HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-81 - RESCINDED SEE 2016-29: Adopting General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002, and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001, Former City Hall Complex Land Use and Zoning Amendments Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2012-031)RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -81
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2012 -002, AND
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2012 -001, FOR THE
FORMER CITY HALL COMPLEX LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
LOCATED AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32ND STREET
(PA2012 -031)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On April 24, 2012, the City of Newport Beach initiated amendments of the General Plan,
Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code with respect to reuse of the former City Hall
Complex (the "Property "), legally described in Exhibit "A ", located at the northeast corner
of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street at 3300 Newport Boulevard
and 475 32nd Street. The amendments are generally described as follows:
a. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 - The amendment includes a text and
map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the
Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU -H5) and establish density
and intensity limits within Table LU -2 of the Land Use Element by establishing a
new anomaly location.
b. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 - The amendment includes a
text and map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for
the Property with a new mixed -use land use category (MU) and establish density
and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1 -1. The proposed amendment also includes a
change to Policy 4.4.2 -1 to establish the policy basis for higher height limits.
c. Zone Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 - The amendment includes a text and
map change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the
Property with a new zone MU -LV designation (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) to establish
density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment.
Development standards and allowed uses would also be established.
2. An application was filed by R.D. Olson Development ( "Applicant ") with respect to a portion
of the Property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard
and 32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City (3300
Newport Boulevard), requesting approval of a site development review, conditional use
permit, and traffic study for the development and operation of a luxury, 130 -room hotel that
would include, as originally proposed, 99,625 square feet of building area comprised of
guestrooms, public areas, and back of house (operational) areas (the Lido House Hotel).
The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the Project as
proposed:
a. Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001- A site development review application
for the development of a luxury, 130 -room hotel called the "Lido House Hotel' and
all appurtenant facilities including landscaping, parking, and public open space
along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Redevelopment of the Property includes
the demolition of all structures on -site at 3300 Newport Boulevard but no demolition
of Fire Station No. 2 and its appurtenant facilities. The project would include the
provision of necessary utility connections to serve the proposed project and public
improvements fronting the project site along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street.
b. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014 -004 - A Conditional Use Permit for the
operation of the proposed hotel and accessorylancillary uses including the sale of
alcoholic beverages and the establishment of on -site parking management
including the use of valet parking services. Accessory and ancillary uses to the
hotel include, but are not limited to, retail uses, restaurants and bars, meeting
rooms, day spa facilities including massage, and guest recreational areas.
C. Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005 - A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code.
3. Pursuant to Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18, proposed General Plan
amendments are reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required
because a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects in the same Statistical
Area over the prior 10 years) exceeds certain thresholds provided in Section 423 of the
City Charter. The proposed General Plan Amendment is located in Statistical Area B5.
This is the fifth amendment that affects Statistical Area B5 since the General Plan
update in 2006. The four prior amendments are GP 2010 -005, GP 2011 -003, GP 2011-
010, and GP 2012 -005. If the amendment resulted in 99 units or 99,675 square feet of
commercial development as originally proposed, it would exceed applicable thresholds
and a vote of the electorate would be required. If the amendment density and intensity is
reduced to 93 units and 98,725 square feet, a vote would not be required. The following
table shows the increases attributable to the subject amendment and prior amendments
and the totals.
4. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribal
contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of
the proposed General Plan Amendment on October 4, 2012. The City received an
inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative indicated
that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading /construction if it is
determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate
any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources on
the project site. The proposed project site is located within a highly developed area and
has been completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources
6-
AM Peak
Trips
PM Peak
Trips
Dwelling
units
Non - residential floor
area
Prior Amendments (80 %)
49
65
7
16,275
Proposed Amendment
0
0
93
23,725
Total
49
65
100
40,000
Vote
No
No
No
No
4. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribal
contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of
the proposed General Plan Amendment on October 4, 2012. The City received an
inquiry from one tribal representative. The Native American representative indicated
that he could coordinate monitoring services during grading /construction if it is
determined that such monitoring is required. The tribal representative did not indicate
any knowledge of the presence of any significant cultural or archaeological resources on
the project site. The proposed project site is located within a highly developed area and
has been completely disturbed. As such, impacts related to archaeological resources
6-
are not expected to occur. However, in the unlikely event that buried cultural resources
or human remains are discovered during excavation activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-
1 would be implemented requiring an archeologist and Native American Monitor be
present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other
excavation for utilities, and as such, a less than significant impact would occur in this
regard.
5. On April 25, 2013, the City sent a surplus land notice consistent with Government Code
§54222. No entities expressed an interest in acquiring the site for the development of
affordable housing, parks and open space, or schools.
6. On June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, on the DEIR and
Project.
7. On July 17, 2014, the Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a public hearing
for the project. However, to provide the public additional opportunity to review the staff
report, the item was continued to August 7, 2014. The August 7, 2014 was canceled, so
a special meeting was conducted on August 11, 2014.
8. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 11, 2014, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the
time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with
CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC"). The environmental
documents for the Project comprising the DEIR, Final Environmental Impact Report
( "FEIR ") which consists of Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program ( "MMRP "), the draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
(Findings), Errata, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to
and considered by the Planning Commission at these hearings.
9. On August 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1952 by a vote
of 5 -0 recommending certification of the Lido House Hotel Final EIR (Commissioner
Hillgren abstained and Commissioner Kramer absent) (ER2014 -003, SCH
No. 2013111022) the Former City Hall Amendments (PA2012 -031) and Lido House
Hotel (PA2013 -217).
10. On August 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1953 by a vote
of 5 -0 recommending and approval of the Former City Hall Amendments (Commissioner
Hillgren abstained and Commissioner Kramer absent) (PA2012 -031) without a mixed -
use /residential component and approval of the Lido House Hotel (PA2013 -217).
11. The City Council held a public hearing September 9, 2014, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time,
place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and
the NBMC. The environmental documents for the Project comprising the Final EIR,
including the Responses to Comments and Errata (revisions) to the Draft EIR, and the
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written
and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled
hearing, as the decision- making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been
7
completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines
implementing CEQA.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION
The Lido House Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH No. 2013111022)
was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. By Resolution No. 2014-
80, the City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as
complete and adequate the Lido House Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003
(SCH No. 2013111022), and adopted "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ".
Resolution No. 2014 -80 is hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
1. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State
Planning and Zoning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of
such amendments otherwise found to be within the public interest.
2. The site is located in proximity to commercial services, recreational uses, and transit
opportunities with routine bus service provided along Newport Boulevard. The
proposed General Plan Amendment provides for variety of land uses for the site
including a luxury hotel that will to promote revitalization of the Lido Village area while
ensuring neighborhood compatibility. The proposed hotel will serve visitors and
residents and increase access opportunities in the Coastal Zone.
3. The proposed amendment of Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.2 -1 to provide an
exception to the 35 -foot height limit of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is
necessary and appropriate to accommodate the proposed intensity of use, significant
open space on the site and the project's lack of impact to public views. This finding is
based upon the public view impact analysis within Section 5.2 (Aesthetics Light/Glare)
of the Lido House Hotel FEIR showing that there will not be a significant impact to
protected public views from General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designated
vantages. Additionally, there are no public views through the site from abutting
roadways and public spaces.
4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and
hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as shown on the
Exhibit "B ", entitled "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Lido House
Hotel, Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2013111022,
which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
4
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan Amendment
No. GP2012 -002 as depicted in Exhibit "C" and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No.
LC2012 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "D ", which are attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.
2. The Community Development Director is hereby directed to revise all applicable General
Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan figures to reflect the change in the land use designations
upon the effective date of the amendments. Staff is hereby directed to correct any
typographical or scrivener's errors in compiling the final documentation.
3. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the Local
Coastal Program CLUP Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for review and
approval.
4. The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan, including this amendment, shall be
implemented in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act.
5. These actions shall take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission action, unless the
Coastal Commission proposes suggested modifications to the proposed Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment. In the event that the Coastal Commission approves the Amendment with
suggested modifications, City approval of the modified Amendment shall require a separate
action by the City Council following Coastal Commission approval. In this case, the
Amendment would become effective upon the effective date of the Coastal Commission
certification of the modified Amendment.
This Resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 9th of September, 2014.
Rush N. Hill, 11°
Mayor
ATTEST:
a- ht� �i
Leilani I. Brown,
City Clerk
*AM 11:1k iTifil
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:
PARCEL1:
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.
PARCEL2:
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"
j
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 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE
OF SAID ALLEY 220.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 907,
AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 28, PAGES 25 TO 36 INCLUSIVE OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH
89'15'30" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 907 AND SAID LOT 3,
A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE GRIFFITH
COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 15, 1953 IN BOOK 2520, PAGE 577 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 4:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 35, PAGE 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH
0'44'30" WEST 74.46 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT TO THE MOST
SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 40'47'07" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LAND OF GRIFFITH COMPANY, A DISTANCE OF 69.945 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89'15'30" EAST 45.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 0'44'30"
EAST 53.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 5:
LOTS ONE (2) AND TWO (2) IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT
BEACH' AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FACTS AND FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE
FORMER CITY HALL REUSE AMENDMENTS (PA2012 -031) AND
THE LIDO HOUSE HOTEL PROJECT (PA2013 -217)
1.
The California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines (collectively,
CEQA), and in particular, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, require that a public agency consider the
significant adverse environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and
make specific findings. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more
written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall
describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and
project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially
R
lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or
other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
Because, as explained below, all significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to
less than significant levels through adoption of mitigation measures, the City is not
required to also adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093.)
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Lido House
Hotel Project, SCH No. 2013111022 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other
information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts
in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach
(City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be
undertaken by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the
certification and /or approval of the following for the Lido House Hotel:
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH #2013111022)
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002
• Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001.
Y Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003.
• Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001.
• Use Permit No. UP2014 -004.
Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005.
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the project.
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings.
9
(2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary
actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the
project's objectives.
(3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related
to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done
specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the
environmental review for the project.
(4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that
were determined to be —as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP),
and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment
period— either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were
deemed significant for consideration at the project- specific level.
(5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City has determined
are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than
significant level through the imposition of Project Design Features,
standard conditions, and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure
compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project
and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where
potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant
levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard
conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an
acceptable level.
(6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for
the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California 92660. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the
Administrative Record for the project.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
Regionally, the project site is located near the Pacific Ocean in the west - central portion
of Orange County, within the City of Newport Beach. Locally, the project site is
generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and
32nd Street on the Balboa Peninsula in the Lido Village area of the City.
10
Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 55 (SR -55) and SR -1 (Pacific
Coast Highway). The primary local roadways providing access to the site are Newport
Boulevard, 32nd Street, and Finley Avenue.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of the requested legislative approvals (Amendments to
General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code,) for the project site, as well as
related for approvals of a, Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Traffic
Study. In order to allow for the development of a 130 -room hotel on the project site,
amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are required to change
the project site land use designation to a "Mixed -Use Horizontal' designation, which
allows for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations,
residential, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a
community center, public plazas, a fire station, and /or public parking. Subsequent
permits include a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including
• Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014 -003 (SCH#
2013111022). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended
(Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA
Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Sections 15000 et seq.).
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002: To allow the proposed 130 -
room hotel development by changing the land use designation of the site from
Public Facilities (PF) to a new mixed -use land use category, Mixed -Use
Horizontal 5 (MU -115), and establish density and intensity limits within Land
Use Element Table LU2, Anomaly Locations, by establishing a new anomaly
location. The MU -H5 designation provides for the horizontal or vertical
intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential, and /or civic
uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a community center,
public plazas, a fire station, and /or public parking. Approval of the General
Plan Amendment will result in the creation of a new Anomaly Location within
Table LU -2; as indicated below, and amend the Land Use Map to reflect the
MU -H5 land use designation for the project site.
11
Table LU2
Anomaly Locations
Andi»aly
Nttthber
statistical.
Area;
Land use
Desjgnatiwr
DevelOrnent
tlmit'(0
D e►�pm ntt mit .
(other)
' Ad it+orr trrf«r[natiott
85
35
MU -H5
93 dwelling
neighborhood or visitor- serving
Accessory commercial
commercial, commercial offices, visitor
units and
accommodations, multi - family
floor area is allowed in
residential, mixed use development,
15,000 sf
and/or civic uses.
conjunction with a hotel
commercial
and it is included within
or 98,725 sf
the hotel floor area limit.
hotel
Municipal facilities are
not restricted or included
in any development limit.
• Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001: allow the
development of a 130 -room hotel by changing the land use designation of the
site from Public Facilities (PF) to a new Mixed -Use (MU) land use category,
and establish density and intensity limits within Table 2.1.1 -1. The proposed
amendment also includes a change to Policy 4.4.2 -1 to establish the policy
basis for higher height limits, as described below.
Table 2.1.1 -1
Land Use Plan Categories
—Mu
The MU category is intended to provide
93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf of
for the development of a mix of uses,
commercial
which may include general,
neighborhood or visitor- serving
or
commercial, commercial offices, visitor
accommodations, multi - family
98,725 sf of hotel
residential, mixed use development,
and/or civic uses.
Municipal facilities are not restricted or
In order to establish a higher height limit, CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -1 is also
proposed to be amended as reflected below:
4.4.2 -1 Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height
Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3, except for
the following site aft 9s.
.
A. Marina Park located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard: A
single, up to 73 -foot tall architectural tower that does not
include floor area but could house screened
communications or emergency equipment. The
additional height would create an iconic landmark for the
12
public to identify the site from land and water and a
visual focal point to enhance public views from
surrounding vantages.
B. Back Bay Landing at East Coast Highway /Bayside
Drive: A single, up to 65- foot -tall coastal public view
tower, that will be ADA- compliant and publicly
accessible, to provide new coastal and Upper Newport
Bay view opportunities where existing views are
impacted by the East Coast Highway Bridge, other
existing structures and topography.'
• Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003: To amend the Zoning Map of the
Zoning Code to replace the existing PF zoning designation for the site with a
new zone MU -LV designation (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) to establish density
and intensity limits consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Development standards and allowed uses would also be established.
Approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will result in the creation of the
following new mixed -use zoning district:
MU -LV (Mixed Use — Lido Village)
Purpose: The MU -LV designation applies to the former City Hall Complex
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard
and 32nd Street. The MU -LV designation provides for the horizontal or
vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor accommodations, residential,
Subsection B related to the Back Bay Landing site was adopted by the City Council on February 11, 2014, by
Resolution No. 2014 -12 but has not been certified (approved) by the California Coastal Commission as of June
2014.
13
and/or civic uses. Civic uses may include a community center, public
plazas, fire station, and /or public parking.
Allowed Uses: Retail commercial offices (non - medical), visitor
accommodations, multi -unit residential, community center, fire station,
public parking facility.
Maximum density /intensity: 93 dwelling units and 15,000 sf commercial or
98,725 sf of hotel. Municipal facilities are not restricted or included in any
development limit.
Structure height: 55 feet; however, peaks of sloping roofs and elevator
towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet and architectural features such
as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar structures may exceed 55
feet by 10 feet.
Building setbacks:
Newport Boulevard
Subterranean'
1 foot
15t and 2nd floor2
20 feet
Above 2nd floor3
35 feet
32nd Street
Subterranean'
1 foot
1st and 2nd floor2
1 foot
Above 2nd floor3
10 feet
Interior
Subterranean'
1 foot
Above grade
1 5 feet
i Not more than 1 foot above abutting public sidewalk.
21 -26 feet above abutting public sidewalk.
3 More than 26 feet above abutting public sidewalk.
Open Space: 20% of the project site to be maintained as public open
space (e.g., public plazas, pedestrian promenades, outdoor recreational
spaces, patios, landscaping, etc.).
Parking and other development standards: Subject to Zoning Code
Development Review Process: Consistent with the Zoning Code — Site
Development Review (SDR) or Planned Development Permit (PDP).
• Site Development Review No. SD2014 -001 & Use Permit No. UP2014-
004: These applications would authorize the construction and operation of a
luxury, 130 -room hotel. The plan includes a open space along the Newport
Boulevard and 32nd Street frontages and changes to 32 "d Street including the
modification of on- street parking between Newport boulevard and Via Oporto.
• Traffic Study No. TS2014 -005: A project- specific Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) has been prepared for the proposed 130 -room hotel development
pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
14
The Final EIR identified all the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts of the Project to the public, responsible agencies,
trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals
and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project
implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB
would approve the project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit
(2009- 0009 -DWQ) and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4)
permit.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Future
construction of the project would include demolition and construction requiring
permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance
odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 1113 (architectural coatings), 1403 (asbestos
emissions from demolition), and for future operation of the project, 1186
(street sweeping).
• California Coastal Commission (CCC). The Coastal Commission will review
the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan amendment for consistency with the
California Coastal Act. After a certification the proposed amendment as
consistent with the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission would review a
Coastal Development Permit application for the development and operation of
the proposed Lido House Hotel.
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final EIR is
provided as follows:
1. Enhance Newport Beach and Lido Village by creating a highly visible, iconic
development with distinctive architecture, significant landscaped areas, and
focal points to serve as a gateway to the Balboa Peninsula.
2. Help implement the City's goal to revitalize Lido Village by creating a
catalytic development consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines that
enhances economic activity and contributes to Newport Beach's reputation
as a premier destination for shopping and recreation.
3. Create a pedestrian oriented development that is physically well- connected
to the community while not significantly increasing traffic to the site when
compared to the prior use of the site.
4. Provide and enhance public access to the property by creating publicaily
accessible open space and visitor accommodations.
1161
5. Provide needed services to residents and visitors including visitor
accommodations, recreational, personal services, shopping, dining, and
assembly opportunities.
6. Create a premier boutique hotel that is a financially viable operation.
7. Create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated April
28, 2014, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45 -day
public review period, written responses to those comments, clarifications /changes to the
Final EIR, an Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive
environmental review of the Lido House Hotel project:
Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day
public review period from November 6, 2013, through December 5, 2013. The
NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of
Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office and
on the City's website on November 6, 2013.
During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional
suggestions on the content of the Lido House Hotel EIR. Attendees were
provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should
be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on Wednesday,
November 20, 2013, at the City of Newport Beach former City Council
Chambers, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 9266.
Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45 -day
public review period (April 29, 2014 to June 13, 2014). The Draft EIR consisted of
analysis of the Lido House Hotel project and the technical appendices. On April
25, 2014, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was mailed to property
owners and occupants within 450 -feet of the project site. The NOA was also sent
to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion
(NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to
public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's
office on April 29, 2014. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public
review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department,
Newport Beach Central Branch Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library,
Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and Newport Beach Corona del Mar
Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for download via the City's website:
hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/eir.
16
• Preparation of a Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR,
responses to those comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
appended documents. The preliminary Response to Comments were provided
to the City Planning Commissioners on July 11, 2014, and posted on the City's
website.
• The Planning Commission held a study session on the Project on June 5, 2014,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A public hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2014, but to allow the
public additional opportunity to review the staff report, the hearing was continued
to August 7, 2014. The August 7, 2014 was canceled, so a special meeting was
conducted on August 11, 2014. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the public
hearing were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Draft Final
EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and
considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. Notice for this public
hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a
minimum of 450 feet of the project site and to all interested persons, agencies
and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in
advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item
appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on
the City website.
• In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City provided written Responses to
Comments to public agencies on July 21, 2014, at least 10 days prior to certifying
the Final EIR.
• The City Council held a public hearing on September 9, 2014, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in
accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence,
both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at
this hearing. Notice for the meeting was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all
property owners within a minimum 450 feet of the project site and to all interested
persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of
10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted
at City Hall and on the City website.
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
• All project application materials submitted to the City by the Applicant and its
representatives;
• NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
proposed project;
a The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30 -day NOP period;
17
• The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to
Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all
supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, or other
materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR;
• Written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the
45 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
• All responses to the written comments submitted by agencies and members of
the public provided at the Planning Commission meeting on July 17, 2014,
Planning Commission public hearing on August 11, 2014, and City Council public
hearing on September 9, 2014;
• The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the Planning
Commission meeting on July 17, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing on
August 11, 2014, and City Council public hearing on September 9, 2014;
• All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the project;
• All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other
planning documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR
prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee
Agencies.
• The MMRP adopted by the City for the project; the Ordinances and Resolutions
adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project; and all documents
incorporated by reference therein;
• These Findings of Fact adopted by the City for the project, any documents
expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport
Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant
The following impacts were evaluated in the EIR and determined to be less than
significant solely through adherence to the project design and standard conditions of the
City of Newport Beach.
Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments
received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or
identified by the City indicating that the project would have an impact on the following
environmental areas:
(a) Aesthetic /Light and Glare: The project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on scenic vistas, or substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
scenic highway.
(b) Air Quality: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
(c) Biological Resources: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any special status species, sensitive natural community, federally protected
wetlands, or conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.
(d) Cultural Resources: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource, or disturb any human remains.
(e) Geology and Soils: The project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake
fault, and would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, and would
not conflict with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; create a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area as a result on
being within a private airstrip or an airport land use plan; interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; or expose people or structures
to wildland fires.
(h) Hydrology and Water Quality., The project would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge; alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site that would result in substantial soil erosion or
flooding; create runoff water that would exceed the existing or planned capacity
of the stormwater drainage systems; place housing within a 100 -year floodplain;
expose people or structures to injury or death from flooding; or result in
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
(i) Land Use and Planning: The project would not divide an established community,
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the City's General Plan
and Local Coastal Program CLOP, SCAG regional plans, Airport Environs Land
Use Plan, the California Coastal Act, or the City's Municipal Code) adopted for
19
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, or conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
(j) Noise: Project implementation would not generate excessive vibration levels to
nearby sensitive receptors, result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels, or expose people residing /working in the project area to excessive
noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan.
(k) Population and Housing: The project would not result in substantial increase in
population or housing.
(1) Public Services and Utilities: The project would not create significant impacts
related to fire protection, police protection, parks /recreation, schools, or library
services. In addition, the project would meet the City's parkland dedication
requirements, and physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be
significant. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or
require the construction of new stormwater drainage /water /wastewater treatment
facilities, and would have sufficient water supplies to serve the project. Lastly,
the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs, and would comply with
Federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste.
(m) Transportation and Traffic: The project- generated traffic would not conflict with an
applicable congestion management program, result in a change in air traffic
patterns, substantially increases hazards due to a design feature, result in
inadequate emergency access, or conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Project implementation would close one existing vehicular
access point to Via Lido Plaza shopping center from 32nd Street. Lido Partners,
the owner of Via Lido Plaza, provided comments on the EIR indicating that
closing the access will negatively impact delivery truck and fire access. Two
comment letters were received from Lido Partners and written responses were
prepared and were included in the Final EIR. These comments and responses
and information presented by staff were considered by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The request to close through traffic to Via Lido Plaza at this
location is based on the applicant's need for efficient operation of the hotel's valet
parking lot and to avoid losing parking spaces. The issue of delivery truck access
and fire access was extensively evaluated and based upon the information in the
record (Draft EIR, Final EIR and information presented by staff during the
hearings); no significant impact to Via Lido Plaza or the community would result
with the project closing vehicle access from 32nd Street to Via Lido Plaza and no
mitigation measures necessary and further consideration of project alternatives
are not warranted.
5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
20
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR,
and the effects of the project were considered. As a result of environmental analysis of
the project and the identification of project design features; compliance with existing
laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures
(together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), all of the potentially significant
adverse impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than
significant, and the City has found —in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) —that "Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has
determined — pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(2) —that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted
by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2."
A. Aesthetics /Light and Glare
(1) Potential Impact: Project construction activities could temporarily degrade the
visual character /quality of the site and its surroundings.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce visual character /quality impacts
from project construction activities to less than significant levels. The City hereby
makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AES -1 requires action to be taken prior to construction
activities in order to avoid adverse visual impacts from the stockpiling of
materials, construction traffic, and vehicle staging areas. Therefore, visual
character /quality impacts from construction activities would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES -1: Prior to issuance of any grading and /or demolition
permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development. The Construction Management Plan
shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging
areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with
opaque material), and haul route(s). Staging areas shall be sited
and /or screened in order to minimize public views to the maximum
extent practicable. Construction haul routes shall minimize impacts
to sensitive uses in the City.
ON
(2) Potential Impact: Project implementation could degrade the visual
character /quality of the site and its surroundings.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce long -term visual character /quality
impacts from the proposed project to less than significant levels. The City hereby
makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than
significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AES -2 requires action to be taken prior to construction
activities in order to avoid adverse long -term visual impacts from the proposed
Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette. Therefore, long -term visual
character /quality impacts from project implementation would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES -2: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for
new construction, the Landscape Concept Plan and Plant Palette
shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval. Landscaping shall complement the proposed
site design and surrounding streetscape and must also be
consistent with the Lido Village Design Guidelines.
(3) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could generate
additional light and glare beyond existing conditions.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce light and glare impacts from the
proposed project to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1
and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AES -3 requires action to be taken prior to construction
activities in order to avoid adverse visual impacts from light and glare from the
proposed project. Therefore, light and glare impacts from project implementation
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES -3: All construction - related lighting shall be located and
aimed away from adjacent residential areas and consist of the
minimal wattage necessary to provide safety and security at the
construction site. A Construction Safety Lighting Plan shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of the grading or building permit application.
22
B. Air Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Short -term construction activities associated with the proposed
project could result in air pollutant emission impacts or expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts related to short -term
construction air emissions to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes
Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure AQ -1 requires one or more actions to be taken prior to and
during construction activities in order to avoid adverse air quality emission
impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ -2 requires action to be taken prior to
construction activities to reduce impacts from fugitive dust from the hauling of
excavated or graded material. Therefore, short -term construction air quality
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the
Community Development Department shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that, in
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust
prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and
Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive
dust from creating a nuisance off -site. Implementation of the
following measures would reduce short -term fugitive dust impacts
on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be watered
every three hours during daily construction activities and
when dust is observed migrating from the project site to
prevent excessive amounts of dust;
• Pave or apply water every three hours during daily
construction activities or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed
migrating from the site during site disturbance;
23
• 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;
• All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently
watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust prior to departing the job site; and
• Trucks associated with soil - hauling activities shall avoid
residential streets and utilize City- designated truck routes to
the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure AQ -2: All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded
material on -site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section
23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special attention to
Sections 23114(b)(F) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the
prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall
coordinate with the Community Development Department on
hauling activities compliance.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time;
however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the
project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review,
tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process.
C. Biological Resources
24
(1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could interfere with
the movement of a native resident or migratory species.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure BIO -1 requires all vegetation removal activities to be
scheduled outside of the nesting season to avoid potential impacts to nesting
birds; however, if vegetation removal is to occur during the nesting season, a
survey for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist would be
required. Further action is required if active nests are found on -site during
nesting season. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures BIO -1 would
reduce potential impacts to migratory birds to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO -1: To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal
activities shall be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically
February 15 to August 15) to avoid potential impacts to nesting
birds. However, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the
nesting season, all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for
the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to
commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a
buffer of at least 300 feet for raptors shall be delineated, flagged,
and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by
the City.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction
process.
(2) Potential Impact: The project could conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
25
Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires the City to locate an existing Ficus benjamina
tree or other suitable tree into a City park and dedicate the tree in the name of
William Lawrence "Billy" Covert. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 requires the City shall
to an existing tree in a very prominent location within a City park or at the new
Civic Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. Mitigation Measure BIO -4
requires the City to locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the
name of Walter and Cordelia Knott, and locate an existing tree in a prominent
location within a City park or at the new Civic Center and dedicate it in honor of
the State of California. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures BIO -2
through BI04 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: The City shall locate an existing Ficus benjamina
tree or other suitable tree into a City park and dedicate the tree in
the name of William Lawrence "Billy" Covert. Should an
appropriate tree not be found, the City shall attempt to transplant
the existing tree or plant a new tree of the same variety at an
appropriate location. The re- dedicated tree shall have a permanent
marker or plaque. Every effort shall be made to involve the Covert
family in this process.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Because the Freedom Tree also cannot be
effectively transplanted, the City shall locate an existing tree in a
very prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic
Center and dedicate it as The Freedom Tree. An appropriate
permanent marker or plaque shall be provided and the dedication
should be accomplished with community and veterans groups'
participation.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-4: Because the Walter Knott Tree and the California
Bicentennial Tree cannot be effectively transplanted, the City shall
locate an existing tree within a City park and dedicate it in the name
of Walter and Cordelia Knott. The City shall also locate an existing
tree in a prominent location within a City park or at the new Civic
Center and dedicate it in honor of the State of California. The
re- dedicated trees shall have permanent markers and every effort
shall be made to involve the Knott family and the community in the
process.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
PR
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction
process.
D. Cultural Resources
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant impact to
unknown archaeological resources that could occur on -site.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure CUL -1 requires a professional archaeologist and a Native
American Monitor to be retained to monitor ground- disturbing activities,
determine potential to disturb cultural resources, and halt construction activities if
necessary. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would
reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CULA: An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor
appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall be present during
earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and
other excavation for utilities. If any earth removal or disturbance
activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the Project
proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or
disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City
selected archaeologist and /or Native American Monitor, who shall
immediately notify the Director of Community Development. The
City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural
findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of
the City of Newport Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other
applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American
Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and
data /artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would
apply to the proposed project:
• The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified
archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to
establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and
recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been
27
prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of
the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above.
(2) Potential Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant impact to
unknown paleontological resources that could occur on -site.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure CUL -2 requires an Orange County Certified Paleontologist to
be appointed by the City of Newport Beach, and to prepare a Paleontological
Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior to earth removal or
disturbance activities at the project site. The requirements set forth in Mitigation
Measure CUL -2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: An Orange County Certified Paleontologist
appointed by the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a
Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program prior
to earth removal or disturbance activities at the project site. The
City selected paleontologist shall be present during earth removal
or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other
excavation for utilities. Paleontological monitoring shall include
inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within
sensitive geologic sediments. If any earth removal or disturbance
activities result in the discovery of paleontological resources, the
Project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or
disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City
selected paleontologist who shall immediately notify the Community
Development Director. The City selected paleontologist shall
evaluate all potential paleontological findings in accordance with
the Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Program
Monitoring, standard practice, the requirements of the City of
Newport Beach Historic Resources Element, and other applicable
regulations. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the City selected
paleontologist shall prepare a Final Monitoring and Mitigation
Report to be filed with the City and the repository to include, but not
be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and
monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils
collected (including an assessment of their significance, age,
geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a
confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality
maps and photographs, and an appendix of curation agreements
and other appropriate communications.
0
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would
apply to the proposed project:
• The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified
archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to
establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and
recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been
prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of
the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above.
E. Geology and Soils
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed project may expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
(2) Potential Impact: The proposed project may expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismically induced
liquefaction and settlement.
(3) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project could be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project.
(4) Potential Impact: The proposed project may be located on expansive soil
creating substantial risks to life or property.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that these impacts
are less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation
measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California region and
proximity to active and potentially active faults, the project site would be likely to
be subject to significant ground motion, strong seismic ground shaking, and a
moderate potential for liquefaction due to seismic - induced settlement. Mitigation
Measure GEO -1 requires that all grading operations and construction associated
with the proposed project be conducted in conformance with the
recommendations included in the geotechnical investigation for the project, and
the City of Newport Beach and California Building Codes. In addition, the
geotechnical investigation provides recommendations to reduce impacts from
compressibility /static settlement, and expansive soils to less than significant
levels. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would ensure that risks
associated with strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, unstable geologic
W
units, and expansive soils are reduced to acceptable levels. As such, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO -1: All grading operations and construction shall
be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included
in the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by
GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013)
(included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by
reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and
construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the
California Building Code applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of
the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written
report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building
Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction
process.
(5) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project could encounter
corrosive soils potentially resulting in damage to foundations and buried
pipelines.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that these impacts
are less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation
measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, the soils on -site
would be very mildly corrosive to ferrous metals and possess a negligible sulfate
exposure to concrete. Consequently, metals structures in contact with the soil
may be subject to slight corrosion. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 provides
recommendations for reducing corrosion potential due to soil and groundwater.
Mitigation Measure GEO -2 requires a corrosion engineer to be consulted during
preparation of the Final Soils /Geotechnical Engineering Report for the project.
30
Compliance with Mitigation Measures GEO -1 and GEO -2 would reduce potential
impacts associated with corrosive soils to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO -1: All grading operations and construction shall be
conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in
the geotechnical report for the proposed project site prepared by
GMU Geotechnical, Inc., titled Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Lido House Hotel — City Hall Site Reuse Project, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California (December 4, 2013)
(included in Appendix 11.6 of this EIR and incorporated by
reference into this mitigation measure). Design, grading, and
construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the
California Building Code applicable at the time of grading,
appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of
the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written
report, subject to review by the City of Newport Beach Building
Official or designee prior to commencement of grading activities.
Mitigation Measure GEO -2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of
Newport Beach Building Official or designee shall verify that the
City has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to
provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may
come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include
the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion
protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the
use of protective coatings, and /or cathodic protection. Additional
site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible
presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be
performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and
enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during
grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant
and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this
time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to
the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction
process.
31
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the
public or environment through accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 through HAZ -5 address known and potential
hazardous materials conditions on the project site, and would require future
characterization and remediation of hazardous materials that may exist on the
property. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce risks
associated with on -site hazardous materials to an acceptable level. Impacts,
therefore, would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey
shall be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal /OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the
presence or absence of asbestos containing - materials (ACMs). If
ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior
to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne
asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State
certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
1403.
Mitigation Measure HAZ -2: If paint is separated from building materials
(chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the
paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building
material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead -based
paint is found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead
Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume
hazard. Lead -based paint removal and disposal shall be performed
in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section
1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and
respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by
workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead -based paint
removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City
Engineer.
WA
Mitigation Measure HAZ -3: Any transformers to be removed or relocated
during grading /construction activities shall be evaluated under the
purview of the local utility purveyor (Southern California Edison) in
order to confirm or deny the presence of PCBs. In the event that
PCBs are identified, the local utility purveyor shall identify proper
handling procedures regarding potential PCBs.
Mitigation Measure HAZ -4: The Contractor shall verify that all imported soils,
and on -site soils proposed for fill, are not contaminated with
hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds in consultation
with a Phase II /Site Characterization Specialist. If soils are
determined to be contaminated above regulatory thresholds, these
soils shall not be used as fill material within the boundaries of the
project site, unless otherwise specified by a regulatory agency that
has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup (e.g.,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Orange County Health Care Agency, etc.).
Mitigation Measure HAZ -5: If unknown wastes or suspect materials are
discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed
to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor shall
comply with the following:
• Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected
contaminant, and remove workers and the public from the
area;
• Notify the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach;
• Secure the area as directed by the Building Official; and
• Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous
Materials Division's Hazardous Waste /Materials Coordinator
(or other appropriate agency specified by the Community
Development Director). The Hazardous Waste /Materials
Coordinator shall advise the responsible party of further
actions that shall be taken, if required.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to existing hazardous materials contamination that are applicable to the
proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of
approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary
approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design,
and /or construction process.
33
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Grading, excavation, and construction activities associated
with the proposed project could impact water quality.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities for the proposed project could generate soil erosion as
well as on- and off -site transport via storm run -off or mechanical equipment.
Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or
other vehicle - related fluids on the project site could create stormwater pollution
and soil contamination impacts. Mitigation Measures HWQ -1 and HWQ -2
require the project to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent, and a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the State Water Resources Board,
respectively. Mitigation Measure HWQ -3 requires the project applicant to submit
a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the SWRCB upon completion of project
construction. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to water quality from short -term construction activities acceptable levels.
Impacts, therefore, would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HWQ -1: Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as part of the
project's compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of
Intent (NOI) shall be prepared and submitted to the State Water
Resources Quality Control Board ( SWRCB), providing notification
and intent to comply with the State of California General Permit.
Mitigation Measure HWQ -2: The proposed project shall conform to the
requirements of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) (to be applied for during the Grading Plan process)
and the NPDES Permit for General Construction Activities No.
CAS000002, Order No, 2009 - 0009 -DWQ, including implementation
of all recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs), as
approved by the State Water Resources Quality Control Board
( SWRCB).
Mitigation Measure HWQ -3: Upon completion of project construction, the
project applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the
State Water Resources Quality Control Board ( SWRCB) to indicate
that construction is completed.
34
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed project
at this time; however, future project - specific conditions of approval may be
applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site
development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or
construction process.
(2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result
in increased run -off amounts and degraded water quality.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project site would likely experience pollutant generation due to the proposed
land uses, potentially increasing the generation of suspended solids /sediments,
nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic
compounds, and trash and debris. Due to the fact that the Lower Newport Bay is
listed on the 303(d) fist for chlordane, copper, DDT, indicator bacteria, nutrients,
PCBs, pesticides, and sediment toxicity, and has a TMDL for metals, nutrients,
pathogens, pesticides, priority organics, and siltation, the proposed development
could have a significant adverse impact to storm water quality. Mitigation
Measure HWQ -4 requires the project applicant to submit a Final Water Quality
Management Plan to ensure long -term operational water quality impacts form the
proposed project are mitigated to acceptable levels. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of the applicable mitigation
measures.
Mitigation Measure HWQ -4: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan for
approval by the Building Official that complies with the
requirements of the latest Orange County Public Works Drainage
Area Management Plan.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed project
at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be
applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site
development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or
construction process.
35
H. Noise
(3) Potential Impact: Grading and construction within the area could result in
significant temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receivers.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could temporarily
increase noise levels in the project vicinity and along nearby roadways.
Mitigation Measure N -1 would reduce short -term construction noise impacts by
requiring mobile equipment to be muffled and requiring best management
practices for hauling activities. Mitigation Measure N -1 would also implement the
City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, requiring construction activities to be
conducted during the City's allowable construction hours. With implementation of
applicable mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure N -1: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building
Permit for new construction, Community Development Department
shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications stipulate that:
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other
State required noise attenuation devices.
• The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance
Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. When a complaint is received, the
Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 -hours of
the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint
(e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement
reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed
acceptable by the City Development Services Department.
The contact name and the telephone number for the
Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on -site.
• When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to
avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent
homes, etc.).
36
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall
be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receivers.
• Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place
outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal
Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction
is prohibited on Sundays and /or federal holidays).
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would
apply to the proposed project:
• The project must comply with the exterior noise standards for
residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The exterior noise level
standard is 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM
and 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. An
acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that
demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise
Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to
the Community Development Department as part of the Site
Development Review permit application for each residential
structure. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards,
additional mitigation shall be required, which may include the
installation of additional sound attenuation devices as
recommended by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of
the Community Development Director.
• The operator of the proposed commercial uses shall be responsible
for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including,
but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service
operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the
proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26
and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no
more than noise limits specified in Table 5.10 -3 for the specified
time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher.
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent
properties and adjacent public streets for each residential structure,
as authorized by a Site Development Review permit, and shall be
sound - attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
37
• The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound -
Amplifying Equipment requires a permit for use of any sound -
amplifying equipment and regulates the volume so sound -
amplifying equipment is not a nuisance to persons. The use of
sound - amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the
hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM.
I. Transportation and Traffic
(1) Potential Impact: Project construction would not cause a significant increase in
traffic for existing conditions when compared to the traffic capacity of the street
system.
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate
traffic as a result of equipment being transported to the site and vehicular traffic
related to construction works and delivery of materials to the project site.
Construction related trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and
from the project site may result in minor traffic delays within the project area.
Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would require implementation of a construction
management plan, consisting of a variety of measures to minimize traffic and
parking impacts upon the local circulation system. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure TRA -1 would reduce potential short -term traffic impacts from project
construction to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRA -1: Prior to Issuance of any grading and /or demolition
permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Department/City Traffic Engineer. The Construction
Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following:
• Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption
to traffic circulation.
• Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the
delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping,
windows, etc.), to access the site, traffic controls and detours,
and proposed construction phasing plan for the project.
IN
• 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.
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to project construction traffic that are applicable to the proposed project at
this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied
to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development
review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction
process.
(2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the project would not conflict with the
requirements of Newport Beach municipal code chapter 20.40, off - street parking.
39
Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact
would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Facts in Support of Finding
Mitigation Measure TRA -2 requires the implementation of a Parking Management
Plan that would include restricted parking, time limit parking, parking guide
signage, and addresses staff parking to ensure that parking is managed on -site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would reduce potential impacts
associated with parking supply during peak demand to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRA -2: Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the
applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan for review and
approval by the Community Development Department. The
Parking Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the
following and be implemented at all times:
• Restrict all on -site parking spaces to either a time limit or a
valet parking arrangement.
• Restrict access to on -site parking areas (with the exception of
visitor parking by the hotel lobby) to either valet staff, or guests
and visitors only through a manned gate, a gate with intercom
access, or a gate that reads the room keys.
• Restrict parking for in- demand parking spaces by time limits.
The time limit should apply from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday
through Friday.
• Post signs at locations where motorists can be redirected from
curb parking or desirable parking areas to convenient off -
street lots and structures.
• Encourage on -site employee parking by providing free parking
on -site or providing incentives for using alternative modes of
transportation, such as providing free or discounted bus
passes; an employee bike rack, entering employees who take
the bus, carpool, walk, or ride a bicycle in a monthly raffle;
providing a monthly stipend for bicycle commuting; providing
carpool parking spaces, or other incentives.
IM
City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions
There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval
related to parking that are applicable to the proposed project at this time;
however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the
project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review,
tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process.
6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping /Project
Planning Process
In addition to the guidance cited above regarding purpose and contents of an analysis
of alternatives to a proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that
an EIR should identify alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as
infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. According to the CEQA
Guidelines, the following factors may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
consideration: the alternative's failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, the
alternative's infeasibility, or the alternative's inability to avoid significant environmental
impacts. One alternative that has been considered and rejected as infeasible is
discussed below.
• One alternative that has been considered and rejected as infeasible is the
Alternative Location Alternative. The project site is available for development
because it is a vacant and underutilized site within the City of Newport Beach.
It is unlikely that the Applicant would be able to acquire another property
within the City on which to develop a project of similar size and scale to that
currently proposed. In addition, no significant and unavoidable impacts have
been identified to be associated with the proposed project. Therefore,
considering development of the project at an alternative location would serve
no purpose. Furthermore, it is a key objective of the proposed project, and a
key aspect of its design, to enhance the Lido Village area. As such, this
alternative has been rejected from further consideration by the City.
B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis
Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives, in addition to the
required No Project Alternative, were determined to represent a reasonable range of
alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and
have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects
of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.
• No Proi.ect/No Build Alternative
• No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative
41
• Reduced Density Alternative
• Mixed Use Alternative
An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No
Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to
identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated.
Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and
determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant
and unavoidable impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an
alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. However, no
impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable after the
imposition of mitigation. Subsection 7.4 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR
identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
The proposed project is analyzed in detail in Chapter 7 of the DEIR.
1. Alternatives Comparison
Table 1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the
Proposed Project, below, provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts
associated with the project with the impacts of each of the proposed alternatives.
Table 1
Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project
EF
Alternative 2:
No ProjectlExisting
Alternative 1:
General Plan Land
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4
Project Impact
No Project/No Build
Use Designation
Reduced Density
Mixed use
Aesthetics /Light
Less Than Significant
Less
Less
Similar
Similar
and Glare
with Mitigation
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Air Quality
y
ess Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Less
(Less Than
Less
(Less Than
Greater (Potentially
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant Impact)
Biological
Less Than Significant
Less
Similar
Similar
Similar
Resources
with Mitigation
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Cultural
Less Than Significant
Less
Similar
Similar
Similar
Resources
with Mitigation
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Geology and
Less Than Significant
Less
Similar
Similar
Similar
Soils
with Mitigation
g
(Less Than
(Less Than
( Less Than
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
g )
Signifcant)
Significant)
Greenhouse Gas
Less
Less
Less
Emissions
Less Than Significant
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
Greater (Potentially
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant Impact)
EF
a) No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build
Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the
circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of
the CEQA Guidelines states that, "in certain instances, the No Project/No Build
Alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained."
Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative
(Alternative 1) assumes that no new development would occur within the project site.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would retain the project site in its current condition.
With this Alternative, the City Hall Complex would remain vacant and unimproved
although the City would likely continue very limited use of existing buildings suitable of
occupancy. The existing 60,600 square feet of administration /office floor area would not
be removed. The existing landscaping would be retained and maintained. Public open
spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities would not
be constructed along Newport Boulevard or 32nd Street. None of the improvements as
part of the Lido House Hotel would be constructed. Under the No Project/No Build
Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP categories would not be amended.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/No Build Alternative's
environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project is set forth in Subsection
7.1.1 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by
reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No
Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air
43
Alternative 2:
No Project/Existing
Alternative t:
General Plan Land
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4
Project Impact
No Project/No Build
Use Designation
Reduced Density
Mixed use
Hazards and
Hazardous
Less Than Significant
Less
Simila
( Less Than r
Similar
Similar
Materials
with Mitigation
(Less Than
Significant)
(Less Than
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Hydrology and
Less Than Significant
Greater (Potentially
Similar
Similar
Similar
Water Quality
with Mitigation
Significant Impact)
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Land Use and
Less
Less
Similar
Similar
Relevant
Less Than Significant
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
(Less Than
Planning
Significant)
9 )
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Noise
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Less
( Less Than
Similar
(Less Than
Greater (Potentially
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant Impact)
Public Services
and Utilities
Less Than Significant
Less
(Less Than
Similar
(Less Than
Similar
(Less Than
Similar
(Less Than
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Traffic and
Circulation
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less
(Less Than
Similar
(Less Than
Less
(Less Than
Greater (Potentially
Significant)
Significant)
Significant)
Significant Impact)
a) No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build
Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the
circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of
the CEQA Guidelines states that, "in certain instances, the No Project/No Build
Alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained."
Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative
(Alternative 1) assumes that no new development would occur within the project site.
The No Project/No Build Alternative would retain the project site in its current condition.
With this Alternative, the City Hall Complex would remain vacant and unimproved
although the City would likely continue very limited use of existing buildings suitable of
occupancy. The existing 60,600 square feet of administration /office floor area would not
be removed. The existing landscaping would be retained and maintained. Public open
spaces consisting of pedestrian plazas, landscape areas, and other amenities would not
be constructed along Newport Boulevard or 32nd Street. None of the improvements as
part of the Lido House Hotel would be constructed. Under the No Project/No Build
Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP categories would not be amended.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/No Build Alternative's
environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project is set forth in Subsection
7.1.1 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by
reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No
Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air
43
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and relevant planning, noise,
public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation. Water quality impacts under this
Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. Overall, the No Project/No Build
Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Development Alternative would not
attain any of the project's basic objectives. An iconic development that would revitalize
the Lido Village and create a pedestrian oriented development would not be
constructed. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open
space, and visitor accommodations for visitor and residents of Newport Beach would
not be provided on the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would also not
create City revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax.
Feasibility: Since the No Project/No Build Alternative would allow the existing City Hall
Complex to remain vacant and unimproved, the feasibility of this Alternative would rely
on the economic feasibility of indefinite operation of these uses. No changes to the
existing conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely.
Finding: In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative
would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and
hazardous materials, land use and relevant planning, noise, public services and utilities,
and traffic and circulation. Water quality impacts under this Alternative would be greater
than the proposed project. This alternative would fail to fully meet any of the project
objectives. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have fewer environmental
impacts than the proposed project, making it the environmentally superior alternative.
However, since the No Project /No Build Alternative fails to meet any of the project
objectives, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed project.
b) No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Alternative
Description: The "No Project/Existing General Plan Land use Designation" Alternative
proposes development of what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on the property's current
General Plan land use and zoning designations of "Public Facilities." The Public
Facilities Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for public facilities,
including community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities,
libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools. Neither the General Plan
nor the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) identifies a
maximum development density or intensity for this use, but requires a Minor Use Permit
(MUP). The City does not currently have a need for municipal offices at this location
and does not plan to relocate the police station to the project site. Additionally, the City
sent a notice of surplus land to the school district, affordable housing advocates, and
park districts in accordance with Section 54222 of the Government Code and did not get
a response. Therefore, this Alternative assumed a development of 60,600 square feet
of municipally - sponsored uses that could include government offices, community
VJ
meeting rooms, and parking necessary to support on -site uses of a similar development
intensity as the former City Hall Complex. The development associated with this
alternative would include the demolition of the existing outdated structures, and would
construct a new modern facility that would serve the community for meetings,
recreation, and ancillary uses.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/Existing General Plan Land
Use Designation Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the
proposed project is set forth in Subsection 7.1.2 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft
EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project,
as shown above in Table 1, the No Project /Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, land use and relevant planning, and noise. Biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water
quality, public services and utilities, and traffic and circulation impacts would be similar
to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
would not attain the project's fundamental objective to revitalize the Lido Village and
create a pedestrian oriented development. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities,
publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents
of Newport Beach would not be provided on the project site.
Feasibility: Although the No Project/Existing General Plan Land Use Alternative would
be physically feasible, it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this
Alternative would yield a reasonable return on investment, as The No Project/No Build
Alternative would also not create City revenue through lease payments and transient
occupancy tax and is therefore less desirable than the proposed project.
Finding: This Alternative would not meet any of the project's objectives. It would reduce
environmental impacts to aesthetics /light and glare, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
land use and relevant planning, and noise. However, it would result in similar impacts
related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, public services and utilities, and traffic and
circulation. Also, because it does not include the development of a hotel, this Alternative it
would not require a General Plan Amendment, CLUP Amendment, Zoning Code
Amendment, or a Conditional Use Permit. Moreover, it would not create City revenue
through lease payments and transient occupancy tax, and may be economically infeasible.
For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this
Alternative.
c) Reduced Density Alternative
Description: Under the Reduced Density Alternative, proposes the development of a
hotel use on the project site that would have approximately 108 rooms and would be three
floors. The Reduced Density would have the same basic building footprint, architecture,
open space areas, and vehicular access as the proposed project. The development
45
associated with this alternative would include the demolition of the existing outdated
structures. Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the land use, zoning, and CLUP
categories would still need to be amended similar to the proposed project.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Reduced Density Alternative's
environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in
Subsection 7.2 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated
by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the
Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, and traffic and circulation. Aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant planning, noise, and public services and
utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Density Alternative would attain
all of the project's objectives provided it is financially viable. As with the proposed
project, a reduced density hotel project would help revitalize the Lido Village area and
create a pedestrian oriented development. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities,
publically accessible open space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents
of Newport Beach would also be provided on the project site but to a lesser degree
when compared to the proposed project.
Feasibility: As with the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be
economically feasible. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would create less City
revenue through lease payments and transient occupancy tax.
Finding: The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic and circulation. Impacts related to
aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant
planning, noise, and public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed
project. While this Alternative would attain all of the project's objectives provided it is
financially feasible, it would create less City revenue through lease payments and
transient occupancy tax. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is
preferred over this Alternative.
d) Mixed Use Alternative
Description: The Mixed Use Alternative would remove the existing City Hall Complex and
include the development of 99 multifamily dwelling units and 15,000 square feet of
commercial uses on the project site. Based on the number of dwelling units and
commercial space, the potential building footprint would likely be similar to the proposed
project and building heights would also be similar. This alternative would amend the
General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning Code designations from "Public Facilities" for the project
site.
am
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Mixed Use Density Alternative's
environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in
Subsection 7.3 in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated
by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the
Mixed Use Alternative would result in greater impacts related to air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation. Aesthetics /light and glare, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant planning, and public services and utilities
impacts would be similar to the proposed project. This Alternative would not reduce any
impacts compared to the proposed project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Mixed Use Alternative would attain the
project's objective to revitalize the Lido Village by creating a pedestrian- oriented
development; however, it would have a lesser overall economic impact to the
community. Shopping, dining, assembly opportunities, publically accessible open
space, and visitor accommodations for visitors and residents of Newport Beach would
not be provided on the project site.
Feasibility: As with the proposed project, the Mixed Use Alternative would be
economically feasible. However, the Mixed Use Alternative would not create City
revenue through the transient occupancy tax.
Finding: The Mixed Use Alternative would result in greater impacts related to air
quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation. Impacts related to
aesthetics /light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality, land use and relevant
planning, and public services and utilities impacts would be similar to the proposed
project. While this Alternative would attain all of the project's objectives, it would have a
lesser overall economic impact to the community, and would not create City revenue
through the transient occupancy tax. For these reasons, the City finds that the
proposed project is preferred over this Alternative.
47
EXHIBIT "C"
General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 (PA2012 -031)
A. Amend Table LU1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add the
following land use category:
"Mixed Use Horizontal 5 (MU -H5)
The MU -H5 designation applies to the former City Hall complex located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. The MU -H5
designation provides for the horizontal or vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor
accommodations, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include, but are not limited to, a
community center, public plazas, a fire station and /or public parking."
B. Amend Table LU -2 to add Anomaly Location #85 as shown in the following
table:
Accessory commercial
floor area is allowed in
conjunction with a hotel
and it is included within
85 85 MU -1-15 98,725 sf of hotel the hotel development
limit. Municipal facilities
are not restricted or
included in any
development limit.
All existing provisions within Table LU -2 remain unchanged
C. Amend Figure LU6 (Land Use Map) as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard &
475 32nd Street only as depicted in the following diagram:
S% ~-Sto ,'- --342}
34i
s -508 �s
~4� 3405
Soo
,??e.._...CN
}txlY
tti 1tt �s
1
� it411�i�
�t l
77, t,
`{ �i fit tit
0
a
0
a
0
6
VIA MALAGA
32ND 5T �Q
IRE, }} }} 1 O t }l�Y *' N
AO V t PD AAAA 1Y1 ��t�a�ili ST i,. tt}i„�1
Urn }>s>t}}�`iiy}}.}. t lt'� ��' 1>•ya 5u.. 1t
kny4 01 b
`Ut itl t t v is } �i t r i Vt'' at t\ i$§ t"�1U t�fi''tt} 1�Uti" tl4
�t} t i tt111 }ill }4 } t t'":;tlS1�U �' i t} ;,ri illa'�`tiitl �t}t?til }t thi lyjti g t H �i i
All related maps or diagrams within the General Plan shall be amended to maintain
consistency with the new land use category and Anomaly Location #85 as shown
above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within the General Plan that label the site
as "City Hall" shall be removed from the General Plan upon relocation of City Hall
operations from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive.
Labeling the new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any General Plan map or diagram is
also authorized.
49
EXHIBIT "D"
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 (PA2012 -031)
A. Amend the Table 2.1.1 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan add the following land
use category:
.-
Land Use category Uses Densitylintensity
The MU category is intended to
provide for the development a
mix of uses, which may include 98.725 sf of hotel
Mixed Use — MU general, neighborhood or visitor -
servinq commercial, commercial Municipal facilities are not restricted
offices visitor accommodations or included in onv development limit
mixed -use development, and /or
civic uses.
All existing provisions within Table 2.1.1 -1 remain unchanged
50
B. Amend Coastal Land Use Plan Map 1, Figure 2.1.5 -1, as it relates to 3300
Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street only as depicted in the following
diagram:
$07 570 3421
508`", --.3415
S..,. 06 T< 417
m RT .D , - ...'3405
500
T
311 '.
3112
1tl�tti "1�1���t��t�ttXwaai�i�t}t��r�Aa
�tLa," t;}ie3ta3 3d �a a ti
3110
Gv -A
U
C
Lx
32ND ST
w
V„
`l�
M Vp.HS i tI°t tans
°tn�'yl
All related maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan shall be amended to
maintain consistency with the new land use category as shown above. Additionally,
any maps or diagrams within the Coastal Land Use Plan that label the site as "City
Hall' shall be removed from the General Plan upon relocation of City Hall operations
from the site to the new City Hall site located at 100 Civic Center Drive. Labeling the
new City Hall site as "City Hall" on any Coastal Land Use Plan map or diagram is
also authorized.
51
C. Amend Policy 4.4.2 -1 as follows with deleted language in str-ikesut and new
language underlined:
4.4.2 -1. Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone,
as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3, except for the following sites.
A. Marina Park located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard: A single, up to 73 -foot
tall architectural tower that does not include floor area but could house
screened communications or emergency equipment. The additional height
would create an iconic landmark for the public to identify the site from land
and water and a visual focal point to enhance public views from surrounding
vantages.
B. Back Bay Landing at East Coast Highway /Bayside Drive: A single, up to 65-
foot -tall coastal public view tower, that will be ADA- compliant and publicly
accessible, to provide new coastal and Upper Newport Bay view opportunities
where existing views are impacted by the East Coast Highway Bridge, other
existing structures and topography.z
C. Mixed Use (MU) area located at 3300 Newport Boulevard (former City Hall
Complex): Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height provided it is
demonstrated that development does not materially impact public views
Peaks of sloping roofs and elevator towers may exceed 55 feet by up to 5 feet
and architectural features such as domes towers cupolas spires and similar
structures may exceed 55 feet by 10 feet The purpose of allowing buildings
structures and architectural elements to exceed 35 feet is to promote vertical
clustering resulting in increased publically accessible on -site open space and
architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing
new coastal view opportunities.
a Subsection B related to the Back Bay Landing site was adopted by the City Council on February 11, 2014, by
Resolution No. 2014 -12 but has not been certified (approved) by the California Coastal Commission as of the
adoption of this resolution.
52
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; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2014 -81 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 9th day of September, 2014, and that the
same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Council Member Gardner, Council Member Petros, Council Member Curry,
Council Member Daigle, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Mayor Hill
Nays: None
Recused Council Member Henn
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 10th day of September, 2014.
a�m-
V�11%
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California