Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-76 - Adopting Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel Certified Environmental Impact Report (PA2020-068)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 32nd 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 32nd Street as legally described in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property"); Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 2 of 8 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; Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 3 of 8 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. Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 4 of 8 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. Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 5 of 8 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 Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 6 of 8 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. Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 7of8 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. Resolution No. 2022-76 Page 8 of 8 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. ATTEST: r Leilani I. B City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron 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) 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. 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" EASTALONG 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 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 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 tattnlaw@gmail.com 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 Polin.modanlou@ocpw.ocgov.com 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 Info@OCPW.ccgov.com 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 dlaw@cityofirvine.org. 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: RussellSinger@gmail.com 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 Page 2 of 2 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: jcalnpbell@newportbeachca.gov 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 Page 2 • 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 Page 3 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 Page 4 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 Page 5 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 Page 6 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 Page 7 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 Page 8 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 Page 9 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 Page 10 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 Page 11 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 Page 12 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 Page 13 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 Page 14 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 Page 15 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 Page 16 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 Page 17 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 Page 18 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 Page 2 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:alin@octa.net] 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 alin@octa.net 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 jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov 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 Jenelle.Godges@sce.com 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 gordonhart@pauIhastings.com buckendemann@paulhastings.com July 16, 2014 VIA EMAIL: JCAMPBELL@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV 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 Page 2 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 Page 3 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 Page 4 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 Page 5 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 Page 6 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 Page 7 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 Page 8 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 Page 9 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 Page 10 The City also admits that Via Oporto is non -conforming by modern fire and safety standards, and that this non -conformity has spurred discussions with the Fire Department to widen Via Oporto.31 But widening Via Oporto is not included as a mitigation measure. Moreover, the City ignored Lido Partners' request to clarify how paramedic units will access the Fire Station from Via Oporto, and fails to respond to Lido Partners' comment that the confluence of hotel delivery traffic, fire trucks, and passenger traffic on 32nd Street presents a public safety issue. Because the City simply states that the Fire Department has approved closing the 32nd Street Alley, but fails to provide any further details, the public has no way of knowing whether the Fire Department is aware of or considered the unintended effects that such a closure would have. The City's responses also d❑ not satisfactorily address parking impacts arising from the reconfiguration of the Fire Station. While the City states that the Newport Beach Fire Department has approved its reduction in parking by approximately 50%, there is no analysis or explanation of how this reduction could possibly continue to meet the needs of the fire station, accommodate shift changes, or be sufficient for visitors.32 12-1 S In sum, where the City stands to profit significantly from a development project on City land, and the public raises specific questions regarding public safety, the City cannot satisfy its CEQA responsibilities by simply referring to conclusory statements from unnamed City employees.33 This 12-17 opaqueness renders the Final EIR legally inadequate. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15151 (requiring EIR to make a "good faith effort at full disclosure."). E. The City Iqnores Several Comments Indicating Severe Deficiencies in the Proiect's Environmental Analysis The City's Response to Comments ignores several of Lido Partners' other comments on specific environmental issues. Those omissions include but are not limited to: The City fails to analyze a feasible alternative to closing the 32nd Street Alley. While acknowledging that preserving the 32nd Street Alley is feasible, the City offers no explanation why the Draft EIR failed to analyze an alternative that preserved the 32nd Street Alley, such as the project configuration depicted in the July 2013 Project site plan. The City's response instead argues that retaining the 32nd Street Alley would negatively affect hotel operations and guests.34 This response is precisely backwards, as CEQA's purpose is to evaluate a Project's impacts on the environment, not the environment's impacts on the Project. Nor has the City pointed to anything in the Project's objectives that suggests incompatibility with the 32nd Street Alley. The City also claims that "[o]nly those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project."35 if this were the case, however, the City would never have to analyze any 31 Final EIR at 2-56 (Response No. 8-9). 32 See Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8-15). 33 In another example, in response to Lido Partners' comment regarding the potential for narrowing of 32nd Street and new landscaping to cause traffic and visibility issues at the Fire Station, the City states that these changes were "welcomed" by the Fire Department. Final EIR at 2-56 (Response No. 8-11). There is no indication that the Fire Department is a subject matter expert in this sort of traffic analysis, however, and no indication why the City's traffic engineer failed to respond to Via Lido's comment. 34 Final EIR at 2-57 (Response No. 8-17). 35 Final EIR at 2-54 (Response No. 8-3). 12-1 S PA U L HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 11 feasible alternatives so long as it concluded that the Project, as proposed, would have no significant environmental impacts. The City's past hoc rationalization confuses CEQA's requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives with the requirement to identify the environmentally superior alternative. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.6 (establishing guidelines for developing a reasonable range of alternatives); Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400-01 (1988) (holding that an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of alternatives even if the project's significant environmental impacts will be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures), The City fails to offer any meaningful response on the Project's inconsistency with local land use plans. Rather than respond to Lido Partners' critiques of the Project's compliance with local land use plans, the City simply refers back to the same inadequate analysis in the Draft EIR.36 The City has no meaningful rebuttal to Lido Partners' comments that the effects associated with closing the 32nd Street Alley run contrary to nearly all of the City's policies related to traffic and circulation. Under the City's Land Use Element and other applicable local land use plans, "full consideration" must be given to land uses on adjacent properties. The City completely fails to explain how the Project gave any consideration to Via Lido Plaza —except to admit that while preserving the 32nd Street Alley is feasible, it should instead be closed for reasons that remain unclear. While the City claims that "[n]o evidence has been provided" to support the assumption that the Project will disadvantage West Marine or limit Via Lido Plaza's ability to host a grocery store,"37 the City admits that extinguishing the 32nd Street Alley will leave only the Via Lido entrance as a possible truck access point to the property. As described above, however, there are numerous problems with requiring large trucks to use the Via Lido entrance, which make such use impractical and unsafe. The Project at a minimum will require a significant change in how Via Lido Plaza is serviced by truck delivery. But that effect on Via Lido Plaza is simply ignored in the EIR. The City is unable to clarify demolition and construction activities associated with the Project. While Lido Partners commented that the Project failed to sufficiently describe the process of demolition and construction, the City's Response merely recites the equipment to be used in demolition and construction efforts.38 The City continues to fail to explain why the Project requires so much soil, how the 900+ soil hauling trips will access the Project site, and how many non -soil truck trips will be required to transport building materials. Each of these omissions compounds the failures of the Traffic Impact Analysis to accurately measure the increased traffic attributable to the Project. Regarding deferred mitigation, the City does not offer any additional specificity or measureable criteria to ensure that demolition and construction impacts will be measured, evaluated, or mitigated, or any reason why mitigation must be deferred to the Construction Management Plan. IV. CONCLUSION Lido Partners is disappointed that the City has provided such an inadequate amount of time for the public to address the continuing deficiencies in the Project's environmental analysis. The City's 36 See, e.g., Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8-18). 37 Final EIR at 2-58 (Response No. 8-20). 38 Final EIR at 2-62 to 2-63 (Response No. 8-33). 12-18 12-19 12-20 PAUL HASTINGS Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner July 16, 2014 Page 12 Response to Comments fails to provide the meaningful analysis required in response to specific evidence showing that the Project will have several significant environmental impacts not considered in the Draft EIR. For these reasons, the City should correct the errors in the EIR, and recirculate it so the public has sufficient time to review and comment upon the significant new information raised regarding the traffic on Via Lido. Sincerely, J"', C. �Wqr-' Gordon E. Hart of PAUL HASTINGS LLP GEH:BBE Buck B. Endemann of PAUL HASTINGS LLP ATTACHMENT A trans utions the transportation solutions company._. July 16, 2014 Mr. Gordon E. Hart, Partner Paul Hastings LLP 55 Second Street, Twenty -Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94105 Subject: Review of Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel Dear Mr. Hart: transiutions, Inc. Ld filar* 1—i , Ceiifo is 9z620 Translutions, Inc. (Translutions) has reviewed the responses made by the City on comments made on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the underlying Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Parking Study for the proposed Lido House Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. Below are our evaluation and follow up comments on the responses: Response 8-26: The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) is a general guide for statewide Caltrans policy which states that the Highway Capacity Manual methodology should be used to evaluate signalized intersections, but does not provide specific input parameters. The State Highway analysis has been prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. Furthermore, the Draft EIR was distributed to Caltrans for review and no comments were received. The fact that Caltrans recommends using the HCM, by itself, means that HCM procedures should be followed. HCM specifically includes saturation flow rates, minimum green times, and PH Fs. Chapter 10 of the HCM2000 (Page 10-8) states "In the absence of field measurements of peak -hour factor (PHF), approximations can be used For congested conditions, 0.92 is a reasonable approximation for PHF For conditions in Which there is fairly uniform flow throughout the peak hour but a recognizable peak does occur, 0.88 is a reasonable esttinate for PHF " Response 5-27: As shown in Table 5.5.17, State Highway Existing With Project Conditions AMIPMPeak Hour Intersection LOS, of the Draft EIR, all existing State Highway study intersections are shown to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS A, B, or C). Therefore, the traffic impact analysis is correct in identifying no significant traffic impacts related to existing deficiencies. 12-21 12-22 �traamalutionis Due to she inaarred PHFs amd ninisnurn green limes- she analysis is incormcl. Anyone ddy" the intersections will a thM iheaverage 51opped Map at Me inremedans are -greater thw 35 sees duHPg peak hm rs. 112-22 Respn5e 8.29; There i5 a disfiwHonn belwecn deficient ir,ter5wiort opeirmicin arwd a sir lkanl impact. The imps lhresnoids and 5irifcanae criteria estWished by the City of Newport Beach, Cily of Costa Mesa. and Caltrarn agencies have keen clears de fed in SKlion 5-5.3of the E+rA EIR. The agency -established 11hreshokK of signifitalceallow For SilwOoas where pro�ecl Valk may contribiute to a defcianl j"mlion; howem. the 11ripact Is not cre+n�d signifKmi if the pit wniribulian is helaw a-ceKa:ln Ih bold- Ai dxurrkem@4 in the Draft EIR, the peoposed prg3 ed is rrol forest to trigger any agenPy-es 1shed dweslields of significance for Iraffic impacts. The response is inadequate. The EIR slates that Cavarrs 'ems rQ rr air a rarer toy ar rhe rraraskn 34 t OS C aF4 � O5 D Dn _91mo hpsoy fe es'• &r 6(aes [a rav rf ar t 05 0 ( ) be ff&#A3.i�qed. Far As an3w. #W- foff6 ig lrafk rhrakno d of n7m�i2 a r.S uf A w am pr r spa W occaFs a r a SW h4V rwy wc1v r war rha ffiw csUrh+e 05mi her kvef dWML- ade a_-;ffrrorr ro dkffW hTrM facW dtiYM A OSA 5 or Q 10 defrtie (WS a r= ar F) Although the first part of the stalemreot ip d w EIR i5 Owe2t. the surd part relatEd tc significant imW is not a threshold eslablis?W by Uwm. tyre owrir of to bdW. The lhwshou slag in fho'EIR for C'.eilrans faHAWS. -A somt pr*0 MW MW of -a SWO HVMVy Zdy WedW WkAro 0,10 -0of OPW 9MMd #PS sWMe -6000 s?ud.y.OW(Se0on 10 OWW ROM ax opMo n a OSA A oe C) 0 d0bihW qwr = (WS 0. F DrF)-is rtoi a Oaltroo thmsrm hA am orhititarfirtireshold mated by to Oily. Rased on This �Lmeshold, if a State Midhway oWra al un5afisfadory Md4fl&s iLOS D-or wor t_ a pr-ojo could aM as manycars as A wWW viitto l hg q are Impact. Therefam. the sjnifi�nt project ffnpect criteria $@Wad is inc mia 4 would mean that if afocilq Is aperetir�q et LO5 E, a pmlacL old add thousands of cars and not t m an impaci. Since Cattrrans does mA have a sliding sale of wnpad detemrkWkn {urMa Nawpod Beach and Costa Mesa, which allow an t w naase in vk ratio}. a cumulative onpad would occur by+the addition dany tames ID a Catlrans facility. 1 2-23 Response 13•30: The soulhbound c irectmn of Newport Boulevard al 28th Street is an unsignali2ed. stop carrtroiled 12-24 intersection, The City of Newport Reach has no thresholds of sigrriticance for unsignaliied interse-utions. ' IWGId IC ZkopW:•solrPrgcdalM -imsePLaW GrffwLiGn VC [*�.- trati ons e eh et.�..aFnn.as�nn .n�us�nn. camp.•n��... Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact at the southbound Newport Boulevard at 28th Street intersection and the intersection was not identified for analysis. Absence of a City determined threshold does not mean that an impact cannot occur, When thresholds of significance are not present, the guidance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines apply. Response 8-36: Refer to Response 8-22, above. When utilizing daily rates for trips generated per room, the Saturday trip generation is only about one -quarter percent higher than weekday trip generation (8.19 for Saturday compared to 8.17 for weekdays). The weekday peak hour conditions analyzed in the traffic impact analysis for the shoulder season is consistent with City policy. Hotels generally have a higher occupancy rates during weekdays, whereas the trip generation data shows a slight increase in weekend trips. The "hotel' use in this case is mostly for vacation purposes, and therefore, it is likely that more rooms will be occupied during weekends. Please see attached pages from the ITE Trip Generation, 90, Edition, the same manual used in the TIA, which compares data for occupied rooms. The trip generation rate (based on occupied rooms) is significantly higher during weekends than on weekdays. Due to the nature of this hotel, it is anticipated that weekend trips will be significantly higher and therefore a weekend analysis should be conducted, especially since background (non -project) trips are also higher during the weekend. Response 8-42: Refer to Response 8-25, above. The decrease in intersection capacity utilization (ICU) during with project conditions is due to the change in land uses, which would have fewer trips. Additionally, different methodologies were used for these forecast scenarios. This response appears to mean that the traffic analysis includes a comparison of the proposed project with the General Plan which includes the City Hall in the model. This has been deemed to be improper based on CEQA case law. Based on Environmental Planning and Information Council (EPIC) v. County of El Dorado County, 131 Cal.App, 3d 350, 182 Cal. Rptr. 377an approved plan conditions does not define the CEQA Baseline. Further, City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. County of Monterey, 183 Ca1,App.3d 229 Court ofAppeal, Sixth District, rules that existing zoning and zoned density do not define the baseline, 12-24 12-25 12-25 Response 8-44: Refer to Response 8-26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for signalized intersections; however this manual does not provide specific input parameters. The analysis was 12-27 prepared consistent with other traffic impact studies that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. 711612014 (C:0ropboxJso1slProjectslLido House HotellComments On RTC.docx) � ty 11 b WWWWig thatUbrae states thal'this mermg JFICWJ dues that provide spec input p,ararrreters', The FPCM OW has ap aarrraely 12DO pW of rrformelkim CNVIer 10 of Uie HCMM j 104) stab ffie a�so" of ft d rt sr rrrela' dpook-doer farm' (PHFI aApmAwky s cart be rimed fir cwWqWc m 6 :92 8 a "a1 Ova& r & PW for mrkmm k7 OW mWe b VrftYW #X'&0.0 MaVWX O pW doeS OrCiff. 0. jS r7 WjRWW eOTWe & P8F 7k400M. Me HCM OWS ink SpWk input p meters. which the Vef is analy* for the pmoct has ignored. Respnnse 8-45: Refer to Response 9-26, above. The Highway Capacity Manual melhlodol was used for signalized interseciOns. The analysis was arso prepared oansistent with other traffic impact stud" that hub been approved by the City of Newrpw Beach. Ham 16-5 of the HGM (21)DO) stales 'If pedevrian timing mquirernenls mast, the minlnw green firm for Lne phase Is hrdeabo d and provided for in the signal iini W. ,5irre Ow intwseviorns around the proWl haws significant pedestrian a lft. rain imam green lines should be iiW in the analysis. Elsa, th* anafyais shows a nych better level of Berke on papr w+ wmn the rmelb in ttk case, would be mm:h wane. :Response M6: Refer to Response 8,26. aboMe. The Hi�hw ty Capacity Manual methadology was used for sir Wed iffbmseciorts, and the InnoDWIng is CwSi wil wilh Other traffic impact Sludres that Kaye been approved by ftCity of Nemxrl Beub.11 should also be naiad Mail The Draft EIR was distribAW to the Caldiomia pmtrrM m of Tiairksporlatim dw the 46 r p 0lic eoview Miod, aAd no comment were remlyed tarry that agef - An anahyt;ul ewer robeing WkO does nol make the analysis a w t. Aomc&q to me HCM, a Yk rake gma4er than 1.0 fal kw.Wrequim additional ark**. "IN that the analy&is Is consisbml in otharara"in the My o4Nawpart Seach dom no car 1W IM anatyso is cw Responw &47: Wer to Response S-27, abawe. There is a distinction betwcw deficient inlerst*etion flperatiorr and a signif"nl impact. As documented in the Draft EIR, the propo5ed prgjcct is net fofBcast to trigger My ager&7- e5tablished thresholds of signi�liicance for isalfic impacts - The City is owed in stating that theFe is a diakwion b M EKm dffkWrTt kbraK ion operago and a sigrift t iinpa& However- there is a diflerer+m between a directt inpad (La. braWon the sliding soale al ink delenrrin�n trkd �c OMPb=TidWCU Lxz Nana 1-10�On RTC amm 12-27 1-8 12-29 12-30 �tf ajj�!"]'!'S1[3tions ! c! Sla�dh M11uT�vn! cam Fany.. by the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa) and cumulative impacts. If a facility operates at unsatisfactory LOS under existing conditions (or any without project condition) and a project adds traffic to the unsatisfactory operations, a cumulative impact occurs. This statement is based on Los Angeles unified 5ch. Dist. v City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1019, and Communities fora Better Env't v California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, which ruled that a project that results in an increase to an impact that already exceeds established thresholds of significance contributes to a cumulative impact. 12-30 Further, for Caltrans facilities, the significance criteria selected by the City is incorrect. It would mean that if a facility is operating at LOS F, a project could add thousands of cars and not have an impact. Since Caltrans does not have a sliding scale of impact determination (unlike Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which allow an increase in vlc ratio), a cumulative impact would occur by the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility. Although there might not be direct significant impacts from the project, significant cumulative impacts are likely to be shown if the analysis is conducted correctly. We hope you will find this information helpful. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (949) 232- 7954. Sincerely, tran lu i,n ,Jnc. Sandipa hat�harjee, P.E., A I C P Principal 7/1612014 (C:0ropboxJso10rojectslLido Mouse HoteRComments on RTC.docx) ARTMIRM-MI1; Hotel Description Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreation- al facilities (pool, fitness room), and/or other retail and service shops. Some of the sites included in this land use category are actually large motels providing the hotel facilities noted above. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320) and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses. Additional Data Studies of hotel employment density indicate that, on the average, a hotel will employ 0.9 employees per room.' Thirty studies provided information on occupancy rates at the time the studies were conducted. The average occupancy rate for these studies was approximately 83 percent. The hotels surveyed were primarily located outside central business districts in suburban areas. Some properties contained in this land use provide guest transportation services such as airport shuttles, limousine service, or golf course shuttle service, which may have an impact on the overall trip generation rates. The sites were surveyed between the late 1960s and the 2000s throughout the United States. For all lodging uses, it is important to collect data on occupied rooms as well as total rooms in order to accurately predict trip generation characteristics for the site. Trip generation at a hotel may be related to the presence of supporting facilities such as convention facilities, restaurants, meeting/banquet space and retail facilities. Future data submissions should specify the presence of these amenities. Reporting the level of activity at the supporting facilities such as full, empty, partially active, number of people attending a meeting/banquet during observation may also be useful in further analysis of this land use. Source Numbers 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, 55, 72, 170, 187, 254, 260, 262, 277, 280, 301, 306, 357, 422, 436, 507, 577, 728 ' Buttke, Carl H. Unpublished studies of building employment densities, Portland, Oregon. Trip Generation, 9th Edition 0 Institute of Transportation Engineers 603 Hotel (310) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 4 Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 216 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation- - 8.92 4.14 - 17.44 6.04 uata Niot ana equation 4,000 w c w F- 3,000 1,000 0 uouflon - use Carefully - small sample size X x i 110 120 130 440 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 _ 280 X = Number of Occupied Rooms X Actual Data Paints Fitted Curve Equation: Not given ------ Average Rate R2 _ **** 604 Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers Hotel (310) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Saturday Number of Studies: 3 Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 250 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 10.50 7.07 - 13.86 4.11 uata Niot ana equation 4,000 3,000 w .I H 2,000 1,000 Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size X X, ----------------------------------- ---------------------------- X 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 X = Number of Occupied Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given --m--- Average Rate R2 = .*** Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 609 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report 12. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LIDO PARTNERS, DATED JULY 16, 2014. 12-1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the lead agency to provide written responses to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. As noted in the comment, the Final EIR was posted on the City's web site on July 11, 2014. It should be noted that the Final EIR (including the response to public comments) was mailed on July 22, 2014 and received by all commenters on July 23, 2014. The Final EIR was distributed to all commenters, including public agencies and private parties. The project is scheduled to be heard at the City's August 11, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for this project and the City Council will make the final decision whether or not to certify the project. The City Council hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 9, 2014. As indicated above, the Final EIR was available to the Planning Commission 30 days before the Planning Commission meeting and the Final EIR was provided to the all commenters 19 days before the Planning Commission hearing. Furthermore, the Final EIR was published 60 days before the tentative September 9 City Council hearing date, more than complying with the 10 day standard in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Although the City Council hearing date is tentative at this time, the final hearing date will be formally noticed. The remainder of this comment contains introductory or general information. Please refer to Responses 12-2 through 12-30. 12-2 The commenter's June 13, 2014 letter was fully addressed in the July 11, 2014 Final EIR pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR Section 2, Wonse to Comments, includes 59 individual responses to issues raised in the commenter's June 13, 2014 letter (refer to Responses 8-1 through 8-59 in the Section 2, Wonse to Comments, of the Final EIR). The responses addressed individual comments in the three attachments to the comment letter as well. Responses to technical issues such as traffic, truck movements/circulation, and emergency access were addressed by the appropriate technical personnel, which consisted of traffic engineers, civil engineers, and the Newport Beach Fire Department. 12-3 The comment suggests that Responses 8-2 and 8-4 within the Final EIR are in some way in conflict. As described in the Draft EIR, project implementation would close an existing driveway across the project site that has previously been used by the public and occupants and invitees of the adjacent Via Lido Plaza shopping center. This access has included use by delivery trucks. Use of the driveway was granted in 1964 with the City approving and recording a "Notice of Consent" for use of the driveway pursuant to Civil Code Section 813. The purpose of the Notice of Consent was (and is) to advise users of these access roads that their use is consensual and revocable at the will of the owner of the City Property. Under Civil Code Section 813, the City may revoke the Notice of Consent at any time by recording a notice of revocation. As indicated in the Final EIR, the City does not intend to revoke its Final • August 2014 2-102 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report consent or close the driveway until the City receives a judicial determination that Lido Partners has no right of access from the City's property, other than its existing permissive use pursuant to the Notice of Consent. If the City is unsuccessful in the quiet title action, the City would implement development of the site consistent with the judicial determination, and speculating as to how the project would be modified in advance of a judicial determination is not a CEQA disclosure issue. Potential future modifications of an approved project would be subject to review and approval by the City and potentially the Coastal Commission and may require additional analysis in accordance with applicable local regulations and CEQA. 12-4 As noted in Response 8-12 of the Final EIR, although a negligible amount of trucks and emergency vehicles may be re-routed, the volume would be minimal and would not create a significant impact to adjacent City streets and parking. Additionally, as noted in the comment, Via Lido has five lanes of traffic, including a dedicated left turn lane at the Lido Plaza entry. Although Via Lido has more traffic than 32nd Street, it also has more capacity. 32nd Street only has one lane in each direction, which has less capacity for vehicles during truck ingress/egress. Additionally, as indicated in Response 8-2, evidence exists that trucks currently access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido. 12-5 Refer to Response 12-4, above. The Truck Turning Study prepared by Fuscoe Engineering is intended to show only that a vehicle in the egress lane of the northerly Via Lido Plaza driveway at Via Lido or the existing City Hall driveway at 32nd Street would prevent large truck traffic from entering until the vehicle clears the lane. The statement included in the comment in the third paragraph of the section stating "the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and potentially unsafe" is false. Neither Fuscoe Engineering, nor any other consultant made any such comment either on the exhibits or in the narrative response. The negligible volume of trucks entering Via Lido Plaza would not lead to long wait times and significant traffic impacts on Via Lido. Regarding west bound traffic on Via Lido into the Via Lido Plaza, and the statement "a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left -turn lane that was waiting to turn into Lido Marina Village", the existing opposing driveways to Lido Marina Village and Villa Lido Plaza are offset from each other and the potential to clip a vehicle turning left into Lido Marina Village, by a west bound vehicle turning left into Villa Lido Plaza exists; however the volume of trucks entering is minimal and the potential for conflicting left turn movements is negligible (refer to Exhibits 2A & 2B, Ingress, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and is included in Attachment 1 of this response4). 4 As a follow up to their June 27, 2014 Truck Turn Study, Fuscoe Engineering generated additional sheets (dated July 28, 2014) depicting the ingress and egress to Lido Plaza, including the existing condition, ingress travel for the proposed condition and egress travel for the proposed condition. The truck turning envelopes were generated using Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 31), version 8.1. The turning envelopes were plotted on an orthographic, geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey information of the existing city hall site. Final • August 2014 2-103 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report The City takes exception to the statement in the fourth paragraph "...showing that a large truck entering from Via Lido would clip the valet kiosk and any car parked in the first or last parking stalls that front the eastern face of Via Lido Plaza." The kiosk mentioned is an umbrella that is encroaching into the fire lane as indicated by the red curbs on both sides of the drive aisle. Such a condition should not be used as limiting criteria. In any case the umbrella can be moved to a location that does not encroach, effectively removing this issue. Fuscoe Engineering adjusted the ingress drive simulations from Via Lido slightly easterly to clearly show that the truck envelopes do not encroach into the parking areas. The vehicle near the kiosk, shown in the image is not parked fully into the parking space and should not be considered as an indication of the location of a typically parked vehicle. No parking within the Via Lido Plaza would need to be changed as a result of truck entry from Via Lido. 12-6 The fact that large delivery trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido is not "significant new information." As indicated in Response 8-2 of the Final EIR, evidence exists that trucks currently access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido. Furthermore, the commenter has provided no evidence that trucks do not already access Via Lido Plaza from Via Lido. The commenter also does not provide any substantiation to contradict the Draft EIR and does not show that there would be a significant number of trucks would access Via Lido Plaza and cause vehicle conflicts. The closure of the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway across the project site to 32 d Street is also indicated in Section 5.5, Trafikl Circulation, on page 5-5-22 of the Draft EIR. The project description also explains that the Applicant has investigated the feasibility of including an access gate that would only be open to use by delivery vehicles to and from Via Lido Plaza. However, as explained in the project description, it is not under consideration as part of the project application and is not a component of this project. It should be noted that the neither the Truck Turning Study nor any responses indicated that all truck traffic would go through the intersection of Via Lido and Lafayette Road or that the large trucks would only access Via Lido Plaza from the westbound lane of Via Lido. These routes were depicted in the Truck Turning Study as alternatives to using eastbound Via Lido. 12-7 The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was followed for signalized intersections as recommended by Caltrans with respect to the analysis equations and calculations of delay. While Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 provides estimated values for certain input parameters, the application of the parameters in question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on local characteristics or standard practice as determined by the reviewing agency. For the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis, the HCM input parameters applied are consistent with those assumed for other projects in the City of Newport Beach which have been reviewed by Caltrans District 12. Additionally, the saturation flow rate used in the analysis is consistent with the estimated value provided in the Highway Capacity Manual, so that particular input parameter has not been "overlooked." The sections containing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology do provide additional analysis of all the study intersections analyzed using the HCM Final • August 2014 2-104 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report methodology, including those study intersections where the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0. As shown in these sections, the project was found to result in no significant impacts at the study intersections where the v/c ratio exceeds 1.0. The HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. 12-8 As stated in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Trafc Impact Studies (2002): "If an existing [emphasis added] State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing [emphasis added] MOE should be maintained." The original response to this comment (Response 8-27 of the Final EIR) refers to Table 5.5- 17 to show that for exit conditions, all study intersections are operating at the appropriate target LOS or better. Therefore, the claim made in Comment 8-27 that "these intersections [study intersections 3 and 6] are already operating at less than appropriate LOS must be mitigated to bring conditions to pre -Project levels of service" is incorrect. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (2002) does not discuss mitigating to pre - Project levels of service for the future conditions, as shown in Table 5.5-21. As discussed in Response 12-7, the HCM analysis provided is appropriate for planning purposes and is consistent with what has been acceptable by Caltrans District 12. 12-9 The proposed project is not forecast to "pile traffic into intersections." As documented in the Lido House Traffic Impact Analysis in the Draft EIR (Exhibit 8a and 8b), the proposed project is forecast to assign less than 50 peak hour trips to any State highway study intersection analyzed, which is relatively low compared to existing and forecast traffic volumes at the State highway study intersections, and results in delay changes of one second or less to the deficient study intersections for future conditions. The Caltrans guidelines state that if an intersection is already operating below the target LOS for existing conditions, the existing MOE (delay in seconds/vehicle) should be maintained. If an existing intersection is deficient and the project increases the delay, then it is considered a significant impact. As shown in the Existing Plus Project analysis, there are no impacts. Caltrans guidelines do not provide explicit thresholds for future (cumulative) conditions when an intersection is already deficient. As discussed in Response 8-25, the project only adds one second or less delay to the study intersections, and in some cases decreases delay. Even if Caltrans required that the project maintain pre -project levels of service (LOS) for study intersections operating below the appropriate LOS for future conditions, the addition of the proposed project trips to such study intersections is not forecast to result in a significant impact based on the pre -project levels of service being maintained as described below. Table 5.5-19 of the Draft EIR shows that for cumulative conditions, the only intersection forecast to operate at deficient LOS is study intersection #3 (Superior Avenue at Balboa Final • August 2014 2-105 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report Boulevard/West Coast Highway); with the addition of project trips, the same study intersection is forecast to continue operating at pre -project LOS. Furthermore, the addition of project trips to study intersection #3 is forecast to result in no change in delay compared to pre -project conditions. Table 5.5-21 of the Draft EIR shows that for General Plan buildout conditions, study intersections #3, #6, #14, and #18 are forecast to operate at deficient LOS; with the proposed project, these same study intersections are forecast to continue operating at pre - project LOS. For forecast General Plan buildout conditions, the change in delay at the deficient study intersections is generally in the fractions of one second, with two of the deficient study intersections forecast to experience a decrease in delay, as a result of the project's change in traffic patterns. 12-10 Based on transportation/traffic checklist item A in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which considers whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, the proposed project is forecast to result in no significant impact at the southbound Newport Boulevard/28'h Street intersection since there are no applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of unsignalized intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, this intersection was not identified as a study intersection. The findings of the project's impacts and mitigation measures with regard to other transportation/traffic guidance from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are addressed in Section 5.5.4 of the Draft EIR and are not affected by the exclusion of the southbound Newport Boulevard/28`h Street intersection as a study intersection. 12-11 The trip generation for the proposed project was appropriately based on trips generated per room as provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. Trip generation for hotels is commonly calculated based on the number of rooms provided, not the estimated number of occupied rooms. Although ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 provides weekend trip generation rates on a per occupied room basis, it specifies to use caution due to the small sample size (based on only three studies). As previously noted in Response 8-22 of the Final EIR, the Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis has adequately analyzed the project's traffic impacts during the weekday peak hours of the shoulder season (i.e., the time between the high and low season) in accordance with City policy, which acknowledges and intentionally does not require analysis of weekend summer conditions. The Lido House Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis has therefore adequately followed the CEQA guidelines requiring consideration if the proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The "overriding considerations" for not requiring analysis of weekend summer traffic conditions are built into City policy (see City of Newport Beach General Circulation Element, Page 7-3, last paragraph). Final • August 2014 2-106 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report 12-12 The actual existing environmental conditions required by CEQA are contained in the Draft EIR; the existing conditions scenario (Table 5.5-4 of the Draft EIR) defines the baseline for project specific impact evaluation and the forecast year 2018 cumulative without project conditions scenario (Table 5.5-9 of the Draft EIR) defines the environmental baseline for cumulative impact evaluation. General Plan buildout without and with project conditions volumes are based on the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) which accounts for the redistributed trips associated with General Plan buildout conditions, which include the location of the new City Hall complex. It should be noted that the analysis includes an existing plus project scenario, cumulative plus project scenario, as well as the General Plan plus project scenario. The project's traffic impacts were analyzed for all of these scenarios. 12-13 The alternative access scenario exhibit only shows that a truck route via 32"d Street to Lafayette Road and Via Lido is possible. The opinion that displaced delivery truck traffic would be negligible is based on the fact that for typical neighborhood shopping centers, deliveries do not occur on a daily basis, and when deliveries do occur, they are typically during off-peak hours when the roadway system has more than sufficient capacity. Emergency vehicle trips to a neighborhood shopping center occur even less frequently than delivery truck trips. Therefore, the re-routing of delivery truck traffic and emergency vehicle trips is not likely to affect the peak hours analyzed. 12-14 A parking study was prepared by Stantec and the findings were incorporated into Section 5_5, Traffic and Circulation of the Draft EIR (the parking study was also included in Appendix 11.3, Trac Impact Analvsisl Parking Study in the Draft EIR as well). The parking study indicated that all of the proposed hotel uses would have adequate parking on -site, including the hotel, restaurants, retail, and banquet usage. The rates were based on survey of similar hotels, all with similar banquet and retail uses and the parking would meet all of the on -site needs. Non -hotel uses, such as the retail uses, are recommended to provide parking at the rate indicated by the City code, during the hours when they are in use. The City code requirements are in place to provide the required number of parking spaces, and these numbers would be adequate to meet the needs of both hotel guests, along with visitors and residents. Additionally, as described in the Draft EIR, the project would include active parking management, including valet services in order to ensure adequate parking would be provided on -site to meet demand, especially during large events and banquets. 12-15 Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Kitch has evaluated the overall project including the closure of the 32nd Street driveway. He and his staff have participated with the review of the proposed project in his capacity as the City of Newport Beach's Fire Code Official (Fire Marshal). Assistant Chief Kitch has determined that the removal of the 32nd Street driveway will not degrade emergency access to Via Lido Plaza. Adequate emergency access to Via Lido Plaza is currently provided and will continue to be provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido, and from onsite parking areas that are and will continue to be accessed by the two existing vehicular driveways from Finley Avenue and Via Lido. The comment states that, `Both Lido Partners and the City agree that closing the 32nd Street driveway would reduce emergency access to the interior of the Via Lido property by 5001o, as the Finley Street entrance Final • August 2014 2-107 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report is too small to accommodate any emergency vehicle larger than an ambulance. " The comment goes on to state that, "there is no disputing that the Finley Avenue entrance is too narrow for fire trucks, and that closing the 32"d Street Alley removes one of only two ways for larger emergency vehicles to access Via Lido Pla.Za. " The City does not agree with these comments. The commenter cites correspondence prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated June 27, 2014 (Attachment 1 to the responses to Letter 8 in the FEIR), in support of the comment. The Fuscoe Engineering letter addresses delivery truck access to Via Lido Plaza and does not discuss emergency vehicle access to the Plaza. Assistant Chief Kitch finds this comment inaccurate as despite the fact that the Finley Avenue access is preexisting and non -conforming in terms of width, access by all types of Fire Department emergency vehicles is presently achieved and the project does not impact this access. Emergency vehicle access through the conforming Via Lido driveway is presently unobstructed. Emergency vehicle access to on -site parking areas would not rely upon the existing gated vehicular access location leading to a driveway access across the project site to 32nd Street (refer to Responses 8-2 and 8-16 in the Final EIR). Assistant Chief Kitch also disputes the commenter's unsupported claim that Fire Department response times will be degraded by the closure of the 32"d Street driveway. According to Fire Marshal Kitch, the driveway access would likely never be used by Fire Station No. 2 personnel to access the commercial center. To do so would be to introduce unneeded and unnecessary response delays based upon the configuration of the respective sites. Chief Kitch believes there will be no significant degradation in response times to the commercial center with this project's proposed changes. Response times will remain within Newport Beach Fire Department response objectives that are provided in the Section 5.12.1 of the Draft EIR (page 5.12-1). The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of the North Bay to reach 32"d Street would be unchanged with the proposed modifications. Given no change in distance, there is no reasonable or measurable way to state that response times would change. 12-16 The comment states that, "the City admits that Via Oporto is nonconforming by modern fire and safety standards, and that this non -conformity has spurred discussions with the Fire Department to widen Via Oporto." The comment incorrectly states the City's response provided in the Final EIR (Response 8-9 on page 2-56). Response 8-9 states: "Via Oporto was designed and constructed before Neavpori Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01 was established. As such, the access roadway is considered preexisting and non -conforming to today's standards. In the City of Newport Beach, many such roads exist; which is common throughout the state of California. City staff has been in active discussion with the Fire Department on this specific issue. Increasing the width of the travel lane for that portion of Via Oporto adjacent to Fire Station No. 2 is being considered. The distance traveled by any apparatus responding out of the North Bay to reach 32nd Street would be unchanged with the proposed modifications. Given no change in distance, there is no reasonable or measurable way to state that response times would change. " (emphasis added) Final • August 2014 2-108 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report There are and have been no discussions to widen Via Oporto, but rather discussions have occurred related to the possible need to modify the proposed plan to widen the travel lane between the parked cars to better facilitate an EMT truck to travel from the new Fire Station driveway south in Via Oporto to 32nd Street. The widening of the travel lane can be achieved by narrowing of the abutting sidewalks or relocating street parking spaces. Historically, Fire Station No. 2 has operated with limited parking areas. When City Hall was in operation, fire personnel had approximately 9 spaces available to it. Other spaces near the station were used to park City Hall pool cars available for use by City employees. The station property itself never accommodated full parking for all personnel during the shift change. Operationally, the oncoming shift would park at City Hall or on the street until the outgoing shift left. Staff would relocate the vehicles to available on -site parking spaces when possible. When the City replaced the EMT truck that operated from the station, it was necessary to store the vehicle in the parking area due to its larger size and the limited number of available bays, and the parking lot was re -striped accommodating 5 vehicles. After City Hall staff was relocated, station personnel did not have to rely on the use of street parking as they had access to the City Hall parking lots. The current plan for the reconfigured fire station parking area accommodates 7 vehicles and it can be expanded to 8 spaces. Additionally, parking on the extended 32nd Street apron can accommodate 2 additional vehicles while not affecting truck or apparatus pull out. While it would be desirable to accommodate full parking for a shift change, continuing the historic practice where vehicles are temporarily parked nearby is an acceptable operational issue and does not constitute a significant environmental impact. 12-17 As described on page 5.12-28 of the Draft EIR, the Newport Beach Fire Department has evaluated the permanent closure of this driveway and it will not affect emergency access as adequate fire access to Via Lido Plaza is provided from Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and private parking areas accessed by two existing vehicular driveways. Access to all portions of Via Lido Plaza would be met by either public roadways such as Newport Boulevard and Via Lido or by private roadways off of Finley Avenue and Via Lido. This discussion in the Draft EIR includes a footnote citation that indicates that Kevin Kitch, Assistant Chief, Life Safety Services Division, Newport Beach Fire Department, reviewed the project on January 2, 2014; also refer to Response 12-15. Additionally, the written correspondence is provided in the Draft EIR in Appendix 11.9, Utility Cofffs ondence. Additional responses regarding the traffic analysis were provided by the City Traffic Engineer, Tony Brine. Comments provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department are based on their previous experience and current operations for providing emergency services. As stated in Response 8-8 in the Final EIR, adequate and code compliant access is currently available, and has been repeatedly provided over the years, through the parking areas accessed off of Finely Avenue and Via Lido or directly from these two streets as well as Newport Boulevard. The 32nd Street Driveway access is unlikely to ever be used by Fire Station No. 2 personnel to access the commercial center. To do so would be to introduce unneeded and unnecessary response Final • August 2014 2-109 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report delays based upon the configuration of the respective sites. There will be no degradation in response time to the commercial center with this project's proposed changes. 12-18 Refer to Response 8-3 in the Final EIR. As noted in the Draft EIR, CEQA requires an EIR to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The comment speculates as to the ramifications of closing the driveway between Via Lido Plaza and 32nd Street. Additionally, CEQA requires the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. The "rule of reason" requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The Draft EIR does not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts related to the closure of the 32nd Street driveway. Therefore, an alternative to closing the 32nd Street driveway was not considered. As described in Section 7, Alternatives to the Probosed Pro ect of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. All potential impact were reduced to a less than significant level. However, the Draft EIR included an analysis a reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced density, mixed -use, and two no build alternatives. 12-19 As noted in Response 8-16, an analysis of project's consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan is provided within Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of the Draft EIR. The comment argues that the project is inconsistent with the City's policy related to traffic and circulation and specifically cites Goal 1.3 of the Circulation Element. An analysis has been completed to show that trucks can safely access Via Lido Plaza at the entrance off of Via Lido. Goods movement generally refers to regional transport of goods and not necessarily deliveries to a single shopping center. Nonetheless, nothing associated with the proposed project, including the closure of the 32nd Street Driveway would prevent goods movement and truck access to Via Lido Plaza. The proposed project would not require Via Lido Plaza to make any physical changes to their site. The comment also argues that there are numerous problems with requiring large trucks to use the Via Lido entrance. However, as described in Response 8-2 in the Final EIR, trucks using the 32nd Street driveway would experience the same conflicts as with the Via Lido entrance. 12-20 The project would require the import of approximately 7,379 cubic yards of soil for grading of the site. The project also requires cut and fill on -site, and additional soil (i.e., import) is typically needed for compaction and/or to adjust the grade. The import of this amount of soil would require 922 truck trips. It should be noted that these are round trips. This number of truck trips was mentioned in the analysis because it represents the greatest number of truck trips associated with construction. However, the analysis accounted for Final • August 2014 2-110 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report vehicle trips (including worker trips and material deliveries) associated with all phases of construction. For example, the project would require approximately 10 to 70 worker trips per day and up to 31 vendor round trips per day (depending on phase). Each of these trips and various other aspects of the anticipated construction activities were analyzed within the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires a construction management plan. Nothing in this mitigation measure would be considered deferral under CEQA. As indicated in the Draft EIR and described in Response 8-34 in the Final EIR, all construction activities would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which requires a construction management plan that would include measures to minimize traffic and parking impacts upon the local circulation system. These measures would address various topics including traffic controls for street closures, routes for construction vehicles, hours for transport activities, and various others. As required by CEQA, this measure has a timing mechanism (i.e., prior to the issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits) and performance standards (i.e., Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires the Construction Management Plan to address specific topics and include specific requirements/prohibitions). The Construction Management Plan would also identify the routs that the construction vehicles (including haul) trucks would utilize. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 limits the hours for hauling and/or the transport of oversize loads to off-peak hours to avoid traffic conflicts. The use of local streets would be prohibited and haul trucks entering or exiting public streets are required to yield to public traffic at all times. 12-21 Refer to Response 12-7, above. 12-22 Refer to Response 12-7, above. It is important to note, the average delay reported and corresponding intersection Level of Service includes vehicles that pass through an intersection without stopping. Effective signal coordination can enable a large number of vehicles to move through an intersection without stopping, thereby offsetting a significant amount of delay experienced by stopped vehicles. 12-23 Refer to Response 12-9, above. The statement that "a cumulative impact would occur by the addition of any trips to a Caltrans facility" is not a Caltrans threshold. 12-24 Refer to Response 12-10, above. 12-25 Refer to Response 12-11, above. 12-26 Refer to Response 12-12, above. 12-27 Refer to Response 12-7, above. Response 8-44 refers to and intends to reiterate Response 8- 26 indicating that the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Trafc Impact Studies (2002) does not provide specific input parameters. As noted in Response 12-7, while Chapter 10 of the HCM 2000 provides estimated values for certain input parameters, the application of the Final • August 2014 2-111 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report parameters in question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on local characteristics or standard practice as determined by the reviewing agency. 12-28 Refer to Response 12-7, above. As explained in Response 12-7, the HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. Our understanding is that Caltrans District 12 has not required pedestrian timing as an HCM input parameter for planning purposes such as traffic impact studies because utilizing pedestrian minimum green timing requirements would present an overly conservative analysis in which pedestrians are assumed to cross each leg of a study intersection on every cycle during the peak hours. 12-29 Refer to Response 12-7, above. As explained in Response 12-7, the HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are not an analytical error. The HCM input parameters applied in the analysis are appropriate for planning purposes and are consistent with what has been historically deemed acceptable by Caltrans District 12. 12-30 Refer to Response 12-9, above. Final • August 2014 2-112 Response to Comments S City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report Attachment 1— Fuscoe Engineering Memorandum (July 28, 2014) Final • August 2014 2-113 Response to Comments 'r1i�l Irvine 7 San Diego FLos Angeles USCOE Ontario El Centro E N B 1 N E E R I N 6 Danville July 28, 2014 Mr. Anthony Wrzosek Vice President, Planning & Development R.D. Olson Development 2955 Main Street, Third Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Re: Response to Comments to Lido House Hotel Final EIR from Paul Hastings, LLP, Sections 111.113.2 and a Portion of III.0 as Noted Below Dear Mr. Wrzosek; At the direction of R.D. Olson Development, Fuscoe Engineering reviewed comments received from Paul Hastings, LLP to the Lido House Final EIR. Our review was limited to the sections listed above and only to those portions where Fuscoe Engineering has expertise. Both sections relate to truck access to and from Villa Lido Plaza. The narrative below is our response to those sections. Fuscoe Engineering previously generated four sheets illustrating the existing condition (one sheet), ingress travel for the proposed condition (two sheets) and egress travel for the proposed condition (one sheet). The truck turning envelopes were generated using Transoft Solutions, Inc., AutoTurn Professional 3D, version 8.1. The turning envelopes were plotted on an orthographic, geo-referenced image and existing topographic survey information of the existing city hall site. In responding the access issues from Finley Street, Fuscoe subsequently generated two additional exhibit sheets showing the largest vehicle that can ingress from Finley Street and the largest vehicle that can egress to Finley Street. Section III.B.2. The ingress exhibit (Exhibit 1) prepared by Fuscoe is intended to show only that a vehicle in the egress lane of the northerly Via Lido Plaza driveway at Via Lido or the existing city hall driveway at 32nd Street will prevent large truck traffic from entering until the vehicle clears the lane. Any conclusions regarding impacts on pedestrians and general vehicle traffic is best left to a qualified Traffic Engineer familiar with the area and its associated traffic patterns. We respectfully take exception to the comment in the third paragraph of the section stating "the City's own consultant confirms that truck access from Via Lido will be disruptive and potentially unsafe". Fuscoe made no such comment either on the exhibits or in the narrative response. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 www.fuscoe.com Letter to Anthony Wrzosek July 28, 2074 Page 2 Regarding west bound traffic on Via Lido into the Via Lido Plaza (Exhibits 2A & 213), the statement "a large truck would risk clipping a vehicle in the opposite left -turn lane that was waiting to turn into Lido Marina Village". The existing opposing driveways to Lido Marina Village and Villa Lido Plaza are offset from each other and the potential to clip a vehicle turning left into Lido Marina Village, by a west bound vehicle turning left into Villa Lido Plaza, exists with or without the proposed development. We take exception to the statement in the fourth paragraph "...showing that a large truck entering from Via Lido would clip the valet kiosk and any car parked in the first or last parking stalls that front the eastern face of Via Lido Plaza." The kiosk mentioned is an umbrella that is encroaching into the fire lane as indicated by the red curbs on both sides of the drive aisle. Such a condition should not be used as limiting criteria. In any case the umbrella can be moved to a location that does not encroach, effectively removing this issue. Fuscoe adjusted the ingress drive simulations from Via Lido slightly easterly to clearly show that the truck envelopes do not encroach into the parking areas. The vehicle near the kiosk, shown in the image is not parked fully into the parking space and should not be considered as an indication of the location of a typically parked vehicle. No parking within the Via Lido Plaza would need to be changed as a result of truck entry from Via Lido. Section III.0 — seventh (7th) bullet point. "The City's analysis of traffic displaced from the 32nd Street Alley is inconsistent" Fuscoe takes exception to the statement "The City's statements are contradicted by the Fuscoe Engineering Memo,...". The alternative access scenario exhibit only shows that a truck route via 32nd Street to Lafayette Road and Via Lido is possible and makes no claim as to present or future traffic impacts on these streets. Additional Study Sheets Fuscoe was asked to investigate what size service vehicle could enter from the Finley Street entrance to Via Lido Plaza (sheets 5 and 6). Our investigations indicate that 30-foot truck can ingress from this entry point. However the same vehicles cannot egress via this entry due to the existing parking lot medians interfering with the required maneuvering area. The largest service trucks that can egress to Finley Street are panel trucks similar to FeclEx or UPS size delivery vehicles. We hope that the information herein is beneficial. Please contact me if you have any questions at (949) 474-1960. Sincerely, FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. Mark Nero, P.E. Project Manager enclosures TRUCK TURN STUDY - OLD CITY HALL & VIA LIDO PLAZA 26 Lis 71 ilk NEWPOR T BOULEVARD 7j' 01. Elliot VILLA WAY FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N G f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g rIVI VVL.V VIM L.IVV I IV I L.L. C- .' iik Pt .: T 32nd STREET DRIVEWAY ft IL _ VIA OPORTO EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 1 LEGEND r i NEWPORT BOULEVARD 15.00 45.00 3.00 20.00 CA LEGAL-65 feet Tractor Width : 8.50 Lock to Lock Time : 6.0 Trailer Width : 8.50 Steering Angle : 26.3 Tractor Track : 8.50 Articulating Angle : 70.0 Trailer Track : 8.50 22.74 16.75 �oy I - -7--e-1-aw- -li- 4.59 12.47 3.06 9.42 B—AUTO feet Composite Passenger Vehicle Width . 7.71 Width 6.33 Track : 7.71 Track 6.33 Lock to Lock Time 6.0 Lock to Lock Time 6.0 Steering Angle : 47.8 Steering Angle 26.4 �v iiw� SCALE: 1 "=30' 30' 0' 15' 30' SCALE: 1 " = 30' L TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA w C 01 c:) VILLA WAY moll FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N G f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g 0 Z 7 I _ OIL A f� If i I PROPOSED VIA LIDO HOTEL —1 I �O 1\0 INGRESS Z\000� .6 ii r NEWPORT BOULEVARD r w r �' •� � \�<_,;.% � � ±� :SST i At i VIA OPORTO r SCALE: 1 "=30' 30' 0' 15' 30' SCALE: 1 " = 30' 00 TRUCK TURN STUDY -LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA VILLA WAY M. q .,,,'I FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N G f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g f _i "+ e !-.,Tj-mL INGRESS L - t=r��►i . fir: *,014,9r,:Ill1f�aMV ._ VIA LIDO PLAZA /® a > I ROVE RNING RADIUS BY ry `�► RECONFIGURING ENTRY CURBS PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH J STANDARDS. It C7 Y . O VIA OPORTO t t I e�• w ` .ice ...�r�. - 0 N Oro' SCALE: 1 "=30' 30' 0' 15' 30' SCALE: 1 " = 30' TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA or% ^TI I l .`C ,I 1 fiplNL--_ r BO I ILEVA, '4D _ a = NEWPORT 1 , PROPOSED VIA LIDO HOVEL L- .;r . L ILI r n IY 11 ��• 11 II .I, • ►i F II �I II I .,,,'I FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N G f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g (114) a00Z Moan N30`dM-1 lN) aooz MON3 _ I Ffl `►�' -t EGRESS 1\ BOULEVARD Al I � lit •� '� � � �- i Alf Ab Ap Ap /VIA LIDS PLAZA d . �► AL LTA r2weT- • : • EXHIBIT 3 r + � IMPROVE TURNING RADIUS BY `.�► RECONFIGURING ENTRY CURBS PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STANDARDS._ Ir I loll:- - k14 �/p0 A• A.1 SCALE: 1 "=30' 30' 0' 15' 30' SCALE: 1 " = 30' C TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA INGRSS VIA ❑INLEY STREET 2986 I I I I I I I I I I i I j I I I I I I I I FUSCOE N E E R I N G INGRESS �k Time 6.0 gle 31.5 AL OF THE LARGEST VEHICLE CESS VIA LIDO PLAZA FROM T. HOWEVER, THIS VEHICLE NLY EGRESS TO FINLEY STREET. 4ESS TO VIA LIDO. 0 5 10 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE f u 1 1 L e t h i n k i n g C TRUCK TURN STUDY - LIDO HOUSE HOTEL & VIA LIDO PLAZA EGRESS TO ❑INLEY STREET .; I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I FUSCOE N E E R I N G INGRESS 8.53 8.53 6.0 40.8 HE LARGEST VEHICLE .SS & EGRESS TO VIA LEY STREET. THIS IS � / FEDEX SIZE i� i 0 5 10 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE f u 1 1 L e t h i n k i n g COMMENT LETTER 13 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS July 17, 2014 Via Facsimile only Bradley Hilgrin, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o James E. Campbell, Principal Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor, Bay "C" Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Lido House Hotel and the Generic Project aka City Hall Reuse Project (the "Projects" Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and other community groups in the City in connection with the captioned matter. We offer these comments in the hopes of improving the FEIR and the Project, clarifying the nature and the scope of the Projects and the Project Description, and drawing the Commission's attention to issues that the Commission first raised in the initial Draft and Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). First, we congratulate the City on the FEIR: unlike the previous MND, the FEIR is not italicized. The FEIR is much easier to read. Nonetheless, the FEIR has problems as discussed below. Second, please find attached hereto as Exhibit "A," our comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original City Hall Re -use Project. Given that the Projects have not really changed that is, the FEIR still analyzes the Project as proposed and analyzed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Hall Reuse Project, we incorporate those earlier comments herein. Also, we incorporate all other comments on the DEIR and the FEIR to the extent that they supplement and do not contradict these comments. Third, as the Commission well remembers, the MND was a disaster which the City saw fit to abandon: it was in all italics and impossible to read; it failed to analyze crucial Project features; it engaged in piecemeal analysis; and it failed to analyze fully the Projects' impacts and mitigation measures. Unfortunately, for all of its promise, the FEIR continues down the old disastrous path. As the Commission remembers, Commissioner Tucker asked at the hearing on the MND and the Projects, why 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-55.50 Fax: (949) 6.50-1181 13-1 13-2 Bradley Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission James E. Campbell, Senior Planner - 2 ]lily 17, 2014 doesn't the City wait until they have an applicant and a project that it can analyze rather than conducting environmental review on the legislative proposals? We welcomed and agreed with Commissioner Tucker's common sense approach. Now the City has spent hundreds of staff hours and thousands of tax dollars to determine that a hotel use is the appropriate use for the former City Hall site. The Executive Summary appears to embrace this approach and describes the Project as a hotel project. Unfortunately, the DEIR does not continue this approach: it analyzes two projects: the Lido House Hotel; or a mixed use residential and commercial use (the "Generic Project"). The City determined that it would pursue a hotel use when it spent time and money seeking applicants to submit proposals. The City Council also decided on the applicant which is the applicant here. Why is the City continuing to analyze the Project as residential/mixed use? Given that the City has a project and a developer, why delay site development review for another approval? All of these impermissibly delays the full environmental review that must occur now and engages in piecemeal analysis which is forbidden by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et sett. As Commissioner Tucker asked long ago, why don't we wait for a project and a developer? The City has satisfied these issues, why delay the environmental review of site development review for another hearing? Such review must be done now for the chosen Project which is the title of the FEIR, the Lido House Hotel and not some amorphous Generic Project that various Council Members may favor. Correlatively, the FEIR impermissibly ignores the impacts ofthe Generic Project. Far instance, in Response to Comment 8-3 regarding the need to preserve emergency access to Via Lido Center, the FEIR states that Comment 8-3 reflects "... reflects the commentator's preference that the Via Lido Plaza delivery trucks pass through the City's property and ignores its effect on the hotel operations and guests." However, this Response ignores the impacts of the Generic Project which is also part of the Project. The FEIR repeatedly ignores the Generic Project and analyzes the impacts of the Lido House Hotel Project. However, if the Project is approved and the FEIR is certified, the Generic Project will be approved and its impacts will be regarded as completely analyzed. However, the FEIR fails to do this: it focuses solely on the Lido House Hotel Project. Fourth, the Project involves a land lease between the City and the proposed developer of the Lido House Hotel. Also, the Generic Project will also involve a lease. Yet, the FEIR does not include any form lease for the Generic Project or a lease for the Lido House Hotel. Given that the lease is part ofthe Project, the FEIR must analyze the lease and its impacts on the environment including the change in possessory interests, the term of these possessory interests, remedies on default including the ability to seize the Hotel in the event of default and the inability of the City to operate the hotel. All of these are part of the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project: a full description of the Project includes the terms of these agreements. Indeed, the lease is the same as a development agreement which is part of any development project and which is part ofthe review of the hearing authority. For instance, in the approval for North Newport Center, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental document and the project which included a development agreement. The same must happen here: because the lease is part of the Project, the Commission and the public need to review and comment on this part of the Project. Without it, the Project description is fatally incomplete. See Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 116. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 13-2 at] DOW Bradley Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission James E. Campbell, Senior Planner 3 ]lily 17, 2014 Fifth, as indicated in our earlier comments, the Project's height will create significant aesthetic impacts including light and glare, and shade and shadow impacts. As to the former, light and glare, the Lido House Hotel Project and the Generic Project will expose visitors and guests/residents to lights from passing vehicles on Balboa Blvd. These impacts likely may be able to be mitigated the FEIR contains no such mitigation measures now. As to the shade and shadow impacts, the FEIR concedes that the Project wiII have such impacts but regards them as temporary because the sun and therefore the shadows move, If this analysis were adequate, there would be no shade impacts. Moreover, as we earlier commented, the Project shade and shadows will affect the Project's own open space and will make the area dark and dingy. It will also affect the outdoor diners at the area restaurants in the vicinity. Although the DEIR's discussion of aesthetic impacts concludes that these are not shade sensitive uses, that conclusion is incorrect. The shade and shadows from the Projects will adversely affect outdoor dining in the area as well as the commercial experience at Via Lido Plaza including the new West Marine store. The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to address these impacts. Sixth, also highlighted in our earlier comments, the FEIR employs the wrong environmental baseline with which to determine the Projects' impacts. This error continues the erroneous practice employed in the MND. The DEIR is not even candid as to its use of the erroneous environmental baseline; the July 17, 2014 Staff Report for the Commission ("2014 Commission Staff Report") is somewhat more candid but nonetheless continues to analyze the Project's land use impacts with the incorrect standard. That Report states: "Absent a specified maximum intensity, the `plan to plan' analysis would indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval; however, when the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has conservatively used the 2006 General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 2014 Commission Staff Report, handwritten pages 11-12. The DEIR uses this same "plan to plan" comparison to determine land use impacts, see DEIR, Table 5-4, page 5.4-50 Source Note that the 2006 General Plan is the basis for the Land Use Analysis Table 5-4. This use of the 2006 General Plan with the non -existing but planned 75,000 square feet to analyze the Projects' impacts violates the requirements of CEQA: It requires that the analysis compare the impacts of the proposed Projects with the conditions on the ground today, that is without the non-existent 75,000 square feet proposed in the 2006 General Plan. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ("South Coast AQMD"}. Seventh, the FOR also continues to use improperly the Lido Village Design Guidelines as standards for approval rather than suggested guidelines. The DEIR recognizes their proper role: "The Lido Village Design Guidelines (December 2011) (Design Guidelines) are to be used as a guide by owners who intend to renovate or rehabilitate existing structures, are planning for new construction, or have decided to make significant exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for approval or planned public improvements." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 13-5 13-6 13-7 Srttllet 1-1ilI!rt:n, Chair Wild+vrn of the Ptannlnz Cnmmi:uu:e larne-. I:. C'alnpbell. Sr»im Planner • i exterior or site improvements to property, or by the City while reviewing plans for approval or planned public improvements." ❑EIR, page 5.1-12. However, the DEIR confusingly employs these Guidelines as regulatory standards with which projects must be determined to be consistent: "The Design Guidelines provide a basis for the evaluation and review of the applications by property owners or tenants to the City of Ne%k port 13each.These Guidelines are not regulatory and are intended to be a component of the City's development review process where projects must be Found consistent" Idly 17. 2014 DEIR, page 5.1-13. This last sentence is internally contradictory: if the Guidelines are not regulatory. then a project need not be consistent with them. Yet, the Final clause maintains that all projects including the Projects must be found consistent with the Guidelines. These Guidelines have never had environmental review, environmental hearings, nor any regulatory approvals, e.g. Coastal Commission approval. The DEIR continues this erroneous use of these Guidelines by stating that, because the Project must comply with the Guidelines. the Project has no impact oil land use, aesthetics and other environmental resources. '['his might be true if the Guidelines had been subjected to environmental review and their standards were determined to enhance the environment or at least have no significant impact on the environment. ']'he City did not conduct such a review and cannot now employ these Guidelines as an analytical tool or mitigation tool for the Project. The FF] R. contains numerous other errors and omissions. It is not ready for prime time. On hchalf'ofthe clients note above, we urge the Commission to reject the Projects and the I=EIR, and return the FI:1R and the Projects to S ta ff and the Applicants for lirrther study and review, for revision of the FE:I R and recirculation for public comment and review. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR. Please provide us with notice of any responses to these comments and with notices of any and all hearings on the captioned project. Further, this is also a written request for notices pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically. Public Resources Code Section 21092.2. Specifically, pursuant to Section 21092.2, we request that you provide us with a copy ofany and all notices required pursuant to Public Resources Code Scction 21080.4, 2 I083.9, 21092, 21108 and 21152 relating to the captioned Project.. ❑fcourse, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, O FFICES OF R Q i C. I AWKINS By: Robert C. Hawkins RCI 1/kw cc: I_eilani Browi-L City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only) 14 Corporarc Plaza, S1IIIC 120 Newport Bvitch, C alilctrnta 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax. (949) 650.1181 13-T Exhibit "A" LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAW KINS March 26, 2013 Via Facsimile Only Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Additional and Further Comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ("FMND") for the City Hall Reuse Project (the "Project") Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Newport Residents United Again, a community group based on the original Newport Residents United which lobbied in the early 1970s to establish the original height limit for the Coastal Zone, the Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation of the "City Hall" site for civic purposes, and others in the City in connection with the captioned matter. We Have commented on the captioned DMND several times and offer these additional further comments on the captioned document. First, although we have repeatedly requested that you provide us with all notices in connection with the captioned matter, we have yet to receive any such notices. Please comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. Again, as throughout this process, the City has failed to provide us with notice required by CEQA and other laws. Second, the Response to our January 17, 2013 Letter Comment 4 states that: "This comment suggesting that the IS/MND was unreadable is the only comment received that indicated the reviewer had difficulty reading and understanding the information and analysis presented in the document. The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, the California Coastal Commission and other responsible public agencies and/or interested individuals and organizations. With the single exception of this commenter, the City did not receive any comments from any other recipient of the IS/MND that indicated reviewers had difficulty reading the document or that it prevented them from understanding the findings and recommendations included in the environmental analysis. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not necessary." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 13-8 13-9 Keith Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013 Members of the City Council � Final MND, page 1 of Responses to our January 17, 2013 letter. This is incredible. It is also factually incorrect. At the January 17, 2013 hearing, all of the public commenters criticized the readability of the DMND. Moreover, at the hearing, staff reported on the project and then introduced the MND preparer, Mr. Keeton Kreitzer. Mr. Kreitzer discussed the MND. The very first question asked of the EIR preparer, Keeton Kreitzer, concerned the italicized document. Chairman Michael Toerge asked: "Why was the document in italics?" (Emphasis in the original.) Mr. Kreitzer responded that he had a computer glitz and the entire document printed in italics. He said that it was not to mislead, to confuse or to make the document less readable. Chair Toerge responded that "it certainly did make the document much less readable." See audio minutes of the January 17, 2013 meeting (the audio minutes are not measured so we cannot provide a location in the audio minutes) (Emphasis supplied). Other members of the public including Jim Mosher and Denys Obermann also criticized the readability of the document. Given these comments including the Planning Commission Chair's comments, the document must be recirculated for public review and comment. We note that the City has attempted to cure this defect retroactively by providing the FMND in non -italic font. Unfortunately, this is not appropriate and cannot cure the problem. The public commented on the italicized document, and the italics made the document unreadable. The City Council will now have the luxury of the non -italicized document but the public was not given this opportunity during the public comment period which closed the day after Christmas 2012. Given that the City has now circulated a non -italicized version of the document, the City must recirculate this reformatted document for public review and comment. As for the Responses to Comment Nos. 5 and 6, although they state that they are analyzing the Project's impacts on the worst case scenario, the Responses fail to do this. First, the proposed shade -shadow analysis was not part of the DMND, and the public has not had the opportunity to review and comment on this study. The FMND without italics and with the shade study must be revised and recirculated for public review and comment. Second, the shade study is incomplete. The Project description includes increasing the Shoreline Height Limits from thirty-five (35') feet to fifty-five (55') with sloping roofs and elevator towers to sixty (60') feet and architectural features to sixty-five (65') feet. The shade analysis displays only shade for the fifty-five (55') feet, not the higher sloped roofs, elevator towers and architectural features. Moreover, no one verifies that the shadows are correct and that the analysis correctly shows the shadows generated at the site and surrounding areas. This City has suffered from unscrupulous persons who have fudged height issues: Andrew Goetz; the entitlement persons for the Mormon Temple; and others. We need a reliable shade analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project, not some seat -of -the -pants, rush -rush analysis. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax; (949) 650.1181 13-9 13-10 Keidi Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013 Members of the City Council .3 Third, even this seat -of -the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis shows shade impacts: the open space on the Project site will be permanently shaded. As we indicated in our original comment letter, the DMND states: "The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities." DMND, page l 1 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 ("Additionally, the purpose for allowing taller buildings is clearly described within the draft amendment; `...to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new coastal view opportunities."' However, Response to Supplemental Comment No. 6 states: "It is important to note that the City of Newport Beach has determined that shadow sensitive uses include, but are not limited to, residential, recreational and park areas, plazas, schools, and nurseries. Furthermore, the City considers that a significant impact related to shadows occurs when 50 percent of shadow sensitive use or area is in shade/shadow for at least 50 percent of the time between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) between late October and early April or between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) between early April and Late October." Section 7.0 of the FMND, page 2. However, the seat -of -the -pants, rush -rush shade analysis fails to analyze the impacts on the Project site open space areas, e.g. the park areas. The FMND recognizes these as shade sensitive areas, but the analysis shows that this area will be in shade for most of the day. Yet, the FMND fails to recognize or appreciate this Project impact. At the January 27, 2013 Planning Commission, we commented regarding such impacts. Planner Campbell stated that Project impacts on the Project site were not impacts that needed to be analyzed, addressed, or mitigated. However, the FMND is replete with analysis of such impacts including impacts regarding air quality and noise. For instance, Section 4.8(e) concerning Hazards considers and discusses whether the Project will expose Project residents to hazards including noise. Section 4.12(a) discusses the potential impact that the Project may create by exposing Project residents to unwanted noise. Section 4.3(e) discusses the potential that the Project may expose residents to objectionable odors. Here, the Project and its huge shadow eliminates the benefit of the open space included in the Project Description and which necessitates the Project's need to exceed the height limit. The Project's exceeding the height limit actually will create a significant and unmitigated impact: the shadow which undercuts and destroys the benefit of the open space. This is a significant Project impact which requires mitigation. Indeed, it likely will require modification of the Project to comply with the current height limits which likely will have no such shade impacts. 14 Corporate Plara, Suite 120 Newport Beach, Cahlbrnia 92660 (949) 654.5550 Fax: (949) 650-118 I 13-10 13-11 13-12 Keith Curry, Mayor 4 March ?6, ?�13 Members of the City Council Fourth, the Shoreline Height Ordinance and Limitation arose due to citizen action. In the early 1970s, a group of Newport Beach residents including Joe and Judy Rosener formed "Newport Residents United ("NRU")." According to Allen Beek who testified on behalf of NRU when the Council passed the height limit, one of the reasons NRU proposed the height limit was the construction of the massive condominium towers near the Lido Isle Bridge. However, FMND maintains that the Project with its height exceeding the current ordinance is consistent with these large condominiums which gave rise to the height ordinance in the first place. For instance, the discussion of Aesthetics notes: "Several other taller residential, office, and a mixed use building are also located in the vicinity of the project and within the view." FMND, page 28. See also Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 Also, see Exhibits 4.1-1 through -7 which show that the only building penetrating the Shoreline Height Limit is the 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums which led to the Shoreline Height Ordinance. Further, Exhibits 4.1-8 through -11 also show projects built before the Shoreline Height Ordinance which are not in the vicinity of the Project but are on Pacific Coast Highway in an area known as Mariner's Mile. The other structures reference in the graphic entitled "Lido Village Building Height Analysis" in Response to Coastal Commission Comment No. 4 show that the vast majority of structures in the vicinity of the Project are within the Shoreline Height Limit, not in excess of those limits. Only two properties shown on this Analysis are as high or higher than the proposed Project: 601 Lido Condominiums and 611 Lido Park Condominiums. The FMND cannot use these anomalies to show consistency with surrounding development. Indeed, the Mariner's Mile projects are not in the vicinity of the Project site and should not be considered at all. Further, the 601 Lido Condominiums is unusual as shown in the Exhibits 4.1-1 through -7. Without more, these anomalies cannot in and of themselves set the standard. The standard is far lower: it is the current Shoreline Height Limit of thirty-five (35') feet. Fifth, as indicated in our original comments, the FMND refers to the Lido Village Design Guidelines as regulatory. See Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 and other references in the FMND which state that the Guidelines "prescribe" standards of development. These references occur throughout the FMND. Nonetheless, Response to Comment No. 15 states that: "The characterization in the Draft ISIMND that the guidelines as regulatory in nature was unintentional. Rather, the discussion of the Lido Village Design Guidelines was intended to illustrate that future development must be found to be consist with the design guidelines for approval." FMND, Response to Friends' December 26, 2013, page 10. This is very confusing. The first sentence in this Response suggests that the Guidelines are not regulatory; the second states that the Guidelines are regulatory. The City cannot have it both ways: if the Project must be found to be consistent with the Guidelines, then they are regulatory. If they are not regulatory, then the Project need not be consistent with the Guidelines. Given that the FMND relies upon the 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650•5550 Pax. (949) 650.1181 Wok K3 13-14 Keith Curry, Mayor March 26, 2013 Members of the City Council 5 regulatory understanding of the Guidelines, the Guidelines are part of the Project and must be analyzed in the FMND. Indeed, Response to our January 17, 2013 letter Comment No. 9 concerning the Guidelines states that: "It is acknowledged that the Lido Village Design Guidelines are not regulatory. As indicated in the guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is responsible for design review and project implementation. Project must adhere to adopted General Plan, zoning policies, and regulations, which outline requirements Specific for individual parcels within Lido Village, including the City Hall property. Nonetheless, the Lido Village Design Guidelines are intended to influence the theme and character of that development. To that end, the guidelines addressed all aspects of future land use that may occur within Lido Village, including edge conditions, pedestrian connection, open space, sustainability, architecture, landscaping, etc., to ensure that the objectives articulated in the document are achieved. In addition, guidance is also provided to achieve the desired visual character and aesthetic quality within Lido Village, even though all improvements occurring with the affected area are subject to applicable regulations and permitting process imposed by the City' General Plan, zoning code and related ordinances, and other related regulatory requirements. Finally, the guidelines are intended to provide design guidance for future development and redevelopment "...with the assurance that others who follow will be held to the same or similar unifying set of standards."Thus, while they are not regulatory, they include guidance for promoting compatibility and minimizing land use conflicts through the implementation of planning and design solutions that also reduce potential adverse effects." FMND, Response to January 17, 2013 Comment No. 9, page 4 (Emphasis supplied.) Again, this does not really address the question. This Response recognizes that the Guidelines are not regulatory and only provide guidance. However, if so, then how can the FMND rely on compliance with the Guidelines to mitigate Project impacts? See Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, They cannot. Hence, the FMND contains an analysis which requires further discussion regarding the Guidelines and their mitigation of the Project's impacts. Indeed, as we indicated in our December 26, 2013 Comment, the Project really includes the Guidelines, and the environmental document must be revised to address this aspect of the Project. Sixth, the FMND fails to analyze the Project's impacts on the existing environment. That is, it improperly compares the Project's impacts, not to the existing environment, but on a hypothetical General Plan environment. This is legal error. Recently, the California Supreme Court decided the CEQA issue of environmental baseline. In Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310 ("South Coast A MD") , the Supreme Court held that the envirorunental baseline is CEQA is generally the existing conditions on the ground. There, the South Coast Air Quality Management District prepared a negative declaration for a refiner project by Conoco -Philips. Among other things, the District argued that the environmental 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, Calitomia 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650- 1181 13-14 13-15 Keith Curry, Mayor Members of the City Council • 6 - March 26, 2013 baseline was maximum output of the refinery which had valid permits to operate it at the site even though the refinery had yet to be built. Among other things, ConocoPhillips argued that failure to use the maximum permitted operations as a baseline would violate ConocoPhilips vested rights and contravene CEQA's statute of limitations. The Court reviewed the case law and stated: A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework. This line of authority includes cases where a plan or regulation allowed for greater development or more intense activity than had so far actually occurred, n6 as well as cases where actual development or activity had, by the time CEQA analysis was begun, already exceeded that allowed under the existing regulations. n7 In each of these decisions, the appellate court concluded the baseline for CEQA analysis must be the "existing physical conditions in the affected area" (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal. App. 3d at p. 354), that is, the "`real conditions on the ground"' (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 87 Cal.AppAth at p. 121; see City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at p. 246), rather than the level of development or activity that could or should have been present according to a plan or regulation." Id. at 320-21. The Court held that: "Applied here, this general rule leads to the conclusion the District erred in using the boilers' maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline. By treating all operation of the boilers within the individual limits of their permits to be part of the environmental setting, or baseline, the District ensured that no emissions from increased boiler operation would be considered an environmental impact so long as no single boiler operated beyond its permitted capacity." Id. at 322. See Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4" 552 petition for review granted 2012 Cal. LEXIS 7556 (to the opposite effect; opinion was depublished pending the Supreme Court review). Hence, under South Coast AQMD, the FMND uses an improper baseline to assess impacts including traffic impacts. The FMND states: "When the City's General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City had commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, based on the General Plan 2006 Update traffic (land use) assumption used to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the project site, the City determined that such future redevelopment/reuse of the City Hall Complex property would not require voter approval for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section 423 thresholds." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, Califomia 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 ii [CIS [.1 Keith Curry, Mayor Members of titre City Council .7. March 25, 2013 FMND, page 112. The FMND uses this "General Plan" analysis to determine the baseline for the Project instead of the existing conditions on the ground today which is 54,004 square feet including the Fire Station. See City Council Study Session presentation, page 2. This does not comply with the requirements of CEQA and with the direction of the South Coast AQMD Court. Indeed, it inflates the traffic generated under existing conditions and lessens the traffic impacts of the project. The FMND must be revised to consider the Project's impacts on traffic and other issues based upon a comparison with the existing conditions. Likely, the Project will generate substantially more traffic than existing conditions. Moreover, the FMND seems confused on this point. In Responsc to our December 26, 20 13 Comment No. 34, the FMND states that: "Fire Station No. 2 is an existing use that currently generates traffic to and from the site as a result of home -to -work trips. Those trips currently exist and are reflected in the baseline traffic for the Project." FMND, Response to Comment No. 34, page 14. However, it is unclear under the General Plan baseline whether or not the Fire Station traffic was not allocated to another site. In conclusion, the FMND is totally inadequate. Good and sound policy reasons and good planning require the preparation of an EIR. Such an EIR would analyze correctly the existing environmental setting including the 54,000 square foot current City Hall structure, would clearly state the Project objectives which include adequate open space for this public site, would analyze all impacts including shade impacts, would include adequate mitigation, would include a discussion of Project alternatives which is necessary for the Project to go forward, and would allow the City to override any significant an unmitigated impacts. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the FMND. As before and although ignored for this hearing, PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH NOTICE OF ANY RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS IN A NON -ITALICIZED FORMAT AND WITH NOTICES OF ANY AND ALL HEARINGS ON THE CAPTIONED PROJECT AND FMND. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TICEAFIBIEA. WKINS By: Robert C. Hawkins cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only) 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax; (949) 650.1181 13-17 Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 FAX COVER SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER Leilani Brown, City Clerk (949) 644-3039 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: Friends Date: March 26, 2013 Documents: Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7* COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated. The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney -client and/or the attorney/work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. * NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT (949) 650-5550. 03/28/2013 2:51PM FAX 8488501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES Z0001 *** TX Result Report *** TX complete. Job No. 0061 Address 6443039 Name Start Time 03/26 02:46 PM Call Length 04'12 Sheets 8 Result OK Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Reach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650- l 1 S 1 FAX COVER SHEET TRANSM 177TED TO: NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER Leilani Brown, City Clerk (949) 644-3039 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: Friends Date: March 26, 2013 ]documents: Comments on CC Agenda Item No. 11: FMND re City Hall Reuse Project Pages: 7* COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated. City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report 13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS, DATED JULY 17, 2014. 13-1 The commenter states that the text of the Draft EIR is legible, as it is not written in italic font throughout. The commenter also incorporates an earlier comment letter submitted for the previously prepared Negative Declaration (not adopted) for a past project at the project site (as discussed in detail on pages 3-4 and 3-5, Section 3.2, Background and History, of the Draft EIR). Refer to Responses 13-8 through 13-17. 13-2 The City currently has a specific development application that has been submitted for the project site, which is described in detail throughout Section 3.3, Project Characteristics, of the Draft EIR. Contrary to what the Commenter suggests regarding two development scenarios considered as part of the proposed project, the Draft EIR only considers one development application for a new hotel. As illustrated on Exhibit 3-3, Concotual Site Plan, of the Draft EIR, the project analyzed includes a new 99,625 square -foot hotel comprised of guestrooms, public areas, and back of house (operational) areas. Guestrooms and suites, including a Presidential Suite and extended stay suites and villas, would occupy levels two through four. The rooftop patio would include a bar area, fire pit, and cabanas and provide views of the bay and ocean. Other project -specific features included in Section 3.3 and analyzed in the Draft EIR include the proposed architecture, open space and landscaping, and vehicular access and parking. As required by CEQA, the proposed entitlements required as part of the application for the project must also be considered in the environmental clearance document, which have been discussed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR as well. It should be noted that, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project, a mixed use development scenario was considered as part of Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Pn2posed Proect, of the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, the Draft EIR included an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced density, mixed -use, and two no build alternatives. 13-3 The Draft EIR considered the full scope of the application, as submitted to the City of Newport Beach, and does not include any other potential project entitlement clearances not discussed. Thus, no further environmental clearance documentation is required, upon certification of the EIR, for the project, as proposed. Refer to Response 13-2 pertaining to the proposed project analyzed as part of the Draft EIR; no Generic Project was considered, but rather a specific site plan (the proposed Lido House Hotel), as illustrated in Exhibit 3-3, Concatual Site Plan, of the Draft EIR was analyzed. The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR analyzes the development of a Generic Project (as the proposed project), which is not the case. As discussed in Response 9-2, the City Council selected R.D. Olson as the development team to pursue a hotel project at the project site. The City Council executed an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with R.D. Olson and R.D. Olson has submitted a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Final • August 2014 2-135 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report Permit application consistent with their proposal and applicable Zoning Codes, which is the subject of this EIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed project, as discussed in the Draft EIR would not result in the development of a Generic Project, as suggested by the commenter, but rather the development of the hotel as proposed. 13-4 As described on page 3-19 of Section 3.6, Agreements, Permits, and Approvals, of the Draft EIR, a Lease was considered in the Draft EIR as part of the proposed project. Lease negotiations are ongoing and have not been completed. Refer to Response 9-2. 13-5 Increased heights at the project site would result in similar lighting conditions as structures of similar or higher building height in the project vicinity. Further, new shade/shadow conditions were considered on page 5.2-35 of the Draft EIR, which concluded that, as illustrated in Exhibit 5.2-12, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns, shade/shadow impacts would be minimal, for a short period of time, and the areas shaded are not considered to be shadow - sensitive (as these areas consist of surface parking lot and a portion of a commercial -retail building). Thus, impacts in this regard are less than significant, as described in the Draft EIR. As illustrated on Exhibit 5.2-12, Proposed Shade/Shadow Patterns, of the Draft EIR, the on -site public use area along Newport Boulevard would only be shaded in the morning hours. Thus, the proposed public use areas along the western portion of the project site are not anticipated to experience substantial shade as a result of the proposed structure. Further, as depicted on Exhibit 5.2-12 of the Draft EIR, no shading of adjacent outdoor diners associated with restaurant uses would result from the proposed structure; no impacts would result in this regard. The adjacent retail store (West Marine) would be partially shaded; however, this use is not considered to be shadow -sensitive. With regard to increased vehicle headlights along Balboa Boulevard and surrounding residential uses, the project would not result in an increase in vehicles (or associated vehicle headlights) traveling along Balboa Boulevard (as illustrated on Exhibit 7, Forecast Percent Trip Distribution of Proposed Project, of Appendix 11.3, DR& Impact Analysis/Parking Study, of the Draft EIR). Further, as discussed on page 5.2-38 of the Draft EIR, vehicle headlights are a source of nighttime lighting that was considered in the light and glare analysis for the proposed project. Increased vehicle headlights along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street would appear similar to the existing lighting conditions currently experienced. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 13-6 The City of Newport Beach General Plan was adopted July 25, 2006 (as amended periodically) and is the City's guide for community decision -making. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines contains the Environmental Checklist form that was used during the preparation of this EIR. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, the Draft EIR considers the project's consistency Final • August 2014 2-136 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report with the City's adopted General Plan, as described in Impact Statements LU-1 through LU- 5, which includes Table 5.1-4, General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis. It should be noted that the environmental analysis presented throughout the Draft EIR considers the project impacts compared to the existing "on -the -ground" conditions, and does not analyze the project via a "plan -to -plan" analysis approach. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, Proiect Setting (Existing Conditions), 60,600 square feet of administration/office floor area (previously used to support the former City of Newport Beach City Hall), and the existing Fire Station No. 2 that is approximately 7,100 square feet, were considered in the Draft EIR. The existing baseline condition that was utilized in the Draft EIR acknowledged that City Hall staff has been relocated to the new Civic Center located at Newport Center in April of 2013. It is noted that the City continues limited use of the property and various buildings including community use of the former City Council Chambers for assembly purposes. Also, the Draft EIR considered Fire Station No. 2 as currently on -site, staffed, and operational. 13-7 Refer to Response 7-4 pertaining to the City's Design Guidelines.. As discussed in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, and Section 5.2, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, where the project considers consistency with the Design Guidelines, it is in the context of describing the project's consistency with applicable land use plans and policies as well as describing the City's intent for the visual character in the area. This consistency analysis describes the City's intent for the character/quality of the area and whether or not the project is consistent with that intent or not. The Design Guidelines are described as guidelines were applicable and not regulatory requirements. Further, it should be noted that page 5-1 of the Design Guidelines states that within the City of Newport Beach's Zoning Code, there are requirements for development and new land uses to adhere to Design Guidelines. Section 20.16.020, paragraphs C through E, require land owners to follow Design Guidelines or criteria as a condition of approval. Refer to Response 7-4 pertaining to Coastal Commission approval. 13-8 The commenter has attached a letter (Exhibit "A" of Letter 13) that was previously submitted as part of the Negative Declaration on March 26, 2013. The City of Newport Beach has previously reviewed and responded to these comments. Per the request of the commenter, this attached letter (Exhibit "A") has been responded to, to the extent that it is applicable to this EIR in Responses 13-9 through 13-17 below. 13-9 The commenter has requested to be notified on all public correspondence for the project, as required by CEQA and other laws. Notification to the public of circulation of the Draft EIR has been conducted consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a)(1). Refer to Response 13-1 pertaining to the legibility of the Draft EIR. 13-10 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR. 13-11 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR. Final • August 2014 2-137 Response to Comments City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report 13-12 Refer to Response 13-5 pertaining to the shade/shadow impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR. 13-13 Page 5.2-11 of the Draft EIR specifically describes the existing heights of the surrounding development, as currently constructed. As discussed on the last paragraph of page 5.2-35 of the Draft EIR, project implementation would alter the visual character of the site and its surroundings, as the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex would be replaced with the proposed hotel and associated parkways/landscaping. Surrounding land uses provide a mix of uses consistent with retail/restaurant and hotel uses focused toward a more visitor - oriented character. The proposed project, with the proposed setbacks to Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street, is considered compatible in massing and scale to the surrounding uses. Further, the increase of building heights (up to 58.5 feet) would not result in a substantial change in the character of the area, as surrounding buildings (particularly to the north and east of the project site) include structures that can range from 12 to 110 feet. The proposed building heights for portions of the structure located along Newport Boulevard and 32"d street (up to 30 feet in height) would be similar to height as the surrounding buildings to the west and south (generally ranging in height from 11 to 35 feet). Thus, with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure AES-2 (which would ensure compliance with the Design Guidelines), implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to a degradation of character/quality at the project site and surrounding area. 13-14 Refer to Response 13-7. 13-15 Refer to Response 13-6. 13-16 Refer to Response 13-6. As discussed in Section 5.5, Trai-c/Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the project's traffic -related impacts were compared to the existing "on -the -ground" conditions, and not a "Plan -to -Plan" analysis. 13-17 Refer to Response 13-16. Traffic associated with the existing on -site Fire Station No. 2 are included in the existing traffic counts conducted as part of the Draft EIR. The analysis assumes that this use would remain on -site during operations of the proposed project, as discussed in Section 5.5, Traflic/Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Final • August 2014 2-138 Response to Comments 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Uorting Checkli t, has been prepared for the Lido House Hotel Project (the project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the Lido House Hotel project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. Final 9 August 2014 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Final 0 August 2014 3-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks AESTHETICS AES-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or Applicant/ Prior to Director of Prior to Issuance demolition permits, whichever occurs Contractor Issuance of Community of Grading/ first, a Construction Management Plan Grading/ Development Demolition shall be submitted for review and Demolition Permits approval by the Director of Community Permits Development. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s). Staging areas shall be sited and/or screened in order to minimize public views to the maximum extent practicable. Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts to sensitive uses in the City. AES-2 Prior to issuance of a building or grading Applicant/ Prior to Director of Prior to Issuance permit for new construction, the Contractor Issuance of Community of Grading/ Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette Grading or Development Construction shall be submitted to the Director of Building Permits Community Development for review and Permits approval. Landscaping shall complement the proposed site design and surrounding streetscape and must also be consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. AES-3 All construction -related lighting shall be Applicant/ Prior to Director of Prior to Issuance located and aimed away from adjacent Contractor Issuance of Community of Grading Final 9 August 2014 3-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks residential areas and consist of the Grading or Development Permit/ minimal wattage necessary to provide Building Permit During safety and security at the construction site. Construction A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the grading or building permit application. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BI0-1 To the extent feasible, all vegetation Applicant/ Prior to Director of Prior to Issuance removal activities shall be scheduled Contractor vegetation Community of a Grading outside of the nesting season (typically removal Development Permit; During February 15 to August 15) to avoid Construction potential impacts to nesting birds. However, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season, all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet for raptors shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the City. BIO-2 The City shall locate an existing Ficus City Recreation Prior to Recreation and Prior to Issuance benjamina tree or other suitable tree into a and Senior Issuance of Senior Services, of Grading/ City park and dedicate the tree in the Services, Grading/ Municipal Demolition name of William Lawrence `Billy" Covert. Municipal Demolition Operations Permits Should an appropriate tree not be found, Operations Permits Department, the City shall attempt to transplant the Department, and and existing tree or plant a new tree of the Community Community same variety at an appropriate location. Development Development Final 9 August 2014 3-4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks The re -dedicated tree shall have a Department Department permanent marker or plaque. Every effort shall be made to involve the Covert family in this process. BIO-3 Because the Freedom Tree also cannot be City Recreation Prior to C Recreation Prior to Issuance effectively transplanted, the City shall and Senior Issuance of and Senior of Grading/ locate an existing tree in a very prominent Services, Grading/ Services, Demolition location within a City park or at the new Municipal Demolition Municipal Permits Civic Center and dedicate it as The Operations Permits Operations Freedom Tree. An appropriate Department, and Department, permanent marker or plaque shall be Community and provided and the dedication should be Development Community accomplished with community and Department Development veterans groups' participation. Department BIO-4 Because the Walter Knott Tree and the City Recreation Prior to Recreation and Prior to Issuance California Bicentennial Tree cannot be and Senior Issuance of Senior Services, of Grading/ effectively transplanted, the City shall Services, Grading/ Municipal Demolition locate an existing tree within a City park Municipal Demolition Operations Permits and dedicate it in the name of Walter and Operations Permits Department, Cordelia Knott. The City shall also locate Department, and and an existing tree in a prominent location Community Community within a City park or at the new Civic Development Development Center and dedicate it in honor of the Department Department State of California. The re -dedicated trees shall have permanent markers and every effort shall be made to involve the Knott family and the community in the process. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 An archaeologist and a Native American Applicant/ During Grading Director of Prior to Issuance Monitor appointed by the City of Contractor Community of a Grading Newport Beach shall be present during Development Permit; During earth removal or disturbance activities Grading Final 9 August 2014 3-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Community Development. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and data/artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. CUL-2 An Orange County Certified Community Prior to Earth Community Prior to Earth Paleontologist appointed by the City of Development Removal or Development Removal or Newport Beach shall prepare a Director Disturbance Department/ Disturbance Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Activities Applicant/ Activities/ Mitigation Program prior to earth removal Contractor Upon Discovery or disturbance activities at the project site. of The City selected paleontologist shall be Paleontological present during earth removal or Resources disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock units during Final 9 August 2014 3-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of paleontological resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected paleontologist who shall immediately notify the Community Development Director. The City selected paleontologist shall evaluate all potential paleontological findings in accordance with the Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program Monitoring, standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Historic Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the City selected paleontologist shall prepare a Final Monitoring and Mitigation Report to be filed with the City and the repository to include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected (including an assessment of their significance, age, geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, and an appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate Final 9 August 2014 3-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility 1h AL Initials Date Remarks communications. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION TRA-1 Prior to Issuance of any grading and/or Applicant/ Prior to Community Prior to Issuance demolition permits, whichever occurs Contractor Issuance of Development of Grading/ first, a Construction Management Plan Grading/ Department; Demolition shall be submitted for review and Demolition City Traffic Permits; During approval by the Community Development Permits Engineer Construction Department/City Traffic Engineer. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following: • Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. • Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. • Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction -related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all Final • August 2014 3-8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays. • Use of local streets shall be prohibited. • Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. • If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters Final 0 August 2014 3-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • All constructed -related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on -site or in public parking lots. This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach requirements. TRA-2 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Applicant/ Prior to Community Prior to Issuance Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Contractor Issuance of Development of Certificates of Parking Management Plan for review and Certificates of Department Occupancy approval by the Community Development Occupancy Department. The Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following and be implemented at all times: • Restrict all on -site parking spaces to either a time limit or a valet parking arrangement. • Restrict access to on -site parking areas (with the exception of visitor parking by the hotel Final 0 August 2014 3-10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks lobby) to either valet staff, or guests and visitors only through a manned gate, a gate with intercom access, or a gate that reads the room keys. • Restrict parking for in -demand parking spaces by time limits. The time limit should apply from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. • Post signs at locations where motorists can be redirected from curb parking or desirable parking areas to convenient off- street lots and structures. • Encourage on -site employee parking by providing free parking on -site or providing incentives for using alternative modes of transportation, such as providing free or discounted bus passes; an employee bike rack, entering employees who take the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle in a monthly raffle; providing a monthly stipend for bicycle commuting; providing carpool parking spaces, or other incentives. Final 0 August 2014 3-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Applicant/ Prior to Community Prior to the Community Development Contractor Finalization of Development Finalization of Department shall confirm that the Grading Plans, Department Grading Plans, Grading Plan, Building Plans, and Building Plans, Building Plans, specifications stipulate that, in compliance and and with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive Specifications; Specifications; fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled During During by regular watering or other dust Construction Construction prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: • All active portions of the construction site shall be watered at least twice daily to prevent excessive amounts of dust; • Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering Final • August 2014 3-12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance • Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied; • All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; • Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; • On -site vehicle seed shall be Final 0 August 2014 3-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks limited to 15 miles per hour; • All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and • Trucks associated with soil - hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and utilize City -designated truck routes to the extent feasible. AQ-2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or Applicant and Prior to Community Prior to Issuance graded material on -site shall comply with Contractor Issuance of a Development of a Grading State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Grading Permit, Department Permit; During Loads on Highways), with special During Construction attention to Sections 23114(b)(F) and Construction (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Community Development Department on hauling activities compliance. NOISE N-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit Applicant/ Prior to Community Prior to Issuance or Building Permit for new construction, Contractor Issuance of Development of Grading or the Community Development Grading or Department Building Permit Department shall confirm that the Building Permit Grading Plan, Building Plans, and Final 9 August 2014 3-14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks specifications stipulate that: • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices. • The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City Development Services Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site. Final 0 August 2014 3-15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks • When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). • During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Munic pal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 All grading operations and construction Contractor Prior to City Building Prior to shall be conducted in conformance with Commencement Official or Commencement the recommendations included in the of Grading Designee of Grading geotechnical report for the proposed Activities Activities/ project site prepared by GMU During Geotechnical, Inc., titled Dort of Construction Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel — Cidy Hall Site Reuse Pr ject, 3300 Neavport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California Final 9 August 2014 3-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks (December 4, 2013) (included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities. Recommendations in the Dort of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Priect, 3300 Newport port Beach, California Boulevard, City of New are summarized below. Site Preparation and Grading The project site shall be precise graded in accordance with the City of Newport Beach grading code requirements (and all other applicable codes and ordinances) and the following recommendations. The geotechnical aspects of future grading plans and improvement plans shall be reviewed by a Geotechnical Engineer Final 9 August 2014 3-17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks prior to grading and construction. Particular care shall be taken to confirm that all project plans conform to the recommendations provided in this report. All planned and corrective grading shall be monitored by a Geotechnical Engineer to verify general compliance with the following recommendations. • Demolition and Clearinr. Prior to the start of the planned improvements, all materials associated with the existing buildings to be removed, including footings, floor slabs, and underground utilities, shall be demolished and hauled from the site. The existing asphalt pavement sections, which are inadequate and severely damaged, shall also be demolished. The old asphalt and base materials generated from the removal of the existing pavement sections shall be either recycled or collected and hauled off -site. All significant organic and other decomposable debris shall be removed if on -site dredge fill materials are used as new compacted fill. Any oversize Final 0 August 2014 3-18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks rock materials generated during grading shall be collected and hauled off -site. Cavities and excavations created upon removal of subsurface obstructions, such as existing buried utilities, shall be cleared of loose soil, shaped to provide access for backfilling and compaction equipment, and then backfilled with properly compacted fill. If unusual or adverse soil conditions or buried structures are encountered during grading that are not described within the Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel —City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California, these conditions shall be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations. • Corrective Grading — Building. Existing dredge fill materials shall be overexcavated to a depth of at least four feet below the existing grades and these excavated materials shall be Final 0 August 2014 3-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure kb Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks replaced as properly compacted fill placed at a minimum relative compaction of at least 92 percent as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 and at 2 percent above optimum moisture content. • Corrective Grading — Exterior Parking. Driveway, and Hardscabe Areas. In order to provide adequate support of proposed exterior improvements such as parking lots and driveways, and hardscape features such as patios, walkways, stairways and planter walls, the existing ground surfaces in these areas shall be overexcavated to a depth of at least two feet below the existing grades and shallow foundations. These excavated materials can then be replaced as properly compacted fill at a minimum relative compaction of at least 92 percent as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 at 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Final 0 August 2014 3-20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Temporary slope Stability During site grading, temporary laid back slopes up to approximately 4 to 5 feet in height are expected to be created during the construction of proposed low retaining walls. Temporary slopes to a maximum height of 4 feet may be cut vertically without shoring subject to verification of safety by the contractor. Deeper excavations shall be braced, shored or, for those portions of the sidewalls above a height of 4 feet, sloped back no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). In addition, no surcharge loads shall be allowed within 10 feet from the top of the temporary slopes. All work associated with temporary slopes shall meet the minimal requirements as set forth by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL/OSHA). Post Grading and Ground Improvement • Utility Trenches. - Utility Trench Excavations. Soils above the groundwater level shall be laid back at a maximum slope ratio of 1.5:1, horizontal to vertical. In addition, surcharge loads shall Final 0 August 2014 3-21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring ResponsibilityAL Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks not be allowed within 10 feet of the top of the excavations. For deeper trenches, groundwater will be encountered and the contractor shall develop an approach for dewatering, shoring, and addressing shallow groundwater conditions. Sumping and pumping of free water from open excavations is not expected to result in dry and stable trench conditions due to the close proximity of the adjacent bay; therefore, a dewatering system shall be designed, installed, and operated by an experienced company specializing in groundwater dewatering systems. The dewatering system shall be capable of lowering the groundwater surface to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the trenches. Before implementing a dewatering system, a dewatering test program shall be conducted to evaluate the Final 0 August 2014 3-22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks feasibility and efficiency of the proposed dewatering system. Dewatering shall be performed and confirmed by potholing or other means prior to trench excavation. Dewatering operations shall also comply with all NPDES regulations. Temporary shoring shall be required below the water table where saturated soils are encountered or where vertical trench sidewalls are desired. Shoring shall consist of metal, plywood, and/or timber sheeting supported by braces or shields. Lateral pressures considered applicable for the shoring design will depend on the type of shoring system selected by the contractor and whether the site is dewatered. Specific design values shall be calculated once the type of shoring is determined. The contractor shall retain a qualified and experienced registered engineer to design any shoring systems in accordance with CAL/OSHA Final 0 August 2014 3-23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks criteria. The shoring engineer shall evaluate the adequacy of the shoring design parameters provided in the Report of Geotecbnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel —City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California and make appropriate modifications as necessary. The design shall consider local groundwater levels and that groundwater levels may change over time as a result of tidal influences. Utility Trench Subgrade Stabili.Zation. Prior to pipeline bedding placement, the trench subgrades shall be firm and unyielding. If unsuitable subgrade soils are encountered, the contractor shall consult with the project Geotechnical Engineer to provide subgrade stabilization. Stabilization may generally consist of the placement of crushed rock or processed miscellaneous base. Crushed rock, if used, shall be encased in filter fabric. Specific recommendations would be Final 0 August 2014 3-24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks dependent on actual conditions encountered. - Utility Trench Backfill. Backfill compaction of utility trenches shall be such that no significant settlement would occur. Backfill for all trenches shall be compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction subject to sufficient observation and testing. Flooding in the trench zone is not recommended. If native material with a sand equivalent less than 30 is used for backfill, it shall be placed at near -optimum moisture content and mechanically compacted. Jetting or flooding of granular material shall not be used to consolidate backfill in trenches adjacent to any foundation elements. Where trenches closely parallel a footing (i.e., for retaining walls) and the trench bottom is located within a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical plane projected downward and Final 0 August 2014 3-25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks outward from any structure footing, a minimum P/2-sack concrete slurry backfill shall be utilized to backfill the portion of the trench below this plane. The use of concrete slurry is not required for backfill where a narrow trench crosses a footing at about right angles. • Suraace UrainW. Surface drainage shall be carefully controlled to prevent runoff over graded sloping surfaces and ponding of water on flat pad areas. All drainage at the site shall be in minimum conformance with the applicable City of Newport Beach codes and standards. Foundation Design The following preliminary foundation design recommendations are provided based on anticipated conditions at the completion of anticipated grading; however, these recommendations are based on conceptual plans that may be revised during the plan check process. Ultimate construction and grading within the project site shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of the grading Final • August 2014 3-26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks and building codes of the City of Newport Beach, the applicable CBC, and all of the recommendations of the project civil and geotechnical consultants involved in the final site development. • Geoteebmeal Design Parameters for Mat Foundations. To minimize the adverse effects of earthquake -induced settlements and provide repairable foundation systems after the design earthquake, structural mat slab(s) are recommended to support the proposed structures. - Corrective Grading. Existing fill and alluvial soils shall be excavated beneath the entire footprint of the structures to a minimum depth of at least 4 feet below the planned mat foundation. Removals shall extend laterally to at least 5 feet from the base of the outside of the mat foundation. Artificial fill/alluvium derived from the excavated soils shall be compacted to a minimum of 92% relative compaction per ASTM 1557. - Design Parameters. An Final 0 August 2014 3-27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks allowable net static bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for design of the mat foundation(s). A lateral sliding coefficient of 0.35 is recommended. The mat thickness and amount of reinforcement shall be determined by a Registered (Structural) Engineer in the State of California. • Moisture Vapor Barriers. Due to the existing shallow groundwater table, a vapor barrier equivalent to Stego 15 shall be utilized and installed in accordance with the Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Ijdo House Hotel —City Hall Site Reuse Pr ject, 3300 Nenport Boulevard, City ofNenportBeach, California. • Wlater Vapor Transmission. The moisture vapor barrier is intended only to reduce moisture vapor transmissions from the soil beneath the concrete and is consistent with the current standard of the industry for construction in Final 0 August 2014 3-28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks southern California. It is not intended to provide a "waterproof' or "vapor proof' barrier or reduce vapor transmission from sources above the barrier. Sources above the barrier include any sand placed on top of the barrier (i.e., to be determined by the project structural designer) and from the concrete itself (i.e., vapor emitted during the curing process). • Floor Coverings. Prior to the placement of flooring, the floor slabs shall be properly cured and tested to verify that the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) is compatible with the flooring requirements. • Concrete. Minimum Type II/V cement along with a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50 and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi shall be used for all structural foundations in contact with the on -site soils. In addition, wet curing of the concrete as described in American Concrete Final 0 August 2014 3-29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure du Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Institute (ACl) Publication 308 shall be considered. All applicable codes, ordinances, regulations, and guidelines shall be followed in regard to designing a durable concrete with respect to the potential for detrimental exposure from the on -site soils and/or changes in the environment. • Site Wall and Retaining Wall Design Criteria. - Retaining Wall Design Parameters. Retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the calculations provided in the Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 port Boulevard, City of New New port Beach, California. - Screen Walls. For standard screen walls on flat ground, footings shall be a minimum of 24 inches deep below the lowest outside adjacent grade. Wall foundations shall be reinforced with two #4 bars top and bottom, and joints in Final 0 August 2014 3-30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks the wall shall be placed at regular intervals on the order of 10 to 20 feet. The wall foundation shall be underlain by at least a 2-foot-thick section of engineered fill. • Pole Foundations. Pole foundations shall be at least 18 inches in diameter and at least 3 feet deep; however, the actual dimensions shall be determined by the project structural engineer based on the design parameters provided in the Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel —City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Nenport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California. • Swimming Pool and Shia Recommendations. - Allowable Bearing and Lateral Earth Pressures. The pool and spa shells may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Due to the low expansive nature of the on - site soils, pool and spa walls Final 0 August 2014 3-31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program �gwPo.4 � T City of Newport Beach d� Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks shall be designed assuming that an earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 75 pounds per cubic foot is acting on the outer surface of the pool walls. Pool and spa walls shall also be designed to resist lateral surcharge pressures imposed by any adjacent footings or structures in addition to the above lateral earth pressure. - Settlement. It is anticipated that the swimming pool would be underlain by engineered fill. The swimming pool shall be supported by a minimum of 2 feet of engineered fill. The project structural engineer shall consider resisting buoyancy forces due to the potential groundwater table oscillations, which may occur during the life time of the pool. - Temporary Access Ramps. All backftll placed within temporary access ramps extending into the pool and spa excavations shall be Final 0 August 2014 3-32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks properly compacted and tested in order to mitigate excessive settlement of the backfill and subsequent damage to concrete decking or other structures placed on the backfill. - Pool and Spa Bottoms. If unsuitable soils are encountered, the bottom of the pool or spa excavation may need to be overexcavated and replaced to pool subgrade with compacted fill. As an alternative, the reinforcing steel in the area of a transition area may be increased to account for the differences in engineering properties and the potential differential behavior. - Plumping. All plumbing and spa fixtures shall be absolutely leak -free. Drainage from deck areas shall be directed to local area drains and/or graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent street. Heavy-duty pipes and flexible couplings shall be used for the pool plumbing system to minimize leaking Final 0 August 2014 3-33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks which may produce additional pressures on the pool shell. A pressure valve in the pool bottom shall be installed to mitigate potential buildup of pressure. - Cement Types. For moderately corrosive soils, cement shall be Type II/V and concrete shall have a minimum water to cement ratio of 0.50. • Pool and Spa Decking. - Thickness and Joint Spacing. Concrete pool and spa decking shall be at least 5 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. All open construction joints in pool and spa decking shall be sealed with an approved waterproof, flexible joint sealer. Pool and spa decking shall be underlain by a layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand having a minimum thickness of 5 inches. Final 0 August 2014 3-34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure M Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring ResponsibilityAL Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks - Keinforcement. Concrete pool and spa decking shall be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced 18 inches on centers, both ways. The reinforcement shall be positioned near the middle of the slabs by means of concrete chairs or brick. Reinforcing bars shall be provided across all joints to mitigate differential vertical movement of the slab sections. Structurally tying the decking to the pool wall is highly recommended and would require structural reinforcement of the decking and consideration for additional loading on the pool wall. If doweling is not performed, differential movement shall be anticipated. - Subgrade Preparation. Subgrade soils below concrete decking shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 92% and then thoroughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2% over optimum. This moisture Final 0 August 2014 3-35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks content shall extend to a depth of approximately 12 inches into the subgrade soils and be maintained in the subgrade during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete. Moisture conditioning shall be achieved with sprinklers or a light spray applied to the subgrade over a period of several days just prior to pouring concrete. Soil density and presoaking shall be observed, tested, and accepted by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to pouring the concrete. • Concrete Flatwork Design. - Thickness and Joint Spadng. Concrete walkways and patios shall be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 5 feet or less. Concrete walkways and patios shall be underlain by a 4-inch-thick layer of Class 2 crushed aggregate base (CAB), crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), or clean sand Final 0 August 2014 3-36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks having a sand equivalent of at least 30, which shall then be placed on top of the soil subgrade, moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. - Reinforcement. Concrete walkways and patios shall be reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on centers, both ways. The reinforcement shall be positioned near the middle of the slabs by means of concrete chairs or brick. Reinforcing bars shall be provided across all joints to mitigate differential vertical movement of the slab sections. Walkways and patios shall also be dowelled into adjacent curbs using 9- inch speed dowels with No. 3 bars or '/a -inch steel or fiberglass bars at 18 inches on centers. If doweling is not performed, differential movement shall be anticipated. Final 0 August 2014 3-37 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks - Subgrade Preparation. The subgrade soils below concrete walkways and patios shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 92% and then thoroughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2% over optimum. This moisture content shall extend to a depth of approximately 12 inches into the subgrade soils and be maintained in the subgrade during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete. Moisture conditioning shall be achieved with sprinklers or a light spray applied to the subgrade over a period of several days just prior to pouring concrete. Soil density and presoaking shall be observed, tested, and accepted by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to pouring the concrete. • Pavement DMen Considerations. - As pbalt Pavement Design. Based on an anticipated R-value of 40, which shall be obtained Final 0 August 2014 3-38 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks after precise grading of pavement subgrade areas, the following pavement thicknesses shall be anticipated: Asphalt pavement structural sections shall consist of CMB or CAB and asphalt concrete materials (AC) of a type meeting the minimum City of Newport Beach requirements. The subgrade soils shall be moisture conditioned to a minimum 2% above the optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 6 inches, and compacted to at least 92% relative compaction (per ASTM 1557). The CMB or CAB and AC should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction (per ASTM 1557). - Concrete Pavement Design. Driveways and appurtenant Asphalt Aggrega Location R- Value Traffic Index Concrete to Base inches inches Car Pazking 40 4.0 3.0 4.0 Stalls Drive Aisles 40 5.5 4.0 6.0 Final 0 August 2014 3-39 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks concrete paving, such as trash receptacle bays, would require Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. Assuming a Traffic Index (TI) of 6 to 7, a design section of 8 inches of PCC over 6 inches aggregate base (AB) shall be adequate. The AB shall be Class 2 compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction as per ASTM D 1557. - Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) Alternative Pavement for Parking Areas. For re -grading of parking areas it is recommended that the most efficient pavement rehabilitation alternative to replacement with a conventional asphalt over base pavement section would be to utilize what is called "full depth reclamation" (FDR) utilizing a 12-inch- thick section of site reclaimed on -site AC and AB mixed with 6% cement to provide the new base for a new 4- inch-thick AC layer to be paved on top. Final 0 August 2014 3-40 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks - Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement (PICP). The structural base thickness for permeable interlocking concrete pavers in designated parking areas shall be designed by the project civil engineer in order to meet storage requirements. This minimum section assumes a TI of up to 6.3 (assumes a TI of 5.5 for the mixed use of the drive areas in this portion of the site) and calls for a 31/8 inch (80 mm) concrete paver, over compacted layers of 2 inches of bedding course sand (ASTM No. 8 aggregate), over 4 inches of ASTM No. 57 stone as open -graded base, over 6 inches of ASTM No. 2 stone as open -graded sub base, over a Class 1 geotextile fabric (highest strength) per AASHTO M-288. A Class 1 geotextile fabric (highest strength) shall be placed both vertically at the sides of all PICP excavations and on top of the compacted subgrade soil below the stone sub -base layer in order to protect the bottom and sides of the open - Final 0 August 2014 3-41 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks graded base and sub -base. This geotextile fabric must meet AASHTO M-288 Class 1 geotextile strength property and subsurface drainage requirements (see attached Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 from Page 31 of the ICPI Design Manual (2011) for AASHTO M-288 requirements). - Concrete Interlocking Vehicular and Pedestrian Pavers. Portions of the project site would utilize 31/8-inch-thick (80 mm.) vehicular concrete interlocking pavers placed on a section of at least 1-inch- thick bedding sand. These vehicular pavers are also planned in order to provide City of Newport Beach Fire Department vehicle access capable of supporting 72,000 pounds of imposed loading. The on -site soil subgrade in these site vehicular areas shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2% above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 92% relative compaction. A Final 0 August 2014 3-42 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent shall be placed on top of the compacted subgrade across the entire vehicular interlocking paver area. Based upon the on -site soils having an estimated R-value of 40, a 12-inch-thick layer of Class 2 CAB, CMB, or equivalent shall be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction in order to support the interlocking pavers. Concrete bands adjacent to the vehicular interlocking pavers shall consist of a design section of 8 inches of PCC over at least 6 inches of AB or equivalent, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. In certain designated site pedestrian areas, 2%-inch- thick (60 mm.) concrete interlocking pavers placed on a section of at least 1-inch- thick bedding sand are Final 0 August 2014 3-43 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks planned. Prior to the installation of the pavers and bedding sand in these pedestrian areas, the on -site soil subgrade shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2% above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 92% relative compaction. A 4- inch-thick layer of Class 2 CAB, CMB, or equivalent shall then be placed on top of the soil subgrade, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction in order to support the interlocking pavers in these pedestrian areas. Geotechnical Observation and Testing Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance the recommendations contained in Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel —City Hall Site Reuse Prelect, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City qf Neuport Beach, Cali ornia during the Final 9 August 2014 3-44 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks following stages of construction and precise grading: • During site clearing and grubbing. • During all site grading and fill placement. • During removal of any buried lines or other subsurface structures. • During all phases of excavation. • During shoring installation. • During installation of foundation and floor slab elements. • During all phases of corrective, ground improvement, and precise grading including removals, scarification, ground improvement and preparation, moisture conditioning, proofrolling, overexcavation, FDR treatment, and placement and compaction of all fill materials. Final 0 August 2014 3-45 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Timing Monitoring Responsibility Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • During backfill of structure walls and underground utilities. • During pavement and hardscape section placement and compaction. • When any unusual conditions are encountered. Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to the start of grading to verify that the recommendations developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building and the City of Newport Beach Building Code. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project Tans. Final 9 August 2014 3-46 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks GEO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Building Prior to City Building Prior to Issuance City of Newport Beach Building Official Official Issuance of a Official or of a Building or designee shall verify that the City has Building Permit Designee Permit retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos Applicant Prior to Prior to survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos Demolition Community Demolition Hazard Emergency Response Act Activities Development Activities (AHERA) and California Division of Department Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence or absence of Final 9 August 2014 3-47 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks asbestos containing -materials (ACMs). If ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. HAZ-2 If paint is separated from building Applicant During Community During materials (chemically or physically) during Demolition Development Demolition demolition of the structures, the paint Activities Department Activities waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead - based paint is found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Lead -based paint removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead -based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Engineer. HAZ-3 Any transformers to be removed or Contractor Prior to Utility Contractor/ Prior to Utility relocated during grading/construction Relocation Southern Relocation activities shall be evaluated under the Activities California Activities Final 9 August 2014 3-48 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141.17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility hk Initials Date Remarks purview of the local utility purveyor Edison (Southern California Edison) in order to confirm or deny the presence of PCBs. In the event that PCBs are identified, the local utility purveyor shall identify proper handling procedures regarding potential PCBs. HAZ-4 The Contractor shall verify that all Contractor During Community During imported soils, and on -site soils proposed Construction Development Construction for fill, are not contaminated with Department hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds in consultation with a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist. If soils are determined to be contaminated above regulatory thresholds, these soils shall not be used as fill material within the boundaries of the project site, unless otherwise specified by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Health Care Agency, etc.). HAZ-5 If unknown wastes or suspect materials Contractor During Community During are discovered during construction by the Construction Development Construction contractor that are believed to involve Department hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall comply with the following: • Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected Final 0 August 2014 3-49 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area; • Notify the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach; • Secure the area as directed by the Building Official; and • Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Materials Division's Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator (or other appropriate agency specified by the City Engineer). The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as Applicant Prior to Community Prior to Issuance part of the project's compliance with the Issuance of Development of Grading NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent Grading Permit Department Permit (NOI) shall be prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Quality Control Board (SWRCB), providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California General Permit. HWQ-2 The proposed project shall conform to Applicant During Community During the requirements of an approved Storm Construction Development Construction Final 9 August 2014 3-50 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program na.''1141-17 City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report Cq Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Number Responsibility Responsibility Initials Date Remarks Water Pollution Prevention Plan Department (SWPPP) (to be applied for during the Grading Plan process) and the NPDES Permit for General Construction Activities No. CAS000002, Order No, 2009-0009-DWQ, including implementation of all recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs), as approved by the State Water Resources Quality Control Board SWRCB . HWQ-3 Upon completion of project construction, Applicant Prior to Community Prior to Issuance the project applicant shall submit a Notice Issuance of a Development of a Building of Termination (NOT) to the State Water Building Permit Department Permit Resources Quality Control Board (SWRCB) to indicate that construction is completed. HWQ-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant Prior to Building Prior to Issuance project applicant shall submit a Final Issuance of a Official or of a Grading Water Quality Management Plan for Grading Permit designee Permit approval by the City Building Official that complies with the requirements of the latest Orange County Public Works Drainage Area Management Plan. Final 9 August 2014 3-51 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. Final 9 August 2014 3-52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.0 Errata City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report 4.0 ERRATA Changes to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) are noted below. A double - underline indicates additions to the text; strikeout indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Wonse to Comments of the Final EIR. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and, where appropriate, by paragraph. These errata address the technical comments on the Draft EIR, which circulated from April 29, 2014 through June 13, 2014. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft EIR. Any changes referenced to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR text also apply to Section 1_0, Executive Summary and Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Uortinn Program of the Final EIR. AES-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development—Serviees. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s). Staging areas shall be sited and/or screened in order to minimize public views to the maximum extent practicable. Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts to sensitive uses in the City. AES-3 All construction -related lighting shall be located and aimed away from adjacent residential areas and consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety and security at the construction site. A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of the grading or building permit application. CUL-1 An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Community Development Sevviees. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and data/artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. Final • August 2014 4-1 Errata City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report TRA-1 Prior to Issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director Department/City Traffic Engj The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following: • Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. • Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. • Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction -related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays. • Use of local streets shall be prohibited. • Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. • If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • All constructed -related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on -site or in public parking lots. This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach requirements. TRA-2 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Dif-eeter Department. The Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following and be implemented at all times: Final • August 2014 4-2 Errata City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report • Restrict all on -site parking spaces to either a time limit or a valet parking arrangement. • Restrict access to on -site parking areas (with the exception of visitor parking by the hotel lobby) to either valet staff, or guests and visitors only through a manned gate, a gate with intercom access, or a gate that reads the room keys. • Restrict parking for in -demand parking spaces by time limits. The time limit should apply from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. • Post signs at locations where motorists can be redirected from curb parking or desirable parking areas to convenient off-street lots and structures. • Encourage on -site employee parking by providing free parking on -site or providing incentives for using alternative modes of transportation, such as providing free or discounted bus passes; an employee bike rack, entering employees who take the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle in a monthly raffle; providing a monthly stipend for bicycle commuting; providing carpool parking spaces, or other incentives. AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the 8f€eial Community Development Department shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: • All active portions of the construction site shall be watered at least twice daily to prevent excessive amounts of dust; • Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance • Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied; • All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; Final • August 2014 4-3 Errata City of Newport Beach Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report • Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; • On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; • All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and • Trucks associated with soil -hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and utilize City -designated truck routes to the extent feasible. AQ-2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (F) and (e) (4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Newport Beaeh EfMinee Community Development Department on hauling activities compliance. HAZ-5 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall comply with the following: • Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area; • Notify the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach; • Secure the area as directed by the Building Official; and • Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Materials Division's Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator (or other appropriate agency specified by the City Engineer). The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required. Final • August 2014 4-4 Errata EXHIBIT C Addendum No. 1 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022) ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Lido House Hotel 04 J June 17, 2016 PQ�� Lead Agency: ,s City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner Phone: (949) 644-3210 Email: Jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous Environmental Document............................................................ 1 2.0 Description of Project Modifications................................................................ 7 2.1 Addendum's Purpose and Need................................................................ 7 2.2 Location of Project Modifications............................................................... 8 2.3 Components of Project Modifications......................................................... 8 2.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review ............................................ 11 3.0 Environmental Assessment.............................................................................13 3.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare....................................................................... 13 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................ 14 3.3 Air Quality................................................................................................ 14 3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................... 15 3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 15 3.6 Geology and Soils.................................................................................... 16 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................... 17 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................... 17 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................... 18 3.10 Land Use and Planning............................................................................ 19 3.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................... 20 3.12 Noise........................................................................................................20 3.13 Population and Housing........................................................................... 20 3.14 Public Services........................................................................................ 21 3.15 Recreation............................................................................................... 21 3.16 Transportation/Circulation........................................................................21 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................... 22 4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion........................................................... 23 5.0 Addendum Preparation Sources/References................................................. 25 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report EXHIBITS 1. Regional Vicinity Map................................................................................................. 4 2. Site Vicinity Map......................................................................................................... 5 3. Previous Conceptual Plan.......................................................................................... 6 4. Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Project)............................................................ 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Traffic Impact Memorandum Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION As Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lido House Hotel Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project"). The Newport Beach City Council certified the Lido House Hotel EIR (referred to herein as the "EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) and approved the Lido House Hotel Project on September 9, 2014. After certifying the EIR, City Council granted the following project approvals: • General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001 • Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012-003 • Site Development Review No. SD2014-001 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004 • Traffic Study No. TS2014-005 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 The Applicant is currently requesting amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet by 4,745 gross square feet. The new maximum would be 103,470 gross square feet. The proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the "Proposed Modified Project." This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach (City), in the western portion of Orange County; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map. The project involves a 4.25- acre site (3300 Newport Boulevard) located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT The City of Newport Beach prepared an EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from the Approved Project, which included approval of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. The EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the Page 11 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City. The purpose of the EIR was to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects. The proposed 130-room Lido House Hotel would be constructed on the site of the former City Hall; refer to Exhibit 3, Previous Conceptual Plan. The proposed 98,725 square foot hotel would include meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool and recreational areas, and all required appurtenant facilities including, but not limited to on -site parking, landscaping, utilities, and adjoining public improvements. The project would also provide 148 surface parking spaces and would accommodate additional parking through active parking management including valet parking service. The project also included the reconfiguration of the public parking along 32nd Street by incorporating angled parking and increasing the overall street parking spaces from 79 to 80, and to improve the flow of vehicle circulation. The proposed structures would be approximately four -stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height. The project would also include public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities proposed to be located along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The Draft EIR for the proposed project was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on April 29, 2014, and ended June 13, 2014. A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on November 20, 2013 at the former City Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard. The City's Planning Commission then considered the Draft EIR on August 11, 2014, and the City Council approved the EIR on September 9, 2014. The EIR identified potential impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the project and provided measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified. On October 7, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the proposed City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment with suggested modifications. At the October meeting, the Coastal Commission also approved Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 for the Lido House Hotel. The "Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit" (the COP) included five standard conditions and eight special conditions. Special Condition No. 6 addressed lower cost overnight accommodations mitigation and a mitigation fee of $1,415,232.00. The fee would be paid to the Coastal Commission or other qualified entity to provide lower cost overnight accommodations in the area. The City proposed the Fostering Interest in Nature (FiiN) program as a recreation and educational program that would include overnight accommodations at the Newport Dunes Resort. Page 12 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Imoact Report The Coastal Commission also modified the proposed CLUP land use category from Mixed Use (MU) to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV). Overall, the Coastal Commission approved the following: "Former City Hall Complex at 3300 Newport Blvd and 475 32nd Street (the site). - At least 75% of the total area of the site shall be 35 feet in height or lower. • Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height with the peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers up to 60 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not adversely impact public views. • Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may be up to 65 feet in height. • Buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the site. • Buildings and structures over 45 feet in height, architectural features, shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the total area of the site. • With the exception of a fire station, all buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall be setback a minimum of 60 feet from the Newport Boulevard right-of-way and 70 feet from the 32nd Street right- of-way. • A fire station may be located in its current location and may be up to 40 feet in height. A fire station may include architectural features up to 45 feet in height to house and screen essential equipment. " Although the modified language was more restrictive than that proposed by the City, it did not change the approved Lido House Hotel project and it also would facilitate a future reconstructed fire station. As a result, the Planning Commission and staff had no concerns with the changes. When the City approved the CLUP amendment to mixed - use, the General Plan and Zoning Code were also amended. Given the change to the CLUP, the General Plan land use category and Zoning Code needed to be modified to be consistent. Given that the intensity of use did not change, there were no issues related to Charter Section 423 (Measure S). The changes to the allowed uses within the zoning district applicable to the project mirrored the CV (Commercial Visitor -Serving) zone. Staff also modified the development standards relative to the more restrictive height limits imposed by the Coastal Commission. On November 5, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Amendments as modified by the Coastal Commission. At the conclusion of a noticed public hearing, the Commission approved the amendments and made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999 recommending City Council approval of the proposed changes to the Amendments. Page 13 Lancaster i i 395 Palmdale Adelanto 15 14 j 1a Victorville Apple Valley ' 2a7 , Hesperia I 138 , L O S A N G E L. E S , I S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y C O U N T Y San Fernando 210 / 5 Burbank 15 San Bernardino Pasadena 210 Glendora Rancho Fontana 2 Cucamonga 101 Rialto Redlands 10 West Covina Pam na Ontario -- ---�_ 215 10 10 Los Diam m Chino-- — -- Angeles 605 60 Bar _J Riverside Whittier Ll 710 57 Yorba 71 91 60 Moreno Beaumont 105 go Linda —J Norco Valley 110 5 J� \ Fullerton 91 91 Corona Torrance i Orange g � R I V E R S I D E 1 405 Garden Anaheil 55 Perris C O U N T Y Grove \ 22 74 SAnaa 0 R A N G E Sun Hemet _ Long c o u N T v --� City Beach Irvine Huntington 405 % Lake 215 Beach / Elsinore 15 73 5 Newport 74 Beach 1 Murrieta Laguna Beach San Juan Temecula Capistrano \ A9p Dana-- �� c Point -- --- c�c "9 San Clemente Fallbrook N S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y Oceanside * -Project Site NOT TO SCALE INTEN® 05116 • JN 153768 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Regional Vicinity Map Exhibit 1 ice', ;♦)Y1,111, ��+��A� /. ; 't� �,��. y f/ CS l �� `+. iI r ��ti //i •, lie`;, ' �,+,"�� ,'��'� �b tA I � ( �►• r it ':', ;F tea. � � 1 �� a � � '¢ • � .��,': �� \•ado ,� �,. 1. �9I. i '� *!� � � ♦., a i t V ' 2 z N } 2 yf jE E E LC'v 4 �f; ,. Urxr i Z �' T J Ow �c�c�� O yl Q w �ilcrijor a W: zJ„ I t w w32�N Mz a LLLLLL LL __ I I� N w aV r Q cc e d o az Q N NNN NNcc a ¢ QQ z a a ammcad,uS nn% O w Y N r✓ eRNI / L O a F R N ti S w Ix (5 r1' n 1 a m Q Z `- �¢aarc 5� w toir W W F II� a ¢ow z Cc1�e19 I O F aF3 :L C wwZa p I a a¢�m (7 a pX _ JL 'J 0 If a �� o �' • I 1p lfe I T M .0 ... vi f , 6 u' MIN 16 IF,. . I I I q-�„ 4�f Pq � •,'� I� 11' H ''.^J 1 r S % Dr. � � ` .. � i � �� rat• ,; � I Of- ,zb B f E oY 0 c w c = C"� o� a w _ Q % ZD � W O Q _ 2E \Y O 2 _= ¢ CL I— LU cz C z � Q > CJ z wuj CO) H o e0 ZD ZD� i z� w 0 0 n Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 2.1 ADDENDUM'S PURPOSE AND NEED When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an addendum may be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]). Page 17 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report As discussed below, none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications. Circulation of an addendum for public review is not necessary (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision -making body (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)). CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. 2.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The Project Modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site identified and described in the EIR for the Approved Project. The project site is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32" d Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City. 2.3 COMPONENTS OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The Proposed Modified Project is depicted in Exhibit 4, Proposed Conceptual Plan (Revised Proiect). It is identical to the Approved Project in the following respects: • Acreage for the development would remain unchanged (4.25 acres). • The number of guest rooms would remain unchanged (130 rooms). • The surface parking spaces would remain unchanged (148 spaces). The reconfiguration of the public parking along 32nd Street would also remain the same. • The proposed structures would remain largely unchanged (approximately four - stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height). Page 18 qe Q Q q �cq n zm N jw iw>; W F- W oo �! ZC7 J J J O C7 N N W (•i LL LL LL LL LL ��. J tp N td N (A N Vi n Q an I!I OI J � W H ° Q O Q w w W m (A o uNi o n C¢7 Cl) N� ° N ; a p w Y N Q M N 8 c°i a w n M _ = w w w ¢ QQ QQ¢¢ O Q a 4 Q 0~ m W LLaw W w 'l: fti•.. W > > �" w J zvaiz J Q J a c¢i 4 gnoJ Z i tt i w t-.,•71 i z F �aF3 = j LLJIx wwZa a xz Ti tJ 5 r e .fY f , , ®i VL , f� = a LLJ N = ui CD O o¢ i Q J Q w yc C ■� z � o w%En+ LU Z z cc w 10 CD H O O CL L x W Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report • Construction phasing would be similar to the construction phasing described in the EIR. • The spa and wellness center are would remain unchanged (1,925 square feet). • Open space areas and setbacks would remain unchanged. • The ground level area increase is contained within the existing covered arcade areas and the second level area increase matches the same facade profile as the approved City and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) plans. The following describes those minor or technical changes that comprise the Proposed Modifications. The Proposed Conceptual Plan for the Proposed Modified Project differs from the Approved Project in the following respects: • The exterior pre -function space in front of the ballroom is proposed to be enclosed and become interior space. Similar to the pre -function space included in the CDP approved plans, this area is not calculated into the 'function space' area. The pre - function area has decreased in size from that shown in the approved CDP plans. • The Lobby is proposed to become larger by pushing the entry doors out at both the north and south sides. This would create more circulation space within the lobby. • The Front of House office area is proposed to be enlarged to add some Back of House offices. • The spa sitting area is proposed to be enlarged to create a more generous relaxation space. The proposed spa square footage remains unchanged. • The remaining level 1 proposed area increase is in the Back of House and enlarges office space as well as storage areas. • The level 2 proposed area increase is utilized to enlarge two King Guestrooms into King Suites. No increase in the quantity of total guestrooms is proposed. The Proposed Modified Project also requests any necessary amendments to the previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Hotel including Site Development Review No. SD2014-001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004, Traffic Study No. TS2014-005, and Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022). The proposed changes to the project are not substantial and do not involve new approvals or amendments to the Coastal Commission's certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3. Page 110 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 2.4 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed in the certified EIR, the Approved Project was determined to have no impact with regard to the following impact thresholds, which are therefore not analyzed in this EIR. • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Utilities and Service Systems The certified EIR established that, with mitigation, the approved project would result in less -than -significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Traffic and Circulation The EIR determined that there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts. This Addendum will address changes resulting from implementation of the Proposed Modified Project on each of the environmental resource areas previously analyzed in the EIR. Page 111 This page left intentionally blank. Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report Page 112 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the Proposed Modified Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the Approved Project. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the certified EIR. 3.1 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE The certified EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas or scenic highways. However, the certified EIR analyzed potential impacts associated with the degradation of existing visual character/quality and the introduction of light and glare. The certified EIR concluded that short-term construction activities could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts in this regard were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce impacts by requiring the preparation of a Construction Management Plan, which specifies requirements for equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s). The Approved Project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site by replacing the former Newport Beach City Hall Complex with the proposed hotel and associated parkways/landscaping. However, according to the certified EIR, it would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings, given the compatible nature of the proposed building setbacks, massing and scale, building height, and retail/restaurant and hotel uses with the surrounding land uses. The certified EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure compliance with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. Additionally, the certified EIR found that implementation of the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact from new sources of light or glare with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3 (which would reduce short-term impacts by orienting construction -related lighting away from adjacent residential areas and using minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site) and compliance with the City's Municipal Code, Section 20.30.070, which would reduce long-term (operational) light and glare impacts due to street lighting, security lights, and interior lights. The proposed modifications would increase the square footage of the front lobby, back of house and restrooms, and retail, and the decrease in proposed square footage of the restaurant and coffee shop, function space, fitness, and guestrooms. These nominal project changes would not result in substantial changes to the overall visual character/quality of the site and its surroundings, as analyzed in the certified EIR, as the Proposed Modified Project is still proposing a hotel and associated parkways/ landscaping, on a previously developed site, and within a heavily developed area. The Page 113 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report increase in square footage would not be visually noticeable as the ground level area increase is contained within the existing covered arcade areas and the second level area increase matches the same facade profile as the approved plans. The proposed modifications would not substantially increase new sources of light and glare, compared to that analyzed in the certified EIR as the types and sources of lighting, lighting levels, and building materials would remain substantially the same as the Approved Project. As concluded in the certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, AES-3 and adherence to the City's Municipal Code regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Because the proposed modifications do not alter the location of the development or increase the number of rooms, or increase building height, there would be no new impacts related to scenic vistas or scenic highways. No new Mitigation Measures are required. 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that no impact to farmland, timberland, agricultural, or forest land activity would result, as these types of resources do not exist on or near the project site. As was the case with the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would not result in any impacts to farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land. The Proposed Modified Project would result in the same land use and development as analyzed in the certified EIR, on the same project site. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts have been identified. 3.3 AIR QUALITY As determined in the certified EIR, short-term construction emissions from the Approved Project would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants, including PM10 and PM2.5, even in the absence of specific dust reduction measures. Nonetheless, because the South Coast Air Basin is nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the certified EIR identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which describes SCAQMD-required dust reduction measures. The certified EIR also identified Mitigation Measure AQ-2 to reduce emissions associated with the hauling of excavated or graded material. With the implementation of AQ-1 and AQ-2, the certified EIR determined that construction emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Thus, impacts were considered less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. In addition, the Approved Project's operational air quality emissions would be below SCAQMD's thresholds. The certified EIR also determined that air quality impacts from the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ- 1 and AQ-2, with regard to cumulative short-term and long-term air emissions and Page 114 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report sensitive receptors. The Approved Project was also determined to be less than significant with regard to conflicts with an applicable Air Quality Management Plan and odors. Construction phasing for the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to the construction activities and phasing described in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the construction emissions would be similar to those modeled in the certified EIR. As such, construction emissions for all criteria pollutants after incorporation of the proposed modifications would be below SCAQMD thresholds with implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. As the number of hotel guestrooms would be consistent with the certified EIR, (130 guestrooms), regional and localized operational air emissions would not change and would remain below SCAQMD thresholds. As noted in the Transportation/Circulation section of this Addendum, the certified EIR and Proposed Modified Project would generate the same number of daily trips and peak hour trips. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that no impacts to biological resources would result as the project site is already heavily developed and landscaped with ornamental vegetation. No sensitive species or habitat were determined to be present on -site. However, the ornamental vegetation within the landscaped areas has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian species. The certified EIR Mitigation Measure B10-1 recommends vegetation removal activities to be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) or a qualified biologist may conduct a survey prior to commencement of clearing and provide an adequate buffer zone if active nests are detected. Additionally, it should be noted that the certified EIR determined that no Coastal Commission waters/wetlands are located within the project site. According to the certified EIR, six trees on the project site have been designated by the City of Newport Beach as "special trees". Mitigation Measures B10-2, B10-3, and B10-4 provide guidance for relocating and rededicating the special trees that cannot be retained, reducing impacts to less than significant levels. The proposed modifications would result in the same land use and development footprint as the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in additional impacts to biological resources than what was already analyzed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. No new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that no impacts to historical resources would occur as a result of the Approved Project. The project site is currently developed with non -historic Page 115 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report structures and does not hold historical significance. Given the existing disruption from prior development and the geology of the project area, any archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources within the project site have likely been disturbed during the construction of the former City Hall. Nonetheless, compliance with General Plan policies and implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any resources that could be encountered during grading and construction of future development) and CUL-2 (requiring a Certified Paleontologist to be present during earth removal or disturbance activities occurring within paleontological sensitive Vaqueros, Topanga, and Monterey Formations) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, the certified EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and/or human remains were less than significant with compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 and State and Federal regulations. The Proposed Modified Project would result in the same site disturbance activities as that previously identified in the certified EIR. The proposed modifications would not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would likely be subject to significant earthquake ground motion, given the seismic character of the southern California region and proximity to active and potentially active faults. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the project site has a moderate potential for adverse effects of liquefaction due to seismically -induced settlement. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach grading and building requirements, including the most current California Building Code (CBC), and City's Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (refer to Section 3.3, Air ualit) and compliance with NPDES requirements. With the implementation of GEO-1, impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or unstable soil, and expansive soils were also concluded to be less than significant. According to the certified EIR, on -site soils would be considered corrosive to copper unless a corrosion engineer determines otherwise. Compliance with the Building Code and Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (which requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during preparation of the Final Soils/Geotechnical Engineering Report) would reduce potential impacts associated with corrosive soils to a less than significant level. The Approved Project would not have involved the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would result in this regard. Page 116 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report The proposed modifications would result in equivalent impacts regarding geology and soils, as the proposed development area would remain the same as that previously analyzed in the certified EIR. Further, the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in adverse effects involving the exposure of persons and property to seismic activity and landslides. Similar to that identified in the certified EIR, compliance with the City of Newport Beach grading and building requirements, including the most current CBC, and City's Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the certified EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS As determined in the certified EIR, the Approved Project would result in approximately 2,031.2 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO2eq/yr) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold. The certified EIR determined that the project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to long-term GHG emissions. The number of hotel guestrooms associated with the proposed modifications would be consistent with the certified EIR. As such, GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Modified Project would be the same as what was analyzed in the certified EIR. GHG emissions from the Proposed Modified Project would remain below SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold, as disclosed in the certified EIR. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. As originally documented in the certified EIR, the City does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In addition, the Proposed Modified Project would result in operational GHG emissions below the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr proposed threshold, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in any impacts pertaining to wildland fires, given the project site's location in a heavily developed urban area. The Approved Project operations would also not result in any significant impacts involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or the emissions or handling of hazardous materials, given that the Approved Project proposed a hotel land use. As the Approved Project proposed redevelopment of the former Newport Beach City Hall complex, built prior to 1978, the certified EIR analyzed potential accidental releases of hazardous materials that could be present on the development site, particularly during construction. The materials considered included asbestos or lead -based paint that may be present in existing on -site structures, PCBs in an on -site transformer, and contaminated fill materials. However, the certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-4, impacts Page 117 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report associated with these existing on -site materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-5 and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Impacts pertaining to an airport land use plan or a nearby private airstrip were determined to be not significant, as the project site is located outside of the John Wayne Airport Impact Zone. The certified EIR also determined that the Approved Project would not significantly impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed modifications would result in similar grading and construction activities as what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR. The certified EIR Mitigation Measures would still apply to the Proposed Modified Project. No substantial changes in the severity of impacts would result in this regard. As the project site location and the nature of the proposed operations would remain the same, potential impacts pertaining to the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not increase, compared to that analyzed in the certified EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, and HWQ-3, which would ensure adherence to construction requirements per the State, potential impacts pertaining to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and degradation of water quality during construction activities, would be less than significant. According to the certified EIR, drainage during construction and operations would have a less than significant impact on the existing storm drain infrastructure. Post -construction water quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, requiring the submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Impacts involving seiche or mudflow, would also be less than significant. Implementation of the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) would reduce potential impacts associated with the inundation by a tsunami to less than significant levels. Other impacts involving a 100-year flood plain, flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and groundwater depletion/recharge, would not result. The proposed drainage and impervious area associated with the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to what was previously considered in the certified EIR. Like the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with City and State regulations. The certified EIR Mitigation Measures would still apply to the Proposed Modified Project. Thus, potential impacts associated with construction activities and long-term operations would be less than significant. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Page 118 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in any impacts relating to the division of an established community or conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The certified EIR proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to eliminate inconsistencies (i.e., amend the land use designation from Public Facilities [PF] to Mixed -Use [MU] and increase new development bulk and height limits). The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project is not regionally significant based on the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) criteria. Similar to the CLUP amendments, the Approved Project included a General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendment to update the land use designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal 5 (MU-H5), which would allow for development limitations of 98,725 square feet of hotel use. The Approved Project also required a Zone Code Amendment to create a new mixed -use zoning district, Mixed Use — Lido Village (MU-LV), in order to implement the MU-H5 land use designation at the project site. Development standards and allowed uses would also be established. The certified EIR determined that approval of a Land Use Element Amendment by the City would result in the project's compliance with the intended use and development limits for the MU-H5 designation. Lastly, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the Lido Village Design Standards. A less than significant impact would occur in regards to conflicting with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, the Coastal Commission modified the proposed CLUP land use category to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV) and made changes to Policy 4.4.3-1 making it more restrictive (not taller). The City accepted these changes subsequent to the Coastal Commission action and made the appropriate CEQA findings in a staff report for the November 24, 2015 City Council hearing. The proposed modifications would be consistent with the land uses considered in the certified EIR. However, the proposed modifications would result in deviations to the total square footage of the hotel from 98,725 square feet to 103,470 square feet; a total increase of 4,745 square feet. Although the increase is minimal, the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map amendment would need to be updated to increase the development limitations in regards to total square footage of a hotel. It should be noted that the current application is to amend the General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning to increase the maximum intensity of development by 4,745 square feet. Even with approval of the amendments, the increase to the project entitlements (site development review and Conditional Use Permit) are consistent with applicable land use plans/zoning. The added area does not change the height of the building. Therefore, the project is consistent with CLUP Policy 4.4.3-1 as certified by the Coastal Commission and adopted by the City Council. The current amendment does not include a request to modify the policy. The Page 119 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment would reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. No new mitigation measures would be required. 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in no impacts pertaining to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state or to the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource. As discussed in the certified EIR, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. The project location remains unchanged. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.12 NOISE Short-term construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant in the certified EIR with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the City's allowable construction hours (Municipal Code Section 10.28.040). Similarly, the certified EIR determined that operational noise impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project is not subject to an airport land use plan or private airstrip; therefore, no impacts result in this regard. The project footprint and construction activities for the Proposed Modified Project would be similar to those described in the certified EIR. As such, short-term construction noise would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, and compliance with the City's allowable construction hours. The Proposed Modified Project would have a similar footprint as the Approved Project; therefore, the guestrooms would not be more impacted by traffic noise along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Additionally, the operational noise characters would remain the same as the Proposed Project Modifications would not change the characteristics or function of the Approved Project and no additional traffic trips would be created. No new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required. 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in no impact to population growth. The proposed modifications would result in the same development of the Lido House Hotel. The net increase in square footage is primarily related to Back of House space and minor functional areas which would not increase the number of anticipated employees and would not lead to an increase in population growth beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required. Page 120 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES The certified EIR determined that the development of the Lido House Hotel and associated amenities would not increase the need for additional public services. Compliance with the provisions of the California Building Code, applicable State, City, and County code, and ordinance requirements for fire protection, as well as the General Plan Safety Element would reduce impacts to fire protection services during construction activities to less than significant levels. Additionally, the payment of statutory fees would reduce impacts to less than significant levels in regards to local school facilities. The Proposed Modified Project would increase the square footage of the front lobby, back of house and restrooms, and retail, and decrease the proposed square footage of the restaurant and coffee shop, function space, fitness, and guestrooms. These modifications are nominal and would not increase potential impacts to public services or facilities (i.e., fire protection services, police services, etc.) at the project site beyond that analyzed in the certified EIR. 3.15 RECREATION The certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts in regards to recreational facilities. The Approved Project includes public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities, as well as recreational amenities (i.e. pool and workout room, etc.) for hotel guests. The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project did not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed modifications do not result in changes to land use or square footage of proposed public open spaces, landscape areas, and other amenities. The proposed decrease in square footage to the fitness center is nominal and would not induce additional impacts to recreational facilities. As concluded in the certified EIR, the Proposed Modified Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No new significant impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in 1,062 average daily trips (69 a.m. peak hour trips and 78 p.m. peak hour trips), resulting in less daily trips than the former City Hall Complex generated. As discussed in the certified EIR, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) for existing plus project Page 121 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report conditions according to agency performance criteria. Based on the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa performance criteria, a significant project impact occurs at a signalized study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D) to a deficient operation (LOS E or F). The certified EIR determined that the increase in trips would not result in conflicts with an existing plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, or conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking would ensure that parking is managed on -site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes and emergency access was determined to be less than significant. No impacts are anticipated in regards to air traffic patterns or design hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's proposed site access location, off -site circulation features, parking configuration, or trip generation (as the project modifications would result in the same number of hotel guestrooms as the Approved Project); refer to Attachment A, Traffic Impact Memorandum. Thus, no changes to the impacts previously identified would result. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to wastewater treatment exceedances, the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities, water supplies, adequate capacity by the wastewater treatment provider, landfill capacity (with continued compliance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Elements [SRRE]). Further, the certified EIR determined that with implementation of Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 through HWQ-4, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in guestrooms at the project site compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Modified Project would result in the same demand on utilities and service systems as compared to what was analyzed in the certified EIR. Additionally, the proposed drainage and impervious area would be similar to that previously considered in the certified EIR. Thus, no new impacts to water demand, the wastewater treatment capacity, or landfill capacity as a result of solid waste generation would result. No new impacts have been identified and no new Mitigation Measures are required. Page 122 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Imoact ReDort 4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the changes to the Approved Project considered in the certified EIR constitute minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR has occurred. In addition, because the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts have been identified. Page 123 This page intentionally left blank. Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report Page 124 Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES California Coastal Commission, Addendum to the Item W9a, Application No. 5-14-1785 (RD Olson Development) for the Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 7, 2015, October 1, 2015. California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21178. City of Newport Beach, Former City Hall Complex Land Use and Zoning Amendments for the Lido House Hotel Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street, and Authorization of Fostering Interest in Nature Program, November 24, 2015. Google Earth Maps, http://maps.google.com, accessed May 2016. Michael Baker International, Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Traffic Impact Memorandum, June 15, 2016. RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2014. RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 2014. WATG Architecture, Area Summary: Approved CDP Plans Vs. Proposed Plans, May 7, 2016. WATG Architecture, Exhibit 2 — Design as of 41112016 in Conformance with Approved Overall Plans, May 7, 2016. Page 125 This page intentionally left blank. Lido House Hotel Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report Page 126 Attachment A — Traffic Impact Memorandum We Make a Difference I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MEMORANDUM To: Eddie Torres, Michael Baker International From: Tom Huang, TE, Michael Baker International Date: June 15, 2016 Subject: Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum — Traffic Impact Memorandum Introduction The Project Applicant is currently requesting amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet by 4,745 gross square feet. The new maximum floor area would be 103,470 gross square feet. However, the number of guestrooms remains unchanged at 130 rooms. The proposed changes to the approved project are referred to herein as the "Proposed Modified Project." This Traffic Impact Memorandum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant traffic related impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. Traffic Analysis The certified EIR determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in 1,062 average daily trips (69 a.m. peak hour trips and 78 p.m. peak hour trips), resulting in less daily trips than the former City Hall Complex generated; refer to Table 1, Trip Generation Rates and Table 2, Project Trip Generation. Table 1 Trip Generation Rates Land Use (ITE Code) Units AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates Daily Trip Rate In Out Total In Out Total Hotel (310) Room 0.31 0.22 0.53 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.17 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition, 2012. MBAKERINTL.COM 14725 Alton Parkway I Irvine, CA 92618 Office: 949.855.35051 Fax: 949.330.4130 We Make o Difference Table 2 Project Trip Generation Comparison Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total City Hall Complex' 118 20 138 17 116 133 1,121 130-room Hotel2 40 29 69 40 38 78 1,062 Net Trip Generation -78 1 9 .69 1 23 -78 .55 .59 'Source: City of Newport Beach City Hall Reuse Project, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, November 2012. ZSource: Approved Project trips estimated based on trip generation rates in Table 2. As noted above, for a hotel use, the trip generation is calculated on a per room basis, as all of the other features (i.e., retail, restaurant, spa, function space, and back of house) are ancillary functions that support the overall use of the hotel and do not generate additional trips of their own. As the proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's room count of 130 rooms, there would be no additional trips generated beyond what was projected in the certified EIR which are shown in line 2 of Table 3. As discussed in the certified EIR, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) for existing plus project conditions according to agency performance criteria. Based on the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa performance criteria, a significant project impact occurs at a signalized study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from an acceptable operation (LOS A, B, C, or D) to a deficient operation (LOS E or F). The certified EIR determined that the change in trips would not result in conflicts with an existing plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, or conflicts with an applicable congestion management program. Implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and addresses staff parking would ensure that parking is managed on -site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes and emergency access was determined to be less than significant. No impacts are anticipated in regards to air traffic patterns or design hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Conclusion The proposed modifications would not change the Approved Project's room count. As the room count would remain unchanged, there would be no additional trips generated beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. As no additional trips would be generated by the Proposed Modified Project, there would be no required changes to the approved site access location, off -site circulation features, or parking configuration. Thus, there would be no changes to the impacts previously identified in the certified EIR, no new impacts have been identified, and no new mitigation measures are required. INTERNATIONAL Lido_Addendum_Traffic-2016.06.15.docx Lido House Hotel in City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Memorandum Exhibit D Addendum No. 2 to the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003 (SCH No. 2013111022) Available separately due to bulk at: https://www.newr)ortbeachca.gov/pin/CEQA REVIEW/Lido%20House%2OHotel/Lido%2 Mouse EIR Addendum%202 070522 pdf ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Lido House Hotel /F.W PO\ Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Mr. Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP Phone: (949) 644-3253 Email: bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov June 2022 This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location......................................................................................... 2 1.2 Previous Environmental Documents.......................................................... 2 2.0 Description of Project Modifications................................................................ 9 2.1 Addendum's Purpose and Need................................................................ 9 2.2 Location of Project Modifications............................................................. 10 2.3 Components of Project Modifications....................................................... 10 2.4 Required Discretionary Actions................................................................ 11 3.0 Environmental Assessment............................................................................. 13 3.1 Aesthetics/Light and Glare....................................................................... 13 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................ 14 3.3 Air Quality................................................................................................ 15 3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................... 17 3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 18 3.6 Energy..................................................................................................... 21 3.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................... 22 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................... 24 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................... 25 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................... 27 3.11 Land Use and Planning............................................................................ 28 3.12 Mineral Resources................................................................................... 30 3.13 Noise........................................................................................................30 3.14 Population and Housing........................................................................... 32 3.15 Public Services........................................................................................ 32 3.16 Recreation............................................................................................... 33 3.17 Transportation..........................................................................................34 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................ 37 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................... 38 3.20 Wildfire.....................................................................................................38 4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion........................................................... 41 5.0 Addendum Preparation Sources/References................................................. 43 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 EXHIBITS 1. Regional Vicinity.......................................................................................................... 3 2. Local Vicinity Map....................................................................................................... 4 3. Previous Conceptual Plan........................................................................................... 5 4. Proposed Conceptual Plan (Modified Project)........................................................... 12 ATTACHMENTS 1. Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum 2. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 3. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION As Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach (City) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lido House Hotel Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project"). The Newport Beach City Council certified the Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report (referred to herein as the "Certified EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) and approved the Lido House Hotel Project on September 9, 2014. After certifying the EIR, City Council granted the following project approvals: • General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002; • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001; • Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012-003; • Site Development Review No. SD2014-001; • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-004; • Traffic Study No. TS2014-005; and • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-003. Following certification of the EIR, an amendment to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit was approved in 2016 to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 98,725 square feet (by 4,745 gross square feet) to 103,470 square feet. Environmental impacts associated with the modifications to the Approved Project were analyzed in the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for Lido House Hotel (2016 Addendum), dated June 17, 2016, and adopted by City Council on July 26, 2016. Currently, the Applicant is requesting entitlements to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 gross square feet. The additional 15,103 gross square feet would allow development of five additional cottages in the southern portion of the site and minor improvements to the existing hotel building. The project would also demolish the Lido Fire Station No. 2 (adjacent to the Lido House Hotel) to accommodate additional on -site parking. The proposed changes to the Approved Project are referred herein as the "Modified Project." This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed Modified Project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Additionally, project -specific impacts related to energy, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire were not specifically identified in the Certified EIR or 2016 Addendum as these topics were not a subject matter that required evaluation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines at the time the documents were prepared. As such, this Addendum also analyzes the Modified Project's impacts in these topical areas. June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach (City), in the western portion of Orange County; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map. The project involves a 4.25-acre site (3300 Newport Boulevard) located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City; refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map. The site is currently developed with the Lido House Hotel. The four-story, 103,470-square foot hotel includes 130 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool, and other recreational areas. A pedestrian plaza, landscaped areas, and other amenities complement the hotel along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 1.2.1 Lido House Hotel EIR The City of Newport Beach prepared an EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from the Approved Project, which included approval of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. The EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City. The purpose of the EIR was to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects. The proposed 130-room Lido House Hotel would be constructed on the site of the former City Hall; refer to Exhibit 3, Previous Conceptual Plan. The proposed 98,725 square foot hotel would include meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool and recreational areas, and all required appurtenant facilities including, but not limited to on -site parking, landscaping, utilities, and adjoining public improvements. The project would also provide 148 surface parking spaces and would accommodate additional parking through active parking management including valet parking service. The project also included the reconfiguration of public parking along 32nd Street by incorporating angled parking and increasing the overall street parking spaces from 79 to 80, and improving the flow of vehicle circulation. The proposed structures would be approximately four stories with architectural features up to 58.5-feet in height. The project would also include public open spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities proposed to be located along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. 2 June 2022 INTERNATIONAL QNOT TO SCALE 10/2021 A 186125 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Regional Vicinity Map Exhibit 1 T, Michael Baker `I/ ;�l r ( `- �7 \• % Fs s 1, �; i� ": ,,- p `�- -may;:- "�` + ✓ - . T , , , fig+ . •g vi r f fic.boa t H s � �; : � ,• iyE- n h * dlOY:Ile ALt I INN ,r LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DESIGN AS OF 4/1/2016 �.. _ PEOESIIdNI GTINNE. AREA SUMMARY: GUESTROOM SUMMARY: LEVEL 1 AREA = 35,219 SF LEVEL 1 = 5 Guestrooms - LEVEL 2 AREA = 30,846 SF LEVEL 2 = 54 Guestrooms _-- -------- - - — - -` - l•F'R� LEVEL 3 AREA = 25,160 SF LEVEL 3=50 Guestrooms LEVEL 4 AREA=12,245 SF LEVEL 4 = 21 Guestrooms TOTAL = 103,470 SF TOTAL = 130 Guestrooms +ioNuuENT E��' �' (AREA INCREASE FROM CDP APPROVAL = 4,745 SF) SON +42' xUS STOP _ PARTIAL LEVEL 1 PROGRAM AREAS: GUESTROOM MIX: PROPOSED ■ PROPERTY a o _ Ltf \ RETAIL STD. KING = 71 LINE (R.O.w.) - -- - 1,200 SF RESTAURANT / FOOD &BEVERAGE 3,SF STD. DBL. QUEEN = 44 p c FUNCTION SPACE 3,52527 SF SUITES = 15 SPA &WELLNESS 1,925 SF LOSBY ` 9,699 SF FUN ON AIL a FNNESS c © ® ❑ ❑ o ❑ p p E GROUND LEVEL PARKING: SPA - TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING SPACES = 148 / c ❑ ` NEY8LW •:Nip INT-,F O YARD MLL REENNG 150"'ESOUE O C%CEOUFE S EREP-ACCESS h PRE ' I IRON UT FUNCTION. c ! 4 u 1917 rR,,: I ill L2 L3 (,tow x' LL— � 20' S nkS RETAIL e, Fl%i OP NRi \\ `� DIV .-ANT C. T 07 / NO P-mG ON 9TE _ �� -- e/� --. n .. _- 3 STF I `PRuosd Tna 1 -- — P NI L4 Source: WATG Architecture I Landscape. rmmmrrm I Q NOT TO SCALE INTERNATIONAL 10/2021 JN 186125 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Previous Conceptual Plan Exhibit 3 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 The Lido House Hotel Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), dated April 2014, was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022) was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on April 29, 2014, and ended June 13, 2014. A public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held on November 20, 2013 at the former City Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard. The City's Planning Commission then considered the EIR on August 11, 2014, and the City Council certified the EIR on September 9, 2014. The Certified EIR identified potential impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the project and provided measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified. On October 7, 2015, the Coastal Commission approved the proposed City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment with suggested modifications. At the October meeting, the Coastal Commission also approved Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 for the Lido House Hotel. The "Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit" (the COP) included five standard conditions and eight special conditions. Special Condition No. 6 addressed lower cost overnight accommodations mitigation and a mitigation fee of $1,415,232.00. The fee would be paid to the Coastal Commission or other qualified entity to provide lower cost overnight accommodations in the area. The City proposed the Fostering Interest in Nature (FiiN) program as a recreation and educational program that would include overnight accommodations at the Newport Dunes Resort. The Coastal Commission also modified the proposed CLUP land use category from Mixed Use (MU) to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV). Overall, the Coastal Commission approved the following: "Former City Hall Complex at 3300 Newport Blvd and 475 32nd Street (the site): • At least 75% of the total area of the site shall be 35 feet in height or lower. • Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height with the peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers up to 60 feet in height, provided it is demonstrated that development does not adversely impact public views. • Architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may be up to 65 feet in height. • Buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the site. • Buildings and structures over 45 feet in height, architectural features, shall not occupy more than 15 percent of the total area of the site. • With the exception of a fire station, all buildings and structures over 35 feet in height, including architectural features, shall be setback a minimum of 60 feet June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 from the Newport Boulevard right-of-way and 70 feet from the 32nd Street right- of-way. • A fire station may be located in its current location and may be up to 40 feet in height. A fire station may include architectural features up to 45 feet in height to house and screen essential equipment. " Although the modified language was more restrictive than that proposed by the City, it did not change the approved Lido House Hotel project and it also would facilitate a future reconstructed fire station. As a result, the Planning Commission and staff had no concerns with the changes. When the City approved the CLUP amendment to mixed -use, the General Plan and Zoning Code were also amended. Given the change to the CLUP, the General Plan land use category and Zoning Code needed to be modified to be consistent. Given that the intensity of use did not change, there were no issues related to Charter Section 423 (Measure S). The changes to the allowed uses within the zoning district applicable to the project mirrored the CV (Commercial Visitor -Serving) zone. Staff also modified the development standards relative to the more restrictive height limits imposed by the Coastal Commission. On November 5, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the Amendments as modified by the Coastal Commission. At the conclusion of a noticed public hearing, the Commission approved the amendments and made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999 recommending City Council approval of the proposed changes to the amendments. 1.2.2 2016 Addendum In 2016, the Applicant requested amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. Proposed changes included increasing the hotel's maximum gross square footage by 4,745 square feet. Specifically, the proposed changes included enclosing the previously exterior pre -function space in front of the hotel ballroom and expanding the main lobby, front and back offices, spa sitting area, storage areas, and guestroom/suites. The 2016 Addendum evaluated the proposed modifications to the Approved Project and concluded that the modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR. The 2016 Addendum was adopted and the requested amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit were approved by the City Council on July 26, 2016 and approved by the Coastal Commission on March 8, 2017. 7 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 This page intentionally left blank. June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 2.1 ADDENDUM'S PURPOSE AND NEED When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an Addendum may be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]). 9 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 As discussed below, none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an Addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications. Circulation of an Addendum for public review is not necessary (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the Addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision -making body (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)). CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. The EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. 2.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The proposed modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site identified and described in the EIR for the Approved Project. The project site is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City. 2.3 COMPONENTS OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The Modified Project proposes to increase the site's maximum allowed gross floor area by 15,103 gross square feet from 103,470 gross square feet to 118,573 gross square feet. The proposed modifications are depicted on Exhibit 4, Proposed Conceptual Plan (Modified Proieco, and include the following components: • Addition of five cottages encompassing approximately 8,351 square feet in the southern portion of the site. The cottages would be three stories, ranging approximately 35 to 39 feet in height. All portions of the cottages above 35 feet are beyond the 70-foot required setback from 32nd Street. Similar to the existing cottages, the proposed building elevations include a lighthouse architectural feature, simple gable roofs, tight overhangs, simple block massing, and wood siding with a coastal architectural theme, consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. 10 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 • Enclosure of approximately 1,466 square feet of storage space on Level 1. The enclosed storage space would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. • Addition of 3,481 square feet of covered walkway and pre-function/break out meeting rooms on Level 1. The expanded pre-function/break out meeting rooms would allow the hotel to host meetings in closed rooms while keeping the hotel restaurant and public spaces open for hotel guest use. • Addition of 600 square feet for a greenhouse breakout sitting room on Level 1. • Addition of 819 square feet of guest room space on Levels 2, 3, and 4 (approximately 273 square feet each). A total of three guest rooms (one on each floor) would be enlarged and converted to suites. • Enclosure of 386 square feet of rooftop terrace area on Level 4. The Modified Project also proposes to demolish the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2 to accommodate additional on -site parking spaces. Currently, the hotel provides 148 on -site surface parking spaces with a valet service that accommodates up to 15 additional valet stacking spaces for a total of 163 on -site spaces. The Modified Project would reconfigure the parking lot where the five cottages are proposed. At project completion, the site would provide 146 surface parking spaces and 11 additional valet stacked spaces for a total of 157 on -site spaces. Additionally, the Modified Project will include 32 bicycle parking spaces beyond the 10 required by CalGreen, which equates to 8 vehicle parking spaces bringing the revised total to 165 parking spaces. Lastly, 14 new parking spaces are proposed for public use outside of the property boundary along Via Oporto. Vehicular access to the site would remain similar to existing conditions with primary access provided via Newport Boulevard at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Finley Avenue. Secondary vehicular access would be provided via 32nd Street via a gated access driveway. As part of the Modified Project, the gated driveway along 32nd Street would be slightly shifted approximately 17.5 feet to the east. 2.4 REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The Modified Project requests any necessary amendments to the previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Hotel including Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015, General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001. The proposed changes to the project are not substantial and do not involve new approvals or amendments to the Coastal Commission's certification of LCP-5-NPB-14-0831-3. 11 June 2022 All I 1i' a - - �1a' asp r■� - ��/ is �� - •:�.� iii:ii:li:ii.i [ ' I�J!�i i .e phi �_ �� ■.� �:�rr�■■ _ �- ii'� p �i�i �� • -'ice _ 1 59P' I WL:.' G>•2 [II�� ,�� I"Il•1► Cam: [tip�� - 1' F �i:n� . � vim, �� _ �c.��p�■■■ � G .. ,. - � � - - NINE n■■�Irnri�r■■■n■o■ror�■��6 -- ,� i Source: WATG Architecture, June 2022 r Q NOT TO SCALE INTERNATIONAL 06/2022 A 186125 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Proposed Conceptual Plan (Modified Project) Exhibit 4 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the Modified Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the Approved Project. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. 3.1 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE The Certified EIR determined that the previously analyzed project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas and scenic highways. However, the Certified EIR concluded that short-term construction activities could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts in this regard were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires preparation of a Construction Management Plan. The Certified EIR also concluded that the Approved Project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings given the compatible nature of the proposed building setbacks, massing and scale, building height, and retail/restaurant and hotel uses with the surrounding land uses. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure compliance with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. To reduce potential short- term light and glare impacts, Mitigation Measure AES-3 would require orienting construction -related lighting away from adjacent uses and utilizing minimal wattage necessary to provide safety at the construction site. The 2016 Addendum concluded that the proposed modifications to the Approved Project would result in similar aesthetics/light and glare impacts to those identified in the Certified EIR and Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3 would similarly apply. Generally, the Modified Project would construct five additional cottages in the southern portion of the site; expand storage space, covered walkways, and pre-function/break out meeting rooms on Level 1; convert three guest rooms into suites; and create a storage enclosure on the Level 4 rooftop terrace. With the exception of the five additional cottages, these nominal project changes would not result in substantial changes to the overall visual character/quality of the site and its surroundings, as analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. The five cottages would be constructed on a portion of the hotel's existing surface parking lot and would be three stories in height, ranging from approximately 35 to 39 feet. It is acknowledged that all portions of the cottages above 35 feet are beyond the 70-foot required setback from 32nd Street. The cottages would also be architecturally designed similarly to the existing cottages on -site located adjacent (to the west) of the proposed cottages and include a lighthouse architectural feature, simple gable roofs, tight overhangs, simple block massing, and wood siding with a coastal architectural theme, consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. The proposed modifications would not substantially increase new sources of light and glare, compared 13 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 to that analyzed in the Certified EIR as the types and sources of lighting, lighting levels, and building materials would remain substantially the same as the Approved Project and existing conditions. Overall, the Modified Project would be similar in character and complement the existing design and architectural features of the Lido House Hotel. As concluded in the Certified EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, AES-3 and adherence to the Municipal Code regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse aesthetic/visual impacts not previously considered and addressed. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. AES-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul route(s). Staging areas shall be sited and/or screened in order to minimize public views to the maximum extent practicable. Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts to sensitive uses in the City by avoiding local residential streets. AES-2 Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for new construction, the Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. Landscaping shall complement the proposed site design and surrounding streetscape and must also be consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines. AES-3 All construction -related lighting shall be located and aimed away from adjacent residential areas and consist of the minimal wattage necessary to provide safety and security at the construction site. A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit application. 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The Certified EIR determined that no impact to farmland, timberland, agricultural, or forest land activity would result, as these types of resources do not exist on or near the project site. 14 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 As was the case with the Approved Project and 2016 Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any impacts to farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land. The Modified Project proposes the same land use type as analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum on the same project site. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impacts have been identified. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.3 AIR QUALITY The Certified EIR determined upon implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ- 2, development of the Approved Project would not result in significant air quality impacts during project construction and operation in regard to project consistency with the applicable air quality management plans or result in significant cumulative air quality impacts along with implementation of other development in the project area. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed modifications. Construction activities associated with the Modified Project would occur over approximately 17 months, with approximately 1,100 cubic yards of soils to be exported. These project changes would not result in a substantial increase in criteria pollutant emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5, in a manner that would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds during project construction or operations. Further, it is acknowledged that Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would still apply to the Modified Project. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the project to comply with SCAQMD- required dust reduction measures, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce emissions associated with the hauling of excavated or graded material. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse construction -related air quality impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. While the Modified Project would construct five additional cottages on -site, long-term operational impacts from stationary sources (e.g., mechanical equipment, landscaping, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) would be similar to existing conditions and would not substantially increase operational emissions. Further, as detailed in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Lido House Hotel Expansion Project, Newport Beach (VMT Assessment), prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated November 22, 2021, the Modified Project is anticipated to generate approximately 40 daily trips; refer to Attachment 3, Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment. As a project that generates less than 300 daily vehicle trips, the Modified Project is considered to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. Additionally, the Modified Project proposes additional enclosed storage space on Level 1, which would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and 15 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. Consequently, operational air quality impacts from mobile sources would not be significant. As such, no new impacts are identified for the Modified Project and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. AQ-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: • All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the project site to prevent excessive amounts of dust; • Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance; • Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied; • All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; • Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively, a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; • On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; 16 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 • All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and • Trucks associated with soil -hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and utilize City -designated truck routes to the extent feasible. AQ-2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate City of Newport Beach Engineer on hauling activities compliance. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Certified EIR determined that no impacts to biological resources would result as the project site is already heavily developed and landscaped with ornamental vegetation. However, the ornamental vegetation within the landscaped areas has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for avian species. Impacts in this regards were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1, which recommends vegetation removal activities be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) or a qualified biologist may conduct a survey prior to commencement of clearing and provide an adequate buffer zone if active nests are detected. Additionally, it should be noted that the Certified EIR determined that no jurisdictional resources are located within the project site. According to the Certified EIR, six trees on the project site have been designated by the City of Newport Beach as "special trees". These include two existing ficus trees (Ficus microcarpa), two Pinus halepensis tree (one of which is dedicated to Walter Knott), a Ficus benjamina (dedicated to William Covert) and a Harpephyllum caffrum (the Freedom Tree). Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 provide guidance for relocating and rededicating the special trees that cannot be retained, reducing impacts to less than significant levels. The 2016 Addendum similarly found that the proposed modifications would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse impacts to biological resources not previously considered or addressed in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project would be similar in land use and development footprint to the Approved Project. While the Modified Project would demolish the existing fire station to develop additional on -site parking, the fire station parcel is fully developed and demolition would not adversely impact any sensitive/special-status biological resources. The proposed modifications would result in similar biological impacts as that analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Impacts to ornamental trees on -site would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. As such, 17 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 the Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse biological impacts not previously considered and addressed. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. 1310-1 To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. However, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season, all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet for raptors shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the City. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The Certified EIR determined that no impacts to historical resources would occur as a result of the Approved Project, and that compliance with Federal and State regulations and General Plan policies, and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL- 2 would reduce impacts related to any previously undiscovered paleontological, archaeological, and cultural resources to less than significant levels. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum also concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed project modifications. The proposed modifications under the Modified Project would apply to the same 4.25- acre project site identified and described in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. However, the Modified Project would demolish the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2, which was not analyzed under the Certified EIR or 2016 Addendum. Therefore, the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for The Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California (Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated December 13, 2021, evaluates potential impacts of the Modified Project on the fire station site; refer to Attachment 1, Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum summarizes a records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), literature and historical map review, a built environment survey, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluation of the Lido Fire Station No. 2. Based on the literature and historical map review, Lido Fire Station No. 2 was constructed at 475 32nd Street, east of the former City Hall, in 1953. The building is depicted in aerial photographs and maps dating to the 1950s and 1960s. By 1963, the north side of the fire station was developed into a parking lot. The original fire station building was expanded 18 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 with an additional space in 1966 and 1994. Lido Fire Station No. 2 is not listed in the Built Environment Resource Directory. According to a review of historical city directories, the property has been occupied by the Newport Beach Fire Department since its construction. Archaeological Site Sensitivity Analysis The fire station site is located within a highly developed commercial area adjacent to the Lido House Hotel. Previous ground disturbances include the construction of the existing fire station building and paved parking lot. The fire station site is completely hardscaped with no exposed or native soils. According to the SCCIC records search, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area or a 0.25-mile search radius. Additionally, the fire station site is underlain by Beaches soil series consisting of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly coastal shores that are washed and rewashed by tidal and wave action. These areas may be partly covered with water during high tides or stormy periods and support little to no vegetation. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is high. These soils have a very low potential for buried archeological sites. Between 1934 and 1936, the federal government and the County of Orange dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created the present-day contour of Newport Beach. The dredging and earthmoving would have likely impacted all prehistoric cultural resources in the project area. This analysis is supported by map and aerial photograph analysis. Therefore, the buried archaeological site sensitivity for the fire station site and general project area is negligible. California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum included an evaluation of Lido Fire Station No. 2 for its eligibility to the CRHR. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can demonstrate that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance) and possess significance at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria: • Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; and/or • Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory. 19 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 In addition to meeting a significance criterion, a property must also have integrity or the ability to convey its significance under a majority of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. Based on the analysis, the Lido Fire Station No. 2 was determined to lack historic significance under the four identified criteria. In addition, the fire station building has lost integrity to the period of its initial construction. The property retains integrity of its location and setting on 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula of Newport Beach. The property also retains integrity of association, as it has remained in use as a Newport Beach Fire Department fire station throughout its history. However, its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling have diminished through substantial alterations. Large second - story additions were constructed in 1966 and 1994. Other changes include the reconfiguration of the street -facing vehicle entrances and replacement of exterior fenestration. Lacking both historic significance and integrity, Lido Fire Station No. 2 is not eligible for listing in the CRHR and is not considered a historical resource as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Overall, given the existing development on the project site from prior development (Lido House Hotel and Lido Fire Station No. 2) and the geology of the project area, any archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources within the project site have likely been discovered or disrupted. As such, the proposed modifications would not result in any additional impacts to cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would still apply to the Modified Project and would require an archaeologist and a Native American Monitor to be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. CUL-1 An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Community Development. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and data/artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. 20 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 3.6 ENERGY The Certified EIR did not evaluate energy as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared in 2014. Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. Thus, the effect of energy usage could have been raised in 2014 when the City considered the EIR. A challenge to an EIR must be brought within 30 days of the lead agency's notice of approval. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167[b].) Under Public Resources Code Section 21166(c), an agency may not require a supplemental environmental review unless new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was approved, becomes available. After a project has been subjected to environmental review, the statutory presumption flips in favor of the project proponent and against further review. (Moss v. County of Humboldt [2008] 162 Cal.AppAth 1041, 1049-1050.) "`[S]ection 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred [and] the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired."' (ld., 1050.) There is no competent evidence of new information of severe impact, and thus the City may rely on an addendum. Accordingly, the City finds that energy is not "new information" under Public Resources Code Section 21166. Nonetheless, energy considerations were analyzed in Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities, and Section 6.4, Energy Conservation, of the Certified EIR despite not addressed in a standalone EIR section. Specifically, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not create additional demand on electricity or natural gas due to the relatively small electricity and natural gas demand of the Approved Project as compared to service capacities of Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). Development in accordance with the Modified Project is required to comply with mandated energy efficiency programs and regulations included in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) of the California Building Code (CBC). The standards require developers to provide windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Further, the proposed cottages and improvements to the existing hotel building would be required to comply with more recently adopted or updated State and local energy efficiency standards since the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum were approved. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2017. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. Additionally, the City adopted the City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan (EAP) in July 2013. The EAP aims to provide a roadmap for the City to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through reductions in energy used in facility buildings and operations. The EAP identifies past energy measures that have been implemented and present measures that currently being implemented, all of which contribute towards the City's energy reduction goal. In addition, the EAP identifies other potential energy reduction measures that the City could consider for future 21 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 implementation. The project would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards and the City's EAP. Overall, the Modified Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy and a less than significant impact would occur. As noted above, the City has determined that energy does not constitute new information under Public Resources Code Section 21166. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would likely be subject to significant earthquake ground motion, given the seismic character of the southern California region and proximity to active and potentially active faults. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the project site has a moderate potential for adverse effects of liquefaction due to seismically -induced settlement. Compliance with the City's grading and building requirements, including the most current California Building Code (CBC), and Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential Approved Project impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Further, the 2016 Addendum concluded that the proposed modifications to the Approved Project would be similar to those identified in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to soil erosion or loss of topsoil with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality) and compliance with NPDES requirements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or unstable soil, and expansive soils were also concluded to be less than significant. According to the Certified EIR, on -site soils would be considered corrosive to copper unless a corrosion engineer determines otherwise. Compliance with the CBC and Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (which requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during preparation of the Final Soils/Geotechnical Engineering Report) would reduce potential impacts associated with corrosive soils to a less than significant level. The Approved Project would not have involved the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would result in this regard. The proposed modifications would result in similar impacts regarding geology and soils, as the proposed development area would remain the same as that previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Further, the proposed modifications would not result in an increase in adverse effects involving the exposure of persons and property to seismic activity and landslides. Similar to that identified in the Certified EIR, compliance with the City's grading and building requirements, including the most current CBC and Municipal Code, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce impacts to 22 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 less than significant levels. Further, potential impacts in regard to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires a qualified paleontologist to prepare a Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site and to monitor all earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation activities. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. GEO-1 All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013) (included in Appendix 11.6 of t4s the Certified EIR and incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities. GEO-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Newport Beach Building Official or designee shall verify that the City has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. CUL-2 An Orange County Certified Paleontologist appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site. The City selected paleontologist shall be present during earth removal or 23 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities. Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of paleontological resources, the Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City selected paleontologist who shall immediately notify the Community Development Director. The City selected paleontologist shall evaluate all potential paleontological findings in accordance with the Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program Monitoring, standard practice, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Historic Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the City selected paleontologist shall prepare a Final Monitoring and Mitigation Report to be filed with the City and the repository to include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected (including an assessment of their significance, age, geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, and an appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications. 3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in approximately 2,031.2 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO2eq/yr), which is below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr. Thus, the Approved Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum also concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed project modifications. The Modified Project would demolish an existing fire station and construct five additional cottages on -site, among other hotel improvements. Given that the Approved Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold, the minor proposed modifications also would not result in GHG emissions in exceedance of the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr threshold. Additionally, the proposed use (i.e., hotel) would be consistent with the existing land use conditions. Further, as discussed above, the project is considered to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. Additionally, the Modified Project proposes to provide additional enclosed storage space on Level 1, which would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. Consequently, operational GHG emissions impacts associated with the Modified Project would be less than significant. As detailed above, the Modified Project is also required to comply with mandated energy efficiency programs and regulations included Title 24 of the CBC and CALGreen, both of which were recently adopted or updated since the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum were approved. Additionally, the City adopted the EAP in 2013, which aims to provide a 24 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 roadmap for the City to reduce GHG emissions through reductions in energy used in facility buildings and operations. As such, although the project would increase the total square footage of the existing Lido House Hotel, GHG emissions from the Modified Project is not anticipated to exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr significance threshold. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. No new impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, impacts associated with potential accidental releases of hazardous materials that may be present in on -site soils would be reduced to less than significant levels. Further, the Certified EIR determined that hazards impacts pertaining to an airport land use plan or a nearby private airstrip, nearby school, wildland fires, accidental conditions involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, and adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan were determined to be less than significant or not significant. Similarly, the proposed modifications analyzed in the 2016 Addendum were also determined to result in no new impacts. The proposed modifications would result in similar grading and construction activities to what was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. However, the Modified Project would demolish an existing fire station. Due to the age of this existing fire station (constructed as early as 1953), there is the potential for asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paints (LBPs), as well as other potential hazardous materials to be present in association with the building materials. Thus, demolition of the structures could expose construction personnel and the public to ACMs or LBPs. The Modified Project would be required to comply with existing regulations associated with demolition. Further, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 would still apply to the Modified Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that potential impacts pertaining to hazardous building materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 through HAZ-5 would reduce minimize potential risks from existing transformers on -site, potentially contaminated in -fill soils, and previously unknown wastes or suspect materials during project construction. No substantial changes in the severity of impacts would result from the Modified Project. Overall, as the project site location and the nature of the proposed operations would remain the same (i.e., hotel use), potential impacts pertaining to the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not increase, compared to that analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Thus, no new impacts are identified for the Modified Project and no new mitigation measures are required. 25 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. HAZ-1 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing -materials (ACMs). If ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. HAZ-2 If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead - based paint is found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Lead -based paint removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead - based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Engineer. HAZ-3 Any transformers to be removed or relocated during grading/construction activities shall be evaluated under the purview of the local utility purveyor (Southern California Edison) in order to confirm or deny the presence of PCBs. In the event that PCBs are identified, the local utility purveyor shall identify proper handling procedures regarding potential PCBs. HAZ-4 The Contractor shall verify that all imported soils, and on -site soils proposed for fill, are not contaminated with hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds in consultation with a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist. If soils are determined to be contaminated above regulatory thresholds, these soils shall not be used as fill material within the boundaries of the project site, unless otherwise specified by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Health Care Agency, etc.). HAZ-5 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall comply with the following: 26 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 • Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the area; • Notify the Community Development Director of the City of Newport Beach; • Secure the area as directed by the Community Development Director; and • Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Materials Division's Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator (or other appropriate agency specified by the Community Development Director). The Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2, and HWQ-3, which would ensure adherence to construction requirements per the State, potential impacts pertaining to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and degradation of water quality during construction activities, would be less than significant. According to the Certified EIR, drainage during construction and operations would have a less than significant impact on the existing storm drain infrastructure. Post -construction water quality impacts would also be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-4, requiring the submittal of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Impacts involving seiche or mudflow, would also be less than significant. Implementation of the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) would reduce potential impacts associated with the inundation by a tsunami to less than significant levels. Other impacts involving a 100-year flood plain, flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, and groundwater depletion/recharge, would not occur. The proposed drainage and impervious area associated with the proposed Modified Project would be similar to what was previously considered in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. While five additional cottages and associated parking would be constructed on -site, the improvements would redevelop a portion of the site's surface parking lot, which is already impervious. According to the Lido House Hotel Redevelopment Project Preliminary Amended Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP), prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., and amended June 14, 2021, the Modified Project would include Low Impact Development (LID) features and best management practices (BMPs) through pervious pavement and infiltration galleries; refer to Attachment 2, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. The addition of the five cottages would impact local, on -site drainage patterns on the eastern portion of the site but would not alter final drainage courses, volumes or flowrates. No significant change in impervious coverage would occur. According to the Preliminary WQMP, the Modified Project would reduce runoff to off -site storm drain facilities by slightly less than two percent and would maintain the historic drainage patterns with the exception that flows are no longer routed north through the Via Lido Shopping area. Due to the shallow depths of the adjacent public storm drain catch basins and the need to treat low flows to conform to the LID requirements and the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan, the Modified Project would continue using primarily surface flow with localized area drains to drain the 27 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 site. This method would maximize the potential for runoff infiltration which is the primary BMP for water quality purposes. Localized area drains are proposed along landscaping adjacent to the new cottage building and to drain the courtyard/pool area. Runoff from all roofs and parking areas would be collected and directed through a system structural BMPs of gravel underground infiltration galleries and pervious pavement. All other flows are anticipated to be overland. Overall, the Modified Project would slightly reduce runoff to off -site storm drain facilities while maintaining drainage patterns similar to existing conditions. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with City and State regulations. Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3 would also still apply to the Modified Project. Thus, potential impacts associated with construction activities and long-term operations in this regard would be less than significant. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. HWQ-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as part of the project's compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Quality Control Board (SWRCB), providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California General Permit. HWQ-2 The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (to be applied for during the Grading Plan process) and the NPDES Permit for General Construction Activities No. CAS000002, Order No, 2009-0009-DWQ, including implementation of all recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs), as approved by the State Water Resources Quality Control Board (SWRCB). HWQ-3 Upon completion of project construction, the project applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to indicate that construction is complete. HWQ-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Building Official that complies with the requirements of the latest Orange County Public Works Drainage Area Management Plan. 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in any impacts relating to the division of an established community or conflicts with 28 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The Certified EIR proposed amendments to the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) to eliminate inconsistencies (i.e., amend the land use designation from Public Facilities [PF] to Mixed -Use [MU] and increase new development bulk and height limits). Similar to the CLUP amendments, the Approved Project included a General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendment to update the land use designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal 5 (MU-H5), which would allow for development limitations of 98,725 square feet of hotel use. The Approved Project also required a Zone Code Amendment to create a new mixed -use zoning district, Mixed Use — Lido Village (MU- LV), in order to implement the MU-H5 land use designation at the project site. The Certified EIR determined that City approval of the requested General Plan Land Use Element Amendment would result in the Approved Project's compliance with the intended use and development limits for the MU-H5 designation. Lastly, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the Lido Village Design Standards. It is acknowledged that the Coastal Commission modified the proposed CLUP land use category to Visitor -Serving Commercial, Lido Village (CV-LV) and made changes to Policy 4.4.3-1 making it more restrictive (not taller). The City accepted these changes subsequent to the Coastal Commission action and made the appropriate CEQA findings in a staff report for the November 24, 2015 City Council hearing. The proposed project modifications analyzed in the 2016 Addendum required amendments to the General Plan, CLUP, and Zone Code to increase the maximum intensity of development on -site by 4,745 square feet, and a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. The 2016 Addendum concluded that the requested modifications to the project would not result in substantial changes compared to the development scenario analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project proposes to increase the total square footage of the hotel from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 square feet (an increase of 15,103 square feet) to primarily accommodate the five additional cottages and expanded storage spaces, meeting rooms, and guest suites. As such, the Modified Project requests any necessary amendments to the previously approved entitlement applications for the Lido House Hotel including Site Development Review No. SD2016-005 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015, General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001. Upon approval of the requested entitlements, the Modified Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans/zoning, including the General Plan, CLUP, and Zone Code. No new impacts or substantially more severe land use impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 29 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that the Approved Project, as amended, would result in no impacts pertaining to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state or to the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource. As discussed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum, the project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. The project location remains unchanged under the Modified Project. As such, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.13 NOISE The Certified EIR determined upon implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the City's permitted construction hour limits pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity —Noise Regulations), development of the Approved Project would not result in significant noise impacts during project construction and operation. Further, as the Approved Project is not subject to an adopted airport land use plan or private airstrip, no impacts would occur in this regard. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum concluded that noise impacts resulting from the proposed hotel building expansion would be similar to those identified for the Approved Project in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project would include demolishing an existing fire station and constructing five additional cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building. Construction would occur for approximately 17 months, with approximately 1,100 cubic yards of soils exported over two days. These proposed modifications would not result in a substantial increase in construction noise in a manner that would exceed the City's exterior and interior noise standards per Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control. Although the proposed modifications would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site analyzed in the Certified EIR, the nearest sensitive receptors, including multi- family residences to the northeast and a church (i.e., St. James Episcopal Church) to the east of the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2, may be adversely impacted by construction noise, particularly associated with demolition of the fire station. Nevertheless, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the City's construction hour limits (7.00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or Federal holidays) pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity —Noise Regulations. Further, Mitigation Measure N-1 would still apply to the Modified Project. Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce short-term construction noise impacts by requiring mobile equipment to be muffled and requiring best management practices for hauling activities. Further, it is noted that out of the 17- 30 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 month construction period for the project, demolition of the existing fire station would occur for one month and grading would occur for 1.5 months. Elevated construction noises usually occur during these phases. As such, the nearest sensitive receptors located in proximity to the fire station would not be exposed to significant construction noise levels over an extended period of time. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 and compliance with the Municipal Code, the Modified Project would not result in any new or potentially adverse construction noise impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the Modified Project would be similar to existing condition. Specifically, the five additional cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building would not generate substantial operational noise from stationary or mobile sources. As stated, the project is considered to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. Additionally, the Modified Project proposes to provide additional enclosed storage space on Level 1, which would reduce the amount of off -site rented storage space currently utilized and eliminate off -site trips currently made by hotel staff. Consequently, operational noise impacts from mobile sources associated with the Modified Project would not result in any new substantial impacts. Similarly, stationary noise sources, including mechanical, landscaping, and HVAC equipment, would be similar to existing conditions. Thus, no new operational noise impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. N-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit for new construction, the Community Development Department shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that: • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State required noise attenuation devices. • The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City Development Services Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site. 31 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 • When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). • During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or Federal holidays). 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that implementation of the Approved Project, as amended, would result in no impact to population growth. The Modified Project would increase the hotel's square footage to accommodate development of five additional cottages and expansion of the existing hotel building. The proposed modifications would not significantly increase the number of employees and would not lead to an increase in population growth in the City beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES The Certified EIR determined that the development of the Lido House Hotel and associated amenities would not increase the need for additional public services. Compliance with the provisions of the CBC, applicable State, City, and County Code, and ordinance requirements for fire protection, as well as the General Plan Safety Element would reduce impacts to fire protection services during construction activities to less than significant levels. Additionally, the payment of statutory fees would reduce impacts to less than significant levels in regard to local school facilities. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum also concluded that no new impacts were and no additional mitigation measures would be required for the analyzed project modifications. The Modified Project would include the demolition of an existing fire station and construction of five cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building. The proposed modifications to the existing hotel are nominal and would not increase potential impacts to public services or facilities (i.e., fire protection services, police services, school facilities, etc.) at the project site beyond the impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum. It is acknowledged that the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2 would be demolished as part of the project. However, a replacement fire station, located at 2807 32 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 Newport Boulevard (0.3-mile southwest of the current Lido Fire Station No. 2) is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed by mid-2022. According to City staff, the existing 11,612-square foot Lido Fire Station No. 2 is old (construction in 1953) and does not meet operational needs for equipment.' The replacement fire station is considerably larger (approximately 17,693 square feet) and has street access on three sides including direct access to both the north and southbound lanes of Newport Boulevard. Thus, the replacement fire station is anticipated to provide proper pull -through circulation for vehicles and would allow for on -site parking for all fire personnel. Additionally, it is noted that the emergency service coverage would be similar at both locations and that the new site at 2807 Newport Boulevard would be a viable location for the replacement fire station.2 As such, demolition of the existing Lido Fire Station No. 2 would not substantially impact the City's fire services, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. No new impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3.16 RECREATION The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts in regard to recreational facilities as the Approved Project did not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum determined that no new impacts were identified and no new mitigation measures were required. The Modified Project would not result in changes to land use or square footage of existing public open spaces, landscaped areas, or other recreational amenities. It is acknowledged that the Modified Project would provide additional pre-function/break out meeting rooms on Level 1 of the hotel. The expanded pre-function/break out meeting rooms would allow the hotel to host meetings in closed rooms while keeping the hotel restaurant and public spaces open for hotel guest use. As such, the Modified Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No new significant impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach, City Council Staff Report, https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1227214&page=1 &cr=1, September 12, 2017. 2 Ibid. 33 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 3.17 TRANSPORTATION The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (implementation of a construction management plan), construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. During project operations, the Certified EIR determined that implementation of a Parking Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) that includes restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide signage, and staff parking requirements would ensure that parking is adequately managed on -site and would result in a less than significant impact. Impacts to public transit/alternative transportation modes, emergency access, air traffic patterns, and design hazards were determined to be less than significant or result in no impact. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was estimated to result in less daily trips during project operations compared to that generated by the former City Hall Complex. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum determined that the analyzed project modifications would not result in any new, different, or potentially adverse traffic and circulation impacts not previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. Roadway Analysis Short-term increases in vehicle trips on the circulation system would occur during construction. Construction -related trips would occur during the 17 months required for demolition, grading, and building construction. The nominal increase in construction trips (an average of approximately six haul trips per day) would be temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. Hauling trips would only occur during off-peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) and appropriate traffic control personnel ("flaggers") would be used to ensure construction vehicles operate safely along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and in a manner that minimizes disruption of traffic along these roadways. Further, temporary partial lane closures along 32nd Street may be required during project construction. However, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure TRA-1 (construction management plan), which would ensure pedestrian and bicyclist access remain open during construction, to the greatest extent possible, or be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity. The Construction Management Plan would also identify construction vehicle routes and permitted construction times, among others, to avoid traffic disruptions. As such, construction -related traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. According to the VMT Assessment, the Modified Project is anticipated to add approximately 40 daily trips to the existing roadway network. The additional trips would be nominal and would not adversely impact existing circulation patterns in the project area. It is also acknowledged that the Modified Project would not result in any new employees on -site (and any associated employee trips). Further, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in any substantial modifications to existing roadway, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities in the project area. Overall, less than significant impacts would result in this regard. Design Safety Hazard Analysis 34 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 As part of the Modified Project, the gated driveway along 32nd Street would be slightly shifted approximately 17.5 feet to the east. This minor modification to the access driveway would not create a design hazard for vehicles or pedestrians entering and exiting the hotel site. Less than significant impacts would result in this regard. VMT Screening Analysis The Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum did not specifically address VMT (pursuant to Senate Bill [SB] 743), as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum were prepared. The VMT Assessment was prepared for the Modified Project to analyze potentially significant VMT impacts associated with the proposed modifications; refer to Attachment 3. The purpose of the VMT Assessment is to determine if the Modified Project meets the screening thresholds outlined in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated August 2020. According to the guidelines, a development project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and would be exempt from project -level VMT assessment based on the following screening criteria: • Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening; • Low VMT Area Screening; • Local Serving Retail; • Affordable Housing Units; • Project Trip Generation; and • Institutional/Government Land Use. The VMT Assessment found that the Modified Project would meet two of the City's VMT screening criteria: TPA Screening and Project Trip Generation. Specifically, the project site is located within a TPA as defined by Figure 1 of the City of Newport SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide, dated April 6, 2020, and the Modified Project is anticipated to generate 40 daily trip and thus, would not exceed the 300 daily trip threshold. As such, the VMT Assessment concluded that less than significant impacts pertaining to VMT would result and project -level VMT assessment is not required. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum are also applicable to the Modified Project. Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and in double underline for new, inserted text. TRA-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department/City Traffic Engineer. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following: 35 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 • Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. • Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. • Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction -related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or Federal holidays. • Use of local streets shall be prohibited. • Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. • If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • All constructed -related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on -site or in public parking lots. This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Newport Beach requirements. TRA-2 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the following and be implemented at all times: 36 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 • Restrict all on -site parking spaces to either a time limit or a valet parking arrangement. • Restrict access to on -site parking areas (with the exception of visitor parking by the hotel lobby) to either valet staff, or guests and visitors only through a manned gate, a gate with intercom access, or a gate that reads the room keys. • Restrict parking for in -demand parking spaces by time limits. The time limit should apply from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. • Post signs at locations where motorists can be redirected from curb parking or desirable parking areas to convenient off-street lots and structures. • Encourage on -site employee parking by providing free parking on -site or providing incentives for using alternative modes of transportation, such as providing free or discounted bus passes; an employee bike rack, entering employees who take the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle in a monthly raffle; providing a monthly stipend for bicycle commuting; providing carpool parking spaces, or other incentives. M% Um d :7 I 1-if_1 Weill 1111111 01:Z1 :7 **6111:Z•3 *1 The Certified EIR did not evaluate tribal cultural resources as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared in 2014. Nonetheless, considerations for tribal cultural resources were analyzed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the Certified EIR despite not being addressed in a standalone EIR section. The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (presence of Native American Monitor during ground -disturbance activities), impacts pertaining to archaeological and Native American cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Given the existing disruption from prior development and the geology of the project area, any tribal cultural resources within the project site have likely been discovered or disrupted. The proposed modifications under the Modified Project would apply to the same 4.25-acre project site analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. As such, the proposed modifications would not result in any additional substantial impacts to tribal cultural resources, compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts are identified and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1. 37 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to water, wastewater, and solid waste services. Further, the Certified EIR determined that with implementation Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4, the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Similarly, the 2016 Addendum concluded that no new impacts were identified and no additional mitigation measures were required for the analyzed project modifications. The Modified Project would demolish the existing fire station and construct five cottages and various improvements to the existing hotel building. Overall, the Modified Project would increase the hotel square footage by approximately 15,103 square feet. As such, the Modified Project may marginally increase demand on utilities and service systems from the five additional cottages compared to the Approved Project as analyzed in the Certified EIR. Nonetheless, given the anticipated growth (i.e., additional hotel guests associated with the five new cottages), impacts related to water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and landfill capacity would be nominal and less than significant. Additionally, As detailed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Modified Project would include LID features and BMPs through pervious pavement and infiltration galleries; refer to Attachment 2, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. The addition of the five cottages would impact local, on -site drainage patterns on the eastern portion of the site but would not alter final drainage courses, volumes or flowrates. Overall, the Modified Project would slightly reduce runoff to off -site storm drain facilities while maintaining drainage patterns similar to existing conditions. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts to storm water drainage capacity would also be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4. Overall, the Modified Project proposes minor modifications to the Approved Project, and no new impacts to utilities and service systems would occur. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4. W111IAI,11y1:70 The Certified EIR did not evaluate wildfire as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the EIR was prepared. Therefore, the project's impacts, as currently proposed, is discussed below. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, the project site is not located within a State 38 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 Responsibility Area (SRA) nor is it classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.3 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. It is acknowledged that the site is situated within an area susceptible to urban fires from older buildings nonconformant to the current California Fire Code. New construction proposed under the Modified Project would be required to comply with the current California Fire Code, including fire protection measures that would attenuate the risk of urban fire hazards. Compliance with existing State and local fire requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the Modified Project to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, https:Hosfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map3O.pdf, November 2011, accessed November 23, 2021. 39 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 This page intentionally left blank. 40 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the changes to the Approved Project considered in the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum constitute minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR has occurred. In addition, because the Certified EIR and 2016 Addendum determined that the Approved Project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts have been identified. 41 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 This page intentionally left blank. 42 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA Map, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6739/fhszl_map3O.pdf, November 2011, accessed November 23, 2021. City of Newport Beach, City Council Staff Report, https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1227214&page=1 &cr=1, September 12, 2017. Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., Lido House Hotel Redevelopment Project Preliminary Amended Water Quality Management Plan, amended June 14, 2021. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Lido House Hotel Expansion Project, Newport Beach, November 22, 2021. Michael Baker International, Addendum to the Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report, June 17, 2016. Michael Baker International, Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for The Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California, December 13, 2021. RBF Consulting, Lido House Hotel Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2014. WATG, Lido House Hotel Expansion Entitlement Concept (5 Cottage Scheme), June 14, 2022. 43 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 This page intentionally left blank. 44 June 2022 Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 Attachment 1 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum 45 June 2022 We Make a Difference I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L December 13, 2021 BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP, Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EIR ADDENDUM PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Zdeba: In support of the environmental documentation for the proposed Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project (project), Michael Baker International completed a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature and historical map review, built environment survey, consultation with the Newport Beach Historical Society, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) evaluation of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Station No. 2 to determine if the project area contains historical resources, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), that may be impacted by the project. This memo report summarizes the methods and results of the resource identification efforts described above. The project is subject to CEQA review and the City of Newport Beach (City) is the lead agency. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The project proposes to increase the site's maximum allowed gross floor area by 15,103 square feet from 103,470 square feet to 118,573 square feet. The additional 15,103 square feet would allow development of five additional cottages and expand the existing hotel building. The project would also incorporate the adjacent parcel (APN 670-15-018), currently occupied by Fire Station No. 2, by demolishing the fire facility to accommodate additional on -site parking. Specifically, the proposed surface parking lot would provide 16 parking spaces and 5 additional spaces accommodated via valet stacking within drive aisles. PROJECT AREA The project area studied includes APN 670-15-018, which was not previously studied as part of the original EIR. The project area includes the maximum extent of ground disturbance and project activities associated with the demolition, site preparation, and construction. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 1 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California The project is mapped within Newport Beach, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map Township 6 South, Range 10 West, Section 28 (Attachment 1: Figures 1-3). The project area is at 475 32nd Street in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION METHODS The results of the SCCIC records search and literature, aerial photograph, and historical map review are presented below. An archaeological survey was not conducted as the project area is completely paved and landscaped with no exposed soils. The built environment survey, interested parties consultation, archaeological sensitivity analysis, and California Register evaluation are also addressed below. RECORD SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW SCCIC staff completed a records search (File No.: 22893.9058) of the project area and a quarter -mile radius on November 23, 2021. The SCCIC, as part of the California Historical Resources Information System, California State University, an affiliate of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Orange County. As part of the records search and background research, the following federal and California inventories were reviewed: • California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP 1976). • California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates). • California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996). • Built Environment Resource Directory for Orange County (OHP 2021). The directory includes resources reviewed for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Historical Landmarks programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, and resources nominated under federal and state registration programs, including the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. Results No cultural resources and no cultural resource studies were identified within the project area or quarter -mile radius through the SCCIC record search. A review of the Built Environment Resource Directory identified no built environment resources within or adjacent to the project area. LITERATURE AND HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW Michael Baker International reviewed historical literature and maps to understand the existing terrain and natural resources within the project area, including its potential for historical resources, as well as to identify the property's development history, associated people, and architectural significance. The review of the available historical plat and topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and other historical data is summarized below: 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 2 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California • Fractional Survey. Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian (BLM 1890) • Santa Ana, California. 1:62500 topographic quadrangle maps (US Geologic Survey [USGS] 1896, 1901) • Newport Beach, California. 1:31680 topographic quadrangle map (USGS 1932, 1935) • Newport Beach, California. 1:24000 topographic quadrangle maps (USGS 1949, 1951, 1965) • Historic aerial photographs (NETR 1938, 1953, 1963, 1972, 1995; Pacific Air Industries 1954) • Newport Beach, California (Sanborn Map Company 1959) • Aerial maps and street view (Google n.d.) • Historical newspaper articles (Los Angeles Times 1952, 1955, 1958, 1959; Lopez 2003) • Historical city directories (Ancestry.com 2021 a, 2021 b) • City of Newport Beach Building Permits (City of Newport Beach 1953, 1966, 1994) • "Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium" (Byrd and Raab 2007) • "A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology" (Wallace 1955) • "Paradise or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present" (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002) • "Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly" (Jones et al. 2004) • "Gabrielino" (Bean and Smith 1978) • The FirstAngelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles (McCawley 1996) Results Traditional models of the prehistory of California hypothesize that its first inhabitants were the big game -hunting Paleoindians who lived at the close of the last Ice Age (-11,000 years before present [BP] through the early Holocene 7,600 BP). As the environment warmed and dried, Ice Age megafauna died out, requiring adaption to coastal resources by groups to survive. The coastal tool manifestation of Paleoindian people is the San Dieguito Complex and within a lifeway known as the Paleocoastal Tradition. Along the coast, rising sea levels created bays and estuaries. Groups adopted marine subsistence including fish and shellfish. The resulting shell middens contain flaked cobble tools, metates, manos, discoidals, and flexed burials and allowed for a semi -sedentary lifestyle (Byrd and Raab 2007). During the middle Holocene (7,600-3,650 BP), conditions continued to warm and dry. Inhabitants practiced a mixed food procurement strategy with emphasis of shellfish and hard seeds. This shift in subsistence is what Wallace (1955) named the Millingstone Horizon. Characteristics of the middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for processing plant material and shellfish, flexed burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cogstones, discoidals, and crescentics. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 3 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California Characteristics of the late Holocene (3,650-233 BP) include the increased dependence on mortar and pestle for food processing, a change to more complex and elaborate mortuary behaviors, and the introduction of the bow and arrow and ceramic technologies toward the end of the late Holocene. Marine resource exploitation proliferated and diversified. The climate fluctuated with periods of drought alternating with cooler and moister periods (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002; Byrd and Raab 2007; Jones et al. 2004). This resulted in dynamic regional cultural patterns with considerable local variation. Settlement strategies shifted toward permanent settlement during this period. The project area is located within the territorial boundaries of the Gabrielino Indians. The name "Gabrielino" was given by the Spanish to the Indians that lived within the boundaries of the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel. Generally, their territory included all the Los Angeles Basin, parts of the Santa Ana and Santa Monica Mountains, along the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Canyon in the north, and San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina Islands. The Gabrielino spoke a dialect of the Cupan group of the Takic language family. The Gabrielino lived in autonomous villages often connected by trails, utilizing drainages such as the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. Each village had access to hunting, collecting, and fishing areas (Bean and Smith 1978). The closest Gabrielino placename is Kengaa, which is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project area (McCawley 1996). The vicinity of present-day Newport Beach was settled during the late nineteenth century after a stern wheeler from San Diego named "The Vaquero" made its first trip through the marshy lagoon in 1870. James McFadden and other ranch owners in the Lower Bay decided from then on that the area should be called "Newport." In 1888, James McFadden changed the isolated settlement by building a wharf that extended from the shallow bay to deeper water where large steamers could dock. Shipping activity increased dramatically. Newport Beach became a vibrant Southern California shipping town. The Pacific Electric Railroad established itself in Newport Beach in 1905, connecting the City of Los Angeles by rail. Public transit brought new visitors to the waterfront, and small hotels and beach cottages were developed that catered to the tourist industry. The City of Newport Beach was incorporated in 1906 and continued to grow as the Pacific Coast Highway was opened in 1926, the North Harbor was dedicated in 1936, and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) was built in the 1950s. By the 1970s, rapid urbanization occurred with new businesses, residential growth, and tourism (City of Newport Beach 2006). In 1896, the project area was undeveloped marshland (BLM 1890; USGS 1896). The Southern Pacific Railroad is depicted to the west, with few structures along the waterfront. By 1932, the project area remained undeveloped, two small structures and a roadway running east to west were depicted to the south, and a triangle of roadways was depicted to the east (now Via Oporto and Via Malaga), one of which connects the project area to Lido Isle (USGS 1932). By 1935, Newport Beach Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway (now 101) were platted (USGS 1932). By 1949, the area in the immediate vicinity of the project area was developed, with Newport 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (q16) 361-1574 4 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California Beach City Hall buildings to the northwest and west, and one small structure and two church structures to the east, but the project area itself remained undeveloped (USGS 1949). Fire Station No. 2 was constructed at 475 32nd Street, east of City Hall, in 1953 (City of Newport Beach 1953). The building is depicted on the project area in aerial photographs and maps dating to the 1950s and 1960s (Sanborn Map Company 1959, 1961). By 1963, the north side of the fire station was developed into a parking lot. The original fire station building was expanded with an additional space in 1966 and 1994 (City of Newport Beach 1966, 1994; Google n.d.). Fire Station No. 2 is not listed in the Built Environment Resource Directory (OHP 2021). According to a review of historical city directories, the property at 475 32nd has been occupied by the NBFD since its construction (Ancestry.com 2021 a, 2021 b). BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY An intensive level, built environment survey of Fire Station No. 2 at 475 32nd Street was conducted on October 14, 2021. Photographs and notes were taken during the survey. Notes consisted of observations of exposed building elevations, architectural design, materials, and alterations. Photographs are presented in the DPR 523 forms (Attachment 2). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The proposed project is located within a highly developed commercial area. Previous ground disturbances include the construction of the existing fire station building and paved parking lot. The project area is completely hardscaped with no exposed or native soils. According to the SCCIC records search, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area or a quarter -mile search radius. Additionally, the project area is underlain by Beaches soil series consisting of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly coastal shores that are washed and rewashed by tidal and wave action. These areas may be partly covered with water during high tides or stormy periods and support little to no vegetation. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is high. These soils have a very low potential for buried archeological sites (NRCS 2021). Between 1934 and 1936, the federal government and the county dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created the present-day contour of Newport Beach. The dredging and earthmoving would have likely impacted all prehistoric cultural resources in the project area. This analysis is supported by map and aerial photograph analysis. Therefore, the buried site sensitivity for the project area is negligible. INTERESTED PARTIES SOCIETY CONSULTATION On November 2, 2021, Michael Baker International sent a letter with figures depicting the project area via email to the Newport Beach Historical Society. The letter requested any information or concerns regarding historical resources within the project area. No response has been received to date. See Attachment 3 for the consultation letters. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION The following includes an evaluation of Fire Station No. 2 at 475 32nd Street in Newport Beach for its eligibility to the California Register (C)HP 2001); it was evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code. The criteria for eligibility in the California Register are based upon the National Register. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (resources less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can demonstrate that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance) and possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory. In addition to meeting a significance criterion, a property must also have integrity or the ability to convey its significance under a majority of the seven aspects of integrity. They are location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. California Register Evaluation California Register Criterion 7 — Research did not demonstrate that this property is associated with events significant to the broad patterns of our history at the local, state, or national level. This property was not the first station established by the NBFD, nor was it the first fire station in its community. The NBFD was established on a volunteer basis in 1911. The subject Fire Station No. 2 was preceded by several other stations, including the original Fire Station No. 2, which went into service in 1931. Fire Station No. 2 was constructed in 1953 at a time when the NBFD was expanding its ranks and adopting new, larger firefighting technology and equipment. No demonstrably significant events are known to have occurred at the property or as a result of its presence in the community. Therefore, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. California Register Criterion 2 — Research failed to indicate that this property is associated with the lives of persons who significantly contributed to the local, state, or national culture and history. Despite his notably long tenure —first as a volunteer during the late 1920s, then as a paid firefighter, and ultimately as chief of the NBFD from 1952 until his retirement in 1972—historical records reviewed suggest that Jan Briscoe implemented departmental changes and carried out 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (q16) 361-1574 6 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California leadership responsibilities that would have been typical of other fire officials during this period. There is no demonstrable evidence that any other personnel stationed at Fire Station No. 2 made significant contributions within the broader context of the growth and development of Newport Beach during the twentieth century or the history of the NBFD. Therefore, this property does not appear to be eligible under California Register Criterion 2. California Register Criterion 3 — Fire Station No. 2, constructed in 1953, incorporates elements of the International style, which was popularized in the United States after first appearing in Europe during the 1920s. Fire Station No. 2 is a relatively modest example built at a time when the International style had been widely adopted as one of the preferred architectural modes for institutional buildings. Neither its design nor the materials used in its construction possess high artistic value. In addition, the building has been altered, notably with the construction of two second -story additions and the wholesale replacement of the exterior fenestration. The architect of the subject property was not identified during research and relevant materials reviewed did not suggest that builder Don Fletcher was a master in his field. Therefore, this property does not appear to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3. California Register Criterion 4 — This property is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history because it is not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to subjects such as fire protection facilities or International -style architecture. Therefore, this property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4. Integrity Discussion — In addition to lacking historic significance, Fire Station No. 2 has lost integrity to the period of its initial construction. The property retains integrity of its location and setting on 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula of Newport Beach. The property also retains integrity of association, as it has remained in use as an NBFD fire station throughout its history. However, its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling have diminished through substantial alterations. Large second -story additions were constructed in 1966 and 1994. Other changes include the reconfiguration of the street -facing vehicle entrances and replacement of exterior fenestration. Conclusion — Lacking both historic significance and integrity, Fire Station No. 2 does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register. As such, the building is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The SCCIC records search, literature review, historical map review, interested parties consultation, field survey, and California Register evaluation identified no historical or archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), within the project area. The archaeological site sensitivity analysis conducted for the project concluded that the project area has a low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic period archaeological resources. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 M BAKER I N T L. C O M P: (916) 361-8384 F: (q16) 361-1574 7 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California While research suggests that archaeological sensitivity is low within the project area, there is the potential to identify resources during earthmoving activities. Impacts to archaeological resources and human remains will be avoided through implementation of the following recommendations: Archaeological Resources Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earthmoving activities, it is recommended that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat -affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials might include wood, stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris -filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. The archaeologist may evaluate the find in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the find and identify avoidance or other measures as appropriate. If suspected prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during construction, all work within the immediate area of the discovery shall be redirected and the find must be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology. Human Remains Inadvertent Discovery. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are discovered during excavation of a site. As required by state law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission if remains are determined to be of Native American origin, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 8 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS This report was prepared by Michael Baker International Architectural Historian Michelle Van Meter and Senior Archaeologist Kholood Abdo. Senior Cultural Resources Manager Margo Nayyar provided quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review. MICHELLE VAN METER, ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN Ms. Van Meter is an architectural historian with more than three years of full-time professional experience in cultural resources management. She has conducted fieldwork and research throughout California and has authored and contributed to historic resource inventory and evaluation reports for a variety of local, state, and federal clients. Her technical expertise is well suited for archival research, field recordation, GIS mapping, and preparation of architectural descriptions, historic contexts, and evaluations. Through her academics and work experience, Ms. Van Meter meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards in history and architectural history. KHOLOOD ABDO, SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST Ms. Abdo is an archaeologist with 26 years of experience prehistoric and historical archaeology and cultural resources management. Her experience includes writing technical reports, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and CEQA compliance documents. She has supervised and managed all phases of archaeological fieldwork, including survey, Phase II testing and evaluations and data recovery, and monitoring at sites throughout California and Arizona since 1999. In her current capacity as senior archaeologist and laboratory director, Ms. Abdo oversees the processing, analysis, and curation of artifact collections from both prehistoric and historical sites. Her cultural material analysis experience includes flaked and ground stone lithics, glass, prehistoric and historic ceramic, and bead analysis. Ms. Abdo meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for prehistory and historical archaeology. MARGO NAYYAR, SENIOR CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER Senior Cultural Resources Manager Margo Nayyar provided QA/QC review of this report and evaluation. Ms. Nayyar is an architectural historian with twelve years of cultural management experience in California, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, and Texas. Her experience includes built environment surveys, evaluation of historic -era resources using guidelines outlined in the National and California Registers, and preparation of cultural resources technical studies pursuant to CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA, including identification studies, finding of effect documents, memorandum of agreements, programmatic agreements, and Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey mitigation documentation. She prepares cultural resources environmental document sections for CEQA environmental documents including infill checklists, initial studies, and environmental impact reports, as well as NEPA environmental documents, including environmental impact 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 9 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California statements and environmental assessments. She also specializes in municipal preservation planning, historic preservation ordinance updates, Native American consultation, and provision of Certified Local Government training to interested local governments. She develops Survey 123 and Esri Collector applications for large-scale historic resources surveys, and authors National Register nomination packets. Ms. Nayyar meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for history and architectural history. Sincerely, Michelle Van Meter, MA Architectural Historian Attachments: Attachment 1 — Figures Attachment 2 — DPR 523 Forms Kholood Abdo, RPA Senior Archaeologist Attachment 3 — Interested Parties Consultation Letters MBAKER INTL.COM Margo Nayyar, MA Senior Cultural Resources Manager 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 10 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California REFERENCES Ancestry.com. 2021 a. U.S. City Directories, 7822-7995. "Newport Beach, California." 1955. Accessed November 2021. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2469 . 2021 b. U.S. City Directories, 7822-7995. "Newport Beach, California." 1966. Accessed November 2021. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2469 . Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith. 1978. "Gabrielino." In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office). 1890. Fractional Survey. Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian. DM ID 291059. Accessed November 2021. https://glorecords.bim.gov/default.aWx. Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab. 2007. "Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium." In California Prehistory. Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 215-227. New York: AltaMira Press. City of Newport Beach. 1953. Building Division. Building Permit No. 14092. . 1966. Building Division. Building Permit No. 54797. . 1994. Building Division. Building Permit No. B9400101. 2006. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. http://newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General Plan/GP EIR/Volume 1/01 NB GPU Draft EIR f ront matter.pdf. Google. n.d. Google Maps search for "475 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California." 1994-2021. Accessed November 202l..https://www.google.com/maps. Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas M. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker. 2004. "Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly." In Prehistoric California: Archaeology and the Myth of Paradise, edited by L. Mark Raab and Terry L. Jones, Chapter 2, 12-32. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 it MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California Lopez, Virginia E. 2003. "Firefighters have long history of protecting Newport Beach." Daily Pilot, November 9, 2003. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-xpm-2003- 11-09-exportl 8104-story.html. Los Angeles Times. 1952a. "Fire House Bids Ordered." November 12, 1952, Part I, 20. Newspapers.com. . 1952b. "Contract Let." December 12, 1953, Part I, 13. Newspapers.com. . 1955a. "Water Office Slated." August 21, 1955, Part V, 11. Newspapers.com. . 1955b. "Water District to Build Office." September 18, 1955, Part VI, 7. Newspapers.com. 1958a. "Anaheim to Build New Utilities Office." June 22, 1958, Part VI, 18. Newspapers.com. . 1958b. "New Civic Building." August 3, 1958, Part VI, 17. Newspapers.com. . 1959. "Forest Unit Complete." August 2, 1959, Part VI, 6. Newspapers.com. McCawley, William. 1996. The FirstAngelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press. NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC). 1938. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com, 1953. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/. 1963. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/. 1972. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/ 1995. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Accessed November 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2021. Electronic georeferenced soil map. Accessed October 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. OHP (Office of Historic Preservation). 2001._Technical Assistance Series #7.• How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 12 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL RE: Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California https://ohp_parks.ca.gov/pages/1056/files/07 TAB%207%20How%20To%20Nominate%2 OA%20Pro perty%20to%20Ca I iforn is%20Register. pdf. 2021. Built Environment Resource Directory. Orange County, California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed November 2021. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=30338. Pacific Air Industries. 1954. Aerial Photograph. Flight PAI-40-02. Frame 40-60. December 22, 1954. Available at University of California, Santa Barbara, Geospatial Collection. Accessed November 2021. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/FrameFinder/. Sanborn Map Company. 1959. Newport Beach, California. New York, NY: Sanborn Map Company. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1896. Santa Ana, California. 1:62500. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. 1901. Santa Ana, California. 1:62500. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. 1932. Newport Beach, California. 1:31680. Accessed November 2021. https:Hngmdb.usgs.goy/topoview/viewer/#. 1935. Newport Beach, California. 1:31680. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. 1949. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. 1951. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. 1965. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#. Vellanoweth, Rene L. and Donn R. Grenda. 2002. "Paradise or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present." In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Donn R. Grenda, 67-84. Tucson, Arizona: SRI Press. Wallace, William J. 1955. "A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3): 214-230. 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 MBAKERINTL.COM P: (916) 361-8384 F: (916) 361-1574 13 Attachment 1 Figures i...r•::.,. '05 La Mirada "' "' SILL 1• 1! V A L i B '` Il corona ■Cam ton Norwalk }�IuntAirparf� iNllprtr+ pParaffiount -..� -- : orba Linda - Alrix,rl _ •Bellflower Fuuerton etml Airport .Placentia _ - Artesia' Buena Park' Z Fullerton o i =� :i=— Cor Lakewood' Cerritos La Palma � rson RHawa `� _ - - '[ P RALTA IYILS -. Lon�IEra•-•h ildnGardens rr� Alr 4i ot+ -ta Cypress Los AMN itos Signal Hill Stanton Anaheim Garden Grove `Orange ' �•:_s, s =:E, r Ldng Beach •-- I`lPrdGB£Ri�s Westminster KA/A1 SUTron Sell Beach Santa Ana, Tu�tln 4! QEEQ yaF/��J r BEACH 'Fountain Valley S M]H CL EM A ...tire Gl:r FLohn WayneArpI �\V/+lpi eCoAlrport _^• - r -• -. Trabuco TT' ,.- .Huntington Beach Irvine7`" Canyon, t1 Costa M esae, Mission Viejo " 241 NewportBe �. Laguna Woods Lake Forest _ � • �• a: �-r � L�g una Hills i3 AlisoViejo x Laguna Be act r v *Laguna Niguel San Juan Capistrano Dana Point Project Location San Clemente' LIDO HOUSE EIR ADDENDUM 1771. Torm N 0 2.5 5 10 fNTERHATIOHAL Miles Regional Vicinity Source: Een, ArcGIS Online, National Geographic World Map: Newport Beach, California Figure 1 ac e'• �', rl t �:.-Sol77 „F':•l i _•� `\ _ .:4.R. _ } c Trailer k° °� Park ti r a ° anks Iwo � . � � p •� ., rr .^ • � ■ �•�. ,-r� 1 ' by � ti �pnlS �a _ •' ,% �ar ai tjpgpta --� ► ° � i�. lei ��s F yt N.-� •.fat@. ^ y — n i . 7. Lido s It 33 raoLrQhf +rrran,rx� ""�' o,, Parking Arek-Losikeus � q Light is NEWP4R'� BEACH..• � � Sayq __- CyypOri Fed•„ , F .r 0 Project Area LIDO HOUSE EIR ADDENDUM N 0 0.25 0.5 1 iHTERHATIOHAL Miles Project Vicinity Source: Een, ArcGIS Online, USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Newport Beach, California Figure 2 0 Project Area LIDO HOUSE EIR ADDENDUM 0 25 50 100 INTERNATIONAL 'A Feet Project Area Source: Een, ArcGIS Online, Nearmap Imagery 2021: Newport Beach, California Figure 3 Attachment 2 DPR 523 Forms State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code Page 1 of 12 P1. Other Identifier: N/A *P2. Location: Z Unrestricted *a. County Orange and *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Newport Beach, Calif. Date 1965 c. Address: 475 32nd Street City: Newport Beach d. UTM: Zone 11 S, 413872mE/ 3719999mN e. Other Locational Data: APN 670-15-018 Primary # HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Reviewer Date *Resource Name or #: Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 T 6S; R 1 OW; Sec. 28; San Bernardino Base Meridian S.B.B.M Zip:92663 *P3a. Description: The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Station No. 2 is located at 475 32nd Street in Newport Beach, California (Photograph 1). The property is situated on the north side of 32nd Street between Via Oporto to the east and the former site of Newport Beach City Hall to the west, which is presently occupied by the Lido House Hotel (see Sketch Map). Constructed in 1953 for the NBFD, this International -style fire station building features an irregular footprint set on a concrete foundation. The station is topped by a multi -plane flat roof that corresponds to the various single- and two-story sections of the facility. Metal coping is installed at the roofline. The exterior siding consists primarily of smooth white stucco. Narrow bricks laid in a running bond pattern form a decorative apron on the south fagade and clad portions of the ground level along the east, west, and north sides of the building. Fenestration throughout includes flush, aluminum -sash windows that appear to be modern replacements for similarly sized metal -sash windows installed in the same general arrangement (see Continuation Sheets). *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP14. Government Building P5b. Description of Photo: Photograph 1: South fagade of Fire Station No. 2 viewed from 32nd Street. Camera facing north, October 14, 2021. P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Z Historic 1953 (City of Newport Beach 1953) *P7. Owner and Address: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 *P8. Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter Michael Baker International 2729 Prospect Park Drive, #220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 *P9. Date Recorded: October 14, 2021 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive Pedestrian *P11. Report Citation: Van Meter, Michelle and Kholood Abdo. 2021. "Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum Project, City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach, California." Rancho Cordova, CA: Michael Baker International. *Attachments: ZBuilding, Structure, and Object Record ZLocation Map ❑xContinuation Sheet DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 B1. Historic Name: Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 B2. Common Name: Lido Fire Station B3. Original Use: Fire Station B4. Present Use: Fire Station *135. Architectural Style: International *66. Construction History: Don Fletcher constructed Fire Station No. 2 for the NBFD in 1953 (Los Angeles Times 1952a, 1952b; City of Newport Beach 1953). The NBFD hired Hughes & Vandervort to construct a second -story addition in 1966 (City of Newport Beach 1966). An additional 832 square feet were added to the second story in 1994 (City of Newport Beach 1994; NETR 1995). The two primary engine bays on the south fagade were merged and one bay was enclosed at an undetermined date. Likewise, most windows and exterior doors appear to be modern replacements for original units that occupied the same locations. *137. Moved? ©No Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *138. Related Features: N/A 139a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Don Fletcher *1310. Significance: Theme: Fire Protection; Architecture Area: Newport Beach, California Period of Significance: 1957 Property Type: Fire Station Applicable Criteria: N/A Growth and Development of the City of Newport Beach Newport Beach —like many cities across the state —experienced a period of unprecedented population growth during and following World War II as a result of wartime construction industries, expansion of regional transportation networks, and abundance of local recreation amenities. By the latter decades of the twentieth century, service, retail, and professional industries supplanted fishing and shipping as the region's economic base (USGS 1949, 1951, 1965; Novak 2008; AEI Consultants 2013). Newport Beach Fire Department On the heels of a disastrous fire that damaged the City Council Chambers in 1910, the Newport Beach City Trustees passed Ordinance No. 65 on April 17, 1911, establishing a volunteer fire department to protect the burgeoning coastal community. The volunteer NBFD purchased its first motorized fire trucks from the Long Beach Fire Department in 1916. The City formalized the NBFD under Ordinance No. 315 as a paid fire suppression force in March 1927. The NBFD opened Fire Station No. 1 that year and the first iteration of Fire Station No. 2 was built at 2871 West Central Avenue in 1931. Chief Frank Crocker chose Walt Honeycutt to serve as the first Captain of Engine No. 2 and its crew (Lopez 2003; Novak 2008) (see Continuation Sheets). 1311. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A *1312. References: (See Continuation Sheet) B13. Remarks: N/A *1314. Evaluator: Michelle Van Meter, Architectural Historian Michael Baker International 2729 Prospect Park Drive, #220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 *Date of Evaluation: November 9, 2021 (This space reserved for official comments.) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) 0 0 0 a ND STREET r Q N a J 0 50 100 j Feet DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 3 of 12 *Map Name: Newport Beach and Newport Beach OES, Calif. *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1965, 1982 ed. t ; ! Ma j �Lr Trader J r r �4.b ' �r • I Park I 1 Ag — X a— . -oiler ••• oe- - a m`.o. Lr1NJ r � � ' \t 4W @ �V \ ,ido Isl33 Lign < . c Light Parking Area ' i �'=_ ' as Arenas `y ,• ' -., Park -' =`',�A a NEWPORT BEACH 0 'Pic+'ypo rt @tea ch I • Newport Beach OE S N USGS 7.5 Min. Quadrangle 0 0.25 0.5 Mlles T 6 S R 10 W, Section 28 A 1:24,000 - lin = 2,000ft �J DPR 523J (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ® Continuation P3a. Description (continued): Fire Station No. 2 is set back from the street front and is accessed from a wide concrete driveway (Photograph 1). The driveway terminates at a garage door on the east half of the fagade. The articulated, roll -up metal door spans the length of two merged engine bays. Historical photographs indicate that a third engine bay was formerly located adjacent to the west side of the extant opening (see Figure 2) (Newport Beach Fire Department Archives n.d.). The primary personnel entrance is positioned on the west half of the fagade beneath a flat roof overhang (Photograph 2). The modern aluminum -frame glass door is flanked on both sides by narrow bands of ribbon windows with sliding aluminum sashes separated by wide mullions. Another band of ribbon windows parallels the roofline near the center of the building face. A single aluminum -sash sliding window punctuates the center of the second -story addition. The modern sliding windows on the fagade were installed to replace original fixed -sash windows at an undetermined date. The east side of Fire Station No. 2 is fenestrated by bands of aluminum -sash hopper windows that demarcate the division between the first story and the second -story addition (Photograph 3 and Photograph 4). Brick pilasters are placed between each of the window bands. The west side of building was not clearly visible from the public right-of-way, but appears to be mostly unomamented (Photograph 5). Both the east and west sides of the building feature rooftop porches with wood pergolas. The rear, north side of Fire Station No. 2 faces a paved staging area. This side of the building includes additional employee entrances and an engine bay with a metal roll -up door (Photograph 6). A fire hose tower occupies the center of the north elevation and extends several feet above the second -story roofline. *B10. Significance (continued): Fire Station No. 2 As Newport Beach expanded and its population increased through the mid -twentieth century, the NBFD developed new stations and relocated existing stations to maintain public safety and meet demand (Lopez 2003; Novak 2008). By the early 1950s, the NBFD had outgrown the original Fire Station No. 2 on West Central Avenue. In 1952, the City approved the construction of a new station to accommodate additional fire personnel and larger, updated firefighting vehicles and equipment. The new facility, which replaced the original Fire Station No, 2 upon its completion in 1953, was erected at 475 32nd Street (Figure 1) (Los Angeles Times 1952a, 1952b; City of Newport Beach 1953; NETR 1953, 1963). The NBFD selected this site for its proximity to City Hall and other City services. As such, it served as the NBFD's new central headquarters. The station initially housed six full-time firefighters and was equipped with an office for Chief Rufus Janvier "Jan" Briscoe, a dispatch center, garage space for up to four fire engines, a repair shop, and a fire hose tower (Los Angeles Times 1952; Novak 2008). Chief Briscoe, who joined the NBFD in 1927 and was appointed chief in 1952, spearheaded the department's acquisition of a modernized radio system to improve communication between its growing number of bases. Jack Reimer and Hugh McMillan operated the radio dispatch center Fire Station No. 2 during its early years of operation. The Fire Station No. 2 expanded over time, notably in 1966 and 1994 with the construction of additional administrative offices on the second floor (Figure 2) (City of Newport Beach 1966, 1994; NETR 1972). r 7=ml 1 W� _ `a+ , hn L - - j �J �, J +_ y.• r�±I. � ,. `� � { ,tom � _ �' Figure 1: 1954 aerial photograph depicting the recently constructed Fire Station No. 2 — location marked by the red circle— adjacent to the Newport Beach City Hall on 32nd Street (Pacific Air Industries 1954). DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ®Continuation Figure 2: Undated photograph of Fire Station No. 2 showing appearance and fenestration arrangement subsequent to the construction of the first second -story addition in 1966 (Newport Beach Fire Department Archives n.d.). Architect/Builder The City of Newport Beach began accepting bids to construct the firehouse in November 1952 and selected contractor Don Fletcher of Santa Ana the following month (Figure 3 and Figure 4) (Los Angeles Times 1952a, 1952b; City of Newport Beach 1953). Local news sources dating to the 1950s indicate that Fletcher frequently worked on building projects for municipalities and other government agencies in Los Angeles County and Orange County (Los Angeles Times 1955a, 1955b, 1958a, 1958b, 1959). The City hired contractors Hughes & Vandervort to construct the first second -story addition in 1966 (City of Newport Beach 1966). Fire House Bids Ordered NEWPORT BEACH, Nov. It. City Clerk C. EL Pri"t today was authorized to advertise for bids to be opened Dec. 8 fnr s new lire department headquarters at 4Ta 32nd St_, adjacent to the Newport police station. . City Council approval 101- Inwed recommendations of Fire (-Nef Jan Briscoe that a build- tng he provided to hold four llretruck=, car iqhop, store room. watch othce, public office. chief s office, fire prevention bureau, and hope r1rill tower. Figure 3: Notice in the Los Angeles Times announcing the request for bids to construct the fire station at 475 32nd Street (Los Angeles Times 1952a). DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ®Continuation Figure 4: Notice in the Los Angeles Times announcing the selection of Don Fletcher to build the fire station at 475 32nd Street (Los Angeles Times 1952b). International Style �.ontrict Let NEWPORT IBEACH. Dec. 2.3--- "he City council today awarded )on Fletcher of Santa Ana a 19,426 contract to construct a ,vo-stary fire station at 475 end -t., adjacent to the City Hall. Fire Station No. 2 was designed in the International style, which emerged in western Europe and subsequently became popular in the United States between the 1920s and the 1950s. The term "International" conveys this functional, minimalist style's lack of regionally identifiable architectural features (Ching 1995). Inspired by the highly geometric works of architects Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe, the style is characterized by a simplification of form and rejection of ornament. During the mid -twentieth century, it became a dominant style for commercial and institutional buildings, and to a lesser extent for residential buildings. Identifying elements of the style include flat roofs, usually without coping; asymmetrical fagades; expanses of smooth, windowless, unadorned wall surfaces; cantilevers; curtain walls; and often white stucco wall cladding. Windows —typically metal -sash —are commonly arranged into large groupings or ribbon bands (McAlester 2013; Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission 2015). DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ® Continuation California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation The following includes an evaluation of Fire Station No. 2 in Newport Beach for its eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) (OUP 2001). This property has not previously been evaluated for the California Register (OHP 2021). It has been evaluated herein in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code. California Register Criterion I — Research did not demonstrate that this property is associated with events significant to the broad patterns of our history at the local, state, or national level. This property was not the first station established by the NBFD, nor was it the first fire station in its community. The NBFD was established on a volunteer basis in 1911. The subject Fire Station No. 2 was preceded by several other stations, including the original Fire Station No. 2 which went into service in 1931. Fire Station No. 2 was constructed in 1953 at a time when the NBFD was expanding its ranks and adopting new, larger firefighting technology and equipment. No demonstrably significant events are known to have occurred at the property or as a result of its presence in the community. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. California Register Criterion 2 — Research failed to indicate that this property is associated with the lives of persons who significantly contributed to the local, state, or national culture and history. Despite his notably long tenure —first as a volunteer during the late 1920s, then as a paid firefighter, and ultimately as chief of the NBFD from 1952 until his retirement in 1972—historical records reviewed suggest that Jan Briscoe implemented departmental changes and carried out leadership responsibilities that would have been typical of other fire officials during this period. There is no demonstrable evidence that any other personnel stationed at Fire Station No. 2 made significant contributions within the broader context of the growth and development of Newport Beach during the twentieth century or the history of the NBFD. Therefore, this property is recommended not eligible under California Register Criterion 2. California Register Criterion 3 — Fire Station No. 2, constructed in 1953, incorporates elements of the International style, which was popularized in the United States after first appearing in Europe during the 1920s. Fire Station No. 2 is a relatively modest example built at a time when the International style had been widely adopted as one of the preferred architectural modes for institutional buildings. Neither its design nor the materials used in its construction possess high artistic value. In addition, the building has been altered, notably with the construction of two second -story additions and the wholesale replacement of the exterior fenestration. The architect of the subject property was not identified during research and relevant materials reviewed did not suggest that builder Don Fletcher was a master in his field. Therefore, this property is recommended not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3. California Register Criterion 4 — This property is not likely to yield valuable information that will contribute to our understanding of human history because it is not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to subjects such as fire protection facilities or International -style architecture. Therefore, this property is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4. Integrity — In addition to lacking historic significance, Fire Station No. 2 has lost integrity to the period of its initial construction. The property retains integrity of its location and setting on 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula of Newport Beach. The property also retains integrity of association, as it has remained in use as an NBFD fire station throughout its history. However, its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling have diminished through substantial alterations. Large second -story additions were constructed in 1966 and 1994.Other changes include the reconfiguration of the street -facing vehicle entrances and replacement of exterior fenestration. Conclusion — Lacking both historic significance and integrity, Fire Station No. 2 is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register. As such, the building is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 * Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ®Continuation P5a. Photographs (continued): Photograph 2: Detail view of the main personnel entrance south fagade of Fire Station No. 2. Note the brick cladding on the ground -level exterior. Camera facing north, October 14, 2021. Photograph 3: East side of Fire Station No. 2 paralleling Via Oporto. Camera facing northwest, October 14, 2021. DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ®Continuation Photograph 4: Detail view of metal -sash hopper windows on the east side of Fire Station No. 2. Camera facing northwest, October 14, 2021. Photograph 5: Southwest corner of Fire Station No. 2, showing a portion of the west side. Camera facing northeast, October 14, 2021. DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ® Continuation Photograph 6: Rear, north side of Fire Station No. 2. Camera facing southwest, October 14, 2021. *B12. References (continued): AEI Consultants. 2013. "Phase I Environment Site Assessment: 3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32"d Street, Newport Beach, Orange County, California, 92663." AEI Project No. 324487. Prepared for R.D. Olson Development. Ching, Francis D.K. 1995. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. City of Newport Beach. 1953. Building Division. Building Permit No. 14092. 1966. Building Division. Building Permit No. 54797. 1994. Building Division. Building Permit No. B9400101. Lopez, Virginia E. 2003. "Firefighters have long history of protecting Newport Beach." Daily Pilot. November 9, 2003. htips://www.latimes.com/socal/daily_pilot/news/tn-dpt-Um-2003-11-09-enortl8104-story.html. 1952b. "Contract Let." December 12, 1952, Part I, 13. Newspapers.com. 1955a. "Water Office Slated." August 21, 1955, Part V, 11. Newspapers.com. 1955b. "Water District to Build Office." September 18, 1955, Part VI, 7. Newspapers.com. 1958a. "Anaheim to Build New Utilities Office." June 22, 1958, Part VI, 18. Newspapers.com. 1958b. "New Civic Building." August 3, 1958, Part VI, 17. Newspapers.com. 1959. "Forest Unit Complete." August 2, 1959, Part VI, 6. Newspapers.com. McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2013. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf NETR (National Environmental Title Research, LLC).1953. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Electronic resource, DPR 523L (9/2013) State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 1 I of 12 *Resource Name or # Newport Beach Fire Department Station No. 2 *Recorded by: Michelle Van Meter, Michael Baker International *Date: October 14, 2021 ®Continuation b—qs://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed November 2021. .1963. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Electronic resource, hqs://www.historicaerials.com/1 accessed November 2021. —.1972. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Electronic resource, hqs://www.historicaerials.com/I accessed November 2021. . 1995. "Newport Beach, California." [Aerial Photograph]. Electronic resource, hqs://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed November 2021. Newport Beach Fire Department Archives. No date. Photograph of Fire Station No. 2, in Images ofAmerica: Newport Beach Fire Department, by Michael J. Novak. 2008. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. Novak, Michael J. 2008. Images of America: Newport Beach Fire Department. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. OHP (Office of Historic Preservation). 2001. Technical Assistance Series #7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. hM2s:Hohp_parks.ca. goy/pages/1056/files/07_TAB%207%20How%20To%20Nominate%20A%20Property%20to%20California%20 Re ig ster.pdf. 2021. Built Environment Resource Directory. Orange County, California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation. Accessed November 2021. hqs://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?yage id=30338. Pacific Air Industries. 1954. Aerial Photograph. Flight PAI-40-02. Frame 40-60. December 22, 1954. Available at University of California, Santa Barbara, Geospatial Collection. Accessed November 2021. hqs://mil.library.ucsb.edu/M indexes/FrameFinder/. Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. 2015. Bureau of Historic Preservation. "International Style 1930-1950." hM2://www.12hmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/intemational.httnl. Accessed November 2021. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1949. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. https://n mg db.usgsgov/topoview/viewer/#. 1951. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. hops://n mg db.usgsgov/topoview/viewer/#. 1965. Newport Beach, California. 1:24000. Accessed November 2021. hgps://n mg db.usgs gov/topoview/viewer/#. DPR 523L (9/2013) Attachment 3 Interested Parties Consultation Letters From: VanMeter, Michelle To: bsvalstadCabamail.com Cc: Fike, Aisha Subject: Cultural Resources Consultation for the Lido House Hotel Expansion Project Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 1:47:00 PM Attachments: 2021-11-02 Newport Beach Historical Societv.odf Good Afternoon, Michael Baker International is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the Lido House Hotel Expansion Project in Newport Beach, California. See the attached file for a project location and description. Please notify us if your organization has any information or concerns about historic properties in the project area. This is not a request for research; it is solely a request for public input related to any concerns that the Newport Beach Historical Society may have. If you have any questions, please contact me at Michelle.VanMeter(@mbakerintl.com or Senior Architectural Historian Aisha Fike at Aisha.FikePmabkerintl.com. Warm regards, Michelle Van Meter I Architectural Historian I Pronouns: she/her 2729 Prospect Park Dr. Suite 220 1 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 1 [0] 916-517-4422 1 [M] 425-327- 9427 michelle.vanmeter@mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com If From: Microsoft Outlook To: bsyalstad((Domail. com Subject: Relayed: Cultural Resources Consultation for the Lido House Hotel Expansion Project Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 2:09:41 PM Attachments: Cultural Resources Consultation for the Lido House Hotel Expansion Proiect.msg Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server: bsvalstad@gmail.com (bsvalstad@gmail.com) <mailto:bsvalstad@gmail.com> Subject: Cultural Resources Consultation for the Lido House Hotel Expansion Project November 2, 2021 NEWPORT BEACH HISTORICAL SOCIETY BERNIE SVALSTAD, PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 8814 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 via email: bsvalstad@gmail.com RE: CONSULTATION FOR THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Svalstad: Michael Baker International is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department regarding the Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 for the proposed expansion of the Lido House Hotel (project). The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach and involves a 4.25-acre site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City, as depicted on the accompanying figures (see Figure 1-Figure 3). The project proposes to increase the site's maximum allowed gross floor area by 15,103 gross square feet from 103,470 gross square feet to 118,573 gross square feet. The additional 15,103 gross square feet would allow development of five additional cottages and expand the existing hotel building. The project would also incorporate the adjacent parcel, currently occupied by Lido Fire Station No. 2, by demolishing the fire facility to accommodate additional on -site parking. Specifically, the proposed surface parking lot would provide 16 parking spaces and 5 additional spaces accommodated via valet stacking within drive aisles. As a component of the cultural resources investigation, Michael Baker International is requesting input on known or potential historic properties or cultural resources in the project area. Please notify us if your organization has any information or concerns about historical resources within the project area. This is not a request for research; it is solely a request for public input related to any concerns that the Newport Beach Historical Society may have. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience at Michelle.VanMeter@mbakerintl.com or (916) 517- 4422. Sincerely, Michelle Van Meter, M.A. Architectural Historian Attachments: Figure 1 — Regional Vicinity; Figure 2 — Project Vicinity; Figure 3 — Project Area Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 Attachment 2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 46 June 2022 FUSCOE E N G I N E E R I N 6 PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) '.ADO 14M M 1410' REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Newport Beach, California Prepared For R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 2955 Main Street, Third Floor Irvine, California 92614 949.574.8500 Prepared By Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92606 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com Project Manager: Mark Nero, PE Date Prepared: February 5, 2016 Date Revised: June 2, 2016 2nd Revision: August 1, 2016 Amendment: June 14, 2021 Job Number: 1100.004.01 1 41111110'y y J F�� f u I I c i r c I e t h i n k i n g® DRAFT AMENDED PRIORITY PROJECT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP-AMENDED) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL 3300 Newport Boulevard City of Newport Beach, County of Orange PLAN CHECK NO. TBD APN 423-1 1 1-02 Prepared for: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 2955 Main Street, Third Floor Irvine, California 92614 949.574.8500 Prepared by: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.474.1960 Date Prepared: February 5, 2016 Date Revised: June 2, 2016 2nd Revision: August 1, 2016 Date Amended (draft) March 5, 2021 Date Revised Amended (draft), June 14, 2021 FINAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION Permit/Application No.: TBD Grading Permit No.: Pending Tract/Parcel Map and Lot(s)No.: N/A Building Permit No.: Pending Address of Project Site 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 and APN: 423-1 1 1-02 This revised Amended Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT by FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan , including the ongoing operation and maintenance of all best management practices (BMPs), and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors - in -interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. OWNER: Name: Anthony Wrzosek Title: Vice President Company: R.D. Olson Development Address: 520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 600, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email: anthony.wrzosek@rdodevelopment.com Telephone: 949.271 .1 109 Signature: Date: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT i OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ........................... 1 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................... 4 11.1 Project Description..................................................................................................... 4 11.2 Potential Storm Water Pollutants.................................................................................. 8 11.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern............................................................................... 9 11.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics................................................................. 10 11.5 Property Ownership/Management.............................................................................. 10 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 12 111.1 Physical Setting........................................................................................................ 12 111.2 Site Characteristics................................................................................................... 12 111.3 Watershed Description.............................................................................................. 15 SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES(BMPs)....................................................... 17 IV.1 Project Performance Criteria...................................................................................... 17 IV.2 Site Design and Drainage Plan.................................................................................. 17 IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs............................................................................................... 18 IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas............................................................................. 19 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis ................................................... 20 IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs)..................................................................... 20 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs................................................................................................ 21 IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs.................................................. 24 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs............................................................................................ 25 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs......................................................................... 26 IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs........................................................................26 IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs.................................................................................... 26 IV.3.8 Non -Structural Source Control BMPs................................................................... 28 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs........................................................................... 30 IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan...................................................................................... 31 IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits........................................................................................ 31 IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information.............................................................. 32 SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs.................................. 33 SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN................................................................. 40 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS......................................................................... 42 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................... 43 R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 APPENDICES Appendix ............................................................................................. Supporting Calculations Appendix B.............................................................................. Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix C.................................................................................................Educational Materials Appendix D................................................................. BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan Appendix E.............................................................................................. Conditions of Approval Appendix F................................................................................................ Infiltration Test Results EXHIBITS & BMP DETAILS (INCLUDED IN SECTION VI) ■ Vicinity Map ■ WQMP Exhibit ■ Typical Cross Sections ■ Pervious Pavement (INF-6) ■ Underground Infiltration (INF-7) ■ Pre-treatment Roof Drain Filters EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS (INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C) ■ The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ■ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) ■ Responsible Pest Control ■ Sewer Spill ■ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ■ Tips for Pool Maintenance ■ Tips for the Food Service Industry ■ Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business ■ DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance ■ IC-3 Building Maintenance ■ IC-7 Landscape Maintenance ■ IC-16 Pool & Fountain Cleaning ■ IC-22 Eating & Drinking Establishments ■ SC-41 Building & Grounds Maintenance ■ SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 ■ SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning ■ SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ■ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage ■ SD-32 Trash Storage Areas R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PROJECT INFORMATION Permit/Application TBD Tract/Parcel Map N/A No.. No.. Address of Project 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Site and APN: 423-1 1 1-02 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS Initial Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 Initial City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution 1952 Initial City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution 1953 Discretionary Permit(s): Amended Coastal Development Permit No. TBD Amended City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution TBD Amended City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution TBD Initial City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution 1953 Condition No. 37 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. Initial Coastal Development Permit No. 5-14-1785 Water Quality Condition No. 4. Water Quality Management Plan: Conditions: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the post -construction project site, prepared by a licensed water quality professional, and shall include plans, descriptions, and supporting calculations. The WQMP shall incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater and dry weather flows leaving the developed site. In addition to the specifications above, the plan shall be in substantial conformance with the following requirements: a) Post -development peak runoff rates and average volumes shall not exceed predevelopment conditions. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 1 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 b) Appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs shall be designed to treat or filter the runoff from all surfaces and activities on the development site. c) Post -construction structural BMPs (or suites of BMPs) should be designed to treat or filter the amount of stormwater runoff produced by all storms up to and including the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event for volume -based BMPs, and/or the 85th percentile, 1-hour storm event, with an appropriate safety factor (i.e., 2 or greater), for flow -based BMPs. d) Runoff from all roofs and parking areas shall be collected and directed through a system structural BMPs of vegetated areas and/or gravel filter strips or other vegetated or media filter devices. The filter elements shall be designed to 1) trap sediment, particulates and other solids and 2) remove or mitigate contaminants through infiltration and/or biological uptake. The drainage system shall also be designed to convey and discharge runoff in excess of this standard from the building site in a non -erosive manner. e) The WQMP shall provide for the treatment of runoff from the parking surfaces using appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs. At a minimum this must include a filter designed specifically to minimize vehicular contaminants (oil, grease, automotive fluids, heavy metals), sediments, and floatables and particulate debris. f) The applicant shall regularly sweep -the parking surfaces on a weekly basis, in order to prevent dispersal of pollutants that might collect on those surfaces. g) The detergents and cleaning components used on site shall comply with the following criteria: they shall be phosphate -free, biodegradable, and non -toxic to marine wildlife; amounts used shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable; no fluids containing ammonia, sodium hypochlorite, chlorinated solvents, petroleum distillates, or lye shall be used; h) The applicant shall not spray down or wash down the parking lot or surrounding sidewalks unless the water used is directed through the sanitary sewer system or a filtered drain. No car washing shall be permitted in the parking lot. i) All BMPs shall be operated, monitored, and maintained for the life of the project and at a minimum, all structural BMPs shall be inspected, cleaned - out, and where necessary, repaired at the following minimum frequencies: (1) prior to October 15th each year; (2) during each month between October 15th and April 15th of each year and, (3) at least twice during the dry season. j) Debris and other water pollutants removed from structural BMPs) during clean -out shall be contained and disposed of in a proper manner; k) It is the applicant's responsibility to maintain the drainage system and the associated structures and BMPs according to manufacturer's specification. 1) Water from the pool and spa shall not enter any storm drains without proper treatment. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 2 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 m) Provide a detailed description and flows of the "Flow Through" system in the parking lot area. n) Provide clarification of the Fire Station parking lot permeability. o) Adequate curb cut size, number, and placement called out on the plans. p) The center of the parking areas and graded areas shall be constructed to adequately drain toward infiltration zones. q) Finished grade of landscaping areas should be at a lower elevation than the surrounding impermeable areas. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the final plan. Any proposed changes to the final plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the final plan shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. WATERSHED -BASED PLAN CONDITIONS Applicable Lower Newport Bay TMDLs: conditions from ' Metals watershed - based ' Nutrients plans including ' Pathogens WIHMPs and ' Pesticides TMDLs: ' Priority Organics ■ Siltation Amended City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution TBD Condition No. ## Text to be determined Amended Water Quality Conditions: Amended Coastal Development Permit No. TBD5 Condition No. #. Water Quality Management Plan: Text to be determined R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 3 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS & WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Lido House Hotel project site encompasses approximately 5.5 acres, including the fire station parcel, in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is bounded by Newport Boulevard to the west, 32nd Street to the south, Villa Way to the east and Finley Avenue to the north. A Vicinity Map is included in Section VI. Under existing conditions, the project site consists of the Lido House Hotel. Adjacent land uses include retail commercial to the north, east, and south, and residential to the west across Newport Blvd. The site is located on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of Newport Beach. The table below summarizes the proposed project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 8. All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain WQMP original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, Development or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and Category: safety. Since the proposed project includes the addition and replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on an already developed site, the project is considered a "Priority Project" in accordance with the Model WQMP and OC DAMP. Project Area (ft2): 148,635ft2 (3.42 acres) # of Dwelling Not Applicable (hotel property). Units: SIC Code: 7011 Hotels and Motels The amended project adds five (5) cottage units in the southeast quadrant of the existing project, an additional meeting room south of the existing ballroom and west of the caf6 and a small storage building on the east side of the hotel. The balance of the project remains undisturbed and consists of: a 130-room hotel in one three-story building, meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a Narrative Project restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool and recreational areas. In Description: addition, the project includes public open spaces consisting of a pedestrian plaza with landscape areas, decorative paving, benches and other features located along Newport Boulevard and 32n1 Street. Parking, utility and infrastructure improvement reconfigurations in the vicinity of the proposed cottages are also proposed. The fire station parcel will be used exclusively for parking and infiltration. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Low Impact Development (LID) features and best management practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the project, and will include pervious pavement and infiltration galleries. Further details on the proposed BMPs can be found in Section A of this preliminary amended PWQMP. Project Area: Pervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Area Impervious Area Percentage Percentage Pre -Project Conditions: 1.2 ac 28% 3.07 ac o 72/0 Post -Project Conditions: 0.85 ac 20% 3.42 ac 80% o The addition of the five (5) cottage units impacts the eastern portion of the project. Local, on -site drainage patterns are disturbed but do not alter final drainage courses, volumes or flowrates. No significant change in impervious coverage is proposed. Drainage on the site follows the topography of the land, with existing drainage patterns flowing westerly to Newport Blvd, northerly to Via Lido Plaza and southerly to Villa Way. The majority of flow is taken westerly to the existing catch basins in Newport Blvd. There are three (3) relatively shallow catch basins in Newport Blvd. The most northerly catch basin (CB 1) captures flow from the southwest portion of the Via Lido Plaza and a portion of the existing northerly arced parking lot. This basin is connected via two 12-inch connecting pipes to the existing catch basin at the southeast corner of the intersection of the main entry and Newport Blvd (CB 2). CB 2 collects drainage from most of the northerly portion of the project site in addition to the drainage from CB 1 and directs flows via two (2) 12-inch PVC connecting pipes, westerly across Newport Drainage Boulevard to the existing municipal storm drain system. The most southerly Patterns/ catch basin (CB 3), is located at the northeast corner of Newport Blvd. and Connections: 32nd Street. This basin collects drainage from the majority of the southern portion of the site, and a basin on the southeast corner of Newport Blvd and 32nd Street and directs flow westerly across Newport Blvd. via a 15-inch RCP connecting pipe to the municipal storm drain system on the west side of Newport Boulevard. Both existing municipal storm drain systems on the westerly side of Balboa Boulevard discharge to the Rivo Alto channel, part of Lower Newport Bay. Drainage to the north is directed through the existing Via Lido Plaza parking lot to the existing municipal storm drain system on the north side of that site. This flow discharges to the northwest upper end of Lower Newport Bay. The southeast portion of the site drains southerly in Villa Way to the existing municipal storm drain system serving 30th, 31 st and 32nd streets. This system connects to the existing 36" RCP in 30th Street which discharges to the Rhine Canal in Lower Newport Bay. Overall the project reduces runoff to the off -site storm drain facilities by slightly less than 2%. The proposed development will maintain the historic drainage patterns with the exception that flows are no longer routed north through the R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Via Lido Shopping area. Localized area drains are proposed to be used along landscaping adjacent to the building and to drain the courtyard/pool area. All other flows are anticipated to be overland. The drive approach area from the northerly parking area of the site to the Via Lido Plaza is anticipated to be re- graded to prevent runoff from Via Lido Plaza onto the site. Runoff would be diverted westerly within the Via Lido Plaza to the westerly inlet in the parking area connected to CB 1. This alteration is being proposed primarily to reduce the impact of off -site runoff on the on -site water quality BMPs. Runoff from all roofs and parking areas shall be collected and directed through a system structural BMPs of gravel infiltration galleries and pervious pavement. The drainage system shall also be designed to convey and discharge runoff in excess of this standard from the building site in a non -erosive manner. See also Section 111.2 for further drainage descriptions. PROJECT FEATURES The hotel building remains at 3 levels with 130 guest rooms. The guestrooms include both queen and king guestrooms. The extended stay suites remain and Building 5 additional two-story villas are being proposed in addition to the existing five Summary: 5) villas. A lighthouse -style observation tower is proposed in the northwest corner of the site. The existing fire station located in the southeast corner of the site will remain under proposed conditions. The revised site adds a meeting room south of the existing ballroom. Existing guest amenities within the hotel include meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, fitness center, guest pool and private outdoor recreational area. Specifically, the outdoor private recreational area Amenities: will include a pool, spa, outdoor fireplace, focal water feature, formal lawn area and decorative landscaping. North of the proposed villas an additional event lawn is being planned. The western portion of the site along Newport Boulevard includes a public plaza, and will feature decorative paving, wood decking, reclaimed wood benches, a lawn terrace with preserved existing trees, native landscaping throughout the plaza. Landscaping exists around the perimeter of the site, within the central guest Landscaped recreational area/courtyard, as planters on the rooftop lounge area, within the Areas: parking lot, and within the public plaza along Newport Boulevard. Approximately 1 acre of the site will be landscaped. Hardscaped Hardscaped areas will be located throughout the site, and will include asphalt Areas: and permeable paved drive aisles and parking areas (---1.0 ac), concrete paver outdoor courtyards and concrete sidewalks (---1.5 ac). R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 PROJECT FEATURES Parking will be provided as surface spaces surrounding the proposed building. A total of 117 surface spaces are proposed, reduced from the existing 148. An Parking Facilities: off -site parking agreement will make up the lost spaces. The existing metered surface parking spaces along 32n1Street will remain under proposed conditions (16 total spaces). A restaurant is within the building, with additional seating provided in an outdoor courtyard. All food preparation will be handled indoors. A grease interceptor is located in the sanitary sewer system in accordance with local requirements. The trash enclosure on the south side is being reconfigured on the west side of the proposed ballroom. The existing trash enclosure, located in the southeastern portion of the site near the existing fire station will remain. These Other Project areas will be walled and covered to preclude precipitation and runoff consistent with City standards. Features: The at -grade delivery area will be reconfigured on the east side of the hotel. A small storage bldg. is proposed to facilitate deliveries. No below -grade loading docks are proposed. The site will not have any additional outdoor storage areas, vehicle/ community car wash racks or vehicle/equipment wash areas. The applicant shall not spray down or wash down the parking lot or surrounding sidewalks unless the water used is directed through the sanitary sewer system or a filtered drain. No car washing shall be permitted in the parking lot. Outdoor areas throughout the site are used for vehicle parking (in designated spaces), pedestrian access, recreational and event purposes. The private recreation areas include a pool, spa, fireplace, formal lawns and other landscaping for guest uses. An arrival court with focal water feature and motor Outdoor court gateway is located on the northern side of the building. Paved parking is Activities: located along the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the site. A public plaza is located on the western side of the project along Newport Boulevard, and will feature decorative paving, wood decking, reclaimed wood benches, a lawn terrace with preserved existing trees, native landscaping throughout the plaza. The outdoor space will be for passive recreational uses. No outdoor storage of materials is anticipated (materials will be stored indoors). Materials anticipated to be utilized and stored on -site include those associated with commercial/hotel uses (including cleaning and maintenance products, hotel linens, guestroom amenity supplies, office supplies, retail inventory, etc.) and restaurant uses (food preparation equipment, service Materials Used & supplies, food items, table settings, etc.). Pool cleaning materials and chemical Stored: swill be stored indoors or off -site (via pool cleaning contractor). The detergents and cleaning components used on site shall comply with the following criteria: they shall be phosphate -free, biodegradable, and non -toxic to marine wildlife; amounts used shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable; no fluids containing ammonia, sodium hypochlorite, chlorinated solvents, petroleum distillates, or lye shall be used. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 PROJECT FEATURES The project is not anticipated to generate any wastes other than landscaping clippings and trash & debris. Outdoor trash receptacles will be provided Wastes throughout the common areas of the site for the visitors to dispose of their Generated: refuse in a proper manner, and property maintenance will provide trash and removal to maintain atrash-free property. All wastes shall be Lwasteaterial and properly disposed of off -site (see Sections IV.3.8 & IV.3.9 for ontrol BMPs related to these features). 11.2 POTENTIAL STORM WATER POLLUTANTS The table below, derived from Table 2 of the Countywide Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document (May 201 1), summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them. ANTICIPATED & POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE General Pollutant Categories H H 0 .Y 06 Priority Project Categories and/or Project Features N N am a x a o a 0- s O Qj NN Z =< a O 5 O O a s N N C U Detached Residential Development E E N E E E N E Attached Residential E E N E E E(�) N E Development Commercial/Industrial E(') EI'I E(5) E(3) EI'I E E E Development Automotive Repair Shops N N E N N E E E Restaurants EI'1(2) EI'I E121 E EI'I E N E Hillside Development >5,000 ft2 E E N E E E N E Parking Lots E E(l) E E(4) EI'I E E E Streets, Highways, & E EI'I E E(4) E(l) E E E Freeways Retail Gasoline Outlets N N E N N E E E Notes: E = expected to be of concern N = not expected to be of concern (1) Expected pollutant if landscaping exists on -site, otherwise not expected. (2) Expected pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas, otherwise not expected. (3) Expected pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products, otherwise not expected. (4) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff. (5) Expected if outdoor storage or metal roofs, otherwise not expected. Source: County of Orange. (2011, May 19). Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/ Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). Table 2.1 . R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 Priority Project Categories and/or Features: ■ Commercial/Industrial Development ■ Parking Lots POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN E = Expected to be of Pollutant concern Additional Information and Comments N =Not Expected to be of concern Suspended Solid/ E 303(d) listed impairment / TMDL Sediment Nutrients E 303(d) listed impairment / TMDL Heavy Metals E 303(d) listed impairment / TMDL Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E 303(d) listed impairment / TMDL Pesticides E 303(d) listed impairment / TMDL Oil & Grease E Toxic Organic E Compounds Trash & Debris E 11.3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN The purpose of this section is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) with respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.3.3 of the 2011 Model WQMP, projects must identify and mitigate any HCOCs. A HCOC is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological degradation of streams. In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any streams located downstream from the project are determined to be potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts and either of the following conditions exists: ■ Post -development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre -development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent or R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 ■ Time of concentration (Tc) of post -development runoff for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event exceeds the time of concentration of the pre -development condition for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event by more than 5 percent. If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts, an HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North Orange County permit area, downstream channels are considered not susceptible to hydromodification, and therefore do not have the potential for a HCOC, if all downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from the project are engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and no sensitive habitat areas will be affected. Is the proposed project potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts? ❑ Yes ® No (show map) In accordance with updated Susceptibility Analysis, Newport Bay, Newport Coastal Streams exhibit within the 2011 TGD, the project lies in a location not subject to hydromodification impacts or HCOC's. 11.4 POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS Overall the project reduces runoff to the off -site storm drain facilities by slightly less than 2%. The proposed development will maintain the historic drainage patterns with the exception that flows are no longer routed north through the Via Lido Shopping area. Due to the shallow depths of the adjacent public storm drain catch basins and the need to treat low flows to conform to the requirements of Low Impact Development and the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), this project will continue using primarily surface flow with localized area drains to drain the site. This method maximizes the potential for runoff infiltration which is the primary Best Management Practice for water quality purposes. Localized area drains are proposed to be used along landscaping adjacent to the building and to drain the courtyard/pool area. Runoff from all roofs and parking areas shall be collected and directed through a system structural BMPs of gravel underground infiltration galleries and pervious pavement. The drainage system shall also be designed to convey and discharge runoff in excess of this standard from the building site in a non -erosive manner. All other flows are anticipated to be overland. 11.5 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Public Streets: City of Newport Beach Private Streets: Not Applicable Landscaped Areas: City of Newport Beach (public areas) R.D. Olson Development (private areas) Open Space: City of Newport Beach (public areas) R.D. Olson Development (private areas) R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Easements: City of Newport Beach (public access/right-of-way) Southern California Edison (various utilities) Parks: Not Applicable Buildings: R.D. Olson Development Structural BMPs: R.D. Olson Development R.D. Olson Development shall assume all BMP maintenance and inspection responsibilities for the proposed project. Inspection and maintenance responsibilities are outlined in Section V of this report. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION 111.1 PHYSICAL SETTING JUNE 14, 2021 Planning Area/ Lido House Hotel Community Name: Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Project Area Description: Northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 32n1 Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of Newport Beach Land Use: Existing: Mixed Use (MU-H5) Proposed: Mixed Use (MU-H5) [no change] Zoning: Existing: Mixed Use -Lido Village (MU-LV) Proposed: Mixed Use -Lido Village (MU-LV) [no change] Acreage: 4.27 ac Predominant Soil Type: A' Impervious Conditions: Existing Impervious Area: ---3.4 acres (80%) o Proposed Impervious Area: -�-3.4 acres (80%) [no change] Pervious Conditions: -�- Existing Pervious Area: 0.8 acres (20%) Proposed Pervious Area: —0.8 acres (20%) [no change] 111.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: 0.7 inches per Figure XVI-1 of the TGD (see Appendix A) The project site is relatively flat with the highest point being in the center of the site where the existing city hall buildings are located. The site drops off on all sides to the adjacent parking and roadway areas. Existing elevations vary from a high of approximately 10.1 feet to 8.8 Topography: in the adjacent street with the catch basins on Newport Blvd. at 6.6 feet at the flow line. Drainage on the site follows the topography of the land, with existing drainage patterns flowing westerly to Newport Blvd, northerly to Via Lido Plaza and southerly to Villa Way. The majority of flow is taken westerly to the existing catch basins in Existing Drainage Newport Blvd. There are three (3) relatively shallow catch basins in Newport Blvd. with depths on the order of two (2) feet deep. Patterns/ Connections: The most northerly catch basin (designated CB 1) captures flow from the southwest portion of the Via Lido Plaza and a portion of the ' Source: County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. (1986, October). Orange County Hydrology Manual. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 12 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 existing northerly arced parking lot. This basin is connected via two 12-inch connecting pipes to the existing catch basin at the southeast corner of the intersection of the main entry and Newport Blvd (designated CB 2). Catch basin 2 collects drainage from most of the northerly portion of the project site in addition to the drainage from catch basin 1 and directs flows via two (2) 12-inch PVC connecting pipes, westerly across Newport Boulevard to the existing municipal storm drain system. The most southerly catch basin (designated CB 3, is located at the northeast corner of Newport Blvd. and 32nd Street. This basin collects drainage from the majority of the southern portion of the site, and a basin on the southeast corner of Newport Blvd and 32nd Street and directs flow westerly across Newport Blvd. via a 15-inch RCP connecting pipe to the municipal storm drain system on the west side of Newport Boulevard. Both existing municipal storm drain systems on the westerly side of Balboa Boulevard discharge to the Rivo Alto channel, part of Lower Newport Bay. Drainage to the north is directed through the existing Via Lido Plaza parking lot to the existing municipal storm drain system on the north side of that site. This flow discharges to the northwest upper end of Lower Newport Bay. The southeast portion of the site drains southerly in Villa Way to the existing municipal storm drain system serving 30'h, 315' and 32nd streets. This system connects to the existing 36" RCP in 30'h Street which discharges to the Rhine Canal in Lower Newport Bay. Overall the project reduces runoff to the off -site storm drain facilities by slightly less than 2%. The proposed development will maintain the historic drainage patterns with the exception that flows are no longer routed north through the Via Lido Shopping area. Due to the shallow depths of the adjacent public storm drain catch basins and the need to treat low flows to conform to the requirements of Low Impact Development and the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), this project is proposing using primarily surface flow with Proposed Drainage localized area drains to drain the site. This method maximizes the Patterns/ Connections: potential for runoff infiltration which is the primary BMP for water quality purposes. Infiltration is also the preferred methodology for mitigating pollutants of concern per the County DAMP. Localized area drains are proposed to be used along landscaping adjacent to the building and to drain the courtyard/pool area. Runoff from all roofs and parking areas shall be collected and directed through a system structural BMPs of gravel infiltration galleries and pervious pavement. The drainage system shall also be designed to convey and discharge runoff in excess of this standard from the R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 13 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 building site in a non -erosive manner. All other flows are anticipated to be overland. The basic flow pattern of the existing site is maintained but quantities to the downstream off -site areas are slightly different. The drive approach area from the northerly parking area of the site to the Via Lido Plaza is anticipated to be re -graded to prevent runoff from Via Lido Plaza onto the site. Runoff would be diverted westerly within the Via Lido Plaza to the westerly inlet in the parking area connected to CB 1 . This only alters the routing of the flow not the destination and there is not a significant difference in flow path length, hence there should be no significant impact due to this alteration. This alteration is being proposed primarily to reduce the impact of off -site runoff on the on - site water quality BMPs. The site is underlain by approximately 5 to 6 feet of dredged fill overlying alluvial soil materials. The dredged fill materials are highly Soil Type, Geology, and variable and consist of intermixed layers of silts, sands, and silty sands, Infiltration Properties: and clayey sands while the alluvial materials consist of loose to medium dense sands to silty sands to with occasional thick layers of moderately firm to very stiff silts and clays. During geotechnical investigations conducted on -site, the water table varied from 4.5 to 6 feet below the existing surface, which correlates Hydrogeologic to a water table/seawater elevation varying from 3.5 MSL to 4.0 MSL (Groundwater) across the site. During the geotechnical investigation, the groundwater Conditions: levels were observed to fluctuate with the tide in the bay, indicating that the groundwater is tidally influenced. In addition, the Santa Ana River Basin Plan identifies groundwaters in the Lower Newport Bay are excepted from MUN (Municipal and Domestic Supply) beneficial uses. Infiltration tests were performed on the project site in general accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Technical Guidance Document (TGD) Appendices dated March 2011, utilizing the shallow percolation test procedure contained in Section VI1.3.8. Two rounds of tests were conducted, with the first round in 2013 and the second in 2015. For the first round of testing, two (2) fl- inch -diameter test holes were excavated in the northern and southern portions of the site to a depth of approximately 5 feet using a hollow Geotechnical Conditions stem auger drill rig. The second round of testing included seven (7) 6- (relevant to infiltration): inch diameter test holes to depths of 3 feet using hand -powered auger drills. The 2013 testing results found the average permeability rate varied from 1.4 inches per hour at DH-1 to 12.3 inches per hour at DH-5. During the 2015 testing, the measured infiltration rates of the seven infiltration areas were found to be between 1 .88 and 12.72 inches per hour. Results of both testing events are included in Appendix F of this report. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 14 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 Since the measured infiltration rates are greater than 0.3 inches per hour required or feasibility, infiltration is considered feasible on the project site. Although depths to the water table are relatively shallow on the site (< 10 feet below ground surface), the water table is tidally influenced due to the proximity to the bay, and is not a source of drinking water supply (excepted from MUN beneficial use designation). Infiltration on this site as a BMP will only be for water quality purposes and not for groundwater recharging since the groundwater is from the ocean/bay. In addition, the proposed infiltration BMPs are not anticipated to impact groundwater quality, since the water below the site is influenced by seawater and is not a source of drinking water supply. Additional media filtration pre-treatment BMPs are also proposed throughout the site. These measures are discussed further in Section IV.3.7 of this report. Under existing conditions, the project site receives a small amount of Off -Site Drainage: runoff from the parking lot and driveway immediately north of the site. Under proposed conditions, on -site runoff will be infiltrated prior to co -mingling with any off -site drainage that enters the site. Utility and Infrastructure Dry and wet utilities will be incorporated into the proposed project and Information: will tie into existing facilities associated with the existing development. 111.3 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Receiving Waters: Lower Newport Bay Per the 2010 List for Lower Newport Bay: 303(d) Listed ■ Chlordane ■ Nutrients Impairments: ECopper 0PCBs ■ DDT ■ Pesticides ■ Indicator Bacteria ■ Sediment Toxicity For Lower Newport Bay: Applicable TMDLs: • Metals ■ Pesticides ■ Nutrients ■ Priority Organics ■ Pathogens ■ Siltation Per Section 11.2 Pollutants of Concern for • Suspended Solids/Sediment • Pesticides the Project: ■ Nutrients ■ Oil & Grease ■ Heavy Metals ■ Toxic Organic Compounds ■ Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) • Trash & Debris Hydrologic Conditions of None. Refer to Section 11.3 for details. Concern (HCOCs): R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 15 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 Environmentally Sensitive The project site is not located within 200 ft of an Environmentally and Special Biological Sensitive Area (ESA) or Areas of Special Biological Significance Significant Areas: (ASBS). R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 16 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) IV.1 PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA JUNE 14, 2021 Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub -regional basis? ❑ Yes ® No PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Hydromodification Control Performance Criteria: Not Applicable. This project is exempt from hydromodification (Model WQMP Section requirements. Refer to Section 11.3 for further details. 7.11-2.4.2.2) LID Performance Infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 851" Criteria: percentile, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). (Model WQMP Section LID BMPs must be designed to retain, on -site, (infiltrate, harvest and 7.11-2.4.3) use, or evapotranspire) storm water runoff up to 80 percent average annual capture efficiency Treatment Control If it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria through retention BMP Performance and/or biotreatment provided on -site or at a sub-regional/regional Criteria: scale, then treatment control BMPs shall be provided on -site or offsite (Model WQMP Section prior to discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) 7.11-3.2.2) shall be based on either the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits, if appropriate. Total Site / Property = 4.274 acres (80% impervious) LID Design Storm Simple Method DCV = 8,145.2 ft3 Capture Volume: Refer to Section IV.2.2 for specific Drainage Manage Area (DMA) breakdown and Appendix A for detailed calculations (Worksheet B). IV.2 SITE DESIGN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The following section describes the site design BMPs used in this project and the methods used to incorporate them. Careful consideration of site design is a critical first step in storm water pollution prevention from new developments and redevelopments. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 17 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs Minimize Impervious Area Impervious surfaces have been minimized by incorporating landscaped areas throughout the site surrounding the proposed building and within the interior courtyard. Additionally, pervious pavement will be incorporated into the proposed parking lot to further reduce impervious areas and detain runoff for infiltration into the subsoils. The proposed building will also feature multiple stories, building vertically rather than horizontally, with an interior courtyard, to minimize building footprint. Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity Portions of the proposed parking lot will be constructed with pervious pavement. In addition, runoff will be routed to landscaped areas to maximize natural infiltration capacity. Locations of the infiltration BMPs (underground infiltration galleries and pervious pavement) were selected based on drainage patterns, locations with reduced traffic and loading (e.g., in the perimeter parking lot versus the main entryway/driveway) and proximity to the building. Refer to Section IV.3.2 for details on the proposed infiltration BMPs. Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Time of Concentration Overall the project reduces runoff to the off -site storm drain facilities by slightly less than 2%. The proposed development will maintain the historic drainage patterns with the exception that flows are no longer routed north through the Via Lido Shopping area. Due to the shallow depths of the adjacent public storm drain catch basins and the need to treat low flows to conform to the requirements of Low Impact Development and the OC DAMP, this project is proposing using primarily surface flow with localized area drains to drain the site. This method maximizes the potential for runoff infiltration and reduces runoff rates and volumes, and results in longer Tc values. Disconnect Impervious Areas Runoff form the impervious areas of the project site, including sidewalks, rooftops, and other impervious areas will drain to landscaping areas, underground infiltration galleries and pervious pavement areas for infiltration into the sub -soils. In addition, runoff from the proposed parking lot will drain to pervious pavement to further disconnect impervious areas. Protect Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Areas, and Revegetate Disturbed Areas The site is fully developed under existing conditions, and all disturbed areas on the site will either be paved or landscaped. The existing shade trees located along the western portion of the site will be preserved and incorporated into the landscape design of the public pedestrian plaza. There are no sensitive areas on the project site to be preserved. Soil Stockpiling and Site Generated Organics Construction of the project will only require small amounts of grading and fill placement to support the proposed building structure. Temporary soil stockpiles utilized during construction activities will be stabilized consistent with the requirements of the General Construction Permit (SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) and local requirements to prevent erosion/sedimentation and potential transport of pollutants. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 18 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 Firescaping The project site is not located in a high risk wildfire zone. The project will comply with all requirements of the local fire authority for landscaping, building setbacks, and other requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, City Codes, County of Orange Fire Authority, and other local standards. Xeriscape Landscaping Within the public plaza along Newport Boulevard and portions of 32n1 Street, the landscaping plan will include mounded native grasses and dune planting, with low water and fertilizer/pesticide requirements. Additional native and/or drought -tolerant landscaping will be incorporated throughout the remainder of the site consistent with City and County landscaping guidelines. Slopes and Channel Buffers There are no slopes or channels on the project site and therefore, this site design BMP will not be utilized as part of the project. IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas In accordance with the MS4 permit and the 2011 Model WQMP, the project site has been divided into Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) to be utilized for defining drainage areas and sizing LID and other treatment control BMPs. DMAs have been delineated based on the proposed site grading patterns, drainage patterns, storm drain and catch basin locations. As a result, the sum of the drainage areas may be slightly different than the legal property boundary acreage. The design capture volumes (DCV) and treatment flow rates (QD,,ign) for each DMA are summarized in the table below. These have been derived utilizing the "Simple Method" in accordance with the TGD Section III.1.1 . Actual BMP sizing requirements, including 80 percent capture design volumes, flow rates, depths, and other design details forthe specific BMPs proposed are provided in Section IV.3.2. Locations of DMAs and associated LID and treatment BMPs are identified on the exhibits in Section VI. Additional calculations and TGD Worksheets are provided in Appendix A. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS (DMAs) Drainage Drainage Design Simple Area Name BMP ID, Feature or Area o /o Runoff Storm Method / DMA(' Land Use Type (acres) impervious Coefficient Depth(') DCV(3) (in) (ft3) DMA Al underground 0.886 77.4% 0.731 0.7 1,645.7 infiltration DMA A2 pervious pavement 0.286 86.4% 0.798 0.7 579.9 DMA A3 HSC-2 self -treating 0.094 37.8% 0.434 0.7 103.7 area DMA 131 pervious pavement 0.381 92.2% 0.842 0.7 815.2 DMAs B2+B3 pervious pavement p 0.473 85.5% 0.791 0.7 950.7 DMA C1 underground 0.897 63.8% 0.629 0.7 1,433.7 infiltration R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 19 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS (DMAs) Drainage Drainage Design Simple Area Name BMP ID Feature or Area o /o Runoff Storm Method / DMAP) Land TYp e (acres) im er✓ious p Coefficient De th(2) p DCV(3I (in) (ft3) DMA D1 pervious pavement 0.189 85.8% 0.794 0.7 381.3 DMA D2 pervious pavement 0.099 84.1 % 0.781 0.7 196.5 DMA D3 pervious pavement 0.109 85.5% 0.791 0.7 219.1 DMA F 1 pervious pavement 0.389 93.1 % 0.851 0.7 841.2 DMA F2 pervious pavement 0.170 89.9% 0.812 0.7 350.8 TOTAL DMAs 3.972 79.3% 0.745 0.7 7,519.2 TOTAL PROPERTY 4.274 80.0% 0.773 0.7 8,145.2 Notes: 1 . Refer to exhibits in Section VI for locations of each DMA. 2. Per Figure XVI-1 of the Technical Guidance Document, dated May 19, 201 1 . See also Appendix A. 3. Per Section III.1 .1 of the Technical Guidance Document. IV.3 LID BMP SELECTION AND PROJECT CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The 41" Term MS4 Storm Water Permit (Order R8-2009-0030) requires the evaluation and use of LID features using the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse summarize the LID BMPs proposed for the project in performance criteria outlined in Section IV. 1. IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) and biotreatment. The following sections accordance with the permit hierarchy and Hydrologic source controls (HSCs) can be considered to be a hybrid between site design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that they do not reduce the tributary area or reduce the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather they reduce the runoff volume that would result from a drainage area with a given imperviousness compared to what would result if HSCs were not used. HYDROLOGIC SOURCE CONTROLS ID Name Included? HSC-1 Localized on -lot infiltration ❑ HSC-2 Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 20 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 HYDROLOGIC SOURCE CONTROLS ID Name Included? HSC-3 Street trees (canopy interception) ❑ HSC-4 Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) ❑ HSC-5 Green roofs/Brown roofs ❑ HSC-6 Blue roofs ❑ HSC-7 Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) The project will utilize hydrologic source controls (impervious area dispersion) along the southern perimeter of the site. Within these areas small portions of hardscape areas (sidewalks) will drain to adjacent landscaping for infiltration at natural rates into the soils. Based on the capture efficiency calculations, the large amounts of landscaping and pervious surfaces in these areas are sufficient to treat runoff from the adjacent impervious surfaces in accordance with the Model WQMP and TGD (meeting 80% minimum average annual capture efficiency). Areas, calculations and associated worksheets are included in Appendix A. HYDROLOGIC SOURCE CONTROL BMP SUMMARY Pervious to DMA Drainage Impervious % HSC Type Ratio dHSCtotal�2) Capture Sufficient? ID Area Tributary to by HSC (3) HSC DMA A3 HSC-2 Impervious 0.09 ac 1.6 0.80" 80% Yes Area Dispersion Notes: l . Refer to Section IV.3.1 for individual DMA tributary areas. Refer to exhibits in Section A for locations of BMPs. 2. Per chart in Fact Sheet HSC-2 of the Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. Per Fact Sheet HSC-2, the maximum dHSC is equal to the Design Storm Depth for the project (0.7"). 3. Per Table III.1 of the Technical Guidance Document, dated December 20, 2013. Worksheets are included in Appendix A. IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge (underdrain or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells, permeable pavement, and underground infiltration galleries. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 21 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 INFILTRATION ID Name Included? Bioretention Without Underdrains ❑ Rain Gardens ❑ INF-3 INF-4 Porous Landscaping ❑ Infiltration Planters ❑ Retention Swales ❑ INF-2 Infiltration Trenches ❑ INF-1 Infiltration Basins ❑ INF-5 Drywells ❑ INF-7 Subsurface Infiltration Galleries -- French Drains ❑ Permeable Asphalt INF-6 Permeable Concrete ❑ Permeable Concrete Pavers Other: ❑ The project will utilize infiltration BMPs throughout the site, taking advantage of the sandy soils and the open landscaping areas. Permeable pavers are proposed for portions of the parking lot and drive aisle. Runoff from the central recreation area will be diverted to a proposed gravel bed infiltration gallery located below the formal lawn area. Runoff from the remaining landscaped areas and public walkways along Newport Boulevard will infiltrate via proposed infiltration gallery located along the perimeter of the site. Pervious Pavement Permeable pavement, such as permeable pavers, grass pavers, porous concrete, and porous asphalt, provides a surface suitable for light -loads and parking areas in which water can drain through pore spaces to an underlying rock reservoir (approximately 12" inches deep) underneath. The sub -surface base allows for physical and microbial filtering processes to take place thereby removing pollutants such as particulates, organics, hydrocarbons and total suspended sediments, including attached heavy metals. The pervious pavement sections proposed for the project will have an average rock reservoir depth of 12 inches. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 22 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 Gravel Bed Infiltration Galleries An underground infiltration gallery typically consists of a vault or chamber system, or gravel bed with an open bottom that is used to store runoff and percolate into the subsoils. Runoff enters the gravel bed through perforated pipes, is stored in the void space and pipe and infiltrates through the bottom. The infiltration gallery will be designed to be approximately 6-30' wide with an average rock reservoir depth of 12 inches, and will be covered with approximately 6-8" of turf and topsoil (DMA Al only). Infiltration BMP Sizing Calculations In accordance with the MS4 permit and the new Model WQMP, the Design Capture Volumes (DCVs) presented in the following table represent the minimum volume of storm water runoff required to be treated by LID and/or treatment control BMPs for the proposed project. Due to the shallow design depths, the infiltration BMPs will drain in less than 48 hours, and therefore the BMPs were sized utilizing the Capture Efficiency, Constant Drawdown BMP sizing methodology to achieve the target capture efficiency of 80% in accordance with Section 111.3.2 and Worksheet C of the TGD. Results are summarized in the following table based on footprints and depths required by each BMP. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix A. INFILTRATION BMP DESIGN SUMMARY BMP Minimu Drainag Effectiv Design Draw- 80% m GIS BMP DMA e Area a Infiltratio down Capture Footpri Footprint Coordinat Type ID(') (ac) Depth( n Rate (hr) DCV(3) nt Provided (ft2) e (in/hr) (ft3) Needed (ft2) 33.61611 DMA 4 A2 0.286 0.40 0.59 8.14 261.0 652.4 1,613.0 - 1 17.9293 46 33.61682 DMA 2 B1 0.381 0.40 0.48 10.00 407.6 1,018.9 3,193.8 - 117.9290 Pervious 40 Pavement (4) 33.61712 DMAs 9 B2+13 0.473 0.40 3.22 3.00 237.7 594.2 720.0 - 3 117.9299 69 33.61687 DMA 8 D1 0.189 0.40 3.23 3.00 95.3 238.3 4,192.7 - 1 17.9288 85 R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 23 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 INFILTRATION BMP DESIGN SUMMARY 7DD2 33.61716 MA 0 0.099 0.40 3.23 3.00 49.1 122.8 1,795.0 - 1 17.9293 95 33.61719 DMA 7, D3 0.109 0.40 0.74 6.49 85.4 213.6 240.0 - 1 17.9299 59 33.61641 4 DMA 0.389 0.40 1.45 3.3 210.3 526 2080(6) - F1 1 17.9288 27 33.61612 DMA 2 0.170 0.40 1.33 3.6 87.7 219 2760(6) - F2 1 17.9289 04 33.61635 9 DMA 0.886 0.40 1.26 3.81 411.4 1,028.6 1,500.0 Gravel Al 117.9295 Bed Itratio 02 I nfi 33.61659 n Gallery(5) DMA 7 C 1 0.897 0.40 0.33 14.55 860.2 2,150.5 2,176.1 - 1 17.9301 43 Notes: 1. Refer to WQMP Exhibit in Section VI for locations of DMAs and BMPs. 2. Includes reservoir storage depth adjusted for porosity. 3. Per Worksheet C, "Determining Capture Efficiency of Volume Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs." Copies of completed worksheets with detailed calculations are included in Appendix A. 4. Pervious pavement gravel reservoir storage depth = 12 inches (40% porosity). 5. Gravel bed storage depth = 12 inches (40% porosity). 6. DMA F1 & F2 galleries are connected via an equalizer pipe. IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Evapotranspiration BMPs are a class of retention BMPs that discharges stored volume predominately to ET, though some infiltration may occur. ET includes both evaporation and transpiration, and ET BMPs may incorporate one or more of these processes. BMPs must be designed to achieve the maximum feasible ET, where required to demonstrate that the maximum amount of water has been retained on - site. Since ET is not the sole process in these BMPs, specific design and sizing criteria have not been developed for ET -based BMPs. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 24 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 7_7HSCs, Name Included? see Section IV.3.1 -- Surface -based infiltration BMPs ❑ -- Biotreatment BMPs, see Section VI.3.4 ❑ Other: ❑ Harvest and use (aka. Rainwater Harvesting) BMPs are LID BMPs that capture and store storm water runoff for later use. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge until this volume is exceeded. Harvest and use BMPs include both above -ground and below -ground cisterns. Examples of uses for harvested water include irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing, vehicle washing, evaporative cooling, industrial processes and other non -potable uses. HARVEST & REUSE / RAINWATER HARVESTING ID Name Included? HU-1 Above -ground cisterns and basins ❑ HU-2 Underground detention ❑ -- Other: ❑ Since infiltration BMPs will be utilized on -site, evapotranspiration and harvest and reuse BMPs were not evaluated for the project. IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs Biotreatment BMPs are a broad class of LID BMPs that reduce storm water volume to the maximum extent practicable, treat storm water using a suite of treatment mechanisms characteristic of biologically active systems, and discharge water to the downstream storm drain system or directly to receiving waters. Treatment mechanisms include media filtration (though biologically -active media), vegetative filtration (straining, sedimentation, interception, and stabilization of particles resulting from shallow flow through vegetation), general sorption processes (i.e., absorption, adsorption, ion -exchange, precipitation, surface complexation), biologically -mediated transformations, and other processes to address both suspended and dissolved constituents. Examples of biotreatment BMPs include bioretention with underdrains, vegetated swales, constructed wetlands, and proprietary biotreatment systems. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 25 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 BIOTREATMENT ID Name Included? Bioretention with underdrains ❑ BIO-1 Storm Water planter boxes with underdrains ❑ Rain gardens with underdrains ❑ 1310-5 Constructed wetlands ❑ 1310-2 Vegetated swales ❑ 1310-3 Vegetated filter strips ❑ BIO-7 Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems ❑ BIO-4 Wet extended detention basin ❑ BIO-6 Dry extended detention basins ❑ -- Other: ❑ Since infiltration BMPs will be utilized on -site, biotreatment BMPs were not evaluated for the project. IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs Not applicable. Refer to Section 11.3 for further information. IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Not applicable. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on -site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Treatment control BMPs can only be considered if the project conformance analysis indicates that it is not feasible to retain the full design capture volume with LID BMPs. TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? TRT-1 Sand Filters ❑ R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 26 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs 77ID Name Included? TRT-2 Cartridge Media Filter ❑ PRE-1 Hydrodynamic Separation Device ❑ PRE-2 Catch Basin Insert ❑ Other: Roof Drain Filters (Pre-treatment) While treatment control BMPs will not be used as the primary water quality treatment on site, treatment control BMPs (roof drain media filters) will be incorporated as pre-treatment prior to low flow runoff entering the proposed infiltration galleries. Treatment of this level would be consistent with the treatment standards required in the TGD for removal of pollutants prior to discharge into the infiltration systems. Roof drain filters are designed to capture sediment, trash, debris, suspended solids, oils & grease and other pollutants. Removal of these pollutants also reduces the amount of oxygen demanding substances within the runoff. These filters are easily adapted into roof drains of varying sizes and drain types, have customizable media blends, and are easily removed for maintenance. Further details and locations of the filters are provided in Section VI. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 27 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 IV.3.8 Non -Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not If Not Applicable, Provide Applicable? Brief Reason N1 Education for Property Owners, ❑ ® Non-residential development Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions ® ❑ N3 Common Area Landscape ® ❑ Management N4 BMP Maintenance ® ❑ N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance El® Non industrial development (How development will comply) N6 Local Water Quality Permit ❑ ® The City of Newport Beach does issue Compliance not water quality permits. N7 Spill Contingency Plan ❑ ® Non -industrial development N8 Underground Storage Tank ❑ ® No USTs proposed Compliance N9 Hazardous Materials ❑ ® Hazardous materials will not Disclosure Compliance be stored on -site. N10 Uniform Fire Code ❑ ® Hazardous materials will not Implementation be stored on -site. N 11 Common Area Litter Control ® ❑ N12 Employee Training ® ❑ N13 Housekeeping of Loading ❑ ® No loading docks are Docks proposed. N 14 Common Area Catch Basin ® ❑ Inspection N 15 Street Sweeping Private Streets ❑ ❑ and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets ❑ ® No retail gasoline outlets are proposed. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 28 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 N2, Activity Restrictions R.D. Olson Development shall develop ongoing activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality. Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance in non -designated areas, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. N3, Common Area Landscape Management Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner/Operator to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water -efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner/developer and/or contractors. Programs shall be implemented on an ongoing basis, and maintained on a monthly basis at a minimum. N4 BMP Maintenance The Owner/Operator will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non-structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Details on BMP maintenance are provided in Section V of this WQMP, and the O&M Plan is included in Appendix D. N 11, Common Area Litter Control The Owner/Operator will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by the public and reporting such violations for investigation. N72, Employee Training All employees of the Owner/Operator and any contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. Training shall be performed upon hire and annually thereafter. N74, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection All privately -maintained on -site catch basin inlets and drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner/Operator at least once a year, priorto the rainy season, no laterthan October 1 st of each year. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance of all public catch basins and drainage facilities associated with the project. N75, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots The Owner/Operator shall be responsible for sweeping all on -site drive aisles and uncovered parking areas within the project on a quarterly basis. The applicant shall not spray down or wash down the parking lot or surrounding sidewalks unless the water used is directed through the sanitary sewer system or a filtered drain. No car washing shall be permitted in the parking lot. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 29 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not If Not Applicable, Provide Applicable? Brief Reason S1 Provide storm drain system ® ❑ SD-13 stenciling and signage S2 Design and construct outdoor ❑ ® No outdoor storage areas SD 34 material storage areas to are proposed. reduce pollution introduction S3 Design and construct trash and SD-32 waste storage areas to reduce ® ❑ pollution introduction Use efficient irrigation systems S4 & landscape design, water ❑ ❑ SD-12 conservation, smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels ❑ ® There are no slopes or and provide energy dissipation channels on the project site. S6 Properly Design: Dock areas ❑ ® No loading docks are SD-31 proposed. S7 Properly Design: Maintenance ❑ ® No maintenance bays are SD-31 bays proposed. S8 Properly Design: Vehicle wash ❑ ® No vehicle wash areas are SD-33 areas proposed. S9 Properly Design: Outdoor ❑ ® No outdoor material storage SD-36 processing areas areas are proposed. S10 Properly Design: Equipment ❑ ® No equipment wash areas wash areas are proposed. S1 1 Properly Design: Fueling areas ❑ ® No fueling areas are SD-30 proposed. S12 Properly Design: Hillside ❑ ® Project is not located on a SD-10 landscaping hillside. Properly Design: Wash water S13 control for food preparation ® ❑ areas S14 Properly Design: Community ❑ ® No community car wash car wash racks racks are proposed. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 30 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 S 1 /SD- 7 3, Provide storm drain system stenciling and sig ncnaage The phrase "NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO OCEAN", or an equally effective phrase approved by the City, will be stenciled on all major storm drain inlets within the project site to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. Stencils shall be in place prior to release of certificate of occupancy. Stencils shall be inspected for legibility on an annual basis and re -stenciled as necessary. S3/SD-32, Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction All trash and waste shall be stored in containers that have lids or tarps to minimize direct precipitation into the containers. One trash enclosure will be located in the southeast corner of the site. The trash storage areas will be designed to City standards, and will be walled, roofed, have gates and proper drainage per City standards. S4/SD-12, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control The Owner/Operator will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The Owner/Operator will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including, but not limited to, provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. This includes smart timers, rain sensors, and moisture shut-off valves. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with water efficiency guidelines. Systems shall be tested twice per year, and water used during testing/flushing shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. S13, Properly Design: Wash water control for food preparation areas All wash water from food prep areas will be controlled and proper staff training conducted by the site operator. Food preparation facilities shall meet all health and safety, building and safety and any other applicable regulations, codes requirements, including installation of a grease interceptor where required. Sinks shall be contained with sanitary sewer connections for disposal of wash waters containing kitchen and food wastes. IV.4 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Local jurisdictions may develop a water quality credit program that applies to certain types of development projects after they first evaluate the feasibility of meeting LID requirements on -site. If it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on -site LID, project proponents for specific project types can apply credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMPs or participating in other alternative programs. WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. ❑ R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 31 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous ❑ substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface water quality if not redeveloped. Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, ❑ those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance) Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use ❑ projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). Transit -oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, ❑ rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through ❑ mapping). Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas ❑ and other pervious uses. Developments in a city center area. ❑ Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. ❑ Live -work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs together — similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be ❑ able to take credit for both categories. In -fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more ❑ beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. Not applicable. Water quality credits will not be applied for the project. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on -site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information Not applicable. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on -site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 32 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs It has been determined that R.D. Olson Development shall assume all BMP inspection and maintenance responsibilities for the Lido House Hotel project. Contact Name: Anthony Wrzosek Title: Vice President, Planning & Development Company: R.D. Olson Development Address: 2955 Main Street, Third Floor, Irvine, California 92614 Phone: 949.574.8500 Email: anthony.wrzosek@rdodevelopment.com Should the maintenance responsibility be transferred at any time during the operational life of Lido House Hotel, such as when an HOA or POA is formed for a project, a formal notice of transfer shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach at the time responsibility of the property subject to this WQMP is transferred. The transfer of responsibility shall be incorporated into this WQMP as an amendment. R.D. Olson Development shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing maintenance through inspection, self -certification, survey, or other equally effective measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required maintenance in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. A form that may be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is included in Appendix D. The City of Newport Beach may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within this WQMP is taking place at the project site. The Owner/Operator shall retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they will be made available to the City or County upon request. All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. Long-term funding for BMP maintenance will be provided by R.D. Olson Development. The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan can be found in Appendix D. Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off - site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. The table below highlights the BMP inspection and maintenance responsibilities. All BMPs shall be operated, monitored, and maintained for the life of the project and at a minimum, all structural BMPs R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 33 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 shall be inspected, cleaned -out, and where necessary, repaired at the following minimum frequencies: (1) prior to October 15th each year; (2) during each month between October 15th and April 15th of each year and, (3) at least twice during the dry season. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 34 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DUNE 1 4, 2021 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX 7E BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Responsible Frequency Party INFILTRATION BMPs Keep pavement clean and free from debris and sediment. Minor maintenance should be conducted monthly consists of vacuum cleaning surface using a commercially available sweeper. If routine cleaning does not restore infiltration rates, then more invasive R.D. Olson INF-6 Pervious Pavement maintenance should occur as needed but no more Monthly Development than every 15-20 years, which may involve the following: Reconstruction of part of or entire pervious surface, lifting area and inspection of internal material, and replacement of surface materials, geotextiles, or sub -surface layers. Infiltration gallery should be inspected post - construction and after first major storm event for damages. Afterwards, maintenance should occur semi-annually, at the beginning and end of rainy season, for erosion or visible damage. Inspection and R.D. Olson INF-7 Gravel Bed Infiltration Gallery maintenance of clogging and gravel bed should 2x per year Development occur on an annual basis. Presence of excess ponded water or clogging may require replacement of gravel as needed. Removal of surface trash & debris shall be performed in conjunction with routine maintenance activities, weekly at a minimum. PRE-TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 35 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DUNE 1 4, 2021 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Responsible Frequency Party Manufacturer recommends inspecting and serviced at a minimum of three times (3x) per year. Filters should be serviced and maintained when debris and pollutant accumulations exceed no more than 80% of Roof Drain Filters filter's capacity. Media shall be replaced when outer 3x per year R.D. Olson surface of media is no more than 50% coated with Development contaminants, typically once per year at a minimum. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs The owner and/or developer will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through R.D. Olson N2 Activity Restrictions lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the Ongoing Development property. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance or vehicle washing. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 36 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DUNE 1 4, 2021 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX 17 BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Responsible Frequency Party Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (OC DAMP Section 5.5) as well as local requirements. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly N3 Common Area Landscape basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of Monthly R.D. Olson Management mulch shall be performed on an as -needed basis to Development prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drain inlets. Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency N4 BMP Maintenance prescribed in the O&M Plan included in this WQMP Ongoing R.D. Olson (Appendix D). Records of inspections and BMP Development maintenance shall be kept by the owner/developer and shall be available for review upon request. Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and N1 1 Common Area Litter Control other litter control activities shall be performed on a Weekly R.D. Olson weekly basis and in conjunction with routine Development maintenance activities. Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good R.D. Olson N 12 Employee Training housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy Annually Development season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted on an as needed basis. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 37 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DUNE 1 4, 2021 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Responsible Frequency Party Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall R.D. Olson Common Area Catch Basin be inspected after each storm event and once per Development N14 Inspection year. Storm drain inlets and other drainage facilities Annually (private) shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by City of Newport October 1 each year. Beach (public) Street Sweeping Private Streets and Drive aisles and parking areas must be swept at least R.D. Olson N 15 Parking Lots quarterly (every 3 months), including prior to the start Weekly Development of the rainy season (October 1). STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at R.D. OlsonDevelopment S1 Provide storm drain system minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later Annually (private) SD-13 stenciling and signage than October 1 each year. Those determined to be City of Newport illegible will be re -stenciled as soon as possible. Beach (public) S3 Design and construct trash and Sweep trash area at least once per week and before R.D. Olson SD-32 waste storage areas to reduce October 1 st each year. Maintain area clean of trash Weekly Development pollution introduction and debris at all times. In conjunction with routine maintenance activities, verify that landscape design continues to function properly by adjusting properly to eliminate overspray R.D. Olson Use efficient irrigation systems & to hardscape areas, and to verify that irrigation Development p S4 landscape design, water timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance (private) SD-12 conservation, smart controllers, with water demands, given time of year, weather, and 2x per year and source control day or night time temperatures. System testing shall City of Newport occur twice per year. Water from testing/flushing Beach (public) shall be collected and properly disposed to the sewer system and shall not discharge to the storm drain system. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 38 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL DUNE 1 4, 2021 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party Inspection / maintenance shall occur at least once in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. Maintenance includes using dry Properly Design: Wash water cleanup methods for cleaning (i.e., sweeping), R.D. Olson Sl 3 control for food preparation areas keeping spill kits on -site and stocked, properly storing Annually Development and hauling used oil and grease, and disposing wash water to sanitary sewer. Wash water shall not discharge to storm drain system. Mats shall be cleaned indoors or with dry cleaning methods only. R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 39 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The exhibits provided in this section are to illustrate the post construction BMPs prescribed within this WQMP. Drainage flow information of the proposed project, such as general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface drainage conveyances, and storm drain facilities are also depicted. All structural source control and treatment control BMPs are shown as well. EXHIBITS ■ Vicinity Map ■ WQMP Exhibit ■ Typical Cross Sections BMP DETAILS & FACT SHEETS ■ Pervious Pavement (INF-6) ■ Underground Infiltration (INF-7) ■ Pre-treatment Roof Drain Filters R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 40 SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 41 SITE PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN PRELIMINARY AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The educational materials included in this WQMP are provided to inform people involved in future uses, activities, or ownership of the site about the potential pitfalls associated with careless storm water management. "The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door' provides users with information about storm water that is/will be generated on site, what happens when water enters a storm drain, and its ultimate fate, discharging into the ocean. Also included are activities guidelines to educate anyone who is or will be associated with activities that have a potential to impact storm water runoff quality, and provide a menu of BMPs to effectively reduce the generation of storm water runoff pollutants from a variety of activities. The educational materials that may be used forthe proposed project are included in Appendix C of this WQMP and are listed below. EDUCATION MATERIALS Residential Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached Business Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ® Tips for the Automotive Industry ❑ Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers ❑ Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar ❑ Tips for the Home Mechanic ❑ Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use ❑ Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips ❑ Other Materials (http://www.cabmphandbooks.com) Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste El(http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North Count) ❑ DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central Count) ® IC 3 Building Maintenance Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South Count) ❑ IC 7 Landscape Maintenance Tips for Maintaining Septic Tank Systems ❑ IC-16 Pool & Fountain Cleaning Responsible Pest Control ® IC-22 Eating & Drinking Establishments Sewer Spill ® SC-1 1 Spill Prevention, Control, Cleanup ❑ Tips for the Home Improvement Projects ❑ SC-34 Waste Handling & Disposal ❑ Tips for Horse Care ❑ SC-41 Building & Grounds Maintenance Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ® SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance Tips for Pet Care ❑ SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning Tips for Pool Maintenance ® SD-1 1 Roof Runoff Controls ❑ Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardsca e Drains ❑ SD 12 Efficient Irrigation Tips for Projects Using Paint ❑ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage Tips for Protecting Your Watershed ❑ SD-31 Maintenance Bays & Docs ❑ Other: Children's Brochure ❑ SD-32 Trash Storage Areas R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 42 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS PRELIMINARY .AMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) LIDO HOUSE HOTEL JUNE 14, 2021 APPENDICES Appendix ............................................................................................. Supporting Calculations Appendix B.............................................................................. Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix C.................................................................................................Educational Materials Appendix D................................................................. BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan Appendix E.............................................................................................. Conditions of Approval Appendix F................................................................................................ Infiltration Test Results R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 43 APPENDICES Lido House Hotel EIR Addendum No. 2 Attachment 3 Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment 47 June 2022 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Eddie Torres Date: November 22, 2021 Michael Baker International From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal LLG 2.21.4470.1 Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers Ref: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Subject: Lido House Hotel Expansion Project, Newport Beach As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Technical Memorandum for the proposed Lido House Hotel Expansion Project (herein after referred to as Project) in the City of Newport Beach, California. This Technical Memorandum presents the VMT screening criteria and applies the criteria, accordingly, for the proposed Lido House Hotel Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum No. 2. It should be noted that the approach and methodology outlined in this Technical Memorandum is based on the City of Newport Beach Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act (March 2020) and is generally consistent with the Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory), which provides additional detail on the language and approach described in this Technical Memorandum. On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project's effect on vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies are allowed to continue using their current impact criteria, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. However, the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020, as required in CEQA section 15064.3. The City of Newport Beach has adopted thresholds as contained in the City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (August 2020). In late 2019, State courts stated that under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. As a result of SB 743, the new metric in the CEQA guidelines for transportation impacts is VMT per capita. The legislative intent of SB 743 is to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals for infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 2 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 949.825.6175 T 949.825.6173 F wvvw.Ilgengineers.com Pasadena Irvine San Diego Woodland Hills Philip M. Linscatt, PE 11924-20001 William A. Law, PE (1921.2018) Jack M. Greenspan. PE met.1 Paul W. Wilkinson, PE IRetl John P. Keating, PE David S. Shender, PE John A. Boarman, PE Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE Richard E. Barretto, PE Keil D. Maberry, PE Walter B. Musial, PE An L62WB Company Founded 1956 Mr. Eddie Torres November 22, 2021 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is currently developed with the Lido House Hotel, which consists of a four-story, 103,470 square -foot (SF) hotel including 130 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, accessory retail spaces, a restaurant, lobby bar, rooftop bar, guest pool, and other recreational areas. A pedestrian plaza, landscaped areas, and other amenities complement the hotel along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Figure 1, attached, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project site and surrounding street system while Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. The proposed Project consists of requesting entitlements to increase the maximum allowed gross floor area of the hotel from 103,470 SF to 118,573 SF. The additional 15,103 SF would allow development of five (5) new hotel cottages and slightly expand the existing hotel building. The project would also incorporate the adjacent parcel, currently occupied by Lido Fire Station No. 2, by demolishing the fire facility to accommodate additional on -site parking. Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan for the Project, prepared by WATG. As shown, the Project will construct five (5) new cottages adjacent to the existing cottages on the southeast corner of the existing hotel and reconfigure the parking lot, accordingly. PROJECT SCREENING CRITERIA Under the VMT methodology, screening is used to determine if a project will be required to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. Based on the City's Implementation Procedures, there are six (6) types of screening that the lead agencies can apply to effectively screen projects from project -level assessment. As such, the following guidance summarizes the potential project screening, developed for the City of Newport Beach: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening As noted previously, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include section 15064.3, "Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts." Subsection (b)(1) states in part: "Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. " Pursuant to the statute, development projects may be screened out of VMT analysis based on proximity to certain transit facilities due to the presumption of less than significant impacts. The Technical Advisory reiterates this screening criteria, but also highlights certain project -specific or location -specific characteristics which may indicate the project will still generate "significant levels of VMT", even when located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high -quality transit N:\4400\2214470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion, Newport Beach\Report\4470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion VMT Assessment - Newport Beach, 11-22-21.docx Mr. Eddie Torres November 22, 2021 Page 3 corridor. These characteristics relate to the project's floor area ratio (FAR), parking supply, and number of dwelling units, as well as consistency with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). If the project has any characteristics which indicate that the presumption of less than significant impacts as stated in the CEQA Guidelines may not be appropriate, the OPR Technical Advisory recommends that the project should not be screened out of further VMT analysis. The City of Newport Beach criteria is consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory and also relies on the OCTA screening tool to determine whether the Project parcel(s) is located within a TPA, as shown in Figure 1, (attached) of the City of Newport SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide (April 6, 2020), which was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the TPA criteria. Based on the above, the proposed Project will screen -out under this criteria because the Project is located within the TPA defined by Figure 1 of the City of Newport SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide (April 6, 2020) and the proposed Project has an FAR greater than 0.75. Low VMT Area Screening An additional screening methodology is provided for residential and office land use projects. Lead agencies may prepare maps based on a regional travel demand model or travel survey data to illustrate areas that are currently below the selected VMT threshold. OPR reasons that if a project has similar characteristics to the existing area (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit service, etc.), it will tend to exhibit similar VMT. Therefore, if a project is fully located within an area identified as having a below - threshold VMT, it may be presumed to also have less than significant VMT impacts and be screened out from requiring a detailed VMT analysis. The City of Newport Beach utilizes the OCTA screening tool, which indicates the appropriate VMT values for the Project TAZ as compared to the jurisdictional average and was utilized to determine whether this Project can be screened out based on the low VMT-generating area criteria (lower than 85% of the countywide average VMT). Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen -out under this criteria since it is not located within a low VMT-generating area (TAZ 1405) based on VMT/capita or VMT/employee as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively, of the City of Newport SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide (April 6, 2020). Local Serving OPR provides additional recommendations on when the presumption of less than significant impacts may be appropriate, in addition to the formally recommended screening criteria described above. For instance, in the discussion regarding retail N:\4400\2214470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion, Newport Beach\Report\4470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion VMT Assessment - Newport Beach, 11-22-21.docx Mr. Eddie Torres November 22, 2021 Page 4 projects, the OPR Technical Advisory advises lead agencies that because local serving retail projects tend to improve retail destination proximity, shorten trips, and reduce VMT, they may be presumed to have less than significant impacts. Agencies may choose to define what constitutes local serving retail in their jurisdiction, although OPR suggests a threshold size of 50,000 square feet or less. The City of Newport Beach guidelines indicate that locally serving retail spaces of less than 50,000 SF are considered to have a less than significant impact on transportation/traffic. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen -out under this criteria since the Project is not considered retail. Affordable Housing Units The City of Newport Beach guidelines indicate that Land Use Projects with a high level of affordable housing units, as determined by Community development Department, are considered to have a less than significant impact on transportation/traffic. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen -out under this criteria since the Project is not considered affordable housing. Project Trip Generation The City of Newport Beach guidelines indicate that Land Use Projects that generate a net increase of 300 or less daily trips, utilizing the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual are considered to have a less than significant impact on transportation/traffic. Based on ITE Trip Generation 11 th Edition (2021): ITE Land Use Code 310 — Hotel, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 40 daily trips. Based on the above, the proposed Project will screen -out under this criteria since the Project is forecast to generate less than 300 daily trips. Institutional/Government Land Use The City of Newport Beach guidelines indicate that Institutional/Government and public service uses such as police stations, fire stations, community centers, refuse centers would not require CEQA VMT analysis. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not screen -out under this criteria since the Project is not considered an Institutional/Government or public service use. N:\4400\2214470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion, Newport Beach\Report\4470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion VMT Assessment - Newport Beach, 11-22-21.docx Mr. Eddie Torres November 22, 2021 Page 5 CONCLUSION Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act (March 2020) and City of Newport SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide (April 6, 2020), the proposed Lido House Hotel Expansion Project will result in a less -than -significant transportation/traffic impact based on the City of Newport Beach VMT Transit Priority Area (TPA) [See Figure I] and Trip Generation screening criteria (Projects generating less than 300 daily vehicle trips). * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Technical Memorandum. Should you have any questions regarding the memorandum, please contact us at (949) 825-6175. Attachments Cc: File �/QRofEss�� Li No. 1802 'k Exp6/30/23 9F TRAFFlC F�¢�~Y O� CAS N:\4400\2214470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion, Newport Beach\Report\4470 - Lido House Hotel Expansion VMT Assessment - Newport Beach, 11-22-21.docx 15e, Property manaigemerii gt v - ti 41o'o Wl odys Diner Fable&Sprrit� Bear Flan Fish Company CamF-Iae La Villa ea+ncp 55 swellegant Vintage Herst Ccffez �a3stz C7 7 C 9r I'I Piece Qi Mind - — l J � \ 0 SmnkeShopO r \ ° M-Loan 7chacm shac I �Lidollous�e, IN � 1 Autograph Collection f. I I-l- ao I-. ; . wind. _ .:. - Burr White Rertlsl 410 Vacation HOrrk2 5� 4s I L — — �ysri sfl e nd Anrflor Newport Beach Fire Gray Matter r-r strr Houle I Dept. - Lido Station �2 I� Museum of Art SOCal Cratt Bee? I 4p 1( T35t1l1ef En''. I I 4 -- � �--------- �-- a 32ndSt 32nd St ly Clothing d accessories West Marine 51 7t, Vintagec{ctiIIntore MerinrWPI,3fc" New+por: beach Snack S,yta 9 p TneLighthouseQ � Newport Beach AvedaS3lan 19, Parking Lot HL Sum Biro Alano Glub IN7 rn Wild Taro Villa Pilafes and Trow.ata �Caliiornia s 5ti � Chipetle Mexican Grill rl,eiczri• j j� Mexran • $ P �W{ �1� q`� �b�jL 44a NewpartBeach �� ChinuahuaCesueza9 9 3181St 31`$tSt It?�p Tha Oraglnal Mama 0 Aita Goffee No Rest Foi,Brid.get L':cmrns cl thing stcr� Osltal€IKilcl,e `G aI71FletP servlCES Malarlty'S rrash Puh 9 ken- =i -,rC Halclrer F5 Bakar w9J5 Landscape0 b5� Porrrvi#a. Archilecture Cold Stone Creamery TTT dal _ r2am•s Pavilions .�Rf► c p 3ath St 30th St Minas Pizza Hous= Q m Q Marlienn Cahn (tNO SCALE SOURCE: GOOGLE KEY = PROJECT SITE 3� Lido Park r3 p ATM Lido Park Realty t Mariner's Memcrial onument y a � g aannerySjN al the Paio FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EXPANSION, NEWPORT BEACH SOURCE: GOOGLE KEY FIGURE 2 (tNO F- 7 = PROJECT SITE GREENSPAN SCALE EXISTING SITE AERIAL LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EXPANSION, NEWPORT BEACH NOTE: ADMACCESSIBLE DROP OFF REMAINS UNCHANGED: DFF � ��■r.■��r.�� r, ti'�>w��r� r, ._ ,■irk � �� ;� • -�+ � — � �IL�� C=' L �'ti' �' `� �C.. Cam■ ..0 © ��L'%�� u y � �,+��► 11� � Et � M j�o • ... . � ....,..........;.......mot • ...., SOURCE: WATG INO SCALE FIGURE 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN LIDO HOUSE HOTEL EXPANSION, NEWPORT BEACH City of Laguna Beach � City of Santa Ana ee _ boas ,00 \� I ,I \. i � — ',City of •• • � — —— o �\ Fountain •\ Vallcy Costa Mcsa e � City of \ Costa Mesa e I e m I \ \ o maw —� \ ° `L-, \ City of \\` I lunungtoll ° Bcach o • � — I \\. New ort�� City of Newport Beach �-L.-• ' /i"� � j '� Ile _ ° •%C� -------------------------------- I— - \ �✓ LSA LEGEND O Transportation Center High Quality Transit Areas OCTA Major Bus Routes 0 2000 4000 FEET SOURCE: OCTA (11/2019); SCAG (6/2019) FIGURE 1 SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Implementation Guide Newport Beach Transit Priority Areas I:\CNB1702.02\GIS\MXD\City_NewportBeach.mxd (3/31/2020) STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-76 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 25th day of October, 2022; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Will O'Neill NAYS: None RECUSED: Mayor Pro Tern Noah Blom IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 261h day of October, 2022. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Beach, California