HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Appeal for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) - Correspondencemanatt
April 8, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92658
April 14, 2020
Agenda Item No. 9 - Correspondence
Susan K. Hod
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371-2528
shori@manatt.com
Client -Matter: 63060-030
Re: 215 Riverside - City Council Hearing, April 14, 2020; Appeal of Coastal
Development Permit No. CDP 2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit 2019-
003
Dear Mayor O'Neill and City Councilmembers:
This letter is sent on behalf of Laidlaw Schultz Architects ("Applicant"), the applicant for
a coastal development permit ("CDP") and conditional use permit ("CUP") to develop a 2,744
office structure and 41 parking spaces ("Project"), and 215 Riverside, LLC ("Owner"), the owner
of the property on which the Project will be implemented. The Project was approved by the
City's Planning Commission on October 17, 2019. An appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval was filed on October 31, 2019 ("Appeal"), by four individuals whose homes are
adjacent to the Project site ("Appellants").
The Applicant and Owner have waited almost six months for the City Council to consider
the appeal. For the reasons listed below and our responses addressing the allegations in the
Appeal submitted by the Appellants and their attorney, we urge the City Council approve the
Project. This Project:
• Is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning;
• Provides public access benefits in the coastal zone and Mariner's Mile area by
providing additional parking;
• Replaces a dilapidated building and parking lot with a building that is the same
height, but almost 75% smaller and with considerably more parking at a lower
elevation than the current parking lot;
• Does not impact and provides greater setback from an existing wetland area; and
• Will not impair any existing views as the Project's upper level of parking is at a
lower elevation than the existing parking lot, and the new building is the same
height as the existing building.
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 2
1. Approval of the Proiect Does Not Violate the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Project is Exempt Under the Class 32 Infill
Development Exemption.
In compliance with CEQA, the City determined that the Project was exempt from
environmental review because it fell within the category of projects covered by the Class 32
exemption for In -fill Development Projects. If a project satisfies the criteria set forth in Section
15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15332), it is considered exempt from
environmental review under CEQA. The City has prepared an Exemption Determination
providing evidence in the record as to why the proposed Project qualifies for a Class 32
exemption. In summary, the criteria — and the facts supporting application of those criteria to the
Project — are as follows:
• The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
o The General Plan designation for the Project site is CG (General
Commercial), the Zoning Code district is CG (Commercial General),
Coastal Land Use Plan designation is CG -B (General Commercial) and
the Coastal Zoning district is CG (Commercial General). These land use
and zoning designations are to provide areas appropriate for a wide
variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve citywide or
regional needs. The proposed office building and parking are consistent
with the land use and zoning designations. The site is currently
developed with an office building and parking and the proposed Project
replaces the existing structure with a considerably smaller structure with
more parking that serves the same uses. The Project is also consistent
with and implements various General Plan land use policies, including
policies adopted for the Mariners' Mile area.
• The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
o The Project site is 0.37 acres in size and located within the City of
Newport Beach. The Project site is surrounded by commercial uses and
residential uses.
• The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 3
o The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species. There is a stand of cattails west of the Project site
that has been delineated as "wetlands, " but the Project will not impact
the wetlands and will increase the distance between the nearest developed
structure and the wetlands.
• Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
o The City concluded that no traffic study was required because the Project
will reduce the number of daily trips as compared to the existing
structure. The number of daily trips generated by a 2,744 square feet
building will be less than what is generated by the existing 8,056 square
feet building. Although the proposed Project provides more parking
spaces, parking, in and of itself, is not a traffic generator. The uses, e.g.,
a restaurant, a store, that use the parking lot are the traffic generators,
not the parking spaces themselves. Therefore, a comparison of the
number of trips generated by the 2,744 square feet building as compared
to the 8,056 square feet existing building is sufficient to support the
determination that the Project will not have significant traffic impacts as
compared to the existing, on-site conditions. A noise study has been
conducted to examine the noise that may emanate from the parking lot
area of the Project. The noise study concluded that the Project will not
generate noise impacts to surrounding uses. In response to Planning
Commission questions, the Applicant agreed to limit the parking on the
upper level after 11 p.m. to further reduce any noise that may be caused
by cars starting or car doors shutting. Neither construction air emissions
or operational air emissions will exceed the significance thresholds
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and are not
considered significant. The Project will comply with all water quality
regulatory requirements. As the current structure was built prior to the
adoption of more stringent water quality regulations, the proposed
Project will actually have a beneficial impact by being designed to meet
the more stringent standards regarding water quality and runoff control
than what currently exists on site. The Applicant has submitted a
preliminary Water Quality Management Plan that has been reviewed by
the City and which will address how the project will comply with water
quality objectives.
0 The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 4
o The Project site is developed with an existing office building and parking
lot and is served by all utilities and services. The proposed Project will
replace the existing 8,056 square feet building with a 2,744 square feet
building. Consequently, the amount of electricity, water, gas and other
utilities used by the building coupled with more energy efficient
construction for the proposed building will result in less utility
consumption than under existing conditions.
The use of categorical exemptions under CEQA is qualified under certain limited
circumstances. The Appellants have alleged that two exceptions to the use of the Class 32
exemption are applicable. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Project will result
in the impacts alleged in Appellants' submittal. The first exception cited by the Appellants is the
"cumulative impact" exception. The exemption might not be applicable if the cumulative impact
of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant. There are no
successive projects of the same type in the same place that are being proposed and therefore, the
City did not identify any cumulative impacts that would cause a significant impact.
The second exception is if there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Again, the replacement of
an existing building and parking lot with a smaller building and more parking, on an already -
developed site, surrounded by commercial and residential uses does not present "unusual
circumstances." On page 10 of Attachment A to the Appeal, the Appellants state that the 215
Riverside Project will result in significant impacts to the environment due to "unusual
circumstances," because the project proposes a "parking structure is adjacent to, and as close as
24 feet, residential uses [sic] ...." The existing conditions at 215 Riverside consist of a
commercial building with one, uncovered parking lot which is higher in elevation, i.e., closer to
the elevation of the houses, than the proposed Project. Replacing an uncovered parking lot with
a more well-designed, partially covered parking lot does not present "unusual circumstances."
Moreover, the existing building and parking lot were already constructed and in operation before
any of the Appellants' houses were constructed. The residences abut the Mariner's Mile
commercial area, and the proximity of their residences to commercial operations in the Mariner's
Mile area is not an "unusual circumstance."
Lastly, the proposed Project actually lowers the elevation of the upper level of parking,
and provides additional noise attenuation through additional landscaping and a trellis covering
over a portion of the parking lot, than the current condition. Moreover, unlike the existing
condition which has absolutely no time constraints on how late cars can park there, the Project
will restrict cars accessing the upper level after 11 p.m. and limit exterior lighting on the upper
level after 11 p.m. to reduce any potential noise and light impacts.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 5
2. The Technical Reports Submitted to the City Support the City's
Determination and the Planning Commission's Approval.
In support of its argument that the City should not have used a CEQA categorical
exemption, the Appellants raise questions regarding the technical reports submitted by the
Applicant. We address each below.
Traffic
As noted above, the City did not require a traffic study because the Project would not
result in an increase in traffic over existing conditions, but would result in less trips because of
the smaller building. The existing baseline for assessing traffic impacts is a commercial office
building of 8,056 square feet. (See North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241
Cal.AppAth 94, where the court held that for purposes of assessing baseline traffic conditions,
the traffic study was correct in using trips from a fully -occupied Robinsons -May department
store as the "existing condition," even though it had been vacant since 2006.) The number of
trips from the proposed Project, a 2,744 square feet commercial office building, will be
considerably less than the trips from a 8,056 square feet commercial office building.
The Appellants argue that the City failed to consider the trips that would be generated by
the parking spaces. Parking lots —unless they are a standalone public parking facility — are not
traffic generators. They are accessory uses and are built to serve the approved "use" on the
property, such as a commercial office building. It is the "use" that generates traffic, not the
parking space. Further, if in the future, the parking spaces at 215 Riverside are leased to satisfy
another business' parking needs, the City requires that a separate CUP be obtained which allows
the City to analyze traffic hazards and traffic impacts. (NBMC 20.40.100.13.3.) The Appellants
alleged that the use of the parking spaces at 215 Riverside by other restaurants in the area is an
"intended and foreseeable use" of the parking spaces. This is sheer speculation as neither the
Applicant nor the Owner have been approached by or solicited for the use of the parking spaces
by others. And, should that occur in the future, the City will require a conditional use permit so
that it can study the impacts of such an arrangement. Applications for off-site parking
arrangements to support uses in the Mariner's Mile area of the City are not unusual. In fact, on
October 3, 2019, when this Project was heard by the Planning Commission, the other application
on the agenda was a Conditional Use Permit for Hornblower Yachts to use various parcels,
including a Lutheran church, for off-site parking. The City's permitting process ensures that any
future use of the parking spaces by anyone other than the commercial office tenants will be fully
analyzed.
The Appellants also expressed concerns that the parking spaces at 215 Riverside could be
used 24 hours a day, seven days a week which would create traffic and circulation impacts. To
repeat, parking spaces do not generate trips. Second, the Planning Commission limited the use of
the upper levels of parking to 11 p.m. to avoid a 24 hour a day parking situation. Third, the
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 6
parking spaces are privately -owned and will be privately -managed which will avoid a situation
of uncontrolled parking at all hours of the day every day.
Lighting
The Appellants have expressed concerns regarding the lack of a lighting evaluation from
car lights using the upper level of parking. First, the Applicant provided an exhibit depicting the
angle the light from cars using the upper parking area. The lights will not shine into any adjacent
residences. Given the adjacent slope, the elevation of the upper level of parking and the angle of
the cars as they approach the upper level of parking, the Applicant's lighting study demonstrated
that there would not be car lights that would shine into the adjacent residences. Second, contrary
to the Appellants' statements, the Planning Commission gave considerable thought to potential
impacts from light spillage, and added several conditions of approval specifically to further
minimize the potential for car lights to affect the nearby residences. Those conditions are:
• Condition 60: The project plans shall be modified to extend the proposed trellis
at the upper deck of the parking structure across the entire row of parking spaces
along the southerly frontage facing Avon Street.
• Condition 61: Exterior lighting shall be limited to the minimum necessary for
site security after I I p.m. on the upper deck of the parking structure.
• Condition 62: Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the upper level of the
parking structure 11 p.m. through 6 a.m. daily.
• Condition 63: The conditional use permit shall be subject to a 6 -months review
by the Planning Commission following issuance of the certificate of occupancy
for the office and parking structure.
Noise
The Appellants also question the Noise Impact Analysis that was submitted in support of
the Project. The Noise Impact Analysis studied the noise emanating from a parking lot that was
used by an office building with 24-hour, round the clock employees, who were coming and
going throughout the entire day and night. The Appellants criticized the data because they
believe it is dissimilar to compare a parking lot that will be used for office purposes and
potentially off-site parking, with an office building that operates 24 hours with employees
coming and going throughout the day and night. The parking lot studied in the Noise Impact
Analysis was considerably larger, and therefore generated more automobile movement and noise
than the Project's proposed parking spaces, and therefore, actually a situation where more, not
less, noise would be generated.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 7
Second, the Applicant requested its noise consultant to conduct additional noise
monitoring at four different locations in Newport Beach that provided nighttime restaurant
parking. (See Urban Crossroads, 215 Riverside Supplemental Noise Assessment, dated February
4, 2020 ("Supplemental Noise Study".) The selected locations were the parking lot at Mariner's
Mile Square located along Avon Street and Riverside Avenue; The Landing commercial center
at 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard; West Ocean Front and 22nd Street; and On the Rocks Bar
and Grill. The Supplemental Noise Study supported the conclusions of the Noise Impact
Analysis that the Project would not have significant noise impacts to the adjacent residences, and
that the average nighttime noise level ranged from 35.7 dBA to 40.5 dBA at 50 feet. (The City's
residential exterior noise standard for 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is 50 dBA.) The Supplemental Noise
Study also re -confirmed that the highest noise contributor from the proposed project was HVAC
units, but these units would not be operating at night, and have been relocated to the lower
parking level to help minimize sound emanating from these units. As discussed in the Noise
Impact Analysis, the major contributor to the ambient noise level in this area is the traffic on
Riverside Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway during the nighttime hours, not noise from the
proposed project, including its upper level of parking.
3. The Planning Commission Approval of the 215 Riverside Proiect Does Not
Violate CEQA's Prohibition Against Piecemealing A Project.
The Appellants also raise an argument under CEQA that the 215 Riverside Project is part
of a larger project, involving a proposed restaurant located at 2902 West Coast Highway, and
that the 215 Riverside Project must be considered together with the application for the restaurant
— which is still pending as incomplete before the City. By considering each application
separately, the Appellants claim that the City has chopped a larger project into two smaller
projects thereby minimizing environmental impacts, and has improperly "piecemealed" analysis
of the project impacts. These two proposed developments are separate projects and the City's
process is not "piecemealing."
As an initial matter, the two properties are under separate ownership, and the applications
were submitted separately by their respective ownership and development entities. Second, both
projects can and will operate separate from the other. They each have independent utility and are
not dependent upon each other. The building at 215 Riverside is not dependent or connected to a
future nearby restaurant, and one is not a consequence of the other. Lastly, as the discussion in
the prior section revealed, the impacts of the new office and parking at 215 Riverside have been
fully analyzed and disclosed for the City decisiomnakers.
Third, the piecemealing arguments raised on appeal were previously raised by the
Appellants' attorney prior to the October 17, 2019, Planning Commission hearing, and were
addressed in our letter to the Planning Commission, dated October 16, 2019, which is enclosed
with this letter, and incorporated by reference.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 8
"Piecemealing" is a term that arises out of case law involving interpretation of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). To ensure that the totality of all potential
environmental impacts of a project are considered, CEQA discourages "piecemealing" or cutting
up a project into smaller pieces with the goal of minimizing the significance of potential
environmental impacts of a project. Where you are dealing with two separate projects, whether
they are "related" is a question to be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376.)
Where two projects serve different purposes or can be implemented independently, the
city can review them separately. In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, the
court held that the City did not piecemeal its environmental analysis when it prepared one
environmental impact report for the Sunset Ridge Park and a separate environmental impact
report for the Banning Ranch development project even though the projects were adjacent and
would share an access road. The Banning Ranch development was not a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the park and access road. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport
Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209.)
Here, the office building and the restaurant proposal each have independent utility. If the
office building and parking lot were not approved or constructed, the 2902 West Coast Highway
proposal could still proceed to obtain permits and open for operation. The 215 Riverside Project
is not dependent upon the proposed restaurant, and the proposed restaurant is not dependent upon
215 Riverside to address its parking needs. Nor is a proposed restaurant — whether it be located
at 2902 West Coast Highway or anywhere else along Mariner's Mile — a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of building a commercial office building and parking at 215 Riverside.
Fourth, one of the main concerns raised in the appeal (see page 9, Attachment "A" to
Appeal Application) is the anticipated — but not verified — impact that if the proposed restaurant
were to be approved for late night operating hours, there would be traffic (vehicular and foot)
between the proposed restaurant and 215 Riverside until after 1 a.m. Despite the most important
fact that the owner of the proposed restaurant has no agreement to and is not relying upon
parking at 215 Riverside, and therefore, the two projects are not connected operationally, this
argument totally mischaracterizes the 215 Riverside Project for the City Council and ignores the
operational conditions of approval that were adopted by the Planning Commission to ensure that
the parking lot at 215 Riverside is NOT used for parking during late night hours. As the
Appellants are fully aware, the Planning Commission adopted Condition of Approval 62 which
limits the use of the upper level of the parking structure after 11 p.m.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 8, 2020
Page 9
4. Conclusion.
In conclusion, the 215 Riverside Project and the proposed restaurant are two separate
projects that will operate independent of each other. One is not a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the other. Consideration of two projects separately which are in mere proximity
to each other does not equate to impermissible piecemealing under CEQA. There is no valid
reason to require the City to delay consideration of the 215 Riverside Project until the restaurant
application is deemed complete.
For all the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission's approval of the 215
Riverside Project should be upheld by the City Council. We appreciate your consideration of the
information and analysis provided in this letter and request your approval of the Project.
Very truly yours,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Sutra -+,v K. Ho-ry
Susan K. Hori
Enclosure
Cc: Seimone Jurjis
Gregg Ramirez
James Campbell
Makana Nova
Yolanda Summerhill, Esq.
Aaron Harp, Esq.
Scott Laidlaw
325961513.1
manatt
October 16, 2019
Via E -Mail: planningcommissioners@newportbeachea.gov
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Susan K. Hod
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371-2528
E-mail: shori@manatt.com
Client -Matter: 63060-030
Re: 215 Riverside Avenue (Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-003,
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003, and Modification Permit No.
MD2019-003)
Dear Chair Koetting and Commissioners:
This letter is sent on behalf of Laidlaw Schultz, the applicant for the 215 Riverside
Avenue project. We wish to respond to the letter sent to you by Berding Weil, dated October 8,
2019 on behalf of several adjacent homeowners ("Berding Letter").
The 215 Riverside Proieet is an Independent, Standalone Project that is Not
"=Inextricably Linked" to a Pending Application for 2902 West Coast
Highway.
The Berding Letter begins by revisiting an issue that has been addressed by your
Planning staff, and discussed by the Commission as to whether the commercial building
proposed at 215 Riverside is part of a larger project that consists of a proposed restaurant located
across the street at 2902 West Coast Highway. It is not.
The 215 Riverside project is located in an area that is immediately adjacent to an existing
retail center, The Garden, that is being renovated and redeveloped. The center includes the U.S.
Post Office and the prior post office facility at 191 Riverside that is being redeveloped for
retail/commercial uses. The August 22, 2019 Planning Commission staff reports notes that one
of the functions that the 215 Riverside project could serve — but is not required to do so -- is to
provide off-site parking for the adjacent, existing retail center. Included within that center is an
existing building located at 2902 West Coast Highway that is proposed for future restaurant uses.
Because of the proximity of 215 Riverside to proposed restaurant at 2902 West Coast
Highway, questions have arisen as to whether the two projects should be considered together
because they are part of one project, and to consider them separately as the City is doing,
constitutes "piecemealing." It does not.
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.0
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 2
"Piecemealing" is a term that arises out of case law involving interpretation of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). To ensure that the totality of all potential
environmental impacts of a project are considered, CEQA discourages "piecemealing" or cutting
up a project into smaller pieces with the goal of minimizing the significance of potential
environmental impacts of a project. Examples cited by the courts include requiring that the
future expansion of a proposed university facility be considered because it was a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the initial development (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376); or requiring that a county's rezoning
of land be considered together with the subsequent specific development project because the
rezoning was a necessary first step of the future development project which it intended to
consider (City of Carmel-hy-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229).
On the other hand, if two projects serve different purposes or can be implemented
independently, the city can review them separately. In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of
Newport Beach, the court held that the City did not piecemeal its environmental analysis when it
prepared one environmental impact report for the Sunset Ridge Park and a separate
environmental impact report for the Banning Ranch development project even though the
projects were adjacent and would share an access road. The Banning Ranch development was
not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the park and access road. (Banning Ranch
Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.41" 1209.)
Although the 215 Riverside project is across the street from 2902 West Coast Highway,
the proposed restaurant is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the office building and
parking lot. Both can operate independently of the other, and one is not a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the other. A proposal that is related to another project, but has independent
utility and is not necessary for the project to proceed need not be included as part of the project
and may be reviewed as aseparate project. (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of
Richmond (2010) 184 Cal .App.4"' 70.) Here, the office building and the restaurant proposal each
have independent utility. If the office building and parking lot were never approved or
constructed, the 2902 West Coast Highway proposal could still proceed to obtain permits and
open for operation. The only link that is being drawn is the possible future use of the parking
spaces at the 215 Riverside building by restaurant patrons.
As the City is well aware, there are many instances where local businesses — in most
situations, restaurants — are required to obtain off-site parking to meet its parking demands.
Many of the restaurants that operate on Mariner's Mile, just a block away from 215 Riverside,
require off-site parking. Those restaurants often enter into agreements with nearby property
owners to utilize their parking lots. The proposed restaurant at 2902 West Coast Highway is no
different and has entered into a memorandum of understanding to lease 35 parking spaces from
the owner of the parking lot located at the southeast corner of Avon Street and Riverside
Avenue, a copy of which was previously transmitted to this Commission. As the City staff
report states, although the parking spaces at 215 Riverside can be used for future tenants and
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 3
patrons of The Garden shopping center, it can also be made available to other businesses and off-
site uses in the area (such as boat charters or other visitor -service businesses) to address their
parking needs. This is consistent with the current practice for some landowners with surplus
parking, and reflected in the City's own General Plan and Coastal Land Use policies, such as:
L U 6.19.16 Parking and Supporting Facilities for Waterfront Uses. Explore additional
options for the development and location of parking and other supporting facilities for
charters, yacht sales, and other waterfront uses. (Imp 16.10)
Imp 16.10 Improve Parking Supply and Management. Parking Management Programs
shall be considered for commercial and residential areas of the City with inadequate
parking, such as Corona del Mar and the Balboa Peninsula. This may consider the
development of public parking lots or structures, street parking permitting, valet
programs, and similar techniques as feasible. Existing public parking lots should be
evaluated for their accessibility, utilization, and proximity to the uses they support.
Possible relocation should be considered where they do not effectively support
surrounding land uses....
Although the Mariner's Mile area of the City was not identified as an area with
inadequate parking like the Balboa Peninsula, as many residents who have submitted comments
have stated, the availability of street parking in the residential areas is severely compromised and
it goes without saying that additional parking spaces in a structured lot could help relieve the
lack of street parking experienced by the adjacent residential community.
In conclusion, the commercial office building and its parking lot is not inextricably linked
to the application for a future restaurant at 2902 West Coast Highway. The proposed restaurant
is not solely dependent on the construction of the parking lot at 215 Riverside to satisfy its
parking needs. One is not a necessary first step for the other. There are a number of options to
address its parking needs, including other off-site parking lots, which the restaurant applicant has
already pursued in the event the commercial uses at 215 Riverside are not approved by the City
or built in the future.
2. The City's CEOA Determination is Supported by Substantial Evidence in the
Record.
The Berding Letter next takes issue with the City's determination that the 215 Riverside
project is an infill development project, and therefore exempt from CEQA. The CEQA
Guidelines establish 33 classes of projects which are exempt from the requirement to prepare a
negative declaration or environmental impact report, because the State has determined that they
will not have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15300.) The City
has determined that the 215 Riverside project is exempt from CEQA because it is an infill
development project that satisfies the following 5 criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines:
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 4
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15332.)
The August 22, 2019 Staff Report included an Exemption Determination setting out the
facts in support of the City's conclusion that the 215 Riverside project qualifies for the Class 32
infill development exemption. For the reasons discussed below, the Berding Letter's attacks on
the City's CEQA determination are unfounded, unsupported, and inaccurate.
As an initial comment, the letter states that the applicant made the CEQA determination
that the project is exempt. The determination as to whether a project is subject to CEQA or
exempt from CEQA, and what type of environmental documentation is appropriate is a decision
that is made by the city, not the applicant. The applicant is not the lead agency to whom
authority is vested under CEQA to make this determination.
Second, the Berding Letter reiterates its claim that the 215 Riverside project is part of a
larger project that includes the proposed restaurant at 2902 West Coast Highway, and the two
separate applications must be considered and processed together as one project. As discussed
above, the restaurant is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the commercial building and
parking lot and vice versa. Both can be developed and operated independent of the other. For
these reasons, the City's decision to process each application separately does not constitute
improper "piecemealing."
Third, the City's analysis of the 215 Riverside project and why it satisfies each of the five
criteria for a Class 32 exemption from CEQA is supported by substantial evidence in the record
before you. That evidence also demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility the project
will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, or that there are
significant cumulative impacts from successive projects of the same type in the same place over
time.
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 5
a. The 215 Riverside Proiect is Consistent With Applicable General Plan
Policies.
The Exemption Determination that accompanied the City's August 22, 2019 Staff Report
reviewed the applicable General Plan policies and identified how the project is consistent with
those policies.
The Berding Letter cites three General Plan policies in an attempt to fault the City's
General Plan consistency determination.
L U S. 2.2 Buffering Residential Areas
Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to
be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as:
Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers,
downward focused lightingfixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements;
Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential
neighborhood;
Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood
traffic and privacy. (Imp 2.1)
Because the 215 Riverside project includes a parking structure adjacent to residential
development, it is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. That entitlement process
provides a mechanism to ensure that the design and siting of the parking is compatible and does
not adversely impact the adjacent residential community. The 215 Riverside project provides a
number of buffering elements, including enhanced landscaping on the slopes adjacent to the
existing residences, partial coverage of the upper level to minimize the amount of surface area
exposure, downward facing lights, and a retaining wall. The project will pull back the proposed
parking area from the footprint of the existing parking lot by removing portions of the existing
retaining wall, and landscaping those areas with vegetation that will screen much of the upper
level of parking. More significantly, the elevation of the proposed upper level is actually lower
than the current elevation of the surface lot, thus further distancing and separating the cars on the
upper level of the parking structure than currently exists.
There is no evidence to support the Berding Letter's claim that the 215 Riverside parking
areas will be used "far more frequently and in a substantially more intrusive manner" than the
current configuration. Currently, there are 17 uncovered, parking spaces provided at the parking
lot which is at a higher elevation and closer to the existing residences than what would be
provided by the proposed 215 Riverside project. With project implementation, the upper level
will have 22 spaces, 5 of which will be located under a lattice covering, and 17 spaces — the same
number of spaces as the current surface parking lot -- will be uncovered. These spaces, however,
will be located further away from the property line and will be surrounded by enhanced
landscaping as compared to the existing condition. If used for off-site parking for an existing
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 6
commercial enterprise — which the building owner would be entitled to do -- the 17 existing
spaces could be used by any number of restaurant or boat charter patrons and there is no
evidence to support the claim that the 215 Riverside project's use of that lot would be any less or
more intrusive than what could be done under current conditions.
L U 6.19 Mariner's Mile.
A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay
waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods and
exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway.
The Berding Letter reiterates its allegation that the proposed 215 Riverside project's
parking lot fails to respect the adjoining residences without any consideration of facts that the
proposed upper level of parking with its lattice covering, reduced elevation and enhanced
landscaping will actually provide a much more attractive and compatible parking area than if the
existing lot were re -used to its full capacity.
CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration.
Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or
management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce.
The Berding Letter's primary concern appears to be the issue of tandem parking which
was originally proposed as being potentially difficult to manage. In response to the concerns
expressed by Chair Koetting, the applicant modified the application to remove the request for
tandem parking. The number of parking spaces has been reduced from 41 to 35 spaces.
b. The Berding Letter's Selective Reading of the C ty's Genera! Plan
Ignores the Policies that Support the Proiect.
The Berding Letter selectively excerpts various General Plan policies while ignoring
policies that both support and encourage the type of use proposed in the 215 Riverside project.
The following policies demonstrate the Project's consistency with the City's General Plan and
the appropriateness of the categorical exemption.
L U 5.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location.
Require that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve
tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and
pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense
landscaping. (Imp 2.1)
As discussed above, the parking structure meets all of these design parameters as it is set
back from Avon Street and Riverside Drive, conveniently located to serve the tenants as well as
customers of The Garden, the architectural features are a vast aesthetic improvement over the
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 7
existing building and providing improvement to the property values in the area, and additional
landscaping both in front of and behind the structure help buffer and soften the appearance of the
building.
LU 6.19.16 Parking and Supporting Facilities for Waterfront Uses
Explore additional options for the development and location ofparking and other
Supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, and other waterfront uses. (Imp
16.10)
CE 7.1.7 Shared Parking Facilities.
Consider allowing shared parking in mixed use and pedestrian oriented areas
throughout the City.
The provision of additional parking in the Mariner's Mile area is consistent with these
two policies that encourage the provision of parking to support the visitor serving uses in this
area.
C. The Project Satisfies Criteria (d) and (e) for a Class 32 Infill
Development Exemption.
The final two criteria for use of the Class 32 Infill Development exemption are as
follows:
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
As part of its application, the applicant submitted traffic and noise studies, a view
analysis, as well as sewer and water demand studies as requested by the City. The traffic study
concluded that the project would not generate any significant traffic impacts on the existing
street network. Given the limited number of vehicle trips generated by the project which is the
major source of air pollutant emissions, and the requirement that the project comply with all
applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations, such as watering
the site to minimize dust during construction, the City concluded that the project would not result
in any significant effects related to air quality.
For the reasons discussed previously, the 215 Riverside project is not part of a larger
project and the traffic study scope which limited its analysis to trips from the proposed 215
Riverside project was appropriate. It should also be remembered that the operation of The
Garden retail site is considered part of the existing background in terms of traffic and that the
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 8
assumptions used for The Garden assumed full occupation of the retail space, including the
building at 2902 West Coast Highway.
A noise study was also prepared that examined the potential noise that would be
generated by the proposed project including use of the parking areas during the evening. The
study applied the City's day time and night time noise standards to the noise that was estimated
to be emitted from project operations, including use of the parking lot during the evening, and
concluded that there were no significant noise impacts. Although many of the comments
received on the project from nearby residents expressed concerns regarding noise, it is important
to take into consideration the fact that the 215 Riverside project site is within an area that is
already exposed to high levels of ambient noise due to the volume of traffic on both Riverside
Avenue and West Coast Highway. Moreover, the design of the project helps reduce the potential
noise impacts from cars in the parking lot. For example, the proposed upper level of parking is
approximately 7-8 feet below the elevation of the existing parking lot. The lower elevation of
the parking area helps reduce the noise from cars using that upper level of parking.
With respect to water quality, the project will comply with the required Best Management
Practices ("BMPs") set forth in the required Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") which
has been reviewed by the City. Compliance with the required regulations and requirements of
the WQMP avoids any significant water quality impacts. Lastly, while not a water quality issue,
the City also examined the presence of a wetland area to the west of the project site that is
present at the base of the slope that ends at Avon Street. The wetland area has been substantially
disturbed by the construction of staircases on the slope, and street improvements along Avon.
The project does not drain into and will not have any adverse impact on the wetlands. To the
contrary, the project will actually provide a beneficial impact by increasing the open space area
between the wetland area and new retaining wall for the proposed project; a conclusion
supported by the study prepared by the City's wetland consultant, Glenn Lukos Associates.
Although not one of the impacts areas identified in subsection (d) of the Class 32
exemption, the applicant also provided a view analysis of the project from the park on Cliff
Drive. As the commercial building is reduced in size as compared to the existing structure, and
the parking area will actually be 7-8 feet lower in elevation as compared to the existing surface
parking lot, there will be no impact on existing views. With respect to concerns expressed about
impacts from car headlights on the upper level, the applicant also prepared a headlamp beam
spread analysis using the criteria established by the Federal Highway Administration which
shows that light from cars using the upper level of parking will not impact the adjacent
residences but would be shielded in large part by the retaining wall, slope, and landscaping on
the adjacent slope.
Lastly, the project site is an already -developed site that is served by existing utilities and
surrounded by urban development, and thus satisfies the final criteria to use a Class 32
exemption. To ensure that the new building and its demands could be adequately served by the
manatt
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 9
City, a sewer and water demand study was prepared and adequate capacity and water supply was
identified.
In conclusion, the redevelopment of 215 Riverside is the textbook example of infill
development and the City's determination that it is exempt under the Class 32 exemption of
CEQA is supported by substantial evidence in the record. It is an already -developed site,
surrounded by urban uses, and served by existing improvements and utilities. The project is
consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, and all relevant policies, and will not have
any significant impacts on the environment.
3. There are no "Unusual Circumstances" that would Preclude Use of the Infill
Development CEQA Exemption.
The project does not present "unusual circumstances" that create significant
environmental impacts. A commercial building and parking lot currently exist on site. The
existing building and parking lot will be replaced by a new project that consists of the same
combination of uses. The traffic and noise from a 35 space parking lot was fully analyzed and
no impacts were identified. The replacement of an existing structure for the same use does not
represent "unusual circumstances" and certainly not a circumstance that presents significant
impacts.
The Berding Letter identifies the requirement to obtain a Conditional Use Permit as
evidence of "unusual circumstances." The fact that the City has in its ordinance a mechanism by
which parking can be permitted adjacent to residential areas demonstrates that the juxtaposition
of these two uses occurs with sufficient frequency in the City as to warrant a provision in the
City's Municipal Code setting forth the manner in which these projects are to be examined.
Moreover, even if this structure were not adjacent to the residences, it would still require
discretionary approvals because of its location within the coastal zone. The Berding Letter
implies that only the proximity to residential uses trigger a discretionary approval and therefore,
it should be considered "unusual." To the contrary, the City's Code contemplates the need for
the City to examine the appropriateness of these two uses being developed adjacent to each
other, and regardless of the CUP requirement, the project would require discretionary approvals
from the City.
4. Conclusion.
In conclusion, there is no basis for the City to require that consideration of the 215
Riverside project be held until the application for 2902 West Coast Highway is deemed complete
and staff has completed its analysis. The projects are independent of each other and the City has
not improperly piecemealed the applications. The City's CEQA determination is supported by
substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the project is an infill development that is
Planning Commission
October 16, 2019
Page 10
exempt from CEQA. We appreciate your consideration of the information and analysis provided
in this letter and request your approval of the 215 Riverside project.
Very truly yours,
Susan K. Hori
Cc via email: James Campbell, Deputy Director
Makana Nova, Associate Planner
Yolanda Summerhill, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Laidlaw
325338771.1
From: Ramirez, Gregg
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 1:56 PM
To: City Clerk's Office; Brown, Leilani
Cc: Nova, Makana
Subject: Fw: Protest City Council Hearing 4/14 - 215 Riverside
From: Hal Woods <hal@centerstone.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:27 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com>; EVC Management Services
<evcmanagement@centerstone.com>; Stefanie M. Sitzer <ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Aaron Ehrlich
<aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Coralee Newman <cora@govsol.com>;
dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>; Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>; Sandra Ayres <ssayres@me.com>
Subject: Protest City Council Hearing 4/14 - 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gregg and City Council Members,
My name is Hal Woods and I live at 2919 Cliff Drive, directly above the subject property at 215 Riverside.
I am in strong protest of the city's determination to hear the appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project in light of the
current health risk to do so. There is no urgency with regard to this project. As noted by my prior email, it does not
appear that all due diligence has been undertaken in a prudent manner.
I urge the council to move this appeal to a time when the residents have the opportunity to come face to face with the
council and have their case heard in person. Some of us are at risk, I for one being 65 or older, have strong concerns
about the accessibility for my participation in the hearing.
I appreciate you taking the time to consider this request, and trust you will take it seriously as we have.
Sincerely,
Hal Woods
2919 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach
714-200-4915
From: Ramirez, Gregg
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 1:58 PM
To: City Clerk's Office; Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fw: 215 Riverside - Garden Project
From: Hal Woods <hal@centerstone.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:07 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Jack Staub
<jstaub@criticalio.com>; EVC Management Services <evcmanagement@centerstone.com>; Stefanie M. Sitzer
<ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Aaron Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Coralee Newman <cora@govsol.com>;
Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>; dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Sandra
Ayres <ssayres@me.com>
Subject: 215 Riverside - Garden Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
G regg,
Several months ago, I came into the counter, and met with Makenna, regarding the 215 Riverside application. I asked for
a full geology report, signed by a licensed geologist, with respect to slope, grading, over excavation, and new retaining
walls. She said she would look into it, and needless to say, I never received it.
Some 30 years ago, when we constructed the Mariners Point project, which consists of the 4 homes directly above the
subject property, at 215 Riverside, we worked with our geologist and constructed a very expensive caisson wall to
protect the integrity of the slope we were constructing on.
We, the homeowners, are very concerned that the proper analysis has not been closely studied with respect to the
integrity of the slope during construction, over excavation analysis, and the grading of the 215 Riverside project. We
have not been provided any proof or reports from a licensed company, that indicate this has been analyzed in the
proper manner.
As homeowners, we want assurances that the proper geological analysis has been followed, to ensure our greatest
investments are protected and that the consultants and contractors working on this portion of the project, carry the
proper licenses, insurance and errors and omissions Insurances. Please keep in mind, collectively, the values of the 4
properties above the subject property in totality are well in excess of 20 Million Dollars.
The due diligence on this project has been very lax as attested by their lack of knowledge of the easements that pertain
to the project. It should also be noted that some of the utilities serving the four homes above the subject property,
connect into Riverside Ave., running directly behind the retaining walls aforementioned. What analysis and efforts have
been made to maintain their integrity? I'm sure no one would like to have a ruptured sewer system running down
Riverside Ave and into the bay.
Gregg your attention and immediate response to this email is critically important to the outcome and subject approvals
of this project. We the homeowners expect your immediate response and ask that you provide the homeowners with
the requested reports and expert staff analysis of these reports. Bearing in mind that we have just been informed that
there will be a public hearing on April 14th, which we are in protest of, due to health and safety concerns.
Best regards,
Hal Woods
2919 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach CA 92663
714-200-4915
Received After Agenda Printed
April 14, 2020
Agenda Item No. 9
From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:14:24 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg
<GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Garden Project Hearing
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
At this time, I am requesting that the April 14th hearing for the 215 Garden Project be postponed
due to the City's shutdown until May 3, 2020. This project has not been fully vetted within the
community, despite Mr. Jabara and his applicant's consultant and attorney have stated in the past.
The project and its cumulative impacts are in complete defiance of the City's Strategic Vision
Plan that outlines the following principles:
The distribution of parking is to be along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor and discourages
transportation policies and engineering practices which promote increased traffic volumes and
speeds in residential neighborhoods. The diagram from the Mariner's Mile Design Framework
and its references clearly does not include have a parking structure abutting a residential
neighborhood; however, it further encourages a "village" feel and to promote pedestrian safety.
(The proposed parking structure is in complete contradiction to the City's Mariner's Mile Design
Framework.)
The City's document also states that Newport Heights in an integral part of Newport Beach, one
of the most affluent communities in Orange County, entailing generally held expectations for a
higher level of quality, higher design standards and greater expectations for the physical
environment. This includes the residential community, Newport Heights Elementary, Ensign and
Newport Harbor schools, as well as, the California Coastal Commission's protected wet -land
adjacent to the proposed parking structure.
The document also outlines the sensitivity to existing neighborhoods with the proposed uses and
developments and projects are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mitigation of potential
impacts to existing residents should be considered and balanced against the business interests of
Mariner's Mile / Newport Heights.
The references and supporting documents:
The formulation of the Mariner's Mile Design Framework was based on the comprehensive
analysis of collected base information and a review of the City's existing program, the site and the
Mariner's Mile Business and Citizen's Advisory Committee Study Recommendations. This effort
was conducted in order to uncover the keyDesign Issues and Opportunities affecting the current
conditions along Mariner's Mile and the abutting residential neighborhood.
A list of references and supporting documents follows. Copies of these documents are available
for review at Newport Beach City Hall.
7.11 Mariner's Mile Specific Plan (Ord. 20.42, Dist. #5)
7.12 Mariner's Mile Advisory Committee Recommendations (1997)
7.13 T.O.T Revenue Enhancement Study (PKF, 1997)
PLEASE NOTE:
The City has already laid-out the framework and the foundation for this specific area, I am
asking that each of you follow these guiding principles, in the event the Council moves
forward with the 215 Garden Project Hearing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Peggy V. Palmer
Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision - Parking Distribution Plan
215 Garden Project Parking Structure
From: Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council
<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; EVC Management Services
<evcmanagement@centerstone.com>; Stefanie M. Sitzer <ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Aaron
Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Coralee Newman
<cora@govsol.com>; dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>; Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>;
Sandra Ayres <ssayres@me.com>; 'hal@centerstone.com' <hal@centerstone.com>; Jack Staub
<jstaub@criticalio.com>
Subject: 215 Riverside - Garden Project / Parking Structure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Gregg and Council Members,
My name is Jack Staub and I live at 2911 Cliff Drive, just 24 feet from the proposed parking structure.
My home is also at a lower elevation than my neighbors' homes, only 8 feet above the proposed
structure.
I have 2 children who live with me, ages 11 and 14. Their lives will be adversely impacted by this
development, with its added traffic, noise, scanning headlights and safety concerns that come with
any busy parking structure just feet away without a roof, particularly one operating late into the
night.
We live on a slope, with Cliff Drive Park on one side and the proposed project on the other; on April
28, 2014 the City denuded the park slope adjacent to our homes by cutting down the old-growth
trees, creating an ongoing potential for slope instability that will play out for decades, as the roots of
those trees decay. This has been extensively documented by your geotechnical experts and ours.
By its own actions in 2014, the City created an ongoing obligation to maintain a stable slope and
provide lateral support to our properties; but to permit the excavation of the other side of our
homes, without any geotechnical assessment, seems unconscionable and reckless.
Sincerely,
Jack Staub
2911 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach
949-400-1319
Received After Agenda Printed
April 14, 2020
Agenda Item No. 9
From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:14:24 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg
<GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Garden Project Hearing
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
At this time, I am requesting that the April 14th hearing for the 215 Garden Project be postponed
due to the City's shutdown until May 3, 2020. This project has not been fully vetted within the
community, despite Mr. Jabara and his applicant's consultant and attorney have stated in the past.
The project and its cumulative impacts are in complete defiance of the City's Strategic Vision
Plan that outlines the following principles:
The distribution of parking is to be along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor and discourages
transportation policies and engineering practices which promote increased traffic volumes and
speeds in residential neighborhoods. The diagram from the Mariner's Mile Design Framework
and its references clearly does not include have a parking structure abutting a residential
neighborhood; however, it further encourages a "village" feel and to promote pedestrian safety.
(The proposed parking structure is in complete contradiction to the City's Mariner's Mile Design
Framework.)
The City's document also states that Newport Heights in an integral part of Newport Beach, one
of the most affluent communities in Orange County, entailing generally held expectations for a
higher level of quality, higher design standards and greater expectations for the physical
environment. This includes the residential community, Newport Heights Elementary, Ensign and
Newport Harbor schools, as well as, the California Coastal Commission's protected wet -land
adjacent to the proposed parking structure.
The document also outlines the sensitivity to existing neighborhoods with the proposed uses and
developments and projects are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mitigation of potential
impacts to existing residents should be considered and balanced against the business interests of
Mariner's Mile / Newport Heights.
The references and supporting documents:
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:46 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Appeal
-----Original Message -----
From: SANDRA L AYRES <ssayres@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Appeal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members
I am writing concerning the 215 Riverside Appeal scheduled to be heard on April 14.
I join my voice with others asking that this appeal be delayed until a time when it can be fairly attended by concerned
citizens. At a time when the Council has voted to shut down the Boardwalk, the City offices, etc until May 3 and the
population must self isolate - how can a fair hearing be held? I strongly disagree with the suggestion that anyone who
wants to participate can do so remotely. Many in our community would not have the needed skills or experience with
telecommunication - myself being one. It would be wrong to deny their participation in our civic discourse.
Being that this project has many issues attached and long lasting effects on our neighborhood, an open and transparent
hearing is required. If the date is not postponed, citizens will be left with the impression that there may have been
influences and pressures on the outcome. The question could be asked if there was a hope to keep the vote results
under a veil. It would be unfortunate for the City and the Applicant if this issue went to further legal wrangling and
expense. There is no need for this type of situation to occur.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Sandra Ayres
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:04 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Protest City Council Hearing 4/14 - 215 Riverside
From: Bruce Bartram
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:03:47 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dept - City Council
Cc: pvpalmer@icloud.com
Subject: Protest City Council Hearing 4/14 - 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Ramirez and City Council Members
I strongly protest the City's apparent decision to hear the appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project in light of the current
health risk to do so. A review of the Staff Report and supporting documents reveals hundreds of pages of correspondence
from concerned residents regarding the merits of the project. Given this level of public interest the City's proposed
telephonic public participation option is simply inadequate under the circumstances and offends basic principles of due
process of law.
From the Staff Report, there appears no urgency regarding the City Council hearing the appeal. Therefore, I request that
the City Council continue the appeal so that the public can be heard in person by the Council and fully participate in the
determination of the merits of this project.
Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Bartram
2 Seaside Circle
Newport Beach
Mulvey, Jennifer
From:
Rieff, Kim
Sent:
Monday, April 13, 2020 9:53 AM
To:
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject:
FW: 215 Riverside
From: Harry Barton <harrybarton@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 10:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gregg and City Council Members,
My name is Hal Woods and I live at 2919 Cliff Drive, directly above the subject
property at 215 Riverside.
I am in strong protest of the city's determination to hear the appeal of the 215
Riverside/Garden Project in light of the current health risk to do so. There is no
urgency with regard to this project. As noted by my prior email, it does not appear
that all due diligence has been undertaken in a prudent manner.
I urge the council to move this appeal to a time when the residents have the
opportunity to come face to face with the council and have their case heard in
person. Some of us are at risk, I for one being 65 or older, have strong concerns
about the accessibility for my participation in the hearing.
I appreciate you taking the time to consider this request, and trust you will take it
seriously as we have.
HarryBarton@me.com
M 949.290.9596
H 949.200.9636
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:43 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: City Council Hearing 4/14 - 215 Riverside
From: HYLA BERTEA <myredshoes@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 1:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: City Council Hearing 4/14 - 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To our City Council,
The City of Newport Beach facilies are closed to the public through May 3 to slow the spread of COVID-19. This includes
indoor facilities such as City Hall, the Senior Center and recreation centers, and outdoor facilities such as playground
equipment, sports fields, tennis, basketball and paddleball courts, and the dog park.
The May 3 date is an estimate based on guidance from the State and County using the most current information
available. The date may change based on future recommendations from the State and County.
As the number of cases grows in Orange County, it is imperative that we all follow the Governor's "stay at home" order
to limit transmission of the coronavirus during these times.
I Think because of these unusual circumstances the city must postpone hearing the appeal scheduled for April
14th of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project in light of the current health risk to do so. There is no urgency with
regard to this project.
I urge the council to move this appeal to a time when the residents have the opportunity to come face
to face with the council and have their case heard in person.
I appreciate you taking the time to consider this request, and trust you will take it seriously as I have.
Since I don't live in this neighborhood I can only imagine what an impact this commercial project would
have on a quiet neighborhood as theirs is.
Best Wishes and
Stay Safe and Healthy,
Hyla Bertea
173 Shorecliff Road
Corona del Mar
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 2:27 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: Fwd: Newport Heights Parking Structure
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Laurie Booth <lovelylfb@aol.com>
Date: April 13, 2020 at 2:25:16 PM PDT
To: Dept -City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Newport Heights Parking Structure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Newport Beach City Council,
I would like to express my opposition to the proposed parking structure at the corner of Avon Street and
Riverside in Newport Beach.
This corner is heavily travelled by hundreds of bicycles on school days and beach days. Drivers must
exercise extreme caution in this area at all times.
A parking structure would add more congestion to a very dangerous intersection.
Please consider my request in opposing this structure.
Most sincerely,
Laurie Fraser Booth
Newport Beach
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 2:01 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Short Term Lodging Public Notice
From: Brenan, Ellen <EBrenan@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 1:19 PM
To: Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Short Term Lodging Public Notice
Hi Kim,
I work in the Revenue Division, and handle most short term lodging emails and calls. My supervisor, Monique
Navarrete, said you may be able to help me out.
I have had a few questions from property owners engaging in short term lodging stating they did not hear about the
emergency short term lodging Council meeting last Friday. Are you able to let me know when was the public notice
sent, and how was the public informed? Any information you can provide will be helpful.
Thank you,
Ellen
Ellen Brenan
City of Newport Beach
Revenue Division I Short Term Lodging
100 Civic Center Dr I Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.644.3027
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:53 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project
-----Original Message -----
From: Alice Brewer <abrewer3@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 9:33 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To all the City Council,
You cannot ethically hold a hearing on this project without the city's citizens being able to attend.
Please postpone this hearing.
Alice Brewer
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Postpone any hearing on the RIverside 215 project issue.
-----Original Message -----
From: G Brokate <georgebrokate@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 7:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Postpone any hearing on the RIverside 215 project issue.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
the public has the right to attend.
it is not legal, or constitutional, to set in a system wherein you use the Wuhan Virus as an excuse to conduct our
residents and city business outside the view, the participation, and the reaction ,of the citizens affected.
what is the proper address ,and person's name, and title, as recipient, for individuals ,and groups,to file civil litigation
,and criminal,complaints, regarding these citizen and property owner and occupier rights?
we know what Zoom is, and what it is not.
thank you for your very prompt response,and your careful consideration of the people's business here in our unique
nautical village venue.
please advise me by reply that you have received this communication from someone who has resided in Newport Beach
since 1966.
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project
-----Original Message -----
From: Gene Brooks <bbrooks1000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 4:14 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I request you postpone the council hearing In April 14 regarding the proposed 215 Riverside Project until AFTER THE
NEWPORT BEACH QUARANTINE IS LIFTED AFTER In the beginning Of May. This quarantine prevents any Newport Beach
residents from attending the April 14 Hearing which is not fair to the residents who Will be affected by this project next
to their Homes.
Thank you for your time .
Regards
Brian Brooks
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:48 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Protest City Council Hearing 4/14/2020 concerning 215 Riverside
From: Valerie Carson <valcarson@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 3:58 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana <MNova @newportbeachca.gov>; Jack Staub
<jstaub@criticalio.com>; EVC Management Services <evcmanagement@centerstone.com>; "Stefanie M. Sitzer"
<ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Aaron Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Coralee
Newman <cora@govsol.com>; dave@earsi.com; Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>; Sandra Ayres
<ssayres@me.com>; Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Subject: Protest City Council Hearing 4/14/2020 concerning 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Gregg & City Council Members -
My name is Val Carson and I live on San Bernardino Ave. 4 houses from Cliff Drive.
I am in agreement with many of my neighbors in strongly protesting the city's determination to hear
the appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project in light of the current health risk to do so. There is no
urgency with regard to this project. I also agree that it does not appear that all due diligence has been
undertaken in a prudent manner.
In fairness to the residents who will be impacted by this noisy project but cannot be at the meeting
due to Covid 19 health risks I urge the council to move the appeal to a time when it is safe for the
residents to participate.
#1 the project will be noisy. I remember all the disturbances caused by open air steel bands in the
building on PCH where Amaries is now located. The whole restaurant had to be shut down because
the noise resonated up in Newport Heights as well as across the Bay on Lido Island. I'm sure you
have records of all those complaints. This is a family oriented neighborhood. We all cherish our peace
and quiet and deserve a say in this matter.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our request, and trust that you will be fair in this matter that
affects many pre existing family neighborhoods 360 degrees around this project. It is only fair that we
residents are able to attend when it is safe for our health.
Thank you...Val Carson and family
949.683.6324
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: please postpone the April 14, 2020 meeting re: 214 Riverside
From: Paula Castanon <paula@dreastanon.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:42 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: please postpone the April 14, 2020 meeting re: 214 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The meeting is scheduled for this upcoming Tuesday, April 14,
as we the local residents have a right to input our opinions
regarding this project.
paula@dreastanon.com
3
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Ramirez, Gregg
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 4:02 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fw: 215 Riverside (Garden office & Parking Structure) Public Hearing re Appeal
Here's another
From: EVC Management Services <evcmanagement@centerstone.com>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 1:40:37 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana <MNova @newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside (Garden office & Parking Structure) Public Hearing re Appeal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Ramirez,
I am one of the homeowners adjacent to the proposed 215 Riverside improvements. As some of my neighbors have
already expressed, it is necessary for the April 14 hearing to be postponed so that we may receive critical
documentation that was requested by Hal Woods (and perhaps others) months ago during a personal visit to the City's
planning counter. We have yet to receive those documents, which need to be studied and reviewed in conjunction with
determining the impact on our slopes and retaining walls. Until a proper analysis can be conducted, including earlier
inquiries being responded to, the hearing should be postponed.
In addition, some of the affected owners are under quarantine due to the Covid-19 virus which affects our ability to
participate in a practical fashion. We do not believe the City has provided us with proper and reasonable
accommodations to electronically or telephonically participate in this hearing and thus it should be postponed until we
can do so. Most of us prefer to participate in person, as is our right. It is also my understanding that our legal counsel's
(Berding Weil) emails of April 2 and April 6, 2020 have not been responded to in detail and I would like to know why the
City has yet to respond.
If you wish to discuss the matter, you are welcome to call me. However, in my opinion, the City should continue the
scheduled April 14 hearing to a later date when most, if not all, affected parties can fully participate, allow time for
access to critical documentation, and to allow a proper forum for providing testimony in a fashion that is fair to all.
Regards,
Ernest V. Castro, President
EVC Management Services, Inc.
(949) 375-4190
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Jurjis, Seimone
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 1:54 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fwd: 215 Riverside Parking lot
Comments For agenda item #9
Seimone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Date: April 11, 2020 at 1:28:56 PM PDT
To: "Jurjis, Seimone" <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Herdman, Jeff" <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>, Mayor Will O'Neill
<oneill4newport@gmail.com>, "Brenner, Joy" <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>, Portia
<portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 215 Riverside Parking lot
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Thank you Seimone. I am very disappointed that the city council has decided to go ahead with this
meeting at this time. Many of our neighbors are very anxious about this "project" and many of them are
not able to make this connection through a link. And even if they could I think it would be chaotic. Why
can't this hearing be postponed? The developer does not care about our wonderful Newport Heights
neighborhood. He doesn't live here. I'm sure if this project was going to be built in front of his house he
would be screaming bloody murder. It simply is not fair. I fear my request will fall on deaf ears.
A postponement is the best way to go. Really, what's the rush?
Kathe Choate
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2020, at 11:39 AM, Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Good Morning Kathe
The item is on the Tuesday night, April 14 City Council agenda for the City Council's
consideration. We have changed the format for public participation. If you click on the
link below it will take you to the agenda. The first page of the agenda give the
instructions of how to participate during the City Council meeting without having to
leave your home.
Here is the link:
https://newportbeach.legistarl.com/newportbeach/meetings/2020/4/2478 A City Co
uncil 20-04-14 Agenda. pdf?id=30b79d42-6ad5-4Od6-8c6f-f6436cbf194b
Please let me know if you have any questions?
Thankyou
Seimone
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 10, 2020 at 12:59 PM
To: "Jurjis, Seimone" <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 215 Riverside Parking lot
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Dear Seimone,
Jeff Herdman suggested I send my email to you regarding the proposed project at 215
Riverside Drive. I, among others, are very interested in attending this public hearing and
would like to be notified of a date when this present crisis is under control.
Thank you.
Kathe Choate
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Date: April 10, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM PDT
To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: 215 Riverside Parking lot
The meeting to discuss this project is scheduled for April 14. Obviously
the public will not be able to attend this meeting. It needs to be
postponed so that those who will be adversely affected by this intrusion
into our neighborhood can be heard. I see no reason for the developer
to take advantage of our current health crisis. YOU MUST RESCHEDULE
THIS HEARING. We would like to be informed of the rescheduled time.
Thank you,
Kathe Choate.
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:01 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Reschedule this meeting
-----Original Message -----
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 7:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Mayor Will O'Neill <oneill4newport@gmail.com>
Subject: Reschedule this meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm adding my voice once again to this request to reschedule the meeting on a Tuesday April 14th. It's needs to be a
public forum not conducted by telephone. It is terribly unfair to all of us who live around this "project" and who will be
adversely effected by this parking lot. Our voices need to be heard loud and clear. Please reschedule. What is the
hurry??
Kathe Choate
Sent from my iPhone
10
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:57 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside parking structure
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill <williamcool@sbcgloba1.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside parking structure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the City Council,
It is my understanding that there is to be a hearing on the 215 Riverside parking structure project, but the public will
not be allowed to attend and must respond via phoning in. The local residents appears to object to this project and it is
important for them to voice their opinion on any revised plan of the developer. Phoning in would make it much harder
for those who want to speak.
Please postpone the hearing until the public is allowed to attend the meeting. Thank you.
Bill Cool
11
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:44 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Postpone Riverside Project
From: Gregory Cox <GCox@pacificsymphony.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Postpone Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please postpone
Best,
Gregory
Gregory Pierre Cox
Vice President of Development and External Relations I Pacific Symphony
t: (714) 876-2398 m: (310) 882-8259 1 e: GCox(�i.)PacificSymphony.org
Charlie and Ling Zhang Center for Musical Arts and Education
17620 Fitch, Suite 100 1 Irvine, CA 92614
Reception: (714) 755-5788 1 Tickets: (714) 755-5799
PacificSymphony.org I facebook I instagramtwitter lyoutube
U
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Cancel 215 Riverside projectI
From: mammacub2@reagan.com <mammacub2@reagan.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 8:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Cancel 215 Riverside projectI
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please do not continue with the process of approving this project
when City Hall is shut down, we citizens can not participate or give
any input.
This really is inappropriate and unbecoming to our City and its
citizens.
Vicki Cubeiro
Newport Beach
4
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:44 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside
From: luke@thedrufamily.com <luke@thedrufamily.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:02 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear council
I believe that the approval of the project at 215 Riverside is very contentious, and I do not think this issue should be
addressed by the council where the public can not be present. I don't think this is good civic responsible action. Please
see the copy below of the letter from a resident that is directly affected by this project.
Regards
Luke W. Dru
949.642.2001
Copied letter:
Gregg and City Council Members,
My name is Hal Woods and I live at 2919 Cliff Drive, directly above the subject property at 215 Riverside.
I am in strong protest of the city's determination to hear the appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project in light of the
current health risk to do so. There is no urgency with regard to this project. As noted by my prior email, it does not
appear that all due diligence has been undertaken in a prudent manner.
I urge the council to move this appeal to a time when the residents have the opportunity to come face to face with the
council and have their case heard in person. Some of us are at risk, I for one being 65 or older, have strong concerns
about the accessibility for my participation in the hearing.
I appreciate you taking the time to consider this request, and trust you will take it seriously as we have.
Slncerely,
Hal Woods
2919 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach
714-200-4915
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:50 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Riverside Project
-----Original Message -----
From: Bill Dunlap <bill@wedunlap.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 5:40 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To All,
During these challenging times I would propose that you postpone the scheduled meeting ( 4/14/20) regarding the
above referenced project. Thank you for your consideration .
Bill Dunlap
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:31 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Riverside project
From: Marsha Ferrall <marshaferrall@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:13 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Riverside project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please postpone hearing until quarantine is lifted.
Thank you.
Marsha Ferrall
marsha ferrall design
949.929.5809
10
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:44 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Protesting April 14 meeting re: 215 Riverside/Garden Project
From: Jeanne Fobes <jeannefobes@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:01 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>
Subject: Protesting April 14 meeting re: 215 Riverside/Garden Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am dismayed and angry that the "leaders" of our city of Newport Beach, where my husband and I have lived for almost
fifty years, have scheduled a meeting on a matter that is vitally important to us at a time when we are unable to attend.
We are elderly, have underlying health issues, and are following the ORDER of our Governor to "Shelter in Place"!! And
you dare to schedule a meeting that would require us (and our fellow Newport Beach neighbors) to risk our lives to
attend!! Explain that to us voters!!
We live one block from Cliff Drive, have in the past expressed our horror at the prospect of this so-called "Garden
Project." So now that you know that we citizens will not be able to safely attend your meeting, you schedule one!
We ask you to reconsider this rash decision and plan to wait until the pandemic is gone before you meet on this issue.
Urgently,
Jeanne Fobes
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:57 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside parking structure
-----Original Message -----
From: Cyndi Gitibin <cgitibin@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 3:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside parking structure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom It May Concern,
Mr. and Mrs. Kavous Gitibin are STRONGLY against the proposed 215 parking structure on Mariners Mile!!!!
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Cyndi Gitibin
Romans 8:28
12
April 12„ 2020
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Patrick Gormley
2441 Marino Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
T 949-650-4024
F 949-650-1126
pfg 1941 ggmail.com
Working together, let's Imagine the possibilities of building a community coastal city for people
to enjoy now and in the future.
Stewardship: Together all of us are expected to be good stewards, caretakers, or custodians
of our neighborhoods and the greater Newport Beach community. Community involvement and
citizen input is a prerequisite for the City of Newport to fulfill it's primary responsibility of
stewardship.
The City of Newport Beach has essentially shut -down the City due to COVID-19, until at least
May 3, 2020.
Recently, the City of Newport Beach has decided to hear the appeal from the developers of the
215 Riverside Project this Tuesday, April 14, 2020. This development project consists of a roof-
top restaurant and an open parking structure that would abut up to the Community of Newport
Heights. There is no urgency with regard to this project. The residents need to be able
to understand this project and its cumulative impacts to the community.
Community Concern: This parking structure is right in the heart of Newport Heights, where
4,300 children attend three different schools in the Heights and more than 1,500 Junior
Lifeguards travel to and from the beach on this route on Riverside Drive and Avon Ave. The
dangers of the ingress and egress of bicyclists, pedestrians, and children commuting to and
from Newport Heights has not been studied nor made available to the public.
According to the City's Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision Plan, a parking structure should not be
allowed to abut against nor be in a residential neighborhood.
The resident caretakers and custodians of the surrounding neighborhoods (1) can not physically
attend this meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) will only be allowed to live stream the
meeting and (3) will only be able to express their concerns and comments telephonically and
not provide supporting evidence.
Due to the magnitude of this project and its impact along Mariner's Mile, I request that this
hearing be postponed until the residents and the public can physically attend this meeting.
Your neighbor,
Patrick Gormley
Past President
Bayshores Community Association
Pagc 1 of 2
77
r+
A
r.
April 12„ 2020
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Patrick Gormley
2441 Marino Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
T 949-650-4024
F 949-650-1126
pfg 1941 ggmail.com
Working together, let's Imagine the possibilities of building a community coastal city for people
to enjoy now and in the future.
Stewardship: Together all of us are expected to be good stewards, caretakers, or custodians
of our neighborhoods and the greater Newport Beach community. Community involvement and
citizen input is a prerequisite for the City of Newport to fulfill it's primary responsibility of
stewardship.
The City of Newport Beach has essentially shut -down the City due to COVID-19, until at least
May 3, 2020.
Recently, the City of Newport Beach has decided to hear the appeal from the developers of the
215 Riverside Project this Tuesday, April 14, 2020. This development project consists of a roof-
top restaurant and an open parking structure that would abut up to the Community of Newport
Heights. There is no urgency with regard to this project. The residents need to be able
to understand this project and its cumulative impacts to the community.
Community Concern: This parking structure is right in the heart of Newport Heights, where
4,300 children attend three different schools in the Heights and more than 1,500 Junior
Lifeguards travel to and from the beach on this route on Riverside Drive and Avon Ave. The
dangers of the ingress and egress of bicyclists, pedestrians, and children commuting to and
from Newport Heights has not been studied nor made available to the public.
According to the City's Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision Plan, a parking structure should not be
allowed to abut against nor be in a residential neighborhood.
The resident caretakers and custodians of the surrounding neighborhoods (1) can not physically
attend this meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) will only be allowed to live stream the
meeting and (3) will only be able to express their concerns and comments telephonically and
not provide supporting evidence.
Due to the magnitude of this project and its impact along Mariner's Mile, I request that this
hearing be postponed until the residents and the public can physically attend this meeting.
Your neighbor,
Patrick Gormley
Past President
Bayshores Community Association
Pagc 1 of 2
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:03 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Postpone Please
-----Original Message -----
From: Doug Hayes <hayes_dc@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Postpone Please
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I'm a 41 year resident and homeowner in Newport Beach. Some of the more recent years of aggressive development in
our city concerns me as I feel we're losing the charm we once had. This project is too important to gloss over with
limited remote resident involvement. We need to be involved in live, in-person discussion. Please postpone this meeting
until COVID-19 issues subside.
Sincerely,
Doug
Doug Hayes
Newport Beach, CA
949-735-6070
hayes_dc@yahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
Z
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project - Postpone the meeting
From: Jennie Heinke <Jennie.heinke�s_bcglo_ bal.ne_t>
Date: April 13, 2020 at 2:06:07 PM PDT
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Project - Postpone the meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council,
It is my understanding that the City of Newport Beach has decided to hear the appeal
of the 215 Riverside Project this Tuesday, April 14, 2020 and
the public will not be able to attend this meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I
was also informed that the community will only be allowed to live stream the
meeting and if the public wants to make comments they will have to do so
telephonically.
I am requesting that due to the magnitude of this project and its impact along
Mariner's Mile, that this project meeting be postponed until the residents and the
public can physically attend the meeting.
It is of utmost importance that the public is able to review the
project and its cumulative impacts for the safety of our children
and our entire community.
It would be very underhanded and questionable to hold this
meeting at a time when the residents are not able to attend.
Thank you for this extremely important consideration.
Regards,
Jeannette Heinke
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Kerri Hirsch <keljackea@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:31 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Fwd: Against - 215 Riverside Project
Categories: Jenn
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> Once again the city council is trying to pass something that the community is against and the city again avoids due
diligence This should be a green light vote and every time you have some bogus report that it doesn't exceed the car
trips per day trigger.
> This is a NO for me. Traffic is already horrible and this will only make it worse.
> Kerri Hirsch
> 949-533-4035
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: postpone the hearing Re: Riverside development
From: Jennifer I <winifreex@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 5:55 PM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: postpone the hearing Re: Riverside development
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Please postpone the hearing regarding 215 Riverside project scheduled for April 14th. I will not be able to
attend and I woud like to be present during this hearing. There are many of us that want to have the opportunity
to be present.
Thank you,
Jennifer Irani
Resident and homeowner in Newport Heights
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside ave Project Public Hearing #9
From: Brion Jeannette <BrionJ@bia-inc.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:07 PM
To: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.eov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy
<dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.eov>; Bonnie Jeannette <bonniei@bia-inc.com>
Subject: 215 Riverside ave Project Public Hearing #9
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Mayor O'Neill and members of the City Council
Bonnie and I are residents of Newport Beach for over 45 years and live in the Newport Heights community on
Santa Ana ave. We are in complete support of this project, and request the City Council uphold the approval
granted by the Planning Commission.
We were properly noticed of the hearing.
This structure has been a vacant restaurant for many years and is certainly in need of redevelopment. The
developer has done a terrific development at the Garden project. It is no longer an eye sore as you enter the
Heights community. The new office building will not negatively impact the views from the park or the homes
surrounding the site. It will help clean up a problem corner at Avon street.
We will also be in support of a local restaurant in the future. We often walk down to many of the restaurants on
Coast Highway and frequent the many shops in the area.
Please approve the Garden Office building
Thank you
Brion & Bonnie
Brion Jeannette Architecture
Custom Architecture I Energy Efficient Design
470 Old Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
T: 949.645.5854 ext. 212 F: 949.645.5983
brionj@bja-inc.com
www.customarchitecture.com
houzz Follow us on Houzz and see what we're up to
CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this e -Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Brion
Jeannette Architecture and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is
strictly prohibited. Due to the vulnerabilities associated with electronic communications this message and any attachments should be
checked for destructive content prior to executing. BJA is not responsible for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or
attachments.
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:27 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Delay of the public hearing
From: Thomas Kinder <kinderthomasl@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:21 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Delay of the public hearing
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please delay the review of the proposed parking structure for 215 Riverside due to the fact that the community can not
attend the meeting and voice their concerns.
Thomas L. Kinder
2900 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949.283.5555
skype catalina_tk
12
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:59 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: April 14 City Council Meeting - Item #XVIII - 9 Appeal of Planning Commission
Approval for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside
Avenue
From: Dorothy Kraus <dorothyjkraus@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: April 14 City Council Meeting - Item #XVIII - 9 Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for The Garden Office
and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully object to the manner in which this Appeal will be conducted insofar as the
inability for full and fair public participation due to COVID-19. Is there some procedural
rule that dictates that this Appeal go before the Council on April 14Th?
Additionally, there needs to be a cumulative environmental impact analysis taking into
consideration existing development and "on -the -books" planned development in the
surrounding area. Was the interpretation of rules governing the need for an EIR too
narrowly interpreted? Perhaps the interpretation needs to be loosened. Noise, lighting,
GHG, air quality and traffic, at minimum, need to be assessed. Safety is also a huge
issue with residential communities close by, and parks and schools located throughout
the surrounding communities. The quality of life for these communities is at risk if this
project is approved.
Let's please pause, consider doing a CEQA analysis for cumulative impacts, and allow full
public participation of this important community issue by postponing the Appeal hearing
until COVID-19 mandates are lifted.
Thank you, and thank you for your service.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Kraus
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:20 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Parking Structure Appeal
-----Original Message -----
From: Lynda Lane <laylalane@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 2:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Parking Structure Appeal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I oppose having this meeting at this time due to the Coronavirus and the inability for people who are confined in their
homes to attend and have adequate time for questions and input. It is surprising that the City would move forward with
this meeting as it would appear that you are trying to push this project forward while the public is in a critical state. This
meeting should be postponed.
Lynda Lane
2708 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-466-2020
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:06 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: NHIA Message - 215 Riverside Drive Parking Deck City Council Meeting set for 4/14
at 7pm
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan E. Leal <sue.leal@me.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:30 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: NHIA Message - 215 Riverside Drive Parking Deck City Council Meeting set for 4/14 at 7pm
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am very interested in attending the virtual meeting. How can I do that?
Sent from my Whone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 riverside project
-----Original Message -----
From: Elaine Linhoff <elinhoff555@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 6:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 riverside project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The hearing scheduled for April 14 on the project at 215 Riveerside. s The public should not be denied the
opportunity to express opinions on the proposed project.
How can you have a hearing when nobody is allowed to come and hear?
Elaine Linhoff
1760 E. Ocean Blvd.
Newport Beach
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Riverside/ Garden Project
-----Original Message -----
From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 4:44 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Riverside/ Garden Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable City Council Members and Mayor:
There must be some mistake. Surely, you aren't planning on holding such an important meeting as one on the
controversial Riverside Garden Project while the CV quarantine is in place? Many of those concerned about this
inglorious project are over 65. We are the residents most familiar with this neighborhood- what it can bear, and what it
cannot bear.
I think it would be morally correct for you to schedule this meeting when everyone interested in this project can safely
attend in person. Please reconsider your meeting date. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Lynn Lorenz
Redlands Avenue
Newport Heights
Sent from my iPad
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:46 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: April 14 meeting!
-----Original Message -----
From: valerie miller <wasabismom@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 3:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: April 14 meeting!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
It is not right that this meeting is being held while we are on lockdown. Please postpone!
James and Valerie Miller
619 St James Rd
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Richard Osborne 14 April Meeting on the 215 Riverside Project
From: Rick Osborne <rickusc@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Richard Osborne 14 April Meeting on the 215 Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have become aware of the city's plans to hold a meeting on Tuesday, April 14,
during the time that the city is essentially shutdown due to COVID-19 - until 3 May
2020.
As these meetings must allow for the participation and feedback of affected
residents, this meeting MUST be postponed until such time as the city is open, and
the affected residents, and those who wish to participate are, once again, allowed
such access.
Please advise of your actions taken.
Thank you.
2
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:42 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Hal Woods April 9 E Mail to City council Members
From: Roger R. Otte <roger.otte@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 1:51 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Hal Woods April 9 E Mail to City council Members
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I believe he has correct request to you all and presents a fair idea to allow the residents to be present in a review of this
project. I really do not understand your action to do this without the live attendance of those who are most impacted.
Look in the mirror and pretend this is your property you are EFFECTING.
ROGER OTT521 KINGS RD
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside secret meeting
From: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:21 AM
To: darcypost@gmail.com
Cc: Brown, Leilani <LBrown@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: 215 Riverside secret meeting
Hi Darcy,
I think you've received some bad information if you think the meeting is behind closed doors. You're able to both watch the
meeting and participate in the meeting if that's what you want to do. Here is more information that has been posted on our City's
website: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/38108/2803?fsiteid=l
Will O'Neill
Mayor of Newport Beach
Visit www.newportbeachca.gov/covid19 to see our City's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Please sign up for City updates.
From: Darcy Post <darcypost@gmail.com>
Reply -To: "darcypost@gmail.com" <darcypost@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 13, 2020 at 8:14 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CitVCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside secret meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to voice my opposition and protest to the secret meeting, being held behind closed doors on Tuesday, April
14, 2020. There is no rush for this hearing regarding the 215 Riverside parking structure. Rather than having
secret meetings you should be looking out for the public and enabling all to review the project and its cumulative
impacts for the safety of our children and our entire community.
According to the City's Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision Plan, a parking structure should not be allowed to abut against
nor be in a residential neighborhood.
I am sure you have it in you to make the right choice.
Best Regards,
Darcy Post
Darcy Post
newpoN beach, california
949.395.9566
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:48 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Proposed 215 Riverside Project
-----Original Message -----
From: GARY RAYMOND RANES <zone24@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 3:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Proposed 215 Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
It is urgent to postpone the ApriI14 hearing for development of 215 Riverside.
My fellow neighbors and I are unable to attend due to Covid-19 precautions.
The public attendance and input at the hearing is essential for fair proper process.
Resident
Broad Street
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:48 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project 2
-----Original Message -----
From: Janet Reuter <janet@3thirty3nb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 3:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Can you please reschedule to a later date the very important mtg for 215 Riverside during the COVID Crisis so I and many
others can attend in a safe environment. Thank you for prompt consideration.
Janet Reuter
Sent from my iPad
City of Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
April 13, 2020
Re: Resolution No. 2020-33: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed
at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023)
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
First off, I would like to say that the Newport Heights community truly appreciates the Newport Beach City Council historically
protecting the boundaries of dissimilar uses next to one another, which is the crux of this appeal.
The applicant asked for a 'Conditional Use Permit' because he wants to place a 2,750 square foot office building along with a
41 -space 'open' rooftop parking garage 24 feet below adjacent residential properties. A conditional use permit such as this
has never been granted in the past. Instead, the City of Newport Beach has always protected residential neighborhoods from
incompatible adjacent land uses by requiring that parking structures adjacent to residential properties be enclosed. For
example: the original Jaguar dealership (now Sterling BMW) located at 3000 West Coast Highway and the retail center,
Mariner's Pointe, located at 100 West Coast Highway were both opposed by neighboring residents and subsequently required
to cover their parking structures so as not to negatively affect the quality of life for residents and mitigate the potential to
generate noise such as: car horns, car alarms, car audio systems, car engines idling, loud car engine start-ups, people talking,
in addition to, glaring illumination from vehicle headlights. I would also like to mention that both Auto Nation and Saint
Andrew's Presbyterian Church had their parking structure conditional use permits denied by the City of Newport Beach
because of the negative impacts imposed upon the neighboring residents.
So, why would the applicant for the office and 'open' rooftop parking structure located at 215 Riverside Avenue not be held to
the same standards as prior applicants asking for the same type of conditional use permit?
The Newport Heights community has a great concern over building an 'open' rooftop parking structure adjacent to residential
properties because as it was discussed at the 8/19/19 Planning Commission meeting by both members of the Planning
Commission and Associate Planner, Makana Nova, that the proposed parking structure would not be used as strictly a day -use
parking structure for the office building, but would also be open for late-night use as well (parking in the Mariner's Mile is
limited and this parking structure would provide space for many of the late night establishments' customers —Associate
Planner Nova). It is extremely difficult to understand how the Planning Commission could approve the conditional use permit
for this project when 'late-night use' was never included in the Noise impact study or Light impact study!
I believe that there is a 'win, win' option for this appeal. I was present at the 8/22/19 Planning Commission Meeting when the
architect, Scott Laidlaw, said that there was an alternative design for the office building at 215 Riverside Drive. He proposed a
design that would spread the office building over a 'covered' parking structure that would actually increase the parking spaces
to 50 spaces! This type of covered parking structure and office building would certainly help to buffer any negative affects to
the quality of life for neighboring residents. Furthermore, it would allow the City of Newport Beach to continue its long-
standing protection of residential properties and consistent requirements of developments that are adjacent to boundaries of
dissimilar use, while allowing the applicant to proceed with constructing his office building and 'covered' parking structure.
Thank you for your time in considering this alternative approach that essentially offers a collaborative strategy and resolution
to this conflict.
Sincerely,
Siobhan Robinson
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:56 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Dr Project Appeal
-----Original Message -----
From: John Carlos Rowe <johnrowe@usc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 3:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Dr Project Appeal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Public commentary is crucial and telephonic comments on livestreaming impractical. You have ignored good technical
advice about secure zooming. Please postpone this review until the public may attend and/or more easily comment
digitally.
John Rowe
700 Kings Rd
92663
Sent from my iPhone
13
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:47 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: City council meetings during closure
-----Original Message -----
From: John Carlos Rowe <johnrowe@usc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 2:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: City council meetings during closure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please Zoom ALL meetings during closure or postpone them. Zoom is really easy, and the public needs a voice. John
Rowe/ 700 Kings Rd 92663
Sent from my Whone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From:
Rieff, Kim
Sent:
Monday, April 13, 2020 8:55 AM
To:
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject:
FW: 215 Riverside
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I would like to ask that any project that may be controversial for its neighbors not be brought before the city until the
stay at home order expires.
Thank you,
Susan Skinner
14
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:42 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project hearing date.
-----Original Message -----
From: Carrie Slayback <carrieslayback@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 1:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Project hearing date.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor and Members of Newport Beach City Council,
A May 3rd hearing is scheduled for the 215 Riverside Project.
Due to the COVID-19 closure of all city -related events, citizens cannot be part of the hearing.
Even if the city does open on May 3, people will hesitate to gather so soon after the virus threat.
There is no such thing as a "hearing" without input from all parties.
Please notify me and Newport Heights Improvement Assoc as well as Cliff Have as to new proposed date, after virus
threat has been greatly lessened.
Sincerely,
Carrie Luger Slayback
426 Riverside Avenue
Newport Beach, CA
92663
(949) 646-5902
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:20 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project
From: Gary Sokolich <Gary_Sokolich@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 3:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: NewportHeightsCliff haven <newportheightscliffhaven @gmail.com>
Subject: Appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Members of the Newport Beach City Council\
Fr: Gary Sokolich
Re: Appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project
I do not consider the appeal of the 215 Riverside/Garden Project to be an urgent matter. Accordingly, I am
joining several others in the Newport Heights Community to request that the hearing on this matter be
postponed and rescheduled until such time as potentially impacted residents have the opportunity to come
face to face with the council and have their case heard.
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Ramirez, Gregg
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 6:01 PM
To: City Clerk's Office; Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fw: 215 Riverside - Garden Project/ Parking Structure
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Categories: Leilani
Hello -
Making sure you received this.
Thanks
From: Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; EVC Management Services <evcmanagement@centerstone.com>;
Stefanie M. Sitzer <ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Aaron Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Charles Klobe
<cklobe@me.com>; Coralee Newman <cora@govsol.com>; dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>; Peggy Palmer
<pvpalmer@icloud.com>; Sandra Ayres<ssayres@me.com>; 'hal@centerstone.com'<hal@centerstone.com>; Jack
Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com>
Subject: 215 Riverside - Garden Project / Parking Structure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gregg and Council Members,
My name is Jack Staub and I live at 2911 Cliff Drive, just 24 feet from the proposed parking structure. My home is also at
a lower elevation than my neighbors' homes, only 8 feet above the proposed structure.
I have 2 children who live with me, ages 11 and 14. Their lives will be adversely impacted by this development, with its
added traffic, noise, scanning headlights and safety concerns that come with any busy parking structure just feet away
without a roof, particularly one operating late into the night.
We live on a slope, with Cliff Drive Park on one side and the proposed project on the other; on April 28, 2014 the City
denuded the park slope adjacent to our homes by cutting down the old-growth trees, creating an ongoing potential for
slope instability that will play out for decades, as the roots of those trees decay. This has been extensively documented
by your geotechnical experts and ours.
By its own actions in 2014, the City created an ongoing obligation to maintain a stable slope and provide lateral support
to our properties; but to permit the excavation of the other side of our homes, without any geotechnical assessment,
seems unconscionable and reckless.
Sincerely,
Jack Staub
2911 Cliff Drive
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:47 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Please Temporarily Suspend Public Meetings
From: dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 3:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>; 'Aaron J. Ehrlich'
<aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; 'Hal Woods' <haI@centerstone.com>
Subject: Please Temporarily Suspend Public Meetings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council,
I have received confusing information from the City including an email yesterday entitled "City Extends Facility Closures
through May 3". This email states " This includes indoor facilities such as City Hall". The Council Chambers are part of
City Hall and are indoors.
I and other residents are unsure if the previously noticed April 14 City Council meeting will occur or has be continued.
Given the President's stay at home directive during the Month of April; the rising number of COVID-91 cases in Orange
County (1,079); the increasing number of cases in Newport Beach (81); and the high percentage of high risk residents
like myself that are likely to participate in public meetings, I ask the Council to continue all non-essential public activities,
including public meetings and adhere to the recommendations provided by the United States Government and Orange
County public health authorities until these health professionals declare it safe to conduct such meetings in the manner
proposed by the City.
I know everyone is eager to restart our economic engines. I am a business owner, I feel the pain. I hope Newport Beach
is nearing the peak of its curve. Even in this time of pain we must not lose sight of what is most important - public
health and safety. I know each of you is deeply concerned for everyone's health and safety.
Restarting the economic engine too soon, even if permitted by State Executive Order could be disastrous for Newport
Beach residents. This circumstance is not something we have practiced. The rule of thumb is you don't want to be the
first to try something new, wait and see what works. I suggest the City research a virtual meeting alternative, to see if
under these circumstances this format can be used temporarily as an emergency measure. However, this will not work
for everyone. Some residents I have spoken with are in self -quarantine and do not have access to the internet and many
who do, don't understand how this technology works. They have said they do not feel safe to attend public gatherings,
let alone a grocery store at this time.
They also believe they are doing their part as Americans for the greater good of the Country. I ask the City do its part for
the greater good of the Country and error on the side of caution. Let's make sure the risks don't outweigh the
benefits. Don't obligate others to do what you won't do yourself. Don't do anything you wouldn't allow your family,
your kids, your grand kids to do. One thing is certain, If you schedule public meetings people will attend out of their love
for Newport Beach.
1
Newport is strong. Newport will recover. We need to think this through to make sure we act in the best interest of the
Country as Americans, and in the best interests of the City as residents.
Please postpone all non-essential public activities until health experts tell the City it is safe to proceed in the manner
proposed.
Thank you,
Dave Tanner
223 62nd Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949 233-0895 cell
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:03 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: parking structure
-----Original Message -----
From: James & Nancy Turner <noturner@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 9:16 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: parking structure
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We do not need a parking structure in our Residential Neighborhood. Dont want the noise- the honking horns, the
smog,and the screeching tires. We are overcrowded now > Stop this project. Nancy and Jim Turner 435 Irvine Avenue
Newport BeAch Ca.
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 2:06 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: Fwd: Mariner's Mile
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Barbara Wall <barbaraonlido@aol.com>
Date: April 13, 2020 at 2:02:32 PM PDT
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mariner's Mile
Reply -To: Barbara Wall <barbaraonlido@aol.com>
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I am requesting the the Newport Beach City Council delay any further approvals or
meetings regarding the Mariner's Mile project until the citizens of Newport Beach are
able to attend the meetings.
This is a high profile project that effects many and we need to be heard in public and not
via a telephone.
Please postpone this agenda item.
Sincerely,
Barbara Wall
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:20 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: City Council meeting re: 215 Riverside project
From: ttaw50@aol.com <ttaw50@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 3:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: City Council meeting re: 215 Riverside project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a resident of Newport Beach I oppose the City Council meeting currently scheduled for April 14, regarding the 215
Riverside project. Given the unusual circumstances due to the necessity of social distancing it makes it impossible for
concerned residents to attend this meeting in person.
I strongly urge you to reschedule this meeting for a later date when all those concerned and impacted can attend and
have themselves heard.
Sincerely,
Teri Watson
2209 Cliff Dr
Newport Beach
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: April 14 meeting on Riverside restaurant and parking
From: Judy Weightman <judyweightman@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2020 4:29 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; gramirez@newportbeacjca.gov
Subject: April 14 meeting on Riverside restaurant and parking
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council and involved parties,
Could you please delay the meeting and consideration on the Riverside restaurant and
parking until after the City opens up again? As an "elderly" folk lacking computer skills I
would like to attend the discussion in person.
And..... regardless of one's computer skills, I think it's only appropriate to give
neighbors a chance to speak in person when there is so much contention on an issue.
Thank you for your consideration and hopefully your sensitivity to your constituency.
Judy Weightman
2001 Cliff Drive
AH yes, directly across the street from Ensign and another resident who has HEARD
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM NMUSD regarding the banana parking issue.
1a
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Please postpone April 14 City Council Meeting Hearing re: 215 Riverside Project
From: Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 5:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Please postpone April 14 City Council Meeting Hearing re: 215 Riverside Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council -
I am a resident of Newport Heights and request that the April 14 hearing of the appeal to the proposed 215 Riverside
Project be postponed. The majority of our community is experiencing unexpected, immediate and tremendous
challenges at this time due to the current health pandemic, and understandably, many will not be able to participate in
this critically important meeting. There is shared concern that the project as currently proposed may host a very
negative and permanent impact upon our daily lives. We need more time to understand the project and review how it
could change our neighborhood. We all want a project which we can feel confident will enhance our neighborhood
quality of life.
Respectfully,
Portia Weiss
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:04 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Dr
-----Original Message -----
From: JULIE WILSON <wilsonbay@me.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:44 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 215 Riverside Dr
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
We think that this is a great project and should be approved immediately.
Respectfully,
Julie and Justin Wilson
Sent from my iPad
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: April 14 Meeting regarding 215 Riverside
-----Original Message -----
From: Ann M Winthrop <annwinthrop@sbcgloba1.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 3:57 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: April 14 Meeting regarding 215 Riverside
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I do think it would be wise to postpone this meeting so that everyone concerned can participate and be heard in person.
Not everyone is comfortable with dial -in meetings and technology.
Thanks,
Ann Winthrop
3016 Cliff Dr
Newport Beach
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Newport Beach, City of: Today's city council meeting.
From: Philip Bettencourt
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 12:33:06 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: O'Neill, William
Cc: City Clerk's Office; 'Philip Bettencourt'
Subject: Newport Beach, City of: Today's city council meeting.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Mayor and city council members, we are not sure if there will be a telephone call-in
opportunity this afternoon so we wanted to leave a short message just to receive and file. (We will
certainly be following the meeting on line - the General Plan and Housing Element matters, especially.)
Thank you for all you are doing as a city team during these trying times. Thank you especially to
our first responders, of course, and to all of your infrastructure specialists who keep the city running
24:7.
May we respectfully recall the words of the late John Wayne: "Courage is being scared to death
but saddling up anyway."
Philip F. & Meredith Bettencourt
Real Estate Development Planning & Stewardship
14 Corporate Plaza, STE 120 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660-7995
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rieff, Kim
Tuesday, April 14, 2020 7:17 AM
Mulvey, Jennifer
FW: No parking structure!!!
-----Original Message -----
From: Christine Meyer Elerding <christyelerding@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 6:01 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: No parking structure!!!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
On riverside drive @ Avon in newport Heights....
C. Elerding
Sent from my Whone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:48 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Comments for tonight's NB City Council Mtg
Attachments: petition_signatures,jobs_20202002_20200411161852.csv; petition_signatures,jobs_
20202002_20200411161852.x I sx
From: Kari Dietrich
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:48:04 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Brown, Leilani
Cc: Rieff, Kim; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Comments for tonight's NB City Council Mtg
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Newport Beach City Council,
Say Yes to Choice (OC Community Choice Energy)
Outside all due recognition and attention paid to the urgent matters surrounding Covid-19, we humbly ask to likewise
continue discussions with the City of Irvine and work to accept their invitation to join their Community Choice Energy
program. As of now, the matter continues to be on the Irvine City Council agenda for May 12.
We want the business development, freedom of choice, and affordable and sustainable energy that a Community Choice
Energy program offers. Thank you, Mayor O'Neill and other council members, for doing everything to keep us safe, as
well as your being open to this important step, especially at this singular time.
Sincerely,
OC Families for Consumer Choice
Newport- and OC -area petitioners are listed here; original petition letter and full signature list are attached.
Name & City
Gialisa Gaffaney CdM
Anne Parzick
CdM
Brenda McCroskey
CdM
Patricia Nichols
CdM
Beverly Carmichael
CdM
Maeve Courtney
CdM
Dillon Henry
NB
Teri Bassman
NB
Carol Crane
NB
Joni Nichols
NB
Anne Gordinier
NB
Susan Lew
NB
1
Eileen Penan
NB
Amy Henry
NB
Laura Oatman
NB
Maxine Stomber
NB
Dennis Bress
NB
Lara Horgan
NB
Toni Rios
NB
Mark Tabbert
NB
Gena Reed
NB
Nicole Nelson
NB
Bobbi Dauderman
NB
Cheryl Fischer
NB
Patricia Gwin
NB
Pamela Gilmour
NB
susan skinner
NB
Kathy Andrews
NB
JOHN FREYTAG
NB
Laurie Hoagland
NB
Claudette Shaw
NB
Esther Behnam
NB
Nancy Geerlings
NB
Catherine Han
NB
Kelly Wright
NB
Jerry Dauderman
NB
Carol Lind
NB
Michelle Jordan
NB
shari garcia Chevez
NB
Bridget Skinner
NB
Tracey Prever
NB
Jamie Simons
NB
Nicole Surratt
NB
Lisa Kassel
NB
Anne Bohn
NB
Sandra Jackson
NB
Sara Johnson
NB
John Dietrich
NB
Julie Montgomery
NB
Milvi Vanderslice
NB
April Negrete
NB
Brian Courtney
NB
Karisa Botch
NB
Victoria THOMAS
NB
Vicki Morris
NB
Christine Thomas
NB
Faye Hezar
Newport Coast
2
Stephanie Sandoz
Newport Coast
Deborah Liu
Newport Coast
Xandra Laskowski
Newport Coast
Cecily Burke
Newport Coast
Russell Baldwin
Costa Mesa
Kay Simpkins
Costa Mesa
Susan Anderson
Costa Mesa
Ashley Bigonger
Costa Mesa
Vanessa Handy
Costa Mesa
Linda Law
HB
Marcia Stroup
HB
Kathleen Treseder
Irvine
Sue Ellen Oconnor
Irvine
chloe liu
Irvine
Irene Kinoshita
Irvine
Melissa Biebel
Irvine
Janet McNeil
Irvine
Louise Beckerman
Irvine
Carolyn Hacker
Irvine
Mary Carter
Laguna Beach
Ginger Osborne
Laguna Beach
wendy wu
Laguna Niguel
Brendan Horgan
Mission Viejo
Michael Rotcher
Mission Viejo
Bonnie Felt
Mission Viejo
Marjorie Cano
Santa Ana
Moira Nonnweiler
Santa Ana
Virginia Bernal
Santa Ana
Passally Torres
Santa Ana
Kari Dietrich
Content Strategist & Climate Advocate
Irvine, CA
323.244.1642
3
change.org
OC Families for Consumer Choice
cid_ 1 Newport Beach City Council, Council Member Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem
Brad Avery, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Kevin Muldoon,
Council Memberjeff Herdman, Council Memberjoy Brenne...
Letter Greetings,
Tell Newport Beach City Council: Say Yes to Choice (CCE) Now
Please continue discussions with the City of Irvine about their invitation
to join their Community Choice Energy program. We want the business
development, freedom of choice, and affordable energy that a Community
Choice Energy program offers. Thank you, Mayor O'Neill, for your being
open to this important step!
Signatures
Name
Location
Date
Kathleen Treseder
Irvine, CA
2020-02-07
Gialisa Gaffaney
Corona del Mar, CA
2020-02-08
CL Miller
San Francisco, CA
2020-02-08
Dillon Henry
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Teri Bassman
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Carol Crane
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Joni Nichols
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Anne Gordinier
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Susan Lew
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Oneis Amparo
san juan, US
2020-02-08
Russell Baldwin
Costa Mesa, CA
2020-02-08
Sue Ellen Oconnor
Irvine, CA
2020-02-08
Anne Parzick
Corona del Mar, CA
2020-02-08
Eileen Penan
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Amy Henry
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Sarah Henry
Anaheim, CA
2020-02-08
Maria del Pilar Uscategui
Miami Beach, US
2020-02-08
Laura Oatman
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Sandra Del toro torres
Daytona Beach, US
2020-02-08
William Petty
Greensboro, US
2020-02-08
Name
Location
Date
Brenda McCroskey
Corona del Mar, CA
2020-02-08
Maxine Stomber
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Marjorie Cano
Santa Ana, CA
2020-02-08
Rose C. Maly, MD
Los Angeles, CA
2020-02-08
Faye Hezar
Newport Coast, CA
2020-02-08
Donald Ruston
Burbank, CA
2020-02-08
Stephanie Sandoz
Newport Coast, CA
2020-02-08
Deborah Liu
Newport Coast, CA
2020-02-08
Dennis Bress
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Carrie Gleason
Littleton, CO
2020-02-08
Barbara Sloate
Los Angeles, CA
2020-02-08
Lara Horgan
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Everest Veliu
Columbus, US
2020-02-08
Mary Carter
Laguna Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Brendan Horgan
Mission Viejo, CA
2020-02-08
Toni Rios
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-08
Michael Rotcher
Mission Viejo, CA
2020-02-08
Kay Simpkins
Costa Mesa, CA
2020-02-09
wendy wu
Laguna Niguel, CA
2020-02-09
Brandon Dutton
Monroe, US
2020-02-09
Mark Tabbert
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-09
Gena Reed
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-09
Name
Location
Date
Xandra Laskowski
Newport Coast, CA
2020-02-09
debi Yearwood
Los Angeles, CA
2020-02-09
Liz Richardson
Anaheim, CA
2020-02-09
Moira Nonnweiler
Santa Ana, CA
2020-02-09
Ginger Osborne
Laguna Beach, CA
2020-02-09
ND McNeil
Atlanta, US
2020-02-09
Linda Law
Huntington Beach, CA
2020-02-10
sally guo
Stone Mountain, US
2020-02-10
Hazim Guster
Wethersfield, US
2020-02-10
Josie Calderon
Mammath Lakes, US
2020-02-10
Hunter Hamlet
New York, US
2020-02-10
Monica Benitez
Sonoma, US
2020-02-10
Elias Buchhop
Defiance, US
2020-02-10
Alfie Hohnen-weber
Los Angeles, US
2020-02-10
chloe liu
Irvine, US
2020-02-11
Nicole Nelson
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Irene Kinoshita
Irvine, CA
2020-02-11
Bobbi Dauderman
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Cheryl Fischer
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Susan Anderson
Costa Mesa, CA
2020-02-11
Sully Abbatemarco
Mansfield, US
2020-02-11
Doris Wilson
Saint Louis, US
2020-02-11
Name
Location
Date
Patricia Gwin
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Melissa Biebel
Irvine, CA
2020-02-11
Janet McNeil
Irvine, CA
2020-02-11
Louise Beckerman
Irvine, CA
2020-02-11
Patricia Nichols
Corona del Mar, CA
2020-02-11
Charity Belton
Gainesville, US
2020-02-11
Pamela Gilmour
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Scottia Evans
Whittier, CA
2020-02-11
Susan skinner
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Kathy Andrews
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-11
Kory Barnes
Corpus Christi, US
2020-02-11
Virginia Bernal
Santa Ana, CA
2020-02-11
JOHN FREYTAG
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-12
Laurie Hoagland
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-12
Makenna Bettag
Troy, US
2020-02-12
Chow Yong
Flushing, US
2020-02-12
Elin Kim
Santa Clara, US
2020-02-12
Jake Puestow
Orange, US
2020-02-12
Claudette Shaw
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-12
Esther Behnam
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-12
Karen Patton
Chicago, IL
2020-02-12
Margaret Lawrence
Long Beach, CA
2020-02-12
Name
Location
Date
Ken Tanaka
Los Angeles, CA
2020-02-13
Nancy Geerlings
Newport beach, CA
2020-02-13
Marcia Stroup
Huntington Beach, CA
2020-02-13
Bonnie Felt
Mission Viejo, CA
2020-02-13
Catherine Han
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Cecily Burke
Newport Coast, CA
2020-02-22
Kelly Wright
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Jerry Dauderman
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Carol Lind
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Carolyn Hacker
Irvine, CA
2020-02-22
Michelle Jordan
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
shari garcia Chevez
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Masoumeh Behzadian
Newark, US
2020-02-22
Bridget Skinner
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Nahid Unesi
New York, NY
2020-02-22
Daniel Liu
Chula Vista, US
2020-02-22
Julie Ray
Atlanta, GA
2020-02-22
Tracey Prever
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Jamie Simons
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Nicole Surratt
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Lisa Kassel
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Beverly Carmichael
Corona del Mar, CA
2020-02-22
Name
Location
Date
Anne Bohn
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-22
Barbara Heffernan
Orange, CA
2020-02-23
zay castro
Hayward, US
2020-02-23
Alfredo Aguilar
Canyon Country, US
2020-02-23
Jason Inchcliff
Dahlgren, US
2020-02-23
Audrey Leder
Modesto, US
2020-02-23
Racheal Spencer
Meridian, US
2020-02-23
Bucas Vilaca
Torrance, US
2020-02-23
Ashley Bigonger
Costa Mesa, US
2020-02-24
Harley Matthews
Howard, US
2020-02-24
Victor Sanchez
Garden Grove, US
2020-02-24
Krista Cook
Baker City, US
2020-02-24
Sandra Jackson
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-24
Mark Surprenant
Fernandina, US
2020-02-24
Yingzi Lin
Amherst, US
2020-02-24
Bray Hunter
West Des Moines, US
2020-02-24
Janice Highfill
San Antonio, TX
2020-02-24
Sara Johnson
Newport Beach, CA
2020-02-29
Marie Vecere
Lindenhurst, NY
2020-03-02
John Dietrich
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-03
Vanessa Handy
Costa Mesa, CA
2020-03-03
Julie Montgomery
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-06
Name
Location
Date
Milvi Vanderslice
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-10
Maeve Courtney
Corona del Mar, CA
2020-03-10
April Negrete
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-10
Brian Courtney
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-11
Karisa Botch
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-11
Victoria THOMAS
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-24
Maixee Yang
Sacramento, US
2020-03-24
Deyan Doychev
Orange, US
2020-03-24
Andrea Onofre
Sebastopol, US
2020-03-24
Caleb Laverty
Olympia, US
2020-03-24
Zachary Bissemberg
San Bernardino, US
2020-03-24
PassaIly Torres
Santa Ana, US
2020-03-24
Harry Maemura
Los Angeles, US
2020-03-24
Barbara Harris
High Point, US
2020-03-24
Brittany Escalante
Atlanta, US
2020-03-24
Nathan Brinkley
Concord, US
2020-03-24
Luis Epasa
San Francisco, US
2020-03-24
Nana adwoa Mensah
Woodbridge, US
2020-03-24
Adam Kaluba
Burleson, US
2020-03-24
Ou Saephan
Oroville, US
2020-03-24
Tijon Spalding
Trenton, US
2020-03-24
Vlad Lavric
Los Angeles, US
2020-03-24
Name
Location
Date
caleb jenkins
Lawrenceville, US
2020-03-24
Eugene Canel
Fresno, US
2020-03-24
Rachel Delgado
Lake Havasu City, US
2020-03-24
Michael Lindell
Lewiston, US
2020-03-24
Christian Clement
Midlothian, US
2020-03-24
nya mooney
new roads, US
2020-03-24
Ismael Mendez
San Antonio, US
2020-03-24
Taylor Bragg
Lake Dallas, US
2020-03-24
Mark Estes
Conyers, US
2020-03-24
Ariana Gonzalez
Santa Maria, US
2020-03-24
Angel a Rodriguez roto
Cape May, US
2020-03-24
Rebecca Wells
Washington, PA
2020-03-24
Devon Lawler
Edgewater, US
2020-03-24
jiashu Chen
Boston, US
2020-03-24
Dena Obrien
Gainesville, US
2020-03-24
Milad Oraha
Sterling Heights, US
2020-03-24
Maggie Hackworth
Winston Salem, US
2020-03-24
Courtney Hearn
Cairo, US
2020-03-24
Mabel Larrama
Cypress, US
2020-03-24
Chris Ruszala
Sykesville, US
2020-03-24
Victoria Interiano
Los Angeles, US
2020-03-24
Lindsey Murdock
Glenwood, IA
2020-03-24
Name
Location
Date
Eliana Barreiros
San Diego, US
2020-03-24
Marvin Wigley
Washington, PA
2020-03-24
Mariangely Aquino
Lawrenceville, US
2020-03-24
Aliviya Freeman
Atlanta, US
2020-03-24
Cristina Smith
Orlando, US
2020-03-24
Amber Krajewski
Richmond, US
2020-03-24
Brandon Harrison
Jacksonville, US
2020-03-24
Ryan Hockenberry
Westfield, US
2020-03-25
Mina Fatoohi
Sterling Heights, US
2020-03-25
Oziel Perez
Shelby, US
2020-03-25
Helen Zabad
Washington, US
2020-03-25
Brianna Snipes
Gladstone, US
2020-03-25
Derek Holloway
Gainesville, US
2020-03-25
Sonya Hussein
Saint Paul, US
2020-03-25
Hunter Straup
Pullman, US
2020-03-25
Chelsea Cosner
Atlanta, US
2020-03-25
austin Simmons
Whittier, US
2020-03-25
Pilar Montes
Miami, US
2020-03-25
Akira Holmes
San Antonio, US
2020-03-25
Kamaria Smith
Milwaukee, US
2020-03-25
Daniel Raines
Fairhope, US
2020-03-25
amari lakes
Baton Rouge, US
2020-03-25
Name
Location
Date
Emilyn Nay
Charlotte, US
2020-03-25
jada p
Spartanburg, US
2020-03-25
Mishal Azhar
Brooklyn, US
2020-03-25
Antonio carmen
Lexington, US
2020-03-25
Aaron Leyva
San Antonio, US
2020-03-25
Dylan Slusher
Lake Charles, US
2020-03-25
Joy Gaskin
Orlando, FL
2020-03-25
Evan Russell
E Helena, US
2020-03-25
Inelda Ramos
Tampa, US
2020-03-25
Naazhim Bell
Glen Burnie, US
2020-03-25
khord Mehl
Salt Lake City, US
2020-03-25
Sophia Pleat
Clifton Park, US
2020-03-25
Ruby Redstone
Cathedral City, US
2020-03-25
Chels F
US
2020-03-25
Alex Densan
Missouri City, US
2020-03-25
Karla Serafin
Fontana, US
2020-03-25
Owen Reuter
Clemmons, US
2020-03-25
Diana Guerrero
Buda, US
2020-03-25
Kala Spires
Georgetown, US
2020-03-25
Andrew Mohrman
Rochester, US
2020-03-25
Yue Huang
Pittsburgh, US
2020-03-25
Dilmurod Rasulov
Orlando, US
2020-03-25
Name
Kenda Alhajali
Casey Osborne
Andres Rocha
Stephanie Carrillo
Tanner Delcourt
Luis Mendez
shannon barnstead
Blake Woodhall
Vicki Morris
Christine Thomas
Location
Date
Sugar Land, US
2020-03-25
Glendale, US
2020-03-25
Katy, US
2020-03-25
Lawrenceville, US
2020-03-25
O Fallon, US
2020-03-25
Gaithersburg, US
2020-03-25
Commerce, US
2020-03-25
Springville, US
2020-03-25
Newport Beach, CA
2020-03-26
Newport Beach, CA
2020-04-02