Q SEW Pp�T
CITY OF
z NEWPORT BEACH
c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report
October 25, 2022
Agenda Item No. 16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Principal Planner - 949-644-3253, [email protected]
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator - 949-644- 3236, [email protected]
TITLE: Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment: Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068)
ABSTRACT:
R.D. Olson Development (Applicant) requests to add 15,103 square feet to the previously approved 130-room Lido House Hotel (3300 Newport Blvd.). The additional floor area would allow the construction of five new rentable cottages (i.e., "rooms"), increased storage space, enlarged pre-function/breakout meeting rooms, a new greenhouse seating room, expansion of three existing hotel rooms, and an enclosed area on the rooftop terrace. Also included is demolition of the former Fire Station No. 2 building to create additional public and private parking spaces, and the installation of fencing along portions of the 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard frontages.
For the City Council's consideration is the adoption of four resolutions for environmental clearance and planning applications for the project, the introduction of one ordinance to amend Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and the authorization of an amendment to the current lease between the City of Newport Beach (City) and Lido House, LLC.
If approved, the item will return to the City Council on November 15, 2022, for the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. The requested Local Coastal Program Amendment will not become effective until approval by the California Coastal Commission and subsequent adoption by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-76, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel Certified Environmental Impact Report (PA2020-068);
16-1
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-77, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving a General Plan Amendment for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068); d) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-78, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Authorizing Submittal of a Local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission to Amend the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068);
e) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-79, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving Amendments to the Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068);
f) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, and introduce Ordinance No. 2022-22, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving a Zoning Code Amendment for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2020-068), and pass to second reading on November 15, 2022; and
g) Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to Ground Lease between the City of Newport Beach and Lido House, LLC (Tenant), to incorporate the property located at 475 32nd Street into the leased premises and allow the Tenant to construct five cottages and various site and public improvements, in a form substantially similar to the agreement prepared by the City Attorney.
DISCUSSION:
In September 2014, the Newport Beach City Council approved the 130-room, Lido House Hotel project to replace the former City Hall complex located at the northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The City's approval included amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), Zoning Code and applications for a site development review and conditional use permit for hotel construction and operation. With this approval, the City also executed a ground -lease agreement (Lease Agreement) with R.D. Olson Development for use of the property.
In October 2015, the California Coastal Commission approved the proposed CLUP Amendment with suggested modifications and the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the 130-room, Lido House Hotel. The City Council subsequently accepted the suggested modifications and approved modified amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code.
16-2
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
During the final design phase and preparation of construction documents, the applicant determined that additional floor area was necessary and desirable. As such, in April 2016, the applicant requested to increase the development limit to a new maximum of 103,470 square feet. The City executed the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement in May 2016, to modify the leased premises and assigned interest to Lido House, LLC.
In March 2017, the Coastal Commission authorized the increase. Rent pursuant to the Lease Agreement commenced on January 1, 2018. Construction was completed and the hotel opened for business in April 2018.
Project Request
The Applicant proposes to increase the development limit to add 15,103 square feet to the Lido House Hotel. The addition will allow the following changes to the previously approved hotel plans:
1. Addition of five, three-story rentable cottages (i.e., five "rooms") encompassing approximately 8,351 square feet;
2. Enclosure of approximately 1,466 square feet as new storage space on Level 1;
3. Addition of 3,481 square feet of covered walkway and pre -function breakout meeting rooms on Level 1;
4. Addition of 600 square feet for a greenhouse breakout/seating room on Level 1;
5. Enlarging three existing guest rooms by a total of 819 square feet on Levels 2, 3, and 4 (approximately 273 square feet each) to convert them to suites; and
6. Enclosure of 386 square feet of rooftop terrace area on Level 4.
The proposed project also includes:
7. Demolition of the former Fire Station No. 2 building and replacement with 28 private valet parking spaces;
8. The construction of 14 open public parking spaces on Via Oporto;
9. Realignment of the driveway access from 32nd Street to accommodate the new cottages;
10. Reconfiguration of the existing on -site circulation and private parking lot to provide additional required parking spaces; and
11.Installation of a new barrier fence with gates along the 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard frontages.
In summary, the Applicant believes the added area and additional cottages will enhance the experience and are anticipated to make the hotel more successful. Below is a birds -eye rendering of the proposed project looking northwest. Some of the most visible changes are highlighted and include the proposed five cottages, the new breakout room, the new greenhouse, and the new private and public parking areas where the former Fire Station No. 2 building currently sits.
16-3
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
j
F. -Five
• ,�i w
Cottages O.Q
Ind
wit
New
Parking
`-
Figure 1, Birds -eye view of the proposed project looking northwest at the southeastern elevation.
Required Legislative Amendments
To accommodate the project, the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program (including both the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan [Title 21]), and Zoning Code (Title 20) would all be amended to increase the maximum gross floor area allowed on the site from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 square feet.
In addition to increasing the development limits, City staff is recommending that the references to development standards for the Fire Station No. 2 building be removed from all three regulatory documents since the references are obsolete now that the station has already been relocated to 2807 Newport Boulevard and the old station building would be demolished as part of this project.
Charter Section 423 Analysis
With an amendment to the General Plan, City Charter Section 423 requires an analysis of the increased density, intensity and peak hour traffic associated with the change to determine if a vote of the electorate is required. The net increases for the proposed amendment are combined with 80 percent of the increases from prior amendments within the same statistical area. The inclusion of prior amendments is limited to the preceding 10 years. The specified thresholds are 100 dwelling units (density), 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity), and 100 peak hour trips (traffic). Increases from the proposed amendment and 80 percent of the three prior amendments within Statistical Area B-5 have been calculated and are shown in Table 1 below. None of the thresholds would be exceeded with approval of the amendment and no vote would be required. 16-4
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
Table 1
Charter Section 423 Analysis for Statistical Area B-5
Amendments
Increased
Density
Increased
Intensity
Peak Hour Trip Increase
AM
PM
GP2012-005 PA2012-146
7 0
0 0
GP2012-002 PA2012-031
0 23,725
0 0
GP2016-001 PA2016-061
0 4,745
0 0
Total Prior Increases
7 28,470
0 0
80% of Prior Increases
5.6 22,776
0 0
100% of Proposed GP2020-004
0 15,103
2.8 3.05
Total
5.6 37,879
2.8 3.05
Threshold
100
40,000
100
100
Remaining
94.4 2,121
97.2 96.95
Vote Required?
No
No
No
No
Major Site Development Review
Due to the proposed additions, a major site development review is required per Section
20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the NBMC. In accordance with Section
20.52.080(F), the City Council may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the proposed development is:
1. Allowed within the subject zoning district;
2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in 20.52.080(C)(2)(c) below:
i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure;
ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design,
iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces,- V. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and 16-5
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection).
3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development.
Staff believes sufficient facts exist in support of each, as evidenced in Exhibit "B" to Attachment D. The proposed project maintains consistency with the development standards of the CV-LV (Commercial Visitor -Serving — Lido Village) designations and is in furtherance of the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
All additions outside of the existing development envelope will comply with the required setbacks and the overall height of the hotel will remain the same. Furthermore, the proposed project will retain and enhance the significant public open space area along Newport Boulevard. The new greenhouse structure adds visual interest and will fit between the two landmark Ficus trees that are protected by City Council Policy G-1. The new single -story breakout room on the 32nd Street frontage also breaks up massing and serves as a screening mechanism for the trash enclosure. The proposed five cottages will be added in line with the other cottages and will mirror the design, such that they are seamlessly integrated. The former Fire Station No. 2 building will be demolished and replaced with public and private parking, which will open the area visually and will provide a public benefit.
The Lido House Hotel project was designed and constructed with an architecturally pleasing style that has since been replicated in other locations of Newport Beach. The proposed project will maintain the established style. It will also help to enhance the existing structure and use while removing the former Fire Station No. 2 building that has since been relocated and is currently transitioning away from the site.
The proposed design has been reviewed and accepted in concept by all City departments, including Building, Public Works, and Fire. If approved and implemented, construction will comply with all required codes and applicable City ordinances.
Conditional Use Permit
In accordance with Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits) of the NBMC, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for approval of a use permit:
1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 16-6
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity;
4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and
5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
Staff believes sufficient facts exist in support of each, as evidenced in Exhibit "B" to Attachment D. The General Plan Land Use Element and zoning designations of the project site allow for the proposed use as modified. With exception of the proposed increase in floor area, the proposed additions will comply with the development standards of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC.
Although five new cottages and additional breakout meeting space will be provided, the project includes the equivalent of 165 parking spaces to serve the use. The Applicant retained Linscott Law & Greenspan to prepare a parking demand analysis. The City traffic engineer reviewed and accepted the analysis, which forecasted peak demand of the proposed project to be between 147 and 151 parking spaces. As such, there will be adequate on -site parking to serve the project once implemented.
The hotel has operated at this location since April 2018 and has not proven detrimental to the surrounding area. Conditions of approval are included to help ensure that, with the proposed changes, the use maintains its compatibility in a harmonious manner.
Amendment to the Lease
Staff proposes to enter into the Second Amendment to Ground Lease (Amendment) (Attachment F) with the Tenant, which outlines the terms and conditions associated with the Tenant's use and development of the former Fire Station No. 2 property (Site). The Amendment incorporates the Site into the overall hotel development at 3300 Newport Boulevard (Premises), and into the terms of the existing Ground Lease, dated September 9, 2014 (Lease).
The proposed terms of the Amendment are summarized below:
1. The term of the Lease remains unchanged, with the initial term of 55 years expiring in 2071, and a 30-year option term.
a. Tenant shall have three years following execution of the Amendment to obtain the necessary entitlements as outlined in this staff report, with additional six-month extensions to be approved by the City Manager based upon the Tenant's reasonable efforts.
16-7
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
2. Tenant shall pay an additional $50,000 per year in base rent for the Site, for a total annual base rent of $300,000, which increase shall commence upon execution of the Amendment.
a. The base rent shall continue to be subject to adjustment every five years by the change in the Consumer Price Index, per the terms of the Lease. b. Should the Tenant not obtain the necessary entitlements to develop the Site, payment of the additional base rent shall cease upon termination of the Amendment.
3. Consistent with the terms of the Lease, the Tenant shall pay percentage rent of four percent of gross room revenues and two percent of gross non -room revenues for the Site, less base rent paid for that quarter.
4. Tenant shall pay for and complete the demolition of the existing Fire Station No. 2, site grading, and all costs associated with design and management.
5. In addition to the hotel modifications and additions outlined in this staff report, including the addition of five new cottages, the Tenant shall construct and be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the public parking area to be developed on the Site. The City will install meters and manage the public use of the parking spaces.
6. Tenant will commence construction of the improvements within 12 months of receipt of all entitlements and shall complete construction within 18 months of receipt of building permits to construct.
7. The Tenant shall submit, for the City's review and approval, evidence of Tenant's financial capacity to develop the site, copies of any related loan documents, amendments (if any) to the hotel management, and hotel franchise agreement.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 21, 2022. The main topics discussed by the Planning Commission were the property boundaries, the public open space area along Newport Boulevard, and the Charter Section 423 analysis. Three members of the public addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed project. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to adopt Resolution No. PC2022-020, recommending the City Council approve the proposed project. The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and resolution are attached for reference as Attachment G, H, and I. All public correspondence received related to this project is attached as Attachment J.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this item will result in an increase of $50,000 in annual base rent revenue from the hotel, and an estimated $65,000 per year of additional (room and non -room) percentage rent revenues related to the new cottages.
.:
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Resolution Nos. 2022-76 to 2022-79, and Lease Amendment:
Lido House Hotel Expansion at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street October 25, 2022
An estimated $165,000 in additional transient occupancy tax (TOT) per year is also expected. Additional percentage rent, parking meter, and TOT revenues will be included in future fiscal years' budgets, upon completion of the construction. Current and future years' rent revenues will continue to be posted to the General Fund account in the Community Development Department — 01050505-551130, and TOT revenues will continue to be posted to the General Fund account for Hotel Tax revenue — 01003- 413010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15062 of the CEQA Guidelines, the changes authorized under the project are not substantial, as they do not involve new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and therefore, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not need to be prepared. The City prepared and certified a final EIR for the Lido House Hotel (SCH#2013111022). State CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and use of a previously certified EIR for projects that have changed or are different from the previous project. In cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts, an addendum to the previously certified EIR may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The City prepared Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel's final EIR for the Project, which concludes there are no new environmental impacts and no impacts of greater severity that would result from approval and implementation of the Project.
NOTICING:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A
— Resolution No. 2022-76, Adopting Addendum No. 2
Attachment B
— Resolution No. 2022-77, Approving the General Plan Amendment Attachment C —
Resolution No. 2022-78, Authorizing the LCP Amendment
Attachment D —
Resolution No. 2022-79, Approving the SDR and CUP
Attachment E —
Ordinance No. 2022-22, Approving the Zoning Code Amendment Attachment F —
Draft Second Lease Amendment
Attachment G
— Planning Commission Staff Report, Dated July 21, 2022 Attachment H
— Excerpts from the Planning Commission Minutes, Dated July 21, 2022 Attachment I
— Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-020
Attachment J
— Correspondence
16-9
Attachment A
Resolution No. 2022-76, Adopting Addendum No. 2
16-10
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- 76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(PA2020-068)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules, and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ("City Council") previously approved General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012- 003, Major Site Development Review No. SD2014-001, Conditional Use Permit No.
UP2014-004, and Traffic Study No. TS2014-005 authorizing a 130-room hotel called the Lido House Hotel at the former City Hall site ("Lido House Hotel") located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32"d Street ("Property"),
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the approval of the Lido House Hotel, the City Council considered the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No.
ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022) ("EIR");
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2014, the City Council certified the adequacy and completeness of the EIR pursuant to Resolution No 2014-80; WHEREAS, the City prepared Addendum No. 1 to the EIR, consistent with the requirements of CEQA to allow for an increase to the floor area of the Lido House Hotel, WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 1 pursuant to Resolution No. 2016-88;
WHEREAS, an application was filed by R.D. Olson Development ("Applicant") with respect to property located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32"d Street as legally described in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property"),
16-11
Resolution No. 2022-
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes a 15,103 square -foot expansion of the Lido House Hotel to add five cottages, 28 private valet parking spaces, 14 public parking spaces, a greenhouse, a walkway, breakout rooms, a rooftop enclosure, and landscaping and fencing improvements along the perimeter of the Property ("Project"); WHEREAS, the Project requires the following approvals from the City:
• General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — To amend Anomaly No. 85 to increase the development limit to 118,573 gross square feet;
• Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCPA") — To increase the development limit to 118,573 gross square feet within both the Coastal Land Use Plan and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC");
• Zoning Code Amendment ("ZCA") — To increase the development limit to 118,573 gross square feet;
• Major Site Development Review Amendments ("SDR")— To ensure the changes to the Property are developed in accordance with applicable development standards;
• Conditional Use Permit Amendments ("CUP") — To allow the operational changes that result from the changed site plan and floorplan and the sale of alcohol; and
• Addendum No. 2 to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lido House Hotel — The addendum addresses reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the Project;
WHEREAS, the Property is categorized Visitor Serving Commercial — Lido Village (CV-LV) and Anomaly No. 85 by the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan") and located within with the Commercial Visitor -Serving —Lido Village (CV-LV) Zoning District;
16-12
Resolution No. 2022-
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 21, 2022, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7 ayes — 0 nays) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
PC2020-020 recommending approval of the Project including Addendum No. 2 to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 25, 2022, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was provided in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows..
Section 1: On September 9, 2014, in conjunction with the approval of the Lido House Hotel, the City Council certified the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022) that addressed all environmental impacts associated with the Lido House Hotel pursuant to Resolution No. 2014-80. The EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code, the State CEQA Guidelines set forth intitle 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), and City Council Policy K-3 (implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act). The EIR is attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, on July 26, 2016, the City Council Addendum No. 1 to the EIR, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and incorporated herein by reference, consistent with the requirements of CEQA to allow for an increase to the floor area of the Lido House Hotel.
16-13
Resolution No. 2022-
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR is required unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c. 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, shows any of the following:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
iii. 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
iv. 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.
16-14
Resolution No. 2022-
Section 3: The following environmental topics were analyzed for the Project:
Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Addendum No. 2 includes analysis of new topics that were not included in the previous EIRs; specifically, it includes a new energy section and a new wildfire section. These additional analyses are appropriate for inclusion in the Addendum, but none result in new or increased significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Based on the EIR and entire environmental review record, the Project will not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously analyzed in the EIR. Addendum No. 2 confirms and provides substantial evidence that the potential impacts associated with this Project would either be the same or less than those described in the EIR, as mitigated by applicable mitigation measures in the EIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in either the EIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, Addendum No. 2 to the previously adopted EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. In taking action to approve any of the requested applications for the Project, the data presented in the EIR, as augmented by the Addendum for this Project, are considered as part of the record.
Section 4: The City Council further finds:
a. The Project is consistent with and implements the General Plan. b. The EIR reviews the existing conditions of the City and project vicinity; analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the development; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts from implementation of the development.
c. The Project does not increase development intensity or building height or associated impacts beyond the levels considered in the EIR. d. Since the adoption of the EIR in 2014, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the EIR was certified for the 16-15
Resolution No. 2022-
Project; and no substantial changes to the environmental setting of the Property have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has become available that was not known and that could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at that time of adoption. e. Since no substantial changes to the circumstances or environmental setting have occurred, and since no new information relating to significant effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives has become available, the Project does not require additional environmental review, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
f. Based on these findings, the EIR and Addendum No. 2, the Planning Commission has determined that no subsequent environmental impact report is required or appropriate under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.
Addendum No. 2 satisfies CEQA's environmental review requirements for the modified Project as proposed by the Applicant.
g. Based on the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that the modified project will not have, when compared to the EIR, any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts. h. The modified Project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity.
Section 5: The City Council has considered the EIR and the Addendum No. 2 and has concluded that the Addendum No. 2 reflects the independent judgment of the City.
Section 6: On the basis of the entire administrative record, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts Addendum No. 2, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D," and incorporated herein by reference, finds that the recitals provided above are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in support of the adoption of Addendum 1 to the Certified Lido House Hotel EIR. Addendum No. 2 and related and referenced documentation, constitute the administrative record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California.
16-16
Resolution No. 2022-
Section 7: the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
Section 8: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 9: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
16-17
Resolution No. 2022-
Section 10: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 25th day of October, 2022.
Kevin Muldoon
Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
4 Mr C.
ar n C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A — Legal Description
Exhibit B — Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
Exhibit C —Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
Exhibit D —Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
16-18
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3, 6 AND 7 IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" WITH THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 21 IN BLOCK 431 OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION 400.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A" OF SAID LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH 461.53 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 108, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGES 1 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE 401.79 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY OF SAID LOT 1 AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" 495.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED ATTACHED TO THAT CERTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 3284 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH11, 1946 IN BOOK 1404, PAGE130 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE, NOW KNOWN AS 32ND STREET, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THAT PORTION OF THE BULKHEAD LINE ESTABLISHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1936 AND SHOWN ON THE WAR
DEPARTMENT MAP OF NEWPORT BAY SHOWING HARBOR LINE, EXTENDING BETWEEN BULKHEAD STATION NO.124 AND BULKHEAD STATION NO.125; THENCE NORTH 27'30'00"
WEST ALONG SAID BULKHEAD LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF LANCASTER'S ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID "THE HUDSON" TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK"A"; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
16-19
PARCEL 3:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGES 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE 20.00 FOOT ALLEY AS VACATED BY RESOLUTION NO. 3280 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH 11, 1946 IN BOOK 1400, PAGE 189 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST 170.97 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 20.00 FOOTALLEY; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY 220.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 907, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGES 25 TO 36 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 89'15'30" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 907 AND SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 15, 1953 IN BOOK 2520, PAGE 577 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 4-
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST 74.46 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND OF GRIFFITH COMPANY, A DISTANCE OF 69.945 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'15'30" EAST 45.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30" EAST 53.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5:
LOTS ONE (2) AND TWO (2) IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH' AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
16-20
EXHIBIT B
Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
Available separately due to bulk at:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/pin/CEQA REVIEW/Lido%2OHouse%2OHotel/Lido%2 OHouse%2OHotel Final%20EIR August%202014.pdf
16-21
Screencheck Draft EIR Completed: April 18, 2014
Public Review Draft EIR Completed: April 28, 2014
Final EIR Completed: August 19, 2014
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
SCH NO. 2013111022
Lead Agency:
tt WPO$
� y
F
C4LIFOR��
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 992660
Contact: Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
949.644.3210
j campbell@newportbe achca.gov
Prepared by:
WF
CONSULTING
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618-2027
Contacts: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP
Mr. Edward Torres, INCE
949.472.3505
August 19, 2014
JN 137892
This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources.
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section1.0: Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1-1 Section 2.0: Response to Comments..................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program............................................................. 3-1 Section4.0: Errata.................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Final • August 2014 i Table of Contents
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Final 9 August 2014 ii Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
WPO
a. y
r4LIF09L
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).
The Draft EIR for the proposed Lido House Hotel Project (herein referenced as the project) was distributed to potential responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR 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 on June 13, 2014.
The Final EIR consists of the following components:
■ Section 1.0 — Introduction
■ Section 2.0 — Responses to Comments
■ Section 3.0 — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ Section 4.0 — Errata
Due to its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with this document; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitutes "significant new information" pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
Final 9 August 2014 1-1 Introduction
WPO
a. y
r4LIF09L
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Final 9 August 2014 1-2 Introduction
2.0 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency, evaluated the written comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) for the Lido House Hotel Project (herein referenced as the project) and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.
A list of public agencies and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a letter number. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses.
Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.
Commenter
Agencies
State Clearinghouse — Scott Morgan, Director (June 13, 2014) Native American Heritage Commission — Katie Sanchez (May 9, 2014) Orange County Public Works — Polin Modanlou (May 5, 2014) City of Irvine — David R. Law, AICP (May 27, 2014)
Public
Russell Singer (April 30, 2014)
Katherine Johansen (June 11, 2014)
Jim Mosher (June 13, 2014)
Lido Partners (June 13, 2014)
Kathryn H. K. Branman (June 11, 2014)
Comments Received After Close of Public Review
Orange County Transportation Authority — Angel Lin (June 17, 2014) Southern California Edison — Jenelle Godges (June 13, 2014) Lido Partners (July 16, 2014)
Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins — Robert C. Hawkins (July 17, 2014) Letter Number
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 Final • August 2014 2-1 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH
r
p
e
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLA ING UN r
�T4TEnFen�ieoR�``.
EDMUND G. BROWN.lR.
ooMMUNiTY
Kr,NALEX
GovmNoR
DiRFCI R
JUN 16 N14
June 13, 2014
James Campbell
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Lido House Hotel
SCI-1#: 2013111022
Dear James Campbell:
DEVELOPMENT U'
rO,e NEWPOR� 6
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft E1R to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 12, 2014, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please.notify.the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public .Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within az: area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation."
These continents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document, Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied "-'th the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California ;ivironnxental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Scott Morg
Director, S Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1-1
140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 wwwopr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCN# 2013111022
Project Title Lido House Hotel
Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description The City plans to lease the majority of the project site for the development of a I30-room Lido House Hotel. The proposed hotel would also 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, utilizes, and adjoining public improvements.
The hotel would be no larger than 99,625 gross sf. The project would also provide 143 surface parking spaces and would accommodate additional parking through active parking management including valet parking service. The proposed structures would be --4 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.
Lead Agency Contact
Name James Campbell
Agency City of Newport Beach
Phone (949) 644-3210 Fax
email
Address 100 Civic Center Drive
City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92660
Project Location
County Orange
City Newport Beach
Region
Lat ( Long 33' 36' 59.90" N 1 117' 55' 47.70" W
Cross Streets Newport Blvd. & 32nd Street
Parcel No. Multiple
Township 6S Range IOW Section 28 Base SBB&M
Proximity to:
Highways SR 55, SR 1
Airports John Wayne
Railways
Waterways Newport Bay, Pacific Ocean
Schools Newport ES, Newport Harbor HS
Land Use ❑Ccupied by the Former Newport Beach City Hall Complex and existing Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Station No. 2.
GPLU - Public Facilities (PF)
Z: Public Facilities (PF)
Project Issues Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeoioglc-Historic; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; School slUniversities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil ErosionlCompactionfGrading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Vegetation; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; other Issues
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Office Agencies of Historic Preservation; Department of parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Resources, Recycling and Recovery; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission
Date Received 04/29/2014 Start of Review 04/29/2014 End of Review 06112/2014
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, JUNE 13, 2014. 1-1 This comment indicates that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected State agencies for review and that the comment period for the Draft EIR has concluded.
The comment indicates that the lead agency complied with the public review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. As such, the comment does not provide specific comments regarding information presented in the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary. The comment also indicates that comments from responsible or other public agencies are enclosed and responses to those comments are provided in response to those letters.
Final • August 2014 2-5 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 2
STAIl OF CA 1F NfA --
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite i4D
West SAC rRAMENTO, CA 95691
(915) 373-3711)
Fax (916) 373-5471
May 9, 2014
James Campbell
City of Newport Beach �A� 4
100 Civic Center Drive 2914
Newport Beach, CA 92660 37AT
RE; SGH# 2013111022 Lido House Hotel, Orange County.
Dear Mr. Campbell:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Notice of Completion (NOC) referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) states that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the preparation of an El (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)). To comply with this provision the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on historical resources within the area of project effect (APE), and if s❑ to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess and mitigate project -related impacts to archaeological resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
f Contact the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center for a record search. The record search will determine:
■ If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. ■ If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. ■ If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. ■ If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure.
■ The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological information Center. •� Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for:
• A Sacred Lands File Check. SFL Check Coompletecl with Negative Results • A list of appropriate Native American contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in the mitigation measures. Native American Contacts List attached f Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence.
IF Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15054.5(f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground - disturbing activities.
■ Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated, which are addressed in Public Resources Code (PRC) §5097.98, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. ■ Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, PRC §5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(e), address the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
Sincerely,
3 Katy Sa chez
Associate Government Program Analyst
2-1
Native American Contact List
Orange County
May 9, 2014
Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation
John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin.
Private Address Gabrielino Tongva
[email protected]
310-570-6567
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva
San Gabriel CA 91778
GTTribalcouncil gaol. com
(626) 286-1232 - FAX
(626) 286-1758 - Nome
IR7R1 A.Q'4.--'QrrA roll
(626) 286-1262 -FAX
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
P.O. Box 86908 Gabrielino 'Tonava
Los Angeles CA 9008E
s oad@ abrielino-tongva.car^
951-845-0443
Gabrielino ITongva Nation
Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resorces Director
P.O. Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva
Los Angeles CA 90086
samdun lap @earthiink. net
909-262-9351
This list is current only as of the date of this document.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH 92013111022 Lido House Hotel, orange County.
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE
COMMISSION, DATED MAY 9, 2014.
2-1 This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter regarding the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC) jurisdiction and responsibilities related to Native American resources. It also provides an overview of CEQA requirements in regards to archaeological resources.
The proposed project site is located within a highly developed area and has been completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources are not expected to occur.
However, as stated within Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, in the unlikely event that buried cultural resources or human remains are discovered during excavation activities, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
As the proposed project includes an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, it is subject to the Native American consultation process mandated by SB 18. The City has previously conducted SB 18 consultation for the project site as part of the environmental documentation for the City Hall Reuse Project! During the previous SB 18 consultation, the City received an inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative indicated that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading/construction if it is determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources on the project site.
1 City of Newport Beach, City of Nemport Beach City Hall Reuse Pr ject Initial Study/Negative Declaration, November 2012. It should be noted that this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was prepared for the City Hall Reuse Project and brought to the City Council for consideration; however, the IS/ND was not adopted.
Final • August 2014 2-8 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 3
OCPubficWorks
Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust
Shane L. Silsby, Director
COMMUNITY
MAY 4 9 2014
-� DF-VELOPiMEN V
May 5, 2014
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach/Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
NCL 13-054
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lido House Hotel
Dear Mr. Campbell:
The County of Orange has reviewed the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lido House Hotel located in City of Newport Beach and has no comments at this time. We would like to be advised of any further developments on the project. Please continue to keep us on the distribution list for future notifications related to this project.
Sincerely,
Polln Madan ou, Manager
Strategic Land Planning Division
❑C Public Works/OC Planning Services
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
[email protected]
P MIYj
300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703
P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 927 02 -404 8
3-1
www. o ❑p u 61lcwo rk s. com
714.667.8800 1 [email protected]
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, DATED MAY 5, 2014.
3-1 This comment states that Orange County Public Works has reviewed the Draft EIR and has no comments at this time. This agency will be apprised of any further material developments in the proposed project. No further action is required.
Final • August 2014 2-10 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 4
v F lj:� t'
Community Development cityofirvine.org
City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, PO. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 ,?�SCEIVEO &�.
CoMMUN17Y
A)N 0 2 W4
May 27 2014
Mr. James Campbell oy
Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Lido House Hotel Dear Mr. Campbell:
City of Irvine staff has received and reviewed the information provided for the referenced project and has no comments at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 949-724-6314, or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
David R. Law, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email)
Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst (via email) 4-1
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OR IRVINE, DATED MAY 27, 2014.
4-1 This comment states that the City or Irvine has reviewed the Draft E1R and has no comments at this time. This agency will be apprised of any further material developments in the proposed project. No further action is required.
Final • August 2014 2-12 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 5
Part Properties,Inc.
P.O. Box 485
Laguna Beach, California 92652
Office: (949)494-6629 * Fax: (949)494-5747 * Cell: (949)280-4336 E-MaiI: [email protected]
April 30, 2014
James Campbell
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, PLANNING DIVISION
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Lido House Hotel 1 EIR
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Port Properties, Inc. owns the property at 3315-3345 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach which is across the street from the proposed development. It was not that many years ago that the City remodeled and eliminated several public parking angled spaces in front of City Hall on Newport Blvd.. Those parking spaces, having been removed has made parking all the more difficult for my tenants and their customers.
Please accept this letter as our request to have as much non-exclusive parking as possible for the new development and take a page out of Corona Del Mar and make the parking rates more reasonable (perhaps free is not practical) to encourage consumers to shop and patronize the businesses in the area. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
PORT PROPERTIEo
S, C.
Russell Singer, Presi ent
5-9
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RUSSELL SINGER, DATED April 30, 2014.
5-1 The comment points out that parking is difficult for 3315-3345 Newport Boulevard, which is a property across Newport Boulevard from the proposed project. This comment requests non-exclusive parking and a reduction in parking fees to encourage customers to patronize businesses in the area. Parking for the proposed project will be available for patrons and visitors of the hotel and many of those persons will likely patronize nearby area businesses on -foot. The City's pricing structure of public parking is not under the purview of the Draft EIR and the pricing structure for project parking is not subject to City ordinances. The proposed project would not result in the net loss of on -street parking in the project vicinity.
Sixteen of the existing, angled, metered parking spaces on the north side of 32"d Street would remain available to the general public. The City is also considering relocating a portion of the existing, angled, metered parking on the north side of 32"d Street (just south of the old City Council Chambers) further to the east in front of St. James Church, which is located just west of Lafayette Road. Currently, there is excess street capacity along 32"d Street (just west of Lafayette Road) that would be modified in order to accommodate angled parking spaces along the north side of 32"d Street in front of the church and travel lanes. This would also pull the curb line along the project site south and 32"d Street would be restriped with the intent to modestly "straighten" out the westbound traffic lane to improve vehicle maneuvering.
Final • August 2014 2-14 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 6
June 11, 2014
TO: Mr. James Campbell
Principal Planner, Community Development
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: EIR for Lido House Hotel: Public Comments
SCH No.2013111022
JkS'Z,V.iVED @�,
COMMUNITY
JUN 12 ZOK
Cr DEVELOPMENT �
OP 1VEUlIP00
I own and lure at 601 Lido Park Drive, Unit 313 in Newport Beach, CA. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the above referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Lido House Hotel.
I have several concerns that do not seem to be addressed in the Draft EIR. My primary concerns relate to traffic, noise, and view impacts from the project.
Traffic c and Noise
I am concerned that the EIR doesn't address the traffic impact of the project on the streets adjacent to the project; particularly the intersections of Via Lido/Lafayette/32nd St. It appears that the only intersections studied in the EIR were main -line intersections. The closest intersections to Via Lido/ Lafayette/3 2nd St. that was studied in the EIR appears to be Newport Blvd/Via Lido or Newport Blvd/3211d St. Unless project related traffic (whether construction or operation) is going to be prohibited from local streets surrounding the project, the traffic study should have looked at circulation changes in the local streets immediately surrounding the project site. This should be corrected in the Final EIR. 64 The traffic study does not address the impact of increased traffic accessing the proposed project by way of Via Lido to Lafayette/32nd St. While it may not be the `preferred' route to the project site, visitors or vendors coming down Newport Blvd. may make the left at Via Lido, particularly if there is a backup on Newport Blvd. or if vendor access to the hotel is provided on the `back side' of the hotel. Lafayette/32nd St. at Via Lido has residential use, and these residents will experience an increase in traffic and concomitant noise levels above what they currently experience. Since the traffic study did not look at this intersection we can't determine what traffic increase there will be as a result of the proposed project. Since there was no traffic increase predicted here, the noise study could not include the increased traffic noise in its results. If substantial vendor traffic takes this route during overnight hours, 6-2 residences in the area will be subject to increased nighttime disturbances.
While the noise study included a noise monitoring station on Via Lido for ambient noise measure, the study did not include Via Lido as a roadway segment for existing 6-3 traffic noise levels in Table 5.8-4 or future noise scenarios in Table 5.8-11. This should be corrected in the Final EIR. Given the residential uses immediately
adjacent to Via Lido (southeast of Battaglia) and those adjacent to Via Lido/Lafayette/3 2 nd St., any substantial traffic increase in this area would likely 6-3 result in a finding of significance related to noise.
To insure that traffic and noise impacts from construction do not impact the residences along Via Lido or near the Via Lido/ Lafayette/ 3 2nd St. intersection, the following should be designated as 'Local Streets' (prohibited for use by construction delivery vehicles in mitigation measure TRA-1): 1) Via Lido southeast of Via Oporto; 2) Lafayette Rd.; and 3) 32Rd St between Via Oporto and Lafayette Rd.
G-4
Should a corrected traffic/noise study find that there is significant noise increase along Via Lido or at the Via Lido/Lafayette/32Rd St. intersection, a new mitigation measure should be adopted to prohibit vendor trucks (during operation of the proposed project) from utilizing the Via Lido/Lafayette/32Rd St, route to the project site, particularly during overnight hours.
The proposed increase in traffic along northbound Newport Blvd at the PCH Bridge warrants dedicated (striped) crosswalks on northbound Newport Blvd connectors to both northbound and southbound PCH. There currently is no "yield" sign or 6-5 striped crosswalks at these locations, although there is a wide paved sidewalk that accommodates bike and pedestrian traffic.
Views
The proposed project will be four stories and 58.5 feet in height. The City's ordinance limits are 35 feet in height. While the proposed project may not impact public/scenic vistas, it is situated in such a way that it will impede partial ocean views from residences located on the north side of 601 Lido Park Drive, levels 3-9.
The impact of this project on the views from this location were not studied, only the impact of the view from areas located at considerable distance away. This should be addressed in the Final EIR.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the EIR for the proposed Lido House Hotel.
Katherine Johansen
601 Lido Park Drive, #3B
Newport Beach, CA 92663
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KATHERINE JOHANSEN, DATED JUNE 11, 2014.
6-1 Based on the project land use, access points, project trips generated, and anticipated travel patterns, the number of project -related trips entering the Lafayette/32nd Street intersection is anticipated to be negligible, and therefore the intersection was not identified for analysis.
The proposed hotel will be highly visible from Newport Boulevard. Therefore, hotel guests are forecast to access the site from Newport Boulevard via Finley Avenue or 32nd Street since these access points would be more readily apparent for visitors unfamiliar with the project vicinity.
Hotel employees and vendors are also anticipated to access the project site from Newport Boulevard via Finely Avenue or 32nd Street since this is the shortest route from Newport Boulevard. Furthermore, delivery vehicles typically avoid peak traffic hours or other times when there is congestion on a delivery route, and therefore vendor delivery vehicles are not expected to access the site when or if Newport Boulevard is congested. If for some reason deliveries are made during times of congestion on Newport Boulevard, the number of vendor delivery vehicles that might divert through the Lafayette/32nd Street intersection is not enough to warrant traffic analysis of the intersection.
Lastly, the City's established thresholds of significance only apply to signalized study intersections. Even if the Lafayette/32nd Street intersection were to be analyzed, there are no City established thresholds of significance for stop -controlled intersections by which to evaluate the significance of the project impact.
6-2 As noted in Table 5.8-11, Future Noise Scenarios, of the Draft EIR, the highest noise level increase associated with project -related traffic would be 0.3 dBA on 32nd Street east of Newport Boulevard. This would primarily be due to vehicles utilizing the project access point along 32nd Street. As noted above, the number of project -related vehicles that might access the site from 32nd Street from Vial Lido/Lafayette would be negligible, and would be far less than the number of vehicles associated with the 0.3 dBA increase. Further, traffic volumes would generally have to double to produce a noticeable increase in noise (3.0 dBA or above).z As such impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 6-3 The noise measurement that was taken along Via Lido was to establish a baseline for the area and determine the difference in noise levels from this site to the project site. The measurement established that noise levels along Via Lido are lower than on the project site (primarily due to traffic along Newport Boulevard). Hence, the measurement demonstrated that noise produced on site (i.e., parking lots, rooftop bar, etc.) would be masked by traffic noise emanating along Newport Boulevard, and would not affect the residences along Via Lido. Furthermore, as noted in Response 6-1 above, project -related traffic volumes in the Via Lido area would be negligible as the majority of vehicles would access the project site along Newport Boulevard.
2 California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol— Technical Noise Supplement, November 2009.
Final • August 2014 2-17 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
6-4 Construction -related vehicles would access the site along Newport Boulevard, and travel along Newport Boulevard to 32 d Street, and then access the site along from 32°d Street. As noted in Mitigation Measure N-1, construction routes would avoid residential areas.
Furthermore, construction activities that produce noise levels in excess of the City's standards would be limited to 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 6-5 The comment suggests a need to provide marked crosswalks or vehicle "yield" signs where northbound Newport Boulevard pedestrians cross the ramps connecting Newport Boulevard to Coast Highway due to project -related traffic. These roadway features are not controlled by the City and are regulated by the California Department of Transportation. Although the project is expected to slightly increase traffic through this area, the number of trips is not expected to increase potential risks to warrant the suggested improvements. Additionally, the project is not expected to increase the number of pedestrians who use the northbound sidewalks.
6-6 To the extent that the comment is focused on views from existing, private homes, it is worth noting that CEQA does not require that private views be considered in an EIR.
Additionally, General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies protect public views from identified vantages and do not protect private views. With that said, the majority of the units located on levels three through nine at 601 Lido Park Drive are facing Newport Bay, away from the project site. Those units that face the Pacific Ocean, to the west, do not include direct views toward the project site, such that the new building would obstruct all views to the ocean (although some partial views may be partly obscured). Further, as discussed in Impact Statement AES-3, page 5.2-35, last paragraph, 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 pr lect site [which include 601 Lido Park Drive]) include structures that can range from 12 to 110 feet. The proposed building heights for portions of the structure located along New
port Boulevard and 32nd street (up to 30 feet in height) would be similar to height as the surrounding buildings to the west and south (generalyranging in height from > 9 to 35 feet). Thus, with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure AES-2 (which would ensure compliance with the Lido Village Design Guidelines), implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to a degradation of character/ quality at the pr ject site and surrounding area.
Final • August 2014 2-18 Response to Comments
��GEiVEQ g�
COMMENTLLErTTER 7
JUN 13 Z014
Lido House EIR 0 DEVELOPMENT ty`r
f- �P
The following comments on "PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- LF&Qvewpovo � HOUSE HOTEL (5CH# 2013999022)" are submitted on June 13, 2014, by:
Jim Mosher ( 4immosher[@,yahoo.com ], 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
1. The proposed project includes proposed new entitlements which in addition to 99,625 square feet of hotel, according to Tables LU2 and 2.1.1-1 on page 3-15 also allow (at the same time) 99 dwelling units and an unlimited amount of municipal facilities. a. This seems to me to be a poorly thought out request. b. I am unable to discern how 99 dwelling units and unlimited municipal facilities are needed to meet the project Goals and Objectives specified in Section 1.3. c. Even the hotel entitlement request seems peculiar in that it may create the only land in Newport Beach entitled for a major hotel without a General Plan limit on the allowed number of hotel rooms.
2. The entitlement request described in the previous comment appears to be incorrectly analyzed in the draft EIR.
a. Footnote 3 on page 5.5-22 (regarding TrafficlCirculation) says that analyzing the impacts of the hotel use alone is sufficient because "Residential and commercial land uses would generate slightly fewer trips than the hotel use when considering the mix of land uses." However, the preparer of the EIR seems not to understand the project that the decision making bodies are being requested to be approved allows the hotel and the dwelling units and the unlimited municipal facilities, all on the subject site at the same time.
b. As a result of that misunderstanding, the only analysis of the impacts of the 99 dwelling units I am able to find is in Section 7.3 (as the "Mixed Use" Alternative), where the dwelling units are treated as a potential development separate from (and without) the hotel. Since Table 7-4 concludes that even as a separate project the impacts of 99 dwelling units would be equal to or greater in every category considered when compared to those generated by the hotel, surely the two built together, not to mention along with an unlimited amount of municipal facilities, will generate a level of impacts that is not disclosed in the draft EIR. c. I am unable to find any analysis of the impact of retaining and adding unlimited municipal facilities to this site, as the requested land use change would permit. Does the baseline include unlimited municipal facilities?
7-1
7-2
Lido House EIR comments - Jim Masher
3. The fifth bullet point on page 2-3 directs the reader to Section 7.0 (Alternatives) for "Consideration of a hotel of similar capacity with accommodations to lower cost visitors and a hotel respecting the constraints of the 35-foot Shoreline Height Limitation Zone." a. I find there an Alternative 2 — "Reduced Density" Altemative which consists of a three -floor 108 room hotel with "the same basic building footprint, architecture, open space areas, and vehicular access as the proposed project." But I am unable to find anything in the description of that alternative which ensures the design being considered would fall within the 35-foot height limitation. b. I am unable to find anything in Section 7.0 about a design that would accommodate lower -cost visitors — or what changes in impacts would be associated with accommodating lower -cost visitors. The only discussion of that issue I am able to find is in Table 5.1-3, where the hotel project, as proposed, is simply declared to be "consistent" with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.3.3-1.
4. 1 was surprised to notice the first bullet point on page 5.1-13, which seems meant to imply the Lido Village Design Guidelines encourage "increased building heights on the City Hall Site."
a. My recollection of the Neighborhood Revitalization process is that the Citizens Advisory Panel that helped shape the Design Guidelines was told to treat the City Hall site as a "write hole," the details of whose future use and development would be determined by some other process, and that they should not attempt to define or limit it.
b. As a result, the only reference to the "City Hall Design Area" I can find is on pages 2- 12 and 2-13 of the Design Guidelines, which deal only with desirable "Edge Conditions." "Vertical elements" along the street -facing edge are suggested as an opportunity for way -finding and orientation. I would not interpret that as a mandate for increase building heights — certainly not for buildings exceeding the Shoreline Height Limitation.
c. Whatever the intent of the Design Guidelines may be, as noted by California Coastal Commission staff in their comments on the Notice of Preparation (Section 11.1 ), the Guidelines -- for the City Hall site or for Lido Village in general — have never been reviewed or certified by the Coastal Commission as to compliance with the Coastal Act.
T3
T4
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
7. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JIM MOSHER, DATED JUNE 13, 2014. 7-1 Development of the project site would be limited to the maximum density/intensity limits identified by the proposed entitlements, if approved. More specifically, development of the project site would be limited to 99 dwelling units and 15,000 square feet of commercial uses or a 99,625 square foot hotel, or any combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms provided it does not exceed 99 dwelling units or 99,625 square feet of hotel use. Although the proposed entitlements (General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, and Zoning Code Amendment) would allow for a combination of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential and/or civic uses on the project site, the development potential would be limited by the height limitations, building setbacks, parking, and other development standards. Therefore, development of the site would not be unlimited. In addition, any development proposed at the site would be reviewed for consistency with the various regulatory documents, including the Newport Beach Local Program Coastal Land Use Plan and Newport Beach General Plan.
The project site is currently being considered for development of a 99,625 square foot hotel and is therefore analyzed within the Draft EIR. The project objectives support development of the site with the boutique hotel use, as proposed.
7-2 As stated, although the proposed entitlements (General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, and Zoning Code Amendment) would allow for a combination of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential and/or civic uses on the project site, the maximum development potential would be limited by the height limitations, building setbacks, parking, and other development standards. Therefore, development of the site would not be unlimited. In addition, any development proposed at the site would be reviewed for consistency with the various regulatory documents, including the Newport Beach Local Program Coastal Land Use Plan and Newport Beach General Plan. The project site is currently being considered for development of a 99,625 square foot hotel with no residential use and is therefore analyzed within the Draft EIR. Any modifications to the proposed project, as considered within the Draft EIR, would be reviewed in the context of the proposed hotel development in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. If necessary, subsequent environmental analysis would be prepared to address any future project modifications.
The project site is currently developed with municipal facilities. The No Project/No Build Alternative represents development of the project site with municipal facilities. Although municipal facilities would not be restricted or included in any development limit that is identified for residential, commercial, and hotel uses, development of the project site would be limited by the height limitations, building setbacks, parking, and other development standards. Therefore, development of the site with unlimited municipal facilities is not an accurate assessment of the development potential of the site and CEQA does not require an analysis of speculative development. Should the proposed hotel project be abandoned in the future for some unknown reason and should the City choose to propose a different Final • August 2014 2-21 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
municipal project, subsequent environmental analysis would be prepared to address that future project.
7-3 The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the overall height of the building to be consistent with the current height limitation. An Alternative to provide lower -cost visitor facilities is not specifically identified, as the project would be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.3.3-1, as concluded on page 5.1-23 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on Draft EIR page 5.1-23, although the project does not include limited use overnight accommodations, the project would not eliminate or interfere with lower -cost visitor or recreational facilities within the area. To the extent that there is an impact to lower -cost accommodations, the City will create a lower -cost accommodation improvement grant program where existing or proposed developments could provide expanded opportunities for lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations or recreational uses. In addition, the project would provide public recreational opportunities within public open space areas, pedestrian paths, landscape areas, and other amenities along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street.
7-4 The bullet points identified on page 5.1-13 of the Draft EIR, as referenced in the comment, are directly restated from page 2-4 of the Lido Village Design Guidelines, December 2011, which identifies the goals for the City Hall site.
The comment is correct that page 2-12 and 2-13 of the Lido Village Design Guidelines addresses City Hall edge conditions. However, as stated, page 2-4 of the Lido Village Design Guidelines identifies specific goals for City Hall, which includes "Provide for increased building heights on the City Hall Site with emphasis on mixed use zoning". It should be noted that the Design Guidelines establishes these goals and provide non -regulatory design guidance only. Implementation of the Design Guidelines occurs through approval of development consistent with the Design Guidelines when consistent with applicable General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Coastal Act policies.
The comment is correct in that the Lido Village Design Guidelines have not been reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. The proposed project would be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for conformance with the Coastal Act, as the project would require an amendment of the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).
Final • August 2014 2-22 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 8
P A U L
HASTINGS
1(415) 855-7000
gardonhart.paolhastincls corn
buckendernannQoau Ihastings. core
June 13. 2014
Via Email: [email protected]
Via UPS Overnight
Mr James Camptell Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach. California 92660
J&GEiVED 9 j,
COMMUNITY
,JUN 13 2014
Cs DEVELOPMENT •�
Cr
ti
P
CF ►VewPoo 0
Re: Comments of Lido Partners on the Draft Environmental tmpact Report for the Lido House Hotel dated April 28, 2014
Dear Mr. Campbell
We represent Lido Partners, the owner of the Via Lido Plaza property situated immediately north of the proposed Lido House Hotel development ('Project") We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project dated April 28, 2014 ("Draft EIR") In contrast to the original site pian submitted by the Project Applicant to the City of Newport Beach ("CiV) in July 2013, the Project now includes the closure of an alley that runs northisouth and connects Via Lido Plaza with 32nd Street (the'-32nd Street Alley"). As explained in this Firm's comments on the Notice of Preparation dated December 5, 2013, the 32nd Street Alley is very important to Lido Partners. as it provides the only access for large fire, safety and delivery vehicles to Via Lido Plaza, The Draft EIR is legally deficient because it fails to adequately analyze several impacts related to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley These deficiencies include; Failing to analyze a feasible alternative that would retain the Alley and fulfill most or all of the Project's objectives;
Providing an inadequate project description by inaccurately describing the ►mportance and role of the 32nd Street Alley, in a manner that is unclear and misleading; • Incorrectly stating that Via Lido Plaza wv ll retain adequate emergency access after the Alley is closed;
• Falling to analyze the Impacts arising from displaced delivery truck traffic and parking, Ignoring the Projects conflicts with local land use plans that control traffic, parking, and protect existing neighborhood land uses,
'City of Newport Beach City Council Staff Report; July 9, 2013. Agenda Item No 13 at 3, (hereinafter 'City Council Staff Report July 9, 2013"), available at M0,11ecrins nawxxrndeacfzra ooviWeh"dor 495&9&Paoa i. asnx 8-1
Paul Hastings (.� 155 5ec*nd Street i TWerdy-Fourth Fl= I San Franks . CA 84ID5 is •1.415AW.7000 I %vww.paulta;llrtjp.oarrl
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
• Failing to analyze the potential physical changes to the environment arising from the economic impacts of closing the 32nd Street Alley.
In addition, the Draft EIR suffers from broader legal deficiencies. The Project's Traffic Impact Analysis and Parking Study are inadequate because they contain numerous technical errors and fail to account for obvious Project impacts. The Draft EIR also fails to adequately describe and analyze the impacts arising from the demolition of old City Hall and the construction of the Project, and impermissibly defers mitigation of the significant impacts of the construction and demolition activities.
I. BACKGROUND OF VIA LIDO PLAZA AND THE 32ND STREET ALLEY Via Lido Plaza, located at 3415 Via Lido, Newport Beach, California 92663, has been continuously operated as a commercial center since the late 1930s. It lies at the heart of Lido Village, described by the City as "the primary thematic gateway for Newport Beach's Balboa Peninsula ."z Like the Project, which proposes to redevelop the adjacent former City Hall complex into a boutique hotel and mixed use facilities, Via Lido Plaza plays a crucial role "to revive Lido Village as a vibrant destination, and mixed -use entertainment hub for surrounding neighborhoods such as Lido Island, West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Greater Newport Beach."3
Vehicles can access Via Lido Plaza from three entrances: two tight driveways off Finley Avenue and Via Lido, and the 32nd Street Alley that connects Via Lido Plaza with 32nd Street to the south. The 32nd Street Alley has been in continuous use as an access to Via Lido Plaza for at least 75 years. For at least the past thirty years, the City has approved site plans, building permits, conditional use permits, and other approvals and entitlements related to the development and use of the Via Lido Plaza property, allowing delivery trucks to access Via Lido Plaza through the 32nd Street Alley. The City has filed a legal action to challenge Lido Partners' claim that it has an irrevocable license or an equitable easement in the 32nd Street Alley. The legal deficiencies in the Draft EIR identified below do not turn on whether a license or easement exists, and are distinct from the legal claims at issue in the litigation.
Because the configuration of Via Lido Plaza effectively prohibits large vehicles from entering Via Lido Plaza through Finley or Via Lido, continued access to the 32nd Street Alley is critical for the continued operation of the property. The width, length and limited turning radius of large fire, safety, and delivery trucks prevent them from successfully executing the quick double turn from Newport Boulevard to Finley Avenue and then into Via Lido Plaza, or entering the property on Via Lido It is not practicable to modify the Finley or Via Lido entrances so that they could accommodate large vehicle access. Even if it were possible, such modifications would be extensive and expensive, and would likely require removing a substantial number of parking stalls. This would result in insufficient parking spaces for the Via Lido Property to meet City requirements. Routing deliveries or emergency services through the Finley entrance would also have the potential to seriously disrupt pedestrian traffic 2 City of Newport Beach, Lido Village Design Guidelines at 2-1 (December 2011) ("Lido Village Design Guidelines").
3 Lido Village Design Guidelines at 2-1.
4 See Attachment A, Via Lido Plaza: Without 32nd Street Access (hereinafter "Attachment A"). As depicted on Attachment A, large trucks cannot enter on Via Lido or Finley without hitting the existing hardscaping and landscaping.
8-1
8-2
PAUL
HAST1NGS
June 13, 2014
and operations at the proposed Lido House Hotel, due to large vehicles having to execute two tight turns in the proximity of the hotel entrance, restaurant, and valet facilities.5 In contrast, large trucks have been using the 32nd Street Alley to access Via Lido Plaza for decades. Closing the 32nd Street Alley will seriously impair Via Lido Plaza's ability to contribute to the vibrant development of Newport Beach. If emergency vehicles and delivery trucks cannot access Via Lido Plaza, the property becomes much less attractive to potential tenants. The Project will also displace vehicle traffic that routinely uses the 32nd Street Alley onto adjacent City streets, and could negatively impact area parking.
II. LEGAL DEFICIENCIES RELATED TO THE CLOSURE OF THE 32ND STREET ALLEY A. The Draft EIR Fails to Analyze An Alternative That Preserves Access to Via Lido Plaza Through the 32nd Street Alley
California Public Resources Code section 21002.1(a) requires an EIR "to identify alternatives to the project" and "indicate the manner in which ... significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines at 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15126.6 expand on this duty, requiring an EIR to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which 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," even if those alternatives would impede attainment of project objectives to some degree or would be more costly,s In Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, the court stated that "the purpose of an alternatives analysis is to allow the decision maker to determine whether there is an environmentally superior alternative that will meet most of the project's objectives," and that "the key ... is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts."' Here, an obvious Project alternative would be a hotel development that creates synergies with Lido Village's existing commercial centers, and lessens significant impacts by preserving emergency and delivery vehicle access through the 32nd Street Alley. As more thoroughly discussed below, preserving Alley access would decrease the Projects significant impacts related to traffic, emergency access, and inconsistency with applicable land use plans. Preserving access for delivery and emergency vehicles would avoid a situation where Via Lido Plaza would become unattractive to commercial tenants, which could lead to a chain of vacancies and urban decay. Keeping the 32nd Street Alley would obviate the need to modify the Plaza's other entrances (which would exacerbate parking impacts), and continuing to route emergency and delivery traffic through the Alley would reduce traffic, noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas (°GHG") impacts when compared to the Project. Such an alternative would more faithfully adhere to the City's land use plans that promote responsible development and protect existing property uses contributing to the economic development of Lido Village.
The Draft EIR recognizes that such an alternative is feasible, but inexplicably fails to evaluate it:
"[t]he App#icant has also investigated the feasibility of in6uding an access gate that would only be open to use by delivery vehicles to and from Via Lido Plaza ... [a]lthough the installing [sic] this access gate has s See Attachment A.
14 CCR § 15126.6(a), (b).
r 183 Cal, App. 4th 1059, 1089 (2010),
8-2
8-3
PAu L
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
proven feasibly [sic], it is not under consideration ...." 8 Among the Project's several goals and objectives include revitalizing Lido Village (which includes Via Lido Plaza) by "creating a catalytic development consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines that enhances economic activity and contributes to Newport Beach's reputation as a premier destination for shopping .. .."9 The Project's pedestrian - oriented, boutique hotel development seeks to benefit residents and visitors through shopping, entertainment, and public space features.'° The final Project objective is to create City revenue through lease payments and a transient occupancy tax." All these goals and objectives can be accomplished by a Project alternative that envisions a boutique hotel development and preserves the 32nd Street Alley.
Indeed, the site plan presented to the City Council on July 9, 2013 by the hotel developer preserved the 32nd Street Alley.12 Even if accommodating the Alley would result in a hotel footprint that is slightly smaller, there is no reason why such an alternative was not considered. The Draft EIR has already analyzed a "reduced density" hotel alternative that would include 108 hotel rooms, rather than the proposed Project's 130 rooms.13 The Draft EIR found that the Reduced Density Alternative "fulfill[s] all of the project's objectives," but has only a single downside, relative to the Project —it creates a little less City revenue through lease payments and taxes.14 This strongly suggests that Project goals will continue to be met by scaling hack the project minimally to accommodate Via Lido Plaza's use of the 32nd Street Al ley.
Preserving the 32nd Street Alley would not unreasonably complicate hotel development or issues surrounding on -site parking. According to the Draft EIR, allowing emergency and delivery vehicles to access Via Lido Plaza through the Alley might cost the Project two or three off-street parking stalis.15 This is not substantial, given the fact that the Project already proposes on -site parking capacity that is insufficient under the City ordinance; the Draft EIR requires the Project to provide an additional 16 public parking spaces at an off -site location.16 At the same time, the Draft EIR also recognizes that "[i]t is not anticipated that the hotel would require more than the 148 [on -site] parking spaces proposed, with the exception of nights with banquet usage.",W
In sum, it is feasible for the hotel development and 32nd Street Alley to coexist, with the hotel continuing to fulfill Project objectives and the Alley strengthening other Project objectives, such as contributing to the City's reputation for shopping. Failing to analyze a feasible alternative that preserves the 32nd Street Alley compromises the entire Draft EIR under CEQA. For instance, in Watsonville Pilots Association, the court held that the City of Watsonville violated CEQA because the EIR failed to analyze a reduced development alternative that met project objectives, but avoided or lessened environmental impacts.l8 The Draft EIR should therefore evaluate a new alternative (or revise and clarify the Reduced Density Alternative) that preserves the 32nd Street Alley, reduces traffic and parking impacts, promotes greater consistency with local land use plans and policies, and preserves the economic viability of Via s Draft EIR at 3-14.
s Id. at 3-18.
1v Id.
„ ld.
12 City Council Staff Report, July 9, 2013 at 3.
13 See Draft EIR at 7-16 to 7-21.
14 Id. at 7-21, 7-28.
1� Id. at 3-14, 5.5-47,
16 Id. at 5.5-47.
" Id. at 5.5-48.
'$ 183 Cal. App. 4th at 1089-90.
R&I
ME
RM
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
Lido Plaza by ensuring adequate delivery and emergency access. Furthermore, the City should select this alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, and modify the Project accordingly. This 8-5 modification would meet all of the Project's objectives and would both revitalize former and accommodate existing land uses that continue to play an important role in the redevelopment of Lido Village.19 B. The Project Description is Inadequate Because the Description of the Role of the 32nd Street Alley is Unclear and Misleading
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15124 requires that a Draft EIR include a project description containing specific information about the project so that decision -makers and the public can understand the full scope of the project and its related impacts.20 In Santiago County Water Lust. v. County of Orange, the court held an EIR inadequate where it failed to describe key components of a mining project, which had the effect of masking the true extent of the project's environmental impacts.21 Here, the Draft EIR glosses over the very important fact that the Project will close the 32nd Street Alley and take away related property rights that have been continuously used and have served adjacent properties for many decades. The Draft EIR inaccurately states in the Traffic section that °[t]he project would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction." 22 The EIR obliquely and misleadingly references the closure of the 32nd Street Alley by stating that at some undefined point during "project implementation" the Project would close an "existing driveway" used only by Via Lido Plaza delivery trucks.23 Implying that the 32nd Street Alley is simply a private driveway is inaccurate; the Alley was first dedicated for public use in 1927, came under City ownership in 1946, and has continued to be used for decades thereafter_ Although the Draft EIR states that the Alley has been historically gated,24 the gate was installed only about 14 years ago, and throughout that period it has routinely been opened by truck drivers making deliveries to Via Lido Plaza. Furthermore, the gate has remained continuously open for at least the last two years, because of the closure of the old City Hall.
The Draft EIR's failure to openly disclose the role of closing the 32nd Street Alley stands in stark contrast to the City's statements made in court filings in its lawsuit to quiet title to the Alley. In those papers, the City has asserted that clarifying its right to close the Alley is necessary for the proposed Project to proceed.25 Failing to include the Alley's closure in the project description affects the rest of the Draft EIR's analysis, and precludes a full analysis of the associated impacts that arise from that closure. 19 See Draft EIR at 7-21 (stating how a reduced density alternative would "attain all of the project's objectives").
20 Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare, 70 Cal. App. 4th 20, 26 (1999). 21 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 829-30 (1981).
22 Draft EIR at 5.5-40,
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 See Complaint ¶ 14, City of Newport Beach v, Lido Partners, No. 30-2014-00715029-CU-OR-CJC (Compl. filed Apr. 7, 2014).
s-6
PAUL
HASTI PSI GS
June 13, 2014
C. The Draft EIR Inadequately Analyzes the Impact of the Closure of the 32nd Street Alley on Emergency Access
The Draft EIR states that the Newport Beach Fire Department "has evaluated the permanent closure of [the 32nd Street Alley] and determined that the closure would not affect emergency access ... ,"?s In fact, however, emergency access for Via Lido Plaza will be severely compromised, and the Draft EIR ignores the potential impacts to the existing Fire Station to the east of the Project that could affect emergency service across the City.
Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact with respect to transportation or traffic if it substantially increases hazards due to a design feature or results in inadequate emergency access.?' The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan requires projects to ensure efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles,?e To assist with its review of fire, safety, and emergency access issues, Lid❑ Partners engaged Fire Protection Planner Dana Kemper of Firesafe Planning Solutions to review the Draft EIR and additional Project -related materials. Mr. Kemper's conclusions are attached to this comment letter as Attachment C. and are incorporated by reference herein. The major deficiencies in the Draft ElR's analysis on emergency access include the following:
S-7
• Closing the 32nd Street Ailey will limit effective emergency access to Via Lido Plaza. Closing the 32nd Street Alley will eliminate the fastest and most feasible way for fire and safety vehicles to respond to an emergency at Via Lido Plaza. Via Lido Plaza will only be accessible by Via Lido, and would be entirely inaccessible through the Finley S"a Avenue entrance .29 The Draft EIR has made no effort to quantify the adverse impacts resulting from impaired or delayed emergency access to Via Lido Plaza.
Via Oporto does not meet City standards for a fire apparatus access roadway. The Draft EIR incorrectly states that access to the Fire Station can be accommodated along Via Oporto.30 Under the Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines, a street with parking on both sides, like Via Oporto, must be at least 36 feet wide to provide sufficient fire access_ Via Oporto does not fit this guideline for street widths and should not be considered an access point into the Fire Station. While the Fire Station`s engine and truck can use the front entrance facing 32nd Street, the paramedic unit must access the rear of the Fire Station, which, under the Project, would no longer be possible from any point except Via Oporto.31 The Draft EIR must be revised to account for access to the 2s Draft EIR at 5.5-40, see also id. at 5.5-51 to 5.5-52; 5.10-17; 5.12-28. 27 Draft EIR at 5.5-19; see also CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XVI.(d), (e). Appendix G is an environmental checklist that agencies use to determine whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment and whether it is necessary to prepare a negative declaration or an EIR. 14 CCR a 15063(f -
e City of Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element at 7-14 (hereinafter "Circulation Element"), zs Attachment C, Letter from D. Kemper, Firesafe, to G. Hart, Paul Hastings LLP, dated June 13, 2014, regarding Comments to the Lido House Hotel Draft EIR at 2 (hereinafter "Attachment C"). 36 Draft EIR at 5.10-17.
31 See Attachment C at 1.
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2914
Fire Station being limited to one access point, and analyze and mitigate the impacts to the paramedic unit. Depending on the size of the emergency vehicle, access may not be 8-9 possible through any other entrance.32
Limiting access to the Fire Station to 32nd Street could delay the City's ability to respond to emergencies. The Project proposes to modify certain features of the Fire Station property, which will compromise the City's ability to respond to emergencies.
Eliminating the Alley will render the Fire Station's rear entrance unusable for large vehicles. Fire trucks will no longer be able to travel up the Alley and pull in the rear of the building, which is considered a safer way to park fire trucks. Instead, fire trucks will now have to back into the Fire Station from 32nd Street, thereby clogging traffic and creating noise disturbances from back-up alarms. Additionally, if the Fire Station's bay door failed in the down position, the engine and truck would need to back out of the rear doors. It is unlikely this maneuver could be accomplished without moving all of the firefighters' private vehicles in the rear parking lot. Further delays could result if a paramedic was on call (and unavailable) during an emergency that necessitated the moving of his or her vehicle.'
The 32nd Street access to the Fire Station is unsafe. Project modifications to 32nd Street will make it less safe for use by fire and passenger vehicles. First, the Project will "narrow" 32nd Street from approximately three lanes to two lanes, leaving less room for fire trucks to get in and out of the Fire Station .34 Second, the Project's landscaping improvements (trees, etc.) will reduce the line -of -sight between vehicles traveling on 32nd Street andd fire trucks entering or exiting the Fire Station.35 Finally, because the hotel plans to route its own large delivery trucks through the narrow gated access immediately west of the Fire Station,36 32nd Street will suddenly have to accommodate Project delivery trucks, fire trucks, and passenger traffic making a series of delicate maneuvers in a narrowed street, within approximately 150 feet of each other.
D. The Draft EIR Fails to Analyze, and Mitigate, the Impacts of the 32nd Street Ailey Closure on Displaced Delivery Truck Traffic and Reduced Parking at Via Lido Plaza and the Fire Station
The validity of an EIR "depends in large part upon whether it provides the information necessary for the [lead agency] and the public to understand the nature and environmental consequences of the Project ."37 Title 14, California Code of Regulations section 15126.4(a)(1) requires a draft EIR to "describe 32 See Attachment A.
33 Attachment C at 2.
34 ld. at 2.
3s Id. at 3.
35 See Lido House Hotel, Service Access Analysis, available online in Lido House Hotel folder on City's website, Lido House Hotel subfolder, Sheet 14 (Liao House Hotel folder available starting at http://www.newportbeachca-gov/index.aspx?page=l 347).
37 Napa Citizens for Honest Gov v_ Napa County Bd. of Supervisors, 91 Cal. App, 4th 342, 356 (2001). 8-10
8-11
8-12
PAU L
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts" attributable to a project.38 The Draft EIR fails to account for the traffic, parking, noise, air quality, GHG and other impacts that will arise when 8-12 delivery and emergency vehicles are forced to access Via Lido Plaza through alternate means after the 32nd Street Alley is closed.
The Draft EIR's Traffic Impact Analysis evaluates trip generation rates arising from the Project's proposed hotel use only, and does not analyze extra traffic attributable to large emergency and delivery vehicles displaced from the 32nd Street Alley.39 This oversight is particularly critical considering that the Draft El recognizes that the Project will cause the largest increase in traffic at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Finley Avenue —congestion that will be further exacerbated if emergency and delivery trucks are also forced to use the NewportlFinley intersection to access Via Lido Plaza. Failing to account for increased emergency and delivery truck traffic on surrounding streets and intersections will necessarily require a revised analysis of other CEQA elements, such as noise, air quality and GHGs.
The Draft ElR's finding of a "less than significant impact" with respect to "hazards due to a design feature ... or incompatible uses" fails to consider the significant impacts on safety and traffic that would occur at Via Lido Plaza.41 Forcing large vehicles to use the Finley or Via Lido entrances to Via Lido Plaza would snarl traffic in several respects. Via Lido is the only road connecting the City with Via Lido Isle, which is home to approximately 1,800 City residents. As presently configured, the Via Lido driveway is too small to accommodate the entry of large trucks.42 There is also no traffic signal at the Via Lido entrance, and trucks turning out of Via Lido Plaza would have to make wide swings, disrupting passenger vehicles in the Plaza driveway and blocking or delaying traffic on Via Lido in both directions .4 The Finley entrance is simply too tight for a large truck to negotiate, and even if the driveway was modified, threading a large truck from Newport, on Finley, and into Via Lido Plaza would interfere with guests arriving and leaving the proposed Lido House Hotel.44 Even if a truck could access Via Lido Plaza through Finley, it would have no choice but to exit on Via Lido, compromising Newport, Finley, and Via Lido.4 Closing the 32nd Street Alley will also likely affect area parking in ways that the Draft E I R fails to consider. Substantially modifying Via Lido Plaza's remaining entrances to safely accommodate the reduced maneuverability of large vehicles (even assuming that is possible) would likely eliminate existing parking stalls. This could place Via Lido Plaza out -of -compliance with City parking regulations and require additional off -site parking. The proposed Project also appears to reduce parking at the Fire Station from 14 spots down to approximately 7 spots, which will force Fire Department staff and visitors to find parking elsewhere. Eliminating side street parking on Via Oporto (to accommodate the new Fire Station entrance) requires City Council action, which the Draft El does not appear to consider. The 38 See also Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21002 (declaring policy of California that public agencies "should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]"). 39 See Draft El at 5.5-22 to 5.5-23; Traffic Impact Analysis at 9-10. 40 See Draft El at 5.5-24, Table 5.5-8; Traffic Impact Analysis at 11. 41 Draft E I R at 8-7 to 8-8; see Attachment B, Letter from S. Bhattacharjee, P.E., Translutions, Inc. to G.
Hart, Paul Hastings LLP, dated June 12, 2014, re: Review of Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel at 1 (hereinafter "Attachment B").
42 See Attachment A.
43 id
44 Id,
45 Id
8-13
8-14
8-15
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
Draft EIR fails to recognize the significant impacts resulting from decreased parking at Via Lido Plaza and the Fire Station, and fails to make any attempt to mitigate these significant impacts or determine that such 8-15 mitigation is infeasible.
E. The 32nd Street Alley Closure Causes the Project to Conflict With Applicable Land Use Plans
The Project Causes Traffic and Parking Impacts That Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans
Project approvals and findings that are inconsistent with applicable land use plans can result in significant environmental impact8.46 According to Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, an EIR must "identify and discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and the governing general plan.A7 The City's General Plan contains several goals and policies related to traffic and parking. The Land Use Element provides that "[N]ew development shall be coordinated with ... standards for acceptable traffic level of service.n48 According to the Circulation Element, "the City needs to control and limit truck traffic to minimize the noise and other impacts on residents, avoid undue damage to infrastructure and minimize the potential for traffic congestion.n49 Goal 1.3 further aims far',[gruck routes that support goods movement to and from land use in the City while minimizing adverse impacts to residents or businesses," and follows with related policies to ensure trucks stay off residential streets by providing appropriately designed and maintained roadways to safely accommodate truck travel. so City policy further aims to "[i]mprove and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service access."51 Regarding parking, the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, and the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan all require new developments to provide adequate parking conveniently located to serve tenants, business patrons, guests and visitors.52 Here, removing access through the 32nd Street Alley and rerouting truck traffic to City streets conflicts with applicable land use plans. The Project would cause increased traffic throughout Lido Village and (by decreasing parking at Via Lido Plaza and the Fire Station) limit the amount of parking in an already congested area of the City. Truck traffic displaced to Finley, Via Lido, or Newport Boulevard will increase noise and traffic impacts near primary and secondary pedestrian corridors identified and protected by the Lido Village Design Guidelines.5 Rather than enhancing the quality of the 32nd Street Alley, the Project would erase it altogether, forcing more truck traffic onto surface streets. Simply put, the 46 See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section lx (land use and planning); Draft EIR at 5.1-13. See also Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 798 (2005) (finding El inadequate because it did not analyze traffic in accordance with particular method specified by general plan).
47 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552, 1566 (2011) (citations and emphasis omitted). 48 City of Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element at 3-9 ("Land Use Element')_ 49 Circulation Element at 7-7.
50 Circulation Element at 7-12.
51 Land Use Element at 3-56.
52 Land Use Element at 3-58; Circulation Element at 7-29; City Coastal Land Use Plan at 2-78_ 53 Lido Village Design Guidelines at 2-6 to 2-7 (highlighting pedestrian corridors). 8-'16
P A U L
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
effects associated with closing the 32nd Street Alley run contrary to nearly all of the City's policies related 8-16 to traffic and circulation.
Additionally, the Draft E€R's Parking Study concluded that the total parking spaces needed to adequately serve the Project is 152 space5.54 But the Project plans on providing only 148 off-street parking spaces, which conflicts with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan requiring adequate parking_55 If Via Lido Ptaza is forced to eliminate its own parking spaces to accommodate emergency and delivery access, Lido Village's parking shortfalls will be even further exacerbated. As recognized by the City's land use plans and related policies, it is unreasonable for adjacent property owners like Lido Partners to bear the brunt of parking impacts caused by the Project. Because the Project's significant traffic and parking impacts conflict with applicable land use plans, they accordingly require further analysis and mitigation in the Draft EIR.
2. The Project's Closure of the 32nd Street Ailey Conflicts With Existing Land Use Plans and Permitting Ordinances Designed to Protect Adjacent Property Uses
The City has stated that the Project's goal is to revitalize Lido Village in such a way that "enhances economic activity."56 But the Project will create a significant adverse economic impact on Via Lido Plaza, particularly the anchor tenant of West Marine, conflicting with applicable land use plans and City ordinances that protect land uses of existing property owners. The Draft EIR fails to analyze or mitigate the significant impacts caused by these conflicts.
Under the City's General Plan, the City requires that "new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors ... complement existing uses."57 Policy LU 3.2, titled "Growth and Change," allows for "re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale and character" with existing neighborhoods and districts,58 "[B]uildings and properties [should] be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors."59 The City also aims to "[a]ccommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents."GO The City seeks to "[e]ncourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support nigh -quality community services."61 Marine -related uses along the bay front are encouraged, and new developments should "avoid impacts to existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related developments;" in such a case, "full consideration" must be given to land uses on adjacent properties .s2 Two "cornerstones" of the Lido Village Design Guidelines are to "[p]romote connectivity throughout the Village" and to "Ic]onsider economic realities and viability."fib Under the Design Guidelines, one of the specific goats for the City Hall 54 ❑ raft EIR at 5.547.
s5 Id.; see also City Coastal Land Use Plan Policy at 2-78. 5s Draft EIR at 3-18.
57 Land Use Element at 3-54.
sa Id. at 3-9.
sa Id. at 3-61.
50 Id. at 3-7,
s1 ld. at 3-6.
&2 ld. at 3-10.
sa Lido Village Design Guidelines at 2-2
8-17
E.W:3
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
site (where the Project is proposed to be built) is to "maximize[] value without compromising existing owners and their tenant mixes."64 8-18
Further protection is afforded by City ordinances regulating the issuance of Planned Development Permits and Site Development Reviews, which the Project will require to proceed.55 For a Planned Development Permit, the City would have to determine that the project, as conditioned, "will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties or allowed uses."56 During Site Development Review, the City must "ensure safe and convenient access and circulation for pedestrians and vehicles,' 7 and find that a proposed development is "[n]ot detrimental to the harmonius and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience.... interest, .. , or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development."s$
The Project also conflicts with the City's General Plan, Lido Village Design Guidelines, and permitting ordinances because it will compromise the existing use and layout of Via Lido Plaza, which depends on the 32nd Street Alley for financial viability and public safety. Delivery and emergency access for Via Lido Plaza is very important, whether the tenant is West Marine (as it is now) or a grocery store (as it was for several decades, and could be again in the future). For a large commercial center, having the flexibility to accommodate several potential uses is key to servicing the Newport Beach community, particularly where the area's character is changing (e.g., new residential development is being constructed nearby on Via Lido"). The Draft EIR fails to consider that closing the Alley will disadvantage West Marine, a maritime goods store that services the marine uses along the bay front. Without sufficient delivery access, the Project would also severely limit the ability of Via Lido Plaza to host a grocery store or any other large-scale business that caters to growing residential use or would be attractive to hotel and beach guests. As demonstrated above, the Project will also impair emergency access to Via Lido Plaza, which will seriously concern tenants and prospective tenants. Because adjacent commercial centers are protected by the City's land use plans, policies, and development ordinances, the Draft EIR must thoroughly analyze and mitigate the significant impacts caused by the Project's effect on adjacent and maritime -oriented property uses.
F. The Draft EIR Fails to Analyze or Mitigate the Significant Physical Changes From Economic Impacts on Via Lido Plaza That Will Result From Closing the Alley Under 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15064(e), when a project's economic or social effects cause an adverse physical change to the environment, this change is to be disclosed and regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. According to Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, to the 64 Lido Village Design Guidelines at 2-4.
65 Draft EIR at 5.1-53.
fir'City Municipal Code § 20.52.060(F)(4),
s' City Municipal Code § 20.52.080(A)j3).
68 City Municipal Code § 20.52.080(F)(3).
fig Draft EIR at 3-4. Additional residential development, such as the multi -family development contemplated for 3303 and 3355 Via Lido, could change the character of Lido Village. Limiting the use of Vla Lido Plaza by closing the 32nd Street Alley would negatively and unreasonably impact uses sought by the changing community.
MW
1 8-21
PAU L
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
extent that "potential is demonstrated" for urban decay andlor physical deterioration to be indirect environmental effects of a proposed project, an agency must consider these issues in an EIR.70 Here, if the Project closes the 32nd Street Alley, the layout and design of the remaining entrance driveways into Via Lido Plaza effectively prohibit large emergency and delivery trucks from accessing the center's loading dock at the rear of the main commercial building. Without sufficient delivery or emergency access, Via Lido Plaza becomes much less valuable, as the Plaza would be unusable for many tenants like markets or grocery stores, which have occupied the space in the past. Reconfiguring the Via Lido Plaza driveways on Finley and Via Lido would be very expensive and would likely result in the loss of parking spaces, potentially putting Via Lido Plaza out of compliance with City parking requirements. The Project essentially places Via Lido Plaza in a "lose -lose" —with out sufficient delivery access, or sufficient parking, the property may be unattractive for many tenants, leading to long-term vacancies, decreased economic activity, and potential decay of the entire Lido Village area. The Draft EIR fails to analyze the physical consequences of the adverse economic effects that will arise from closing the 32nd Street Alley, including the potential for business closures and vacancies to start an economic chain reaction leading to physical deterioration of the surrounding area." III. THE DRAFT EIR'S TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS LEGALLY INADEQUATE Beyond the specific deficiencies described above related to the impacts of closing the 32nd Street Alley, the Draft EIR contains more general legal deficiencies, particularly with respect to its analysis of traffic impacts. The Draft EIR relies on the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis ("Traffic Impact Analysis") and Parking Study for the Lido House Hotel ("Parking Study") included in Appendix 11.3 to support its traffic and parking impact analysis.72 The Traffic Impact Analysis and Parking Study contain several technical errors that render the Draft EIR's conclusions and estimates on traffic and parking unreliable. Correcting these errors will likely reveal significant traffic and parking impacts that require mitigation and recirculation of the Draft EIR.
To assist with its review of traffic and parking issues, Lido Partners engaged traffic engineer Sand ipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., principal of Translutions, Inc, to review the adequacy of the Draft EIR and relevant appendices. Mr. Bhattacharjee's conclusions are attached to this comment letter as Attachment B, and are incorporated by reference herein. The major deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Analysis include the following:
79 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 171 (1985); see generally Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control V. City of Bakersfield 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1204-13 (2004) (holding that EIR improperly omitted any meaningful consideration of whether two retail shopping center projects could cause a "ripple of store closures and consequent long-term vacancies that would eventually result in general deterioration and decay within and outside the market area of the two shopping centers."); Citizens Assn., 172 Cal. App. 3d at 170-71 (holding that lead agency should consider whether a new shopping center would start an economic chain reaction that would lead to physical deterioration of the downtown area). 71 See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control, 124 Cal. App. 4th at 1208 (finding sufficient evidence for the EIR to consider whether a retail project's impacts on shopping center could start a "chain reaction that ultimately results in urban decay"),
72 See Draft EIR at 5.5-1 (stating that Traffic/Circulation section is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis and the Parking Study).
8-21
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13. 2014
The Traffic Impact Analysis fails to analyze beach and weekend traffic. The Draft EIR should perform a weekend and peak season analysis to more accurately evaluate the Project's impacts on City traffic. Limiting the analysis to weekday traffic masks the Project's true traffic impacts, because Saturday traffic for the hotel is expected to be approximately 18% higher than during the week, and peak hotel use is likely to coincide with the City's busy summer beach season.73 Traffic generated by the Project will be substantially different than that generated by the former City Hall, which generated typical commuter traffic and was closed on weekends and holiday&74 For instance, the intersection of Newport and Finley will be expected to handle much more weekend traffic than it has in the past, because during the peak weekend travel periods it will have to accommodate customers shopping at Via Lido Plaza and guests checking into Lido House Hotel. These traffic impacts also have the potential to interfere with and overburden Via Lido Plaza's recorded easement that connects the shopping center with Newport Boulevard.
8-22
■ The "peak hour" traffic analyzed in the Traffic impact Analysis does not correspond to actual peak conditions. The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzes p.m. "peak hour" traffic from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Due to the City's traffic patterns, however, the 8-23 afternoon "peak hour" actually occurs around 2 p.m.T6 The Traffic Impact Analysis must be updated to accurately reflect existing conditions.
■ The City failed to measure traffic field counts at the right time of year. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that current field counts should be taken between February 1 and May 31.78 According to the Draft ElR, however, traffic counts were taken 8-24 in October 2013,77 which is inconsistent with City code. The City must perform traffic field counts at the right time of year.
The Draft EIR's intersection Capacity Utilization ("ICU") analysis is inadequately explained. In Table 5.5-16, several intersections show the "without project" ICU as higher than the "with project" ICU, corresponding with Level of Service ("LDS") worksheets that traffic volumes under "with project" conditions are less than traffic volumes under "without project" conditions. This counterintuitive result should be explained. Additionally, comparing Tables 5.5-19 and 5.5-20 shows that the delay under the General Plan Buildout without project conditions is less than forecasted for 2018 Cumulative with project conditions. The Draft EIR should explain whether the traffic " Attachment B at 1.
74 Similarly, mitigation measure TRA-2 requires a Parking Management Plan to restrict parking for in - demand parking spaces only from 6,00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Draft EIR at 5.5-48.
This mitigation measure ignores the fact that restrictions on weekend parking are likely to be necessary, too. See Attachment B at 4.
75 Attachment B at 2.
76 City Municipal Code, Chapter 15.40, Appx. A, § 3(d)(i). 77 Draft EIR at 5.5-6.
8-25
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
analysis is expecting a reduction in traffic volumes between 2018 and the General Plan 8-25 Buildout."
The Traffic Impact Analysis underestimates traffic impacts by failing to perform an accurate Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM") analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis fails to account for several variables required by the HCM, resulting in an artificially low estimation of traffic impacts. First, the Traffic impact Analysis fails to apply Peak Hour Factors ("PH!'") when evaluating Caltrans intersections. The Traffic Impact Analysis also fails to account for minimum green times and pedestrian crossings at these intersections.
Applying the proper PHF and pedestrian crossing times is necessary to determine whether a significant traffic impact will result. Second, the 2010 HCM automatically reports LOS F for any intersection where the volume to capacity ("VIC") ratio exceeds
1.0. The Project's Traffic Impact Study incorrectly reports LOS E at several locations where VIC ratios are greater than 1. Third, the LOS sheets included in the Traffic Impact Analysis fail to include the lost time values required for evaluating Caltrans intersections by the 2000 HCM, in Chapter 10, Ex. 10-17. The Traffic Impact Analysis must be revised to account for each and all of these missing factors at the applicable intersections and highways; failing to do so underestimates the traffic impacts that the Project is likely to cause or contribute.79
The Draft EIR fails to adequately mitigate existing significant traffic impacts. Based on the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Section II, "if an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE (measures of effectiveness] should be maintained," Based on the Draft EIR's Table 5.5-21, intersections 3 and 6 indicate increases in a-m_ peak hour traffic.
Table 5.5-21 wrongly concludes "no" for "significant impact." even though these intersections are already operating at less than the appropriate target LOS. Traffic impacts at intersections already operating below an appropriate LOS must be mitigated to bring conditions to pre -Project levels of service_80 The Draft EIR fails to require any such mitigation.
+ The Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze cumulative traffic impacts. According to 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15355(b), an EIR must analyze cumulative impacts result from "individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." In two respects, the Draft EIR fails to analyze traffic impacts that are cumulatively significant.
❑ Increasing traffic impacts that are already significant. Under Los Angeles Unified School Dist v. City of Los Angeles, a project that results in an increase to an impact that already exceeds established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulative impact.81 A proper traffic analysis using the methodologies described above will show that significant traffic impacts already exist. The 78 Attachment B at 3.
79 Id.
sa Id.
81 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1024-28 (1997).
8-27
8-28
PAUL
HASTI NGS
June 13, 2014
Projecfs contribution to these significant impacts requires an analysis of the cumulative impacts, the application of appropriate mitigation or avoidance under 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15130(b)(5), and the recirculation of the Draft EIR.82
o Failing to analyze future residential projects. According to 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15133(b), a draft EIR must evaluate related or cumulative impacts produced from future projects. According to the Draft EIR, "(t)he City has approved an application for a multiple -family residential development at 3303 and 3355 Via Lido," replacing current office and institutional uses.83 The Draft EIR and Traffic Impact Analysis, however, improperly omit these nearby residential developments from their cumulative impacts analyses.4 Replacing office and institutional land uses with residential uses, particularly so close to the Project, will necessarily result in changed traffic patterns around the Project site, but these and related impacts are not analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Wfl
• The Traffic Impact Analysis is missing daily and peak hour count sheets. The Draft EIR states that " [d]aily and peak hour count sheets are provided in Appendix 11.3."'-' $-29 This is incorrect, as Appendix 11.3 fails to contain daily count sheets.
The Traffic Impact Analysis fails to study the southbound direction of Newport Boulevard at 28th Street. The intersection of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard is listed as one of the study intersections. Newport Boulevard is split into two one-way 8-3Q streets at that location. The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzes only the northbound direction of Newport Road. This oversight should be corrected, and the southbound direction should be analyzed as well.
The Parking Study's comparison to L'Auberge Del Mar and Estancia fails to consider whether meeting space use contributed to parking levels. In an attempt to justify the Project's inadequate on -site parking, the Parking Study applies the City's parking code to L'Auberge Del Mar and Estancia and concludes that these facilities, if within the City's jurisdiction, would technically require parking in considerable excess of surveyed conditions. But the Parking Study's analysis fails to state whether either facility's ballroom or meeting spaces were in use when the parking surveys were conducted. If they were not, these surveys very likely underestimate the true parking conditions of each hotel. Here, even if the Project hotel was at only 90% capacity, the guest demand combined with restaurant parking would exceed the number of on -site parking spaces, without accounting for parking used by hotel staff, City residents using hotel services, or visits generated by ballroom events. 87 82 Attachment B at 3.
83 Draft EIR at 3-4.
84 See id. at 4-2 to 4-4, Table 4-1
s5 Id. at 5.5-6.
8s Attachment B at 2.
B' Id. at 4.
8-31
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
The Parking Study fails to analyze problems of improper parking at Via Lido Plaza.
Beach visitors, particularly in the summer season, often improperly park at Via Lido Plaza for reasons unrelated to patronizing the shopping center. Lido Partners currently has an application into the City for the erection of parking gates at the Via Lido and Finley Avenue entrances to Via Lido Plaza to help alleviate this problem and ensure sufficient parking remains for Via Lido Plaza shoppers and tenants. The City, however, has been delaying its consideration of Lida Partners' application. This parking problem is likely to be exacerbated once the Project draws additional vehicles into the Lido Village area.
Indeed, whenever the Lido House Hotel will be under -parked, visitors will have no nearby place to park other than at Via Lido Plaza. The Parking Study and Draft EIR fail to adequately account for or control parking that will inevitably spill over into Via Lido Plaza once the Project's insufficient on -site parking is at capacity, or when the removal of Fire Station or street parking leads to improper parking at Via Lido Plaza.
IV. THE DRAFT EIR'S ANALYSIS OF DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS
LEGALLY INADEQUATE
Another general deficiency fn the Draft EIR that goes beyond the specific issues associated with the closure of the 32nd Street Alley is the woefully inadequate description and analysis of the construction and demolition activities necessary to construct the Project. These activities could have a substantial Impact on Via Lido Plaza, but the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient information to determine the true nature and extent of these impacts.
A. The Project Description Fails to Adequately Describe and Analyze Demolition and Construction Activities
The Project description fails to sufficiently describe the process related to the demolition of the old City Hall complex and construction of the proposed Project. According to Santiago County Wafer District v. County of Orange, "[a]n accurate project description," including a description of necessary construction activities, "is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR."8B Here, the Draft EIR mentions demolition and construction activities in three brief sentences, and notes simply that the Project will be constructed in one phase, that demolition will obviously take place before construction, and that construction will take fourteen month09 The Draft EIR neglects to provide any other information on demolition and construction activities, save for some vague and contradictory information on the number of truck trips required for hauling material to and from the Project site. In light of the substantial impacts expected to result from redeveloping a 185,000 square foot site in a dense beach community, CEQA requires a more thorough description of the processes, equipment, and efforts involved in demolition and construction_
While the Draft EIR anticipates that exporting demolished materials will require 276 total haul truck trips,90 it is unclear what types of demolition activity will take place, what equipment will be used, what sorts of materials will be transported away from the site, whether those materials pose any safety or traffic risks, and what types of vehicles will be used in demolition and how they will access the property. ss 118 Cal. App. 3d. 818, 830 (1981).
89 Draft EIR at 3-18.
90 Id. at 5.5-20.
8-32
8-33
PAUL
HASTI N GS
June 13, 2014
The Draft EIR also anticipates at least 922 total haul truck trips to import soil onto the site —approximately 44 trips per day.91 But other figures within the Draft EIR suggest that approximately 2,188 trips will be needed to haul soil —a nearly 140% increase.92 Regardless of which figures are correct, the Draft EIR fails to explain why such a massive amount of soil needs to be imported onto the Project site, how and where such soil will be unloaded, and how the soil will be managed as to avoid significant impacts to neighboring properties. For instance, while thousands of trucks of soil are likely to generate substantial dust, the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze or mitigate for the resultant dust impacts. The Draft El also fails to account for the number of trucks carrying building materials and everything else (besides soil) needed to build a hotel project.
Simply put, there is no meaningful analysis of the impacts on the Lido Village community (including Via Lido Plaza) that are anticipated to occur during the Project's fourteen month construction, what impacts are acceptable and what impacts are unacceptable, and how the Project proposes to mitigate those significant impacts for the surrounding community. The Draft EIR should more adequately analyze the noise, traffic, air quality, and GHG impacts to surrounding residential and commercial developments arising from the demolition of old City Hall and construction of the Project.93 B. The Draft EIR Improperly Defers Mitigation for the Significant Impacts Related to Demolition and Construction Activities
While an EIR can evaluate mitigation that could reduce a project's significant environmental impacts, 14 California Code of Regulations, section 15126.4(a)(1)(6) states that °[f]orrnulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time." If an agency commits at the time of project approval to devising specific mitigation measures in the future, it must provide specific performance standards or guidelines for this future mitigation in the EIR .94 If a lead agency does determine that formulation of a mitigation measure must be deferred, it should explain why deferral is appropriate. Under City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., "[Qmpermissible deferral of mitigation measures occurs when an EIR puts off analysis or orders a report without either setting standards or demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in the manner described in the EIR." g5 In San Joaquin Rap tar Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced, the court found mitigation improperly deferred when no reason for the deferral was given.96
Here, the Draft EIR improperly defers mitigation for the significant impacts expected to result from the demolition of the old City Hall complex and the construction of the Project. While such a massive construction effort will clearly result in impacts to noise, air quality, GHGs, and other impacts requiring analysis under CEQA, the Draft EIR establishes no performance standards or guidelines as to how such impacts are to be measured, evaluated, or mitigated. Instead, the Draft EIR improperly defers analysis 91 ld
92 id_ at 5.8-17.
93 See id. at 1-1 (explaining that the City relocated City Hall staff from the Project site to the new Civic Center in April 2013),
9 4 See, e. g. , Communities for a Better Eno v City of Richmond 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 95 (2010) (emphasizing that "the time to analyze the impacts of [a project; and to formulate mitigation measures to minimize or avoid those impacts was during the EIR process, before [a project is] brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for final approval.").
95 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 915-16 (2009) (citations omitted). 96 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 670-71 (2007),
8-33
8-34
PAUL
HASTINGS
June 13, 2014
and mitigation of the construction and demolition traffic and other impact issues to an ill-defined "Construction Management Plan." This is a classic case of impermissible deferred mitigation, because the Draft EIR "does no more than require a report be prepared and followed ... without setting any standards," A7 other than very basic limits on hauling during off-peak hours and a general directive to "avoid traffic disruptions." 8
Without any standards, it is impossible to determine whether implementation of the Construction Management Plan will effectively mitigate the significant impacts caused by demolition and construction.
Regarding traffic, for example, while demolition and construction will generate hundreds or thousands of truck trips, the Draft EIR impermissibly defers construction phasing and the identification of truck routes to the Construction Management Plan. Deferring the analysis of construction vehicle traffic to a later date casts doubt upon the efficacy of the Draft EIR's entire traffic analysis, particularly when construction alone is expected to generate between 1,200 and 2,400 truck trips into a tightly constrained community like Lido Village. The Draft EIR must undertake an analysis of and mitigate these significant impacts now and cannot defer its CEQA responsibilities to a later time.
We appreciate your consideration of the legal deficiencies described above, and ask that the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated to more faithfully analyze and mitigate the Project's significant environmental impacts. Specifically, we ask that the City analyze an alternative as described above that would minimally reconfigure the Hotel to preserve the 32nd Street Alley, and that the City select this alternative as the Environmentally Superior alternative and modify the Project accordingly, Sincerely,
Gordon E. Hart
of PAUL HASTtNGS LLP
66de:mFann
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP
9r See Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 794 (2005). For instance, the EIR does not restrict the number of daily construction trips or require any other best practices, unlike what was found sufficient for mitigating the impacts of dirt hauling in Endangered Habitats League. See id.
ss Draft EIR at 5.5-20 to 5.5-21.
99 Id. at 5.5-21.
8-34
ATTACHMENT A
MISR
ai1VR37fl091.21OdAR3N �_'�_ �--'
-- � ��-
_
{f}
Lol
LU
u
LU
cc
LU
U LLI
U �
LL J
of �
LU
LU < L L
W
v ! Q
N ~
mLr)
LD
p
of8 .9
Lz �
Q U w •d 8 0 �=
jQ
F7LnZ VI
Q LU; �� �o�o
0� u o
❑ N u / 1�
J = a
z
�f � ❑ x a F w=_} w
m
Lu z Qa
[J ¢ z w?oo
Z z �? LULU
ATTACHMENT B
transIutic) ns
tine transportation solutions companJ...
June 12, 2014
Mr. Gordon E. Hart, Partner
Paul Hastings LLP
55 Second Street, Twenty -Fourth Floor,
San Francisco, California 94105
Subject: Review of Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel Dear Mr. Hart:
translutions, Inc.
ae r{Inr.
Iry ina, Ca IJo rnia q:tiza
Translutions, Inc. {Translations} is pleased to present this letter summarizing our findings from the review of 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.
General Comments
We recognize that City policy emphasizes the avoidance of overbuilding traffic infrastructure to respond to periods of peak beach traffic. The Circulation Element of the General Plan states, "Summertime beach traffic has been a challenge for Newport Beach since the 1920's. During June, July and August, weekend traffic near the beach and harbor is substantially higher than typical springlfa11("shoulder season") or winter conditions. Volumes on impacted roadways generally increase by almost 30 percent, but summertime beach traffic occurs at different times than the typical weekday business or school related traffic during most of the year. The two locations with weekend volume increases of more than 30 percent during the summer are Newport Boulevard south of Coast Highway (75 percent) and Balboa Boulevard east of 20th Street (75 percent) on the Pen i n s ul a". (Newport Beach General Plan, Circulation Element at 7-3 'Circulation Element ). The Circulation Element also states that "This Circulation Element continues longstanding Newport Beach policies of using the shoulder season for transportation planning, sizing the circulation system to meet the needs of City residents and businesses, and maintaining the character of the community. While these policies may prevent the City from achieving a desired level of service at all locations at all hours, they also protect Newport Beach from building oversized roads to serve weekend summer beach traffic or traffic generate outside of our borders and our control. Instead, policies in this Element encourage improvements to the regional system that will provide more capacity outside Newport Beach and reduce the number of through travelers that drive on our local streets". (Circulation Elementat7--3 to 7-4). That said, the City collecting weekday traffic information ignores the fact that peak Project traffic and peak beach traffic may coincide on the weekends.
Unlike the traffic generated by businesses or schools, hotels generate approximately 18 percent more traffic on Saturdays than they do during the week (10.5 trips on Saturday compared to 8.92 for a weekday). Likewise, on Saturdays, the p.m. peak hour of traffic generation for a hotel during a weekend is 0.87, whereas for weekdays it is 0.74, again an increase of about 18 percent. These trip generation numbers are based on the institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 9", Edition, the same source used for trip generation calculations in the TW The Circulation Element recognizes that the Project area sees some of the highest increases in summertime weekend traffic. (Circulation Element at73). Due to the primarily vacation -related use of the hotel, the Draft E I R could potentially understate impacts because of the higher trip generation and higher traffic volumes on the adjacent streets. Unlike summer beach traffic or traffic generated by through travelers which are generated by other Cities, the City has the ability to exercise some measure of control over a City -led Project that will generate traffic within the City's borders. Moreover, traffic at the adjacent Via Lido Plaza is highest during weekends, which makes it even more important for weekend traffic ramifications of the Project to be analyzed, particularly at the intersections of Newport Blvd. and Via Lido, Finley Ave., and 32nd Street.
2. The Draft E I R makes the statement that the alley connection to Via Lido Plaza has been historically gated (Draft EIRat 5.5- 40). In fact, the gate was installed in the year 2000. In addition, truck drivers are able to open the gate for deliveries. The implied meaning that the connection is rarely used is incorrect.
3. Further, in Section 8, the Draft EIR states that the project would not "Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)" (Draft EIR at 8-7 to 8-8). This 8-36
8-37
8-38
tra 0M Ixrzs
U31
finding is true only if one focuses narrowly on the Project. When adjacent properties are considered, closing the alley used for deliveries to the Via Lido Plaza will significantly impact the safety of visitors to the retail center since the turning radii at the other entrances to the existing shopping center do not allow safe turning of trucks. Keeping the alley connection to Via Lido 8-38 Plaza open will help alleviate this condition.
4. The Draft EIR finds that the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Draft EIR at 5.540 0 55-41j, While true for the Project itself, emergency access to the Via Lido Plaza will he severely affected. Keeping the alley connection to 8-39 Via Lido Plaza open will help alleviate this condition.
The Draft EIR states "Daily and peak hour count sheets are provided in Appendix 11.3" (Draft EIR at 5.5-6). However, daily $-4� count sheets are not included in the Traffic Analysis in Appendix 11.3. l
6. The Traffic Impact Study analyzes p.m. "peak hour" traffic from 4 p,m. to 6 p.m., (Draft EIR at5.5-E)when actual conditions suggest that peak p.m. traffic occurs at 2 p.m. Clue to the traffic patterns in the City of Newport Beach, and due to the absence of daily count data, an analysis of PeMS data for SR-55 near 22nd Street was conducted to verify accuracy of information provided in the traffic analysis. The PeMS data shows the following:
Data Lluaiity
Hour
Flaw WehlHour)
# Lane Points
% Observed
06/03/2014 14:00
3.572
48 83.0
061031201415:00
3,538
48 100.0
06I031201416:00
3,452
48 100.0
06/031201417:00
3,366
48 10M
06/0312014 18:00
3,022
48 100.0
0610312014 19:00
2,731
48 100.0
06104/201414:00
3,622
48 100.0
0610412014 15:00
3,542
48 100.0
06104/2014 16:00
3,526
48 100.0
061041201417;00
3,356
48 100.0
061041201418:00
2,913
48 100.0
W0412014 19:00
2,636
48 100.0
061051201414:00
3,522
48 100.0
0610512014 15:00
3,486
48 100.0
0610512014 16M
3,522
48 100.0
06105120141 T,00
3,240
48 100.0
061051201418:00
2,892
48 100.0
061051201419:00
2,836
48 100.0
The above table shows that the p.m. peak hour for Newport Beach does not occur during the traditional peak hour of 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The analysis uses trip generation rates for "peak hour of adjacent street traffic" but potentially does not analyze peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Please provide daily count data for streets in the vicinity of the project to identify peak hours and revise analysis for the actual peak hour based on daily segment counts to disclose impacts during the actual peak hour.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Artaiysls:
611212014RC:lUsersl5andipanlDropboxlTsolslF(ffjects\Lida House HotehAnal Letter.aocx) 8-41
�transjutions
� r eii an.r,u�tni�� u�ii �, w,��. �nro�•nnq�
1. Table 5.5-16: Several locations show that the "without project" ICU is higher than the "with project" ICU. Upon review of the LOS worksheets, it appears that the traffic volumes under "with project conditions" are less than the traffic volumes under 8-42 "without project conditions." Please explain.
2. A comparison of Tables 5.5-19 and 5.5-20 shows that the delay under General Plan conditions is less than that for 2018. is i $_43 the traffic analysis expecting a reduction in traffic volumes between 2018 and General Plan Suildout? Please explain. + Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Analysis
Peak Hour Factors: The analysis using HCM methodology does not include Peak Hour Factors (PHF), resuiting in the use of traffic counts that are artificially low and not reflective of the actual peak analysis required by Caltrans. A review of traffic counts shows that several locations have PHFs of less than 0.95 for the whole Intersection. Essentially, the analysis discounts traffic volumes by more than 5% in the analysis. Please note that Caltrans recommends the use of observed peak hour factors for existing and near term scenarios and recommends the use of 0.92 from the Highway Capacity Manual when existing peak hour data is not available or for future analyses when the existing PH Fs are less than 0.92, The change in P H F could change an intersection from satisfactory to unsatisfactory operations.
2. Pedestrian Crossing Time: The HCM analysis does not provide minimum green times. While the allocation of green time to the major streets allows enough time for pedestrians to cross the minor streets, the allocation of green time to the minor street movements do not allow pedestrians enough time to cross the major streets. For example, at the intersection of Orange StreetlW Coast Highway, the time allocated far Orange Street is 7%, or less than 7 seconds since the cycle length is 100 seconds. W Coast Highway has seven lanes (including the one light turn lane) at that intersection. Based on the Calrfomia Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2012 Edition (MUTCD) FHWA's MUTCD,2009 Edition as amended for use in CaIifomia, Chapter 4-E, using a pedestrian walk speed of 3.5 feet per second is recommended. For pedestrians to cross safely, the minimum time required to safely cross W Coast Highway at the intersection of Orange StreetlW Coast Highway is 24 seconds. The minimum green time should be at least 28 seconds for the minor street movements. This will change the findings of the Draft E I R since less time will be allocated to the major movements and could result in unsatisfactory traffic operations for the intersections. The lack of minimum green time and an allocation of less than the time needed for safe pedestrian crossing was noticed in multiple intersections.
3. Reported LOS. HCM 2000 states "A critical Y/a ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the overall signal and geometric design provides inadequate capacity forthegivenVows , and recommends that additional analyses over longer time periods be conducted. HCM 2010 automatically reports LOS F for any intersection where the vlc is greater than 1 A. Here, the Draft E I R and Traffic Impact Study incorrectly report LOS E at several locations where the VIC ratios are higher than 1.0. Far example, under General Plan conditions, at the intersection of Newport Blvd (NS) I W Coast Hwy (EW), the delay is 76 seconds when the vlc is 1.177 (Trafh'c Impact Study, Appx. G at GP+P AM at 5- f), This is even more erroneous at the intersection of Newport Boulevard (SR-55)119th Street where the reported LOS is LOS D when the VIC ratio is 1.041 (Tralfc Impact Study, Appx. G at GP+PAMat 9-1). Since the demand is higher than the available capacity, it is counterintuitive that the intersection would operate at LOS E. It is reoommend ed that the analysis be based on HCM 2010 instead of HCM 2000, or at the very least reporting as LOS F intersections where the vlc ratio is greater than 1.0, Correcting this analysis will result in additional impacts from the project.
5-44
5-45
5-46
4. Under Los Angeles Uniifed ScA Dist. v City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, and Communities fora BetterEnv7 vCalifomia Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal-App. 4th 98, a project that results in an increase to an impact that already exceeds established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulative impact, As a result of Items 1-3 above, there will 8-47 be findings of new cumulative impacts, if not direct project impacts, requiring a recirculation of the environmental document.
Parking Analysis
1. The proposed design appears to take away some parking spaces that are currently used by the Fire Department. Where will I 8_4$ Fire Station employees and visitors to the Fire Station park? 6112014(CAUserMSandipan\DropbWTsolsTrojectsUdo House Hotelfinal Letter.Don)
�tran��utiari�
flee r �pa.f�rinn r�d�m�. rn�ury..
The analysis for L'Auburge Del Mar applied to Lida House Hotel is deceptive. The analyses claims that "Newport Beach code would require 795 parking stalls, but the highest observed parking need was 173 stalls." However, it is unclear if L'Auberge's ball room was in use at the time the survey was conducted. If the ball room was not in use, the application of Newport Beach Code would require 186 spaces, which is very close to the observed parking demand. Use of the ballroom would likely drive the parking need higher. It should be noted that the proposed Lido House Hotel does not include a large ball room, the major parking generator for the L'Auburge Del Mar hotel.
5-49
3. The selection of Estanda La Jolla is similarly flawed because of the meeting rooms. If the meeting rooms were not being used during the parking surveys (or partially used), the parking demand would be approximately 297 per code, not as far off from 8-50 the observed demand of 243 parked vehicles.
4. Even if 90% or the rooms are in use with one car parked per room, the parking demand would be 117 cars. An additional 35 parked vehicles for the restaurant would lead to 152 parked vehicles, a shortfall in parking without even accounting for Note! 8-51 staff. This doesn't even include parking needs from the spa and retail, when a stated project objective is to provide such services to residents as well as hotel guests (Drafl E1Rat72). 5, TRA 2: The mitigation measure requiring the development of a Parking Management Plan does not address these issues. S_5z Although the analysis states that weekend parking demand is higher, the parking restrictions are applied only to weekdays.
6. One of the mitigation measures is 'Encourage on -site employee parking by providing free parking on -site... "Since the project j S-5� is under parked, employees parking on -site will only make the parking situation worse. l
7. It is likely that the parking will overflow onto the Via Lido Plaza and hamper operations of the retail center. What analysis has 5-54 been done to prevent that from occurring?
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,
trap lu ion , ,nc.
Sandipan atta6Fiarjee, P.E., A I C P
Principal
611212014 {C:1UserslSandfpangropboxlTsolslProjectslLido House Hoteffinal Letter,0ocxj
ATTACHMENT C
iresat
June 13, 2014
Gordon E. Hart, Partner
Paul Hastings LLP
55 Second Street, Twenty -Fourth Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: Comments to the Lido House Hotel Draft EIR:
Dear Mr. Heart,
Firesafe Planning Solutions was asked to provide comments for the Draft EIR for the Lido House Hotel located in Newport Beach, CA. The comments are to address fire department operations, impacts, and access. Our comments are based on information received from Paul Hastings LLP, Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines and Standards, Google Earth, and the Newport Beach Website, Projects 1 Environmental Document Download Page, which includes:
• Via Lido Plaza: Without 32"d Street Access Standard California Legal 65' tractor Trailer • Lido House Hotel — Sheet 10, Open Space Diagram
• Lido House Hotel - Sheet 13, Fire Department Site Access Analysis • Lido House Hotel - Sheet 14, Service Access Analysis
■ Lido House Hotel Notice of Preparation 110413, Conceptual Site Layout Based on the materials above we are providing you with these comments:
■ Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline, C.01, is their standard for fire access, lanes, gates, and barriers. 1n this guideline they give a minimum roadway width of 20 feet with no parking allowed. To have parking on one side of the street it would have to be 32 feet wide and to have parking on both sides the street has to be 36 feet wide. The new layout of the hotel takes out the access to Fire Station #2 from the alley that goes from Finley Avenue to 32"d Street. This leaves access to the station only off of Via Oporto and 32nd Street. However, with parking allowed on Via Oporto, this street does not fit the guideline for street widths and should not be considered as the access road to the Fire Station #2 as indicated in the draft EIR. The fire station houses an engine, truck and paramedic unit. While the engine and truck can respond out of the front of the fire station, the paramedic unit must use the rear access. Via Oporto does not meet the city standards for afire apparatus access roadway.
8-55
Comments to the Lido House Hotel Draft EIR - Page 2
• With limited access to Fire Station #2, there will be a need for fire apparatus to back into the fire station from 32"d Street rather than pull straight through. This presents a safety issue as pulling through the station is a safer operation for the firefighters. This issue becomes even greater with the plan to narrow the street in front of the fire station.
Additionally, were the apparatus bay door to fail in the down position, the engine and truck would need to be backed out of the rear of the fire station in order to be available for response. It is unlikely that this could be accomplished without moving all of the firefighter's private vehicles in order to make the required turns. If any of them are already on a call (paramedic unit runs a large number of calls without the engine or truck). It might be impossible for the unit to get out of the station and would be out of service until the firefighters returned or the apparatus bay door could be opened. Figure 1 shows the proposed and Figure 2 the existing access.
f
I ,
a
5;
t
F*:Je APT
a
Figure 1
Figure 2
• Access to the commercial area off of Via Lido and bordering the hotel property to the north is a concern with the project as configured. Currently there is the ability to use the alley between Finley Avenue and 32"d Street to directly access the commercial site. By eliminating the alley access there will be only one way for fire apparatus to get into the parking lot due to the truck turning radius, and that is off of Via Lido. Access off of Finley Avenue through the parking lot would have to be changed in order to utilize that as access into the commercial site. The apparatus would have to make a 90 degree turn into the 14 foot drive aisle due to the center median at the Finley access. This assumes 302 N. Ell Camino Real, Suite 202 San Clemente CA 92572 Phone (949)240-5911
8-57
Comments to the Lido House Hotel Draft E1R - Page 3
that the apparatus enter from Newport Blvd. than traveling through the two gates within the parking lot between this point and the fire station. ■ There will be a reduction of parking at the fire station from 15 to 7 stalls. Though this is not an emergency response issue it does affect the day to day functions at the station.
There will not be enough on -site parking for the crew members with their current staffing configuration of 1 truck, 1 engine, and a medic unit. Off --site parking will be needed and will impact the surrounding area. This will be an even bigger issue at the time when one crew comes on duty to relieve another. The removal of parking stalls also does not allow for visitor parking to the station.
■ The improvements on 32Rd Street will include street trees which will reduce the "line of sight" view of the fire station for those traveling on 32"d Street and the view of traffic when entering or exiting the fire stations. While the apparatus apron is extended by the new plan, it does place obstacle in the view of the emergency vehicles that are not present today. Additionally, the street in front of the fire station today is essentially three lanes wide and makes turns into and out of the apparatus bays safer. This will be reduced to a two lane travel under the proposed project.
Firesafe has provided this analysis and concludes that the changes envisioned by the project will add additional response delays to the any emergency in the Lido Plaza area and will generally make the responses from Fire Station #2 more difficult and less timely. 1f you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or my staff on this issue.
Sincerely,
2 Dana Kemper
Fire Protection Planner
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite 202 San Clemente CA 92572
Phone (949)240-5911
8-57
8-58
8-59
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
8. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LIDO PARTNERS, DATED JUNE 13, 2014.
8-1 This comment contains introductory or general information. Please refer to Responses 8-2 through 8-59.
8-2 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 including use by delivery trucks. The City holds fee title to the project site by virtue of a Corporation Grant Deed recorded in the Orange County Recorder's Office on or about March 11, 1946, as Instrument No. 11950 in Book 1404, Page 129 of the Official Records of Orange County, California. The project site includes a portion of a former alley established by Tract Map No. 907, recorded in Book 28, Pages 25 to 36, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County, California. The portion of the former alley is referred to as the "32nd Street Alley" by the commenter.
Although the 32nd Street Alley was initially dedicated to the City for public use by virtue of Tract Map No. 907, on or about February 4, 1946, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3280, which vacated the 32nd Street Alley. The Resolution Ordering Vacation was recorded in the Orange County Recorder's Office on or about March 11, 1946, as Instrument No. 11947 in Book 1400, Page 189 of the Official Records of Orange County, California. After the Resolution Ordering Vacation was recorded, all of the public alleys, streets and easements described therein reverted back to the owners of the underlying fee interests of the adjoining properties, which as to the 32nd Street Alley, is the City.
In 1964, and pursuant to Civil Code Section 813, the City Council for the City approved a Notice of Consent to Use Land ("Notice of Consent"), which was recorded in the Orange County Recorder's Office on or about March 19, 1964 as Instrument No. 17042 in Book 6969, Page 444 of the Official Records of Orange County, California. 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.
In December 2013, the commentator responded to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project by claiming that the project interfered with its easement rights to the 32nd Street Alley. In April 2014, the City filed a quiet title action in the Orange County Superior Court seeking a judicial determination as to the rights, if any, of Via Lido Plaza to use the 32nd Street Alley, if any. This action is currently pending. The City does not intend to revoke its consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido Partners has no right of access from the City's property, other than its permissive use that may be revoked by the City at any time.
The comment states that the project will:
Final • August 2014 2-51 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
"senousyimpair Via Lido Pla.Za's ability to contribute to the vibrant development of Neitport Beach. If emergency vehicles and delivery trucks cannot access Via Lido Plaza, the property becomes much less attractive to potential tenants. " Although project implementation will close access to Via Lido Plaza from the 32"d Street Alley, the project will not preclude access to Via Lido Plaza by emergency vehicles and delivery trucks.
Historically, the access point to Via Lido Plaza from the abandoned alley was gated and used by delivery trucks; however, access to the Via Lido Plaza is also provided from Finley Avenue and Via Lido. During preparation of the Draft EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department evaluated the permanent closure of this access and determined that the closure would not impair or otherwise affect emergency access, as adequate fire access to Via Lido Plaza is provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido, and from onsite parking areas that would be accessed by the two existing vehicular driveways. Thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard. As to delivery trucks, once installed the gate was kept closed but opened for large truck deliveries associated with the former supermarket use.
After the supermarket closed, the gate was left opened for all vehicular traffic and it remains open most if not all the time. The City acknowledges that large delivery trucks have accessed Via Lido Plaza from 32"d Street using the existing driveway across the project site for many years consistent with the Notice of Consent. The City disagrees with the comment that suggests that inadequate emergency vehicle and delivery truck access would result with project implementation. The Fire Department presently has access to Via Lido Plaza parking areas from Finley Avenue and Via Lido and would not rely upon the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32"d Street.
The City acknowledges that closure of the driveway will require that the operations at Via Lido Plaza facilitate delivery traffic at either of the other two driveways. The turning radius graphic included with the comment letter as Attachment A does show the difficulty of the largest delivery truck attempting to make a right turn from the #2 lane of eastbound Via Lido without using the entire driveway on Via Lido Plaza. In reviewing the access exhibit provided in Attachment A of the comment letter, the City acknowledges that access for the largest delivery truck from Newport Boulevard/Finley Avenue through the existing parking lot entry may not be feasible due to the design features installed by the owners of Via Lido Plaza. However, these design features do not preclude access by trucks that are smaller and more maneuverable. The City concurs that egress from the truck dock on the Via Lido property to Via Lido is viable, as shown in the upper middle view of the same referenced exhibit. However, the City respectfully takes exception to the entry analysis from Via Lido as shown on the truck turn study provided in Attachment A of the comment letter. The exhibit assumes a vehicle is present in the northbound exit lane of the Via Lido Plaza driveway, thereby restricting access. While a vehicle in this position would restrict access, the same condition exists while entering from 32"d Street to the existing driveway (refer to Exhibit 1, Existing Conditions, which was prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and is included in Final • August 2014 2-52 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Attachment 1 of this response). If the assumption is that vehicles are in fact in this position, access to the Via Lido Plaza from both streets is not feasible even in the existing condition. This assumption is speculative and unrealistic. The comments to the Draft EIR also imply that current access is taken from the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32nd Street. Both the truck turn study provided in Attachment A of the comments letter, as well as the Exhibits in the Fuscoe Engineering study (refer to Attachment 1 of this response), show that the truck envelopes encroach into the adjacent, opposing lane when entering from either Via Lido or 32nd Street.
Fuscoe Engineering found no scenario where encroachment into the opposing lane would not occur in either the existing or proposed conditions, from either street. A more practical scenario is that there is no vehicle in the opposing lane, or if there is, a delivery truck would wait until the vehicle cleared the lane.
Entry access from Via Lido also appears to be an easier maneuver than using the 32nd Street driveway entry as it requires only a single backing maneuver(refer to Exhibit 2A, Ingress. which is included in Attachment 1 of this response) while the 32nd Street entry indicates a three point turn is required for access to the truck dock. As an alternate access scenario, Fuscoe Engineering also routed a truck from eastbound 32nd Street, north onto Lafayette Road and northwest onto Via Lido (refer to Exhibit 2B, Ingress, which is included in Attachment 1 of this response). This path provides access to the Via Lido property from the westbound left lane of Via Lido, avoiding entering Via Lido from Newport Boulevard.
Access to the truck dock facility located in Via Lido Plaza is viable from Via Lido from either direction, and would provide easier truck movement on the Via Lido property than is possible by using the 32nd Street driveway as Fuscoe Engineering's analysis indicates that truck traffic can readily enter from Via Lido without interference. It should also be noted that scuff marks on the existing curb returns indicate that vehicle tires have rubbed the curb face in the past. If upon final design the City considers it necessary to address this minor access limitation from Via Lido, the existing driveway approach curb aprons would be improved to accommodate a larger radius using current City of Newport Beach standards as guidelines to provide additional room for maneuvering.
8-3 The comment indicates that a project that preserves emergency and delivery access for Via Lido Plaza to 32nd Street would lessen significant impacts and should have been considered as a project alternative. The comment speculates as to the ramifications of closing the driveway between Via Lido Plaza and 32nd Street by suggesting that closure would lead to urban decay. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, removal of this driveway would not result in inadequate emergency access. Additionally, delivery truck access to Via Lido Plaza is available from Finley Avenue and Via Lido Drive. The comment also states that a hotel development that preserves emergency and delivery access for Via Lido Plaza will create "synergies with Lido Village's existing commercial centers" but provides no factual support for this assertion. This comment does not relate to an environmental impact. Rather, it 3 Fuscoe Engineering generated four sheets illustrating the existing condition, ingress travel for the proposed condition (two sheets) 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 2-53 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
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.
As noted in the comment and 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.
Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The impact analyses within the Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts and all potential impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. The Draft EIR found that with mitigation, impacts to traffic/circulation and emergency access would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, an alternative that preserved the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32°d Street was not conducted and is not required under CEQA. The Draft EIR notes that gated driveway access is not part of the proposed project.
The City acknowledges that an EIR needs to discuss a range of reasonable alternatives. (See, 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.6(a), (c).) However, an EIR that discusses a reasonable range of alternatives is not deficient simply because it excludes other potential alternatives from its analysis. (City of Maywood v Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 CA4th 362; Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v City of Beaumont (2010) 190 CA4th 316). 8-4 Refer to Responses 8-2, 8-3 and 8-31. The City has requested a judicial determination as to the Via Lido Plaza's right to access from the City's property. Until such a judicial determination is made, the City intends to exercise its rights to determine how its property is managed and used. Retaining the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32"d Streetis not part of the proposed project. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, removal of this driveway would not result in inadequate emergency access. Additionally, access to Via Lido Plaza for vehicles and truck deliveries is available from Finley Avenue and Via Lido Drive. However, the City does not intend to revoke its consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido Partners has no right of access from the City's property, other than its permissive use that may be revoked by the City at any time.
8-5 Refer to Response 8-3 and 8-4, above. The Draft EIR determined that all potential impacts from the project would be mitigated to a less than significant level. CEQA requires an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce the significant effects of the project and attain the basic the project objectives. As there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project, CEQA does not require the City to consider an alternative that preserved the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32nd Street.
8-6 The modifications to the 32 d Street access are shown in Exhibit 3-3, Concept Layout, on page 3-6 and are described in Section 3.0, Pr�ect Dercn ion, under the heading Vehicular Access Final • August 2014 2-54 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
and Parking, on page 3-14. 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, Tra(ricl Circulation, on page 5-5-22. 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.
As described in Response 8-1, the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32 d Street is not classified by the City as an alley or other roadway. Rather, the City provided for use of this area pursuant to a Notice of Consent that is subject to revocation by the City at any time. Therefore, as described in Section 5.5, Traet-cl Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not require the closure of any public or private streets or roadways, but rather it does close a driveway that the City allows the public to use. The City consented to the public's use of the driveway in question in 1964 but this consent is a revocable and does not constitute a permanent right of access as suggested by the comment.
The comment inaccurately describes the City's position in the Complaint filed on April 7, 2014 (City of Newport Beach v. Lido Partners, No. 30-2014-00715029-CU-OR-CJC). In fact, Paragraph 14 referenced in the comment letter states:
In or around July 2013, the City began processing a proposal for the redevelopment of the City Property. The proposal contemplates the development of an upscale, boutique hotel on the former City Hall Complex. The proposal envisions that the City would lease the majority of the City Property for implementation of the development. While the proposed development will not interfere with Defendants' use of the Finley Easement, the continued use of the Disputed Area [by] Defendants (and their guests and invitees) may significantly impair or restrict the redevelopment of the City Property. 8-7 This comments notes that a third -party review has been conducted regarding emergency access. Please refer to Responses 8-8 through 8-11 below for detailed responses. 8-8 The need for the access between Finley Avenue and 32nd Street to directly access the commercial site was carefully evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Access is a critical concern to the fire department and the ability to access improved property in a manner that meets the minimum requirements of the California Fire Code is essential.
In this case, it should be noted that the alley access was not a condition of approval during the entitlement process for Via Lido Plaza. Adequate and code compliant access is currently available, and has been repeatedly provided over the years, through the parking areas accessed off of Finely Avenue and Via Lido or directly from these two streets as well as Newport Boulevard. As a practical point the alley access would likely never be used by Fire Station 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 Final • August 2014 2-55 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
sites. There will be no degradation in response time to the commercial center with this project's proposed changes.
8-9 Via Oporto was designed and constructed before Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01 was established. As such, the access roadway is considered preexisting and non -conforming to today's standards. In the City of Newport Beach, many such roads exist; 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. 8-10 Fire Apparatus do not currently pull through the station; all apparatus back in. While apparatus door failure is always a possibility, the designs of such systems provide alternate methods to open and close apparatus doors in the event of a power outage of mechanical failure. This is true of every apparatus door located in any of the City's eight fire stations. 8-11 The proposed changes to the front of Fire Station No. 2 on 32nd Street are a welcomed improvement by the Newport Beach Fire Department. By realigning 32nd Street and extending the apron area in front of the station outward from the station towards 32nd Street, line of sight of oncoming traffic in both directions would be improved. This would result in increasing not only the safety of the responding crews, but also their visibility to oncoming traffic, which would in turn decrease and not increase, the response times out of the station.
The intersection of 32nd Street and Via Oporto is uncontrolled and relies upon yielding traffic to allow fire apparatus to merge onto 32nd Street during an emergency response and the increased visibility of provided by the project will improve safety. 8-12 Refer to Response 8-2, above. The DEIR concludes that the impacts associated with the project, which contemplates no driveway access to Via Lido Plaza, would not significantly affect circulation in the area and impacts to traffic, parking, noise, air quality, GHG, and other impact areas would be negligible.
8-13 Refer to Response 8-2, above. Although a negligible amount of trucks and emergency vehicles may be rerouted, the volume would be minimal and would not create a significant impact to adjacent City streets and parking.
8-14 The Draft EIR analyzed project impacts associated with hazards due to a design feature in Section 8.0, EffiLas Found Not To Be Sign cant, and determined that there would be no impacts in this regard. Vehicular access to Fire Station No. 2 is proposed to occur from Via Oporto through a new curb cut and driveway and existing access on 32nd Street for Fire Station No. 2 would remain unchanged. The comment also notes that there is no traffic signal at the Via Lido Drive entrance. However, there is also no traffic signal at the 32nd Street project driveway either. Therefore, use of the Via Lido entrance would not create an additional disruption to traffic in the area. Also, refer to Response 8-2, above.
Final • August 2014 2-56 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
8-15 Fire Station No. 2 is located just east of the project site, along 32❑d Street. The proposed design includes relocating some of the existing parking spaces along the west side of the building. These spaces will be removed and the spaces to the north of the building will be realigned to provide additional spaces. This has been carefully designed with the Newport Beach Fire Department, and has been determined to meet their needs. There would be no impacts to the Newport Beach Fire Department or surrounding parking. Furthermore, since the parking provided for the proposed site would result in no parking overflow, no off -site locations (i.e., Via Lido Plaza) would be impacted. Please also refer to response 8-16. 8-16 An analysis of project's consistency with the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan is provided within Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of the Draft EIR. 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.
The project would also be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 20.40.070, Development Standards for Parking Areas, which would ensure that adequate dimensions, clearances, and access are available for use of the parking spaces. The Land Use analysis within the Draft EIR found that the proposed project complies with the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act, Newport Beach General Plan, and Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the project would be consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
The proposed project would not displace vehicle traffic onto adjacent City streets and parking would not be impacted. Additionally, due to the lack of routine vehicle use, closure of this driveway would also not result in increased traffic and noise impacts near pedestrian corridors in the Lido Village Design Guidelines. Fire Station No. 2 would continue to have access from 32nd Street with a new access provided from Via Oporto. In addition, the proposed project would maintain the existing vehicular access to Via Lido Plaza at Finley Avenue and Via Lido Drive.
The project modifications would not significantly impact traffic, circulation, or parking associated with Fire Station No. 2. The project's application materials were reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department, which determined that the project's design is acceptable. 8-17 Refer to Responses 8-2, 8-3 and 8-16, above. The proposed project would provide active parking management, including valet services in order to ensure adequate parking would be provided on -site to meet demand. The project plans include 148 parking spaces and can accommodate more than 152 spaces when necessary by parking additional cars in drive aisles subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval of a valet operations plan that excludes general patron access to the parking area. The project would also be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 20.40.070, Development Standards for Parking Areas, which would ensure that adequate dimensions, clearances, and access are available for use of the parking spaces. Additionally, refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-3, above. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to emergency access or preclude delivery truck access, and therefore, Via Lido Plaza would not need to make any physical changes to their site that would result in the removal of parking. The comment also suggests that Via Lido Plaza has a parking shortfall but in fact, Via Lido Plaza current surplus has a 20-space Final • August 2014 2-57 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
parking surplus based upon City parking requirements and current uses while recognizing past permit history.
8-18 An analysis of project consistency with the City's existing land use plan and permitting ordinances is provided within Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR specifically analyzes consistency with General Plan Policy LU 3.2. The proposed site layout, building architecture, and landscaping is planned to be consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines and the City's goals to revitalize Lido Village Master Plan.
The project would promote connectivity and enhance pedestrian access along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street through public open space areas, pedestrian paths, and landscaped areas, providing a transition from Newport Bay to the Pacific Ocean. The pathway along Newport Boulevard would lead from the beach and the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street to Finley Avenue, connecting with Lido Village. 8-19 This comment cites sections of the City's Municipal Code pertaining to planned development permits and site development reviews. The proposed project would comply with the City's Municipal Code and would be required to undergo all required site development review and obtain all applicable permits.
8-20 Refer to Responses 8-2, 8-3, 8-18, and 8-19 above. Via Lido Plaza is will remain accessible from Finley Avenue and Via Lido Drive. As analyzed in the Draft EIR and described above, elimination of the access to Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street would not create a safety hazard.
As set forth in the Draft EIR concludes, the project's impact, if any, on Via Lido Plaza is not an impact that is either significant or required to be analyzed or mitigated under CEQA.
No evidence has been provided to support the commenter's assumption that the project will disadvantage West Marine or limit Via Lido Plaza's ability to host a grocery store or "other large-scale business that caters to growing residential use or would be attractive to hotel and beach guests." However, even assuming there was substantial evidence to support this assumption, in determining whether an environmental impact is significant, the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons. (See, Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov't v City of Eureka (2007) 147 CA4th 357, 376; Mira Mar Mobile Community v City of Oceanside (2004) 119 CA4th 477, 492.)
8-21 Refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-3, above. Via Lido Plaza is will remain accessible from Finley Avenue and Via Lido Drive. As analyzed in the Draft EIR and described above, elimination of the access to Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street would not create a safety hazard. As access to Via Lido Plaza from Finley Avenue and Via Lido Drive would remain, the Draft EIR concludes that the impacts of the project's physical changes (the closure of the access to Via Lido Plaza) are not significant and will not result in a loss of truck or emergency access. It may not reflect the operational preference of Via Lido Plaza, but it does not preclude such access. As such, it will not result in economic changes that will have impact on the environment
Final • August 2014 2-58 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
8-22 The weekday analysis contained in the traffic impact analysis is adequate as adjacent roadway traffic volumes are typically higher on weekdays than on weekends during the shoulder season analyzed and Saturday traffic for the hotel is not expected to be 18 percent higher than during the weekday. The 18 percent increase cited in Attachment B of the comment letter is incorrectly based on rates for trips generated per occupied room. These rates should only be utilized when occupancy rate information is available. 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. As stated in Attachment B of the comment letter, City policy "emphasizes the avoidance of overbuilding traffic infrastructure to respond to periods of peak beach traffic" by utilizing the shoulder season (typical spring/fall conditions) for transportation planning. Analyzing and mitigating for beach traffic conditions would be contrary to City policy and may result in overbuilt transportation facilities that damage the character of the community.
The suggestion that the project results in traffic impacts that have the potential to interfere with the Finley Easement is speculative at best. In fact, the Finley Easement recognizes that the Finley Avenue driveway may be used by the public to access the Via Lido Plaza property.
The Finley Easement also expressly reserved the City's right to use the driveway for public street purposes.
8-23 The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance defines the morning and evening peak hour periods as the four consecutive 15 minute periods from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (morning) and the four consecutive 15 minute periods from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes. Accordingly, evening peak hour period traffic counts were collected from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the four consecutive 15 minute periods with the highest traffic volumes were utilized in the traffic impact analysis.
The source data (in Attachment B of the comment letter) used to support a peak hour period occurring around 2:00 p.m. is based on data for a single location at SR-55 near 22nd Street. This data point is not representative of the City's traffic patterns because:
• SR-55 at this location is not located within the City boundaries or the study area of the traffic impact analysis;
• The data presented is from June 3 through June 6, which is outside the shoulder season utilized for transportation planning in the City of Newport Beach; • A single location may not be representative of the overall area; and • SR-55 at this location is a freeway, which may experience different traffic patterns than non -freeway facilities comprising the study area. 8-24 The City had collected field counts between February and May as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; however, as stated on page 7 of the traffic impact analysis (refer to Appendix 11.3 of the Draft EIR), new peak period traffic movement counts were collected Final • August 2014 2-59 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
in October 2013 because the project site (former City Hall Complex) was still occupied at the time the City of Newport Beach collected traffic counts between February and May.
Utilizing the City collected traffic counts would not have been representative of existing conditions since the project site was no longer occupied by the City Hall Complex at the time the traffic study was prepared.
It should also be noted that the October 2013 traffic counts utilized for the traffic impact analysis are consistent with the intent of City policy to use the shoulder season (typical spring/fall conditions) for transportation planning (Newport Beach General Plan, page 7-3). 8-25 Table 5.5-16. Forecast General Plan Buildout Wlith Proiect Conditions AMl PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS, of the Draft EIR summarizes the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Level of Service (LOS) for General Plan buildout with project conditions. As noted in the comment, some study intersections are shown to experience a slight decrease in volume to capacity, or in other words an improvement in operations, with the addition of the proposed project.
This occurs because the General Plan buildout analysis accounts for buildout of the City of Newport Beach according to the General Plan Land Use designations. As illustrated on the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map, the project site is designated and zoned Public Facilities (PF). For General Plan buildout without project conditions, the traffic impact analysis assumes the project site would have continued to generate trips similar to the former City Hall Complex. As shown in Table 5.5-14, Er ect Lni Generation Combarison, of the Draft EIR, the proposed 130-room hotel would generate fewer trips than the former City Hall Complex. Therefore, some of the study intersections are logically forecast to operate slightly better for General Plan buildout with project conditions due to the proposed 130-room hotel generating fewer trips than the former City Hall Complex.
Table 5.5-19, State Hiabway Forecast Year 2018 Cumulative Wlith Project Conditions, and Table 5.5- 20, State Highway Forecasi General Plan Buildout Without Pro/ect Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS, illustrate that the delay for General Plan buildout without project is generally greater than forecast cumulative with project conditions; however, there are six study intersections that do experience a decrease in delay. This can be attributed to the difference in methodologies for deriving forecast traffic volumes for cumulative with project conditions compared to forecast General Plan buildout conditions. The forecast cumulative with project conditions traffic volumes are developed by manually adding trips from background traffic growth, individual cumulative projects, and the proposed project to existing traffic volumes conservatively not accounting for any interaction between each of the cumulative growth components. The General Plan buildout without project conditions traffic volumes are based on the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) which does take into account the interaction between future land uses, so it is possible for the traffic volumes at some of the study intersections in the General Plan without project conditions analysis scenario to be less than study intersection traffic volumes for the cumulative with project analysis scenario.
Final • August 2014 2-60 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
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. 8-27 As shown in Table 5.5-17, State Highway Existing Wlith Proiect Conditions AMIPM Peak 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. 8-28 There is a distinction between deficient intersection operation and a significant impact. The impact thresholds and significance criteria established by the City of Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa, and Caltrans agencies have been clearly defined in Section 5.5.3 of the Draft EIR. The agency -established thresholds of significance allow for situations where project traffic may contribute to a deficient intersection; however, the impact is not considered significant if the project contribution is below a certain threshold. As documented in the Draft EIR, the proposed project is not forecast to trigger any agency -established thresholds of significance for traffic impacts.
The 3303 and 3355 Via Lido residential project (Lido Villas project) is an approved project and is not included in the cumulative traffic analysis because implementation of the Lido Villas project would "result in a net decrease in the amount of traffic the project site contributes to area intersections and roadway segments, indicating that the project would result in a slight improvement to the performance of area intersections and roadway segments as compared to existing conditions" (Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lido Villas Residential Development at page 5-106).
8-29 Daily counts were not conducted for the Draft EIR. Reference to daily traffic count worksheets is a typographical error on page 5.5-6 of the Draft EIR and should only refer to "peak hour count sheets".
8-30 The southbound direction of Newport Boulevard at 28th Street is an unsignalized, stop - controlled intersection. The City of Newport Beach has no thresholds of significance for unsignalized intersections. Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact at the southbound Newport Boulevard at 28`" Street intersection and the intersection was not identified for analysis.
8-31 As noted in Section 5.5, Traicl Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the two similar sites surveyed were chosen because they were very similar to the proposed hotel and also in part because hotel occupancy information was available. The hotel occupancy at the time of survey for the L'Auberge Del Mar was at a minimum of 76 percent and the banquet areas were in use during the days surveyed. The Estancia La Jolla was at a minimum of 73 percent occupancy with the banquet areas in use during the times of surveys.
Final • August 2014 2-61 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Hotel parking demand is sometimes determined as a number of parking stalls per hotel room. This can serve to determine an approximate parking need, especially for sites without a lot of additional uses, such as large banquet areas. For resort type hotels, there are often uses that operate semi -independently from the hotel rooms, such as the banquet facilities.
The parking analysis studied numerous resort hotels throughout Orange County and found that a room rate of 0.8 spaces per room is typically adequate. This peaks at approximately midnight, when room usage is at the highest. However, this 0.8 per room parking rate does not include banquet usage. If the spaces per room were to be raised to include the banquet usage, that would create an unnecessary parking need during the night and when banquet areas are not in use. Therefore, determining the number of parking spaces required per use, and the time of day needs is the most accurate way to determine the parking needs of the site, and to make sure there is not excess parking provided that is not necessary for the site and allows for efficient use of all stalls. Determining the parking need for each individual use is the most accurate way to predict the parking needs of the site. The banquet areas were in use at the time of the survey, and Stantec (the preparer of the Parking Study) was in communication with the hotels when choosing the weekend to count the parking, assuring a high usage weekend. The meeting spaces were also in full use. Both hotels have meeting rooms and event space, and both were in use during our counts. Specifically, the L'Auburge has a large ballroom, in addition to the other meeting and event space. The sample hotels have confirmed that during the surveys all spaces were in use with meetings, weddings, and special events.
Stantec calculated the parking needs for the hotel with one car per room and 35 parked cars for the restaurant, for a need of 152 parked vehicles. However, there is not a need for one car per hotel room. Neither of the hotels surveyed for this parking study, nor any of the previous resort hotels studied by Stantec staff have required more than 0.8 parking stalls per hotel room. For example, the City of Anaheim has approved numerous parking studies for resort hotels and determined that this rate is adequate. It is also noted that the spa and retail uses would require high parking demands, as a stated project objective is to provide services to residents as well as hotel guests. However, both of these facilities 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.
8-32 Please refer to Responses 8-16 and 8-31.
8-33 Construction activities associated with the proposed project are described and analyzed throughout the Draft EIR, including in Section 5.5, Traffi-c/Circulation, Section 5.6, Air Qua li , and Section 5.8, Noise. As described in the Draft EIR, demolition would involve removal of the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex. Demolition and project construction would require various pieces of off -road equipment including, bore/drill rigs, concrete/industrial saws, crawler tractors, off -highway tractors, rough terrain forklifts, rubber tired loaders, and tractors/loaders/backhoes during demolition; graders, excavators, Final • August 2014 2-62 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
tractors/loaders/backhoes and rubber tired loaders during grading; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; cranes, tractors/loaders/backhoes, and forklifts during building construction; and air compressors during architectural coating. Assumptions associated with truck trips for demolition and soil hauling were based on the mass of buildings to be demolished and the earthwork requirements provided by the project applicant and included in the project plans.
An analysis of the demolished material is included in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Ha'-ards and Hazardous Materials. As described in the Draft EIR, the potential for asbestos containing materials (ACM) and/or lead -based paints (LBPs) exists on -site. However, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, which require compliance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and other measures for the proper handling of demolished materials.
The comment identifies a discrepancy in the construction haul truck trips. Construction haul trips are based on various construction activities including demolished material export, soil import and export, material deliveries, etc. Construction truck trips are identified in Section 5.5, Tra&c/Circulation, Section 5.6, Air !2u9lita, and Appendix 11.4, Air OuaAal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. The proposed project would still require the import of 7,379 cubic yards of soil. However, it would only require 922 soil hauling trips rather than 2,188 trips.
Fugitive dust associated with project construction is quantified and analyzed in Section 5.6.4 (Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Table 5.6-5, Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions During Construction, depicts the fugitive dust emissions that would occur from project construction (including demolition, soil hauling, and earthwork activities). The maximum particulate matter concentration would be 10.72 pounds per day (lbs/day) for PM10 and 6.68 lbs/day for PM25 in construction Year 1. Emissions in construction Year 2 would be lower than Year 1. Emissions in each year are well below South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQ)JD) thresholds of 150 lbs/day for PM10 and 55 lbs/day for PM2.5. Additionally, although the unmitigated particulate matter levels are below the SCAQMD thresholds, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are recommended to ensure compliance with SCAQMD rules and to reduce fugitive dust even further. Refer to Draft EIR Section 5.6, Air Quali , for a detailed discussion of all construction -related emissions including fugitive dust.
As described above, air emissions are analyzed in the Draft EIR and were determined to be less than significant. Construction activities were also analyzed in Section 5.8, Noise, and Section 5.5, Traffic/Circulation. Construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant with adherence to the Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 requirements and compliance with the recommended Mitigation Measure N-1. 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. Construction traffic impacts were also determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Final • August 2014 2-63 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Measure TRA-1. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would minimize traffic and parking impacts upon the local circulation system through the implementation of a construction management plan. The construction management plan would include, but not be limited to the following measures: prohibit construction worker parking along local streets, identify appropriate haul routes to avoid traffic disruptions, and limit hauling activities to off-peak hours. 8-34 The comment incorrectly assumes the Draft EIR defers mitigation. In fact, the Draft EIR provides several verifiable mitigation measures with performance standards to ensure that all potential impacts (including demolition) are reduced to a less than significant level; refer to Response 8-34, above.
For example, as described above, 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).
Additional mitigation measures related to construction include Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, N-1, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4, HAZ-5, HWQ-1, HWQ-2, HWQ-3, and HWQ-4, among others. All of these measures specifically address the project and include timing and performance standards as required by CEQA.
8-35 Refer to Response 8-2, above. It should be noted that the turning radius graphic (included in Attachment A) does not analyze the turning radius of the existing gated access location at Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street. The driveway entrance on Via Lido Drive has a larger turning radius than the existing gated access location at Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street. As the radius from both entries are similar, removal of the driveway access to Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street would not significantly affect access to Via Lido Plaza. Modification of the Via Lido Street access and removal of existing parking spaces would not be required as this access is similar to the access to Via Lido Plaza via 32nd Street. 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.
8-37 Refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-6, above. The discussion within the Draft EIR acknowledges that the driveway has been used for deliveries. Additionally, the description is accurate as the gate currently exists at this location.
Final • August 2014 2-64 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
8-38 Refer to Responses 8-7 and 8-2, above. During preparation of the Draft EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department evaluated the permanent closure of this driveway and determined that closure would 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.
8-39 Refer to Response 8-2, above. The Newport Beach Fire Department determined that closure of the driveway would not affect emergency access. 8-40 Refer to Response 8-29 above. This reference will be corrected in the Final EIR. 8-41 Refer to Response 8-23, above. The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
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. 8-43 Refer to Response 8-25, above. The change in traffic volumes is due to changes in land uses and different methodologies.
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 prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach.
8-45 Refer to Response 8-26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections. The analysis was also prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. 8-46 Refer to Response 8-26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections, and the modeling is consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. It should also be noted that the Draft EIR was distributed to the California Department of Transportation during the 45-day public review period, and no comments were received from that agency. 8-47 Refer to Response 8-27, above. There is a distinction between deficient intersection operation and a significant impact. As documented in the Draft EIR, the proposed project is not forecast to trigger any agency -established thresholds of significance for traffic impacts. 8-48 Refer to Response 8-16, above. The project modifications would not significantly impact traffic, circulation, or parking associated with Fire Station No. 2. The project's application materials were reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department, which determined that the project's design is acceptable.
Final • August 2014 2-65 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
8-49 Refer to Response 8-31, above.
8-50 Refer to Response 8-31, above.
8-51 Refer to Response 8-31, above.
8-52 As discussed in Section 5.5, Tragcl Circulation, of the Draft EIR, 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, reducing potential impacts associated with parking supply during peak demand to a less than significant level. Furthermore, it should be noted that the parking management plan would apply at any times deemed necessary by the hotel and the City, likely including both weekends and weekdays. Refer to Response 8-17, above. 8-53 The comment indicates that employees parking on -site would make parking inadequate. The parking estimated includes all employees, as well as other users of the site. Therefore, employees are included in all parking calculations and estimates for uses at the site. The intent is to encourage employees to use these spaces, as they have been included when determining the parking count, and to make sure they are not parking at other locations off - site.
8-54 Refer to Response 8-32, above.
8-55 Refer to Response 8-9, above.
8-56 Refer to Response 8-10, above.
8-57 Refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-8, above. The project's application materials were reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department, which determined that the project's design is acceptable.
8-58 Refer to Response 8-16, above. The project modifications would not significantly impact traffic, circulation, or parking associated with Fire Station No. 2. The project's application materials were reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department, which determined that the project's design is acceptable.
8-59 Refer to Response 8-11, above.
Final • August 2014 2-66 Response to Comments
S
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
Attachment 1— Fuscoe Engineering Memorandum
Final • August 2014 2-67 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
June 27, 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 Draft EIR from Paul Hastings, LLP, Delivery Truck Access to Via Lido Plaza
Dear Mr. Wrzosek;
At the direction of R.D. Olson Development, Fuscoe Engineering to review comments received from Paul Hastings, LLP to the Lido House Draft EIR. Our review was limited to analyzing delivery truck access to the Via Lido Plaza property to the north of the proposed Lido House Hotel. Below is a summary of our study.
Fuscoe Engineering generated four sheets illustrating the existing condition, ingress travel for the proposed condition (two sheets) and egress travel for the proposed condition. The truck turning envelopes were generated using Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 3D, version 8.1. The turning envelopes were plotted on an orthographic, geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey information of the existing city hall site.
In reviewing the access exhibit, which appears to be prepared by Webb, we concur that access from Newport Boulevard/Finley Avenue through the existing parking lot entry is not feasible, even in its present configuration as shown on the truck turn study provided with the Paul Hastings, LLP comments. We also concur that egress from the truck dock on the Via Lido property to Via Lido is viable, as shown in the upper middle view of the same referenced exhibit.
We respectfully take exception to the entry analysis from Via Lido as shown on the truck turn study provided with the comments. The exhibit assumes a vehicle is present in the northbound exit lane of the Via Lido Plaza driveway, restricting access. While we concur that a vehicle in this position would restrict access, the same condition exists while entering from 32nd Street to the existing driveway (refer to Fuscoe's 'Existing Conditions' Exhibit 1).
If the assumption is vehicles are in this position, access to the Via Lido property from both 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com
Letter to Anthony Wrzosek
June 27, 2074
streets is not feasible even in the existing condition. The comments to the draft EIR imply that current access is taken from 32nd Street through the existing driveway. Both the truck turn study provided with the Paul Hastings, LLP comments and Fuscoe's exhibit, show that the truck envelopes encroach into the adjacent, opposing lane when entering from either via Lido or 32nd Street. Fuscoe found no scenario where encroachment into the opposing lane would not occur in either the existing or proposed conditions, from either street. A more practical scenario would not have a vehicle in the opposing lane. A delivery truck would simply wait until the vehicle cleared the lane.
Using the entry from Via Lido for ingress also appears to be a simpler maneuver than using the 32nd Street driveway entry. The entry from Via Lido required a single backing maneuver (refer to Fuscoe's 'Ingress' Exhibit 2A) while the 32nd Street entry indicates a three point turn is required for access to the truck dock.
As an alternate access scenario, Fuscoe also routed a truck from eastbound 32nd Street, north onto Lafayette Road and northwest onto Via Lido (refer to Fuscoe's 'Ingress' Exhibit 213). This path provides access to the Via Lido property from the westbound left lane of Via Lido, avoiding entering Via Lido from Newport Blvd.
In summary, it is our opinion that access to the truck dock facility located on the Via Lido property is viable from Via Lido, and may be easier than using the 32nd Street driveway.
The Fuscoe study indicates truck traffic can readily enter from Via Lido without interference.
However, scuff marks on the existing curb returns indicate that vehicles have scraped the curb face in the past. We would recommend improving the existing driveway approach curb aprons to larger radii, using current City of Newport Beach standards as guidelines to provide more room for maneuvering.
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
P:IProjects111001041Engl File CabinetlReportslTruck Turn responselTruck Turn narrative 20140627.docx
TRUCK TURN STUDY -OLD CITY HALL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
_ fib
_.�
r A
1w*
NEWPORT
� yy BOULEVARD
r, f�
641
i i
I,.
VILLA WAY
his 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
rl*
* VIA OPORTO
.,'
s;.11
4-1t
ZL -r,
i-
NEWPORT
BOULEVARD
. .......................
_
RI
;� ;
1.A
v � •1
EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1
NO. I DATE
w V10
_ ,S
i
f _ _ J)
REVISION
i5` L
VEHICLE CONFLICT
LEGEND
15.00 45.00
3.00 38.00
0.00 O O O O
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
4.59 12.47 3.00 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
TRUCK TURN STUDY
of: LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
for: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPENT
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 a fax 949.474.5315 a www.fuscoe.com
Name Date
DA TE.• JUNE 27, 2014
SCALE- I'_ 20'
DRAWN BY.• M.N.
CHECKED BY- M.N.
SHEET 1 OF 1
L
s;.11
4-1t
ZL -r,
i-
NEWPORT
BOULEVARD
. .......................
_
RI
;� ;
1.A
v � •1
EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1
NO. I DATE
w V10
_ ,S
i
f _ _ J)
REVISION
i5` L
VEHICLE CONFLICT
LEGEND
15.00 45.00
3.00 38.00
0.00 O O O O
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
4.59 12.47 3.00 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
TRUCK TURN STUDY
of: LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
for: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPENT
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 a fax 949.474.5315 a www.fuscoe.com
Name Date
DA TE.• JUNE 27, 2014
SCALE- I'_ 20'
DRAWN BY.• M.N.
CHECKED BY- M.N.
SHEET 1 OF 1
L
TRUCK TURN STUDY -LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
r'a
"fir► =
b .)k Ei
- -NE _
4.- -E-VAR
rM
ice, ----"------ _ — —
_ 4e I I
�
F
CC
t I —1 s`
40 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
�+a'f
4 . -
1 Ilk,j,
Jt
r a
it
�
M1 r \
II 0
.o
Alu
0 _I /
VILLA WAY
0 M 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
,r 11
• f r �(
01111111111111111111111
,z
C:ell
II I
II I
II
II I
u
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
1-------_---- _ -- -- —_— ---
Al
v
-�y Poo
INGRESS
VIA OPORTO
- L
EXHIBIT 2A
L:1* Ir_
I
ir 46wl- -f:�:
NO. I DATE
OVE NMG W DI US BY , �► . ! /�
RECONFIGURING CURBS PER
CITY OF NE T BEACH
TA
f�
REVISION
WNW
Ar t
fto-
TRUCK TURN STUDY
of: LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
for: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPENT
Mo
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 a fax 949.474.5315 a www.fuscoe.com
Name Date
DA TE.• JUNE 27, 2014
SCALE.- 1 "= 20'
DRAWN BY.• M. N.
CHECKED BY.• M. N.
SHEET 1 OF 1
L
TRUCK TURN STUDY -LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
VILLA WAY
'r
ti
ro-F
7ii—=I�Ww
r
II
II I
—
II
►1 I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
\
v
J
Q
b
� g _
�W
w 'I
Alt
°bA - Q
ioil
IMPROVE TURNING RADIUS BY `, A►'l,►- -
l�i
RECONFIGURING ENTRY CURBS PER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ;
STANDARDS.
1 1 `
VIA OPORTO
41 4!K '
t--
F�
f
I� fv •�
j �-
jj
IF �
0 M FUSCOE EXHIBIT 2B
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
-T. �
low"
a
kk
t 41
�f
NO. I DATE I REVISION
's
a
A
AZ
TRUCK TURN STUDY
of: LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
for: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPENT
i
AIIII \
., h P
t ft
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 0' 15' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Korman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 a fax 949.474.5315 a www.fuscoe.com
Name Date
DA TE.• JUNE 27, 2014
SCALE- 1`- 20'
DRAWN BY.• M. N.
CHECKED BY.• M. N.
SHEET 1 OF 1
L
TRUCK TURN STUDY -LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA
i
i
a �
r
i --__----------AI€WP __------__ .s
�-__-___ __-°��_ BOULEVARD-
�..--Id,---
-_------0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
i I
I
I
r� I
I
LH
ui
r?
. GRE
y;,�• °., it r
J& r - w r• e
14�,
czzz
NEWPORT -
BOULEVARD
r► %
P
&Adw
_
r jI
Lin
C'1i
cv;>
ow
i
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
-----------------
--------------
EGRESS
I 0
�---- L------ -J
- I I
I-------- I-------
Ag
I I
00 Y
I I �
i I I
J I
- tr
i ti
I•- .
oI � • ��; _ F r � + �
114
/ IMPROVE RNING RADIUS BY �►
/ RECONFIGURING ENTRY CURBS PER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STANDARDS.
r
�f
VIA OPORTO
A Is Sir
_ 11
J
_
�J
-
~- /
TRUCK TURN STUDY
NO. DATE REVISION
EXHIBIT 3 of: LIDO HOUSE HOTEL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
for: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPENT
SCALE: 1 "=30'
30' 015' 30'
SCALE: 1 " = 30'
FUSCOE
E N G I N E E R I N G
16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606
tel 949.474.1960 a fax 949.474.5315 a www.fuscoe.com
Name Date
DA TE.• JUNE 27, 2014
SCALE.- 1 "= 20'
DRAWN BY.• M.N.
CHECKED BY- M.N.
SHEET 1 OF 1
L
COMMENT LETTER 9
Comments on Draft EIR re: Lido House Hotel
Study Session June 5, 2014
Commenter-- Kathryn H. K. Branman
COMMUNITY
JUN 1 12014
DEVELOPMENT G�
OP tvmpoo
The below comments were prepared by me in anticipation of delivering them to the Planning Commission and Staff at the Study Session on 615. Because of timing, 1 had to leave before 1 could speak. For this reason, 1 am submitting them to you now, with the request that they be included in the minutes as comments/questions from the audience. 1 want to go on the record as objecting to the manner in which the June 5 Memorandum re:
PA2013-217 and PA2012-031 was made available to the public, This document was not on the 9-1 City website prior to the Study Session. [Nevertheless, the slick Powerpoint presentation shared at the beginning of the Study Session showed these proposed Amendments were finalized well in advance and should have been made available to the general public in time for the public to read, understand and comment on them at the 615 Study Session. To the uninitiated, this looks like deliberate obfuscation and l want to register my objection to this behavior by City staff and the Planning Commission.
Zoning:
1. Why has the zoning not been changed? This was recommended and is necessary to go I 9-� forward with the hotel project. It is still zoned "public facilities".
2. Why is there still a reference to "mixed use/residential or hotel". 1 9-3
3. Mixed use/Residential is strongly opposed by the community. We continue to oppose any persistent reference to this language. 1 9-4
4. The E I R has internal inconsistencies in this respect which need to be corrected after the zoning is changed. 1 9-5
5. If LHH is not the project then we want another hotel to be the project -- not some mixed use or residential use. 1 9-6
6. Why has the Coastal Land Use Plan not been amended at this juncture? 1 9-7
7. Has the City's failure to deliberately pursue these zoning changes contributed to the delays we seem to be seeing (completion now pushed to 2018)? Forecast should be 9-8 2017.
Goals & Objectives:
1. What is the reference to "Assembly"? If this contemplates events such as weddings at the hotel, then that language, like "special event opportunities" should be used. If 9-9 other special events, those should be identified by the hotel.
2. What is meant by the "extended stay" identification for suites and villas? The public I 9-10 strongly opposes the concept of a residential use in connection with the hotel. A guest
can stay as long as they wish but marketing these suites or villas in this manner is not a I 9-10 use we want to encourage — leads in a direction that is undesirable.
3. Why is the goal a "viable" hotel? We want a hugely successful, money -making hotel that will operate in this location forever and give rise to other successful operations in nearby 9-11 areas like Lido Marina Village.
Lido Design and Architecture:
1. Lido Village Design Guidelines are not regulatory and should not be set forth as such - I 9-12 do not belong here_
2. Need explanation of the view limit I 9-13
3. Land use amendments cannot be combined with the ERi for this project — there is no Lido Village Master Plan. 9-14
4. Name of the hotel should not include the word, "house". The imagery unfortunately connotes uses we are trying to eliminate, not the concept of "cozy". The direction we 9-15 should be going in is "resort".
5. Ficus trees, if eliminated, could allow for shifts in food service set --up which would make I 9-18 for a more efficient hotel operation.
Alternative Uses to this Project:
1. There is no better use for this land than the hotel (and if not LHH then another high -end hotel should be identified). The reasons this project was selected need to be spelled out 9-17 with particularity.
2. It is not environmentally better to reduce the density of the project. We need the rooms planned in order for the project to be successful. This reference should be eliminated. 1 9 1$
3. The old City Hall had just as great a burden on parking and traffic with visitors, city- j 9-19 owned vehicles and employees as this hotel will have — perhaps even more.
4. If the Coastal Development Plan is pursued, this discussion will be rendered moot. I 9-20
5. We do not need another park or public facility in this location. Such uses will not complement the Lido Marina Village revitalization. 9-21 General Observation: We need a better understanding of why the negotiation of the Ground Lease is taking so long. Perhaps the City should include a Right of First Refusal for Olson in 9-22 the Lease. Including land use amendments in the ❑EIR needs to be explained.
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM KATHRYN H. K. BRANMAN, DATED JUNE 11, 2014.
9-1 The Lido House Hotel Draft EIR and supporting materials were posted to the City's web site at the start of the public review period (April 29, 2014) at the following link:
http://www.ngm� 2ortbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347
The memorandum and PowerPoint that is mentioned in the comment letter were merely summaries of the information and findings contained within the Draft EIR. No new information was presented that was not already available to the public. 9-2 In April 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare necessary amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to support re -use of the site for a variety of potential land uses. Initially, uses considered included commercial, residential, and/or civic uses that could include a community center, public plazas, a fire station and/or public parking. The proposed Lido House Hotel was not part of the project at that time.
Between June and September of 2012, the City had a market and economic feasibility analysis prepared for visitor accommodations. Ultimately, the City Council included visitor accommodations in the proposed land use plan and Zoning amendments and directed staff to issue a Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") to gauge what interest there was for development of either a mixed -use project or hotel development.
The City continued to process the proposed amendments separately from the RFQ process and prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the amendments without a development project. The amendments and IS/MND were considered by the Planning Commission in January of 2013. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments; however, the City Council was not asked to take action on the amendments due to the approaching submission of development proposals. To date, no final action on the land use plan and zoning amendments has occurred.
The City received 15 statements of qualifications in response to the City's RFQ, and in January 2013, the City Council selected 6 teams (3 hotel developers and 3 mixed- use/housing developers) to prepare development proposals. Three proposals were submitted (2 hotels and 1 mixed -use project) in April of 2013, and in July 2013, after extensive public comment, the City Council selected R.D. Olson as the development team to pursue a hotel project. The City Council executed an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with R.D. Olson and established an ad -hoc negotiating committee consisting of Council Members Hill and Selich. After that meeting, the ad -hoc committee, staff, and R.D. Olson conducted negotiations related to the terms of a long-term lease. Those negotiations are ongoing and have not been concluded. R.D. Olson submitted a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit applications consistent with their proposal and applicable Zoning Codes. The City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Final • August 2014 2-76 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
proposed hotel development and the proposed amendments rather than process the hotel proposal separately. The prior IS/MND is no longer being considered and the ground lease will be considered by the City Council after they take action to certify the Draft EIR and approve the proposed amendments and hotel applications (if appropriate). 9-3 Please refer to Responses 7-1 and 7-2.
9-4 This comment is noted. The project site is currently being considered for development of a 99,625 square foot hotel and is therefore analyzed within the Draft EIR. The project objectives support development of the site with the boutique hotel use, as proposed. Please refer to Responses 7-1 and 7-2.
9-5 Please refer to Response 9-4.
9-6 Please refer to Response 9-4.
9-7 Please refer to Response 9-2.
9-8 As discussed in Response 9-2, the proposed amendments were analyzed in the Draft EIR, and will be considered by the City Council along with the proposed project. As noted in the Draft EIR, the project's opening year would be 2018. The decision to postpone consideration of the proposed amendments to evaluate the amendments together with the proposed Lido House Hotel in the Draft EIR was necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. It also allows the City to more thoroughly evaluate potential environmental impacts of the overall project. Any delays in the ultimate redevelopment of the project attributable to the decision to prepare the Draft EIR were considered necessary.
Completion of the project in 2017 is not considered likely due to typical processing times with the California Coastal Commission.
9-9 As noted on page 3-7 of the Draft EIR, the project would include a ballroom and meeting areas including a lawn area where periodic events (i.e., meetings, weddings, corporate functions, etc.) could occur.
9-10 The extended stay portion of the proposed hotel would be similar to other extended stay hotels. No long-term usage would be provided, and the extended stay guest suites and villas would not operate as a residence. Additionally, no form of fractional or time share ownership is proposed.
9-11 This comment is noted. As mentioned in Section 3.4, Goals and Obiectives, in the Draft EIR, "viable" is in terms of the financial stability of the hotel operations. A hugely successful, money -making hotel would be presumed to be a commercially viable hotel. 9-12 Please refer to Response 7-4.
Final • August 2014 2-77 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
9-13 Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.2-1 establishes a 35-foot height limit for areas along the shore including the project site. The origins of the policy date back to the early 1970's when taller development trends were viewed threatening views of the bay and shore as well as a change in community character. Policy 4.4.2-1 along with other view protection policies provided in the General Plan only applies to public views from designated vantages. Private views are not protected. As discussed in Section 5.2, AestheticslLight and Glare, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on public views. Please also refer to Response 6-6.
9-14 The City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed hotel development and the proposed amendments rather than process the hotel proposal separately consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. The preparation of the Draft EIR allows the City to more thoroughly evaluate potential environmental impacts of the overall project. Please also refer to Responses 7-1 and 7-4. 9-15 This comment refers to a suggested change to the name of the hotel. No environmental concerns are brought forth in this comment.
9-16 As discussed in the Draft EIR, the two existing large ficus trees along Newport Boulevard are considered City Landmark Trees, and are integrated into the project's design and will be protected in place during construction. The commenter suggests that removing these trees may facilitate food service operations.
9-17 This comment is noted and no specific environmental concerns are brought forth. Please also refer to Response 7-3.
9-18 This comment is noted and no specific environmental concerns are brought forth. Please also refer to Response 7-3.
9-19 As noted in Section 5.5, Traoc and Circulation, in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to traffic and parking. 9-20 CEQA Guidelines 15126.6 requires an EIR to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The impact analyses within the Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts and all potential impact were reduced to a less than significant level.
9-21 This comment is noted. Please refer to Response 9-21. 9-22 This comment is noted and no specific environmental concerns are brought forth. Lease negotiations are ongoing and have not been completed cannot be concluded before action Final • August 2014 2-78 Response to Comments
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
on the Draft EIR and action on the proposed land use plan and zoning amendments and the pending Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit applications. Please also refer to Response 9-2.
Final • August 2014 2-79 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 10
From: Angel Lin [ mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:10 PM
To: Campbell, James
Cc: Dan Phu
Subject: Lido House Hotel EIR Comments
Hi James,
Thank you for the opportunity to review Lida House Hotel Environmental Impact Report. I realized the comments were due Friday, June 13, 1 would greatly appreciated if you would consider the comments below:
Cooperative work with OCTA staff to determine optimal placement and design of bus transit facilities in and around the project area is recommended. The design of these amenities can be aesthetically incorporated into the project while satisfying accessibility standards set forth by the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA). Additionally, since project construction could pose significant impacts to transit service, mitigation measures should be employed to minimize any potential disruptions in transit services. Please contact OCTA Stops and Zones at 714-560-5816 to coordinate any bus stop improvements or construction closures.
Thank Yo..,
Angel Lin I Transportation Analyst I OCTA
[email protected] 17145C05A93 direct 17145605794 fax
The infonnation in this e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and all of its attachments.
1 0-1
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
10. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM OCTA, DATED JUNE 17, 2014. 10-1 This comment pertains to the potential impacts to the existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus stop at Newport Boulevard and Finley Avenue. It should be noted that the existing bus stop facilities would not be removed or impacted during project -related construction and operational activities. Any work in the public right- of-way requires City Public Works Department review, and approval of an encroachment permit. When the permit involves or affects OCTA facilities, the City initiates a consultation process with OCTA. Should the existing bus stop facilities be enhanced to be more compatible with the proposed project, the City will consult with OCTA Stops and Zones group.
Final • August 2014 2-81 Response to Comments
COMMENT LETTER 11
" ,.�,
CD1S'6N
June 13, 2014
James Campbell, Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
Re: Lido House Hotel
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Jenelle Godges, Region Manager
Local Public Affairs
7333 Bolsa Avenue
Westminster, CA 92683
RECEIVED 8f'
COMMUNITY
JUN 232014
_} DEVELOPMENT �.r^
�P
rak NeWpoR, $
Southern California Edison {SCE} appreciates the opportunity to provide review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lid House Hotel. The proposed project would develop a 130-room Lido House Hotel, which would also 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 improvernents. The hotel would be no larger than 99,625 gross square feet SCE is the electrical service provider for the City of Newport Beach and maintains an electrical system that consists of a network of electrical facilities (transmission, distribution, and supporting appurtenances) within the City. SCE has not evaluated the electric service requirements for the proposed project. Based on the scope of the project, it may require upgrades to SCE's electric system and infrastructure. To initiate the service evaluation, SCE requests that the project developer contact our Local Planning Department at (714) 895-0244,
SCE has reviewed the Draft E I R for the proposed project and has no further comments. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (714)895-0271.
Regards,
pJeelledgeslic Affairs Region Manager
Southern California Edison Company
11-1
City of Newport Beach
Lido House Hotel
Environmental Impact Report
11. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SCE, DATED JUNE 13, 2014. 11-1 This comment is noted. As noted in Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities, the proposed project is assumed to require 1,905 MWh of electricity per year. In comparison to SCE's annual electricity output, the project -related electricity demand would represent an insignificant portion of the existing demand. Due to the relatively small electricity demand of the proposed project, it is anticipated that SCE would be able to handle the new load(s) in both time and quantity. However, the Applicant will coordinate with Southern California Edison's (SCE) Local Planning Department to determine if any project specific upgrades (i.e. new or larger transformers or related equipment) would be required for the project.
Final • August 2014 2-83 Response to Comments
PAUL
HASTI N GS
1(415) 856-7000
[email protected]
[email protected]
July 16, 2014
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Comments on the Final EIR for the Lido House Hotel Project Dear Mr. Campbell:
COMMENT LETTER 12
COMMUNt1Y
JUL 17 2014
C DEVELOPMENT
k
v�
OP IvaWPOR,
77670.00004
On behalf of Lido Partners, we submit the following comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Lida House Hotel ("Project") proposed to be developed on the former City of Newport Beach ("City") City Hall property. In particular, this letter focuses on the City's responses to the package of comments and expert reports we submitted on behalf of Lido Partners on June 13, 2014.1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The City's responses suffer from the adverse effects of an obvious "rush job" to produce the document before the previously -scheduled July 17th Planning Commission hearing. In our experience, it is virtually unprecedented to hold a hearing on a Final EIR barely a month after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EIR for a controversial project. Even more egregious is providing the public and the Planning Commissioners only four business days to review the Final EIR before the hearing. The Final EIR was posted on the City's website Friday afternoon, July 11th, which we learned by checking the City's website—no direct notice was provided to us as a commenter that the City's response to comments was available. Frankly, this rush to judgment gives the impression that the City is acting more like an advocate on behalf of a project on its own property that would produce substantial lease income for the City than a neutral decision maker exercising its independent judgment to ensure that CEQA's legal requirements are being scrupulously followed.
Our June 13th comments demonstrated that the Draft EIR failed to analyze and mitigate for significant environmental impacts arising from the closure of an alleyway linking 32nd Street with Via Lido Plaza (the "32nd Street Alley"), and also failed to adequately analyze a number of other impacts unrelated to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley. As discussed below, the City's responses unwittingly reinforce our position that the EIR is riddled with serious errors. In addition, the responses disclose startling new information that all large delivery vehicle traffic to Via Lido Plaza will be re-routed to Via Lido, a busy street that provides the primary access to Lido Isle and its 1,800 residents, without providing any analysis of the significant impacts of this major change in traffic patterns. 1 Lido Partners continues to stand by its comments submitted to the City on June 13, 2014. Any issues raised or not raised in this letter do not waive any of the serious concerns communicated in Lido Partners' June 13 letter.
12-1
Paul Hastings LLP 1 55 Second Street I Twenty -Fourth Floor I San Francisco, CA 94105 L +1.415.856.7000 1 www.paulhautings.com
PA u L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
In sum, the City's responses fail to provide the meaningful analysis required in response to specific evidence showing that the Project will have several significant environmental impacts not considered in the Draft EIR, thus jeopardizing the adequacy of the Final EIR. For these reasons, the City should correct the errors in the EIR, and recirculate it so the public has sufficient time to review and comment upon the significant new information raised in the Response to Comments. Specifically, the City has failed to provide a reasoned, good faith analysis of several issues, including but not limited to the following:
• The City's new information regarding its intentions with respect to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley in light of the pending litigation exacerbates the problem that the Project Description is not "finite, stable, and accurate."
• The City contends that Via Lido Plaza will have sufficient delivery access by using only the Via Lido driveway, despite acknowledging that turning safely into this driveway can be done only from the westbound lane of Via Lido. The responses ignore several key differences between Via Lido and the existing access from 32nd Street, however, and overlook that delays on Via Lido are more likely to be encountered and more likely to disrupt the surrounding community. ■ The City's responses disclose for the first time that safe entry into Via Lido Plaza will require all large delivery trucks to turn left from Newport Boulevard onto 32nd Street, then left again at Lafayette, then left again at Via Lido, and then left again into Via Lido Plaza. Because the City has never analyzed the significant traffic impacts of this circuitous route with regard to the Lido Isle community, this new information requires the recirculation of the EIR. • The City's inadequate responses to Lido Partners' comments on the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis ("Traffic Impact Analysis") and Parking Study for the Lido House Hotel ("Parking Study") confirm that both such analyses are fatally flawed. ■ Regarding the insufficiency of emergency access to Via Lido Plaza, the City simply refers back to prior, non-specific, and unattributed discussions with the Newport Beach Fire Department, which supposedly previously assured the City that the Project would not significantly affect emergency access. The Response to Comments provides no evidence to support this conclusion, and fails to provide a reasoned analysis to justify rejecting the conclusions of the independent fire safety expert Firesafe Planning Solutions that were included with Lido Partners' comments to the Draft EIR.
■ While a lead agency must evaluate comments on a draft EIR and prepare written responses disposing of any "significant environmental issue," the City improperly chose to ignore several of Lido Partners' comments that indicated serious deficiencies in the EIR's analysis.
THE CITY MUST PROVIDE A DETAILED, WELL -REASONED ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC COMMENTS CRITICIZING A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 12-1
A lead agency must evaluate comments on a draft EIR and prepare written responses describing 12-2 the disposition of any "significant environmental issue" raised by commentators. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21091(d). The requirement to respond to comments helps ensure that a lead agency "fully consider[s] the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well
PA U L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
informed and open to public scrutiny, and that public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful." City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 904 (2009) (citations omitted).
The lead agency is required to provide specific responses when a public comment raises an objection about a specific environmental issue. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15088(c), 15204(a). "Such responses must include a description of the issue raised 'and must particularly set forth in detail the reasons why the particular comments and objections were rejected and why the [agency] considered the development of the project to be of overriding importance."' Dunn -Edwards Corp. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 19 Cal. App. 4th 519, 534 (1993) (citations omitted). "The requirement of a detailed analysis in response ensures that stubborn problems or serious criticism are not `swept under the rug."' Santa Clarita Org, for Planning v. County of L.R. 106 Cal. App. 4th 715, 723 (2003) (citation omitted). Detailed responses must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis of the comment received, because "[c]onclusory statements unsupported by factual information" frustrate CEQA's informational purpose and may render the EIR legally inadequate. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088(c); see Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel -by -the -Sea, 202 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615-617 (2012) (invalidating FIR because of insufficient responses to comments and finding that the City's "effort to conjure up reasons now is too late."). Well -reasoned responses are particularly important when experts have submitted critical comments on a project. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comrar's, 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1367 (2001) (invalidating Final El where defendant Port "perfunctorily discredited" plaintiff's expert without providing any contrary analysis).
III. THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IS DEFICIENT AND FAILS TO FULLY CONSI
THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. The City's Muddled Responses Regarding Its Intentions With Regard To The Closure of the 32nd Street Alley In Light Of The Pending Litigation Exacerbate The Problem That The Project Description Is Not "Finite, Stable, and Accurate" In our June 13 comments, we accurately, and unequivocally, stated that"jt]he legal deficiencies in the Draft FIR ... do not turn on whether a license or easement exists, and are distinct from the legal claims at issue in the litigation." By contrast, the City's responses regarding the relevance of the property rights disputed in the litigation are equivocal and confusing. Response 8-2 states, "[t]he City does not intend to revoke its consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido Partners has no right of access to the City's property, other than its permissive use that may be revoked by the City at any time." However, Response 8-4 states, "Until such a judicial determination is made, the City intends to exercise its rights to determine how its property is managed and used," and then states that retaining access to the 32nd Street Alley is "not part of the proposed project." Reconciling these statements is not easy, but the most logical conclusion appears to be that if the City loses its lawsuit and Lido Partners does not consent to the closure of the 32nd Street Alley, then the Project cannot be built.
However, given the fact that the original proposal for the Project did not assume the closure of the 32nd Street Alley, we find it difficult to believe that the developer and the City would not find a way to proceed with the Project if they were unable to close the 32nd Street Alley. Therefore, we think it is disingenuous, and inconsistent with CEQA's public disclosure requirements, for the City to not disclose to the public how the Project would be modified if it loses its litigation and is unable to close the 32nd Street Alley.
12-2
12-3
PAUL
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
B. The City's Insistence That Via Lido Can Accommodate Large Truck Traffic Ignores the Obvious Differences Between 32nd Street and Via Lido
In several of its responses, the City acknowledges that large trucks cannot access Via Lido Plaza from the Finley Avenue entrance and justifies closing the 32nd Street Alley by suggesting that using the Via Lido entrance for delivery and emergency access will be just as convenient as the existing access from the 32nd Street Alley, 2 This assumption misunderstands several crucial differences between Via Lido and 32nd Street.
Via Lido Is A Much Busier Road Than 32nd Street
Via Lido is a busy street that is the primary thoroughfare and access point for the 1,800 people that live on Lido Isle. At the point of entrance into Via Lido Plaza, which lacks a traffic signal, Via Lido has five lanes of traffic, including a dedicated left turn lane, and must accommodate incoming and outgoing customer traffic to Via Lido Plaza and Lido Marina Village, the large commercial center to the north.
There is also substantial pedestrian traffic there, including over the crosswalk at the conjunction of Via Oporto, Via Lido, and the entrances to Via Lido Plaza and Lido Marina Village. Any extra traffic or disruptions on Via Lido, particularly if large tractor -trailer delivery trucks are rerouted to Via Lido, have the potential to significantly impact a great number of people, including disrupting the nearby Via Lido/Via Oporto intersection used by City paramedic units and causing back-up issues at the Via Lido/Newport Boulevard intersection. 32nd Street, on the other hand, is a much less traveled, two lane side road, which is one of many reasons why the 32nd Street Alley works so well for large trucks pulling in and out of Via Lido Plaza.
2. Entering Via Lido Plaza From Via Lido is Much More Difficult Than Entering From ?nd StrPat
The City admits that it takes only a single car exiting Via Lido Plaza from the Via Lido driveway to completely block all large truck access to Via Lido Plaza.3 The City tries to sidestep this significant impact by building a strawman, noting that a vehicle exiting the 32nd Street Alley could also cause the same effect. But this ignores the reality that the Via Lido entrance is used heavily by shoppers and visitors, and is thus much more likely to he clogged with cars and pedestrians that will constantly restrict delivery access and cause trucks to idle in the middle of Via Lido for the time it takes the entrance to clear. On the other hand, even the City recognizes that, even after Project completion, the 32nd Street 2 See, e.g., Final EIR at 2-51 to 2-54 (Response Nos. 8-2, 8-3); 2-56 (Response No. 8-14); 2-58 to 2-59 Response No. 8-21).
Final EIR at 2-52 (Response No. 8-2); Final EIR, Attachment t at 1, Exs. 2A, 2B (hereinafter "Fuscoe Engineering Memo"). The City and Lido Partners also agree that large delivery vehicles could not use the Finley Avenue entrance to access Via Lido Plaza. See Final EIR at 2-52 (Response No. 8-2); Fuscoe Engineering Memo at 1. The City claims, however, that Finley Avenue does "not preclude access by trucks that are smaller and more maneuverable." Final EIR at 2-52 (Response No. 8-2). This Response misses the point, however. Via Lido Plaza's commercial tenants depend on delivery vehicles of all sizes, including large delivery trucks, to deliver anything from boats (West Marine) to foodstuffs (the several restaurant tenants). Putting aside whether wholesalers could even honor a tenant's request for a smaller delivery vehicle, the main loading dock in the rear of Via Lido Plaza is sized to accommodate the unloading of large delivery vehicles.
12-4
12-5
PAU L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
Alley "lacks routine vehicle use, ,4 therefore posing a much lower risk of creating significant traffic impacts from idled delivery trucks. The City's argument that neither the Via Lido entrance nor the 32nd Street Alley has a traffic signal is similarly specious 5—given the differences in configuration and use, the 32nd Street Alley requires no traffic signal to offer safe, regular access to Via Lido Plaza. In short, the City's comparison of Via Lido and 32nd Street fails to offer any meaningful evaluation of the suitability of Via Lido for delivery truck access to Via Lido Plaza, where more traffic and longer wait times will lead to significant traffic impacts.
Assuming that an exiting vehicle eventually clears the Via Lido driveway, the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and potentially unsafe. According to Exhibits 2A and 2B of the Fuscoe Engineering Memo, a truck traveling eastbound on Via Lido would need to swing into the left lane to make the right turn into Via Lido Plaza. Because the wide swings required to maneuver a large truck into position could tie up three lanes of traffic at once, resulting in an unsafe condition, this access can hardly be considered feasible or practical. While entering Via Lido Plaza from westbound Via Lido may be technically possible, a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left -turn lane that was waiting to turn into Lido Marina Villages Under both scenarios, access to Lido Marina Village to the north of Via Lido Plaza is impacted.
The City also admits that the Via Lido entrance is too narrow, and that the curb bears existing scuff marks where vehicles have failed to execute the turn with sufficient clearance.' Exhibits 2A and 2B to the Fuscoe Engineering Memorandum confirm the hazards presented by this narrow entrance, showing that a large truck entering from Via Lido would clip the valet kiosk and any car parked in the first or last parking stalls that front the eastern face of Via Lido Plaza. The City's own experts therefore contradict the City's assertion that "Via Lido Plaza would not need to make any physical changes to their site that would result in the removal of parking ."8 Although the City proposes improving the Via Lido entrance and curb to accommodate the entry of larger vehicles,9 it offers no binding mitigation measure to mitigate this traffic and circulation impact to a level of less than significant.
Finally, even assuming that a large delivery vehicle manages to enter Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido, there are additional impacts associated with accessing Via Lido Plaza's loading dock. While the City claims that accessing the loading dock from Via Lido is preferable because it requires a "single backing maneuver,"10 this ignores the fact that entry through Via Lido places truck traffic directly in front of the Via Lido Plaza storefronts (including anchor tenant West Marine), clogging the parking lot and placing a hazard between customers and their vehicles. Moreover, the current traffic patterns within Via Lido Plaza have worked without any necessary mitigation for over 50 years; for the City now to suggest that terminating the 32nd Street Alley access will somehow improve circulation is nonsensical. 4 Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8-16).
5 Final EIR at 2-56 (Response No. 8-14).
6 Fuscoe Engineering Memo, Exs. 2A, 2B.
Final EIR at 2-53 (Response No. 8-2). The City also appears to confuse the concepts of driveway width and turning radius. See Final EIR at 2-64 (Response No. 8-35). While the Via Lido entrance (28.9 feet) is wider than the 32nd Street Alley entrance (21.2 feet), trucks making a right from Via Lido will be force to make a tighter turn than trucks turning left from 32nd Street, due to the difference in turning radii attributable to right turns and left turns.
8 Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8-17).
9 Final EIR at 2-53 (Response No. 8-2).
10 Id.
12-5
PAUL
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
3. The Increased Use of Via Lido and the Via Lido Entrance to Via Lido Plaza is Significant New Information That Requires Recirculation of the FIR If significant new information is added to an FIR during the public comment and response period, the FIR must be recirculated for further review and comment. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21052.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15088.5(a), (d). "A decision not to recirculate an FIR must be supported by substantial evidence in[) the administrative record." 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15088.5(e).
Here, the City's responses disclose for the first time that large delivery trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza only from the westbound lane of Via Lido, which will cause significant traffic hardships.
This new piece of significant information was never mentioned in the Draft FIR or any other Project document, and will likely come as an unwelcome surprise to the 1,800 people on Lido Isle who must now compete with tractor -trailer trucks on the main access road to the island. Because Via Lido is a busy road, and because the Via Lido entrance is unable to safely and efficiently receive large vehicles without significant blockage, disruption, and delay, these trucks have the potential to cause significant impacts to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The revelation that Via Lido and Lafayette —which have rarely if ever been used by delivery trucks servicing Via Lido Plaza —will now service all large truck traffic is new information that requires recirculating the E I R for additional review and comment." C. The City's Response to Lido Partners' Comments on the Traffic Impact Study and Parking Analysis Confirms That Both Studies Are Fatally Flawed To assist with its review of the City's Response to Comments, Lido Partners engaged traffic engineer Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., principal of Translutions, Inc., to review the adequacy of the City's responses and the Fuscoe Engineering Memo. Mr. Bhattacharjee's conclusions are attached to this response as Attachment A, and are incorporated by reference herein. The major deficiencies in the City's Response, which should be corrected and recirculated for additional public comment, include the following:
The City ignores the specific input parameters in the Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM"), thus underestimating current traffic impacts. Despite the City recognizing that Caltrans recommends using the HCM,12 the City somehow overlooks the specific input parameters that the HCM requires, including saturation flow rates, minimum green times and pedestrian timing requirements, and peak hour factors. Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 contains various input parameters, and Chapter 16 explains how to use the parameters to perform the methodology accurately. The City's failure to use input parameters, or to further analyze intersections where the vlc ratio is greater than 1.0, underestimates the Project's true traffic impacts. That the City has performed incorrect traffic analyses in the past, and that Caltrans overlooked the error in this instance, does not give any measure of validation to the City's error.'3 The City's analysis remains incomplete and wrong, and underestimates true traffic impacts. 11 Additionally, the City should recirculate the FIR due to the fatal flaws in the Traffic Impact Analysis, discussed below
12 Final FIR at 2-61 (Response No. 8-26), 2-65 (Response Nos. 8-44 to 8-46). 13 See id. (claiming that the Traffic Impact Analysis was performed consistent with the City's other studies, and observing that Caltrans submitted no comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis) 12-5
12-7
PA U L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
City Response No. 8-27 refers to the wrong table. Lido Partners' commented that the Draft EIR, Table 5.5-21, wrongly concluded "no significant impact" for intersections 3 and 6. In response, the City pointed to a different table, Table 5.5-17 as evidence that there are no existing traffic impacts relating to existing deficiencies. 14 The City's response completely misses the point, however, as Table 5.5-21 estimates long-term traffic deficiencies under the general plan build -out, while Table 5.5-17 measures existing conditions at the (shorter term) completion of the Project.95 Table 5.5-17 has nothing to with whether a significant impact will occur at intersections 3 and 6 with respect to the long time horizon of the general plan build -out. Table 5.5-21 therefore remains incorrect and misleading, and should be corrected. In any event, with regard to existing conditions at the time the Project is completed, Table 5.5-17 likely underestimates traffic impacts due to the City's failure to conduct a proper HCM analysis.
The City misunderstands the cumulative impact analysis for traffic. In its comments, Lido Plaza explained that the City is not free to pile traffic into intersections simply because those intersections are already experiencing deficient levels of service. Under the City's misguided understanding, however, significant traffic impacts occur only if the addition of Project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service ("LOS") to move from LOS A, B, or C, to LOS D, E, F. Under the City's theory, adding any number of cars to an intersection already operating at LOS D, E, or F could never cause a significant impact. Quite simply, that analysis makes no sense and is legally wrong. See, e.g., Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1024-28 (1997) (holding that a project that resulted in an increase to traffic that already exceeded established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulate impact).
The City wrongly claims that significant traffic impacts cannot exist if they cannot be measured by a City -determined threshold. The City claims that because unsignalized, stop - controlled intersections have no City -determined thresholds of significance, the Cit� was justified in failing to analyze the southbound direction of Newport Boulevard at 28th Street. ' This is incorrect. An intersection should be analyzed as a study intersection regardless of whether the City has a standard of significance, as significant impacts can still occur in the absence of a City - issued threshold. See, e.g., 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15065 (requiring a mandatory finding of significance if substantial evidence indicates that any of the conditions in subsections (a) through (c) are present}; Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland, 195 Cal. App. 4th 884, 896 (2011 } (describing Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as an "Environmental Checklist Form" that may be used in determining whether a project could have a significant effect on the environment). 17-8
`mll
Wall]
• The City refuses to acknowledge that a weekend traffic analysis will more accurately estimate the Project's traffic impacts. The City's factors used to calculate daily rate trips ignore the fact that the Project, as a resort hotel, is likely to have much greater occupancy on the 12-11 weekends than during the week (unlike most other hotels),'$ After accounting for occupied rooms, the trip generation rate for weekends is significantly higher than for weekdays. Because peak hotel use is likely to correspond with peak beach traffic (and peak shopping at Via Lido 14 Final EIR at 2-61 (Response No. 8-27).
15 Draft EIR at 5.5-36 (Table 5.5-17), 5.5-39 (Table 5.5-21). 16 Final EIR at 2-61 (Response Nos. 8-27, 8-28).
17 Final EIR at 2-61 (Response No. 8-30).
1$ Final EIR at 2-64 (Response No. 8-36).
PA U L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
Plaza), the City should conduct a weekend traffic analysis. While City policy may prefer basing traffic assumptions on "shoulder season," the City fails to provide any overriding considerations explaining why the City should ignore the most significant traffic impacts to be caused by the 12-11 Project, which undoubtedly will occur on weekends during the summer.
The City improperly uses approved plan conditions to define the CEQA baseline. In trying to clarify why several intersections showed the "without project' intersection capacity utilization ("ICU") as higher than the "with project" ICU, the City states that "[t]his occurs because the General Plan buildout analysis accounts for buildout of the City of Newport Beach according to the General Plan Land Use designations."'9 Justifying Project traffic by claiming that the old City Hall would have generated fewer trips is a purely academic exercise, however, particularly where a new City Hall facility has been completed on the other side of town. Further, determining the environmental baseline by using an approved general plan condition, rather than actual existing environmental conditions, violates CEQA. See Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal. App. 3d 350, 354 (1982) (stating that "CEQA nowhere calls for evaluation of the impacts of a proposed project on an existing general plan; it concerns itself with the impacts of the project on the environment, defined as the existing physical conditions in the affected area.").
The City's analysis of traffic displaced from the 32nd Street Alley is inconsistent. The City inaccurately states that delivery truck traffic will not be displaced from the 32nd Street Alley onto nearby streets, or states (without evidence or supporting analysis) that such displacement will be "negligible.'20 The City's statements are contradicted by the Fuscoe Engineering Memo, however, which shows an "alternative access scenario" where trucks are routed from eastbound 32nd Street, north onto Lafayette Road, northwest onto Via Lido, before finally turning left into Via Lido Plaza from the westbound lane of Via Lido.21 Because the 32nd Street Alley provides direct access to the rear of Via Lido Plaza, there is currently no reason for delivery trucks to take the circuitous 32nd Street/LafayettefVia Lido route (requiring three additional left turns) suggested by Fuscoe Engineering. Under all circumstances, forcing trucks to use the Via Lido entrance would necessarily result in the displacement of vehicles to City streets that otherwise would not have such truck traffic.22 Doing so will also exacerbate traffic on Via Lido, the major access road for Lido Isle.
12-12
12-13
• The City's responses to parking comments are inconsistent and incomplete. Although the City claims that "[Via Lido Plaza] would not be impacted" because "the parking provided for the 12-14 proposed site would result in no parking overflow," this is clearly wrong .23 In fact, the City has 'a Final EIR at 2-60 (Response No. 8-25), 2-65 (Response No. 8-42). 2fl Final EIR at 2-56 to 2-57 (Response Nos. 8-13, 8-16). 21 Fuscoe Engineering Memo at 2.
22 Under similar reasoning, the City also claims that greater hotel traffic impacting the Finley easement is "speculative at best." Final EIR at 2-59 (Response No. 8-22). But while most employees at the old City Hall complex used the 32nd Street entrance, the area of the Finley easement will serve as the hotel's main entrance. On weekends, when combined traffic to the hotel and Via Lido Plaza will be heaviest, there is a substantial risk of traffic problems at the Finley entrance, potentially overburdening the easement.
23 See Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8-15).
PA U L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014
admitted that on -site parking will be inadequate to accommodate the hotel's banquet faciIities.14 Regarding the Parking Study, the City's comments indicate confusion over whether or not parking is adequate. On one hand, the City claims that parking is adequate assuming a 1:1 car:room ratio and 35 parked cars for the restaurant.25 But the City also admits that the Project's retail uses are likely to drive high non -guest parking demand,2 and sidesteps parking adequacy during banquet events.27 While Lido Partners commented on the question of staff parking, the City provided no concrete answers
D. The City Fails to Provide Any Meaningful Information on its Communications with the Newport Beach Fire Department
As discussed in Lido Partners' Comments on the Project's Draft EIR, closing the 32nd Street Alley would negatively impact emergency access to Via Lido Plaza and the Fire Station located to the east of the Project site. Both Lido Partners and the City agree that closing the 32nd Street Alley would reduce emergency access to the interior of the Via Lido Property by 50%, as the Finley Street entrance is too small to accommodate any emergency vehicle larger than an ambulance.28 Lido Partners also noted that Via Oporto does not meet City standards for a fire apparatus access roadway.
In response, the City merely states that the Newport Beach Fire Department evaluated the permanent closure of the 32nd Street Alley and determined that the closure would not impair or otherwise affect emergency access to Via Lido Plaza.29 The City also claims that any modifications to the Fire Station, including the reduction of parking by approximately 50%, "[have] been determined to meet [the Fire Department's] needs."30
Significantly, the City fails to attribute or provide the source of these comments from the Fire Department or provide any specific support for their substance. Lido Partners submitted a report from independent fire safety experts that raised serious questions about the safety ramifications of terminating the 32nd Street Alley. It is hardly sufficient for the City to say in response that it spoke to some unknown person at the Fire Department before these comments were even received, and that this person said that closing the 32nd Street Alley was acceptable. While there is no disputing that the Finley Avenue entrance is too narrow for fire trucks, and that closing the 32nd Street Alley removes one of only two ways for larger emergency vehicles to access Via Lido Plaza, the City provides no reasoned response as to how the Fire Department response time to Via Lido Plaza will not be degraded. Nor does the City make available any correspondence or documentation from the Fire Department showing that the appropriate analyses and evaluations were performed.
24 See Draft EIR at 5.5-48 ("It is not anticipated that the hotel would require more than the 148 parking spaces proposed, with the exception of nights with banquet usage.") (emphasis added); see also Final EIR at 2-62 (Response No. 8-31) ("However, this 0.8 per room parking does not include banquet usage.").
25 Final EIR at 2-62 (Response No. 8-31 ).
26 Id.
27 Id.
2'3 Fuscoe Engineering Memo at 1.
29 Final EIR at 2-52 (Response No. 8-2), 2-55 (Response No. 8-8), 2-56 (Response No. 8-11), 2-65 Response Nos. 8-38, 8-39j, 2-66 (Response No. 8-57).
0 Final EIR at 2-57 (Response Nos. 8-15, 8-16), 2-65 to 2-66 (Response Nos. 8-48, 8-58). 12-'14
12-'15
PA U L
HASTINGS
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner
July 16, 2014