Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) - CorrespondenceMay 12, 2020 Agenda Item No. 21 From: Harp, Aaron Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2020 7:28 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023) Attachments: Memo - Path Forward.pdf From: "dave@earsi.com" <dave@earsi.com> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM To: "O'Neill, William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com> Subject: Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Will, I was talking with Charles Klobe about this project and believe I have a path forward that will satisfy all parties. Charles and I were wondering if you had time for a conference call today or some time prior to next week's hearing. Cheers, Dave David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 646-8958 wk 949 233-0895 cell Notice of Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the address(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail by replying to this message and permanently delete the original and any copy of any email and any printout thereof. MAJOR POINTS Adjacent Homeowners Concerns Project Linkage CEQA Resident Concerns Litigation Adjacent Homeowners Concerns The City Council establish conditions for the project (examples: parking structure roof, don't damage the oak tree, hours of operation, noise, light and glare, etc.) Project Linkage The Council decides if the Project is, or is not linked to the proposed Restaurant project. If the Council determines the Project is not linked, consider adding a condition of approval requiring the excess parking not be used for any future physical expansion of the Garden Shopping Center. Note: If the Project is not linked, Staff will probably recommend a Class 32 exemption for the future Restaurant project. The Restaurant project might qualify for streamlined review. The Council may have limited future discretionary authority over the restaurant project. (check with staff) If the Project is linked, the combined Project undergoes CEQA review. Staff will determine the appropriate type of CEQA document. CEQA The City Council deny the CEQA exemption and require the Project to comply with CEQA. Both Staff and the Applicant believe there is no possibility the Project will impact the environment. Staff compiled all the information they needed to determine the Project will have no impact on the environment. When a project has no possibility to impact the environment, the appropriate CEQA document is a Negative Declaration. Staff re -formats existing information and re -titles the cover page "Negative Declaration". Cheap and quick! Resident Concerns Residents are concerned about how Planning staff is proceeding and the precedent the Council's decision on this project will have on other projects along the Mariners Mile. One solution might be -The City Council determines this Project has unique circumstances unlike other Coastal bluff properties. For example, this site is an already a disturbed bluff face and the General Plan policy interpretations only apply to this project. Page 1 of 2 Litigation Obviously, the Council should attempt to minimize the potential for litigation. There are other attorneys monitoring the Councils actions in addition to the adjacent homeowners and Applicant's attorneys. They are concerned about the precedent set by this project and the use of the CEQA Class 32 exemption. Path Forward Here is one path forward • Establish project conditions • Determine project linkage • Ask the Project design be modified to incorporate the above conditions and be brought back to the City Council/PC for action • Require the project to comply with CEQA During this process the City Arborist can work with the Applicant to determine the measures necessary to protect the Coastal Live Oak tree. Most likely this will require hand trenching to determine the extent of tree roots on the property. Based on the findings, if necessary, the Project design can be adjusted. This will occur concurrent with the CEQA documentation (a Negative Declaration) and should not add to the timeline. The revised Project and Negative Declaration be brough back to the Council/PC for final action. All of the unknows will be known and hopefully, you will have community support and have minimized the threat of litigation. I think this approach will best satisfy the parties. Page 2 of 2 Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:15 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Riverside development From: Lynn Lorenz Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:14:55 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; O'Neill, William; City Clerk's Office Cc: ssayres@me.com Subject: Riverside development [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attention: City Council members and Mayor O'Neill, The two issues of the Riverside/ Pacific Coast Highway proposed development that concern me greatly are the sound issue and the traffic issue off of Riverside. I live in the Heights and have occasion to either walk down Riverside or drive down at least two or three times a week. When not in quarantine, even more. Drivers coming down Cliff to turn left into Riverside constantly run the stop sign at that Riverside/ PCH juncture. Bicyclists zoom down the hill and never even stop there. Then you have traffic coming from the other way on Cliff, emptying into Riverside. It is a driving/ biking safety nightmare even before you get to the planned parking structure. Turning into the parking structure would be the first right turn coming down the hill. If you make it that far without getting rear ended or colliding with a biker, you are lucky. Because that is how I always feel when I make it to - what would be the second right turn. Getting into that little area to reach C'est si Bon or the post office is not to be taken lightly either. You have cars backing out of spaces parallel and perpendicular to almost every parking space in that little shopping center. Adding another parking structure will maximize the confusion and the possibility of an accident many fold. Finally, the traffic turning left off of Riverside into the slated parking structure, as well as the already existing parking spaces, will end up stacking traffic back to PCH and back to Tustin. Because of the speed of traffic and the short space from PCH to the left hand turn into a parking structure, there will be many rear end collisions, not to mention the logger jam of traffic on PCH. The sound/ noise that will be emanating from the open top tier of the planned restaurant is a mammoth problem. I live on Redlands, many streets away from Newport Harbor High and on certain nights can hear the roars of the football crowds. The restaurant is even closer to my home. But what about the poor people in closer proximity? Since when did we start putting noisy rooftop restaurants so close to residential areas, especially large rooftop restaurants? That would be more appropriate staging for a metropolitan city like Chicago or New York, not an enclave of small businesses in a semi- residential area of Newport Beach. The noise will likely, under certain conditions permeate the residents within quite a large area. I and my neighbors hope that you will rethink this development and come up with something safer, smaller and more appropriate for this neighborhood. Sincerely, Lynn Lorenz Newport Heights Resident Sent from my Pad Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 Subject: FW: Hello --can you look at this?? From: Carol Anne Dru <carol@thedrufamily.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 3:17 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Hello --can you look at this?? [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize these nder and know the content is safe. "TUNE INTO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING" FOR THE 215 RIVERSIDE PROJECT TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2020 @ 7:00 PM Dear Friends and Ne"l ors, There currently is a proposed open rooftop parking structure with an adjacent office building located at 215 Riverside Drive. The appeal will be hoard on Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at the upcoming City Council Mettln& We are simply asking that the City and the Applicant respectively show these two projects together, as they are an tial part of each other. This parking structure will be the only one of lU kind obutting only five feet from a resldentfal neighborhood. Parttcularfy haurdow Is the entrance and ash from the parking structure amo Riverside, this will be mnremely dangerous to ehN bran, bkycllsts and pedastrlans to our communitIf Be sure to "Tune-tn' to watch how the sty Council will vote on this Important development In our eommunfty of Newport Heights. RW -Top PIAWS Structure New Restavnnt w1111 Roor-Top Deck Carol Anne Dru 420 Kings Road 949-646-7612 Egress & Ingress Along RhrornM Mea. WATCH LIVE rursdav - 4/12!210 @ r:ad o r.1 50ectrurn - Channel 3 on your TV newpon leach TV - live Stream xaysrnm�l ieaanxnrntslw�-+LRnn+� n K nbry Voice yaur concerns prror to the meeting; rRytiJun,CLa91 ntMrin [SheaChta.aOU Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 PA2019-023 5/12/20 Good day Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, My name is Charles Klobe. I am a resident of Newport Heights and the president of the Newport Heights Improvement Association. I am sorry you are yet again hearing this today considering the crisis and total lack of urgency that this be decided today. Others writing and speaking tonight will ask you to delay this project for more review or at least force a solid cover over the upper garage level. I am asking you to grant the appeal and deny it in its entirety. Here's why: 1. The city has never approved an open-air parking garage adjacent to single family homes. The CUP for this is NOT by -right. 2. The protected Avon wetlands are much closer to the site than outlined in the consultant's report from September 2019. No mitigation or care is considered. 3. The previously undisclosed 100 -200 -year-old Heritage Coast Live Oak tree on the adjacent property may have its roots destroyed by this project. This tree is deemed "special" in the General Plan. It may be a "dedicated" tree according to Council Policy G-1. Where is this addressed in the staff report? 4. The staff report alleges this project qualifies for a Class 32 CEQA exemption. Not possible. This is a stretched interpretation with no legal rendering. By doing this they have not had to notify the Coastal Commission or the Department of Fish and Wildlife about the project. This precluded those bodies from offering a comment letter that may be contrary and require a CEQA review. What are they afraid of? 5. The staff report says this is not piecemealing and does not need to be considered with the adjacent restaurant application. We will see if other bodies agree. 6. The top level of an uncovered parking structure, operating late at night, illuminated, with bar customers leaving at 1:30-2:OOAM, with a minimum 5 -foot setback provided between the nearest residences. A disaster waiting to happen. Hello! These will be the basis for a CEQA challenge or a Coastal Commission appeal as this is a clear violation. If there is a nexus or even a probable connection between this proposal and one in the future that is contemplated, then Staff needs to review BOTH in totality. This means impacts that the City says are "non-existent" under the current proposal may very well surface under the future CUP. It is my opinion that it is a very weak conclusion that no impacts occur under either traffic, noise, or light. Drawing your attention to the staff report page 13, Item 3 you have the option to send this back for consideration. The previous staff report said "The project is intended to support off-site parking for future restaurants within The Garden shopping center located south of the project site across Avon Street. A separate conditional use permit (CUP) is required as part of the proposed restaurant at 2902 West Coast Highway for off-site parking and to establish a parking management plan for the shopping center including valet parking for the proposed structure. Under Traffic: No traffic study is required. Yes, the traffic count may not be supported with the 2,744 square foot building but what happens when this parking is used for "off-site" parking from other uses such as the stated future restaurant? An analysis should at least contemplate in/out movements given other uses from the retail and restaurants that clearly generate more ingress/egress that just 2,744 square feet of office space during working hours Monday through Friday. And, noise and light. Again, these impacts have not been considered by piecemealing this proposal. Why would someone construct a parking garage with no apparent use? The owner clearly knows that he CANNOT put in a restaurant across the street unless he can provide more parking. So, he is piecemealing this proposal and he could care less about the 2,744 square feet of office as it is the parking that is needed! The applicant -supplied parking space grant from Ned McCune is not enforceable and can be cancelled without city knowledge. If they do not need the parking than why do they need a parking structure at the expense of the environment? Please grant the appeal and deny this project or require it to be submitted correctly with the entire intended project later when all appropriate studies have been completed. Thank you for your service, Charles Klobe Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 7:18 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Ave, NB From: Diana <daminer99@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:46 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Ave, NB [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I am not in favor of the restaurant/rooftop development at 215 Riverside Ave, NB. Traffic, noise, loitering, alcohol and located within an established residential community are just a few of the reasons. Thank you, Diana Miner 949-394-6212 Sales Partner I Bradshaw Residential Group Coldwell Banker Realty I Global Luxury Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 7:17 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Riverside drive parking lot and rooftop restaurant -----Original Message ----- From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:15 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Riverside drive parking lot and rooftop restaurant [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Once again I would like to object to the parking structure on Riverside Drive. I believe that my objection is moot at this point but will voice it anyway. I also strongly object to a rooftop restaurant planned for the "Garden" center also on Riverside. Noise and lights at the very least will definitely disrupt our peaceful Newport Heights neighborhood. Unfortunately I'm quite sure that my objection will also make no difference. I'm curious though, why it is that residents seem to have so little influence over what happens to their neighborhoods? I cannot attend the meeting at city hall tomorrow as I am in, what is considered to be, a vulnerable group for the corona virus. It's a shame this decision could not be postponed until the hearings could be held live. It would seem only fair to those of us who will be adversely affected. Katherine Choate Sent from my Whone 10 Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:59 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Holy Moly Importance: High From: gina.cereda@wellsfargoadvisors.com <gina.cereda@wellsfargoadvisors.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:58 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Holy Moly Importance: High [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Why in the world would you put this type of structure here? Too much traffic. It's a main route for bikes and you would then make it more dangerous. Keep it low key just like the Cesi Bon development adjacent to the property! Small businesses with a few street focused parking spaces ok but a roof top deck. Too close to houses, too noisy, too many cars. Wow, this is just off the top of my head. Keep Newport intact with the low key nature it is. Bringing a lot of development into this area will be so dangerous for the residents that use the use. Mainly for the kids, that ride their bikes on that space!! I used to be on the Bike Safety committee post Brock McCann's passing— it's the first time since then I have felt to be vocal. Don't go big time on the development for this property. Its too much plus its too close to the neighborhood. You have got to be kidding to even consider this! Regards, Gina J. Cereda Managing Director - Investments I CA Insurance License #oB83947 Wells Fargo Advisors 1 520 Newport Center Drive Ste 1700 1 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Tel 949-759-4559 1 Fax 949-759-4597 Gina.Cereda@wfadvisors.com Mail code: H3118 -16o This email may be an advertisement or solicitation for products and services Unsubscribe from promotional emails. Investment and Insurance Products are: Not Insured by the FDIC or Any Federal Government Agency Not a Deposit or Other Obligation of, or Guaranteed by, the Bank or Any Bank Affiliate Subject to Investments Risks, Including Possible Loss of the Principal Amount Invested Investment products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Clearing Services (WFCS) LLC Member SIPC, a registered broker dealer and non-bank affiliate of',iVells Fargo & Company WFCS uses the trade name VVells Fargo Advisors 1 North Jefferson. St Louis. PAO 63103 Vied our Electronic communications guidelines Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:31 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Newport Beach From: Judy Elmore <elmorej@elmoretoyota.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:28 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I hope that you will consider requesting an enclosed roof for the parking structure on Riverside Drive. While I think the new center is a great improvement for the area and when completed will look even better I am concerned that a roof without an enclosure will be noisy and be a disruption for the area above it. Not just the homes immediately above it but the surrounding area as well. Once the restaurant is completed along with the open top bar there will be a lot of parking needed. So much has been done to make the center look great it would be a shame to have complaints and issues with an open parking structure. Judy Elmore 2914 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, Ca. Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:33 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside project -----Original Message ----- From: Susan E. Leal <sue.leal@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:32 AM 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. Please have your developer roof the upper garage. Newport Heights residents don't want more lights and noise! Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:45 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Drive Parking Structure From: Diana Meyers <dianacmeyers@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 10:37 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Drive Parking Structure [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council of Newport Beach, I am writing this email today regarding the deliberation of the type of structure to be built at 215 Riverside Drive in Newport Beach which will affect the surrounding neighborhood of Newport Heights. As a resident of Newport Heights I am concerned on several fronts about this property development but have not been able to attend any meetings. It will add additional noise and parking problems to Newport Heights. Our current neighborhood endured the refacing of the buildings such as the USPS building and local businesses over the past couple of years. Many of those renovated spaces are not rented and remain unoccupied even before the Covid-19 pandemic which is causing financial fall out. Adding another building/restaurant and bar to be built plus a parking structure just adds to the noise for homeowners both during construction and after if a business actually occupies the structure. As I read the proposal today it seems like the structure has been approved (but I want to be on record as saying that I am not in favor as a resident of Newport Heights) but now it is that there is a consideration of placing a roof on top of the structure to curb the noise. I am not in favor of that either as it will add to the height of the structure and noise impact and that should not encroach on the homes that are nearby. Finally, if additional businesses are created where are the employees going to park? I bet they will not be able to park in the parking structure because those will be for patrons of the businesses so that leaves the streets of Newport Heights which is a residential family neighborhood and business parking should be prohibited. I live in the neighborhood and watch daily as employees from the businesses such as USPS, Cesi Bon and local restaurants park in Newport Heights and walk through the Cliff Drive parks to go to work. This places unwanted vehicles on our residential streets daily for business purposes and this absolutely should not occur. Businesses should have their own assigned parking for employees in their parking lots adjacent to their business. Planning on this has been poor for years and should be corrected. Thank you for your consideration. Diana Meyers 2932 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 394-9421 Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 21 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:59 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside and Cliff Dr proposals From: Didomenico, Marc <marc.didomenico@equitable.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 202012:57 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside and Cliff Dr proposals [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Council Members: Please consider a reduced, or revamped project for this site. It would bring too much traffic into the actual neighborhood due to its location and there's not enough parking for as large a facility as is planned. And then for sure rethink the roof deck. In respect to Cliff Dr.; again, please leave the neighborhood alone as a reconfiguration will only encourage more through traffic that was already getting really bad before C-19 slowed everything down. Marc DiDomenico 609 Aldean Plc. PS: Thanks for keeping the beach open for recreation! 0 EQUITABLE ADVISORS Marc R. DiDomenico CFP® ChFC CA Insurance Lic. OA95833 2050 Main #520, Irvine, CA 92614 0.949-833-5863 I f. (949) 833.5810 www equitable.com I marcdidomenicogeguitable.com 91 m W Equitable Advisors is the brand name of AXA Advisors, LLC, Marc R. DiDomenico is a registered representative who offers securities through AXA Advisors, LLC (NY, NY 212-314- 4600), member FINRA, SIPC and an agent who offers annuity and insurance products through AXA Network, LLC. AXA Network conducts business in CA as AXA Network Insurance Agency of California, LLC; in UT as AXA Network Insurance Agency of Utah, LLC; and in PR as AXA Network of Puerto Rico, Inc. Investment advisory products and services offered through AXA Advisors, LLC, an investment advisor registered with the SEC. AXA Advisors and AXA Network are affiliated companies and do not provide tax or legal advice. Representatives may transact business, which includes offering Received After Agenda Printed May 12, 2020 Item No. 18 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:20 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Newport Beach's 2006 General Plan & 2000 Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:15 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Newport Beach's 2006 General Plan & 2000 Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor O'Neil and Honorable City Council Members, The community consensus in Newport Heights and Cliff Haven believe that the Mayor, the City Council and the City Staff have an obligation to follow the principles of the 2006 General Update Plan and the 2000 Mariner's Mile Strategic Plan; these documents stand as the foundation and allow for fundamental system as a chain of reasoning. 2006 General Update Plan: LU 6.16 Development along arterial corridors that is compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and open spaces, is well designed and attractive, minimizes traffic impacts, and provides adequate parking. LU 6.4.6 Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood Site and design development to enhance neighborhood quality of life by: Establishing a pattern of blocks that promote access and neighborhood identity, designing streets to slow traffic, while acceptable fire protection and traffic flows. Integrating a diversity of residential types orientating and designing the residential units to relate to the street footage locating and designing garages to minimize their visual dominance from the street. Incorporating sidewalks and parkways to foster pedestrian. LU 6.4.7 Neighborhood Structure and Form Buildings in the village center shall be designed to enhance pedestrian activity (e.g., visual transparency and facade modulation and articulation). The applicant has continues in bad faith: 1. The applicant is proposing to erect a parking structure abutting a residential neighborhood and this never been allowed in the history of Newport Beach. 2. The 215 Riverside Drive Project continues to be "piece-mealed", the entire project has not been viewed in its entirety in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. (CEQA violation) 3. The applicant nor City Staff has completely reviewed the impacts of the ingress and egress from Riverside Drive. 4. The applicant's community outreach meeting was flaccid at best. 2000 Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision 2.71 Sensitivity to Existing Neighborhoods ss Sensitivity to the adjacencies of the existing neighborhoods with proposed new uses and development projects is encouraged and should 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. At this time, on behalf of our community of Newport Heights and Cliff Haven that the Mayor and the City Council be true to the language and the current policies as stated in both the General Plan Update and the Mariner's Mile Strategic Visions. Any deviation from these policies should be considered reckless disregard to the surrounding residents. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Peggy V. Palmer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:09 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project -----Original Message ----- From: Missy Ann Schweiger <missyschweiger@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:02 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. NB City Council, This is my favorite project in NB and appreciate the thoughtfulness that has been accomplished at the entire site and all the adjoining buildings Now to get China Palace to vacate and the development owners can turn the last parcel into their concept Missy Ann Schweiger Sent from my Whone From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:59 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: 215 Riverside From: Portia Weiss Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:58:34 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Murillo, Jaime; Nova, Makana; Leung, Grace; Campbell, Jim; City Clerk's Office; Dept - City Council Subject: 215 Riverside [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The responsible development of 215 Riverside is of the utmost concern to Newport Heights and Cliffhaven neighborhoods. The noisy and filthy parking structures behind 3rd Street in Santa Monica come to mind as examples of a poor development result. The neighborhood village "feel" of Santa Monica has been seriously degraded. Do you want an open-air tequila bar in our own Newport Beach neighborhood, with the "morning after" putrid smells and visions of vomit and urine? Obviously no. This is not what most of we residents desire adjacent to our safe village well -kept homes, neighborhoods parks and even a priceless and state -protected wetlands! Portia Weiss From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:51 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Disapprove or Return the 215 Riverside Project to the Planning Commission From: TOMLU BAKER Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:51:23 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Cc: TOMLU BAKER Subject: Disapprove or Return the 215 Riverside Project to the Planning Commission [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor O'Neill and Council Members, At the bottom of this email is a copy of a correspondence, sent to the Council on April 28, and details concerns with the 215 Riverside Project and the lack of consideration of the impact to Mariner's Mile in entirety. Please disapprove or return this project to the Planning Commission. This project will result in a significant impact to the adjacent residents and to the surrounding Newport Heights/Cliffhaven neighborhoods and the partial elimination of the public view of the picturesque buffers which provide a welcome topographical transition from Commercial to Residential Properties. Concerns with the Proposed Project include but not limited to : 1. Open Roof Parking : The Council has never approved an Open Roof Parking Structure adjacent to residential homes. This is not what is visualized for Mariner's Mile. 2. Updates to the Approved Plans: The Planning Commission (PC) approved Project has been significantly updated and should have a PC Review with City Residents. 3. Encroachment: The Staff report mentions Encroachment. There are little details on the actual encroachment definition, the resolution and the resultant property line and the parties responsible for reconstruction and $ cost. Since there were Cal Coastal Comm (CCC) notification requirements with this project,must the City notify the CCC to review the City resolution of the encroachment? 4. No Smoking within 100 feet of Parks : The property has two existing driveways which touch the segmented Cliff Drive Park that has both 'No Smoking within 100 feet of Parks 'and 'Fire Hazard' signage. How will this be handled? Will the property be defined as a totally 'No Smoking' site? 5. Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree : This project has not sufficiently addressed concerns about the elegant mature Coast Live Oak Tree located on an adjacent property. 6. My understanding is that under a previous contract the employees at the Riverside Post Office (PO) were permitted to use parking spaces of the PO lot (The Garden). Due to a contract change which eliminated the parking rights of the PO employees, vehicles of the employees have been parked on the streets of the neighborhood. Can the parking rights of the PO employees at the Garden be restored? 7. The Parking Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) : The MOU specifies 35 licensed parking spaces. To what past project or building were these 35 parking spaces allocated? Has there been a change in the usage of the original allocation? What do the City's recorders indicate? Does this MOU have any legal standing? Should the MOU specify the duration? Should the parties be required to notify the City if the MOU is modified or there is a change in usage? What method does the City use to enforce MOU? Please disapprove or return this project to the Planning Commission. Stay safe and Healthy. Sincerely, Tom Baker Newport Heights From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:42 PM To: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com> Subject: Return the 215 Riverside Project to the Planning Commission Mayor O'Neill and Councilmembers, After many public meetings and presentations with the City and various project applicants and residents, there is no consensus on the development of Mariner's Mile in entity. Development of Mariners' Mile is being approached on a piece meal basis illustrated by the currently non -coupled projects of 215 Riverside and the Restaurant at the Garden, the fortunately failed Auto Nation project, and the proposed Newport Village Project. If the City continues to operate in this mode, the resultant Mariner's Mile will be a conglomerate of disjointed and unrelated projects which will forever eliminate the charm and character of Mariner's Mile currently and historically cherished by tourists, shoppers, vacationers and residents for decades. The City and the residents had hoped to address Mariner's Mile by an Update to the General Plan which understandably is being delayed due to recent SCAG requirements. Consequently, once again a project, in this case The 215 Riverside project, is being addressed in a vacuum without consideration of the impact to Mariner's Mile in entity. The 215 Riverside project has myriad of concerns and will result in a significant impact to the adjacent residents and to the surrounding Newport Heights/Cliff haven neighborhoods and the partial elimination of the public view of the picturesque buffer which provide a welcomed topographical transition from Commercial to Residential properties. Some of the concerns include but are not limited to : 1. Updates to the Approved Plans : The Planning Commission (PC) approved project has been updated with significant changes and should have a new PC review with the city residents. 2. Open Roof Parking : The Council has never approved an open roof parking structure adjacent to residential homes. This is not what is visualized for the redevelopment of Mariner's Mile. No Open Roof Parking should be approved in Mariner's Mile. 3. Encroachment : I am not aware of any detailed discussion of the actual encroachment definition, the resolution and resultant property line definition, the parties responsible for reconstruction and $ cost, and potential impacts to the Park and/or Wetlands. This data should be available to the residents for review as well as the City. 4. No Smoking within 100 feet of Parks : The property has two existing driveways which basically touch the segmented Cliff Drive Park that has 'No Smoking within 100 feet of Parks' signage. Again, I am not aware of any detailed discussion in the Staff Report. Will the property be defined as a totally'No Smoking' site? 5. Heritage Coastal Live Oak Tree : This project has not actually addressed concerns about the elegant mature Heritage Coastal Live Oak Tree located on an adjacent property. Please sent the 215 Riverside project back to the Planning Commission for additional review and possible approval of the updated project. Sincerely, Tom Baker Newport Heights 5 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:55 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Drive project From: Bruce Choate <bruceachoate@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:54 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Summerhill, Yolanda <YSummerhill@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg <G Ramirez@ newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana <M Nova@ newportbeachca.gov>; shori@manatt.com Cc: aehrlich@berdingweil.com; ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com Subject: 215 Riverside Drive project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor O'Neill, and Members of the City Council, Because it appears the City is unwilling to postpone the May 12th City Council meeting despite the threat and restrictions imposed by the Coronavirus crisis, I am once again writing to share my concern and disappointment regarding the discussions and approval process around the parking lot structure proposed for 215 Riverside Drive. For reasons that escape and mystify me, this project appears to have an unstoppable momentum. As I have stated previously, city staff appears to have a strong bias in favor of the project, despite the strong opposition voiced by the surrounding neighbors. If the project is approved based solely on the facts and its merits, so be it. But my concern is that the discussions and presentations to date have been deceptive and nontransparent. And I'm saddened and disillusioned by the realization that the developer has many advocates on the City Council, while the neighbors and residents of Newport Heights have none. To refer to this project as an office building is extremely misleading. As anyone in commercial real estate knows, an office developer strives to maximize FAR; i.e., the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is being built. The proposed office space of 2400 square feet is roughly the equivalent of three 1 bedroom apartments, and hardly qualifies as an "office building". Additionally, a typical office building requires about 3-4 parking spaces per thousand square feet of office space. The proposed structure offers 41 parking stalls for 2400 square feet, or over 17 spaces per one thousand feet. Anyone looking at the construction plans for this project will quickly recognize that the objective of this particular structure is to maximize parking stalls, and minimize office FAR. In other words, the proposed development is a parking structure; it is not an office building. An additional misconception put forward by the developer and city staff pertains to the project's ownership. If two entities share common ownership but have different names, this does not mean they are unrelated and independent entities. As I understand it from staff comments, the parking structure and proposed Mexican restaurant and outdoor bar are owned by the same principals, and it strikes me as deceptive to state otherwise. Consultants and staff at the last Planning Commission public hearing went to great lengths to split hairs by reciting code and precedent suggesting they are "technically" unrelated, which clearly is not the case. The bottom line is that the proposed development is a parking structure. And this parking structure is being developed to accommodate the Mexican restaurant and outdoor bar proposed for the 215 Riverside Drive development. It defies logic and common sense to suggest the parking structure would be constructed even if the restaurant and outdoor bar weren't going to be developed. So it seems to me that if the Council and staff are determined to approve this project, it should at least be approved based on facts and reality; and the approval process should not be obscured by smoke and mirrors. Because this structure will greatly erode the quality of life for the good neighbors of Newport Heights, it is an insult to the intelligence of these decent people and longtime residents to mislead and placate them with assurances that an innocuous office building will be coming to their neighborhood. In reality, they should expect noise and light pollution, traffic, and late night revelers. I would like to close by giving the developer credit for developing an exceptional retail center at 215 Riverside. It is tastefully designed, well -constructed, and an enhancement to our neighborhood. I am consequently baffled that he has chosen to jeopardize the goodwill and positive image currently enjoyed by the existing development by imposing a parking structure and outside bar upon our wonderful and unique neighborhood. I can't help but wonder how he would feel if a similar development was proposed for his neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your service to our special city. Respectively, grkoe A. Choate Office: (949) 673-0559 Cell: (310) 344-2016 bruceachoate@gmail.com 2924 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:32 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside.... require roof please. -----Original Message ----- From: Leslie Alsenz <lalsenz@abpcapital.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:31 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside.... require roof please. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council, A roof on the parking structure on top of 215 Riverside will make a huge difference to those of us who live above it. Please require a solid proper roof. I live quite close. Thank you for your hard work! Leslie Alsenz 2948 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 562-822-7251 Sent from my Wad From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:31 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riversdie Drive Parking Structure From: Nancy Scarbrough <nscarbrough@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:31 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riversdie Drive Parking Structure [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am adamantly opposed to the 215 Riverside Parking structure and office building for the following reasons: 1. An open roof parking structure immediately adjacent to residential housing has never been approved in the City of Newport Beach. Why would we set a new precedent allowing this disruptive type of occupancy in our neighborhoods? It makes no sense! 2. CEQA should not be waived for this project. There are wetlands and a historic oak tree that are adjacent to this property. Both will require mitigation. That means CEQA cannot be waived. Just because developers attorney and Staff say this project should be exempt from CEQA, does not make it true. Please read the law. 3. This project is being Piece-mealed. Although we are not allowed to acknowledge it, we all know the property owner is planning an open rooftop restaurant and bar in the adjacent building that will certainly need additional parking which this parking structure is undoubtedly designed to address. The plans are on file with the City and many of us have seen them. The owner has advertised the restaurant and it's parking lot at 215 publicly. Even though we can't speak the words, for some ridiculous reason, we all know what this parking structure is being built for. Let's stop the charade and call this what it is. For this reason, strong restrictions need to be placed on the hours of operation for the parking structure, even if it is allowed with a cover over the parking. I would encourage the City Council not to approve this project without strong conditions requiring a covered roof over the parking, parking hour restrictions for the protection of the neighbors and CEQA review resulting in an acceptable mitigation plan for the natural resources on and adjacent to this property. The residents have expressed their opposition to this project as it is currently being presented, loudly. Please listen to them. Best regards, Nancy Scarbrough Newport Heights resident From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 7:11 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 RIVERSIDE - LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL From: Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:52 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; 'hal@centerstone. com' <hal@centerstone.com>; Stefanie M. Sitzer <ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com>; Ernie V. Castro <evcmanagement@centerstone.com> Subject: 215 RIVERSIDE - LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor O'Neill and the Members of the City Council, My name is Jack Staub, I live at 2911 Cliff Dr, which abuts 215 Riverside. I have lived there since 2006. Also living with me are my daughter, a Freshman at Newport Harbor, and my son, who attends Carden Hall. I would like to thank the City Council for your time this evening, and for listening to our concerns. For me, this appeal was necessary because the Planning Commission didn't go far enough to protect my kids' privacy and the community's interests. You have the ability to further improve the situation and balance. My property is only 5 feet from the proposed parking structure, which will run late into the evenings. This is very different from the parking for the existing office building, which has very limited use outside of normal office hours since I moved there in 2006; including when Nisei Restaurant operated there. This parking structure is not consistent with the Planning Commission's prior approved structures in close proximity to residential homes; therefore, this project, if approved by you tonight, will set a dangerous precedent for all future parking projects, not just Mariners Mile but throughout Newport Beach. I ask you to consider this project with its long term impact to the community, to come up with a fair approach for everyone; and I do thank the City for facilitating these discussions with the applicant to try to achieve that end. A solid roof over the entire upper parking structure would provide my kids a safe and quiet environment that they have enjoyed for more than 13 years. A 10 PM cut off would also significantly improve their safety. This would then be consistent with other parking structures approved by the Planning Commission, such as Dover and PCH, not setting adverse precedent. Finally, the tree mentioned in Mr. Tanners report in on my property. If this Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree is killed by the planned excavation then the community would be at enormous loss. I would feel horrible, but you would need to answer to the negative headlines. I defer to Mr. Tanner on the issues raised in his report, and fully support his recommendations. I thank the Mayor and the City Council, again, for your time and ask you to require a roof on this open air parking structure, to prevent it from being used throughout Mariners Mile and eventually all of Newport Beach, lowering residential home values for decades to come. Jack Staub Appellant 2911 Cliff Drive From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 7:55 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking structure proposed on Riverside Dr. -----Original Message ----- From: Cliff Jordan <gasdoc03@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 3:39 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking structure proposed on Riverside Dr. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I oppose this development. C. R. Jordan Sent from my iPhone