HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Existing City Hall Complex Reuse Amendment_PA2012-031CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
January 17, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: City Hall Complex Reuse Amendments - (PA2012 -031)
3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002
• Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001
• Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner
949 - 644 -3210, jampbell@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
Amendments of the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to change
the land use designation and zoning of the existing City Hall Complex from Public
Facilities to Mixed -Use to allow for future reuse of the site. The amendments will also
establish development standards for future development projects including a higher
height limit and increased setbacks and open space.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Adopt the attached resolution recommending City Council adoption of the City Hall
Reuse Project Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2012111074)
including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Attachment PC -1); and
3) Adopt the attached resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment No. GP2012 -002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-
001, and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 (Attachment No. PC -2).
The existing City Hall Complex is located at the north -east corner of Newport Boulevard
and 32nd Street, and it is currently developed with Newport Beach City Hall and Fire
Station #2 within approximately 54,000 square feet of building area. The site is 4.26
gross acres with approximately 3.96 acres usable, as a portion of the site is devoted to
Newport Boulevard. The General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Map
designate the site as Public Facilities and no intensity limit currently applies.
2
VICINITY MAP
Of•
F <'
6
i o
Q
�! -
g
]]NOBT
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
mu W2
CG OS FAR pA CG0.5FAR
3� y9
H ,VG a'p
w s Y V
yes RM 30 LU IAL � �ag RM 2178 SAIOU
l�
° 5 FAR Rf � �[�� �aWa RF
CC O.S
CC FAH m ACC 0.5 FAR
Gx
CG 0.15 FAR4P CG 015FA6�
fOy PI O.)S FAR R PIO)S FAR
ft
Ri _ �� g �xo ff
MULVI15TN 9T
CVOSFAR S � CV OSFAR
CNF]FAR " y ism ° 'h
s
4
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
SITE
Public Facilities
PF (Public Facilities)
Government office, fire station
CG 0.5 FAR (General
NORTH
General Commercial
Commercial
Retail, office, theater
CV 0.5 FAR (Visitor
Visitor - Serving
Serving Commercial &
Retail, restaurant, office,
SOUTH
Commercial &
MU- CV /15`h St
personal service commercial,
Mixed Use Horizontal 4
(Mixed Use Cannery
private club, residential
Villa e/15`" St.
CG 0.75 FAR (General
EAST
General Commercial &
Commercial) &
Office, restaurant
Multi - Family Residential
RM 2178 Sq. ft. /DU
CC 0.5 FAR (Corridor
Retail, restaurant, office, service
WEST
Corridor Commercial
Commercial)
L commercial, gas station
The project involves amendments to policy and regulatory documents only and does not
authorize a specific development project or use.
1. General Plan Amendment
The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public
Facilities (PF) designation for the site with a new mixed -use land use category (MU-
115) and establish density and intensity limits within Table LU -2 of the Land Use
Element. The proposed amendment is within Exhibit B of Attachment PC -2 starting
on Page 35. No other changes to the General Plan are proposed and all other
provisions would remain unchanged.
2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (CLUP)
The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public
Facilities (PF) designation for the site 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 a policy basis for
higher height limits. The proposed amendment is within Exhibit C of Attachment PC-
2 starting on Page 37. No other changes to the CLUP are proposed and all other
provisions would remain unchanged.
3. Zoning Code Amendment
The amendment includes a text and map change to replace the existing Public
Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the site with a new zone MU -LV (Mixed -Use-
Lido Village) and establish density and intensity limits consistent with the proposed
General Plan amendment (Anomaly #80). Development standards and allowed uses
would also be established. The proposed amendment is within Exhibit D of
Attachment PC -2 starting on Page 40. No other changes to the Zoning Code are
proposed and all other provisions would remain unchanged.
15
Background
Planning for the reuse of the existing City Hall Complex was initiated in the summer of
2010 by the City Council as part of a broader effort to revitalize Lido Village. The initial
effort culminated with the January 2011, City Council approval of "Conceptual Plan 5B"
for the Lido Village area. The 5B Plan was only a concept plan that provides a future
vision for Lido Village including the existing City Hall Complex. The plan suggested the
complete redevelopment of the 4 -acre complex with community services, market rate
apartments, a fire station, and /or live -work units.
The City then embarked upon the Neighborhood Revitalization process for several
areas of the City including Lido Village. The process was guided by the City Council ad-
hoc Neighborhood Revitalization Committee ( "NRC ") and a Citizens Advisory Panel
( "CAP "). This process led to the adoption of the Lido Village Design Guidelines in
January of 2012. The Guidelines do not address future land uses but they describe the
overall design theme for future development within Lido Village.
Planning for the site continued within a broader context taking into account the West
Newport Facilities Conceptual Plan, possible improvements to the adjacent Via Lido
Plaza, and surrounding streets. In consideration of these possibilities, an alternative
development plan for Lido Village was prepared and considered by the City Council on
March 27, 2012. The alternative plan included a lot line adjustment between the City
Hall site and the adjacent Via Lido Plaza property, 92 market -rate apartments, 6,000
square feet of retail use, and a 512 -space parking structure. A key assumption of that
alternative site plan was to create a pedestrian promenade (linkage) from the City's
property across Via Lido Plaza to the Bay /Harbor area that recognizes existing building
locations. The City Council took no action on the alternative site plan.
On April 24, 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare necessary amendments of
the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to support re -use of the site
for a variety of potential land uses. Uses being considered included commercial,
residential, and /or civic uses that could include a community center, public plazas, a fire
station and /or public parking. Staff returned to the City Council on June 24, 2012, with
an outline of what the amendments would provide and the City Council requested
additional information regarding the possibility of using the site for a boutique hotel.
After subsequent market and economic feasibility analysis, the City Council included
visitor accommodations in the land use mix and the City Council also discussed the
framework of a Request for Qualifications ( "RFQ ") process to select a qualified partner
to assist the City in developing the site for either a luxury apartment community or an
upscale boutique hotel. On September 25, 2012, the City Council identified density and
intensity limits for the proposed General Plan Amendment such that a vote of the
electorate would not be required pursuant to Charter Section 423 ( "Measure S ") and
directed staff to issue an RFQ to gauge interest in developing the site and to ultimately
find a development partner. The RFQ process is underway and on January 8, 2013, the
0
City Council selected 6 teams (3 hotel developers and 3 mixed - use /housing developers)
to proceed to the next phase where development proposals will be prepared.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan
The proposed General Plan Amendment ( "GPA ") would provide for a future mixed -use
development consisting residential and possibly ancillary retail uses or visitor
accommodations including accessory commercial and meeting spaces, municipal uses
including a community center, public plazas, a fire station and /or public parking. The
proposed designation provides sufficient flexibility to identify future development
opportunities to meet the community's needs.
Staff and the environmental consultant prepared a land use policy consistency analysis
that is contained in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") starting on
Page 82 (Exhibit B of PC -1). In summary, no policy conflicts were noted and staff
believes future uses consistent with the proposed General Plan designation would be
compatible with existing uses and surrounding commercial and residential designations.
These conclusions were reached considering the proposed increase in building height,
setbacks, and open space within the context of the existing developed environment that
includes several taller buildings. Potential impacts to public views are discussed below
in conjunction with the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment.
The proposed density and intensity limits were identified to avoid traffic and air quality
impacts to the community. Four different development scenarios were evaluated by staff
and although daily traffic trips will increase if the site is fully buildout, future project
increases would be below 300 average daily trips and a traffic study would not be
required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Peak hour trips were also predicted
and in each of the likely development scenarios, peak hour traffic will be reduced. The
analysis is provided in the MND starting on Page 111.
Charter Section 423 (`Measure S')
Charter Section 423 requires an analysis of the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic
associated with a proposed GPA. When increases in density, intensity, and peak hour
traffic of a proposed GPA' along with 80% of the increases of prior amendments exceed
specified thresholds, the proposed GPA is considered to be a "major amendment" that
requires voter approval. The specified thresholds are 100 dwelling units (density),
40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity), and 100 peak hour trips (traffic). City Council
' Increases above the maximum density and intensity, and associated peak hour trips, allowed by the
General Plan prior to the amendment.
rW,
Policy A -18 establishes the Guidelines for implementation of City Charter Section 423
and provides specific guidance as to the density, intensity and traffic thresholds for the
analysis.
The City Hall Complex is located within Statistical Area B -5 and the City has approved
two prior amendments. Table 1 identifies the increases in density, intensity, and peak
hour traffic associated with the two prior amendments.
Table 1
Statistical Area B -5: Prior Amendment Increases
Amendment
Increase in
densityl'I
Increase
in intensity (2)
Peak Hour Trip Increase
AM
PM
GP 2010 -005
0
15,103
45.4
60.5
GP 2011 -003
1
4,053
12.7
16.8
Total Increases
1
19,156
58.1
77.3
80% Total Increases
1
15,235
46.5
61.9
(1) Measured in dwelling units
(2) Measured in gross floor area
(3) Rounded to nearest whole number
The existing General Plan land use category of Public Facilities does not list residential
uses, and as a result, the existing allowed residential density for the site is zero (0)
dwelling units. Given that prior amendments have authorized one (1) additional unit, an
amendment authorizing residential development of up to 99 units would not exceed the
threshold identified by Charter Section 423, and would not require voter approval.
As to the intensity thresholds identified by Charter Section 423, the existing General
Plan does not establish a limit on floor area for the intensity for the Public Facilities land
use category. Rather, Land Use Policy 6.1.1 indicates that the needs of Newport
Beach's residents and businesses will determine the type and size of necessary
facilities. Absent a specified maximum intensity, the "plan to plan" analysis would
indicate that changes to the site's intensity would not require voter approval.
However, when the General Plan Update was approved in 2006, the City had
commissioned a traffic study that assumed that the existing City Hall site would be
expanded to 75,000 square feet. Therefore, staff has conservatively used the 2006
General Plan Update traffic assumption for the purpose of analyzing the Charter Section
423 thresholds. Tables 2 and 3 reflect staff's analysis as to development density and
intensity, and the resulting peak hour trips, which would not require voter approval
pursuant to Charter Section 423.
N
Table 2
Measure S Anal sis for Pro osed Mixed -Use Pro'ect
Density
Units
Intensity
Square Feet
Peak Hour Traffic
AM
PM
Existing General Plan land
use maximum credit
0
75,000(')
166
214
Proposed Mixed -use project
maximum
99
15,000
95
121
Amendment difference
99
60,000
-71
-93
Vote Required
No
No
No
No
80% of prior amendments
1
15,325
46
62
Total
100
15,325
46
62
Vote Required
No
No
No
No
(1) General Plan Transportation Study, 3/22/2006, Urban Crossroads
Table 3
Measure S Analysis for Proposed Hotel Project
Intensity
(Square Feet)
Peak Hour Traffic
AM
PM
Existing General Plan building
area maximum credit
75,000(')
166
214
Proposed hotel building area
maximum
99,675
74
78
Amendment difference
24,675
-92
-136
Vote Required
No
No
No
80% of prior amendments
15,325
46
62
Total
40,000
46
62
Vote Required
No
No
No
(1) General Plan Transportation Study, 3/22/2006, Urban Crossroads
The building area for the fire station was not counted in the intensity analysis. The basis
for this assumption is that the majority of the fire station is a vehicle garage, and parking
garages are not included in the calculation of floor area under the General Plan.
Additionally, the Institute of Traffic Engineers ( "ITE ") does not identify peak hour trip
generation rates for fire stations.
Therefore, in consideration of the residential, floor area and traffic limitations
established by Charter Section 423, staff has concluded that the proposed density and
intensity limit of the proposed GPA would not require voter approval.
Coastal Land Use Plan (`CLOP')
The proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment provides a land use category that is
consistent with the proposed GPA in terms of land use, density and intensity. Staff and
the environmental consultant prepared a CLUP policy consistency analysis that is
I
contained in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") starting on Page
90.
Given the proposed density and intensity of use, the need to establish a higher height
limit was identified. Policy 4.4.2 -1 provides a 35 -foot height limit and in order to consider
a future development project with higher building heights, an amendment to the policy is
necessary. The following draft amendment is proposed for consideration:
"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 negatively 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."
The language of the amendment provides protection of coastal views. General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan policies protect public views from certain roadways and parks.
The MND provides an analysis of potential impacts to public views from designated
viewpoints located nearby, specifically Sunset View Park and Cliff Drive Park. Other
vantages where public views are protected were not included due to extended
distances. Future development of the site, consistent with the proposed amendment,
would result in structures that will be visible from Sunset View Park and Cliff Drive Park,
however, due to the extended distance and elevation of these vantage points in relation
to the project site, future development of the site will blend into the urban background
and not block any important focal points within existing public views from these
vantages. No significant public views through or near the project site are present in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. For these reasons, the analysis concludes that
there will be no impact to coastal views and no inconsistency with public view protection
policies of the General Plan or CLUP. As a result, a finding of consistency with
applicable policies of the Coastal Act can be made for the proposed amendment.
Development of high -cost visitor accommodations may result in a need to mitigate
impacts to lower -cost accommodations. This issue will be considered by the California
Coastal Commission ( "CCC ") only if the City approves a future development application
that includes high -cost visitor accommodations and if a nexus between an impact and
the future development project is identified.
The proposed CLUP amendment will require certification by the CCC before future
development can commence.
10
Zoning Code
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment provides allowed uses and density and
intensity limits consistent with the proposed GPA. Given the proposed density and
intensity of use, a higher height limit is necessary. Staff identified a principal limit at 55
feet to accommodate 4 -story development. Given structures of this height, increased
setbacks, and a minimum open space requirement were included to promote more
compatible development.
Allowed Uses: Retail, commercial offices (non - medical), visitor accommodations,
multi -unit residential, community center, fire station, public parking
facility.
Height: 55 feet to flat roofs measured to the top of parapet walls. The peaks of
sloping roofs and elevator towers may be up to 60 feet in height and
architectural features such as domes, towers, cupolas, spires, and similar
structures may be 65 feet in height.
Setbacks:
Location
Structure
type
Setback from
Property Line
Newport Boulevard
Subterranean
0 feet
1sr-& 2 nd floor
20 feet
Above 2nd floor
35 feet
32nd Street
Subterranean
0 feet
15 & 2nd floor
1 foot
Above 2nd floor
10 feet
Interior
Subterranean
0 feet
Above grade
5feet
(') No more than 26 feet above existing grade
(z) More than 26 feet above existing grade
Open Space: Minimum 20 percent
It is important to note that a future mixed -use project may include ancillary retail uses
and a possible hotel project would include accessory meeting space and commercial
uses (i.e. retail, restaurants, spa, etc.) and it could include a complementary residential
component. No other changes to the Zoning Code are recommended, and as such, a
future project would be subject to all other zoning regulations including parking
requirements, typical procedural requirements, and compliance with the Lido Village
Design Guidelines.
The Planning Commission would review a future project at a noticed public hearing and
the process would not differ from standard practice for a project of this type. Typical
findings of consistency with applicable policies and zoning standards including the Lido
11
Village Design Guidelines would be necessary for the Planning Commission to approve
a future development project. A future development project would also be subject to
California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") review. Staff believes that the proposed
zoning standards for uses, density and intensity, development standards, and future
public review would result in development compatible with the area.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by planning
staff, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The MND is
included as Exhibit B of Attachment PC -1. A copy of the MND was also made available
on the City's website, at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community
Development Department at City Hall. The MND was made available for public review for
a 30 -day comment period beginning November 26, 2012. to December 26, 2012. The City
received three comment letters and the environmental consultant has prepared responses
to the comments for consideration.
The MND does not identify any component of the proposed project that would result in a
"potentially significant impact" on the environment per CEQA guidelines. However, the
document does identify that project implementation could result in effects that are "less
than significant with mitigation incorporated" with regard to the following five (5)
environmental categories: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise
and Public Services. Twelve (12) mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached as Exhibit C of Attachment PC -1.
A traffic study was not required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) due to the limited
net increase in average daily trips (ADT). Traffic studies are only required by the TPO
when a project results in an increase of 300 average daily trips (ADT) or more. This
analytical limit is used by the City as a CEQA threshold and projects that result in a net
increase of fewer that than 300 ADTs are considered to have a "less than significant
impact." In the analysis for the City Hall Reuse Amendments, several likely development
scenarios were identified and the most intensive development scenario increased ADTs
above the baseline of existing uses of the site by less than 300 trips. In all likely
development scenarios considered, AM and PM peak trips decreased. This fact further
supports the conclusion that there would be a less than significant traffic impact
considering the fact that the City's thresholds of significance for traffic impacts are based
solely on increases in peak hour trips.
The MND relies upon the 2006 General Plan Update EIR for most of the analysis, which is
the appropriate analytical method since this is a General Plan Amendment (i.e.,
"programmatic ") and not development project level analysis that will be conducted when a
future project is identified. At that time, the project would be evaluated based on the
specific project parameters (e.g., land use, floor area, number of dwelling units, building
height, and other aspects of the physical design). If the evaluation concludes that the
12
programmatic Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration did not fully address potential
impacts of the future development project, additional detailed analysis of that specific
project would be required in subsequent environmental documentation.
Summary
The goal of the proposed amendments is to establish a set of policies and regulations to
ensure future development of the site consistent with community expectations. The
results of the environmental review process suggest that future development can be
accommodated without significant environmental impact to the community. Finally, the
amendments are internally consistent and provide an appropriate and flexible regulatory
framework for a variety of uses ensuring public input and neighborhood compatibility of
a future development project.
Alternatives
The Commission has the option to recommend changes to the proposed amendments
or continue consideration of the proposed amendments to a future date.
Public Notice
Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of
property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of-
way and waterways) and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to the
decision date, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the
item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the
City website.
Prepared by:
W
JaaYes Campbell, Principal Plariner
ATTACHMENTS
Submitted by:
r n a WisnesKi, rlCP, Deputy Director
PC -1 Draft Resolution recommending adoption of Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration (SCH# 2012111074)
Exhibit A. Legal Description
Exhibit B. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments
and responses to comments
Exhibit C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PC -2 Draft Resolution recommending approval of the proposed amendments
13
Page Intentionally Blank
14
Attachment PC -1
Draft Resolution recommending adoption of
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
(SCH# 2012111074)
15
10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH #2012111074) FOR THE CITY HALL
REUSE PROJECT AMENDMENTS AFFECTING A 4.26 ACRE PROPERTY
AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32nd STREET (PA2012 -031)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 a 4.26 acre property
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd
Street, legally described in Exhibit A. The amendments are generally described as
follows:
a) General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 includes a text and a land use map
change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the site 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.
b) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 includes a text and map
change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the site 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 a policy basis for higher height limits.
c) Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 includes a text and map change to
replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the site with a
new zone MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) and establish density and intensity
limits consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment (Anomaly #80).
Development standards and allowed uses would also be established.
2. A public hearing was held on January 17, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at
3300 Newport Boulevard, 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 draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Comments and Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral were presented to
and considered by the Planning Commission at the scheduled hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section
21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations,
1j
Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K -3, the proposed amendments
( "Project') are defined as a project and as such as subject to environmental review.
2. The City thereafter caused to be prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration (SCH No. 2012111074) ( "MND ") in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3.
3. Notice of the availability of the draft MND was given in accordance with CEQA, the
State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3. The draft MND was made
available for public review for a 30 -day comment period beginning on November 26,
2012, and ending December 26, 2012. The City received three comments letters
during the public review period and the comments and responses to the comments
were considered by the Planning Commission during its consideration of the proposed
Project.
4. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed Project will have
a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation
measures identified in IS /MND and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). The mitigation measures are feasible and reduce potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures would
be applied to future development of the site consistent with the proposed amendments
through the MMRP.
SECTION 3. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the City Hall Reuse Project Amendments (SCH #2012111074) attached as
Exhibits B and C respectively.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
IYA
LLM
Michael Toerge, Chairman
Fred Ameri, Secretary
WrA
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3,6 AND 7 IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT FILED IN THE
DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" WITH
THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 21 IN BLOCK 431 OF
"LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH ", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION
400.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND LOT 1 IN
BLOCK "A" OF SAID LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH 461.53 FEET TO A
POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO.
108, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGES 1 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE
401.79 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY OF SAID LOT 1 AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF
"THE HUDSON" 495.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED ATTACHED TO THAT
CERTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 3284 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH, A
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH11, 1946 IN BOOK 1404, PAGE130 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF SAID
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S
ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH ", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14
OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE, NOW KNOWN AS
32ND STREET, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THAT PORTION OF THE BULKHEAD LINE
ESTABLISHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1936 AND SHOWN ON THE WAR
DEPARTMENT MAP OF NEWPORT BAY SHOWING HARBOR LINE, EXTENDING BETWEEN
BULKHEAD STATION NO.124 AND BULKHEAD STATION NO.125; THENCE NORTH 27'30'00"
WEST ALONG SAID BULKHEAD LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE
OF "THE HUDSON" AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF LANCASTER'S ADDITION; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID "THE HUDSON" TO THE NORTHEAST
-19
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.
20
EXHIBIT B
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Including Comments and Responses to Comments)
City Hall Reuse Project Amendments (SCH #2012111074)
Separate bound report @ bnp: Irnewportbeacbca .govlcltybailreusemnd
21
22
EXHIBIT C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City Hall Reuse Project Amendments (SCH #2012111074)
23
24
0
w
IL
CD
F-
w
0
a
W
0
Z
a
z
w
0
Z
Z
0
Q
F=
77
TF
r
TF
M'
i�
N
z
ti
04�.� / 0
a �
0
25
N fn @
. N c N 'c
C
°
a) N m N
c.
>
�
c
a
mg
c
o N (3)
Z av
3 m ac
a
N m a w
m
�E�o
C
a m�
rn9
a)
N a m O
o
C
m .� N w
° -mZcmm
°E g
EE
ZmE'LE
m CO E a)
L 0a G
(D >
0 a) N
�m9a)cQ
co m.
�EYc
m(u o z o
° m o m
r0 O
m( o
om
00
r
U
E a_a
> C a) -'O
w C
� a
�
p'E C p
� z m o m
> o a E
z g ai c w °
c o
m .. 'o
m E
-0 (D _(D
°movoo
Qm �rn
�'mE°—
i L Z (D >
-O E
o) F-
O
) Z
N
N On (6
g U i C'6 L
O
-o E c
O
"�- L O
° .E °.
O o U m U
L N
.. m p) U
N"' TN
U m
a)
m m 0 C C N
O
p7 c O a)
a)
m L d T
d
`m o a) n
a)
N
E a N
U
E N m c
0.0 N
o-c rnm
m 2
oa N
0
mUmm a
c '
> °-o . °
° `
Nz LL...
M
T ci a
D N
m N C
a)
m Q
n N
O
o
c
o d
f
y ta
c rnW o
m m ry ry a D
° m
3N0)
�
°o° ai
`N =_
E c
n
NZ 0
y' -0
o a o m
o m
U
C� z D oN
L
E i
>, —(D
o
E O
�
E a
m
U
(D
V U O
a) m co
N
R N m
-O
9
E
O
mm
'E
a% C
a) 0)
o )
Q m 4
tu m
°N
o -
a o
a 3
d
0— o'-
c
�a(D m
3 E o r
m
a. cm-0
z
W L C 9
w._°
c T U a
O
Yc (n N
> O- >.
V a)Q m U
m o)00Z
`° d
N
m�
Q O w C g
Q Q' m
a7 i..)
O d. j J
m€ m
C tea)
mLm- �
O) 0)
U C m ]
a) m
U
3 c
m N
m a) .L.
0
Q c U o).O
c m
aci O° N n d y
M (D
m c N 'mo >
a) O m _O O)
Em'o— my
m.
cNi E �-mo
'� c o mE
>0a) �?md
0t: mac)
��)
LL)
N N `° .- N N
� d-
m G c a) -0
YO
'cZ-'D o
N
°
av
o
m �L
L rn'a
�mm�Lm_,�z
.0
~BOf
o
L «oNa
'mo°-rnTO0
aE
y
3g�'mE
yaraEomO
qEg
j
�r�cN
L a)aa))�a.NV
'�ClCL
O a E
N
Q
cdmor
N m
£ E o a° o m
° W E m
Um� -�
w
° R m U T
�F
a) 0m�N
g
@
c T° o
o u d
z
o c a> 0.
04 ow
OF
m
o on
oin d o �a a
c ac
om
'E.�
U— o c
o �= mo
o 0 0
N @> O L C a
N: N E- C
F
L C a
N 01
�—ma of
N oi-OO-=o�
O N
H m E E 2
m
a
E
m
rnu
O C
�a
c d
0
CL ) cai
d
� � U
d
lC0 T m
r
c U O
C L O.
m 3
d
O m Z
0
C
O CL
c d
rnZ
2
«
C
°
a
VI
>
�
c
a
N
C
a
m
c
G
N c
°d
rn9
o
c a
d
EE
an
a
E
o
d
a
r0 O
U
om
00
r
U
m c
�
m
� a
�
a
8
L
d
m m
QO�'y dOa C
E
�
I � a °E'm
m 2
0
c"
c
EeD p��dy
m m ry ry a D
at�o,EES
U
C� z D oN
LL . m . m O
�
r
20
z
N
20
T
c
O
c
O
c
O
(q
In
N
y
>
>
>
c
a
c
c
c
a
d
a
O
rn
o
c
(n c
m
LL
0
O �
EE
as
3a
w�
m
~E
Q O
w
N
w D
�>
°m°
a
o
�
c
a
a
OC
O
Y
U
Y
U
Y
U
N
a
�j
a
a
a
a
O
0
LL
V
ry O G f0
m C m m a O
� m
' L c C °
a O
G
`
CL 0
N
0 T
E 9 F m O
a m m c- Ez_: 0
C � C
C N c
O
a 01 m
L 0 i
. N
Z
aU,mSO nwa "Uoo
O w °
>Q� wi °ccmwm
°c,
w � m
O
OcC
NL
OO
Nnw
z
y W
L U
p> ~ e =
Cm
9 �
, N O - O m w 9 C Z - C O m m
O
Oaou -Op..mN _ 9
m.N Nm
6Z
aY mET
Q
-O
O
O
o c m c w w p
�V
N T °
c N m C
N J, .moam
= M
0 E -c
a aOOdwQto -
O
T
J a ,rna
.mmO
E-� o U m
O:Lt- Q =c-Em- mLOC °«dLT= o °-
O
C
IyEO .�0d°O
rnU c w E�
w WD mm 0a
Z
>O
d
N
m V U
N
"20�c
O d d 9
p O- N> a m N
L 09 a > O
7
N
0 %
mUNm CJ -N
1O
cm
N �y>C �
� m a
ry
an Q
>
0 w e mE
L
aaHc
w
E
o
=efm�mm`.o
mO r
- «o
Oopo0
o�`mc i Ema
o
O l
` N y Q
DN Uy; a
a
M O - O 0 O m C t °
O >
m
.c
>mc d°-aw
c o m
« xm m9m�� w 0 rnt° a, 3 � m5 Eai3 c m-O �O
E
2 3 g E c aG w
m m` w y= n
°> c O d 2 o m _, O c° 0.- 3 J o>> c ac m_ a
E
°c
hey 0 -,u
- W -p-.Oa
" E
u02mnE 5E2w.m_mm =OE'mU mu,o
w._ m a O c N O m
a
. a a
O N N Q N
.� O o o c
0° 'L' r a O U
c a o
3 i N m c N J Y r w m M E« N j" O N U m c
m
L g
m�EQ�a °co
w on-
c ~"'a$om O
'3
d U 9
"�`o >.w a>i w�am hdO M0 m>. `O.�rcm cc E
m«
a
m a 2 1: w
a m
L w w ❑ c L c O a d a o a M.2 a
w w m J~ w O
o c y O E-
w p
U 9 w~
E._ x w O
E
a E - ._
a .- c_ a N E m 9 C, 0 C N w�- 0> N
�j E
3
mOOU'O U�y�aN?anELmw�m_o�mE
L >
m w T
m oiw=n -� me o�m�`od
*5 a m3A>`0
'FE E- -
oam'1,r Et w'(-(ppe °� °`°- -, m"mvwr
m
LL CL CI) h Q�'wO
a n U CO) U R w 5 0
a. a= N m c) -5 9 N LL [O U w e w "m0 9 U d R N O N w
E
C
m
�O
Z
O
V
O
c
y
27
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
'0
'0
.y
0
0
0
0
c
'E
n
v
'E
'E
'E
'E
'E
a
a
a
a
a
a
N
m
c rn
m
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
c
LLc
°
�jNm
m
m
m
0
E
o
d
m o
C@
C€
c€
c E
C E
m O c
°a 0
m@
3a
m N
Ja
m N
°a
m N
0a
moo.
¢�
N €@
°-
c a
c
c
0
0
N
OC
O_
Y
U
v�
C Cl
O`
Y
U
Y
U
Y
U
Y
U
m �'
u_
L
°_
L
L
t
L
0
U
«
U
U
U
U
aj
N
m
Uo
m
m
m
m
J
m
m
�
C7
�
Q
O_
m m
L.
w N N N d A Y
Y C O w m>
N C C@ C N
O L m =°
N
0
-r
O-`NMm
U @E
QO¢ ;O
F'�mCm
_
Cm ~_
CmLr
m
oEmma
mt,OEN
�o.a �¢Ot o«
AU E'c m5
9
maXi� @ @"°m
m8'm3E
omN�
Um -v« o
o«
m :?E yNr Nm
«m°aEi
U:a « >L0
@ =mNaN
"ccm�'d «E
@� USN
'°' -'=@o
me m'o•U
°� mU
-o
N°m-@m
`o�noNn
«°N_"dN
y.-@
cm =E�v
.cN.
ca?r �NaL
°
cmm�
m._ N
1a
C
Y C c ° C7
°
E @@ 2 @
4
C
O
N
U U>"
O'
d S
O
N —
m3
A N
NU L
mo
E o
3Nt w o
«a N
N
°w v i O
5 c
w2.-
m° o
E N
@-
E
O r
N
0> a
m
�
O c m
o- m 9
�
:S N
J O
t N N 0 =
-.-do
@
0
00
u °v
C
:e a co
O r C
E ma0",
U Ti
0
J 3 E N
U
E N O> °
9 N E O
J _
Nl�
� N
C U
0
N
0
d
N
N
E
N
U>
~
N
0
Q
O Dm> J
E
C N U
E
N c c ,.i
0
c
m ..02
m
m �m«o°-
Jomm m
d
n o °E
rnU y
m aX
N
i
O L
9 o E
j 0 r
O Y O N
N N
>
NNN O >d@ O
N Cc a Jp
M N m
N
>> _ N a J 0
a a
N
% O O N
L; @
E
, D@ m N U
>C
9
m- @'fAUm @ma
N L N J O
Crr C m
NN
r N c m Y C
mm
N m
.>.L-_ C Yw
oCi
o 0 D0c . U
_m 3 mJ
_
.m
-_ C
- N
° � m a m p
rm
J O�-( ° r J
a r d C o
w
r
_ O
m m r
0Y m
E
o =
�
EM a
a m C
° c
m E — N
@
L N N=
•
m -° o«
o N
O E"
j
r y
¢
° O N
0
OY
O 00 A=
NA � N
C
N
0
U
°m UL 00
- NN
NO
y.
y" N
N ,1 Nm 'C O
L.0
�CN
� @ -rE
J Qm
�i U
N N L E O
LLa N"
p m
O
d
N 'O a C
O « -
mLh=
H
O m m E
��Npp
0 0 .- N Y
Y
dm
O
N,
m C
>U i
r
L.O =
y
CJ
�
Nw ti 0
T N E N
m LC_ N s
m
c @
d 9 t
N
E E �E O 9 A
a R N
_
C m
o
m N N
O
U
0 N
o-
amac
° '
c d
0c E
°°oz
c r
N
@
°
v° >
to
.NN
. 4m«
-
mw m w >H
Nm
NE
� LZ
m� mTw
Q
c
U
N
M
IT
N
V
0
2 O
C
V
V
V
V
V
C
V
O
V
V
V
Uz
y
y
°
z
g
oll
>
c
0
c
o
c
O
c
o
a
w
>
w
>
N
>
N
>
.y
o
0
0
0
c
n
E
c
m
c
m
c
y
c
E
a
a
K
d
d
m
m
0)
C
9
C
0)
C
�
y
�
p
7
°-
7
o f
y o
w
aa
D O
~ a
N
?
d
N
o E
c
a`
L
o
a
m
U
O
� C
�
C
w C
w 0
0
Y
o u
d a c
m
w
O
m
t
U
N
>
`
°- o
N
p
w
a
'o
°-
O
N
w
o'
d
U
.O
N
m
9
y
¢
m
o
o
y
o
S
cmor
m��a
m`o
9 °ovaamEmmm
rnym�pw
>°o0
m w >
Da
U0am
�Ew
d
c
mwm''0a
°._
am
c MF -calm ww
Mt - - O c c c
.� a w w m- o c o o
o 0 o
n
.y
w
v•`
m
a a y
oaf,
c c L m
o E o p1
0 o
E m v w c?- o� G
a°
C7
N
.o.
o m .N
`° ° d o a,=,
y
N N N y w A ry U
n C O
n
N ( gyNp
9
O
S
6 Y N
C O N 0 w
O N
w o
m y-> C -O O
m 0 � w m o E p O
C
m m m
ENE
"5
"9
a 5_
«OCN�UC�'
cY
LW -l6N N.r NJNC
NOy LU:5 $m
N Q
03
OlH
aAwd n
C 0 9 CO
Q >>
C
B
w m
-Om
O t O
c J r «'c a m e ._
o° 'OC -'N
o a
w
w
6 C
a0.CN
lE0 N y'O a
CO- 9
m
O
E m o u
>cm
Z
m
>
>
a E
m« a o v
a
m
c y°- v c
-� ac U mZ
voi
��i
w
w
m°
o w.�mNm
J
°;
y�o
>�oD�vo°.oyo
maE
a`°i
E
m
E
`"co'Eo
'> m 0 9
y d c 0
O
-
MC > O o 0�
= c°
s
c
o• 01 :=
m
m
a, M o m
°c
OI
C
>vm_ m
L -o
p N - C ° C mU .r
J N O m
@ >
m
m
-
3
m
O
1
m E.N ._
o
aw U w
0n.0
NC O m oma
L
F
O
m ° 0
O
a
c m 0
C y
m
0 , m
3 T N
C
O 0°
r- C
a m d
m 0
E o
M m �oa om UO
a
m
O C m
c
°c
c
L -- N
C s
m
`
—tea �O
°cm m`0
>
>
m9
o wm�o
aaa
to m-O -'O1on
ox�m�>.5
e>°a�id
3a
'
°w
y
o N oc
°cm�
z3 �mmmd
m
°$o
0 20
m
mam
E
o
m o
a
�cu
o '
v°
a° - a m c
=U
U 9
w
0>-o
m m
c a
Q om
O J w
Q w C N N C N N J 4I
L E
n
m
o
m
o a 1 m
«O
Qnw�mnH
°n no
E
c
E
c
F-Z w
._?U m wno
O
L6
L6
U
U
ry
W
_
U Z
U
w
_
w
U
U
y
U)
Z
Z
U
U
C
Dc
C
c
ac
C
E
c E
E
= E
m e
m r
m r
m r
c N
o a
c o
o°
c N
o a
c N
o a
m
m
m
N
in
Os
Os
i5
m
°
>>o
E'w
N
J
J
Ua c
mo
3
>
>
J
a
a
a
a
M
M
m
C
c
c
=
N '>
O
O
O
C U
°
a c n
E'w
N
N
N
Ua c
mo
v°
C
O
O
O
5
j
No
D O
O
O
O
U
a
N
F-4
6
z
hod 2t o0
J 9.2 .2
5 Q�nS aJ, dv
C �LN.L .�mo
- o
cM o
ll1L O> J C N
E - N°C 2
N ° a
Q a °$> y a m
6 X a °> N N
N a m o 6 m m N
C L_ O U 0 D
a€im%m y 2N@
°= ^2ccma
rn�z Co U �d
c U Z 8 m
rn0 aciy d °am
m o�E aci otnm
o?oo�caa
mccy.y oa�a
HEN > > c a a
oo EC1 aa�
°c T^ QdQ_
1
2.2 3 as a
m
a
U
co
d N C " N i ac rna E `°
E m O m y c
m '
N m co
J o a N >' = R
2 O 1 O t Y o
as $ m ` N O = o
C
Z, 0-. -0o Za E-
J O "- ._ Z ._ E --
S J !p C
d
t- U U d ry«
s U a d p. — J E .O N .w U
(J N o s E E a N d
N L
nd1p a °yE�mt-
$c?N
H . «Srrn
as Er p1�� m.0Nw
N�mv .AwtOfQ
E c m e aN 3 �0 3 N y
O J M O W c 9 a^ M,
>U aam a- U.-
J O E?" N 0
oU C7�N °caN c�H
`D- FOT_2mmmd
> m c n a U E a T` a
E T LL E C C N U
N c r aEi c~ 2
o a E a a c= w c N d
1 o.d H-2L.'C<3EH
N
m
v
U
m
yE' >NcH�,.
dy >a°-m (7a�U
mr ° 0.- � L
O N H N O c> N
N C a >
N U a D L o° E
D._O Na
m as m o.:
Nfnco
J
° Q L
N c° E
o
°w n9 o c y c N
rn X N 0 w o r n o
6 N C N N.0
o
aoEc.2
OE 5 0 B E-€ sc o
8° ---
U °NO -a�L
c as ama U
yx�moN °Em
g'3
a N 2 0 2 m o
a�N p
cU€ y N 3
N °0co c'o
a£mm� -28
M q
m m
v v
U U
m m
30
m
=
a
a c n
E'w
a o-
o
Ua c
mo
v°
amFi
No
a
o
d
°
a
y o9
m
Q
¢ N
n U
3
J
N
F-4
6
z
hod 2t o0
J 9.2 .2
5 Q�nS aJ, dv
C �LN.L .�mo
- o
cM o
ll1L O> J C N
E - N°C 2
N ° a
Q a °$> y a m
6 X a °> N N
N a m o 6 m m N
C L_ O U 0 D
a€im%m y 2N@
°= ^2ccma
rn�z Co U �d
c U Z 8 m
rn0 aciy d °am
m o�E aci otnm
o?oo�caa
mccy.y oa�a
HEN > > c a a
oo EC1 aa�
°c T^ QdQ_
1
2.2 3 as a
m
a
U
co
d N C " N i ac rna E `°
E m O m y c
m '
N m co
J o a N >' = R
2 O 1 O t Y o
as $ m ` N O = o
C
Z, 0-. -0o Za E-
J O "- ._ Z ._ E --
S J !p C
d
t- U U d ry«
s U a d p. — J E .O N .w U
(J N o s E E a N d
N L
nd1p a °yE�mt-
$c?N
H . «Srrn
as Er p1�� m.0Nw
N�mv .AwtOfQ
E c m e aN 3 �0 3 N y
O J M O W c 9 a^ M,
>U aam a- U.-
J O E?" N 0
oU C7�N °caN c�H
`D- FOT_2mmmd
> m c n a U E a T` a
E T LL E C C N U
N c r aEi c~ 2
o a E a a c= w c N d
1 o.d H-2L.'C<3EH
N
m
v
U
m
yE' >NcH�,.
dy >a°-m (7a�U
mr ° 0.- � L
O N H N O c> N
N C a >
N U a D L o° E
D._O Na
m as m o.:
Nfnco
J
° Q L
N c° E
o
°w n9 o c y c N
rn X N 0 w o r n o
6 N C N N.0
o
aoEc.2
OE 5 0 B E-€ sc o
8° ---
U °NO -a�L
c as ama U
yx�moN °Em
g'3
a N 2 0 2 m o
a�N p
cU€ y N 3
N °0co c'o
a£mm� -28
M q
m m
v v
U U
m m
30
31
T
C
r
r
C
C
0
a
R
Q
R
Q
m
Q
R
Q
N
•N
o
0
0
0
0
n
o`
`°
`o
`°
2
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
a
a
a
m
C
m
C
m
C
m
C
v
v
o
=a
0
°�
`0
0
0
`
o
cm
OI G
C m
U€
U€
U€
U€
y C
Ed
N
0
0
o
~ n
=
=
=
=
E
E
o
0
0
0
°-°
a`
a
a
a
C
0 0
Y
0
0
Y
Y
@
m
m
m
m
0 u
w
U
U
U
U
U
r
m >y
�>
c
m
c
c
m
c
m
c
m
a
a
a
a
a
m
N
O
2
O j 0 0 N M O
« m
O O O C m R O
O
0
a
m r =` Z a d
m
i
O Or N
o Q E
m
J E
w
o c
Q) m
N m a
u w
m
ww
n o >
oo
E a c E
E
E
L
3
o x ° w c
m o
Q
° m m
m a w
t° m m c°
' O
m c c
._d O C
m0 't �Q
oo
m Q O
3�m
° m
3 w o °
N O N O C
n
«J
i C R
¢mo°
aodZ`o
a6o
we warwo 0 wcc ,
o ,o°w
m 0
c =Q-CL
cmE
oioL N
gm c
0 MW 5 @mm
3
E
°
a o. m
�Q
mRQ
w"mm -w oo Xo-=L0
O
m.
L. ,OOw
2 c
mc
o
oo oc =D
U
0 E m
S
d
`mZ°°
m -L o - cE
> pm_.- N- O
QN
c Ea o
mc o�
m
o cm
m C 0 W
a
xmN
E U m o« E
U U
m m m Tr D - y N
E N C
V Y
°° m = " °
c -m y°o
a N
m
cp >
O mN
o= ° avo°m m
no = m
i
aCo
,.L Oc
3 " Qww
oo
NO m
Z
M: ~U
m
0 1
d h
L
E °c °o-7°
a
m EL CO«nZ>o�
�
E E°m . J
OR
>QO
OnECNc
-O@m°m
m
C m N EU
YOwC�U
a °o gyU@
v'm
•C
FR
N S
- w
«mmctmo$m
« N_
M'.2
E"o -O O
L U L C
im m C r O W
W
ZO
T
C
OC
C
N O
w
r R
m e> O a O O C O O R :C J Z
-
m J W U
_
U 0 2
` .
r m O 0 E
m « c m m o
w w
r m.-° 0 5 w o m c E? U Q m«
m N
E J o
T L_
`o m e o m 3 r
a
Z
°c L x F m c y 0 9 m= c Q� c
3> a U c
m-> w a c 3
pOC �9LY WwL
«N
RCUJmmO @CZp Q...9m�w .amQN
V
O'�
°dN0 mo -C
m m
U
as
N r O
@ ��yJ Y_ m N N C V-
ooacio a °O mAe do
U =.55 o
mo°'�Z
3 L U n
Nc cwEh
do "cmi 3om
J V O C_ w C C C N
yEc
J J
a°i >OiU
"O m C E O T D! U I5 n
O_
J O C
LD
>c °-
O
c m>
>U�mom9 >a
_
�3Rm�.o
O r m O
ocO °ao8
acic°> ovUcoEa`6�$m�mUmmc
Nmm._ JCQNxC
NU9 piJjm �L E"O JSJ
@aQ-p
OT��
H °2OC mO o..c U')
Ec°�Q
ccv «It 2n 2:EM me 23mS
pJ
mo.m °aUorn
N
lh
N
N
N
6
r
r
r
r
V 2
V
O
V
O
y
U
U
U
U
�
31
C
y
N
C
U
C
U
E
r
m
m
n
o
o
°
°
y
d
d
U
U
�
LL
LL
a
a
OI
C
C
m
OI
C
«
O W
C
J
O y
O
C C
G
m
m J
m
Q x
O
1p € a 0
c d
a c€
m
N d
Ed
�a
of
�a
Yc3y
° 0
-
E
o
d
a E c
c
r
d o
D
C
° °
Y
Y
Y
d
d
d
d
t o
a
U
U
U
m
�j
a
a
a
0
o
.2
U
d
d
m
O
A
a
CL`
`NoiZ'
°
o_>
d
°
r
o0m
Fj 'y i�a(6°N
a
LL
U
moa
aVNO.0
cmm
d ...
ODU�„dj
2 m
°
x« m
r 3$ c
w0010
Ld.. C N m A a C C
3 m m a v
HN ._co
0E on
a
aEo
U�NO1
V
d?�o -a-d-
oEy�.. °2
ma N da
'"'d
o m
E�
$ N
c U mm=
«dmadi
Eowmamm°'c
`°min"
C C in
Q
mcm
W d
N E
o.�v!2am d
O m N w d
O C U
_
i« D
O d O D d m d` C Od
U
O
p
— U J d
N
dd L
a a O d C
U J U
N
J
m
a d d o
c
o Z
E a
m
U a
N d D d
N
m
a J
a
a LL
d w
m e' N a a C C
N o N d N
r d
a- d J M=
c E
E
am
yc �
C
'L m
c
a
CO mm
om N
¢ m `a
c
o m t F
a
° o o
- E
O
d tH vN =
a'.tc-
HHyOmo°
.
�
«
d
>
a L a p$ s N d C
- coa,$,
O L N N
E- ° m
m
o c c
3 U
¢
Z o c
C D
`C"O
d d £ p>
O
a�d
a d
d o«
Uc °a iy
d 'dwmc?
mdOdm
E dmaP.
E
d
$
a
d m c
o d t
C
m i
_T
c
O
N
a
>
'w
0
c
o
c'
a
v
2
�
�
a
m
a
c
o
�
m
O) C
U
C a
Ed
C i
�a
n
y
E
o
`o
a`
v
c
O O
a
LL
o u
E
a
a
o
t
c
WE
o
g
U
f0
U
a
C
O
'O
c
C
N
� N m
0
a p
d
d
m
oa
c
�
5
�
a i t6
m
m
d
°
a N m a
N
a
a
N
w m
J
J
J
bc
N
N
N
a
C a
a
a
a
E
E
E
o
o-0 d
o
0
0
p L
Ol
C a p
M
E
E
E
oa =
a a
Zr
O
c
o
c
0
c
o
a
a
a
ax
m
m
m
x
O N�a
E
U
U
U
.-0 o a c
aU v.N
0
3
3
3
m J
m
m
m
dU ,J—
E
c
E
c
E
c
(@]
U
U
2 O
r
C
C
U Z
U
N
N
N
y
N
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
33
Attachment PC -2
Draft Resolution recommending approval
of the proposed amendments
35
3�
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GP2012 -002, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. LC2012 -001, AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2012 -003 FOR
THE CITY HALL REUSE PROJECT AFFECTING A 4.26 ACRE PROPERTY
AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND 475 32nd STREET (PA2012 -031)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 a 4.26 acre property
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 32nd
Street, legally described in Exhibit A. The amendments are generally described as
follows:
a) General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 includes a text and a land use map
change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the site 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.
b) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 includes a text and map
change to replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) designation for the site 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 a policy basis for higher height limits.
c) Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 includes a text and map change to
replace the existing Public Facilities (PF) zoning designation for the site with a
new zone MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) and establish density and intensity
limits consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment (Anomaly #80).
Development standards and allowed uses would also be established.
2. A public hearing was held on January 17, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at
3300 Newport Boulevard, 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 draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Comments and Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral were presented to
and considered by the Planning Commission at the scheduled hearing.
S7
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION
An Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council
Policy K -3. The Planning Commission found that the analysis prepared is appropriate and
recommends its adoption. The Planning Commission's findings and recommendation are
provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. _ incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
1. The site is located in an urban mixed -use area in proximity to commercial services,
recreational uses, and transit opportunities. The proposed General Plan Amendment
provides for variety of land uses for the site that will allow the City to consider various
alternative uses to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
2. 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 if
a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects in the same Statistical Area
over the prior 10 years) exceeds certain thresholds. This is the third General Plan
Amendment that affects Statistical Area B5 since the General Plan update in 2006.
The amendment would result in a 99 units being added to the Statistical Area and
when this is added to 80% of the increase in units of the two prior amendments, the
total does not exceed 100 units. The amendment would result in a net increase of
24,675 square feet and when this is added to 80% of the increase in floor area of the
two prior amendments, the total does not exceed 40,000 square feet. The
amendment is projected to decrease AM and PM traffic trips. As none of the
thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote of the electorate is
required.
3. The proposed amendments do not conflict with policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan
and Coastal Act. Specifically, the project is consistent with Section 30213 and 30222
providing opportunities for visitors and recreational facilities by accommodating future
development of the site with a hotel and through the reservation of at least 20% of the
site for public open space planned to be developed with urban public plazas and
promenades allowing public access and low -cost recreational activities. The intended
purpose of the public plazas and promenades is to facilitate public access connecting
various nearby visitor - serving commercial areas with the beach and bay as described
in the Lido Village Design Guidelines in furtherance of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
that seeks to enhance public access within the coastal zone.
4. The proposed CLUP Amendment provides protection of important coastal views and
future development consistent with the proposed amendments would not significantly
impact protected coastal views due to the location of the site. Future development
consistent with the proposed amendments will result in taller buildings that would not
be incompatible with the area due to the presence of several other tall developments
in the area namely a 5 -story building located at 3388 Via Lido, a 3 -story building
located at 3366 Via Lido, several 3 -story buildings located in Lido Marina Village, and
WfA
two multi -story high rise residential towers located nearby at 601 and 611 Lafayette
Avenue.
5. The proposed zoning Code Amendment provides appropriate use and development
standards while ensuring compatibility of future development proposals through a
future public hearing process.
6. The Local Coastal Program and its amendments shall be carried out fully in conformity
with the Coastal Act and the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan.
7. City of Newport Beach approval of Local Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments
(Amendment) shall become effective immediately upon the effective date of the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) certification of the Amendment provided it is
approved without suggested modifications. Should the CCC approve an Amendment
with suggested modifications, City approval of the 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 CCC
certification of the modified Amendment.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council
approval of the following applications:
1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2012 -002 as provided in Exhibit B;
2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012 -001 as provided in Exhibit C; and
3. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012 -003 as provided in Exhibit D.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Michael Toerge, Chairman
BY:
Fred Ameri, Secretary
Si
rw-,
City Hall Reuse Project Amendments
GP2012 -002, LC2012 -001, and CA2012 -003 (PA2012 -031)
3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street
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:
PARCELI:
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 3,6 AND 7 IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST,
SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT FILED IN THE DISTRICT
LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" WITH THE
NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 21 IN BLOCK 431 OF
"LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH ", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
5, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
THENCE NORTH 0'44'30" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION 400.00 FEET;
THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A" OF
SAID LANCASTER'S ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH 461.53 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 108, AS SHOWN ON
A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGES 1 OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CENTRAL AVENUE 401.79 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHERLY OF SAID LOT 1 AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" 495.33 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED ATTACHED TO THAT
CERTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 3284 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT BEACH, A CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH RECORDED MARCH11, 1946 IN BOOK 1404, PAGE130 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN DEED TO THE
GRIFFITH COMPANY RECORDED MARCH 23, 1948 IN BOOK 1741, PAGE 174 OF SAID
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 2:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK "A" OF "LANCASTER'S
ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH ", AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5, PAGE 14 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE EASTERLY
ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE, NOW KNOWN AS 32ND STREET,
TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THAT PORTION OF THE BULKHEAD LINE ESTABLISHED BY
THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1936 AND SHOWN ON THE WAR DEPARTMENT MAP OF
NEWPORT BAY SHOWING HARBOR LINE, EXTENDING BETWEEN BULKHEAD STATION
NO.124 AND BULKHEAD STATION NO.125; THENCE NORTH 27'30'00" WEST ALONG SAID
BULKHEAD LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF "THE HUDSON" AS
40
SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF LANCASTER'S ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID "THE HUDSON" TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID
BLOCK "A "; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 1117, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
35, PAGES 48 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE 20.00 FOOT ALLEY AS VACATED BY RESOLUTION
NO. 3280 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A CERTIFIED COPY OF
WHICH RECORDED MARCH 11, 1946 IN BOOK 1400, PAGE 189 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE NORTH 0'44'30"
WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 40'47'07" WEST 170.97 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 20.00
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 891530" 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.
41
rin
City Hall Reuse Project Amendments
GP2012 -002 (PA2012 -031)
3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street
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,
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."
B. Amend Table LU -2 to add Anomaly Location #80 as shown in the following table:
All existing provisions within Table LU -2 remain unchanged
42
Table
LU2 Anomaly
Locations
Anomaly
Statistical
Land Use
Develooment
Limits
Development Limit
Additional Information
Number
Area
Designation
Other
Accessory commercial
Any combination of
floor area is allowed in
99 dwelling units and
dwelling units and
conjunction with a hotel
15,000 sf commercial
hotel rooms
and it is included within
80
B5
MU -1-15
or
provided it does not
exceed 99 dwelling
the hotel development
limit. Municipal facilities
99,625 sf of hotel
units or 99,675 sf of
are not restricted or
hotel use.
included in any
development limit.
All existing provisions within Table LU -2 remain unchanged
42
C. Amend Figure LU6 (Land Use Map) as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard & 475
32nd Street only as depicted in the following diagram:
\507 -51p` X3421
5101
so - 5001 15
S
s01 __ 506 .---tl 1
�L
/ G
Z O
N
RT -E
+I
Job C
0
0
O
0
0
0
k
VIA MALAGA
_ 32ND 5T w
$ P O y PD P P P P
Tl O
3
< MU H 3110
3
Y 5
o —
CV -A SI 4 P Y
N y N P O
All related maps or diagrams within the General Plan shall be amended to maintain
consistency with the new land use category and Anomaly Location #80 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.
4 s�
RT -D
`3405
sot
e°
500
M�
410 1.2
,0"I
-4061)2-
3345
4061/2]
3341
-- --
3337
-404
3333
402
3325
-
-3315
4001/2
'
400
3305
CC -A
�L
/ G
Z O
N
RT -E
+I
Job C
0
0
O
0
0
0
k
VIA MALAGA
_ 32ND 5T w
$ P O y PD P P P P
Tl O
3
< MU H 3110
3
Y 5
o —
CV -A SI 4 P Y
N y N P O
All related maps or diagrams within the General Plan shall be amended to maintain
consistency with the new land use category and Anomaly Location #80 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.
4 s�
EXHIBIT C
City Hall Reuse Project Amendments
LC2012 -001 (PA2012 -031)
3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street
A. Amend the Table 2.1.1 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan add the following land use
category:
Table 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan Categories
Land Use Category Uses Density /Intensity
99 dwelling units and 15,000 sf
commercial
The MU category is intended to Or
provide for the development a mix
of uses, which may include general. 99,625 sf of hotel
Mixed Use — MU neighborhood or visitor- servine Or
commercial, commercial offices. Any combination of dwelling units
visitor accommodations, multi- and hotel rooms provided it does not
family residential, mixed -use exceed 99 dwelling units or 99,675 sf
development, and /or civic uses. of hotel use. Municipal facilities are
not restricted or included in an
development limit.
All existing provisions within Table 2.1.1 -1 remain unchanged.
44
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:
507 512 - ^ 3421
-SID
l
s •t�3' �; L 3083ti3
Qp v S06 ^4111
DRT 3405
-so� e,
!;q,5 500
r418 FIN_ LEY AVE
min
I,e 4081/2 3945
_441 , 3341
3337
-404 3393
402 3925
15
400tn, i
.,; • 400 3305
CC -A
'pt
/9l
N
n
RT -E
m
i
0
i
,1
I
0
d
0
a
MU -LV
3300
:1
475
JJ
VIA MALAGA
0
<
3116
3112
311 0
Cv -
D nl
C N
MU -H
475
JJ
VIA MALAGA
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.
45
32ND ST
al
D nl
'a
MU -H
�I
a
{�
y, {�
-
IJ IVI HI +
OI
O O
y !
� NI
u
�
�
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.
45
C. Amend Policy 4.4.2 -1 as follows with deleted language in strikeout 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 s+tesites.
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. 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 negatively 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
clusterinq resultinq in increased publically accessible on -site open space and
architectural diversity while protecting existing coastal views and providing new
coastal view opportunities.
Note that the policy language related to Marina Park has been adopted by the City Council but has not been approved by
the California Coastal Commission as of the date of this exhibit.
40
EXHIBIT D
City Hall Reuse Project Amendment
CA2012 -003 (PA2012 -031)
3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street
A. Amend Section 20.14.020 (Zoning Districts Established) to establish the "MU -LV"
within Table 1 -1 as follows:
Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
MU -V
Mixed -Use Vertical
MU -V
Mixed -Use Vertical
MU -MM
MU -DW
Mixed -Use
MU -H
Mixed -Use
MU -CV /15th Street
MU -LV
MU-W1
Mixed -Use Water
MU -W
Mixed -Use Water - Related
MU -W2
All existing provisions of Section 20.14.020 and Table 1 -1 remain unchanged.
B. Amend Section 20.22.010 (Purposes of Mixed -Use Zoning Districts) to add the
following subsection:
"G. The MU -LV (Mixed- Use -Lido Village) zoning district. This district 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, and /or civic uses. Civic uses may include a community
center, public plazas, fire station and /or public parking."
All existing provisions of Section 20.20.010 remain unchanged.
47
C. Amend Section 20.14.010 (Zoning Map Adopted by Reference) to change the
zoning district as it relates to 3300 Newport Boulevard & 475 32nd Street only as
depicted in the following diagram:
I�3r2f
\J` -506
o�
c'-S06 „ 411
w "
g 450
0 -502
155 d - 500
,� r FINL6Y AVE
y'� 410 12 1 f
p0° 408 1Q� 3345
12 3341
1 3337
- 404 3333
402 1 3325
I_331s
400 112
app 3305
CC 0.5 FAR
i
a
p
y
R-
O 0 a O
M 2178 SA DU
Lo
VIA MAIAGA
0.75 FAR
i5 PI 0.75 FAR
N
5 32ND 5T
p 3118
31121 ; MU -CV /15TH ST '
3110
e CV.FAR SI ! >
i i j INiI N, J� O in O
V p
All related zoning maps or diagrams shall be amended to maintain consistency with the
new zoning district as shown above. Additionally, any maps or diagrams within Zoning
Code that label the site as "City Hall" shall be removed from the Zoning Map 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 Zoning Map or
diagram is also authorized.
WrA
D. Amend Subsection C of Section 20.22.020 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts Land Uses
and Permit Requirements) to add allowed uses and permit requirements for the new MU-
LV zoning district within Table 2 -9 as follows:
TABLE 2 -9
ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS
Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Permit Requirements
P
Permitted by Right
CUP
Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.52.020)
MUP
Minor Use Permit (Section 20.52.020)
LTP
Limited Term Permit (Section 20.52.040)
—
Not allowed"
Land Use
j MU -W1 (5)(6)
MU -W2
MU -LV
Specific Use Regulations
See Part 7 of this title for land use definitions.
See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses.
kiduslry, nu turf an ro ssi o ing ses
Handicraft Industry
P
P
P
Industry, Manne- Related
P
P
—
Research and Development
P
P
—
R (Wreatilin, FWucaipn, and PWlic ifseniply ties
Assembly /Meeting Facilities
Small -5,000 sq. ft. or less (religious assembly may be larger
than 5,000 s . ft.
CUP
CUP
MUP
Commercial Recreation and Entertainment
CUP
CUP
P
Cultural Institutions
P
P
—
Parks and Recreational Facilities
CUP
CUP
P
Schools, Public and Private
CUP
CUP
—
Rwiderrlal Uses ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■
Single -Unit Dwellings
Located on list floor
Located above 1st floor
P (1)
P (2)
—
Section 20.48.130
Multi -Unit Dwellings
Located on rat floor
P
Located above rat floor
P (1)
P (2)
P
Section 20.48.130
Two -Unit Dwellings
Located on 1 st floor
Located above list floor
P (1)
P (2)
—
Home Occupations
P
P (2)
P
Section 20.48.110
U s
Adult Day Care
Small (6 or fewer) P P P
Child Day Care
Small (8 or fewer)
P
P
P
Section 20.48.070
Day Care, General
—
MUP
—
Section 20.48.070
4j
TABLE 2 -9
ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS
Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Permit Requirements
P
Permitted by Right
CUP
Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.52.020)
MUP
Minor Use Permit (Section 20.52.020)
LTP
Limited Term Permit (Section 20.52.040)
—
Not allowed
Land Use
Mu—w1 (5)(6)
MU -W2
MU -LV
Specific Use Regulations
See Part 7 of thistitle for land use definitions.
See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses.
e a' ra s
Alcohol Sales (off -sale) MUP
MUP
MUP
Section 20.48.030
Alcohol Sales (off - sale), Accessory Only P
P
P
Marne Rentals and Sales
Boat Rentals and Sales
P
P
P
Marine Retail Sales
P
P
P
Retail Sales
P
P
P
Visitor - Serving Retail
P
P
P
ervillib UsRs— ERsin(Illis, FilliandRl, IvldicaAandillProfd0siorl
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
ATMs
P
P
P
Emergency Health Facilities /Urgent Care
—
P
—
Financial Institutions and Related Services (above 1st floor only)
P
P
P
Financial Institutions and Related Services (1st floor)
P
Offices— Business
P
P
P
Offices — Medical and Dental (above 1st floor only)
—
P
—
Offices— Profession
P
P
—
S 'ce ses—Ge ral
Animal Retail Sales
MUP
MUP
—
Section 20.48.050
Artists' Studios
P
P
P
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Accessory Food Service (open to public)
P
P
P
Section 20.48.090
Fast Food (no late hours) (3)(4)
P /MUP
P /MUP
P /MUP
Section 20.48.090
Fast Food (with late hours) (3)
MUP
MUP
MUP
Section 20.48.090
Food Service (no alcohol, no late hours) (3)(4)
P /MUP
P /MUP
P /MUP
Section 20.48.090
Food Service (no late hours) (3)
MUP
MUP
MUP
Section 20.48.090
Food Service (with late hours) (3)
CUP
CUP
CUP
Section 20.48.090
Take -Out SeMce— Limited (3) (4)
P /MUP
P /MUP
P /MUP
Section 20.48.090
Health /Fitness Facilities
Small -2,000 sq. ft. or less
P
P
P
Maintenance and Repair Services
P
P
P
Marine Services
Boat Storage
CUP
CUP
—
Boat Yards
CUP
CUP
—
Entertainment and Excursion Services
P
P
—
Marine Service Stations
CUP
CUP
—
WaterTransportationServices
P
P
—
Personal Services
Massage Establishments
MUP
MUP
MUP
Chapter 5.50
Section 20.48.120
Massage Services, Accessory
MUP
MUP
MUP
Section 20.48.120
Nail Salons
P
P
P
Personal Services, General
P
P
P
Personal Services, Restricted
MUP
MUP
—
Smoking Lounges
ID L�)
TABLE 2 -9
ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS
Mixed -Use Zoning Districts
Permit Requirements
P
Permitted by Right
CUP
Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.52.020)
MUP
Minor Use Permit (Section 20.52.020)
LTP
Limited Term Permit (Section 20.52.040)
—
Not allowed`
Land Use
MU -W1 (5)(6)
MU -W2
MU -LV
Specific Use Regulations
See Part 7 ofthistitle for land use de0nitions.
See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted uses.
Visitor Accommodations
Hotels, Motels, Bed and Breakfast Inns, and Time Shares
CUP CUP CUP
Ill-ranoortallillon, Abmrrl6nicdllons %nd (AfraslillictulIR • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Parking Facilities
MUP
MUP
MUP
Communication Facilities
P
P
P
Heliports and Helistops (7)
CUP
CUP
—
Madnas
Title 17
Manna Support Facilities
MUP
MUP
—
Ulilities, Minor
P
P
P
Utilities, Major
CUP
CUP
CUP
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Chapter 15.70
themUsem ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Accessory Structures and Uses
MUP
MUP
MUP
Outdoor Storage and Display
MUP
MUP
MUP
Section 20.48.140
Personal Property Sales
P
P
P
Section 20.48.150
Special Eeents
Chapter 11.03
Temporary Uses
LTP LTP I LTP Section 20.52.040
Uses Not Listed. Land uses thatare not listed in the table above, or are nolshown in a particularmning district, are not allowed, emeptas otherwise provided by
Section 20.12.020 (Rules of Interpretation).
(1) May only be located on lots with a minimum of two hundred (200) lineal feet offeemage on Coast Highway. Refer to Section 20.48.130 (Mixed -Use Projects) for
additional developmentstandards.
(2) Mayonlybelocataut above a com martial use and not a parking use. Refer to Section 20.48. 130( Mxed -Use Projects) for additional development standards.
(3) Late Hours. Facilities with late hours shall mean facilities that offer service and are open to the public past 11:00 p.m any day of the week.
(4) Perm itted or Mnor Use Permit Required.
a. A minor use permit shall be required for any use located within five hundred (500) feet, property line to property line, of any residential coning district.
L. Aminor use permit shall be required for any use that maintains late hours.
(5) Approval of am inor site development review, in compliance with Section 20.52. 080, shall be required poor to any developmentlo ensure that the uses are fully
integrated and that potential impacts from their differing activities are fully mitigated.
(6) Aminimum offifty(50) percent ofthe square footage ofa mired -use development shall be used for nonresidential uses.
(7) Applicants for City approval ofa heliport or helistop shall provide evidence that the proposed heliport or helistop complies fullywith State of Califomia permit
procedures and with any and all conditions of approval Imposed by the Federal ANatioo Administration (FAA), the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
(ALUC), and bylhe Caltrans Di lion of Aamnaubcs.
All existing provisions of Section 20.20.020 remain unchanged.
51
E. Amend 20.22.030 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts General Development Standards) to
add development standards for the new MU -LV zoning district within Table 2 -11 as
follows:
TABLE 2 -11
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT
MIXED -USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Development Feature
MU -Wt (3) 1 MU -W2 MU-LV Additional Requirements
Lot Dimensions (1)(2)
Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot.
Lot Area
Mixed -use structures
20,000 sq. fl.
2,500 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. fl.
Non - mixed -use structures
10,000 eq. fl.
2,500 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width
Mixed -use structures
200 ft.
25 ft.
200 ft.
Non -mixed -use structures
50 ft.
25 ft.
50 ft.
Density (4)
Minimum /maximum allowable density range for residential uses.
Lot area required per unit
Minimum: 7,260 sq. ft. per unit
Minimum: 1,631 Maximum: 2,167
N/A
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (5)
N/A
Mixed -use development
Min. 0.35 and Max. 0.5 for
Min. 0.35 and Max. 0.5 for
99 dwelling units and 15,000 sf
nonresidential uses.
nonresidential.
commercial (6)
Max. 0.5 for residential uses. (3)
Max. 0.75 for residential uses.
Max. 1.0 for mixed -use projects
Lida Manna Village
Min. 0.35
Max. 0.7 for nonresidential and
0.8 residential.
Nonresidential only
0.5 commercial only (3)
10.5 commercial only
99,625 at of hotel (6)
Setbacks
The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section 20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and
Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions.
Front
0
0
Newport Boulevard:
0 ft. for below grade structures
20 ft. for structures up to 26
feet in height
35 ft. for structures over 26
feet in height
Side
0
a
32nd Street:
0 ft. for below grade structures
0 ft. for structures up to 26 feet
in height
10 ft. for structures over 26
feet In height
Intenor:
0 ft. for below grace structures
5 ft for above grade structures
Side adjoining a residential
5 ft.
lift.
5 ft.
district
Rear
0
0
5 ft.
Rear residential portion of
N/A
5 ft.
5 ft.
mixed use
Rear nonresidential adjoining a
N/A
lift.
5 ft.
resitlenlial tlislnct.
Rear atljoining an alley
N/A
10 fl.
10 fl.
Bulkhead setback
1 10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
TABLE 2 -11
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT
MIXED -USE ZONING DISTRICTS
Open Space
N/A I NIA 1 20% of property
Common open space
Minimum 75 square feet/dwelling unit (The minimum dimension (length and width) shall be 15 feet)
Private open space
5% of the gross floor area for each dwelling unit. (The minimum dimension (length and width) shall be 6 feet.)
Minimum distance between detached structures on same lot.
Separation Distance
10 R. 1 10 fl. 0 ft.
Height
Maximum allowable height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) for
height measurement requirements. See Section 20.30.01 (Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit.
26 ft. with flat roof, less than 3/12 roof pitch
31 R, with sloped root 3/12 roof pitch of greater
155 ft. with flat roof, less than 3/12
roof pitch (7)
60 ft_ with slepad roof, 3/12 roof
For or greater (7)
Fencing
Sae Section 20.30. 040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls).
Landscaping
See Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards)
Lighting
See Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting).
Outdoor StomgelDisplay
See Section 20.48.140 (Outdoor Storage, Display, and Actimpes).
Parking
See Chapter 20.40 (OR -Sheet Paking).
Satellite Antennas
Sae Section 20.48.190 (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities).
Signs
See Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards)
Notes:
(1) At daeelopment and the scrol ion of land shall comply with the requirements of Title 19 (Subdiesions).
(2) The standards for minimum lot area and lot width are intended to regulate sites for derelopmentpurposes only and are not intend ad to establish minimum dimensions
for the creation of ownership or leasehold (a condominium) purposes.
(3) Aminlmum off fty(50) percent of the square footage in a mixed -use deelopment s hall be used for non residential uses.
(4) For the purpose of determining the allowable number of units, potions of legal lots that are submerged lands mtidelands shall be included in land a re a ofthe its
(5) Forbore oflegal lots that., submerged lantla ort,d.lnrde shall be induce! in the net area of the lotto, the purpose ofr. lrulatr, the allowable floor area of.tccl.
(6) Anycombimi ofd..Iling out% and hotel moms prooded Across notexciad 99 dwelling units or99,675 sfofhotel use. Municipal facilities are notrestricled byor
eluded in anydevelopmentliml4
(7) Ammlectural%stores such as dome., Wool cupolas, spires, and emilarstructums mayeepsed 55 feetby 10 feet
All existing provisions of Section 20.20.030 remain unchanged.
53
ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS
RECEIVED
77AL AA � 0 0� Fro T
f -,. ', T
Ow
Site Size
4.26 acres gross
3.96 acres net
(approximately)
Buildina Area
54,000 sq. ft.
(includes
fire station #2)
Desianated
"Public Facilities"
•
w
RT
fMlFy AV�
F1
r e
Community Development Department January 17, 2013
i
1, I
I
3ackground
July 2010 -Planning in Lido Village begins
■ January 2011- City Council approved a new vision
for Lido Village "Alternative 5B" plan
■ January 2012 - City Council approved Lido Village
Design Guidelines
■ June 2012 -City Council initiates land use
amendments for City Hall property
Community Development Department January 17, 2013
3
0
Existing land use — Public Facilities
■ Proposed land use — Mixed Use (MU -H5)
"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."
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 it
I
Plan Amendment
99 dwelling
units and
15,000
square feet of
commercial
or 99,625
square
feet of
hotel
Any combination of dwelling units and hotel rooms
provided it does not exceed 99 dwelling units or
99,675 sf of hotel use.
■ Accessory commercial floor area is allowed and
municipal facilities are not restricted or included in
any development limit.
Community Development Department January 17, 2013
I
L i
Existing land use — Public Facilities
■ Proposed land use — Mixed Use (MU)
"The MU category is intended to provide for the
development a mix of uses, which may include general,
neighborhood or visitor - serving commercial,
commercial offices, visitor accommodations, multi-
family residential, mixed -use development, and /or civic
uses."
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 6
Amend Policy 4.4.2 -i to potentially allow:
"Buildings and structures up to 55 feet in height, provided it is
demonstrated that development does not negatively 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 so 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."
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 7
Amend Sections 20.14.020, 20.22.o1o, and
20.14.010 to create and apply the MU -LV zoning
district to the site.
"The MU -LV designation provides for the horizontal or
vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor
accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic
uses may include a community center, public plazas,
fire station and /or public parking."
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 8
c)ninq
Code
Amendment
Amend Sections 20.14.020, 20.22.o1o, and
20.14.010 to create and apply the MU -LV zoning
district to the site.
"The MU -LV designation provides for the horizontal or
vertical intermixing of commercial, visitor
accommodations, residential, and /or civic uses. Civic
uses may include a community center, public plazas,
fire station and /or public parking."
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 8
I
Amend Section 20.22.020 to establish allowed uses
and permit requirements for the MU -LV zone.
Amend Section 20.22.030 to establish development
standards for the MU -LV zone.
Open Space
20% of net acreage
Setbacks
Newport Boulevard:
32nd Street:
20 ft. for buildings up to 26 ft.
o ft. for buildings up to 26 ft.
35 ft. for taller structures
io ft. for taller structures
Building
55 feet, 6o feet for sloping roofs,
and 65 feet for architectural
Height
features
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 9
)nmental
DA)
Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared — 30 -day
comment period provided (11/26/2012 - 12/26/2012)
Programmatic Mitigation Measures recommended
■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Three comment letters received and written
responses prepared for consideration
Less than significant impact with approval of
amendments
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 10
n
u
Aesthetics concerns
Public views
Shade /Shadow
Traffic concerns
Peak hourtrips reduced
Hotel use would increase daily trips (277)
Residential use would decrease daily trips ( -462)
■ Water /Sewer
I
L i
Deemed adequate by Municipal Operations for either
residential or hotel use
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 12
Other Considerations
Measure 5 — No vote of the electorate
■ Required Native American Tribal Consultation
complete, monitoring services offered if necessary;
however, no resources are anticipated
Future development project requires noticed public
hearing, planning, traffic engineering and
environmental review
Community Development Department January 17, 2013 12
ext Steps
City Council — February 12, 2013 (tentative)
Coastal Commission review of CLUP amendment
will take 8 -15 months (schedule to be determined)
■ Future development project design and approval is
a separate and ongoing process
Community Development Department January 17, 2013
QUESTIONS?
For more information contact:
Kim Brandt, Community Development Director or James Campbell, Principal Planner
949-644-322$ 949-644-323-0
kbrandt@a newportbeachca.gov jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Item No. 4a: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse (PA2012 -031)
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH- PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Denys Oberman- resident and stakeholder
COMMENTS - January 17,2013 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #4: Existing City Hall Complex Reuse Amendments PA 2012 -031
Staff has submitted a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) in connection with the proposed
amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to change the Land Use and
zoning designation from "Public Facilities" to "Mixed Use ". The amendment proposes to include
additional land use and development standards to facilitate a "future mixed use project' that could
include up to 99 apartments, 15,000 sq. feet of retail commercial area, and up to 99,675 sq ft. of hotel
uses.
I have reviewed the MND document, the comments of R. Hawkins and the Coastal Commission analyst,
and related responses. There are numerous inconsistencies and flaws in logic in the MND and staff's
proposed Amendments, which I summarize briefly below.
1. The Design Guidelines , as staff points out, are NOT a regulatory document. Furthermore, they
do not properly reflect the input or desires of the community. The Guidelines are NOT a Master
Plan or any other binding document, and should not be relied upon for any planning or
development recommendation.
These Guidelines should not be referenced or relied upon by the Planning Commission , decision
making body, the public, or potential developer, as they would be misleading.
2. At some points, the MIND recites that the proposed Amendments have no material
environmental impact. There is with certainty, significant environmental impact associated with
ANY of the proposed reuses. If for no reason other than the scale inherent in any of the
contemplated reuses, in combination with the fact that the site is in the Coastal zone, there will
environmental impacts that need to be identified and assessed, and for which mitigation needs
to be defined. The Environmental Impact discussion is inadequate.
There are certain types of Environmental impact which will occur regardless of the specific
ultimate use /mix of uses. These can certainly be studied and mitigation proposed based on a range of
intensification and character of use:
A) Traffic levels and flow- there can be no doubt that the entire area's ingress and egress will be
impacted by the proposed Use /s. There are dense, residential neighborhoods in close proximity.
After the city's declaring that density should be reduced for safety, traffic flow, and aesthetics, the
City has allowed Increased density in the area over the past 5 -6 years. While the proposed reuse
provides significant economic and social benefit to the city, the community and the public, and
affords continued access to the coastal access, it adds to the already- existing need to improve
Item No. 4a: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse (PA2012 -031)
roadways and traffic circulation plans. This is true both to support commerce and recreation and
daily life activities of visitors, and those of local residents and merchants.
A large residential use such as that proposed will require more traffic mitigation and parking
accommodation that a Hotel use.
We believe that it is important for the Planning Commission to take a lead in assuring careful study
and guidance regarding the preferred Use direction to the City Council.
B) Water /sewer -The additional requirement needs to be studied with mitigation plan, to assure
adequate infrastructure and service.
C) Height restrictions -To optimize the land asset, and provide open space, the recommendation to
grant additional Height is, we believe, a sound land use and environmental planning proposal.
There are no current residences where coastal scenic views would be obstructed as the result of a
6 -7 story building. Nonetheless, a shade study should be done.
Other areas of environmental impact also need to be diligently assessed to assure CEQA compliance,
and prevent unnecessary costly delays or change of direction later in the process.
We request that the Commission deny approval of the proposed MND, and remand to staff to redo,
along with consideration of a proper Amendment to the General and area'sSpecific Plan.
Thank you.
12/16/2012 2:18PI4 FAX 5488501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 20002 /0007
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS
January 17, 2013
Via Facsimile Only
Michael L. Toerge, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
c/o James E. Campbell, Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: Further Comments on the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (11FMND ") for
the Citv Hall Reuse Protect (the "Protect ").
Greetings
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to comment on the captioned matter. This firm
represents Friends ofDolores, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state
and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections
21000 et seq., Friends of City Mall, a community action group dedicated the preservation ofthc "City
Hall" site for civic purposes, and others in the City in connection with the captioned matter.
We have commented on the captioned Dtv1ND and offer these comments on the captioned
document.
First, please note that, in our December 26, 2012 letter on the captioned Project and MND,
we requested notices in connection with the captioned matter. Also, because we commented on the
Project and the DMND, state law requires that the City provide us with a copy of the response to,
at least, our comments. The City has done none of this: we did not receive any notice of this hearing;
and we did not received a copy of the response to our comments. Because of this lack of notice, we
are not prepared this hearing and request a continuance of two weeks so that we can submit full and
complete comments on the FMND. We offer these partial comments and will prepare .full cormnenls
for the continued hearing.
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Ncwporr Beach, California 92660
(949) 650-5550
Fax: (949) 6501181
12/16/2012 2:1SPh1 FAX 9435501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES U10003/0007
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse
Michnel L Tocrgc, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission - 2- January 17, 2013
Second, the FMND states that "Mr. Robert C. Hawkins" submitted comments on the DMND.
That is incorrect. As indicated in Letter No. 3, this office represents several connnunity groups also
listedabove. l am not making these conunent.s personally. I am required to state the clients and have
complied.
"Third, we appreciate that the City decided to print the responses to comments in non-
italicized font. As is obvious, it is much easier to read. Response to Comment No. 1 recognizes that
the DMND was circulated in a non - "normal- font, italics. Because of this, t he DMND should be
recirculated for public review and continent in this normal font so that the public can easily and fully
review the DMND. The italicized DMND is the same as printing it in hieroglyphics or some other
foreign language: it failed to perform its required informational purpose under CEQA. Because of
this, the City must reformat the DMND and recirculate it for public review and comments.
Fourth, many of the responses to our comments noted that the Project is a programmatic one
which includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and an amendment to the Local Coastal
Land Use Plan. However, given that the City has undertaken environmental review at this point, the
analysis must include an analysis of impacts under the reasonable worst case scenario.
Platmine & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Ageney (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 210, 252.
)That. is, when the Project would allow a sixty foot building, then the environmental analysis must
include discussion of the shade impacts of the Project and other impacts underthe "reasonable worst
case scenario."
Further, as indicated in our continents on the DMND, the FMND is simply attempting to
defer analysis of the Project's impacts and mitigation. Deferral of environmental analysis violates
CEQA. For instance,
"By deferring enviromnental assessment to a future date, the conditions tun counter
to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible
stage in the planning process."
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App, 3d 296, 308. See Bozunp v. Local Agency
Formation Com.(1975)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 of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. M20, 34 (noting that environmental
problems should be. considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility
remains "). CCQA requires more than a promise of analysis and mitigation of significant impacts:
it requires actual analysis and mitigation measures that really minimize an identified impact.
further, the City cannot defer mitigation:
"Deferral of the specifies 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 far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report
and then comply with any recommendations that maybe made in the report. (Citation
omitted.)"
14 Corporate Plaza, Suitc 120
Vcwporu Beach, California 92660
(949) 6505550
Pax: (949) 6.50.1181
12;16/2012 2:19PId FAX 9466501161
Michael 6'roerge, Chair
Members of die Plannin7 Commission
HAWKINS LAYI OFFICES [?,.0004/0007
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse
3 • January 11, 2013
Defend the Bay v City of Irvine(2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1276.
The I %MND attempts improperly to defer both enviromnental analysis and mitigation. The
City cannot simply propose vague and prograrmrratic measures now and then promise father
analysis. We have seen similar promises broken again and again.
More importantly, both the General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan include height
restrictions and policies to limit heights. The FMND fails to analyze the Project's impacts on these
restrictions and policies. For instance, Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.2 which concerns
"Compatible Interfaces" states:
"Require that the height of development in nonresidential and higher density
residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize
conflicts at the interface between the different types of development."
The Project conflicts with this Policy and the FMND fails to explain the impact and provide
adequate mitigation.
Likewise, the Local Coastal Land Use Plan Policy No. 2.7 -1 requires:
"Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits
for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and
to protect coastal access and coastal resources."
The Project fails to maintain height limits and will have the potential to create significant impacts
on land use, aesthetics, air quality and others by inserting this sixty foot struclrtrc in an area of low
rise commercial and residential structures.
Fifth, as to the shade analysis, Response to Comment No. 22 fails to provide any rationale
for failing to include a shade analysis. Cormnent No. 22 notes that the DMND fails to include the
necessary shade analysis to determine. fully the aesthetic impacts on the Project with its sixty foot
structure, The Response states that:
"The City Hall project site is located in a mixed use area where the predominant
land uses in the immediate vicinity do not include residential uses. As a result, a
shade /shadow study was not conducted."
FMND, Responses to Comments, page 12(sic), This is incorrect. Residential uses surround the
Project site: across 32d Street, there is a mixed use residential development; across the channel,
Newport Island residents would be affected; outdoor restaurants in the vicinity would be affected
including those across Newport Blvd, and those in Via Lido shopping center. Further, the DMINrD
states in Section 2.1 that one of the reasons that the Project is compatible with the area is that the
City anticipates receipt of application for multifamily uses in the vicinity.
14 Corpornte Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Bcach, California 9 1660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650,1181
12!1612012 7:19131.1 FAX 8d 56501181 HAWKINS LA1,4 LIFFICLS a0005l0007
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse
Michael LToerge, Chair
Memhers of the Ytattning Commission - 4 l lamiary 17, 2013
Moreover, the FMND is incorrect that shade analysis is only necessary for residential uses.
However, the City has Policy K -3 which is entitled "Implementation Procedures for the California
Environmental Quality Act." K -3 contains no such restriction that shade impacts shall only be
considered when a project is in the immediate vicinity of residential uses.
Indeed, the Draft EfR for the Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project included a shade
analysis due to shadow sensitive uses which include residential uses but also include recreational
uses, outdoor restaurants, and other uses where shadows create impacts.
Here, the Project site is surrounded by shadow sensitive uses which require an analysis of the
Project's shade impacts on these uses. The City should revise and the analysis as and EIR which
would fully analyze all facets of the Project, its impacts and mitigation and its alternatives.
Sixth, interestingly, Policy K -3 includes a provision that recognizes that the Project may
create a potentially significant impact and requires the preparation of an EIR. Policy K -3 at
Paragraph D (Environmental Determinations) subparagraph 3 (Initial Studies), states:
"In addition, the following shall be considered in determining whether or not a
project may have a significant impact, in view of the particular character and beauty
of Newport Beach:
"a. A substantial change in the character of an area by a difference in use, size or
configuration is created."
The Project hits all three areas of significance: the Project will result in a substantial and adverse
change in the character of the area by the introduction of a new use on the Project site: residential
uses; the Project will result in a substantial and adverse change in the character of the area by the
introduction of a new and substantially larger residential building; and the Project will result in a
substantial and adverse change in the character ofthc area by the introduction of a new con figuration
and the elimination of substantial surface public parking in the area. The Project site may have a
significant impact on the environment by creating a substantial change in the character of the Project
site by a difference is use, size and configuration. Policy K -3 requires the preparation of an EIR.
Now, we know that the City Council can change or ignore these policies at will, but the
Planning Commission and staff cannot. Moreover, the standard identified above is not simply a City
standard; it is a CEQA standard. Public Resources Code section 21068.5. That is; because of the
Project's substantial and adverse change in use, size and configuration, the Project has the potential
to create significant and adverse impacts on the environment. This CEQA requirement and that of
Policy K -3 requires that the City prepare an EIR for the Project.
Eighth, although the FMND recognizes that the Lido Village Design Guidelines are not
regulatory and have not regulatory effect, the FMND still regards them as regulatory and relies on
the Guidelines to show that the Project will have no impacts. For instance, Comment No. 15 raises
the issue regarding the non- regulatory effect of the Guidelines and quotes Resolution No. 2012 -4
which states that they are non regulatory. The Response to Comment No. 15 states in part:
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Hcach, California 92660.
(949) 650.5550
Far: (949) 650 -1181
12/16/2012 2:20Pfd FA.% 9 @96501181 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES 40006/0007
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse
Michael LTocrgc, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
-5-
January 17, 2013
was unintentional. Rather, the discussion of the Lido Village Design Guidelines
was (sic) intended to illustrate that future development must be found to be
consist (sic) with the design guidelines for approval. Development of the
redevelopment/reuse plan in accordance with the guidelines will promote the vision
that is described in the Lido Village Design Guidelines through site planting /design
and architectural compatibility."
Responses to Public Comments, page 10 (sic) (emphasis supplied). So, Comment No. 15 quoted
a section in the DMND which said that the Guidelines are regulatory and that the Project must
comply with them. The Response does not correct this error; it recognizes it and says it is
unintentional( ?).
That is not the point. The FMND and Response to Comment No. 15 continues to regard the
Guidelines as regulatory. The second sentence quoted above displays this incorrect application of
the Guidelines: if development "must be found to be consist[ent] with the design guidelines for
approval," then the FMND incorrectly regards the Guidelines as regulations. That is wrong. Rather,
the correct description of the Guidelines and the Project is that the Guidelines are part of the Project
and require their own environmental review to stand as regulations. The City should prepare an LIR
to analyze the full Project: the Project and the Guidelines.
Or again, Response to Conuncnt No. 16 shows that the FMND regards the Guidelines as
regulatory in the same fashion as the General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan:
"Therefore, consistency with the LVDG, in addition to the long -range goals and
policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
support, land use compatibility and the conclusion that potential impacts would be
less than significant."
The General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan are regulatory and have undergone their own
environmental review. The Guidelines have not. Therefore, consistency with the Guidelines does
not ensure any environmental compliance at all.
More importantly, as noted above, the Project does not comply with the General Plan, the
Zoning Code, and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project includes amendments to all three.
Therefore, the appropriate environmental analysis must discuss all potentially significant impacts
and propose adequate mitigation.
In conclusion, the FMND is totally inadequate. Good and sound policy reasons and good
planning require the preparation of an EIR. Such an EIR would analyze all impacts including shade
impacts, would include adequate mitigation, would include a discussion of Proj ect alternatives which
is necessary for the Project to go forward, and would allow the City to override any significant an
unmitigated impacts.
14 Corporate Plaza, Suitt 120
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 6505550
Fax: (949) 650 -1181
12/16/2012 2.20PM FAX 9496501161 HAWKINS LAW OFFICES FZ0007110007
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials
Planning Commission January 17, 2013
Existing City Hall Complex Reuse
Michael L Toergc, Chair
Members of the Plwuting Commission .6. January 17, 2013
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the FMND. As before and although
ignored for this hearing, PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH NOTICE OF ANY RESPONSES TO
THESE COMMENTS IN A NON - ITALICIZED FORMAT AND WITH NOTICES OF ANY
AND ALL HEARINGS ON THE CAPTIONED PROJECT AND FMND.
RCIUkw
Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via Facsimile Only)
14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120
Newport Beach, Califomla 92660
(949) 650.5550
Fax: (949) 650.1181