed on
a section of at least 1-inch-
thick bedding sand are
Final 0 August 2014 3-43 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
planned. Prior to the
installation of the pavers and
bedding sand in these
pedestrian areas, the on -site
soil subgrade shall be scarified
to a depth of 6 inches,
moisture conditioned to at
least 2% above the optimum
moisture content, and
compacted to at least 92%
relative compaction. A 4-
inch-thick layer of Class 2
CAB, CMB, or equivalent
shall then be placed on top of
the soil subgrade, moisture
conditioned to at least
optimum moisture, and
compacted to at least 95%
relative compaction in order
to support the interlocking
pavers in these pedestrian
areas.
Geotechnical Observation and Testing
Additional site testing and final design
evaluation shall be conducted by the
project geotechnical consultant to refine
and enhance the recommendations
contained in Report of Geotechnical
Investigation, Lido House Hotel —City Hall
Site Reuse Prelect, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
City qf Neuport Beach, Cali ornia during the
Final 9 August 2014 3-44 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
following stages of construction and
precise grading:
• During site clearing and
grubbing.
• During all site grading and fill
placement.
• During removal of any buried
lines or other subsurface
structures.
• During all phases of excavation.
• During shoring installation.
• During installation of foundation
and floor slab elements.
• During all phases of corrective,
ground improvement, and
precise grading including
removals, scarification, ground
improvement and preparation,
moisture conditioning,
proofrolling, overexcavation,
FDR treatment, and placement
and compaction of all fill
materials.
Final 0 August 2014 3-45 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Number
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials
Date
Remarks
• During backfill of structure walls
and underground utilities.
• During pavement and hardscape
section placement and
compaction.
• When any unusual conditions are
encountered.
Grading plan review shall also be
conducted by the project geotechnical
consultant and the Director of the City of
Newport Beach Building Department or
designee prior to the start of grading to
verify that the recommendations
developed during the geotechnical design
evaluation have been appropriately
incorporated into the project plans.
Design, grading, and construction shall be
conducted in accordance with the
specifications of the project geotechnical
consultant as summarized in a final report
based on the CBC applicable at the time
of grading and building and the City of
Newport Beach Building Code. On -site
inspection during grading shall be
conducted by the project geotechnical
consultant and the City Building Official
to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project
Tans.
Final 9 August 2014 3-46 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
GEO-2
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
City Building
Prior to
City Building
Prior to Issuance
City of Newport Beach Building Official
Official
Issuance of a
Official or
of a Building
or designee shall verify that the City has
Building Permit
Designee
Permit
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.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1
Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos
Applicant
Prior to
Prior to
survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos
Demolition
Community
Demolition
Hazard Emergency Response Act
Activities
Development
Activities
(AHERA) and California Division of
Department
Occupational Safety and Health
(Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector
to determine the presence or absence of
Final 9 August 2014 3-47 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
HAZ-2
If paint is separated from building
Applicant
During
Community
During
materials (chemically or physically) during
Demolition
Development
Demolition
demolition of the structures, the paint
Activities
Department
Activities
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.
HAZ-3
Any transformers to be removed or
Contractor
Prior to Utility
Contractor/
Prior to Utility
relocated during grading/construction
Relocation
Southern
Relocation
activities shall be evaluated under the
Activities
California
Activities
Final 9 August 2014 3-48 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141.17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
hk
Initials
Date
Remarks
purview of the local utility purveyor
Edison
(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.
HAZ-4
The Contractor shall verify that all
Contractor
During
Community
During
imported soils, and on -site soils proposed
Construction
Development
Construction
for fill, are not contaminated with
Department
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.).
HAZ-5
If unknown wastes or suspect materials
Contractor
During
Community
During
are discovered during construction by the
Construction
Development
Construction
contractor that are believed to involve
Department
hazardous waste or materials, the
contractor shall comply with the
following:
• Immediately cease work in the
vicinity of the suspected
Final 0 August 2014 3-49 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
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 City Engineer).
The Hazardous Waste/Materials
Coordinator shall advise the
responsible party of further
actions that shall be taken, if
required.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HWQ-1
Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as
Applicant
Prior to
Community
Prior to Issuance
part of the project's compliance with the
Issuance of
Development
of Grading
NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent
Grading Permit
Department
Permit
(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.
HWQ-2
The proposed project shall conform to
Applicant
During
Community
During
the requirements of an approved Storm
Construction
Development
Construction
Final 9 August 2014 3-50 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
na.''1141-17
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
Cq
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Timing
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Number
Responsibility
Responsibility
Initials
Date
Remarks
Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Department
(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 .
HWQ-3
Upon completion of project construction,
Applicant
Prior to
Community
Prior to Issuance
the project applicant shall submit a Notice
Issuance of a
Development
of a Building
of Termination (NOT) to the State Water
Building Permit
Department
Permit
Resources Quality Control Board
(SWRCB) to indicate that construction is
completed.
HWQ-4
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
Applicant
Prior to
Building
Prior to Issuance
project applicant shall submit a Final
Issuance of a
Official or
of a Grading
Water Quality Management Plan for
Grading Permit
designee
Permit
approval by the City Building Official that
complies with the requirements of the
latest Orange County Public Works
Drainage Area Management Plan.
Final 9 August 2014 3-51 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Final 9 August 2014 3-52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.0 Errata
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
4.0 ERRATA
Changes to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) are noted below. A double - underline indicates additions to the text; strikeout indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Wonse to Comments of the Final EIR. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and, where appropriate, by paragraph.
These errata address the technical comments on the Draft EIR, which circulated from April 29, 2014 through June 13, 2014. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft EIR.
Any changes referenced to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR text also apply to Section 1_0, Executive Summary and Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Uortinn Program of the Final EIR.
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—Serviees. 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.
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.
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 Sevviees. 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.
Final • August 2014 4-1 Errata
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
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 Director Department/City Traffic Engj The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following:
• Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation.
• Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project.
• Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction -related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas.
• Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays.
• Use of local streets shall be prohibited.
• Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic.
• If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • All constructed -related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on -site or in public parking lots.
This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach requirements.
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 Dif-eeter Department. The Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following and be implemented at all times:
Final • August 2014 4-2 Errata
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
• 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.
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the
8f€eial 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 at least twice daily 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;
Final • August 2014 4-3 Errata
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
• Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes.
Alternatively a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; • On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; • 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.
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 City of Newport Beaeh EfMinee Community Development Department on hauling activities compliance.
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 City Engineer). The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required.
Final • August 2014 4-4 Errata
EXHIBIT C
Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No.
ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
16-22
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Contact
Emai
Lido House Hotel
June 17, 2016
O�
c,�L1 F W OP
Lead Agency:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
Phone: (949) 644-3210
I: [email protected]
16-23
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. 16-24
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Imoact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Previous Environmental Document............................................................ 1
2.0 Description of Project Modifications................................................................ 7
2.1 Addendum's Purpose and Need................................................................ 7
2.2 Location of Project Modifications............................................................... 8
2.3 Components of Project Modifications......................................................... 8
2.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review ............................................ 11
3.0 Environmental Assessment.............................................................................13
3.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare....................................................................... 13 3.2
Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................ 14 3.3
Air Quality................................................................................................ 14 3.4
Biological Resources............................................................................... 15 3.5
Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 15 3.6
Geology and Soils.................................................................................... 16 3.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................... 17 3.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................... 17 3.9
Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................... 18 3.10
Land Use and Planning............................................................................ 19 3.11
Mineral Resources................................................................................... 20 3.12
Noise........................................................................................................20
3.13 Population and Housing........................................................................... 20 3.14
Public Services........................................................................................ 21 3.15
Recreation............................................................................................... 21 3.16
Transportation/Circulation........................................................................21
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................... 22 4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion........................................................... 23
5.0 Addendum Preparation Sources/References................................................. 25 16-25
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
EXHIBITS
1. Regional Vicinity Map................................................................................................. 4
2. Site Vicinity Map......................................................................................................... 5
3. Previous Conceptual Plan.......................................................................................... 6
4. Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Project)............................................................ 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Traffic Impact Memorandum
16-26
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lido House Hotel Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project"). The Newport Beach City Council certified the Lido House Hotel EIR (referred to herein as the "EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) and approved the Lido House Hotel Project on September 9, 2014. After certifying the EIR, City Council granted the following project approvals:
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002
• Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001
• Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012-003
• Site Development Review No. SD2014-001
• Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004
• Traffic Study No. TS2014-005
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003
The Applicant is currently requesting amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet by 4,745 gross square feet.
The new maximum would be 103,470 gross square feet. The proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the "Proposed Modified Project." This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach (City), in the western portion of Orange County; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map. The project involves a 4.25- acre site (3300 Newport Boulevard) located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map.
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
The City of Newport Beach prepared an EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from the Approved Project, which included approval of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. The EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the
16-27
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City.
The purpose of the EIR was to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects.
The proposed 130-room Lido House Hotel would be constructed on the site of the former City Hall; refer to Exhibit 3, Previous Conceptual Plan. The proposed 98,725 square foot hotel would include meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool and recreational areas, and all required appurtenant facilities including, but not limited to on -site parking, landscaping, utilities, and adjoining public improvements. The project would also provide 148 surface parking spaces and would accommodate additional parking through active parking management including valet parking service. The project also included the reconfiguration of the public parking along 32nd Street by incorporating angled parking and increasing the overall street parking spaces from 79 to 80, and to improve the flow of vehicle circulation. The proposed structures would be approximately four -stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height. The project would also include public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities proposed to be located along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street.
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days.
The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on April 29, 2014, and ended June 13, 2014. A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on November 20, 2013 at the former City Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard. The City's Planning Commission then considered the Draft EIR on August 11, 2014, and the City Council approved the EIR on September 9, 2014.
The EIR identified potential impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the project and provided measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.
On October 7, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the proposed City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment with suggested modifications. At the October meeting, the Coastal Commission also approved Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 for the Lido House Hotel. The "Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit" (the COP) included five standard conditions and eight special conditions.
Special Condition No. 6 addressed lower cost overnight accommodations mitigation and a mitigation fee of $1,415,232.00. The fee would be paid to the Coastal Commission or other qualified entity to provide lower cost overnight accommodations in the area. The City proposed the Fostering Interest in Nature (FiiN) program as a recreation and educational program that would include overnight accommodations at the Newport Dunes Resort.
16-28
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
The Coastal Commission also modified the proposed CLUP land use category from Mixed Use (MU) to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV). Overall, the Coastal Commission approved the following:
"Former City Hall Complex at 3300 Newport Blvd and 475 32nd Street (the site). - At least 75% of the total area of the site shall be 35 feet in height or lower. • Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height with the peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers up to 60 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not adversely impact public views.
• Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may be up to 65 feet in height.
• Buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the site. • Buildings and structures over 45 feet in height, architectural features, shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the total area of the site. • With the exception of a fire station, all buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall be setback a minimum of 60 feet from the Newport Boulevard right-of-way and 70 feet from the 32nd Street right- of-way.
• A fire station may be located in its current location and may be up to 40 feet in height. A fire station may include architectural features up to 45 feet in height to house and screen essential equipment. "
Although the modified language was more restrictive than that proposed by the City, it did not change the approved Lido House Hotel project and it also would facilitate a future reconstructed fire station. As a result, the Planning Commission and staff had no concerns with the changes. When the City approved the CLUP amendment to mixed - use, the General Plan and Zoning Code were also amended. Given the change to the CLUP, the General Plan land use category and Zoning Code needed to be modified to be consistent. Given that the intensity of use did not change, there were no issues related to Charter Section 423 (Measure S). The changes to the allowed uses within the zoning district applicable to the project mirrored the CV (Commercial Visitor -Serving) zone. Staff also modified the development standards relative to the more restrictive height limits imposed by the Coastal Commission. On November 5, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Amendments as modified by the Coastal Commission. At the conclusion of a noticed public hearing, the Commission approved the amendments and made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999 recommending City Council approval of the proposed changes to the Amendments.
16-29
San
\\ Torrance
* - Project Site
Lancaster
i
i
395
Palmdale
Adela'to
i
15 14
i 18
Victorville Apple Valley
'
2a7
1 I
Hesperia
I 138
I
L 0 S A N G E L. E S
I
I
SAN BERNAR DIN O
C O U N T Y
C O U N T Y
10 /
San
rbank
15 Bernardino
Pasadena 210 Glendora
Rancho
Fontana
2 Cucamonga
Rialto Redlands
10 West
Pom na Ontario
215 10
CovinaLos
--
_ _
Z _
5o
D�aBand
Chino
— —
Angeles e05
r
Lll
Riverside
Whittier
710 57
YOrba
I
71 91
Moreno 60 Beaumont
105 ,
go Linda `
5 �
\ Norco
Valley
Fullerton
91 91
Corona
\�
I)
Orange
RIVERSIDE
405 Garden Anahei
55 Perris C 0 U N T Y
Grove
22 � � I
74 Sun Hemet
— Santa
O R A N G E
city
�—
Long Ana
C O U N T Y —
Beach
Irvine
Huntington
405
%
Lake 215
Beach
/
Elsinore
15 73
5 Newport
74 Beach
1 Murrieta
Laguna
Beach
San Juan
Temecula
Capistrano
\
A9c
Dana--
-- ---
c�
Point
c
O cF
San
Clemente
Fallbrook
S A N D I E G 0
C O U N T Y
NOT TO SCALE
INTER ' Q
05/16•JN 15376E
Oceanside
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Regional Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1
16-30
- _--�,-.,,a�r.an-.:. �--y,--r•r' �.��%YI Ti �•e � � \ Y 1•...-��=•'17 � '' \, �,_%� '}ram\• f 1 �' � :� IV
Al
c
/!1C
�/� '1., Y'.�."�_•...�,,.�� .Dagf. � � ;t ice' •� � t�`"-'-:.-�;_ !. 'a p ,.p; �� �,'�4' ��f�,• �$.r , r` rl.� # •w � .',• r��-ghw`?Y -e. '" � /�.,`-•� _,i�..�l.+�. ._y tr •,�%....7/ y� Y', � ` � . ram'' � ',� zqqw
v
1 r
'.y�'�t _ `�•` . .ter _ � r R i;• / 3 `(�... •� t ,`
p /
Ilk
131
�_ '+f �V'✓� �''�\ .1`� Y�~�♦ .t„�, wf � � � -.; A': ,i t�. � t ""r� ..��.,�, tom,.
Orr
a� ,� r ti �rLY"J 40
i k s
r1,
A jar
� •'���, �' � `fir -32n �.e .r ,� �`�.�_----� �,.� . ',�;� '���. . � t 1,
♦ f' t
Michael Baker Ill— _ ` i U
.r+ PRO —
"AD w.,Ar of
IT
` "
F 4Lr=Y AVE
_ bt\E.Y'E5
LIT O.ATILTO
vAl .aY
� v.
•= I
9 WE
(Ro.)
t°
r
t7
PROP (a L "4!- t= a a
or, ,
siaL 4 r
_.
0 it
q
-"a-!
y
I °
- -WftV44 w,dE mw
1 � a
i
u,
j•
_
ime
)t
-.
'101, M I;
z.w
I r`
(A" IS 0v
. m
nT Ago
�ma w as
iq RFi�
lKM]H
f "M --- r4 t4 L<ii
!t.-
.M EG Enu p i 7-4 74C.—i� ^---+—
nrl 3TRFEE
„ . _ —1- )
L--------
t
y.uiva. 17=3
Source: WATG Architecture I Landscape.
NOT TO SCALE
INTER®
105116 - JN 153768
FROM APPROVED CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
PLANS: CDP #5-14-1785
AREA SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 AREA = 30,971 SF
LEVEL 2 AREA = 30,873 SF
LEVEL 3 AREA = 24,331 SF
LEVEL 4 AREA = 12,550 SF
TOTAL = 98.725 SF
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE = 98.725 SF
PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM
AREAS:
RETAIL
856 SF
RESTAURANT+ FOOD B BEVERAGE
3.195 SF
FUNCTION SPACE
4.453 SF
SPA 8 WELLNESS
1.925 SF
10.429 SF
GROUND LEVEL PARKING:
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES = 148
L2
L4
'N"
ROOF
GUESTROOM SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 =5 Guestrooms
LEVEL 2 = 54 Guestrooms
LEVEL 3 = 48 GuestmirTs
LEVEL 4 = 23 Guestrooms
TOTAL = 130 Guestm,",6
GUESTROOM MIX:
STD. KING = 58
STD. DBL. QUEEN = 54
SUITES = 18
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Previous Conceptual Plan
Exhibit 3
16-32
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
2.1 ADDENDUM'S PURPOSE AND NEED
When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an addendum may be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]).
16-33
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
As discussed below, none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications.
Circulation of an addendum for public review is not necessary (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision -making body (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)).
CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
2.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The Project Modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site identified and described in the EIR for the Approved Project. The project site is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City.
2.3 COMPONENTS OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The Proposed Modified Project is depicted in Exhibit 4, Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Project). It is identical to the Approved Project in the following respects:
• Acreage for the development would remain unchanged (4.25 acres). • The number of guest rooms would remain unchanged (130 rooms). • The surface parking spaces would remain unchanged (148 spaces). The reconfiguration of the public parking along 32nd Street would also remain the same. • The proposed structures would remain largely unchanged (approximately four - stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height).
16-34
i//
rL I I y
F
r j l
weer "' r
FURCTWI � yj}��'`
VA
ry � fegt}`rMc--
V ! w.elOYe[ SiMBFe15 u4(
-
S..
FIDICilOe � —
+ F 00
—
t
MAC -77
i
3�n STRE€T
SOurCe: WAI U Architecture I Le00SC3pe.
NOT TO SCALE
INTER NATION AL
05/16 • JN 153768
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DESIGN AS OF 4/1/2016
AREA SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 AREA = 35.219 SF
LEVEL 2 AREA = 30.846 SF
LEVEL 3 AREA = 25,160 SF
: cuo w noon .o owr o.-
w rwa.= :w.Yru ar
(AREA INCREASE FROM CDP APPROVAL = 4.745 SF)
PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM AREAS:
RETAIL 1,047 SF
RESTAURANT! FOOD & BEVERAGE 3,200 SF
FUNCTION SPACE 3,527 SF
SPA & WELLNESS 1,925 SF
9,699 SF
GROUND LEVEL PARKING:
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES = 148
L4
GUESTROOM SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 = 5 Guestrooms
LEVEL 2 = 54 Guestrooms
LEVEL 3 = 50 Guestrooms
GUESTROOM MIX:
STD. KING = 71
STD. DBL. QUEEN = 44
SUITES = 15
•
.R � '-its-r=
ti
L
yr
L37
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Proiect)
Exhibit 4
16-35
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
• Construction phasing would be similar to the construction phasing described in the EIR.
• The spa and wellness center are would remain unchanged (1,925 square feet). • Open space areas and setbacks would remain unchanged. • The ground level area increase is contained within the existing covered arcade areas and the second level area increase matches the same facade profile as the approved City and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) plans.
The following describes those minor or technical changes that comprise the Proposed Modifications. The Proposed Conceptual Plan for the Proposed Modified Project differs from the Approved Project in the following respects:
• The exterior pre -function space in front of the ballroom is proposed to be enclosed and become interior space. Similar to the pre -function space included in the CDP approved plans, this area is not calculated into the 'function space' area. The pre - function area has decreased in size from that shown in the approved CDP plans. • The Lobby is proposed to become larger by pushing the entry doors out at both the north and south sides. This would create more circulation space within the lobby.
• The Front of House office area is proposed to be enlarged to add some Back of House offices.
• The spa sitting area is proposed to be enlarged to create a more generous relaxation space. The proposed spa square footage remains unchanged. • The remaining level 1 proposed area increase is in the Back of House and enlarges office space as well as storage areas.
• The level 2 proposed area increase is utilized to enlarge two King Guestrooms into King Suites. No increase in the quantity of total guestrooms is proposed.
The Proposed Modified Project also requests any necessary previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Development Review No. SD2014-001, Conditional Use Permit No.
Study No. TS2014-005, and Environmental Impact Report No.
Clearinghouse No. 2013111022). The proposed changes to
substantial and do not involve new approvals or amendme Commission's certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3.
amendments to the
Hotel including Site
UP2014-004, Traffic
ER2014-003 (State
the project are not
nts to the Coastal
16-36
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
2.4 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed in the certified EIR, the Approved Project was determined to have no impact with regard to the following impact thresholds, which are therefore not analyzed in this EIR.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
The certified EIR established that, with mitigation, the approved project would result in less -than -significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Traffic and Circulation
The EIR determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts. This Addendum will address changes resulting from implementation of the Proposed Modified Project on each of the environmental resource areas previously analyzed in the EIR.
Rage 111
16-37
This page left intentionally blank.
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
16-38
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental lmoact Report
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the Proposed Modified Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the Approved Project. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the certified EIR.
3.1 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE
The certified EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas or scenic highways. However, the certified EIR analyzed potential impacts associated with the degradation of existing visual character/quality and the introduction of light and glare. The certified EIR concluded that short-term construction activities could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts in this regard were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce impacts by requiring the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which specifies requirements for equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s).
The Approved Project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site by replacing the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex with the proposed hotel and associated parkways/landscaping. However, according to the certified EIR, it would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings, given the compatible nature of the proposed building setbacks, massing and scale, building height, and retail/restaurant and hotel uses with the surrounding land uses. The certified EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure compliance with the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
Additionally, the certified EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact from new sources of light or glare with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3 (which would reduce short-term impacts by orienting construction -related lighting away from adjacent residential areas and using minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site) and compliance with the City's Municipal Code, Section 20.30.070, which would reduce long-term (operational) light and glare impacts due to street lighting, security lights, and interior lights.
The proposed modifications would increase the square footage of the front lobby, back of house and restrooms, and retail, and the decrease in proposed square footage of the restaurant and coffee shop, function space, fitness, and guestrooms. These nominal project changes would not result in substantial changes to the overall visual character/quality of the site and its surroundings, as analyzed in the certified EIR, as the Proposed Modified Project is still proposing a hotel and associated parkways/ landscaping, on a previously developed site, and within a heavily developed area. The Wage 113
16-39
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
increase in square footage would not be visually noticeable as the ground level area increase is contained within the existing covered arcade areas and the second level area increase matches the same facade profile as the approved plans.
The proposed modifications would not substantially increase new sources of light and glare, compared to that analyzed in the certified EIR as the types and sources of lighting, lighting levels, and building materials would remain substantially the same as the Approved Project. As concluded in the certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, AES-3 and adherence to the City's Municipal Code regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Because the proposed modifications do not alter the location of the development or increase the number of rooms, or increase building height, there would be no new impacts related to scenic vistas or scenic highways. No new Mitigation Measures are required.
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The certified EIR determined that no impact to farmland, timberland, agricultural, or forest land activity would result, as these types of resources do not exist on or near the project site.
As was the case with the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would not result in any impacts to farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land. The Proposed Modified Project would result in the same land use and development as analyzed in the certified EIR, on the same project site. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts have been identified.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
As determined in the certified EIR, short-term construction emissions from the Approved Project would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants, including PM10 and PM2.5, even in the absence of specific dust reduction measures. Nonetheless, because the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the certified EIR identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which describes SCAQMD-required dust reduction measures. The certified EIR also identified Mitigation Measure AQ-2 to reduce emissions associated with the hauling of excavated or graded material. With the implementation of AQ-1 and AQ-2, the certified EIR determined that construction emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Thus, impacts were considered less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
In addition, the Approved Project's operational air quality emissions would be below SCAQMD's thresholds. The certified EIR also determined that air quality impacts from the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ- 1 and AQ-2, with regard to cumulative short-term and long-term air emissions and
16-40
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
sensitive receptors. The Approved Project was also determined to be less than significant with regard to conflicts with an applicable Air Quality Management Plan and odors.
Construction phasing for the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to the construction activities and phasing described in the certified EIR for the Approved Project.
Therefore, the construction emissions would be similar to those modeled in the certified EIR. As such, construction emissions for all criteria pollutants after incorporation of the proposed modifications would be below SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
As the number of hotel guestrooms would be consistent with the certified EIR, (130 guestrooms), regional and localized operational air emissions would not change and would remain below SCAQMD thresholds. As noted in the Transportation/Circulation section of this Addendum, the certified EIR and Proposed Modified Project would generate the same number of daily trips and peak hour trips. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The certified EIR determined that no impacts to biological resources would result as the project site is already heavily developed and landscaped with ornamental vegetation. No sensitive species or habitat were determined to be present on -site. However, the ornamental vegetation within the landscaped areas has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian species. The certified EIR Mitigation Measure B10-1 recommends vegetation removal activities to be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) or a qualified biologist may conduct a survey prior to commencement of clearing and provide an adequate buffer zone if active nests are detected. Additionally, it should be noted that the certified EIR determined that no Coastal Commission waters/wetlands are located within the project site.
According to the certified EIR, six trees on the project site have been designated by the City of Newport Beach as "special trees". Mitigation Measures B10-2, B10-3, and B10-4 provide guidance for relocating and rededicating the special trees that cannot be retained, reducing impacts to less than significant levels.
The proposed modifications would result in the same land use and development footprint as the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in additional impacts to biological resources than what was already analyzed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The certified EIR determined that no impacts to historical resources would occur as a result of the Approved Project. The project site is currently developed with non -historic
16-41
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
structures and does not hold historical significance. Given the existing disruption from prior development and the geology of the project area, any archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources within the project site have likely been disturbed during the construction of the former City Hall. Nonetheless, compliance with General Plan policies and implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any resources that could be encountered during grading and construction of future development) and CUL-2 (requiring a Certified Paleontologist to be present during earth removal or disturbance activities occurring within paleontological sensitive Vaqueros, Topanga, and Monterey Formations) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the certified EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and/or human remains were less than significant with compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 and State and Federal regulations.
The Proposed Modified Project would result in the same site disturbance activities as that previously identified in the certified EIR. The proposed modifications would not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project.
Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would likely be subject to significant earthquake ground motion, given the seismic character of the southern California region and proximity to active and potentially active faults.
Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the project site has a moderate potential for adverse effects of liquefaction due to seismically -induced settlement. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach grading and building requirements, including the most current California Building Code (CBC), and City's Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.
The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (refer to Section 3.3, Air ualit ) and compliance with NPDES requirements. With the implementation of GEO-1, impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or unstable soil, and expansive soils were also concluded to be less than significant. According to the certified EIR, on -site soils would be considered corrosive to copper unless a corrosion engineer determines otherwise. Compliance with the Building Code and Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (which requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during preparation of the Final Soils/Geotechnical Engineering Report) would reduce potential impacts associated with corrosive soils to a less than significant level. The Approved Project would not have involved the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would result in this regard.
16-42
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
The proposed modifications would result in equivalent impacts regarding geology and soils, as the proposed development area would remain the same as that previously analyzed in the certified EIR. Further, the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in adverse effects involving the exposure of persons and property to seismic activity and landslides. Similar to that identified in the certified EIR, compliance with the City of Newport Beach grading and building requirements, including the most current CBC, and City's Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As determined in the certified EIR, the Approved Project would result in approximately 2,031.2 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO2eq/yr) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold. The certified EIR determined that the project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to long-term GHG emissions.
The number of hotel guestrooms associated with the proposed modifications would be consistent with the certified EIR. As such, GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Modified Project would be the same as what was analyzed in the certified EIR. GHG emissions from the Proposed Modified Project would remain below SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold, as disclosed in the certified EIR. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
As originally documented in the certified EIR, the City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In addition, the Proposed Modified Project would result in operational GHG emissions below the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in any impacts pertaining to wildland fires, given the project site's location in a heavily developed urban area. The Approved Project operations would also not result in any significant impacts involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, given that the Approved Project proposed a hotel land use. As the Approved Project proposed redevelopment of the former Newport Beach City Hall complex, built prior to 1978, the certified EIR analyzed potential accidental releases of hazardous materials that could be present on the development site, particularly during construction. The materials considered included asbestos or lead -based paint that may be present in existing on -site structures, PCBs in an on -site transformer, and contaminated fill materials. However, the certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-4, impacts Wage 117
16-43
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
associated with these existing on -site materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-5 and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Impacts pertaining to an airport land use plan or a nearby private airstrip were determined to be not significant, as the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport Impact Zone. The certified EIR also determined that the Approved Project would not significantly impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
The proposed modifications would result in similar grading and construction activities as what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR. The certified EIR Mitigation Measures would still apply to the Proposed Modified Project. No substantial changes in the severity of impacts would result in this regard. As the project site location and the nature of the proposed operations would remain the same, potential impacts pertaining to the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not increase, compared to that analyzed in the certified EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, and HWQ-3, which would ensure adherence to construction requirements per the State, potential impacts pertaining to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and degradation of water quality during construction activities, would be less than significant. According to the certified EIR, drainage during construction and operations would have a less than significant impact on the existing storm drain infrastructure. Post -construction water quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, requiring the submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Impacts involving seiche or mudflow, would also be less than significant. Implementation of the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) would reduce potential impacts associated with the inundation by a tsunami to less than significant levels. Other impacts involving a 100-year flood plain, flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and groundwater depletion/recharge, would not result.
The proposed drainage and impervious area associated with the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to what was previously considered in the certified EIR. Like the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with City and State regulations. The certified EIR Mitigation Measures would still apply to the Proposed Modified Project. Thus, potential impacts associated with construction activities and long-term operations would be less than significant. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
16-44
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in any impacts relating to the division of an established community or conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The certified EIR proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to eliminate inconsistencies (i.e., amend the land use designation from Public Facilities [PF] to Mixed -Use [MU] and increase new development bulk and height limits). The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project is not regionally significant based on the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) criteria. Similar to the CLUP amendments, the Approved Project included a General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendment to update the land use designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal 5 (MU-H5), which would allow for development limitations of 98,725 square feet of hotel use.
The Approved Project also required a Zone Code Amendment to create a new mixed -use zoning district, Mixed Use — Lido Village (MU-LV), in order to implement the MU-H5 land use designation at the project site. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. The certified EIR determined that approval of a Land Use Element Amendment by the City would result in the project's compliance with the intended use and development limits for the MU-H5 designation. Lastly, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the Lido Village Design Standards. A less than significant impact would occur in regards to conflicting with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, the Coastal Commission modified the proposed CLUP land use category to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV) and made changes to Policy 4.4.3-1 making it more restrictive (not taller). The City accepted these changes subsequent to the Coastal Commission action and made the appropriate CEQA findings in a staff report for the November 24, 2015 City Council hearing.
The proposed modifications would be consistent with the land uses considered in the certified EIR. However, the proposed modifications would result in deviations to the total square footage of the hotel from 98,725 square feet to 103,470 square feet; a total increase of 4,745 square feet. Although the increase is minimal, the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map amendment would need to be updated to increase the development limitations in regards to total square footage of a hotel. It should be noted that the current application is to amend the General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning to increase the maximum intensity of development by 4,745 square feet. Even with approval of the amendments, the increase to the project entitlements (site development review and Conditional Use Permit) are consistent with applicable land use plans/zoning. The added area does not change the height of the building. Therefore, the project is consistent with CLUP Policy 4.4.3-1 as certified by the Coastal Commission and adopted by the City Council. The current amendment does not include a request to modify the policy. The
16-45
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
General Plan Amendment would reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. No new mitigation measures would be required.
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in no impacts pertaining to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state or to the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource.
As discussed in the certified EIR, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. The project location remains unchanged. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.12 NOISE
Short-term construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant in the certified EIR with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the City's allowable construction hours (Municipal Code Section 10.28.040). Similarly, the certified EIR determined that operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
The Approved Project is not subject to an airport land use plan or private airstrip; therefore, no impacts result in this regard.
The project footprint and construction activities for the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to those described in the certified EIR. As such, short-term construction noise would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, and compliance with the City's allowable construction hours.
The Proposed Modified Project would have a similar footprint as the Approved Project; therefore, the guestrooms would not be more impacted by traffic noise along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Additionally, the operational noise characters would remain the same as the Proposed Project Modifications would not change the characteristics or function of the Approved Project and no additional traffic trips would be created. No new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required.
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in no impact to population growth. The proposed modifications would result in the same development of the Lido House Hotel. The net increase in square footage is primarily related to Back of House space and minor functional areas which would not increase the number of anticipated employees and would not lead to an increase in population growth beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required.
16-46
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
The certified EIR determined that the development of the Lido House Hotel and associated amenities would not increase the need for additional public services.
Compliance with the provisions of the California Building Code, applicable State, City, and County code, and ordinance requirements for fire protection, as well as the General Plan Safety Element would reduce impacts to fire protection services during construction activities to less than significant levels. Additionally, the payment of statutory fees would reduce impacts to less than significant levels in regards to local school facilities.
The Proposed Modified Project would increase the square footage of the front lobby, back of house and restrooms, and retail, and decrease the proposed square footage of the restaurant and coffee shop, function space, fitness, and guestrooms. These modifications are nominal and would not increase potential impacts to public services or facilities (i.e., fire protection services, police services, etc.) at the project site beyond that analyzed in the certified EIR.
3.15 RECREATION
The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts in regards to recreational facilities. The Approved Project includes public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities, as well as recreational amenities (i.e. pool and workout room, etc.) for hotel guests. The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project did not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
The proposed modifications do not result in changes to land use or square footage of proposed public open spaces, landscape areas, and other amenities. The proposed decrease in square footage to the fitness center is nominal and would not induce additional impacts to recreational facilities. As concluded in the certified EIR, the Proposed Modified Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No new significant impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in 1,062 average daily trips (69 a.m. peak hour trips and 78 p.m. peak hour trips), resulting in less daily trips than the former City Hall Complex generated.
As discussed in the certified EIR, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) for existing plus project Rage 121
16-47
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
conditions according to agency performance criteria. Based on the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa performance criteria, a significant project impact occurs at a signalized study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D) to a deficient operation (LOS E or F). The certified EIR determined that the increase in trips would not result in conflicts with an existing plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, or conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking would ensure that parking is managed on -site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes and emergency access was determined to be less than significant. No impacts are anticipated in regards to air traffic patterns or design hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
The proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's proposed site access location, off -site circulation features, parking configuration, or trip generation (as the project modifications would result in the same number of hotel guestrooms as the Approved Project); refer to Attachment A, Traffic Impact Memorandum. Thus, no changes to the impacts previously identified would result. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to wastewater treatment exceedances, the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities, water supplies, adequate capacity by the wastewater treatment provider, landfill capacity (with continued compliance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Elements [SRRE]). Further, the certified EIR determined that with implementation of Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 through HWQ-4, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
As the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in guestrooms at the project site compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would result in the same demand on utilities and service systems as compared to what was analyzed in the certified EIR. Additionally, the proposed drainage and impervious area would be similar to that previously considered in the certified EIR. Thus, no new impacts to water demand, the wastewater treatment capacity, or landfill capacity as a result of solid waste generation would result. No new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required.
16-48
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION
As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the changes to the Approved Project considered in the certified EIR constitute minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR has occurred.
In addition, because the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts have been identified.
16-49
This page intentionally left blank.
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
16-50
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Reoort
5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES
California Coastal Commission, Addendum to the Item W9a, Application No. 5-14-1785 (RD Olson Development) for the Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 7, 2015, October 1, 2015.
California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178.
City of Newport Beach, Former City Hall Complex Land Use and Zoning Amendments for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street, and Authorization of Fostering Interest in Nature Program, November 24, 2015.
Google Earth Maps, http://maps.google.com , accessed May 2016.
Michael Baker International, Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Traffic Impact Memorandum, June 15, 2016.
RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2014.
RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 2014.
WATG Architecture, Area Summary: Approved CDP Plans Vs. Proposed Plans, May 7, 2016.
WATG Architecture, Exhibit 2 — Design as of 41112016 in Conformance with Approved Overall Plans, May 7, 2016.
16-51
This page intentionally left blank.
Lido House Hotel
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
16-52
Attachment A — Traffic Impact Memorandum
16-53
We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
MEMORANDUM
To: Eddie Torres, Michael Baker International
From: Tom Huang, TE, Michael Baker International -] _,24 Date: June 15, 2016
Subject: Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum — Traffic Impact Memorandum Introduction
The Project Applicant is currently requesting amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet by 4,745 gross square feet. The new maximum floor area would be 103,470 gross square feet. However, the number of guestrooms remains unchanged at 130 rooms. The proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the "Proposed Modified Project." This Traffic Impact Memorandum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant traffic related impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR.
Traffic Analysis
The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in 1,062 average daily trips (69 a.m. peak hour trips and 78 p.m. peak hour trips), resulting in less daily trips than the former City Hall Complex generated; refer to Table 1, Trip Generation Rates and Table 2, Project Trip Generation.
Table 1
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use (ITE Code)
Units
AM Peak Hour Rates
PM Peak Hour Rates
Daily
Trip
Rate
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Hotel (310)
Room
0.31 0.22
0.53 0.31
0.29 0.60
8.17 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.
MBAKERINTL.COM
14725 Alton Parkway I Irvine, CA 92618
Office: 949.855.3505 1 Fax: 949.330.4130
16-54
We Make o Difference
Table 2
Project Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
City Hall Complex'
118
20 138
17 116
133
1,121
130-room Hote12
40 29
69 40
38 78
1,062
Net Trip Generation
1 .78
9 1 -69
1 23
.78
.55
.59
'Source: City of Newport Beach City Hall Reuse Project, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, November 2012. 2Source: Approved Project trips estimated based on trip generation rates in Table 2.
As noted above, for a hotel use, the trip generation is calculated on a per room basis, as all of the other features (i.e., retail, restaurant, spa, function space, and back of house) are ancillary functions that support the overall use of the hotel and do not generate additional trips of their own. As the proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's room count of 130 rooms, there would be no additional trips generated beyond what was projected in the certified EIR which are shown in line 2 of Table 3. As discussed in the certified EIR, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) for existing plus project conditions according to agency performance criteria. Based on the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa performance criteria, a significant project impact occurs at a signalized study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D) to a deficient operation (LOS E or F). The certified EIR determined that the change in trips would not result in conflicts with an existing plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, or conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking would ensure that parking is managed on -site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes and emergency access was determined to be less than significant. No impacts are anticipated in regards to air traffic patterns or design hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
Conclusion
The proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's room count. As the room count would remain unchanged, there would be no additional trips generated beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. As no additional trips would be generated by the Proposed Modified Project, there would be no required changes to the approved site access location, off -site circulation features, or parking configuration. Thus, there would be no changes to the impacts previously identified in the certified EIR, no new impacts have been identified, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Lido House Hotel in City of Newport Beach
N T E R N A T I 0 N A L Lido Addendum Traffic-2016.06.15.do x Traffic Impact Memorandum 16-55
Exhibit D
Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No.
ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
Available separately due to bulk at:
https://www.newr)ortbeachca.gov/pin/CEQA REVIEW/Lido%2OHouse%2OHotel/Lido%2 OHouse EIR Addendum%202 070522.pdf
16-56
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Lido House Hotel
/F.W PO\
Lead Agency:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Contact: Mr. Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP
Phone: (949) 644-3253
Email: [email protected]
June 2022
This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources.
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location......................................................................................... 2
1.2 Previous Environmental Documents.......................................................... 2
2.0 Description of Project Modifications................................................................ 9
2.1 Addendum's Purpose and Need................................................................ 9
2.2 Location of Project Modifications............................................................. 10
2.3 Components of Project Modifications....................................................... 10
2.4 Required Discretionary Actions................................................................ 11
3.0 Environmental Assessment............................................................................. 13
3.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare....................................................................... 13 3.2
Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................ 14 3.3
Air Quality................................................................................................ 15 3.4
Biological Resources............................................................................... 17 3.5
Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 18 3.6
Energy..................................................................................................... 21 3.7
Geology and Soils.................................................................................... 22 3.8
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................... 24 3.9
Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................... 25 3.10
Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................... 27 3.11
Land Use and Planning............................................................................ 28 3.12
Mineral Resources................................................................................... 30 3.13
Noise........................................................................................................30
3.14 Population and Housing........................................................................... 32 3.15
Public Services........................................................................................ 32 3.16
Recreation............................................................................................... 33 3.17
Transportation..........................................................................................34
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................ 37 3.19
Utilities and Service Systems................................................................... 38 3.20
Wildfire.....................................................................................................38
4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion........................................................... 41
5.0 Addendum Preparation Sources/References................................................. 43 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
EXHIBITS
1. Regional Vicinity.......................................................................................................... 3
2. Local Vicinity Map....................................................................................................... 4
3. Previous Conceptual Plan........................................................................................... 5
4. Proposed Conceptual Plan (Modified Project)........................................................... 12
ATTACHMENTS
1. Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
2. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
3. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach (City) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lido House Hotel Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project"). The Newport Beach City Council certified the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report (referred to herein as the "Certified EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) and approved the Lido House Hotel Project on September 9, 2014. After certifying the EIR, City Council granted the following project approvals:
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002;
• Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001;
• Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012-003;
• Site Development Review No. SD2014-001;
• Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004;
• Traffic Study No. TS2014-005; and
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003.
Following certification of the EIR, an amendment to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit was approved in 2016 to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet (by 4,745 gross square feet) to 103,470 square feet. Environmental impacts associated with the modifications to the Approved Project were analyzed in the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel (2016 Addendum), dated June 17, 2016, and adopted by City Council on July 26, 2016.
Currently, the Applicant is requesting entitlements to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 gross square feet. The additional 15,103 gross square feet would allow development of five additional cottages in the southern portion of the site and minor improvements to the existing hotel building. The project would also demolish the Lido Fire Station No. 2 (adjacent to the Lido House Hotel) to accommodate additional on -site parking. The proposed changes to the Approved Project are referred herein as the "Modified Project." This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed Modified Project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum.
Additionally, project -specific impacts related to energy, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire were not specifically identified in the Certified EIR or 2016 Addendum as these topics were not a subject matter that required evaluation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines at the time the documents were prepared. As such, this Addendum also analyzes the Modified Project's impacts in these topical areas.
June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach (City), in the western portion of Orange County; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map. The project involves a 4.25-acre site (3300 Newport Boulevard) located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map.
The site is currently developed with the Lido House Hotel. The four-story, 103,470-square foot hotel includes 130 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool, and other recreational areas. A pedestrian plaza, landscaped areas, and other amenities complement the hotel along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street.
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
1.2.1 Lido House Hotel EIR
The City of Newport Beach prepared an EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from the Approved Project, which included approval of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. The EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City.
The purpose of the EIR was to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects.
The proposed 130-room Lido House Hotel would be constructed on the site of the former City Hall; refer to Exhibit 3, Previous Conceptual Plan. The proposed 98,725 square foot hotel would include meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool and recreational areas, and all required appurtenant facilities including, but not limited to on -site parking, landscaping, utilities, and adjoining public improvements. The project would also provide 148 surface parking spaces and would accommodate additional parking through active parking management including valet parking service. The project also included the reconfiguration of public parking along 32nd Street by incorporating angled parking and increasing the overall street parking spaces from 79 to 80, and improving the flow of vehicle circulation. The proposed structures would be approximately four stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height. The project would also include public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities proposed to be located along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street.
2 June 2022
INTERNATIONAL
QNOT TO SCALE
10/2021 A 186125
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Regional Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1
T,
Michael Baker
`I/ ;�l r ( `- �7 \• % Fs s 1, �; i� ":
,,- p `�- -may;:- "�` + ✓ - . T , , , fig+ . •g vi
r f
fic.boa t H s � �; : � ,•
iyE-
n h
* dlOY:Ile
ALt I
INN
,r
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DESIGN AS OF 4/1/2016
�..
_ PEOESIIdNI GTINNE.
AREA SUMMARY: GUESTROOM SUMMARY:
LEVEL 1 AREA = 35,219 SF LEVEL 1 = 5 Guestrooms
- LEVEL 2 AREA = 30,846 SF LEVEL 2 = 54 Guestrooms
_-- -------- - - — - -` - l•F'R� LEVEL 3 AREA = 25,160 SF LEVEL 3=50 Guestrooms LEVEL 4 AREA=12,245 SF LEVEL 4 = 21 Guestrooms
TOTAL = 103,470 SF
TOTAL = 130 Guestrooms
+ioNuuENT E��' �' (AREA INCREASE FROM CDP APPROVAL = 4,745 SF) SON +42'
xUS STOP _ PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM AREAS: GUESTROOM MIX:
PROPOSED ■
PROPERTY a o _ Ltf \ RETAIL STD. KING = 71
LINE (R.O.w.) - -- - 1,200 SF
RESTAURANT / FOOD &BEVERAGE 3,SF STD. DBL. QUEEN = 44
p c FUNCTION SPACE 3,52527 SF SUITES = 15
SPA &WELLNESS 1,925 SF
LOSBY ` 9,699 SF
FUN ON AIL a FNNESS c
© ® ❑ ❑ o ❑ p p E GROUND LEVEL PARKING:
SPA - TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES = 148
/ c ❑ `
NEY8LW •:Nip INT-,F O YARD
MLL REENNG 150"'ESOUE
O C%CEOUFE S EREP-ACCESS h
PRE
' I IRON
UT
FUNCTION. c ! 4 u 1917
rR,,: I ill L2 L3
(,tow x' LL—
� 20' S nkS
RETAIL e,
Fl%i OP NRi
\\ `� DIV .-ANT C.
T
07 / NO P-mG ON 9TE
_ �� --
e/�
--.
n .. _- 3 STF
I `PRuosd Tna 1
-- — P NI
L4
Source: WATG Architecture I Landscape.
rmmmrrm I Q NOT TO SCALE
INTERNATIONAL
10/2021 JN 186125
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Previous Conceptual Plan
Exhibit 3
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
The Lido House Hotel Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated April 2014, was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations.
The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on April 29, 2014, and ended June 13, 2014. A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on November 20, 2013 at the former City Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard. The City's Planning Commission then considered the EIR on August 11, 2014, and the City Council certified the EIR on September 9, 2014.
The Certified EIR identified potential impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the project and provided measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.
On October 7, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the proposed City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment with suggested modifications. At the October meeting, the Coastal Commission also approved Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 for the Lido House Hotel. The "Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit" (the COP) included five standard conditions and eight special conditions.
Special Condition No. 6 addressed lower cost overnight accommodations mitigation and a mitigation fee of $1,415,232.00. The fee would be paid to the Coastal Commission or other qualified entity to provide lower cost overnight accommodations in the area. The City proposed the Fostering Interest in Nature (FiiN) program as a recreation and educational program that would include overnight accommodations at the Newport Dunes Resort.
The Coastal Commission also modified the proposed CLUP land use category from Mixed Use (MU) to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV). Overall, the Coastal Commission approved the following:
"Former City Hall Complex at 3300 Newport Blvd and 475 32nd Street (the site):
• At least 75% of the total area of the site shall be 35 feet in height or lower. • Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height with the peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers up to 60 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not adversely impact public views.
• Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may be up to 65 feet in height.
• Buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the site. • Buildings and structures over 45 feet in height, architectural features, shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the total area of the site. • With the exception of a fire station, all buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall be setback a minimum of 60 feet June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
from the Newport Boulevard right-of-way and 70 feet from the 32nd Street right- of-way.
• A fire station may be located in its current location and may be up to 40 feet in height. A fire station may include architectural features up to 45 feet in height to house and screen essential equipment. "
Although the modified language was more restrictive than that proposed by the City, it did not change the approved Lido House Hotel project and it also would facilitate a future reconstructed fire station. As a result, the Planning Commission and staff had no concerns with the changes. When the City approved the CLUP amendment to mixed -use, the General Plan and Zoning Code were also amended. Given the change to the CLUP, the General Plan land use category and Zoning Code needed to be modified to be consistent. Given that the intensity of use did not change, there were no issues related to Charter Section 423 (Measure S). The changes to the allowed uses within the zoning district applicable to the project mirrored the CV (Commercial Visitor -Serving) zone. Staff also modified the development standards relative to the more restrictive height limits imposed by the Coastal Commission. On November 5, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Amendments as modified by the Coastal Commission. At the conclusion of a noticed public hearing, the Commission approved the amendments and made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999 recommending City Council approval of the proposed changes to the amendments.
1.2.2 2016 Addendum
In 2016, the Applicant requested amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. Proposed changes included increasing the hotel's maximum gross square footage by 4,745 square feet.
Specifically, the proposed changes included enclosing the previously exterior pre -function space in front of the hotel ballroom and expanding the main lobby, front and back offices, spa sitting area, storage areas, and guestroom/suites. The 2016 Addendum evaluated the proposed modifications to the Approved Project and concluded that the modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR. The 2016 Addendum was adopted and the requested amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit were approved by the City Council on July 26, 2016 and approved by the Coastal Commission on March 8, 2017. 7 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
2.1 ADDENDUM'S PURPOSE AND NEED
When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an Addendum may be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]).
9 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
As discussed below, none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an Addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications.
Circulation of an Addendum for public review is not necessary (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the Addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision -making body (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)).
CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
2.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The proposed modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site identified and described in the EIR for the Approved Project. The project site is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City.
2.3 COMPONENTS OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
The Modified Project proposes to increase the site's maximum allowed gross floor area by 15,103 gross square feet from 103,470 gross square feet to 118,573 gross square feet. The proposed modifications are depicted on Exhibit 4, Proposed Conceptual Plan (Modified Proieco, and include the following components:
• Addition of five cottages encompassing approximately 8,351 square feet in the southern portion of the site. The cottages would be three stories, ranging approximately 35 to 39 feet in height. All portions of the cottages above 35 feet are beyond the 70-foot required setback from 32nd Street. Similar to the existing cottages, the proposed building elevations include a lighthouse architectural feature, simple gable roofs, tight overhangs, simple block massing, and wood siding with a coastal architectural theme, consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
10 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
• Enclosure of approximately 1,466 square feet of storage space on Level 1. The enclosed storage space would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. • Addition of 3,481 square feet of covered walkway and pre-function/break out meeting rooms on Level 1. The expanded pre-function/break out meeting rooms would allow the hotel to host meetings in closed rooms while keeping the hotel restaurant and public spaces open for hotel guest use.
• Addition of 600 square feet for a greenhouse breakout sitting room on Level 1. • Addition of 819 square feet of guest room space on Levels 2, 3, and 4 (approximately 273 square feet each). A total of three guest rooms (one on each floor) would be enlarged and converted to suites.
• Enclosure of 386 square feet of rooftop terrace area on Level 4.
The Modified Project also proposes to demolish the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2 to accommodate additional on -site parking spaces. Currently, the hotel provides 148 on -site surface parking spaces with a valet service that accommodates up to 15 additional valet stacking spaces for a total of 163 on -site spaces. The Modified Project would reconfigure the parking lot where the five cottages are proposed. At project completion, the site would provide 146 surface parking spaces and 11 additional valet stacked spaces for a total of 157 on -site spaces. Additionally, the Modified Project will include 32 bicycle parking spaces beyond the 10 required by CalGreen, which equates to 8 vehicle parking spaces bringing the revised total to 165 parking spaces. Lastly, 14 new parking spaces are proposed for public use outside of the property boundary along Via Oporto.
Vehicular access to the site would remain similar to existing conditions with primary access provided via Newport Boulevard at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Finley Avenue. Secondary vehicular access would be provided via 32nd Street via a gated access driveway. As part of the Modified Project, the gated driveway along 32nd Street would be slightly shifted approximately 17.5 feet to the east.
2.4 REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The Modified Project requests any necessary amendments to the previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Hotel including Site Development Review No.
SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015, General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001. The proposed changes to the project are not substantial and do not involve new approvals or amendments to the Coastal Commission's certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3. 11 June 2022
All
I
1i' a - - �1a' asp r■� - ��/
is �� - •:�.� iii:ii:li:ii.i [ ' I�J!�i
i .e phi �_ �� ■.� �:�rr�■■ _ �- ii'� p
�i�i �� • -'ice
_ 1
59P' I WL:.' G>•2 [II�� ,�� I"Il•1► Cam: [tip�� - 1' F �i:n� . � vim, �� _ �c.��p�■■■ � G .. ,. - � � - -
NINE
n■■�Irnri�r■■■n■o■ror�■���6 -- ,� i
Source: WATG Architecture, June 2022
r Q NOT TO SCALE
INTERNATIONAL
06/2022 A 186125
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Proposed Conceptual Plan (Modified Project)
Exhibit 4
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the Modified Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the Approved Project. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum.
3.1 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE
The Certified EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas and scenic highways. However, the Certified EIR concluded that short-term construction activities could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts in this regard were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires preparation of a Construction Management Plan. The Certified EIR also concluded that the Approved Project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings given the compatible nature of the proposed building setbacks, massing and scale, building height, and retail/restaurant and hotel uses with the surrounding land uses. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure compliance with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. To reduce potential short- term light and glare impacts, Mitigation Measure AES-3 would require orienting construction -related lighting away from adjacent uses and utilizing minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site. The 2016 Addendum concluded that the proposed modifications to the Approved Project would result in similar aesthetics/light and glare impacts to those identified in the Certified EIR and Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3 would similarly apply.
Generally, the Modified Project would construct five additional cottages in the southern portion of the site; expand storage space, covered walkways, and pre-function/break out meeting rooms on Level 1; convert three guest rooms into suites; and create a storage enclosure on the Level 4 rooftop terrace. With the exception of the five additional cottages, these nominal project changes would not result in substantial changes to the overall visual character/quality of the site and its surroundings, as analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. The five cottages would be constructed on a portion of the hotel's existing surface parking lot and would be three stories in height, ranging from approximately 35 to 39 feet. It is acknowledged that all portions of the cottages above 35 feet are beyond the 70-foot required setback from 32nd Street. The cottages would also be architecturally designed similarly to the existing cottages on -site located adjacent (to the west) of the proposed cottages and include a lighthouse architectural feature, simple gable roofs, tight overhangs, simple block massing, and wood siding with a coastal architectural theme, consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. The proposed modifications would not substantially increase new sources of light and glare, compared 13 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
to that analyzed in the Certified EIR as the types and sources of lighting, lighting levels, and building materials would remain substantially the same as the Approved Project and existing conditions.
Overall, the Modified Project would be similar in character and complement the existing design and architectural features of the Lido House Hotel. As concluded in the Certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, AES-3 and adherence to the Municipal Code regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse aesthetic/visual impacts not previously considered and addressed.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
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 by avoiding local residential streets.
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.
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 City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit application.
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The Certified EIR determined that no impact to farmland, timberland, agricultural, or forest land activity would result, as these types of resources do not exist on or near the project site.
14 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
As was the case with the Approved Project and 2016 Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any impacts to farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land. The Modified Project proposes the same land use type as analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum on the same project site. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts have been identified.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
The Certified EIR determined upon implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ- 2, development of the Approved Project would not result in significant air quality impacts during project construction and operation in regard to project consistency with the applicable air quality management plans or result in significant cumulative air quality impacts along with implementation of other development in the project area. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed modifications.
Construction activities associated with the Modified Project would occur over approximately 17 months, with approximately 1,100 cubic yards of soils to be exported.
These project changes would not result in a substantial increase in criteria pollutant emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5, in a manner that would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds during project construction or operations. Further, it is acknowledged that Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would still apply to the Modified Project. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the project to comply with SCAQMD- required dust reduction measures, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce emissions associated with the hauling of excavated or graded material. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse construction -related air quality impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum.
While the Modified Project would construct five additional cottages on -site, long-term operational impacts from stationary sources (e.g., mechanical equipment, landscaping, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) would be similar to existing conditions and would not substantially increase operational emissions. Further, as detailed in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Lido House Hotel Expansion Project, Newport Beach (VMT Assessment), prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated November 22, 2021, the Modified Project is anticipated to generate approximately 40 daily trips; refer to Attachment 3, Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment. As a project that generates less than 300 daily vehicle trips, the Modified Project is considered to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020.
Additionally, the Modified Project proposes additional enclosed storage space on Level 1, which would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and 15 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. Consequently, operational air quality impacts from mobile sources would not be significant. As such, no new impacts are identified for the Modified Project and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations.
In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site.
Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust; • Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance;
• Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied;
• All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;
• Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area;
• Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes.
Alternatively, a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; • On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; 16 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
• 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.
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 appropriate City of Newport Beach Engineer on hauling activities compliance.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Certified EIR determined that no impacts to biological resources would result as the project site is already heavily developed and landscaped with ornamental vegetation.
However, the ornamental vegetation within the landscaped areas has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian species. Impacts in this regards were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1, which recommends vegetation removal activities be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) or a qualified biologist may conduct a survey prior to commencement of clearing and provide an adequate buffer zone if active nests are detected. Additionally, it should be noted that the Certified EIR determined that no jurisdictional resources are located within the project site.
According to the Certified EIR, six trees on the project site have been designated by the City of Newport Beach as "special trees". These include two existing ficus trees (Ficus microcarpa), two Pinus halepensis tree (one of which is dedicated to Walter Knott), a Ficus benjamina (dedicated to William Covert) and a Harpephyllum caffrum (the Freedom Tree). Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 provide guidance for relocating and rededicating the special trees that cannot be retained, reducing impacts to less than significant levels.
The 2016 Addendum similarly found that the proposed modifications would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse impacts to biological resources not previously considered or addressed in the Certified EIR.
The Modified Project would be similar in land use and development footprint to the Approved Project. While the Modified Project would demolish the existing fire station to develop additional on -site parking, the fire station parcel is fully developed and demolition would not adversely impact any sensitive/special-status biological resources. The proposed modifications would result in similar biological impacts as that analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Impacts to ornamental trees on -site would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. As such, 17 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
the Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse biological impacts not previously considered and addressed.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. 1310-1 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.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Certified EIR determined that no impacts to historical resources would occur as a result of the Approved Project, and that compliance with Federal and State regulations and General Plan policies, and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL- 2 would reduce impacts related to any previously undiscovered paleontological, archaeological, and cultural resources to less than significant levels. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum also concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed project modifications.
The proposed modifications under the Modified Project would apply to the same 4.25- acre project site identified and described in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project.
However, the Modified Project would demolish the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2, which was not analyzed under the Certified EIR or 2016 Addendum. Therefore, the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for The Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California (Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated December 13, 2021, evaluates potential impacts of the Modified Project on the fire station site; refer to Attachment 1, Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum summarizes a records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), literature and historical map review, a built environment survey, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluation of the Lido Fire Station No. 2.
Based on the literature and historical map review, Lido Fire Station No. 2 was constructed at 475 32nd Street, east of the former City Hall, in 1953. The building is depicted in aerial photographs and maps dating to the 1950s and 1960s. By 1963, the north side of the fire station was developed into a parking lot. The original fire station building was expanded 18 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
with an additional space in 1966 and 1994. Lido Fire Station No. 2 is not listed in the Built Environment Resource Directory. According to a review of historical city directories, the property has been occupied by the Newport Beach Fire Department since its construction.
Archaeological Site Sensitivity Analysis
The fire station site is located within a highly developed commercial area adjacent to the Lido House Hotel. Previous ground disturbances include the construction of the existing fire station building and paved parking lot. The fire station site is completely hardscaped with no exposed or native soils. According to the SCCIC records search, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area or a 0.25-mile search radius. Additionally, the fire station site is underlain by Beaches soil series consisting of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly coastal shores that are washed and rewashed by tidal and wave action. These areas may be partly covered with water during high tides or stormy periods and support little to no vegetation. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is high.
These soils have a very low potential for buried archeological sites.
Between 1934 and 1936, the federal government and the County of Orange dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created the present-day contour of Newport Beach. The dredging and earthmoving would have likely impacted all prehistoric cultural resources in the project area. This analysis is supported by map and aerial photograph analysis.
Therefore, the buried archaeological site sensitivity for the fire station site and general project area is negligible.
California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation
The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum included an evaluation of Lido Fire Station No. 2 for its eligibility to the CRHR. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can demonstrate that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance) and possess significance at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; and/or
• Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
19 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
In addition to meeting a significance criterion, a property must also have integrity or the ability to convey its significance under a majority of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association.
Based on the analysis, the Lido Fire Station No. 2 was determined to lack historic significance under the four identified criteria. In addition, the fire station building has lost integrity to the period of its initial construction. The property retains integrity of its location and setting on 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula of Newport Beach. The property also retains integrity of association, as it has remained in use as a Newport Beach Fire Department fire station throughout its history. However, its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling have diminished through substantial alterations. Large second - story additions were constructed in 1966 and 1994. Other changes include the reconfiguration of the street -facing vehicle entrances and replacement of exterior fenestration. Lacking both historic significance and integrity, Lido Fire Station No. 2 is not eligible for listing in the CRHR and is not considered a historical resource as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).
Overall, given the existing development on the project site from prior development (Lido House Hotel and Lido Fire Station No. 2) and the geology of the project area, any archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources within the project site have likely been discovered or disrupted. As such, the proposed modifications would not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would still apply to the Modified Project and would require an archaeologist and a Native American Monitor to be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
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.
20 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
3.6 ENERGY
The Certified EIR did not evaluate energy as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared in 2014. Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. Thus, the effect of energy usage could have been raised in 2014 when the City considered the EIR. A challenge to an EIR must be brought within 30 days of the lead agency's notice of approval. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167[b].) Under Public Resources Code Section 21166(c), an agency may not require a supplemental environmental review unless new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was approved, becomes available. After a project has been subjected to environmental review, the statutory presumption flips in favor of the project proponent and against further review. (Moss v. County of Humboldt [2008] 162 Cal.AppAth 1041, 1049-1050.) "`[S]ection 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred [and] the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired."' (ld., 1050.) There is no competent evidence of new information of severe impact, and thus the City may rely on an addendum. Accordingly, the City finds that energy is not "new information" under Public Resources Code Section 21166.
Nonetheless, energy considerations were analyzed in Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities, and Section 6.4, Energy Conservation, of the Certified EIR despite not addressed in a standalone EIR section. Specifically, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not create additional demand on electricity or natural gas due to the relatively small electricity and natural gas demand of the Approved Project as compared to service capacities of Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCGC).
Development in accordance with the Modified Project is required to comply with mandated energy efficiency programs and regulations included in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) of the California Building Code (CBC). The standards require developers to provide windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Further, the proposed cottages and improvements to the existing hotel building would be required to comply with more recently adopted or updated State and local energy efficiency standards since the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum were approved. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2017. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. Additionally, the City adopted the City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan (EAP) in July 2013. The EAP aims to provide a roadmap for the City to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through reductions in energy used in facility buildings and operations. The EAP identifies past energy measures that have been implemented and present measures that currently being implemented, all of which contribute towards the City's energy reduction goal. In addition, the EAP identifies other potential energy reduction measures that the City could consider for future 21 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
implementation. The project would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards and the City's EAP. Overall, the Modified Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and a less than significant impact would occur. As noted above, the City has determined that energy does not constitute new information under Public Resources Code Section 21166.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would likely be subject to significant earthquake ground motion, given the seismic character of the southern California region and proximity to active and potentially active faults.
Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the project site has a moderate potential for adverse effects of liquefaction due to seismically -induced settlement. Compliance with the City's grading and building requirements, including the most current California Building Code (CBC), and Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential Approved Project impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Further, the 2016 Addendum concluded that the proposed modifications to the Approved Project would be similar to those identified in the Certified EIR.
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality) and compliance with NPDES requirements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or unstable soil, and expansive soils were also concluded to be less than significant. According to the Certified EIR, on -site soils would be considered corrosive to copper unless a corrosion engineer determines otherwise. Compliance with the CBC and Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (which requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during preparation of the Final Soils/Geotechnical Engineering Report) would reduce potential impacts associated with corrosive soils to a less than significant level. The Approved Project would not have involved the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would result in this regard.
The proposed modifications would result in similar impacts regarding geology and soils, as the proposed development area would remain the same as that previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Further, the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in adverse effects involving the exposure of persons and property to seismic activity and landslides. Similar to that identified in the Certified EIR, compliance with the City's grading and building requirements, including the most current CBC and Municipal Code, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce impacts to 22 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
less than significant levels. Further, potential impacts in regard to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires a qualified paleontologist to prepare a Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site and to monitor all earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation activities. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
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 t4s the Certified 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 report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities.
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.
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 23 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
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.
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in approximately 2,031.2 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO2eq/yr), which is below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr. Thus, the Approved Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum also concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed project modifications.
The Modified Project would demolish an existing fire station and construct five additional cottages on -site, among other hotel improvements. Given that the Approved Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold, the minor proposed modifications also would not result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr threshold. Additionally, the proposed use (i.e., hotel) would be consistent with the existing land use conditions. Further, as discussed above, the project is considered to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. Additionally, the Modified Project proposes to provide additional enclosed storage space on Level 1, which would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. Consequently, operational GHG emissions impacts associated with the Modified Project would be less than significant.
As detailed above, the Modified Project is also required to comply with mandated energy efficiency programs and regulations included Title 24 of the CBC and CALGreen, both of which were recently adopted or updated since the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum were approved. Additionally, the City adopted the EAP in 2013, which aims to provide a 24 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
roadmap for the City to reduce GHG emissions through reductions in energy used in facility buildings and operations. As such, although the project would increase the total square footage of the existing Lido House Hotel, GHG emissions from the Modified Project is not anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr significance threshold. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. No new impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, impacts associated with potential accidental releases of hazardous materials that may be present in on -site soils would be reduced to less than significant levels. Further, the Certified EIR determined that hazards impacts pertaining to an airport land use plan or a nearby private airstrip, nearby school, wildland fires, accidental conditions involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, and adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan were determined to be less than significant or not significant. Similarly, the proposed modifications analyzed in the 2016 Addendum were also determined to result in no new impacts.
The proposed modifications would result in similar grading and construction activities to what was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. However, the Modified Project would demolish an existing fire station. Due to the age of this existing fire station (constructed as early as 1953), there is the potential for asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paints (LBPs), as well as other potential hazardous materials to be present in association with the building materials. Thus, demolition of the structures could expose construction personnel and the public to ACMs or LBPs. The Modified Project would be required to comply with existing regulations associated with demolition. Further, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 would still apply to the Modified Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that potential impacts pertaining to hazardous building materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 through HAZ-5 would reduce minimize potential risks from existing transformers on -site, potentially contaminated in -fill soils, and previously unknown wastes or suspect materials during project construction. No substantial changes in the severity of impacts would result from the Modified Project. Overall, as the project site location and the nature of the proposed operations would remain the same (i.e., hotel use), potential impacts pertaining to the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not increase, compared to that analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Thus, no new impacts are identified for the Modified Project and no new mitigation measures are required. 25 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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:
26 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
• Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area;
• Notify the Community Development Director of the City of Newport Beach; • Secure the area as directed by the Community Development Director; 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.
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, and HWQ-3, which would ensure adherence to construction requirements per the State, potential impacts pertaining to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and degradation of water quality during construction activities, would be less than significant. According to the Certified EIR, drainage during construction and operations would have a less than significant impact on the existing storm drain infrastructure. Post -construction water quality impacts would also be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, requiring the submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Impacts involving seiche or mudflow, would also be less than significant.
Implementation of the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) would reduce potential impacts associated with the inundation by a tsunami to less than significant levels. Other impacts involving a 100-year flood plain, flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and groundwater depletion/recharge, would not occur.
The proposed drainage and impervious area associated with the proposed Modified Project would be similar to what was previously considered in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. While five additional cottages and associated parking would be constructed on -site, the improvements would redevelop a portion of the site's surface parking lot, which is already impervious. According to the Lido House Hotel Redevelopment Project Preliminary Amended Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP), prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., and amended June 14, 2021, the Modified Project would include Low Impact Development (LID) features and best management practices (BMPs) through pervious pavement and infiltration galleries; refer to Attachment 2, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. The addition of the five cottages would impact local, on -site drainage patterns on the eastern portion of the site but would not alter final drainage courses, volumes or flowrates. No significant change in impervious coverage would occur. According to the Preliminary WQMP, the Modified Project would reduce runoff to off -site storm drain facilities by slightly less than two percent and would maintain the historic drainage patterns with the exception that flows are no longer routed north through the Via Lido Shopping area. Due to the shallow depths of the adjacent public storm drain catch basins and the need to treat low flows to conform to the LID requirements and the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan, the Modified Project would continue using primarily surface flow with localized area drains to drain the 27 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
site. This method would maximize the potential for runoff infiltration which is the primary BMP for water quality purposes. Localized area drains are proposed along landscaping adjacent to the new cottage building and to drain the courtyard/pool area. Runoff from all roofs and parking areas would be collected and directed through a system structural BMPs of gravel underground infiltration galleries and pervious pavement. All other flows are anticipated to be overland. Overall, the Modified Project would slightly reduce runoff to off -site storm drain facilities while maintaining drainage patterns similar to existing conditions. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with City and State regulations. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3 would also still apply to the Modified Project. Thus, potential impacts associated with construction activities and long-term operations in this regard would be less than significant. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
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.
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).
HWQ-3 Upon completion of project construction, the project applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to indicate that construction is complete.
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.
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in any impacts relating to the division of an established community or conflicts with 28 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Certified EIR proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to eliminate inconsistencies (i.e., amend the land use designation from Public Facilities [PF] to Mixed -Use [MU] and increase new development bulk and height limits). Similar to the CLUP amendments, the Approved Project included a General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendment to update the land use designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal 5 (MU-H5), which would allow for development limitations of 98,725 square feet of hotel use. The Approved Project also required a Zone Code Amendment to create a new mixed -use zoning district, Mixed Use — Lido Village (MU- LV), in order to implement the MU-H5 land use designation at the project site. The Certified EIR determined that City approval of the requested General Plan Land Use Element Amendment would result in the Approved Project's compliance with the intended use and development limits for the MU-H5 designation. Lastly, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the Lido Village Design Standards. It is acknowledged that the Coastal Commission modified the proposed CLUP land use category to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV) and made changes to Policy 4.4.3-1 making it more restrictive (not taller). The City accepted these changes subsequent to the Coastal Commission action and made the appropriate CEQA findings in a staff report for the November 24, 2015 City Council hearing.
The proposed project modifications analyzed in the 2016 Addendum required amendments to the General Plan, CLUP, and Zone Code to increase the maximum intensity of development on -site by 4,745 square feet, and a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. The 2016 Addendum concluded that the requested modifications to the project would not result in substantial changes compared to the development scenario analyzed in the Certified EIR.
The Modified Project proposes to increase the total square footage of the hotel from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 square feet (an increase of 15,103 square feet) to primarily accommodate the five additional cottages and expanded storage spaces, meeting rooms, and guest suites. As such, the Modified Project requests any necessary amendments to the previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Hotel including Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit No.
UP2016-015, General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001. Upon approval of the requested entitlements, the Modified Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans/zoning, including the General Plan, CLUP, and Zone Code. No new impacts or substantially more severe land use impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
29 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that the Approved Project, as amended, would result in no impacts pertaining to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state or to the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource.
As discussed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. The project location remains unchanged under the Modified Project. As such, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.13 NOISE
The Certified EIR determined upon implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the City's permitted construction hour limits pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity —Noise Regulations), development of the Approved Project would not result in significant noise impacts during project construction and operation. Further, as the Approved Project is not subject to an adopted airport land use plan or private airstrip, no impacts would occur in this regard. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum concluded that noise impacts resulting from the proposed hotel building expansion would be similar to those identified for the Approved Project in the Certified EIR.
The Modified Project would include demolishing an existing fire station and constructing five additional cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building.
Construction would occur for approximately 17 months, with approximately 1,100 cubic yards of soils exported over two days. These proposed modifications would not result in a substantial increase in construction noise in a manner that would exceed the City's exterior and interior noise standards per Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control. Although the proposed modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site analyzed in the Certified EIR, the nearest sensitive receptors, including multi- family residences to the northeast and a church (i.e., St. James Episcopal Church) to the east of the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2, may be adversely impacted by construction noise, particularly associated with demolition of the fire station. Nevertheless, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the City's construction hour limits (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) pursuant to Municipal Code Section
10.28.040, Construction Activity —Noise Regulations. Further, Mitigation Measure N-1 would still apply to the Modified Project. 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. Further, it is noted that out of the 17- 30 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
month construction period for the project, demolition of the existing fire station would occur for one month and grading would occur for 1.5 months. Elevated construction noises usually occur during these phases. As such, the nearest sensitive receptors located in proximity to the fire station would not be exposed to significant construction noise levels over an extended period of time. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the Municipal Code, the Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse construction noise impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum.
Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the Modified Project would be similar to existing condition. Specifically, the five additional cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building would not generate substantial operational noise from stationary or mobile sources. As stated, the project is considered to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. Additionally, the Modified Project proposes to provide additional enclosed storage space on Level 1, which would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. Consequently, operational noise impacts from mobile sources associated with the Modified Project would not result in any new substantial impacts. Similarly, stationary noise sources, including mechanical, landscaping, and HVAC equipment, would be similar to existing conditions. Thus, no new operational noise impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
N-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit for new construction, the 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. 31 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
• 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).
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that implementation of the Approved Project, as amended, would result in no impact to population growth. The Modified Project would increase the hotel's square footage to accommodate development of five additional cottages and expansion of the existing hotel building. The proposed modifications would not significantly increase the number of employees and would not lead to an increase in population growth in the City beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
The Certified EIR determined that the development of the Lido House Hotel and associated amenities would not increase the need for additional public services.
Compliance with the provisions of the CBC, applicable State, City, and County Code, and ordinance requirements for fire protection, as well as the General Plan Safety Element would reduce impacts to fire protection services during construction activities to less than significant levels. Additionally, the payment of statutory fees would reduce impacts to less than significant levels in regard to local school facilities. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum also concluded that no new impacts were and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed project modifications.
The Modified Project would include the demolition of an existing fire station and construction of five cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building. The proposed modifications to the existing hotel are nominal and would not increase potential impacts to public services or facilities (i.e., fire protection services, police services, school facilities, etc.) at the project site beyond the impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. It is acknowledged that the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2 would be demolished as part of the project. However, a replacement fire station, located at 2807 32 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
Newport Boulevard (0.3-mile southwest of the current Lido Fire Station No. 2) is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed by mid-2022. According to City staff, the existing 11,612-square foot Lido Fire Station No. 2 is old (construction in 1953) and does not meet operational needs for equipment.' The replacement fire station is considerably larger (approximately 17,693 square feet) and has street access on three sides including direct access to both the north and southbound lanes of Newport Boulevard. Thus, the replacement fire station is anticipated to provide proper pull -through circulation for vehicles and would allow for on -site parking for all fire personnel.
Additionally, it is noted that the emergency service coverage would be similar at both locations and that the new site at 2807 Newport Boulevard would be a viable location for the replacement fire station.2 As such, demolition of the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2 would not substantially impact the City's fire services, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. No new impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3.16 RECREATION
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts in regard to recreational facilities as the Approved Project did not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum determined that no new impacts were identified and no new mitigation measures were required.
The Modified Project would not result in changes to land use or square footage of existing public open spaces, landscaped areas, or other recreational amenities. It is acknowledged that the Modified Project would provide additional pre-function/break out meeting rooms on Level 1 of the hotel. The expanded pre-function/break out meeting rooms would allow the hotel to host meetings in closed rooms while keeping the hotel restaurant and public spaces open for hotel guest use. As such, the Modified Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No new significant impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
City of Newport Beach, City Council Staff Report,
https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1227214&page=1 &cr=1, September 12, 2017.
2 Ibid.
33 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. During project operations, the Certified EIR determined that implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and staff parking requirements would ensure that parking is adequately managed on -site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes, emergency access, air traffic patterns, and design hazards were determined to be less than significant or result in no impact. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in less daily trips during project operations compared to that generated by the former City Hall Complex. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum determined that the analyzed project modifications would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse traffic and circulation impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR.
Roadway Analysis
Short-term increases in vehicle trips on the circulation system would occur during construction. Construction -related trips would occur during the 17 months required for demolition, grading, and building construction. The nominal increase in construction trips (an average of approximately six haul trips per day) would be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. Hauling trips would only occur during off-peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and appropriate traffic control personnel ("flaggers") would be used to ensure construction vehicles operate safely along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and in a manner that minimizes disruption of traffic along these roadways. Further, temporary partial lane closures along 32nd Street may be required during project construction. However, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (construction management plan), which would ensure pedestrian and bicyclist access remain open during construction, to the greatest extent possible, or be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity. The Construction Management Plan would also identify construction vehicle routes and permitted construction times, among others, to avoid traffic disruptions. As such, construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
According to the VMT Assessment, the Modified Project is anticipated to add approximately 40 daily trips to the existing roadway network. The additional trips would be nominal and would not adversely impact existing circulation patterns in the project area. It is also acknowledged that the Modified Project would not result in any new employees on -site (and any associated employee trips). Further, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in any substantial modifications to existing roadway, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities in the project area. Overall, less than significant impacts would result in this regard.
Design Safety Hazard Analysis
34 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
As part of the Modified Project, the gated driveway along 32nd Street would be slightly shifted approximately 17.5 feet to the east. This minor modification to the access driveway would not create a design hazard for vehicles or pedestrians entering and exiting the hotel site. Less than significant impacts would result in this regard.
VMT Screening Analysis
The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum did not specifically address VMT (pursuant to Senate Bill [SB] 743), as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum were prepared. The VMT Assessment was prepared for the Modified Project to analyze potentially significant VMT impacts associated with the proposed modifications; refer to Attachment 3. The purpose of the VMT Assessment is to determine if the Modified Project meets the screening thresholds outlined in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. According to the guidelines, a development project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and would be exempt from project -level VMT assessment based on the following screening criteria:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening;
• Low VMT Area Screening;
• Local Serving Retail;
• Affordable Housing Units;
• Project Trip Generation; and
• Institutional/Government Land Use.
The VMT Assessment found that the Modified Project would meet two of the City's VMT screening criteria: TPA Screening and Project Trip Generation. Specifically, the project site is located within a TPA as defined by Figure 1 of the City of Newport SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide, dated April 6, 2020, and the Modified Project is anticipated to generate 40 daily trip and thus, would not exceed the 300 daily trip threshold. As such, the VMT Assessment concluded that less than significant impacts pertaining to VMT would result and project -level VMT assessment is not required. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text.
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:
35 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
• Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation.
• Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project.
• Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction -related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays.
• Use of local streets shall be prohibited.
• Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic.
• If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
• All constructed -related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on -site or in public parking lots.
This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach requirements.
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 Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following and be implemented at all times:
36 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
• 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.
M% Um d :7 I 1-if_1 Weill 1111111 01:Z1 :7 **6111:Z•3 *1 The Certified EIR did not evaluate tribal cultural resources as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared in 2014. Nonetheless, considerations for tribal cultural resources were analyzed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the Certified EIR despite not being addressed in a standalone EIR section. The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (presence of Native American Monitor during ground -disturbance activities), impacts pertaining to archaeological and Native American cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Given the existing disruption from prior development and the geology of the project area, any tribal cultural resources within the project site have likely been discovered or disrupted. The proposed modifications under the Modified Project would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. As such, the proposed modifications would not result in any additional substantial impacts to tribal cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
37 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to water, wastewater, and solid waste services. Further, the Certified EIR determined that with implementation Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Similarly, the 2016 Addendum concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures were required for the analyzed project modifications.
The Modified Project would demolish the existing fire station and construct five cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building. Overall, the Modified Project would increase the hotel square footage by approximately 15,103 square feet. As such, the Modified Project may marginally increase demand on utilities and service systems from the five additional cottages compared to the Approved Project as analyzed in the Certified EIR. Nonetheless, given the anticipated growth (i.e., additional hotel guests associated with the five new cottages), impacts related to water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and landfill capacity would be nominal and less than significant.
Additionally, As detailed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Modified Project would include LID features and BMPs through pervious pavement and infiltration galleries; refer to Attachment 2, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. The addition of the five cottages would impact local, on -site drainage patterns on the eastern portion of the site but would not alter final drainage courses, volumes or flowrates. Overall, the Modified Project would slightly reduce runoff to off -site storm drain facilities while maintaining drainage patterns similar to existing conditions. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts to storm water drainage capacity would also be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4.
Overall, the Modified Project proposes minor modifications to the Approved Project, and no new impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4.
W111IAI,11y1:70
The Certified EIR did not evaluate wildfire as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared. Therefore, the project's impacts, as currently proposed, is discussed below.
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, the project site is not located within a State 38 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
Responsibility Area (SRA) nor is it classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.3 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
It is acknowledged that the site is situated within an area susceptible to urban fires from older buildings nonconformant to the current California Fire Code. New construction proposed under the Modified Project would be required to comply with the current California Fire Code, including fire protection measures that would attenuate the risk of urban fire hazards. Compliance with existing State and local fire requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the Modified Project to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, https:Hosfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map3O.pdf, November 2011, accessed November 23, 2021.
39 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
This page intentionally left blank.
40 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION
As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the changes to the Approved Project considered in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum constitute minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR has occurred. In addition, because the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that the Approved Project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts have been identified. 41 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
This page intentionally left blank.
42 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map3O.pdf , November 2011, accessed November 23, 2021.
City of Newport Beach, City Council Staff Report,
https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1227214&page=1 &cr=1, September 12, 2017.
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., Lido House Hotel Redevelopment Project Preliminary Amended Water Quality Management Plan, amended June 14, 2021.
Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Lido House Hotel Expansion Project, Newport Beach, November 22, 2021.
Michael Baker International, Addendum to the Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report, June 17, 2016.
Michael Baker International, Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for The Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California, December 13, 2021.
RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2014.
WATG, Lido House Hotel Expansion Entitlement Concept (5 Cottage Scheme), June 14, 2022.
43 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
This page intentionally left blank.
44 June 2022
Lido House Hotel
EIR Addendum No. 2
Attachment 1
Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum
45 June 2022
We Make a Difference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
December 13, 2021
BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
EIR ADDENDUM PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Zdeba:
In support of the environmental documentation for the proposed Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project (project), Michael Baker International completed a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature and historical map review, built environment survey, consultation with the Newport Beach Historical Society, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) evaluation of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Station No. 2 to determine if the project area contains historical resources, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), that may be impacted by the project. This memo report summarizes the methods and results of the resource identification efforts described above. The project is subject to CEQA review and the City of Newport Beach (City) is the lead agency.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The project proposes to increase the site's maximum allowed gross floor area by 15,103 square feet from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 square feet. The additional 15,103 square feet would allow development of five additional cottages and expand the existing hotel building. The project would also incorporate the adjacent parcel (APN 670-15-018), currently occupied by Fire Station No. 2, by demolishing the fire facility to accommodate additional on -site parking. Specifically, the proposed surface parking lot would provide 16 parking spaces and 5 additional spaces accommodated via valet stacking within drive aisles.
PROJECT AREA
The project area studied includes APN 670-15-018, which was not previously studied as part of the original EIR. The project area includes the maximum extent of ground disturbance and project activities associated with the demolition, site preparation, and construction. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 1 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California The project is mapped within Newport Beach, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map Township 6 South, Range 10 West, Section 28 (Attachment 1: Figures 1-3). The project area is at 475 32nd Street in Newport Beach, Orange County, California.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION METHODS
The results of the SCCIC records search and literature, aerial photograph, and historical map review are presented below. An archaeological survey was not conducted as the project area is completely paved and landscaped with no exposed soils. The built environment survey, interested parties consultation, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and California Register evaluation are also addressed below.
RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW
SCCIC staff completed a records search (File No.: 22893.9058) of the project area and a quarter -mile radius on November 23, 2021. The SCCIC, as part of the California Historical Resources Information System, California State University, an affiliate of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Orange County.
As part of the records search and background research, the following federal and California inventories were reviewed:
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP 1976). • California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates). • California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996).
• Built Environment Resource Directory for Orange County (OHP 2021). The directory includes resources reviewed for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Historical Landmarks programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, and resources nominated under federal and state registration programs, including the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.
Results
No cultural resources and no cultural resource studies were identified within the project area or quarter -mile radius through the SCCIC record search. A review of the Built Environment Resource Directory identified no built environment resources within or adjacent to the project area.
LITERATURE AND HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW
Michael Baker International reviewed historical literature and maps to understand the existing terrain and natural resources within the project area, including its potential for historical resources, as well as to identify the property's development history, associated people, and architectural significance. The review of the available historical plat and topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and other historical data is summarized below:
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
2 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California • Fractional Survey. Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian (BLM 1890)
• Santa Ana, California. 1:62500 topographic quadrangle maps (US Geologic Survey [USGS] 1896, 1901)
• Newport Beach, California. 1:31680 topographic quadrangle map (USGS 1932, 1935) • Newport Beach, California. 1:24000 topographic quadrangle maps (USGS 1949, 1951, 1965)
• Historic aerial photographs (NETR 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1995; Pacific Air Industries 1954)
• Newport Beach, California (Sanborn Map Company 1959)
• Aerial maps and street view (Google n.d.)
• Historical newspaper articles (Los Angeles Times 1952, 1955, 1958, 1959; Lopez 2003) • Historical city directories (Ancestry.com 2021 a, 2021 b) • City of Newport Beach Building Permits (City of Newport Beach 1953, 1966, 1994) • "Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium" (Byrd and Raab 2007) • "A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology" (Wallace 1955) • "Paradise or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present" (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002) • "Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly" (Jones et al. 2004) • "Gabrielino" (Bean and Smith 1978)
• The FirstAngelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles (McCawley 1996) Results
Traditional models of the prehistory of California hypothesize that its first inhabitants were the big game -hunting Paleoindians who lived at the close of the last Ice Age (-11,000 years before present [BP] through the early Holocene 7,600 BP). As the environment warmed and dried, Ice Age megafauna died out, requiring adaption to coastal resources by groups to survive. The coastal tool manifestation of Paleoindian people is the San Dieguito Complex and within a lifeway known as the Paleocoastal Tradition. Along the coast, rising sea levels created bays and estuaries. Groups adopted marine subsistence including fish and shellfish. The resulting shell middens contain flaked cobble tools, metates, manos, discoidals, and flexed burials and allowed for a semi -sedentary lifestyle (Byrd and Raab 2007).
During the middle Holocene (7,600-3,650 BP), conditions continued to warm and dry. Inhabitants practiced a mixed food procurement strategy with emphasis of shellfish and hard seeds. This shift in subsistence is what Wallace (1955) named the Millingstone Horizon. Characteristics of the middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for processing plant material and shellfish, flexed burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cogstones, discoidals, and crescentics. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
3 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California Characteristics of the late Holocene (3,650-233 BP) include the increased dependence on mortar and pestle for food processing, a change to more complex and elaborate mortuary behaviors, and the introduction of the bow and arrow and ceramic technologies toward the end of the late Holocene. Marine resource exploitation proliferated and diversified. The climate fluctuated with periods of drought alternating with cooler and moister periods (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002; Byrd and Raab 2007; Jones et al. 2004). This resulted in dynamic regional cultural patterns with considerable local variation. Settlement strategies shifted toward permanent settlement during this period.
The project area is located within the territorial boundaries of the Gabrielino Indians. The name "Gabrielino" was given by the Spanish to the Indians that lived within the boundaries of the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel. Generally, their territory included all the Los Angeles Basin, parts of the Santa Ana and Santa Monica Mountains, along the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Canyon in the north, and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Islands. The Gabrielino spoke a dialect of the Cupan group of the Takic language family. The Gabrielino lived in autonomous villages often connected by trails, utilizing drainages such as the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. Each village had access to hunting, collecting, and fishing areas (Bean and Smith 1978). The closest Gabrielino placename is Kengaa, which is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project area (McCawley 1996).
The vicinity of present-day Newport Beach was settled during the late nineteenth century after a stern wheeler from San Diego named "The Vaquero" made its first trip through the marshy lagoon in 1870. James McFadden and other ranch owners in the Lower Bay decided from then on that the area should be called "Newport." In 1888, James McFadden changed the isolated settlement by building a wharf that extended from the shallow bay to deeper water where large steamers could dock. Shipping activity increased dramatically. Newport Beach became a vibrant Southern California shipping town. The Pacific Electric Railroad established itself in Newport Beach in 1905, connecting the City of Los Angeles by rail. Public transit brought new visitors to the waterfront, and small hotels and beach cottages were developed that catered to the tourist industry. The City of Newport Beach was incorporated in 1906 and continued to grow as the Pacific Coast Highway was opened in 1926, the North Harbor was dedicated in 1936, and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) was built in the 1950s. By the 1970s, rapid urbanization occurred with new businesses, residential growth, and tourism (City of Newport Beach 2006).
In 1896, the project area was undeveloped marshland (BLM 1890; USGS 1896). The Southern Pacific Railroad is depicted to the west, with few structures along the waterfront. By 1932, the project area remained undeveloped, two small structures and a roadway running east to west were depicted to the south, and a triangle of roadways was depicted to the east (now Via Oporto and Via Malaga), one of which connects the project area to Lido Isle (USGS 1932).
By 1935, Newport Beach Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway (now 101) were platted (USGS 1932). By 1949, the area in the immediate vicinity of the project area was developed, with Newport 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (q16) 361-1574 4 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California Beach City Hall buildings to the northwest and west, and one small structure and two church structures to the east, but the project area itself remained undeveloped (USGS 1949).
Fire Station No. 2 was constructed at 475 32nd Street, east of City Hall, in 1953 (City of Newport Beach 1953). The building is depicted on the project area in aerial photographs and maps dating to the 1950s and 1960s (Sanborn Map Company 1959, 1961). By 1963, the north side of the fire station was developed into a parking lot. The original fire station building was expanded with an additional space in 1966 and 1994 (City of Newport Beach 1966, 1994; Google n.d.).
Fire Station No. 2 is not listed in the Built Environment Resource Directory (OHP 2021). According to a review of historical city directories, the property at 475 32nd has been occupied by the NBFD since its construction (Ancestry.com 2021 a, 2021 b).
BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY
An intensive level, built environment survey of Fire Station No. 2 at 475 32nd Street was conducted on October 14, 2021. Photographs and notes were taken during the survey. Notes consisted of observations of exposed building elevations, architectural design, materials, and alterations.
Photographs are presented in the DPR 523 forms (Attachment 2).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The proposed project is located within a highly developed commercial area. Previous ground disturbances include the construction of the existing fire station building and paved parking lot.
The project area is completely hardscaped with no exposed or native soils. According to the SCCIC records search, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area or a quarter -mile search radius. Additionally, the project area is underlain by Beaches soil series consisting of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly coastal shores that are washed and rewashed by tidal and wave action. These areas may be partly covered with water during high tides or stormy periods and support little to no vegetation. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is high. These soils have a very low potential for buried archeological sites (NRCS 2021).
Between 1934 and 1936, the federal government and the county dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created the present-day contour of Newport Beach. The dredging and earthmoving would have likely impacted all prehistoric cultural resources in the project area. This analysis is supported by map and aerial photograph analysis. Therefore, the buried site sensitivity for the project area is negligible.
INTERESTED PARTIES SOCIETY CONSULTATION
On November 2, 2021, Michael Baker International sent a letter with figures depicting the project area via email to the Newport Beach Historical Society. The letter requested any information or concerns regarding historical resources within the project area. No response has been received to date. See Attachment 3 for the consultation letters.
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION
The following includes an evaluation of Fire Station No. 2 at 475 32nd Street in Newport Beach for its eligibility to the California Register (C)HP 2001); it was evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
The criteria for eligibility in the California Register are based upon the National Register. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can demonstrate that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance) and possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value;
Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.
In addition to meeting a significance criterion, a property must also have integrity or the ability to convey its significance under a majority of the seven aspects of integrity. They are location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association.
California Register Evaluation
California Register Criterion 7 — Research did not demonstrate that this property is associated with events significant to the broad patterns of our history at the local, state, or national level. This property was not the first station established by the NBFD, nor was it the first fire station in its community. The NBFD was established on a volunteer basis in 1911. The subject Fire Station No. 2 was preceded by several other stations, including the original Fire Station No. 2, which went into service in 1931. Fire Station No. 2 was constructed in 1953 at a time when the NBFD was expanding its ranks and adopting new, larger firefighting technology and equipment. No demonstrably significant events are known to have occurred at the property or as a result of its presence in the community. Therefore, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1.
California Register Criterion 2 — Research failed to indicate that this property is associated with the lives of persons who significantly contributed to the local, state, or national culture and history.
Despite his notably long tenure —first as a volunteer during the late 1920s, then as a paid firefighter, and ultimately as chief of the NBFD from 1952 until his retirement in 1972—historical records reviewed suggest that Jan Briscoe implemented departmental changes and carried out 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (q16) 361-1574 6 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California leadership responsibilities that would have been typical of other fire officials during this period.
There is no demonstrable evidence that any other personnel stationed at Fire Station No. 2 made significant contributions within the broader context of the growth and development of Newport Beach during the twentieth century or the history of the NBFD. Therefore, this property does not appear to be eligible under California Register Criterion 2.
California Register Criterion 3 — Fire Station No. 2, constructed in 1953, incorporates elements of the International style, which was popularized in the United States after first appearing in Europe during the 1920s. Fire Station No. 2 is a relatively modest example built at a time when the International style had been widely adopted as one of the preferred architectural modes for institutional buildings. Neither its design nor the materials used in its construction possess high artistic value. In addition, the building has been altered, notably with the construction of two second -story additions and the wholesale replacement of the exterior fenestration. The architect of the subject property was not identified during research and relevant materials reviewed did not suggest that builder Don Fletcher was a master in his field. Therefore, this property does not appear to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3.
California Register Criterion 4 — This property is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history because it is not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to subjects such as fire protection facilities or International -style architecture. Therefore, this property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4.
Integrity Discussion — In addition to lacking historic significance, Fire Station No. 2 has lost integrity to the period of its initial construction. The property retains integrity of its location and setting on 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula of Newport Beach. The property also retains integrity of association, as it has remained in use as an NBFD fire station throughout its history. However, its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling have diminished through substantial alterations. Large second -story additions were constructed in 1966 and 1994. Other changes include the reconfiguration of the street -facing vehicle entrances and replacement of exterior fenestration.
Conclusion — Lacking both historic significance and integrity, Fire Station No. 2 does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register. As such, the building is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a).
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The SCCIC records search, literature review, historical map review, interested parties consultation, field survey, and California Register evaluation identified no historical or archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), within the project area. The archaeological site sensitivity analysis conducted for the project concluded that the project area has a low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic period archaeological resources. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER I N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (q16) 361-1574 7 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California While research suggests that archaeological sensitivity is low within the project area, there is the potential to identify resources during earthmoving activities. Impacts to archaeological resources and human remains will be avoided through implementation of the following recommendations:
Archaeological Resources Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earthmoving activities, it is recommended that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat -affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials might include wood, stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris -filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. The archaeologist may evaluate the find in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the find and identify avoidance or other measures as appropriate. If suspected prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work within the immediate area of the discovery shall be redirected and the find must be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology.
Human Remains Inadvertent Discovery. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are discovered during excavation of a site. As required by state law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission if remains are determined to be of Native American origin, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
8 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California
PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS
This report was prepared by Michael Baker International Architectural Historian Michelle Van Meter and Senior Archaeologist Kholood Abdo. Senior Cultural Resources Manager Margo Nayyar provided quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review.
MICHELLE VAN METER, ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Ms. Van Meter is an architectural historian with more than three years of full-time professional experience in cultural resources management. She has conducted fieldwork and research throughout California and has authored and contributed to historic resource inventory and evaluation reports for a variety of local, state, and federal clients. Her technical expertise is well suited for archival research, field recordation, GIS mapping, and preparation of architectural descriptions, historic contexts, and evaluations. Through her academics and work experience, Ms.
Van Meter meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards in history and architectural history.
KHOLOOD ABDO, SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST
Ms. Abdo is an archaeologist with 26 years of experience prehistoric and historical archaeology and cultural resources management. Her experience includes writing technical reports, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and CEQA compliance documents. She has supervised and managed all phases of archaeological fieldwork, including survey, Phase II testing and evaluations and data recovery, and monitoring at sites throughout California and Arizona since 1999. In her current capacity as senior archaeologist and laboratory director, Ms. Abdo oversees the processing, analysis, and curation of artifact collections from both prehistoric and historical sites. Her cultural material analysis experience includes flaked and ground stone lithics, glass, prehistoric and historic ceramic, and bead analysis. Ms. Abdo meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for prehistory and historical archaeology.
MARGO NAYYAR, SENIOR CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER
Senior Cultural Resources Manager Margo Nayyar provided QA/QC review of this report and evaluation. Ms. Nayyar is an architectural historian with twelve years of cultural management experience in California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, and Texas. Her experience includes built environment surveys, evaluation of historic -era resources using guidelines outlined in the National and California Registers, and preparation of cultural resources technical studies pursuant to CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA, including identification studies, finding of effect documents, memorandum of agreements, programmatic agreements, and Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey mitigation documentation. She prepares cultural resources environmental document sections for CEQA environmental documents including infill checklists, initial studies, and environmental impact reports, as well as NEPA environmental documents, including environmental impact 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
9 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California statements and environmental assessments. She also specializes in municipal preservation planning, historic preservation ordinance updates, Native American consultation, and provision of Certified Local Government training to interested local governments. She develops Survey 123 and Esri Collector applications for large-scale historic resources surveys, and authors National Register nomination packets. Ms. Nayyar meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for history and architectural history.
Sincerely,
Michelle Van Meter, MA
Architectural Historian
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Figures
Attachment 2 — DPR 523 Forms
Kholood Abdo, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Attachment 3 — Interested Parties Consultation Letters
MBAKER INTL.COM
Margo Nayyar, MA
Senior Cultural Resources
Manager
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
10 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California
REFERENCES
Ancestry.com. 2021 a. U.S. City Directories, 7822-7995. "Newport Beach, California." 1955. Accessed November 2021.
https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2469 .
2021 b. U.S. City Directories, 7822-7995. "Newport Beach, California." 1966. Accessed November 2021.
https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2469 .
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith. 1978. "Gabrielino." In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.
BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office). 1890. Fractional Survey. Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian.
DM ID 291059. Accessed November 2021. https://glorecords.bim.gov/default.aWx .
Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab. 2007. "Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium." In California Prehistory. Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 215-227. New York: AltaMira Press.
City of Newport Beach. 1953. Building Division. Building Permit No. 14092. . 1966. Building Division. Building Permit No. 54797.
. 1994. Building Division. Building Permit No. B9400101. 2006. General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
http://newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General Plan/GP EIR/Volume 1/01 NB GPU Draft EIR f ront matter.pdf.
Google. n.d. Google Maps search for "475 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California." 1994-2021.
Accessed November 202l.. https://www.google.com/maps .
Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas M. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker. 2004. "Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly." In Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of Paradise, edited by L. Mark Raab and Terry L. Jones, Chapter 2, 12-32. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
it
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California Lopez, Virginia E. 2003. "Firefighters have long history of protecting Newport Beach." Daily Pilot, November 9, 2003. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-xpm-2003- 11-09-exportl 8104-story.html.
Los Angeles Times. 1952a. "Fire House Bids Ordered." November 12, 1952, Part I, 20.
Newspapers.com.
. 1952b. "Contract Let." December 12, 1953, Part I, 13. Newspapers.com. . 1955a. "Water Office Slated." August 21, 1955, Part V, 11. Newspapers.com. . 1955b. "Water District to Build Office." September 18, 1955, Part VI, 7. Newspapers.com. 1958a. "Anaheim to Build New Utilities Office." June 22, 1958, Part VI, 18. Newspapers.com. . 1958b. "New Civic Building." August 3, 1958, Part VI, 17. Newspapers.com. . 1959. "Forest Unit Complete." August 2, 1959, Part VI, 6. Newspapers.com.
McCawley, William. 1996. The FirstAngelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA:
Malki Museum Press.
NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC). 1938. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com , 1953. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/ .
1963. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/ .
1972. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/
1995. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/ .
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2021. Electronic georeferenced soil map.
Accessed October 2021.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx .
OHP (Office of Historic Preservation). 2001._Technical Assistance Series #7.• How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation.
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
12 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California https://ohp_parks.ca.gov/pages/1056/files/07 TAB%207%20How%20To%20Nominate%2 OA%20Pro perty%20to%20Ca I iforn is%20Register. pdf.
2021. Built Environment Resource Directory. Orange County, California. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed November 2021. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=30338.
Pacific Air Industries. 1954. Aerial Photograph. Flight PAI-40-02. Frame 40-60. December 22, 1954.
Available at University of California, Santa Barbara, Geospatial Collection. Accessed November 2021. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/FrameFinder/.
Sanborn Map Company. 1959. Newport Beach, California. New York, NY: Sanborn Map Company.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1896. Santa Ana, California. 1:62500. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/# .
1901. Santa Ana, California. 1:62500. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/# .
1932. Newport Beach, California. 1:31680. Accessed November 2021. https:Hngmdb.usgs.goy/topoview/viewer/#.
1935. Newport Beach, California. 1:31680. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/# .
1949. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/# .
1951. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/# .
1965. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/# .
Vellanoweth, Rene L. and Donn R. Grenda. 2002. "Paradise or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present." In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Donn R. Grenda, 67-84. Tucson, Arizona: SRI Press.
Wallace, William J. 1955. "A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3): 214-230.
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574
13 Attachment 1
Figures
i...r•::.,.
'05 La Mirada "' "' SILL 1• 1! V A L i
B '` Il corona
■Cam ton Norwalk }�IuntAirparf�
iNllprtr+ pParaffiount -..� -- : orba Linda -
Alrix,rl _ •Bellflower Fuuerton
etml Airport .Placentia _ -
Artesia' Buena Park' Z Fullerton o i =� :i=— Cor
Lakewood'
Cerritos
La Palma �
rson RHawa
`� _ - - '[ P RALTA IYILS
-. Lon�IEra•-•h ildnGardens
rr� Alr 4i ot+
-ta Cypress
Los AMN itos
Signal Hill Stanton Anaheim
Garden Grove `Orange '
�•:_s, s =:E,
r Ldng Beach •--
I`lPrdGB£Ri�s Westminster
KA/A1 SUTron Sell Beach Santa Ana, Tu�tln
4! QEEQ yaF/��J r
BEACH
'Fountain Valley S M]H CL EM
A ...tire Gl:r
FLohn WayneArpI
�\V/+lpi eCoAlrport
_^• - r -• -.
Trabuco
TT'
,.- .Huntington Beach Irvine7`"
Canyon,
t1
Costa M esae,
Mission Viejo " 241
NewportBe �. Laguna Woods
Lake Forest
_
� • �• a: �-r �
L�g una Hills
i3
AlisoViejo
x
Laguna Be act
r v
*Laguna Niguel
San Juan
Capistrano
Dana Point
Project Location
San Clemente'
LIDO HOUSE EIR ADDENDUM
1771.
Torm
N 0 2.5 5 10
fNTERHATIOHAL Miles Regional Vicinity
Source: Een, ArcGIS Online, National Geographic World Map: Newport Beach, California Figure 1
ac e'• �', rl t �:.-Sol77
„F':•l i _•� `\ _ .:4.R. _
} c Trailer
k° °� Park ti
r a ° anks Iwo
� . � � p •� ., rr .^ • � ■ �•�. ,-r� 1 ' by � ti �pnlS �a _ •' ,% �ar ai tjpgpta
--� ► ° � i�. lei ��s F
yt N.-�
•.fat@. ^ y — n i .
7. Lido s It
33 raoLrQhf +rrran,rx� ""�' o,,
Parking Arek-Losikeus � q Light is
NEWP4R'� BEACH..• � � Sayq
__- CyypOri Fed•„ ,
F .r
0 Project Area
LIDO HOUSE EIR ADDENDUM
N
0 0.25 0.5 1
iHTERHATIOHAL Miles Project Vicinity
Source: Een, ArcGIS Online, USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Newport Beach, California Figure 2
0 Project Area
LIDO HOUSE EIR ADDENDUM
0 25 50 100
INTERNATIONAL 'A Feet Project Area
Source: Een, ArcGIS Online, Nearmap Imagery 2021: Newport Beach, California Figure 3
Attachment 2
DPR 523 Forms
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings
Review Code