HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Reuse of Existing City Hall Property RFQ - Correspondencer. I
Brown, Leilani
From:
Denys Oberman [dho@o berm anassociates.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:32 PM
To:
Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim
Cc:
gracenbl@yahoo.com; Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4@me.com; bettina22
@roadrunner.com; 4nlehman@gmail.com; lee@ldiarc.com; Brown, Leilani; mhenn527
@hotmail.com; Imorris@gmail.com; Curry, Keith; gardnerncy@aol.com; Daigle, Leslie
Subject:
City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
Importance:
High
Sensitivity:
Confidential
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Dave,
Thank you for advising me that, in follow up to meeting with me and a others residents ,you have completed
an email and telephone contact outreach to a list of Hotel developers/related parties incorporating some of the community's
suggestions.
We are glad that you got some informal input from Gary Sherwin of Visit Newport ---this organization has good marketing
acumen, and
We the Taxpayers are making a significant investment in their services. Again we emphasis the potential benefit of having this
organization directly assist with crafting messages and promotion of the opportunity. The proposed upscale hotel will be an
important enhancement and significant revenue generator for the City, and this area offers a complimentary destination to the
Newport Beach "offering".
I would appreciate your forwarding to me and the other residents attached a copy of the outreach letter, along with a list of
the firms and specific individual parties contacted.
Please also let us know if the city has any specific follow up plan . We can help the City effectively promote the area, which the
prior RFQ did not do.
The Site Map in the RFQ is silent on the excellent waterfront areas, and the high end residential communities in close
proximity.
Again, we urge you to extend the response deadline a week or two,as there was effectively no outreach to the Hospitality
business community in the original outreach program, and no outreach in written form beyond local newspapers.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We all want this area to be what it can and should be ---for the City and the
Community.
Denys Oberman
Resident Newport Beach
P40BERMAN
Stratogy ww RwndUi Adviwrr.
OBERMAN Strategic Consulting & Transactions
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dho(oobermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally
privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the
document(s) to us.
Brown, Leilani
From: Cynthia koller [gracenbl@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:54 AM
To: Brandt, Kim; Denys Oberman; Kiff, Dave
Cc: Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4@me.com; bettina22@roadrunner.com;
4nlehman@gmail.com; lee@ldiarc.com; Brown, Leilani; mhenn527@hotmail.com;
Imorris@gmail.com; Curry, Keith; gardnerncy@aol.com; Daigle, Leslie
Subject: Re: City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
I have sent this to Lori Morris as the email it was sent to is wrong. The correct email is
lorirmorris` Lnall. con?
From: 'Brandt, Kim" <KBrandt(@newportbeachca.gov>
To: Denys Oberman <dho(c-)obermanassociates.com>; "Kiff, Dave" <DKiff(d),newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: gracenb1(cilvahoo.com; Drew.Wetherholta),marcusmillichap.com; Iklein14(d.me.com; bettina22(cilroadrunner.com;
4nlehman6Dgmail.com; lee(@ldiarc.com;'Brown, Leilani" <LBrown(@newoortbeachca.gov>; mhenn527ahotmail.com;
Imorris(a)gmail.com; "Curry, Keith" <currvkna pfm.com>; gardnerncy(cDaol.com; "Daigle, Leslie" <leslieidaiale a7aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:31 PM
Subject: RE: City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
Denys,
Attached is the latest information available on the City's web site (see link below) regarding the Request For
Qualifications for the City Hall property. This includes the latest outreach letter from Dave Kiff and questions related
to the RFQ process. I have also attached the list of contacts that received the second email distribution.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
SL"eretu,
K.Inc Srandt, AIM>
Con4,MLtnitd DeVel.opnt.ewt D%rector
949) 644-3226
City Hall Re -Use RFQ :
littp:Hnewpoitbeachca.gov/index.asox?page=2172
From: Denys Oberman[mailto:dho(a)obermanassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim
Cc: gracenbl(avahoo.com; Drew.Wetherholt(o)marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4(a)me.com; bettina22(a)roadrunner.com;
4nlehman(olgmail.com; IeeCNldiarc.com; Brown, Leilani; mhenn527(alhotmail.com; Imorris(algmail.com; Curry, Keith;
gardnerncy(olaol.com; Daigle, Leslie
Subject: City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENTER INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD.
Dave,
Thank you for advising me that, in follow up to meeting with me and a others residents ,you have completed
an email and telephone contact outreach to a list of Hotel developers/related parties incorporating some of the
community's suggestions.
We are glad that you got some informal input from Gary Sherwin of Visit Newport ---this organization has good
marketing acumen, and
We the Taxpayers are making a significant investment in their services. Again we emphasis the potential benefit of
having this organization directly assist with crafting messages and promotion of the opportunity. The proposed
upscale hotel will be an important enhancement and significant revenue generator for the City, and this area offers a
complimentary destination to the Newport Beach "offering
I would appreciate your forwarding to me and the other residents attached a copy of the outreach letter, along with a
list of the firms and specific individual parties contacted.
Please also let us know if the city has any specific follow up plan . We can help the City effectively promote the area,
which the prior RFQ did not do.
The Site Map in the RFQ is silent on the excellent waterfront areas, and the high end residential communities in close
proximity.
Again, we urge you to extend the response deadline a week or two,as there was effectively no outreach to the
Hospitality business community in the original outreach program, and no outreach in written form beyond local
newspapers.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We all want this area to be what it can and should be ---for the City and
the Community.
Denys Oberman
Resident Newport Beach
40BERMAN
SI-atogy and
OBERMAN Strategic Consulting & Transactions
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dho(a)obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally
privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476.0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the
document(s) to us.
Brown, Leilani
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag
Flag Status:
Hi. Kim,
cynthia koller [gracenbl@yahoo.com]
Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:59 PM
Brandt, Kim; Denys Oberman; Kiff, Dave
Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4@me.com; bettina22@roadrunner.com;
4nlehman@gmail.com; lee@ldiarc.com; Brown, Leilani; mhenn527@hotmail.com; Curry, Keith;
gardnerncy@aol.com; Daigle, Leslie; lori morris; Craig Batley; Finnigan, Tara; Hill, Rush; Brown,
Leilani; Selich, Edward; gary@visitnewportbeach.com
Re: City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
Follow up
Flagged
In reviewing the target list I am curious and very disappointed to find the following suggested
contacts were left off the list. The citizens spent valuable time and effort per the City's request to
help this opportunity along, was there a reason why the following Hoteliers were not pursued?
Below are the contacts left out of my list of submissions but I know others in the community sent
contacts as well.
The Kahala — Trinity Investments — Charles Sweeney
http: //www. trinityinvestnaents. com/international, htnzl
Pacific Edge Hotel —joie de vivre — jdvhotels. com.
The Montage Laguna — Ohana Real Estate Investors — www.ohanare.com
(The Kahala Resort is no longer a Mandarin property)
I feel it is extremely important to extend the deadline date of November 20th as the Hotel
contact attempts cane very late in the game and without much press or resolution. All of us were
hoping to see a much more aggressive marketing outreach per the city to the Hotel Industry as
this was the favored project per the City Council not apts/condos.
As you know VNB is primarily funded by tot taxes and I would assume a good portion coming
from this area so I am extremely curious as to why Gary Sherwin of Visit Newport Beach is not
leading the charge to sell this location as VNB's business and marketing plan boasts every
positive aspect of Newport and in particular the draw of the Beach and the demands for rooms
here.
http://viewer.zincigs.com/publication/2IOd5062#/2IOd5062/151 VNB Marketing and Business
plan.
About ut CJs
"Visit Newport Beach Inc. is a non-profit, 501(c)5 marketing organization under contract with the City to position Newport Beach
as a visitor and conference destination. Visit Newport Beach sells the destination through direct sales efforts such as database
marketing, lead generation, 'trade show participation, and familiarization tours for potential clients. In addition to these direct
sales efforts, VNB promotes New Beach through advertising and public relations efforts. Visit Newport Beach Inc. is funded
primarily by the city through Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), as well as through a Tourism Business Improvement District
(TBID) and private -sector membership dues from the hospitality industry or other related businesses. "
VNB according to the website has many valuable contacts in the Hospitality industry and does
outreach and sales of Newport all over the world. VNB has new offices in the UK and Australia
which we pay for and could be used to sell this location. Why aren't we using this valuable
resource?
I would think with. a World class city such as Newport Beach the interest list if marketed properly
would generate a much higher response and a much better outcome for the community and the
City of Newport Beach. This is a once in a life time opportunityfor our area and our city. It is
very disheartening and frustrating for the residents to see so much time, effort and money
being spent on the new City Hall site in Fashion Island in comparison to the small vision and
effort made on the Peninsula.
Respectfully,
Cindy Koller
West Newport
From: 'Brandt, Kim" <KBrandt@newportbeachca.gov>
To: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com>; "Kiff, Dave" <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: gracenbl@yahoo.com; Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4@me.com; bettina22@roadrunner.com;
4nlehman@gmail.com; lee@ldiarc.com; 'Brown, Leilani" <LBrown@newportbeachca.gov>; mhenn527@hotmail.com;
Imorris@gmail.com; "Curry, Keith" <curryk@pfm.com>; gardnerncy@aol.com; "Daigle, Leslie' <lesliejdaigle@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:31 PM
Subject: RE: City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
Denys,
Attached is the latest information available on the City's web site (see link below) regarding the Request For
Qualifications for the City Hall property. This includes the latest outreach letter from Dave Kiff and questions related
to the RFQ process. I have also attached the list of contacts that received the second email distribution.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
56waevetu,
K,Ivu SvAwdt, AIC,P
CoMVV uwLtb Devetopmewt D%rectov
049) 644-3226
City Hall Re -Use RFQ
http://newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?l)age--21 72
From: Denys Oberman[mailto:dho@obermanassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim
Cc: gracenbl@yahoo.com; Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4@me.com; bettina22@roadrunner.com;
4nlehman@gmail.com; lee@ldiarc.com; Brown, Leilani; mhenn527@hotmail.com; Imorris@gmail.com; Curry, Keith;
gardnerncy@aol.com; Daigle, Leslie
Subject: City Hall Site Reuse- Follow up re Outreach to Hotel Developers and Owners
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENTER INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD.
Dave.
Thank you for advising me that, in follow up to meeting with me and a others residents ,you have completed
an email and telephone contact outreach to a list of Hotel developers/related parties incorporating some of the
community's suggestions.
We are glad that you got some informal input from Gary Sherwin of Visit Newport ---this organization has good
marketing acumen, and
We the Taxpayers are making a significant investment in their services. Again we emphasis the potential benefit of
having this organization directly assist with crafting messages and promotion of the opportunity. The proposed
upscale hotel will be an important enhancement and significant revenue generator for the City, and this area offers a
complimentary destination to the Newport Beach "offering".
I would appreciate your forwarding to me and the other residents attached a copy of the outreach letter, along with a
list of the firms and specific individual parties contacted.
Please also let us know if the city has any specific follow up plan . We can help the City effectively promote the area,
which the prior RFQ did not do.
The Site Map in the RFQ is silent on the excellent waterfront areas, and the high end residential communities in close
proximity.
Again, we urge you to extend the response deadline a week or two,as there was effectively no outreach to the
Hospitality business community in the original outreach program, and no outreach in written form beyond local
newspapers.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We all want this area to be what it can and should be ---for the City and
the Community.
Denys Obennan
Resident Newport Beach
EJ6Stimogy OBERMAN
OBERMAN Strategic Consulting & Transactions
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dhoraobermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally
privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476.0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the
document(s) to us.
Brown, Leilani
From: Denys Oberman [dho@obermanassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:03 PM
To: gardnerncy@aol.com; Curry, Keith; mhenn527@hotmail.com; parandigm@aol.com; Daigle,
Leslie; Hill, Rush
Cc: gracenbl@yahoo.com; Drew.Wetherholt@marcusmillichap.com; Ikleinl4@me.com;
lee@ldiarc.com; bettina22@roadrunner.com; 4nlehman@gmail.com; Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: Hotel Land Use for City Hall site- Please distribute and enter into the public record
Mayor and City Council,
This is a letter from a Lido resident who has been an active member of the community to further the Hotel opportunity.
WE NEED YOUR HELP, PLEASE.
Successful revitalization of the Lido Village/Penninsula area is a Win Win for the City/its Taxpayers, and the Community.
The initial outreach effort was Locally not sectorally focused ,and resulted in only 2 Hotel respondents.
Citizens provided Staff with extensive input.
Staff did not follow through with diligence.
The deadline for the RFO has come and gone.
The City has the resources to do this properly, and secure the interest of World Class players.
Through Strategic promotion and recruitment.
Thank you,
Denys Oberman
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
4®BERMAN
Sm;oay ami Firmnc lal A.&Lwet
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dho(r�obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476.0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange
for the return of the document(s) to us.
From: Lee Iverson [mailto:lee(o)ldiarc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:36 PM
To: 'Brandt, Kim'; DKiffAnewportbeachca.aov
Cc: Denys Oberman; gracenbl(a)yahoo.com; bettina22(a)roadrunner.com; Ikleinl4(a)me.com;
Drew. W etherholt()ma rcusm ill ichap.com
Subject: Hotel Land Use for City Hall site
Hello Kim and Dave,
As you may recall, I have addressed the City Council a number of times to propose that a Hotel Land Use is the higher
and best use compared to apartments and a parking structure on the City Hall Site.
I was very pleased to see that the economic and marketing studies justified the proposed use and I recommended to the
City Council that they focus the RFQ towards hotel developers.
In following all the e-mail traffic being sent to you I am surprised at the apparent lack of focus that the City has done to
identify and reach out to qualified hotel developers. Concerned citizens are providing you with information and
direction to accomplish a meaningful search that could result in the needed revitalization of the Lido Village. Wasn't this
type of catalyst always the goal for the new land use on the City Hall Site?
Please extend the deadline for the RFQ and contact hotel developers that could provide the "anchor use' that is needed
for revitalization of Lido Village and as a landmark for the peninsula .
Regards, Lee
Leland Iverson, AIA
L.D. Iverson Architect
333-B Shipyard Way
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Cell(714)745-0070
Phone(949)612-8181
Fax(949)612-8424
11/24/201[ 2:84FM FAX 9496501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES
Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins
110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949)650-5550
Fax: (949) 650-1181
TRANSMliTU D TO:
@0001/0011
114
C
NAME
FAX NUMBER
PHONE NUMBER
James Campbell, Principal
Planner
(949) 644-3229
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
(949) 644-3039
From: Robert C. Hawkins
Client/Matter; Friends
Date: December 26, 2012
Documents: Comments on DMND for City Hall Reuse Project
Pages: 10 *
COMMENTS: Original will follow as indicated.
The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney-client and/or the auorneyAvork
product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of
this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this• facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the
named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution•
or copying o%the communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have recelved this communication In error• please immediately
notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service.
• NOT COUNTING COVER SMUT. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELRMONG US
IMMEDIATELY AT (949) 650-5550.
11/24/2012 2:34PM FAX 8486501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS
December 26, 2012
Via Facsimile and email (Jcampbcll newportbeachca.gov)
James E. Campbell, Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re:
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to cominent on the captioned matter. This firm
represents Friends of Dolores, a community action group dedicatedto ensuring compliance with state
and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections
21000 et seq., Friends of City Hall, a community action group dedicated the preservation ofthe "City
I Ial I" site for civic purposes, and others in the City in connection with the captioned matter.
As indicated below, we have several concerns regarding the captioned DMND and the
Project.
I. Summary of Concerns.
This summary seeks to compile our comments but does not provide a complete and
exhaustive account of the comments contained herein. So, please consider and respond to all
comments herein.
A. The DMND is printed entirely and completely in Italics: the Itlalics is
impossible to read and comment on. The City must review itself the
comments on the Italicisd DMND and the italicized DMND itself, and
consider whether or not it can comprehend the document. If it can, please
respond to these comments without italics. (See how easy it is to read. See
our comments below except where we quote the DMND in the original.) If
it cannot, it must prepare and recirculate an un -italicized version of the
DMND for public review and comment.
B. Section 1.0, Introduction, fails to provide a clear and understandable
informational document because it is in italics. Further, Section 1.0 fails describe
14 Corpurace Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, Califomis 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650.1181
II/Z4('LV IZ Z: 84rM ran d4tibouiiet HAWKINS LAW UFFICES 160003/0011
James E. Campbell, Senior Plammr
.21 December 26, 2012
fully the purpose of the DMND and to discuss fully all documents relied upon in
the DMND.
C. Section 2,0 the Project Description, fails to describe the full Project, fails to
provide any specifics about the nature and use of the Project, fails to discuss fully
the Lido Village Design Guidelines which arc a part of the Project, conflicts with
the Lido Village Design Guidelines in several respects, fails to describe fully
various Project features including streetscape improvements, land uses for the
Project and other important factors.
D. Section 3.0, the Environmental Summary, fails to consider the setting as of the
day of the hearing: the City has long ago left the current Civic Hall site, Indeed,
the City began using the new City Hall site long before it left the alleged current
Civic Center. Indeed, Section 3.0 inaccurately describes the uses at the current
Civic Hall site. Moreover, it fails to discuss the new City Hall site which is a site
under the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement dated June 30,
1993 by and between the City and The Irvine Company (hereafter "CIOSA").
E. Section 4.0, the Environmental Analysis, fails to analyze fully the Project's
impacts on a wide variety of resources including:
1. The Project has significant unanalyzed aesthetic impacts including light,
glare and shade as a result of buildings in excess of the height limits;
2. The Project has potentially significant impacts on Geology and Soils, and
Hydrology which are not analyzed in the DMND.
3. The Project has significant and unanalyzed land use impacts including
dividing an existing neighborhood, being inconsistent with adjacent land
uses and adjacent building heights,
4. The Project has the potential to create significant noise impacts by
bringing sensitive receptors to the City's entertainment and bar areas
which have historically created noise problems for nearby residents.
5. The Project will create significant traffic impacts by making unspecified
roadway improvements which may adversely affect traffic on the Balboa
Peninsula.
11, Introduction: Legal Standard.
CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b) requires that a mitigated negative declaration show that:
"project plans or proposals ... would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur."
Id. (Emphasis added.) Further, environmental documents such as the DMND are reviewed using the
"fair argument standard:"
14 Corporate Plan, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650.5550
Faa: (949) 650.1181
11/L4/[u1e [:abrM rAx b4bbb01181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES @0004/0011
James E. Campbell, senior Planner .3 • December 26, 2012
"Under this test, the agency must prepare an BIR whenever substantial evidence in the
record supports a fair argument that•a proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment. [Citations.] If such evidence is found, it cannot be overcome by
substantial evidence to the contrary."
Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1399-1400. The DMND recognizes that:
"The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City of
Newport Beach in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational
document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent
discretionary actions upon the project."
DMND, page 1 (Emphasis in the original; see how Hard it is to read?) however, because the entire
DMND uses this emphasis throughout, it is impossible for the public or decisionmakers to determine
the areas of importance or areas of emphasis. Because of this, the DMND fails to perform its
function as an "informational document."
In addition, as discussed below, the DMND fails to satisfy this "fair argument standard,"
because substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project has the potential
to create significant impacts on aesthetics, land use, noise, traffic, and other resources.
II.
Page 1 of the DMND purports to discuss the purposes of the Initial Study/Environmental
Analysis. It ignores the DMND's requirement to describe completely and thoroughly the Project
under review. Page 2 recognizes that this is required by CEQA Guidelines section 15063. But as
described below, the DMND does not describe the Project in any detail at all and does not fully
describe all Project features.
Section 1.3 is entitled "Incorporation by Reference." It refers only to the City's General Plan,
the FEIR for the General Plan, and the Zoning Code. Although the Project lies in the Coastal Zone,
DMND, page 9, it fails to reference the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan for the Local Coastal Program
("CLUP"). Moreover, although it refers throughout to the Lido Village Design Guidelines
("Guidelines"), Section 1.3 ignores these Guidelines.
Section 2.0 attempts unsuccessfully to describe the Project. Section 2.1 discusses the Project
location, and, among other things, it states:
"The Newport Beach City !Tall property, which encompasses 4.26 (gross) acres,
including 3.96 usable acres, is located at 3300 Newport Boulevard (northeast comer
of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard)."
DMND, page 5 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) Nowhere does the DMND
discuss the reason that the 4.6 acre site has on 3.96 usable acres and .64 unusable acres. Indeed, in
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, Califomia 92660
(949) 6508550
I:= (949) 650.1181
1l/Y4/2012 G;80PM FAX e48b691181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES @j0005/0011
James E Campbell, Senior Planner • 4 • Decembu 26. 2012
the 2010 planning effort lead by former Mayor Michael Henn who has not recused himself from
considering the Project, adjacent property owners sought a lot line adjustment to square off the City
Hall property. Such plans are not part of the Project.
Further, Section 2.1 includes a discussion of the Environmental Setting which is usually a
separate and distinct section from the Project Description. Here, the DMND states that:
"the City is anticipating the receipt of applications for a multiplef'amily residential
development across Via Oporto to the east."
DMND, page 5. Although this is interesting, it is irrelevant. Applications which are not filed with
the City or rumors of such applications at the time of the Notice of Preparation or even at the time of
publication of the DMND, are irrelevant.
Section 2.0 states that the Project includes a General Plan Amendment, 'Zoning Code changes
and amendment to the CLUP. The General Plan Amendment would create yet another General Plan
Anomaly Site which itself creates the potential for land use impacts. The Anomaly includes 99
dwelling units and 15,000 square feet of commercial uses or 99,625 square feet of hotel uses; the
Project can include any combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms so long as the combination
does not exceed 99 dwelling units or 99.675 square feet of hotel uses. Table LU2, However, Table
LU2 does not state what happens to the commercial square footage under the combination plan.
However, as indicated below, these figures are odd: 99 dwelling units, not 150 dwelling
units, and 99.675 square feet of hotel uses, not 200 square feet of hotel uses. What is the limiting
factor here? Is it Charter section 423 which limits square footage in the City's statistical areas? See
the comments below regarding Land Use and Planning impacts.
The CLUP Amendment raises the 35 foot maximum height limit to 55 feet with roof peaks
and elevator towers may be five feet higher for a total of 60 feet high. The DMND states:
"The purpose of allowing buildings, structures and architectural elements to exceed
35 feet is to promote vertical clustering resulting in increased open space and
architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new
coastal view opportunities."
DMND, page 11 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) It is unclear how this tall
building will protect existing coastal views or promote vertical clustering without causing significant
aesthetic and land use impacts.
The 'Zoning Code Amendments allow for the uses and heights, and requires that 20% of the
Project site be maintained as:
"as public open space (e.g., public plazas, pedestrian promenades, outdoor
recreational spaces, patios, landscaping, etc.)"
DMND, page 12 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read.) However, as indicated above,
the Project site has .64 unusable acres. This will be the open space but the DMND fails to state
where this is located.
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650.55.50
Fax: (949) 650.1181
II/z4/zv R z:aorM ran a4atioullel HAWKINS LAW OFFICES x0008/0011
James E. Campbell, Senior Planner .5 � December 16, 2012 -
Finally, the DMND discusses several public street improvements. Subsection 4 states:
"Streets abutting or near the project site may be improved as a result of future
development of the project site. These streets are Newport Boulevard, 32nd Street,
Via Lido, Via Oporto and Via Malaga."
Id. However, Subsection 4 fails to discuss or describe any such street improvements. Moreover, it
omits the most important street abutting the Project site: Findey Avenue. Although the DMND
discusses Finley Avenue, DMND, page 5, it ignores the necessary street improvements for this
Project site. Indeed, with the substandard Finley Avenue, the Project will have impacts on the street
and on circulation generally. Finley Avenue must be improved as part of the Project.
In addition and as indicated above, the DMND refers throughout Section 4.0, "Environmental
Analysis," to the Guidelines. For instance, Section 4.1(a) regarding aesthetic impacts on a scenic
vista states:
"As previously indicated, future redevelopment/reuse of the City Hall Complex
property must comply with the design guidelines prescribed in the Lido Village
Design Guidelines, which are intended to establish a unified aesthetic character aued visual
quality within the Lido Village neighborhood. As indicated in that document, 'the site has a strong
visual connection on the Village with a connection to the beach at 32nd Street. Specific architectural
and landscape parameters are included in that plan to ensure that the 'unified' aesthetic character and
visual quality desired for the City Hall Complex property are achieved, As reflected in the document,
'Improvements should feature enhanced public spaces with a pedestrian focus. Major
roadways should be improved, reinforcing pedestrian connectivity to the rest of the Village.
New buildings should also relate to the mix of uses of the surrounding parcels.' As a result, no
significant impacts to an existing scenic vista would occur."
DMND, page 29 (Emphasis omitted to make the quote easier to read except bold is supplied.) Of
course, the DMND provides no citation to the Guidelines quotation, However, the Guidelines are
not regulations as implied by the DMND. Indeed, the January 10, 2012 Resolution which adopted
the Guidelines stated in Section 2, California Environmental Quality Act states that:
"This action is not defined as a project and does not require environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general
policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project and does not
have the potential for resulting in a direct physical change in the environment or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines). The adoption of design guidelines does not authorize any
specific development or project and would only provide non -regulatory design
guidance for future projects that would be subject to CF.QA."
Resolution No. 2012-4, Page 2 of 4 (Emphasis supplied.)
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 6.50.5550
r= (949) 650.1181
11/24/2012 2:36PM FAX 8488501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES @0007/0011
Jamcs E. Campbell, Senior Planner
-6•
December 26, 2012
The DMND erroneously regards the Guidelines as regulations which ensures that compliance with
the Guidelines will ensure that the Project will not have an environmental impact. This is false. As
the resolution stated, projects such m the Project must make their own environmental analysis.
Given that the Guidelines were not an action under CEQA and the DMND relies on the Guidelines
for its CEQA analysis, the DMND must be revised and include an analysis of the Guidelines
recommendations. Indeed, the DMND must be revised as an Environmental Impact Report for the
full Project including the Guidelines.
W.
A. Section 4.1 Must Be Revised to Analyze )Fully the Projects' Impacts on
Aesthetics.
Section 4.1 attempts to address the aesthetic impacts of the Project. Unfortunately,
because it fails to understand the character of the Guidelines, it fails. For instance, Section 4.1
recognizes that the Project requires mitigation for aesthetic impacts on scenic vistas. However,
instead of providing appropriate and adequate mitigation, Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 simply
defers mitigation impermissibly. It states:
"Future redevelopment/reuse of the City Ball Complex property shall reflect the
architecture, landscape architecture, lighting and all applicable related guidelines
established for the subject site by the Ledo Village Design Guidelines. Prior to
approval of a future project for redevelopment/reuse of the City IIall Complex
property, the applicant shall submit development plans that comply with the Lido
Village Design Guidelines applicable to the City )Hall Complex property."
DMND, page 35. However, these Guidelines arc not regulatory at all. As indicated above, the
Guidelines require the Project to perform its own environmental analysis. The DMND defers this
analysis to a subsequent project. CEQA forbids such deferred mitigation.
If an environmental document proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific
measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. `By deferring
environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which
requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundst7om v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation
Com.0975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be
assessed as early as possible in government planning.'); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v.
Regents of University o California (1978) 77 Cal. App. M20,34 (noting that environmental
problems should be considered at a point iu the planning process "where genuine flexibility
remains"), CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation
measures must really minimize an identified impact.
"Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity commits itself to
mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the
mitigation plan. (Citation omitted.) On the other hand, an agency goes too fur when it simply
requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations
14 Corpurare Plaza, Suire 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 6545550
Fax: (949) 650.1181
111C9/cu is e.o Irm rAn awatiouIIUI NAWKINS LAW UFFICES @0008/0011
James 6. Campbell, Seniar Planner 4 • December 26, 2012
that may be made in the report. (Citation omitted.)" Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119
Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1276.
The DMND chooses the inappropriate mitigation. Moreover, the DMND cannot rely on the
Guidelines for such mitigation or standards. The Guidelines cannot set the standards from such
mitigation measures. The DMND cannot defer the design for some future date.
The analysis in Section 4.1(b) (damage to scenic resources) and Section 4.1(c) (damage to
existing visual character of the site) suffer from the same problem: they each rely on Mitigation
Measure MM 4.1-1 and the Guidelines.
Section 4.1(d) (light and glare impacts) suffers from a similar problem. But it also suffers
from its failing to analyze the shade impacts of 55'-60' buildings of the Project. The current
buildings are low rise one and two story buildings. The Project proposes to more than double the
height which will generate large shade impacts, Other projects in the City, e.g. office buildings in
Newport Center, require the analysis of such impacts. The DMND must be revised to include an
analysis the light and shade impacts of the Project's large buildings on the surrounding land uses.
B. Sections 4.6. Geology and Soils, and 4.9, Hydrology, Fails to Analyze the
Proiect's Potential for Earthquake, Liquefaction, and Innundal ion.
Section 4.6 attempts to analyze the Project's impacts on geology and soils. It
forgets much of the history of the City. For instance, Section 4.6(x)(1) states:
`°I'he City of Newport Bcach does not have any State -designated Earthquake Fault
"Zones. As a result, the project site is not located within the limits of or directly
affected by a designated active fault. Therefore, future redevelopment/reuse of the
site pursuant to the proposed land use and zoning changes would not subject
structures, residents and/or occupants of such future development to the risk or
Joss, injury, or death associated with fault rupture."
DMND, page 56 (Emphasis omitted for ease of reading.) However, the General Plan's Safety
Element and figure S2 shows that the much of West Newport including areas near the Project
site are near an active fault and require disclosure of such in real estate transactions. Likely, the
Project would require such disclosures.
Also, Figure S 1 and S2 show that the entire Balboa Peninsula is subject to liquefaction,
and high tides and 100 year flood zone. Although the DMND recognizes the potential for
liquefaction and flooding, it fails to analyze these seriously. For instance, Section 4.6(a)(3) states
that the liquefaction potential is insignificant because of the existing municipal facilities on site.
However, the Project is much larger that the current configuration and may create such problems.
More importantly, during the debate over the location of City Hall, many cited that
potential for the current site to be subject to tsumuni and liquefaction. Again, the DMND does
seriously assess this potential and states that such analysis must await further discretionary
review. This again impermissibly defers the analysis.
14 Corpuraw Plaza, Suim 120
Newpnre Beach, Califomla 92660
(949) 6505.5.50
Fax: (949) 650.1181
„,a„c.,c c..”. rnn OYOOOVIICI HNWNIRS LxW UFh IULS 160008/0011
James E. Campbell, Senior Planner -8- December 26, 2012
C. Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, is Flawed. It Must Be Revised to
Analyze Fully the Proiects' Impacts on Land Use and Planning.
Section 4.10 attempts to analyze the Project's impacts on Land Use and Planning
resources. Unfortunately, Section 4. 10 uses the same mitigation measures as above: the
Guidelines.
Section 4.10(a) attempts to analyze the Project's potential to divide an established
community. It fails. First, as lhruughout, the DMND relies on the Guidelines as the standard for
evaluation. It is not; the Guidelines are not regulations. Second, it ignores the fact that the
Project will include one of the highest residential facilities on the Balboa Peninsula. It will
divide in fact the small beach community around the Project site. Further, as discussed below, it
will facilitate other such development along the Peninsula against which City residents have
always fought.
Section 4.10(b) seeks to analyze the conflicts of the Project with applicable land use
regulations Unfortunately, Section 4.10(b) again relies on the alleged protections of the
Guidelines. However, as indicated above, the Guidelines provide no mitigation or protections.
See 'fable 4.10-1 which discuss the Project's compliance with the Guidelines. In addition, Table
4.10-1's mitigation measures include prospective and vague mitigation measures which do not
mitigate the identified impacts and fails to analyze specific impacts including land use and
planning impacts.
In addition, the Project will create additional land use impacts on the neighborhood.
Charter Section 423 limits development within the City and, when certain limits are reached, it
requires an applicant to obtain voter approval for development. The only successful vote
increasing such limits was the 2006 vote approving the updated General Plan. Such votes are
fraught with risk, and developers avoid them at all costs. The September 25, 2012 Staff Report
on the captioned Project notes that the City has pushed Section 423's limit for the Lido area.
This means that, if the Guidelines promise of revitalizing other areas in the Lido areas, then such
developers will face the daunting task of getting such a vote.
In addition, the Guidelines imposed restrictions on the type of retail at the City Full site.
The Guidelines state:
"Incorporate a dynamic tenant mix that maximizes value without compromising
existing owners and their tenant mixes,”
Guidelines, page 2-5. However, Section 4.10 ignores this restriction, and the impacts and
limitations it places on the City Hall site.
D, Section 4.12 rails to Analyze the Project's Potential to Create Noise Impacts
on Proicct Residents.
"fhe introduction of the huge Project with residential uses in a largely commercial
area will create land use and noise problems as recognized by the General Plan Land Use
Element. We have seen City residents upset about restaurants and bars staying open late near
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650.1181
rnA cvaooviioi HAWrIHS LAW OFFICES . 1210010/0011
Jamey E. Camybell, Senior Planner .9. Dccemlicr 26, 2012
their residences. The Project will exacerbate this problem by bringing more residential uses in
the vicinity of the commercial arca with late night bars and restaurants. The placement of the
large residential building at the site will create land use problems and noise for residents. The
DMND ignores these impacts and states that it is a programmatic DMND. Those impacts will be
analyzed in subsequent review. Again, the DMND cannot provide adequate environmental
analysis by simply deferring analysis for another day. The DMND must be revised as an EIR to
analyze fully and completely all impacts including the Project's potential to expose residents to
excessive noise.
E. Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic, Does not Proncrly Analyze the Project's
Potential to Create -Impacts on Traffic and Circulation.
As indicated above, the Project includes unspecified landscaping and roadway
improvements. These improvements have the potential to create circulation problems. For
instance, the City has studied the potential for turning some streets into one-way streets with
additional landscaping and other improvements. Because the Project Description is so vague, it
is impossible to determine the nature and extent of these circulation impacts.
More importantly, for each of the areas of analysis, the DMND impermissibly defers the
analysis. For instance, Section 4.16(a) attempts to address whether the Project will conflict with
the effectiveness of the circulation system. Unfortunately, Section 4,16(a) fails to answer the
question:
"Furthermore, future discretionary redevelopment/reuse of the subject property
would undergo projects -specific cnvirwunental and/or development review upon
the permit requirements established within the land use and zoning proposed for
the site in order to ensure potential impacts to intersection LOS are minimized.
Due to the conceptual nature of the future development scenarios analyzed in
Section 4. 16(b), an individual assessment of potential impacts to traffic and
transportation would be required if determined necessary by the City at the time a
reuse plan is submitted to the City. If necessary, mitigation would be
recommended to avoid or lessen potential impacts at the site specific level."
DMND, page 112 (Emphasis omitted for ease of reading.) This impermissibly defers the
analysis that the DMND is supposed to perform. Section 4.16 is filled with such deferred
analysis.
Further, the DMND ignores the traffic from the Fire Station as part of the Project site.
According to the DMND, the Station does not generate any traffic at all. However, the Station
has numerous employees which travel to and from work. The DMND must be revised to include
the trips for such employees and managers.
V.
The DMND fails to perform any of its required functions as an informational document.
First, it is all italics which makes it difficult to read. Second, the Project Description is too vague
and incorporates Project features which are unstated, e.g. the circulation improvements. Third, it
14 Cotporata Plaza, Suite 120
Newport. Beach, California 92660
(949) 650.5550
Pm (949) 650.1181
II/Z4/ZV IZ Z: jurM1i rax 848EOu1181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 00011/0011
lames E. Campbell, senior Piauner • l0 • December 26, 2012
and incorporates Project features which are unstated, e.g. the circulation improvements. Third, it
fails to analyze correctly the Project's impacts on aesthetics, geology and hydrology, land use,
noise, and traffic.
Because of all of this, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the DMND. Please provide us with
notice of any responses to these comments in a non -italicized format and with notice of any and
all hearings on the captioned Project.
Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
FF ES OF OBE HAWKINS
131: Robert . IIawkins
RCFAw
cc: Lcilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only)
14 Corpurue Plaza, Suirr. 120
Newport Beach, Califomia 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650.1181
Brown, Leilani
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 12:28 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Re: City Hall Site Re -Use Item
I
Thank you - please submit the following
To council and enter into public record
RZE E"I V E D AFTER A G E iN, '.) A
-/3
Re.city hall site reuse
We are pleased that initial RFQs
Were received. We remind the council
That an upscale hotel use was what the public Expressed support for and
Not residential use
Without this type of destination anchor
Revitalization of lido village area is
Unlikely
There is already a proliferation of residential and no more is appropriate.
Thank you
Denys Oberman
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
From: Denys Oberman [mailto:dhoC�obermanassociates.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 6:42 PM
To: Kiff, Dave
Subject. Re: Insider's Guide - City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 8th, 2013
Please enter into public tecord.
I am travelling and unable to attend jan.8
Council meeting.
We appreciate the city hall site reuse project progress.
We wish to reiterate that the public
Expressed strong support for an upscale hotel and
Not residential use. Such a use is necessary to revitalize the lido village area
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
Brown, Leilani
From:
Brandt, Kim
Sent:
Monday, January 07, 2013 2:02 PM
To:
Jack Tingley; Kiff, Dave
Cc:
Brown, Leilani
Subject:
RE: City Hall Reuse
Mr. Tingley,
Thank you for comments, which I will forward on to the City Council for their consideration. At this time, none of the
respondents to the Request for Qualifications has identified a particular hotel for the site as part as their submittals- so
we do not know what the room rates may be. Rather the information submitted is intended to demonstrate their ability
to deliver a high quality project that the community expects as this project moves forward.
Please feel free to contact me if you have additional comments or questions.
stwcere4
fC%wL gra vuolt, A I CC >
Covwvu.kV.Lt,� DeveLopmewt pirector
(949) 644-3226
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
From: Jack Tingley [ma iIto: jack(a)beachsports.or
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Brandt, Kim; Kiff, Dave
Subject: City Hall Reuse
Kimberly,
I just read through the proposals for Hotel use by the three selected developers. I was surprised to see all three are
proposing 4 diamond resort hotels.
I am against this type of development as it limits access to the general public. I remember the study session last year
where the proposed room rate was somewhere between $140-$200 per night. This type of hotel can serve the general
public, 4 diamond customers and the citizens of Newport Beach quite well!
Let's keep looking for the great hotel that will serve the general public, 4 diamond customers and the citizens of
Newport Beach.
Jack
Jack Tingley
441 Vista Roma
310-462-7301
lack(a)beachsports. org