Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Ave - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed April 28, 2020 Item No. 9 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:24 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Nay From: Lynn Bender<iynn@bendersonline.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12.22 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Nay [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Lynn Bender Sent from my iPhone 41 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2620 9:18 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure proposed at 215 Riverside Drive From: gale demmer <galedemmer@gmaH.com> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:18 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure proposed at 215 Riverside Drive [EXTERNAL EMAIL) DD NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the members of the city council, Please require a roof covering the proposed parking structure at 215 Riverside Drive, The homeowners living around and directly above the project would be highly impacted by the noise, the lights and ultimately the trash. Thank you. Gale Demmer 2812 Cliff Drive N.B. 92663 67 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:27 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Ave. (PA2019-023) From: Kathi Glover <keg51@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:25 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Ave. (PA2(119-023) [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, James & Kathi Glover Cliff Haven Newport Beach, Ca. 38 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:06 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Drive Parking Deck From: Martha Kinney <mhkinney@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 3:35 PM To: Dept - City CouncileCityCounciI@newportbeachca. gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Drive Parking Deck [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property, It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Martha Kinney 2315 Holly Lane Martha Kinney 65 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 202012:02 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: Jed Robinson rjedprobinson@grnail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 11:57 AM To: Dept - City Council rCtyCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue {PA2019-023} [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Jed Robinson Newport Heights resident 75 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 7:44 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project - Pending Approval From: Edward Lyon oval-lyon@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 3:15 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@new portbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Project - Pending Approval [EXTERNAL EMAIL) Do NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Val Lyon va l_ lyon @sbcglaba 1. net 949-351-4340 17 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2024 12:46 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed parking structure From: Forrest Wild <forrestwiid2@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:43 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Proposed parking structure [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents, Sincerely, Forrest And Bonita Wild 19 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:30 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Comments - Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023) Attachments: The Garden Office and Parking Structure CC Comments.pdf; Council Summary..pdf From: dave@earsi.com Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:28:30 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Comments - 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. Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council Attached are my comments on the de novo public hearing for Resolution No. 2020-33: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for the Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023). Attached are two documents. One a condensed summary, and the second a detailed point by point analysis with an attached opinion from a professional Arborist. Thank you for considering my comments. 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. 91 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC, 48THWR 171 IIIFI A F104114 UI 111 Rt March 23, 2020 Mr. Hal Woods Architect 2919 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Oak Impacted by the Garden Office Parking Structure Project Dear Mr. Woods: Thank you for asking Arborgate Consulting to provide professional opinions on the outcome of constructing a new parking structure and wail in the standard protection zone of a mature coast live oak behind 215 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach. Observations The subject coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia, has a trunk diameter of 30.6 at 18 inches above average grade, is about 54 feet wide, and belongs to Mr. Jack Staub. It appears healthy and well structured. The slope the oak is growing on is supported by a concrete block retaining wall. The oak fills the space between Mr. Staub's home and the street, and from the driveway out of the parking lot to Riverside Drive. Its roots provide stability for the slope. Analysis Many cities and counties have tree preservation ordinances to protect oaks. They are prized native trees. Many cities have heritage tree protection ordinances for trees this size. Many or most of these jurisdictions require at least protection of the "dripline", i.e. the area directly under the canopy of foliage. Such protection does not make any calculations for the age or health of the tree or any other mitigating factors such as root depth, leaning, or one-sided canopies. However, the International Society of Arboriculture has published a book on tree preservation called "Trees and Development" by Dr. Jim Clark and Nelda Matheny. This book provides a more thoughtful approach that considers many complicating factors. It bases the protection zone on the trunk diameter as a better factor for determining root spread and mass. Different species have different tolerance levels, and the coast live oak is considered to have good tolerance. It applies a factor for age/health because younger trees are proportionately more tolerant of root ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1 131 Lucinda Way, 'fustin, CA 112780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 Page 2 disturbance than "senior citizen trees". For tree species with good tolerance it applies a factor of 0.5 times trunk diameter for young trees (C30% of live expectancy) and a factor of 1.0 for older trees (>80% live expectancy), and 0.75 for those in-between. In my professional opinion this is an older tree. It could be as old as 100 to 200 years old. Because of the retaining wall and the house's foundation, the root zone is compressed into an elongated zone parallel to the street. The proposed cutting of roots at the south end of that sloped root zone would be taking a larger amount of roots, proportionally, than a tree in an open field. Without that consideration the minimum clearance would be 28 feet, but should be expanded at least 25% due to the irregular root zone. The new wall is estimated to be about 15 feet from the trunk. This is way too close. Assuming the new wall can be repositioned at 35 feet away, in addition to these clearance requirements, the remaining portion of the root zone will need secure fencing and protection. All roots exposed and cut over 1 -inch in diameter need to be cut cleanly for good healing and recovery. Contractors on a confined site like this are more likely to take advantage of whatever space they can for storage of equipment or supplies. Leaking or spills could compact or pollute the adjoining root zone. Secure chain-link fencing at the edge of the protection zone and regular monitoring of activities that might cause harm to the tree is essential. Conclusion This is an attractive and valuable tree of a highly valued species, in a prominent and difficult location. It is no exaggeration to estimate its value at over $35,000. Do not take chances with its health. The minimum clearance from the edged of root disturbance to the edge of the trunk is 2$ feet. This beautiful healthy tree is established on this slope, and cannot be replaced "in kind" should it be seriously damaged. Using the current (1 Olh edition) Guide for Plant Appraisal, trunk formula technique, and assuming a 90% condition rating, 90% functional limitations, but no external limitations, I appraised the value at $35,700 (rounded). External limitations would include such things beyond site and tree factors, like City height Iimits or prohibited species. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions This consultant was not given access to the site. All measurements are estimated or by others. Respectfully submitted, 41 Arborgate Consulting, Inc. Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA emeritus Registered Consulting Arborist #355 ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture &c Horticulture 1 131 1,ucuida Way, `Tustin, t:lk 92780. Ph. 714,731.0240, Cell: 714.29-17184, Fax 71 4.731.F 138 Enclosure: pictures Page 3 e. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. .Arboriculture & 1Iorticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 Photograph is from Google Earth street views. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 Mayor O'Neill, COUNCIL SUMMARY Member of the City Council Subject: The Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023), (CDP2019-003) and (CUP2019-003) CEQA Class 32 Exemption: The Project does not qualify for a CEQA Class 32 exemption. The Project is inconsistent with General Plan, Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act policies; the site has onsite sensitive resources; the Project has the potential to impact the Avon Wetlands, the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree; the potential to generate significant nighttime lighting and noise impacting adjacent residential uses; increase public safety hazards; and involves unusual circumstances having a reasonable possibility to generate significant adverse environmental impacts. Any policy inconsistency or potentially significant adverse impact invalidates the use of a Class 32 exemption. Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree - This tree is protected by the General Plan (one location: Policy 0- 1). This tree is estimated to be 100-200 years old. The tree's roots extend under the Project site and will be damaged by Project grading. This is a mature tree which has been heavily impacted by urban development. This tree species when mature is known to be fragile and if damages can die. DO YO U REALL Y WANT TO RISE THE HEALTH OF THIS PRIZED NATIVE TREE? David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 1 of 3 dave a@ea rsi.com 4-27-2020 An Arborist evaluated this tree and concluded: "They are prized native trees' .... "This is an attractive and valuable tree of a highly valued species, in a prominent and difficult location. Do not take chances with its health. The minimum clearance from the edged of root disturbance to the edge of the trunk is 28 feet. This beautiful healthy tree is established on this slope, and cannot be replaced "in kind" should it be seriously damaged." John Conway, Former City of Newport Beach Urban Forester agrees with the Arborist's evaluation. Aron Wetlands - The Avon Wetlands was miss -characterized by Staff. The size of the Wetlands changes seasonally based on seasonal rainfall. Staff measured the Wetlands in the dry seasons when the surface features of the Wetlands appear smaller. Based on this measurement, Staff concluded the Project would not impact the Wetlands. During the rainy season the Wetlands is revitalized and the surface features expand horizontally by 15-20 feet on its east end, as shown on the April 23, 2020 photo. This is consistent with studies going back at lease to the 1980s. The Avon Wetlands is now within 10-12 feet of the Project. The Project will negatively impact the Avon Wetlands during off- site construction activities. The Project will decrease the amount of surface run-off and groundwater flows to the Avon Wetlands by diverting these waters onto Avon Avenue and into the Avon Avenue storm drain. Avon Wetlands - Eastern Terminus. View looking east, April 23, 2020 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 2 of 3 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com What's Wrong with the Staff Recommendation and Planning Commission Decision Staff omitted 5 General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies and miss -interpreted 5 others to justify their recommendation for use of the CEQA Class 32 exemption and recommendation for Project approval. Staff also omitted discussing compliance with a key California Coastal Act section. Recommended Project Design improvements • The access from Riverside Drive to the proposed parking structure should be eliminated. All vehicular access should be taken from Avon Avenue. ■ The parking structure should have a solid roof designed to contain all nighttime light and noise impacts to adjacent residential uses. • No Project should be built that impacts this Oak Tree or its water source. A 25' minimum grading setback is recommended by the Arborist. This alone makes the Project infeasible! • The stability of the Bluff Face should be protected. While this is assumed, the preliminary geotechnical report says additional steps may be needed, What will be the impact of these additional steps on the bluff face, the wetlands and oak tree? By that time, it will be too late! Class 32 Exemption ■ Based on the information in the record, the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption and will have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. An EIR will determine impacts to the Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree are significant and unavoidable. A grading/development setback is required to reduce the potential impact to less than significant. This alone makes the proposed Project infeasible! Wetland impacts also require a setback. ■ The EIR will conclude the Project even with mitigation measures and recommended design modifications will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Additional Entitlements Needed • The proposed Project requires a General Pian and Local Coastal Program amendment to amend policies to allow impacts to significant biological resources, scenic resources, protected coastal Muff faces, and to minimize commercial residential buffer policies and design objectives. Many of these policy changes would be inconsistent with the California Coastal Act, Final Council Action ■ It is unlikely the Council will approve the required General Plan Amendment or Local Coastal Plan Amendment, or approve the findings to support a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Therefore, the Project should he DENIED. • The Council should provide directives to Staff and the Planning Commission to prevent this from happening again. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 3 of 3 davePearsi.com 4-27.2WO Mayor O'Neill, Member of the City Council Subject: The Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023), (CDP2019-003) and (CUP2019-003 ) COVID-19 Public Safely Risk This is a non-essential public hearing/meeting which is inconsistent with federal, and county public safety orders. Many residents who would otherwise exercise their right under the Brown Act to attend and participate in meetings of legislative bodies have told me they are not attending City meetings because they like myself are at high risk and they are fearful they could be infected with the COVID 19 virus should they attend City meeting under the conditions proposed. I ask the City Council adhere to the recommendations provided by the United States Government, State of California and Orange County public health authorities until these health professionals declare it safe to conduct such meetings in the manner proposed by the City. Under the current operating procedures, I ask that the Council afford the public the same option you provide yourselves and staff, the opportunity to express ourselves live on camera where you have the opportunity to see emotion, signs and banners and signs of support from others in attendance. A. SUMMARY: MA Class 32 Exemption The Council's first decision, assuming the Council does not vote to immediately deny the Project, will be to vote on the applicability of the Class 32 exemption for this Project. If the Council determines the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption, the Project must under CEQA review prior to the City acting on the Project. In order for a project to qualify for a Class 32 exemption the project must meet rigorous regulatory standards. Failure to meet aM standard disqualifies the project from a Class 32 exemption. The Project does not Qualify for a CEQA Class 32 exemption. The Project is not consistent with General plan, Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act policies; has onsite sensitive resources, has the potential to impact the Avon Wetlands; adjacent Heritage Special, Designated, Coast Live Oak tree; has the potential to generate significant nighttime lighting impacts to sensitive receptors (adjacent residential uses); increase public safety hazards and involves unusual circumstances which have a reasonable possibility to adversely impact the environment. Any policy inconsistency or potentially significant adverse impact invalidates the use of a CIass 32 exemption. Project inconsistencies and potentially significant impacts ae discussed on the following pages. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 1 of 4S 4.27.2070 dave@earsi.com General Plan Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act Consistent The following General Plaza, Local Coastat Program and California Coastal Act Consistency comments are made under the presumption that the Project application (CDP2019-003 and CUP2019- 003 represent a new project, not a remodel of the existing land use. As a new project: The proposed Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan and Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act policies. As such, the proposed Project should either be 1) redesigned to comply with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code; 2) be denied; or 3) the project applicant invited to amend the development application to include a General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments. The following inconsistencies are cited. Policies identified with a green ■ are not included in Staff's report. I. General Plan Inconsistencies Policy LU 1.3: Natural Resources'_ Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. Policy LU 3.7: Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas: Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from threats to life or property. Policy LU5.2.2 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 lighting fixtures, andlor comparable buffer ing elements; • Attractive architectural treatment of elevation facing the residential neighborhood,- and • location oj' automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. Policy LU6.16.5 Compatibili1y of Business Operations with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods: Work with local businesses to ensure that retail, office, and other uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential neighborhoods. This may include strategies addressing hours of operation, employee loitering, trash pickup, truck delivery hours, customer arrivals and departures, and other activities. Policy LU6.16.6 Design Compatibility with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods: Require that building elevations. facing adjoining residential waits be designed to convey a high-quality character and ensure privacy of the residents, and that properties be developed to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of lighting, noise, odor, trash .storage, truck deliveries, and other business - 0 ' Indicates Policies not addressed by Staff David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 2 of 45 4-27-2020 dare@earsi.com related activities. Building elevations shall be architecturally treated and walls, ij'used as buffers, shall he well-designed and landscaped to reflect the areas residential village character. Policy LU 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces. Require that development projects locate and design building to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the blufffaces. Policy NR 10.4: New Development Sitin and Design. Require that the siting and design of'new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. Policy NR 10.6: Use of Buffers: Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the use af' native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. 2. Local Coastal Program Section 21.30B.040.0 Inconsistency Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 2I.30B.040.0 of the Local Coastal Program, states: C. Wetland Buffers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland Buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. Exception: smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that: a. A one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints,- and b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and the type and intensity of disturbance. 3. California Coastal Act Inconsistent ff Section 30240: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas; adjacent developments. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall he compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. QaVId 1. Tanner, President EnvIronmental & Regulatory 59ecialists, Inc. Page 3 of 45 dare@earsi.com 4-27-2020 LIMITATIONS ON CEOA GUIDELINES. 15300.2, subds. b (040.) . EXCEPTIONS The infill exemption cannot be used ifthe project would cause cumulatively .sign f cant impacts, impact scenic highways or historical resources, involve hazardous waste, or are subject to "unusual circumstances ". The Project will cause cumulatively significant impacts to scenic resources impacting West Coast Highway and Coastal BIuffs. The Project is subject to numerous unusual circumstances, that would cause significant adverse environmental effects, either individually or in combination. Unusual circumstances involve general plan compatibility, biology, lighting, noise, seismic hazards and public safety. Policy_ LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces: Require that the height of'development in nonresidential and higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types ofdevelopment. These and other items are discussed in Sections C & D. David I 'fanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, [n c. Page 4 of 45 dave@L.arsi.com 4-27-2020 RUE COMME N D A TION S The City Council tale the following actions: Structure of Public Meetings for Non -Essential Activities Given the directives from the United States Government, Governor of California and Orange County public health authorities the public does not have the opportunity to face the City Council when making comments, nor does the Council have the opportunity to see the emotion on the faces of commenters. I recommend the Council provide commenters the same opportunity it provides City Staff to be seen on camera when making comments. L The Council deny the Project and invite the Applicant to submit an amended development application. CEQA Class 32 Exemption 2. The Council continue this matter to a future date to allow Staff the opportunity to supplement its written documentation supporting its recommendation that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 Exemption, or 3. The Council determine the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 Exemption and instruct Staff to prepare the required CEQA compliance and returns this matter to the Planning Commission for re -consideration; If Staff disagrees with Recommendation 3, 4. The Council have the Project application evaluated by an independent 3rd party to determine if the Project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption. An independent party is defined as a party expert in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, having no connection what so ever to the City, the Project Applicant, Applicant's consultants and the commenters. If the independent review concludes the use of a Class 32 exemption is appropriate for the Project, the City will have obtained a second expert opinion reducing the City's risk of CEQA litigation. Coastal Development Pen -nit and. Conditional Use Permit applications 5. The Council finds: a. The Project is a new use and as such, is subject to current General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning and building standards; b. The Site is not within the boundary of the General flan Mariners Mile planning area; David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 5 of 45 dave@earsi,com 4-27-2020 c. The property is not identified as an underutilized property by the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Municipal Code; and d. The parking structure is neither required by code nor necessary for the enjoyment of the property. The Property can be utilized as is, or remodeled for other general commercial uses with surface level parking in accordance with the existing land use designation. e. The Project be required to comply with CEQA and prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Based on the information in the record, it is clear the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption and will have potentially significant impacts on the environment. An EIR will determine impacts to the Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree are significant and unavoidable. A grading/development setback is required to reduce the potential impact to Iess than significant. This alone makes the proposed Project infeasible? A similar setback from the Avon Wetland will be required. The Project with mitigation measures and recommended design modifications will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. f. The Project application be amended to require a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Land Use Pian Amendment. The proposed Project requires General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments to amend policies to allow impacts to significant biological resources, scenic resources, protected coastal bluff faces, minimize commercial residential buffer policies and design objectives. Many of these policy changes would be inconsistent with the California Coastal Act. It is unlikely the Council will approve the required General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment, or approve the findings to support a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Therefore, the Project should be DENIED. The Council should provide directives to Staff and the Planning Commission to prevent this from happening again. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory 5ped aiists, Inc. Page 6 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com B. DISCUSSION The Garden Office and Parking Structure Project Project Site: Lot D of Tract 919. Area: 0.37 acres Location: The project site is located adjacent to and north of the Mariners Mile planning area . Proposed Project: The Project proposes to construct a new office building and multi-level parking structure on the site. "The Project is seen as an extension of the development across Avon Street (The Garden) which is envisioned as a pedestrian -oriented mixed-use village containing food service, retail businesses and offices contributing to the revitalization of the area." The Project proposed to construct excess parking for this pedestrian oriented project. The Project proposes to demolish an existing restaurant/office building and associated surface parking lot. Portions of the exiting retaining wall on the west, north and east will be removed. In so doing, the proposed Project will re -grade the site, cutting into the existing Coastal Sluff, to construct portions of the parking structure. The Project will excavate approximately ten (10) feet below existing grade to construct the lower level of the parking structure. Remedial grading to prepare the site is assumed to extend 3 feet below existing grade, however, actual remedial grading and structural requirements will be determined by subsequent analysis. Project grading will extend off-site onto the bluff face on the west, north and east disturbing approximately 14,474 -sq -ft. The Project will involve 3,500 cubic yards of cut, 125 cubic yards of fill, and 3,375 cubic yards of export. Project Objective: Provide excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Gardens shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity. Existing _Physical Setting: The project site is 100% disturbed. Groundcover consists of non-native ornamental species. Site improvements include a commercial structure and terraced parking levels supported by retaining walls against the bluff face on the west, north and east. A portion of the property is underlain by the roots of a native Heritage Coast Live Oak tree, a sensitive, protected species identified in the General Plan as a "Special" tree, a "Designated" tree. This is a mature tree estimated to be 10-200 years old. This tree has been heavily impacted by urban development. This tree species when mature is known to be fragile and if damages can die. Existing Regulatory 'Setting: The proposed Project is a new use and as such, is subject to current General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning and building standards. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan Land use designation and local Coastal Program Land Use designation (General Commercial) and Zoning for the property. The site is not identified as an underutilized site, nor does the site lie within a disadvantaged community identified by the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Municipal Code. 2 General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU26 David 1. Tanner, Presider[ Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc Page 7 of 45 dare@ea rsLcom R-27.2020 C. CEQA A CLASS 32" EXEMPTION Background CEQA Class 32" exemption is one such class promoting "shovel -ready" urban infill development projects through categorical streamlining. Established in 1998, this urban infill exemption requires projects to be consistent with applicable general plans and zoning designations, located within a city's limits on a site five acres or less, bordered by urban uses, and without significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project site itself can be either vacant or previously developed, but must be devoid of sensitive habitat and adequately served by public utilities. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332). Senate Bill 226 specifies conditions under which these projects would be adequately supported by existing planning documents and land use designations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21494.5.) SB 226 and Class 32 exemptions exemplify the principle that areas already predetermined for these exact uses by a CEQA-driven planning process need not undergo a more onerous review. Exceptions to the exemptions, however, add back in a measure of consideration to the process. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2, subds. (b), (cHf).). Under these exceptions, the infill exemption cannot be used if the project would cause cumulatively significant impacts, impact scenic highways or historical resources, involve hazardous waste, or are subject to "unusual circumstances." While these four exemptions lend themselves to relatively straightforward interpretation and have been largely uncontroversial, the "unusual circumstances" exception has been the subject of much litigation. The "unusual circumstances" exception precludes the use of any categorical exemption when there is a "reasonable possibility"' that the project "will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2 (c.).) In reviewing a lead agency's determination as to whether the exemption applies and if the effects will be significant, the Supreme Court has applied a two -prong test wherein an agency must answer: (1) are there unusual circumstances? and if so, (2) would these unusual circumstances create a potential for significant impact? Further complicating the issue is the bifurcation of the standard of review that applies the "substantial evidence" standard to the first prong of the test and the "fair argument" standard to the second. Under the more deferential first prong, an agency may base its decision on substantial evidence, including conditions in the vicinity of the project. If it determines there is an "unusual circumstance," then the "fair argument" standard requires an EIR when it can be fairly argued based on substantial evidence that "due to" the unusual circumstances of the project, it may have a significant effect on the environment. Both standards require substantial evidence in the record, And the question of whether a project qualifies for the Class 32 exemption in the first instance is subject to the more deferential "substantial evidence" threshold. (Berkeley 14illside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1114). The City's use of a Class 32 exemption should document its determination of whether any "unusual circumstances" are present and resulting potential significant effects (or presumably, the lack thereat) with applicable land use documents (zoning snaps, general pians, etc.) and if warranted, some standard preliminary technical analysis (traffic, biology, noise, etc.). David J. Tanner, president Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 8 of 45 4.27.2020 dare@earsi.eom C.I. Applicability of Class 32 Exem tion Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in -fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. (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. (emphasis added) (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. Response: C.1(a) (Applicability of Class 32 Exemption) (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. General Plan Land Use Designation: The proposed Project is within an area categorized as in -fill and is consistent with the land use designation for the site contained in the General Pian Land Use Element. General Plan Policy Inconsistencies: 1) The Prgject conflicts with the following General Plan Land Use Element Policies Policy LU 1.3: Natural Resources: Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense oj'place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve opera space resources, beaches, harbor, parks. bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and Habitat resources. Project grading will extend off-site disturbing approximately 14,470 -sq -ft of the bluff face on the west, north and east. The Project will involve 3,500 cubic yards of cut, 125 cubic yards of fill, and 3,375 cubic yards of export. The Project will curt into the hillside to construct the parking structure and excavate approximately ten (10) feet below existing grade to construct the lower level of the parking structure. Remedial grading to prepare the site is assumed to extend an additional 3 feet. Coastal Bluff's are to be protected and preserved in their natural setting. The proposed Project will grade into the Coastal Bluff and is therefore inconsistent with this General Plan Policy. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.3 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 9 of 45 dave@earsixom 4.27.2020 Policy LU 3.7: Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas: Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from threats to life or property. Coastal bluffs are identified as areas with high natural resource value (LU 1.3: Natural Resourced. Native Heritage Coast Live Oak Trees are significant resource. The Avon Wetlands is a protected resource. The proposed Project will grade further into the Coastal Sluff, both on and off-site, impact the root system of the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree, the Avon Wetlands and in so doing jeopardize the stability of the bluff. The Project is inconsistent with this General Plan Policy. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.7 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. 2) The Project conflicts with the following General Plan Land Use Element Commercial Centers and Districts policies. Policy LU5.2.2 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 lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements; ■ Attractive architectural treatment ofelevation facing the residential neighborhood; and • location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. The existing use locates the commercial structure as far away from existing residents as possible, utilizing the horizontal area closest to the existing residential homes as a surface parking area stepped into the hillside to buffer the residential uses and minimize 'impacts. At the time the current structure was constructed the adjacent residential homes at the bluff -top did not exist. The proposed Project will encroach further into the Coastal Bluff face with a multi-level parking structure providing minimizing the horizontal buffer between the proposed Project and existing residential uses. There is a S' horizontal land use buffer proposed. The Project is proposing a vegetated trellis, (an architectural buffer to partially mitigate nighttime light and glare impacts to adjacent residential homes. This trellis combined with limited hours of operation (nightly until 11: pm) will partially mitigate nighttime light and glare. However, headlights from cars entering the top level of the parking structure will shine directly into residential homes/living areas. The staff report states: "the project is designed to provide surplus off-site parking for the Garden shopping center located directly south of the project site or potentially other nearby uses in the future."' People leaving the parking structure after 11; pm will generate nighttime light, glare and noise impacts. Project design features only partially mitigates/buffers this impact. 3 Staff report pg. 1 David J_ Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory 5peclaiists, Inc. Page 10 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 The proposed Project does not effectively buffer the increase in parking structure mass, night-time light, glare and noise impacts to adjacent residential uses. This will be a potentially significant impact to adjacent residential uses. In the Project proponents mind and the mind of Staff, the project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant Gardens shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity outweighs the General Plan policy to buffer residential areas. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. If this Project is deemed to comply with this policy, this finding will set a precedent for future General Plan and Local Coastal Program policy determinations. Policy LU6.16.5 Compatibilily of Business Operations with Adjoining Residential Nei hborhoods: Work with local businesses to ensure that retail, office, and other uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential neighborhoods, This may include strategies addressing hours of operation, employee loitering trash pickup, truck delivery hours, customer arrivals and departures, and other activities. In an effort to increase compatibility the Project has limited the height of the proposed office structure to twenty-eight (28) feet, the top level of the parking structure to approximately the same grade as the existing upper terrace of the existing parking area and limited the hours of entry into the parking structure to 11:00 pm and including a vegetated terrace over a portion of the upper parking Ievel. All good steps to increase the compatibility of business operations with adjoining residential neighborhoods. However, without access controls, the parking structure will be an attractive nuisance, as is the existing surface parking area for homeless individuals, drug users, after hour partiers and other uses not compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses. While access into the parking structure will be restricted after 11: pm, cars already parked in the structure will be allowed to leave. People will be able to be dropped off at their car by another vehicle (taxi). This activity will generate nighttime noise, light and glare which is significantly more sensitive to residential receptors during late night fours. The Project proponent's objective is to provide night-time parking to a proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Garden shopping center) or other night-time bars/restaurants in the project vicinity despite the night- time light and noise impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods. There is no strategy which mitigates the impacts to adjacent residential uses from the Project's inability to insure the closure of the parking structure. What could possibly be worse than the top level of an uncovered parking structure operating late at night, illuminated, with bar customers leaving at 1:30-2:00 am, with "A minimum 5 -foot setback is provided between the nearest residences." Therefore, the ,proposed Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 16.5 and does not qualify For a Class 32 exemption. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 11 of 45 dave@earsi.cam 4.27-2620 If this project is deemed to comply with this policy, this finding will set a precedent For future General Plan policy determinations. Policy LU6.16.6 Design Compatibility with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods: Require that building elevations_facing adjoining residential units be designed to convey a high-quality character and ensure privacy of the residents, and that properties he developed to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of lighting, noise, odor, trash storage, truck deliveries, and other business- related activities. Building elevations shall be architecturally treated and walls, if used as buffers, shall be well-designed and landscaped to reflect the areas residential village character. See response to Policy LU6.16.5 above. While the structure conveys a high quality of construction and exterior materials, the location of a multi-level opened taped partially covered parking structure operating late at night, illuminated, with bar customers leaving at 1:30-2:00 am with a minimum 5 foot setback between residential uses does not "convey a high-quality character and erasure privacy of the residents ", nor "that properties be developed to mitigate to the maximum extent . feasible impacts of lighting, noise, odor., trash storage, truck deliveries, and other business-related activities. "(emphasis added) Staff acknowledges night-time lighting impacts and is requiring that "Site lighting will be reviewed with a photometric study at plan check to ensure exterior lighting is compatible with surrounding residential development." A future lighting study without a description of the level of impacts resulting from the study is not an acceptable CEQA mitigation and will not assure night-time lighting impacts to residential neighborhoods will be compatible, insignificant, or satisfactorily mitigated. 'rhe requirement for a future lighting study (mitigation) acknowledges a potentially significant lighting impact which disqualifies this project from a CIass 32 exemption. No evidence is presented in the public record to demonstrate the Project is being developed to mitigate these impacts "to the maximum extent feasible ". It is clear in the Project Proponents mind and Staff's mind, the project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Garden shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity outweighs the General Plan policy to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 16.6 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. If this project is deemed to comply with this policy, it will set a precedent for future general plan policy determinations. 3) The Project does not comply with the fallowing General Plan Land Use Element Mariners Mile Policies Policy LU 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces. Require that development projects locate anti design building to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity ofihe bluff;faces. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 12 of 45 4-27-2020 dave0earsi.com The project site is located on the side of a Coastal Bluff face. Existing development cut into the bluff face, exported earth materials from the bluff face to create a multi-level building pad and terraced surface parking areas. Retaining walls were constructed on the west, north and east sides of the property to maintain the structural integrity of the bluff face, The western property line lies within approximately twelve (12) feet from the Avon Wetlands. The Avon Wetlands extend from east to west along the base of this Coastal Bluff. The length of the wetlands (horizontal distance) fluctuates seasonally depending annual rainfall. The width of the wetlands is constrained between Avon Avenue and the Bluff face The eastern property line abuts an oak tree deemed "Special" by the General Plan. It is a native Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree estimated to be 144-200 years old. This General Plan identifies this tree is a "Designated" tree. The Tree's root system extends under a portion of the project site. The Project will. remove portions of the existing retaining wall on the west, north and east, and cut into the Coastal Bluff to construct the parking structure. The Project will excavate approximately ten (10) feet below grade to construct the bottom level of the parking structure, Project grading will extend off- site disturbing approximately 14,470 -sq -ft of the bluff face on the west, north and east. The Project will involve 3,500 cubic yards of cut, 125 cubic yards of fill, and 3,375 cubic yards of export. Remedial grading to prepare the site is assumed to extend 3 feet below grade, however, actual remedial grading and structural requirements will be determined by subsequent analysis. Rather than locating and designing the structures to maintain the visual quality or restore the remaining Coastal Bluff face, the Project proposes to cut further into to the bluff face to construct a parking structure. The Geotechnical Investigation relied upon by Staff in their CEQA determination was prepared November 5, 2018. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report states the precise grading plan was unavailable at the time of the report preparation. No Site Plan is contained in this report. The Project described in the Geotechnical Report is "the construction of a two-story 2,500 sq. ft. commercial office building and a 50 -space parking area with associated improvements and retaining walls. "...."we assume the proposed buildings will be of wood frame and masonry block..." The report does not mention a parking structure. No testing of the slope bank was conducted. The geologic makeup of the bluff face is not identified, nor is the stability of the Coastal Bluff discussed in the report. This report addressed a different project design! Adverse geological conditions (liquefaction potential) are noted in the geotechnical repot which are confirmed by Leighton Associates in a more recent investigation involving another nearby property abutting this bluff face. Leighton also identified adverse geological conditions in orientation of the bedding plain of the Coastal Bluff. The geotechnical report states that no seepage was encountered unusual given the location of the Avon Wetlands adjacent to the project site on the west. One explanation might be that a drain(s) has been installed along the rear of the northerly retaining wall, or that the observation was made in September of 2018 during the end of the dry season. This is same time of year when the City Consultant's survey of the Avon Wetlands showed it was 29' from the project site western boundary, not the 12 feet it is today during the wet season. David J. Tanner, President Environmenta! & Regulatory 5pecialists, Inc. Page 13 of 45 4.27.2026 dare@earsi.com The property owners atop the bluff reported they were required to take extensive measures to protect the stability of the bluff top and face when building the existing residential homes. The project geotechnical report doers not mention or consider these improvements or the effect they or the conditions the homeowners encountered will have on the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project geotechnical report is inadequate to be relied upon to conclude the Project as proposed will "maintain the structural integrity of'the bliefaces ". The Project may in fact do so, but the report should be updated to evaluate the current grading plan, site plan, and identify the extent of remedial grading and slope stabilization measures required in order to determine consistency with this Land Use Policy. The Project proposes to use non-native trees and shrubs to partially mitigate nighttime light and glare impacts to adjacent residential uses. The use of non-native shrubs and trees on the bluff face will further obscure the bluff face. The policy requires projects "to maintain the visual quality". In this case since many of the cities costal bluff have been disturbed a project objective should be to restore the Coastal Bluff face with native vegetation. On and off-site grading will damage the root system of the adjacent native Heritage Coast Oak Tree, a tree designated by the General Pian as a "Special" tree, and a "Designated tree. According to the Arborist the Project may threaten the health of this tree. If the tree is significantly damaged as the Arborist believes it will be, the Project will significantly impact the visual quality of the Coastal Bluff. The proposed Project will obstruct the visual quality of the bluff by grading into the bluff face, impacting the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree and re -landscaping the bluff face between the parking structure and residential homes with large shrubs and trees which will further obstruct the bluff face. It is clear in the Project Proponents mind and Staff's mind, the project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Garden shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity outweighs the general plan policy for properties abutting bluff faces. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 16.19.12 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. If this Project is deemed to comply with this policy, it will set a precedent for future General Plan policy determinations. David J. Tanner, Presidgnt Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 14 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4.27-2021) 1) The Project conflicts with the following General Plan Natural Resources Element Policies Policy_ NR 14.4: New Development Siting and Design: Require that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. The proposed Project does not provide public access to sensitive resources (the bluff face, Heritage Coast Live Oak tree and Avon Wetlands). The Project will impact the surface and subsurface hydrology of Avon Wetlands (Figure 1) and the root system and hydrology of the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree (Figure 2), This Heritage Coast Live Oak is listed in the General Plan as a s "Special" tree, a "Designated" tree, estimated to be approximately 100 -200 years old.4 Figure T Avon Wetlands — Eastern Terminus, April 7, 2020 Arborgate Consulting Inc„ letter to Mr. Hal Woods, Re: flak Impacted by the Garden Office Parking Structure Project, March 23, 2020, Attachment 1 David I Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory5pecialists, Inc. Page 15 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 Figure 2 Heritage Coast Live Oak tree, April 7, 2020 The Project does not protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. It is clear in the Project Proponents mind and Staff's mind, the project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Garden shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity outweighs the general plan policy for development siting and design. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Natural Resources Element Policy 10.1 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Policy NR 10.6: Use of Buffers: Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to erasure the protection of these resources. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. The proposed Project fails to provide a buffer of sufficient size to avoid impacting the Avon Wetlands and fails to provide a buffer of sufficient size to avoid impacting the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree required by Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 21.30B.040.0 of the Local Coastal Program. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 16 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com Site development will impact the vegetation, aquatic resources and underground hydrology of the Avon Wetland. Site grading will impact the root system and underground hydrology nourishing and sustaining the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree. The Avon Wetlands currently exists approximately twelve (I2) feet from the Project's western retaining wall and could extend to within approximately eight (S) feet during wet cycles. This is consistent with conditions documented in 1989 by Vandersloot (Staff report Appendix E). The Project proposes to grade offsite to the west. Project grading and offsite disturbance (men and equipment) will temporarily impact the eastern end of the Avon Wetlands during construction. The Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 21.30B.040.0 of the Local Coastal Program states that where feasible a 100' protective open space buffer be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. The City's consultant expressed his opinion based on conditions observed in September 2019 that a 29 -foot buffer was a sufficient buffer. Under those conditions it was unlikely Project grading and off-site disturbance would impact the Avon Wetlands. However, under the current wet -season conditions the wetlands has expanded horizontally toward the Project and the buffer is only 10-I2 feet and will be impacted by Project grading and off-site disturbance. Coast Live Oak trees are Iisted in the General Plan as "Special" trees. This particular Coast Live flak tree is a Heritage tree estimated to be approximately 100-200 years old and is also a "Designated" tree. I believe the tree is designated after Mr. Vandersloot. The Project will involve 3,504 cubic yards of cut, 125 cubic yards of fill, and 3,375 cubic yards of export. Remedial grading to prepare the site is assumed to extend 3 feet below existing grade, however, according the Project's preliminary Geotechnical Report, actual remedial grading and structural requirements will be determined by subsequent analysis. This tree was evaluated by a professional Arborist (Refer to Attachment I - Mr. Greg Applegate, Arborgate Consulting Inc.). The Mr. Applegate concluded: "The proposed cutting of roots at the south end of that sloped root zone would be taking a larger amount of roots, proportionally, than a tree in an open field. Without that consideration the minimum clearance would be 28 feet, but should be expanded at least 25% due to the irregular root zone. The new wall is estimated to be about 15 feet from the trunk. This is way too close." Care of California Oaks, Bulletin of the California Oak Foundation - "By the time a mature oak has established its elaborate root system — so well designed for its environment and particular site conditions — it has lost the vigor of youth. It is less tolerant of change and can less easily recover to support a fully developed living structure. To protect a mature oak, pay particular attention to drainage, and avoid tilling, trenching, or paving near its root zone." This is a mature tree estimated to be 10-200 years old. This tree has been heavily impacted by urban development. This tree species when mature is known to be fragile and if damages can die. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 17 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com To avoid potentially significant impacts to this tree, the Project's development impact footprint will have to be moved a minimum of 25' to the south and west. John Conway, Former Urban Forester, City of Newport Beach stated on April 1-3, 2020: "The tree in question is a highly desirable tree and adds considerable value to the neighborhood and adjacent property. Additionally, the Coastal Live Oak is valued wildlife habitat and will be for many years to come. Mr. Applegate has provided excellent guidance for protection of the tree."' Based on the opinions of technical experts, a professional Arborist and the City's former Urban Forester, there is a "reasonable possibility" the proposed Project will impact the underground hydrology providing nourishment to the tree, impact the tree root system through grading operations adversely impacting the health of this tree, its stability and its value as wildlife habitat. The Project does not provide an adequate buffer to protect the Avon Wetlands or the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree to ensure the protection of these resources and is inconsistent with Natural Resources Element Policy 10.6. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with Natural Resources Element Policy 14.6 and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. California Coastal Act: 2) The Project does not comply with the following California Coastal Act Section Section 30240: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas,• adjacent developments. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall he protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only rises dependent on those resources shall he allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas, Response (a) See response to General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.12 above Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall he protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only roses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. s Email from John Conway to Nancy Scarbrough, April 23, 2020 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 18 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 The Project does not protect environmentally sensitive resources (Coastal Bluff, Avon Wetland and Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree) and will result in a significant disruption of habitat values. The proposed use (office building and parking structure) is not dependent on the Coastal Bluff, Avon Wetland or Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree and is inconsistent with California Coastal Act Section 30244. Response (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would signifacantly, degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The Project is located adjacent to environmentally sensitive resources (Coastal Bluff, Avon Wetland, Heritage Coast Live Oak Tree) and Cliff Drive Park. Project grading will adversely impact and degrade these sensitive resources. The Project is not designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade these areas. The Project is not compatible with the continuance of those habitat and resource areas. The Project is inconsistent with California Coastal Act Section 30240. Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with California Coastal Act Section 3024(] and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. It is clear in the Project Proponents mind and Staffs mind, the project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Gardens shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity outweighs the California Coastal Act Section 30240 to protect Environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Local Coastal Program Section 21.30B.040.0 Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 21.30B.040.0 of the Local Coastal Program, states: C. Wetland BatfJers. A protective open space buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands,from developmeni areas. Wetland Buffers shall be ofa sufficient .size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer wrath ol'one hundred (100) feet wherever possible. Exception: smaller wetland batffers may he allowed only where it can be demonstrated that; a. A one hundred (100)fnot wide buffet• is not passible due to site-specific consiraints; and b. The proposed narrower 6a fuer would be amply protective of ' the biological integrity of'the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of'the resource and the type and intensity of disturbance. David J. Tanner, President Enironmentai & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 19 of 45 4.27-2020 dave@earsi.com Response: (Local Coastal Program Section 21.30B.040.C) C. Wetland Buffer C, Welland Bifers. A protective open space Buffer shall be required to horizontally separate wetlands from development areas. Wetland Buffers shall be nf' a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation oj'the wetland Wetlands Shull have a minimitm bgffer width of one hundred (100) feel wherever possible. The Project's preliminary grading plan shows off-site grading west of the existing retaining wall on the Coastal Bluff face. Off-site grading will impact vegetation near the historic spring mapped by Jan D. Vandersloot in 1989. Surveys conducted in September 2019 combined with observations in March and April 2020 confirm the continued presence of the Avon Wetlands, that its size changes seasonally and is influenced by rainfall as documented in 1989 by Vandersloot. No documentation exists which identifies the total development impact footprint in the Staff report or it's Appendices. Temporary clearing/disturbance commonly occurs on hillsides beyond the grading limits shown on a preliminary grading plan (examples: fuel modification zones and inadvertent disturbances). No focused surveys for endangered, rare or threatened plant or wildlife species have been conducted. No biological impact assessment has been conducted to determine potential impacts. The proposed Project will cut into a portion of the bluff face adjacent to and west of the project site and encroach into the Avon Wetlands. The wetlands currently extend to within twelve (12) feet of the existing retaining and has the potential to expand to within eight (8) feet during wet years. This is an eastward expansion of 17-21 feet, compared to the dry season (September 2419) Wetland Delineation Memorandum which document the distance to the wetland at twenty-nine (29) feet. The 2019 consultant's professional opinion (Staff Report, Appendix E) is that a 29' buffer is adequate to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland. Following construction, the Project will extend the buffer an additional ten (10) feet, yielding a total buffer of thirty-nine (39) feet. Using the 2019 Consultant's horizontal buffer of 29 feet as the minimum buffer to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland, the proposed Project would have to increase the horizontal setback a minimum of an additional seventeen (17) feet to meet the 29 - foot significance threshold during the wet season to yield a total buffer of 39 feet. . The proposed Project's wetland buffer is not of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland and is inconsistent with Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 2 I.30B.040.0 of the Local Coastal Program. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 20 of 45 4.27-2020 dave@earsi.com Response: (Local Coastal Program Section 21.30B.040.C) — C. I .a. Exception 1. Exception: smaller wetland bg fers may he allowed only where it can he demonstrated that: La. .4 one hundred (100)foot wide bitt&r is not possible due to site-specific constraints The proposed Project is a new project and as such, is subject to current General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning and building standards. Staff fails to justify why the "one hundred (100) foot wide buffer is not possible due to site-specific constraints" pursuant to Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 21.30B.040.C.1.a. Rather, Staff concluded the "100' buffer is not necessary" which does not meet the requirement of Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 21.30B.040.C. La, Response: (Local Coastal Program Section 21.30B.040.C) — C.1.b. I. b. The proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and the type and intensity of disturbance I agree with the City Consultant's 2019 analysis establishing a horizontal buffer of 29 feet as the minimum buffer to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetlands. Using this minimum buffer and accounting for seasonal expansion of the wetlands, something the City's Consultant did not consider, the proposed Project would have to increase the horizontal setback a minimum of an additional seventeen (17) feet to meet the City Consultant's 29 -foot significance threshold. Project grading activities will temporarily impact the eastern terminus of the Avon Wetlands. Once constructed, the proposed Project finished condition will have an 18'-22' buffer, short of the 39' significance threshold recommended by the City's Consultant. Without the increased setback, the Project will negatively impact the Avon Wetlands during off-site construction activities, and the Project will decrease the ainount of surface run-off and groundwater Flows to the Avon Wetlands by diverting these waters to Avon Avenue and the Avon Avenue storm drain. Given the site-specific characteristics of the resource and the type and intensity of disturbance, I agree with the City's consultant that a larger buffer is needed to amply protect the biological integrity of the wetland. In addition, I recommend all on-site runoff be collected, filtered and channeled into the Avon Wetlands. Without a larger buffer, the Project is inconsistent with Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 2I.30B.040.0 of the Local Coastal Program. It is likely not possible for the Project to meet the 100' setback and meet the requirement of Exception C.1.a. However, to qualify for Exception C.1 the proposed Project must also meet the requirements of Section C. La. & b. The Project fails to meet the requirements of Section C. Lb. and therefore, does not qualify for this exception. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 21 of 45 4.27-2020 dave@earsi.com Therefore, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Policy 4.2.2.3 and Section 21.30B.446.0 for wetland buffers and does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. If this project is deemed to comply with this policy, it will set a precedent for future general plan policy determinations. Response: C.1 (b) (Applicabilit of Class 32 Exem tion (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed Project meets this standard, both individually and if combine with the adjacent Garden shopping center owned by the project applicant. Response: C.1(c) (Apt2licabiiity of Class 32 Exemptiori) (c) The project site has no value, as habitat far endangered, rare or threatened species. The site is totally disturbed. There a reasonable possibility the root system of the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree extends partially beneath the project site. This Heritage Coast Live Oak trees is of significant value and will be impacted by the proposed Project. 1-leritage Coastal Live Oak tree: Coast Live Oak trees are species of significant importance identified in the General Plan. This particular Heritage Coastal Live Oak tree is identified as a "Special" tree, a "Designated" tree by the General Plan. The Arborist evaluated this tree and concluded: "They are prized native trees' .... "This is an attractive and valuable tree of a highly valued species, in a prominent and difficult location. Do not take chances with its health. The minimum clearance from the edged of root disturbance to the edge of the trunk is 28 feet. This beautiful healthy tree is established on this slope, and cannot be replaced "in kind" should it be seriously damaged." The Project's preliminary grading plan shows off-site grading east of the existing retaining wall on the Coastal Bluff face adjacent to this Heritage Coast Live Oak tree. The Project will cut into a portion of the bluff face adjacent to and east of the project site, and excavate material from the project site to create the lower level parking structure. Project grading will impact the root system and hydrology of the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree. The Arborist stated: "Because of the retaining wall and the house's foundation, the root zone is compressed into an elongated zone parallel to the street. The proposed cutting of roots at the south end of that sloped root zone would be taking a larger amount of roots, proportionally, 6 Unusual Circumstances, Biology text is included in this response. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 22 of 45 lave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 than a tree in an open field. Without that consideration the minimum clearance would be 28 feet, but should be expanded at least 25% due to the irregular root zone. The new wall is estimated to be about 15 feet from the trunk." Care of California Oaks, Bulletin of the California Oak Foundation - "By the time a mature oak has established its elaborate root system — so well designed for its environment and particular site conditions — it has lost the vigor of youth. It is less tolerant of change and can less easily recover to support a fully developed living structure. To protect a mature oak, pay particular attention to drainage, and avoid filling, trenching, or paving near its root zone." This is a mature tree estimated to be 10-200 years old. This tree has been heavily impacted by urban development. This tree species when mature is known to be fragile and if damages can die. To avoid potentially significant impacts to this tree, the Project's development impact footprint will have to be moved a minimum of 25' to the south and west. Avon Wetlands: The Project's preliminary grading plan shows off-site grading west of the existing retaining wall on the Coastal Bluff face. Off-site grading will impact vegetation near the historic spring mapped by Jan D. Vandersloot in 1989. Surveys in September 2019 combined with observations in March and April 2020 confirm the continued presence of the Avon Wetlands and that its size changes seasonally and is influenced by rainfall. No evidence of the Avon Creek was observed in the 2019 survey or the March and April 2020 observations. No documentation exists which identifies the total development impact footprint in the Staff report or it's Appendices. Temporary clearing/disturbance commonly occurs on hillsides beyond the grading limits shown on a preliminary grading plan (examples include: fuel modification zones equipment paths workers and other inadvertent disturbances). No focused surveys for endangered, rare or threatened species have been conducted. No biological impact assessment has been conducted to determine potential impacts. The proposed Project will cut into a portion of the bluff face adjacent to and west of the project site and encroach into the Avon Wetlands. The Avon Wetlands currently extends within ten (I 0) to twelve (12) feet west of the existing retaining wall and could extend to within eight (8) feet during wet seasons. The proposed Project will divert on-site groundwater/seepage and surface runoff from the project site to the Avon Avenue storm drain. The diversion of groundwater/seepage and onsite runoff into the Avon Avenue stone drain will impact the Avon Wetlands. There is no evidence in the record to support the statement in the Planning Commission Resolution that "the project will not result in impact habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species" or that the Project will not impact endangered, rare or threatened species. Given the anticipated impacts to Avon Creek Wetlands and the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree there is a "reasonable passibility" the proposed Project will impact habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species and therefore, does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption, David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 23 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4.27-2020 Response: C.1 {d} (AApl2licability of Class 32 Exemption) (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Class 32 exemptions only apply to projects which will not result in significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed Project will result in the following potentially significant impacts. Traffic Analysis: The fact is, no traffic analysis was conducted for the Project. the Project underwent some type of traffic review but no written traffic analysis was prepared. The Project access point on Riverside Avenue is one of 5 commercial access locations on the west side of Riverside Avenue between the project site and West Coast Highway, The existing access from Riverside Avenue to the project site is an existing hazard to cyclists. Whatever limited traffic review occurred did not address turning movements, their impact on public safety or the export of earth material during construction from the project site. Noise: The Staff report acknowledges the Project will adversely impact noise levels at existing residential uses adjacent to the project site. These noise levels are not considered significant because the noise generated by the Project will be averaged over a 24-hour period [minimizing the noise generated to less than significant levels in compliance with the City Noise Ordinance], However, CEQA Guidelines Section 10564 states: "Compliance with the threshold does not relieve the lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant." The operation of the parking structure will generate nighttime noise levels that will disturb the tranquility normally experienced by single family residences due to the parking structures close proximity and opened top parking level, The location of multi-level parking structures adjacent to single-family residential areas is an unusual circumstance. The location of multi-level parking structures which operate during evening hours located in close proximity to single-family residential uses anticipated to serve bar/restaurant customers until 1:34-2:00 am is even more unusual. Generally, as in the existing condition, there is a buffer measured by horizontal distance far in excess of 5 feet provided to mitigate the transition from residential to more intensive commercial/mixed-use areas. In sensitive areas such as Coastal Bluffs, wetlands and sensitive vegetation the required horizontal setback is considered as a whole to minimize a Project's cumulative impact on the environment. The noise contours identified in the Noise Element of the General PIan do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances resulting from the close proximity of the proposed Project's parking structure. hours of operation and anticipated users to residential areas adjacent to the project site. The operation of the parking structure at this location is an unusual circumstance which will generate nighttime noise levels that will disturb the tranquility normally experienced by single family residences due to the parking structures close proximity and opened top parking level. Given this David 1. Tanner, President Environmental & RegulatorySpeciali5ts, Inc. Page 24 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com unusual circumstance a Class 32 exemption should not be used and the Project should undergo CEQA analysis including the Project's nighttime noise impacts on adjacent residential uses. The proposed Project will result in a significant noise impact to adjacent residential uses and therefore, does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 25 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 D, LIMITATIONNS ON CEQA GUIDELINES, 4- 15300.22 subds. (b), (040.) EXCEPTIONS The infill exemption cannot be used ifthe project would cause cumulatively sign f cans impacts, impact scenic highways or historical resources, involve hazardous waste, or are subject to "unusual circumstances 1. Cumulatively Significant Impacts The proposed Project will result in the following cumulatively significant impacts. Scenic Highway/View Corridor: California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. Scenic corridors typically pertain to highways and visible lands outside the highway right-of-way generally described as the view from the road. There are no officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within Newport Beach. However, State Route I (SR -1. aka, Pacific Coast Highway) is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. A State scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the Iocal jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The city must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in local codes. The City identifies coastal views such as Coastal View Roads and Public View Points, These areas are identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan. Significant vistas, as identified in the City's Local Coastal Program, include public coastal views from Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bay Shores), Coastal Bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach and are considered significant scenic and environmental resources. West Coast Highway is a designated Coastal View Road from the Newport Boulevard Bridge to Bay Shores. On March 19, 2020 photographs were taken from the intersection of Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway and from the public sidewalk near the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Avon Street (Figure 3 and 4). On April S. 2020 photographs were taken from the project site to West Coast Highway (Figure 5). Figures 3, 4 and 5 clearly shows that a portion of the project site, the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree (which will be adversely impacted by the Project) and portions of Cliff Drive Park are visible from West Coast Highway. The Project has the potential to impact the views from West Coast Highway inland to the Coastal Bluff including the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree, Staff has already determined the proposed Newport Village Project has the potential to result in potential significant impacts to West Pacific Coast IIighway and has required preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for that project. The proposed Project's potential impacts combined with other proposed projects located within the David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 26 of 45 lave@earsi.com 4-27.20x0 Mariners Mile (The Newport Village Project) will result in cumulatively significant impacts to the Coastal Bluffs as seen from West Coast Highway, A designated Coastal View Road. Furthermore, the precedent set by approval of the proposed Project should pave the way for other property owners along the base of the Coastal Bluff to obtain similar development approvals allowing grading into the bluff face. The Project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Gardens shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity is inconsistent with the general plan's Coastal View Roads and Public View Points policies, and contributes to cumulative significant impacts within the Mariners Village. If this Project is deemed incompliance with the General Plan policies and Coastal Land Use Plan policies for protection of coastal views such as Coastal View Roads, public view points, Coastal Bluffs and commercial/residential design interfaces, it will set a precedent for future General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan policy determinations. The proposed Project when combined with other proposed projects (example: Newport Village Project) will result in a significant cumulative impact to West Coast Highway, a designated Coastal View Road" and therefore, the infill exception cannot be used and the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Figure 3 View north from West Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue, March 19, 2020 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 27 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27.2020 Figure 4 View north from Riverside Avenue at (south) Avon Avenue, March 19, 2020 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 28 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4.27.2020 Figure 5 View south toward West Coast Highway from Project Site, April 8, 2020 2. Unusual Circumstances The proposed Project will result in a reasonable possibility the Project will have a significant effect on the environment as discussed below. General Plan Compatibility: The Project conflicts with the following General Plan Land Use Element Residential Neighborhoods policy. Policy LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces: Require that the height of'development in nonresidential and higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development. While it is likely there have always been compatible problems with the General Plan Land Use and Coastal Land Use Plan policies within the Mariners Mile, over time circumstances have changed. Incremental re -development has encroached into previously under-utilized areas. State regulatory changes have provided opportunities to streamline development permitting, combined with increased land values, these changes in circumstances have increased the incentive to maximize the re- development potential of the area. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 29 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com In this case, existing residential development was approved close to the blufftop edge reducing the residential setback. The existing on-site office building use was approved allowing project grading into the bluff face, probably impacting the root system of the Heritage Coast Live Oak tree to the northeast and the hydrology of the Avon Wetlands to the southwest. The proposed Project seeks to maximize the development potential of the site by providing excess parking spaces for another proposed project in the Garden center by increasing structural mass on the project site. The increase in structural mass reduces space available to transition from commercial to residential areas which is already at a minimum and would not be consistent with the Current General Plan or Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project has the potential to further impair the view from West Coast Highway and public pedestrian walkways to the Coastal Bluff. One example being the Project's impact to the adjacent Heritage Coast Live Oak tree. A dead or dying tree will be a significant view impact from all public vantage points. The Project's development footprint extends much farther off-site to the northeast than disclosed by Staff. Staff and PIanning Commission positions have resulted in significant public controversy over a number of environmental concerns including view impacts from public vantage points and the precedent City approval of the Project will set on properties within the Mariners Mile. The public controversy is heightened given Staffs and the Planning Commission's position that the proposed Project will have no environmental effects, and Staff s/City°s increasing use of CEQA exemptions for projects with obvious adverse environmental effects. This Project will set the precedent for future projects in the area. If this Project is approved, other landowners in the Mariners Mile area will expect equal treatment. The cumulative effect will be the mansionization of commercial and mixed-use properties within the Mariners Mile through increased mass of structures; allowing grading into the Coastal Bluffs; planting of trees and shrubs on the bluff face to block new commercial/mixed use light and glare impacts which will obstruct the Coastal Bluff face. The General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Coastal Act protect these visual resources from public vantage points such as West Coast Highway. The cumulative effect will dramatically change the character of the area (the proposed Project combined with the Newport Village Project & proposed Garden Resturant Project). Note: Staff did not provide the public with a cumulative projects list for the proposed Project because staff proposes a Class 32 exemption. Similarly, the use of a Class 32 exemption for this Project will encourage Staff to use this CEQA exemption for other property owners who seek to maximize the allowable development potential of their property. The improper use of CEQA exemptions is a disturbing trend to residents who have sacrificed to create a General Plan, a Local Coastal Program and the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision Design Framework that makes Newport Beach the fabulous City and attraction it is today. A project which impacts the health of a Special, a Designated, Heritage Coast Live Oak tree estimated to be 140-200 years old is an unusual circumstance. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 30 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 If a project involving a controversy over the project's environmental effects, truly has no environmental effects, Staff should have prepared a CEQA Initial Study and concluded the Project qualified for a Negative Declaration. Staff must certainly believe they have the technical studies to answer the CEQA Guideline Appendix G Initial Study questions. Why has the City not required this? The Project's design combined with the Project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Gardens shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity creates a "reasonable possibility" that the Project "will result in a significant inconsistency with the general plan's compatible interface policy both individually and cumulatively. While Conditional Use Permits and Coastal Development Permits for existing commercial areas within the coastal zone are not unusual entitlement requests, Conditional Use Permits and Coastal Development Permits inconsistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Pian policies are an unusual circumstance having a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment both individually and cumulatively. The mansionization of commercial use on this property does not transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface Between the different types of development is an "unusual circumstance" which conflicts with numerous General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies including Land Use Element Policy LU.5.1.2. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Biology: a. Coastal Bluff Wetlands Coastal Bluff wetlands are an unusual feature, particularly in Newport Beach. The Avon Wetlands are the only Coastal Bluff wetlands in the Mariners Mile. In 1989 the Friends of Avon Street Creek identified the need to protect and enhance the wetland vegetation and its native American heritage while restoring the water needed for the mosquito fish. The Avon Street Creek is the only remaining wetlands in Newport Heights. Bluff wetlands were once characterized as extensive in the Newport Beach area. The wetland is currently in need of restoration. The General Plan includes policies for restoration and maintenance of wetlands. At the time of the 2019 site inspection, the wetland area was smaller, the existing spring noted by Vandersloot in 1989 near the project site's southwestern boundary was not observed. In 2019 the City's Consultant noted the remaining wetlands had degraded in quality containing both native and non -native vegetation. The Tecluiical Memorandum" prepared September 19, 2019, entitled "215 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach: Delineation and Evaluation of Wetland within Avon Street Right -of -Way West of Subject Property" established the historic (1989), as well as the September 2019 status of the Avon Creek Wetlands_ September is typically the dry season. ❑avid 1. tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 31 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27.2020 The Memorandum concluded: ■ "The proposed development at 215 Riverside Avenue would have no potential to affect the wetland directly through dredging, filling, or other alteration." r The distance from the Avon Wetlands and the project site is described as "the existing retaining wall is located approximately 29 feet from the eastern -most extent of the wetland, which is approximately 39 feet west of the property line and the limit of development upon completion of the project_" On March 23, 2020, 1 conducted a site investigation of the Avon Wetland and documented the easternmost extent of the wetlands (see Figure 6). At the time of the Site inspection, the weather was sunny, approximately 68°F. The easternmost extent of the wetland's was approximately twelve (12) feet from the southwestern corner of the project site's retaining wall. On April 7 & 8, 2020, I conducted additional site investigations of the Avon Wetland and documented the easternmost extent of the wetlands (see Figures 7 & 8). At the time of these Site inspections, the weather was partially cloudy, approximately 68°F. The easternmost extent of the wetland's surface water was approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet from the southwestern corner of the project site's retaining wall, On April 23, 2020, I conducted an additional site investigation of the Avon Wetland and documented the easternmost extent of the wetlands (see Figure 9). At the time of these Site inspections, the weather was sunny, approximately 78°F. The easternmost extent of the wetland's surface water was approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet from the southwestern corner of the project site's retaining wall. The March and April 2 020 site inspections revealed the wetlands to be much larger than the September 2019 survey indicating the wetland's size increases seasonally and is dependent on the amount of annual rainfall. The increased growth in wetland vegetation is clearly visible when comparing the September 2019, March 2020 and April 2020 photos. No development impact footprint information is available to determine the Project's off-site limits of disturbance. Generally, the development impact footprint includes grading (on and off-site) combined with disturbance from workers and equipment and in some cases landscape and fuel modification zones. Our experience for grading on hillside projects such as proposed by the Project is that the disturbance for workers and equipment extends from 5-10+ feet beyond the grading limit identified on a preliminary grading plan. The proposed Project has the potential to negatively impact the surface vegetation and subsurface hydrology feeding the Avon Wetlands. The existence of the Avon Wetlands is an unusual feature, it is the only coastal bluff wetlands along the Mariners Mile. Combining this uniqueness with General Plan and Coastal Land Use policy protections with a Pra_ject that proposes to further degrade (cut into) the bluff and plant non-native landscaping to screen the project's nighttime lighting from adjacent residential areas is an unusual circumstance. There is a reasonable possibility, the Project will negatively impact the Avon Wetlands David I Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory 5pecialists, Inc. Page 32 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com during off-site construction activities, and the Project will decrease the amount of surface run-off and groundwater flows to the Avon Wetlands by diverting these waters onto Avon Avenue and into the Avon Avenue storm drain. The proposes Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policies NR 10.4, LU 1.3 & LU 3.7 and the California Coastal Act Section 30240. Therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Figure 6 Avon Wetlands - Eastern Terminus. View looking west, March 23, 2020 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 33 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-202❑ _ J. r'. r a x _ J. r a x t - , '� .• #y' .... ,fry f. ." • �s7 , --f r!- z . moi.. � ..• n �� � :� Figure 9 Avon Wetlands — Eastern Terminus, View looking east, April 23, 2020 b. Heritage Coast Live Oak A Heritage Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus agrifolia), one of the region's handful of native trees exists adjacent to the project site on the northeast. The oak is estimated to be approximately 100 — 200 years old and is one of a few Heritage Coast Oaks in the area. (refer to Figures 2 and 4). The City has identified this tree as a "Special" tree, a "Dedicated" tree (Council Policy G-1). Coastal Live Oak is considered to have "high wildlife value".7 Care of California Oaks, Bulletin of the California Oak Foundation: The mature native oak is an invaluable part of our environment but does not tolerate many changes once established. Any substantial change in the mature oak's environment can weaken or kill an oak, even a healthy specimen. A good rule of thumb is to leave the tree's root protection zone (R -PZ) undisturbed. This area, which is half again as urge as the area from the trunk to the dripline, is the most critical to the oak. Many problems for oaks are initiated by disturbing the roots within this zone. As the oak grows, the tap root is outgrown by an extensive lateral root system that spreads horizontally out from the trunk to and well beyond the dripline, sometimes as much as 90 feet. For a mature oak, this horizontal root system is the primary supporter of the tree for the rest of its life. It includes the important fine roots, which absorb moisture and nutrients. Most of the root system occurs within the top three feet of soil. The Theodore Payne Foundation for Wild Flowers and Native Plants http:l/theodorepayne.org/nativeplantdatabase/index.php?title=Quercus agrifolia David 1, Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 36 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com In shallower soil the root system is concentrated in an even shallower zone, typically one to two feet below the surface. As the oak matures, particularly in areas naturally dry in summer, deep -growing vertical roots form off the laterals, usually within ten feet of the trunk. These sinker roots exploit deeper soil moisture and add stability to an increasingly massive tree. By the time a mature oak has established its elaborate root system — so well designed for its environment and particular site conditions — it has lost the vigor of youth. it is less tolerant of change and can less easily recover to support a fully developed living structure. To protect a mature oak, pay particular attention to drainage, and avoid filling, trenching, or paving near its root zone.$ The root system consists of a deep taproot that is usually nonfunctional in large trees.... Coast live oak develops extensive horizontal root branches and surface -feeding roots.' The horizontal roots also serve to anchor the tree protecting tree stability from high winds. This tree as is all of Southern California is subject to high winds. No documentation exists in the staff report or application submitted materials which identifies the total development impact footprint. Temporary clearing/disturbance commonly occurs on hillsides beyond the grading limit shown on a preliminary grading plan (examples: landscape, fuel modification zones and inadvertent disturbances), It is an unusual circumstance that urban encroachment would have been allowed to encroach into the root zone of a tree protected by the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan. It is even more unusual that City Staff and Planning Commission would recommend approval of a Project which is not compatible with the tree and is not supportive of sensitive this resource. Greg Arborgate, Arburgate Consulting Inc., Arborist evaluated this tree and concluded: "They are prized native trees' .... "This is an attractive and valuable tree of a highly valued species, in a prominent and difficult location. Do not take chances with its health. The minimum clearance from the edged of root disturbance to the edge of the trunk is 2$ feet. This beautiful healthy tree is established on this slope, and cannot be replaced "in kind" should it be seriously damaged." The Project's preliminary grading plan shows off-site grading east of the existing retaining wall on the Coastal Bluff face adjacent to this Heritage Coast Live Oak tree. The Project will cut into a portion of the bluff face adjacent to and east of the project site. Project grading will excavate earth material to construct the lower level of the parking structure. Project grading and excavation will impact the root system and hydrology of the Heritage Coast Live flak tree. I Source: Care of California Oaks, Bulletin of the California Oak Foundation, http:/fcaliforniaoaks.org/wp- content u loads 2015 05 CareOfCAsNative0aks. df 9 Source: Steinberg, Peter D. 2002. Quercus agrifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.fed.us /database/feiS/plants/tree/queagr/afl.html (2020, April 22]. David J_ Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 37 of 45 4.27-2020 dave@earsi.com The Arborist went on to state: "Because of the retaining wall and the house's foundation, the root zone is compressed into an elongated zone parallel to the street. The proposed cutting of roots at the south end of that sloped root zone would be taking a larger amount of roots, proportionally, than a tree in an open field. Without that consideration the minimum clearance would be 28 feet, but should be expanded at least 25% due to the irregular root zone. The new wall is estimated to be about 15 feet from the trunk." This is a mature tree estimated to be 10-200 years old. This tree has been heavily impacted by urban development. This tree species when mature is known to be fragile and if damages can die. To avoid potentially significant impacts to this tree, the Project's development impact footprint will have to be moved a minimum of 25' to the south and west. John Conway, Former Urban Forester, City of Newport Beach stated on April 23, 2020: "The tree in question is a highly desirable tree and adds considerable value to the neighborhood and adjacent property. Additionally, the Coastal Live Oak is valued wildlife habitat and will be for many years to come. Mr. Applegate has provided excellent guidance for protection of the tree."1° Based on the opinions of technical experts, a professional Arborist and the City's former Urban Forester, there is a "reasonable possibility" the proposed Project will impact the underground hydrology providing nourishment to the tree, impact the tree root system through grading operations adversely impacting the health of this tree, its stability and its value as wildlife habitat. Therefore, the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. It is clear in the Project Proponent's mind and Staff's mind the project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Garden center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity outweighs the General PIan, Local Coastal Land Use Plan policies and California Coastal Act requirement for protection of biological resources. 1° Email from John Conway to Nancy Scarbrough, April 23, 2020 David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Int. Page 38 of 45 dave@earsi.com 4-27-2020 DD YOU REALLY WANT TO RISK THE HEALTH OF THIS PRIZED NA TI VE TREE? David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 39 of 45 4-27-2020 dare@earsi.com Lighting: The State CEQA Guidelines) l ask: Would the project create a new source of suhstantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Staff report acknowledges the Project will result in the creating of night-time lighting impacts to existing residential uses. The Staff report proposes a condition to require a photometric study, The condition requiring a photometric study acknowledge a potentially significant impact, but does not identity the impact(s) of the mitigation, or if mitigation is feasible or effective. Staff's acknowledgement of a potentially significant impact disqualifies the Project from use of Class 32 exemption. A Project proposing to build an open top parking structure with a minimum of 5 -foot horizontal setback below existing residential uses is an unusual circumstance. Normally, parking structure are not adjacent to single-family residential uses. When parking structures are next to residential uses. they tower above the residential use and are set back a sufficient distance to mitigate any nighttime lighting and noise impacts. The fact this parking structure is proposed adjacent to and below single- family residential use is an unusual circumstance which will result in nighttime lighting impacts to residential uses seven days a week. The Project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicant's proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Garden shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity creates a "reasonable possibility" the Project "will create new nighttime light sources having the potential to increase ambient nighttime illumination levels and result in spillover of light onto adjacent residential properties. Car headlights entering the upper level of the parking structure will shine directly into adjacent residential uses. These light trespass effects have the potential to interfere with certain functions including vision, sleep, privacy, and general enjoyment of the natural nighttime condition. The Project's light trespass effects are an unusual circumstance. There is no other open top parking structure adjacent to single-family residential uses in the City. There is a reasonable possibility the Project's lighting impacts will significantly impact adjacent residential uses (which is why, Staff proposes a condition requiring the Project to prepare a photometric study). Therefore, the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Noise: See prior discussion of Project Noise impacts. The Project objective of providing excess parking spaces for the applicants proposed rooftop bar/restaurant (Gardens shopping center) or nighttime bars/restaurants in the project vicinity creates a "reasonable possibility" the Project "will generate noise Ievels impacting noise -sensitive land uses where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land impacting their health safety and welfare, These noise trespass effects have the potential to interfere with certain functions including sleep, privacy. and general enjoyment of the natural nighttime condition. 'F 2018 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, 1.d David 1. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 40 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@ears .com The close proximity of the proposed parking structure to residential uses (5' minimum setback); the open top design of the parking structure; the parking structures location immediately below existing residential uses on the bluff top; the hours of operation; intended users of the parking structure and the noise generated by parking structure users are unusual circumstances. Nowhere else in the City do similar circumstances exist. These circumstances result in a reasonable possibility Project generated noise impacts to adjacent residential uses will be significant and therefore, the Project does not qualify for a class 32 CEQA exemption. Seismic Hazards: The Staff reports acknowledges the potential for seismic hazards `'the property is located in an area known for the potential of seismic activity and liquefaction" and cites the need for "Geotechnical investigations specifically addressing liquefaction are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Permit issuance is also dependent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in the investigations." The potential impacts of design mitigation are not identified and could increase the Project's remedial grading, noise, ground borne vibration and slope stability during the construction phase of the Project. Potential seismic hazards are an unusual but all too common occurances. New information has become known to the City which has a "reasonable possibility" to render General Plan Land Use Element and Safety Element policies and standard conditions of approval inadequate to reduce the threat to public health, safety and welfare to less than significant in the event of a major seismic event. 12 There is no evidence the Project if constructed in accordance with conditions recommended by Staff, will fully mitigate potentially significant seismic hazards to public health and safety to less than significant in the event of a major seismic event. There is no evidence the Project which cuts further into the bluff face and cuts deeper down then exports this material will protect the bluff face and residential units atop the bluff in the event of a major seismic event. This Project represents an unusual circumstance because it is proposing to cut into a protected Coastal BIuff face, one with adjacent wetlands, fed by underground water sources within the Coastal Bluff, export earth material from the bluff. It really an unusual circumstance when a city would not require a comprehensive geotechnical investigation based on current science to ensure the long-term protection of the bluff face, the water source to the wetlands and adjacent residential uses atop the bluff and ensure the stability of the heritage coastal Live Oak tree prior to making a recommendation for a Class 32 exemption. Think of it like "tinker toys". This is a highly disturbed portion of the Coastal Bluff, how many more sticks can you pull out before something comes crashing down! i2 Sha keAlert " Early Warning Earthquake System (video) presentation, December 17, 2019, Hosted by: Kevin Tiscareno, Training Captain, !Newport Beach Fire Department. City website: httos:llwww.neMortbeachca.eov/�oyernmentldepartmentslgublic-information-afFice/nbty/streaming-vide❑ Presenter. Margaret Vinci, Caltech Sha keAlert SoCai Regional Coordinator Phone: (626) 395-3298 Email: mvinciPgos.caltech.edu David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory 5peciAsts, inc. Page 41 of 45 4.27.7020 dave@earsi.rom There is a "reasonable possibility', the Project "will be significantly impacted by seismic hazards within its design lifespan, and secondary hazards including liquefaction which can result in differential settlement rendering Project structures in -operable and subjecting its occupants to harm in the event of a major seismic event. There is a "reasonable possibility" the Project "will be significantly impacted by seismic hazards within its design lifespan, as well as secondary hazards including liquefaction which can result in increased Coastal Bluff instability. Because the Project will further remove a portion of the root system of the Heritage Live Oak tree there is a reasonable possibility the trees stability will be significantly impacted. There is a reasonable possibility the residential structures adjacent to the Project located atop the Coastal Bluff will be significantly impacted. Therefore, The Project does not qualify for a Class 32 CEQA exemption. Public Safety: Riverside Avenue is a popular route used by tourists and residents to access the coastal area by foot and bicycle. Many tourists choose to park their vehicles for free in the residential areas of Newport Heights bringing bicycles and skateboards to use as their preferred method of transportation to West Coast Highway, the peninsula and beaches, What makes the segment of Riverside Avenue from the stop sign with Cliff Drive south to West Coast Highway unusual is the slope and curve of the road; it's on -street parallel parking on the west side; speeds of the south bound cyclists; that they share the road with motor vehicles; the types of vehicles which includes school buses; the demographics of the cyclists, the number of ingress and egress points on Riverside Avenue, the amount of vehicular turning movements and the resulting safety hazards to cyclists. People of all ages use bicycles on Cliff Drive and this segment of Riverside Avenue. Sensitive groups include school aged children from three schools in Newport Heights. The road is used as a pathway for approximately 1,500 junior lifeguards during the summer, as well as local residents, seniors and tourists. In recent years there has been an increased use of electric bicycles and electric skateboards resulting in increased speeds. In addition, Cliff Drive has experienced an increase in traffic from drivers seeking an alternative to West Coast Highway during heavy traffic periods and drivers wishing to test drive exotic sports cars from dealerships located along the Mariners Mile. Soutlhbound travel speed down gradient from the Cliff Drive/Riverside Avenue stop sign increase dramatically for all forms of transportation and begin to slow south of Avon Street as they approach West Coast Highway. The downward curve, slope and park like setting afforded by the ambience of CIiff Drive Park adds to the thrill of the cycling/driving experience. It's not too steep and not to flat. For the exotic sports car driver wanting to see if this is the right car to buy. This segment of Riverside Avenue provides a short area where the driver can momentarily hit the gas, feel the acceleration. experience the way the car hugs the road and handles the curve as it goes down the hill. It's a fun ride for all, until the project site where the slope flattens and the area abruptly transitions from low density residential/public parkland to commercial land uses. The proposed Project is located at the base of the Coastal Bluff. This segment of Riverside Avenue is where cyclists traveling down slope toward West Coast Highway reach their top speeds and begin thinking about slowing down and cross traffic hazards ahead. Typically, if the cyclists sees no cross traffic hazards, they coast all the way to West Coast Highway. If the cyclists see cross traffic, they will begin to slow. From the Project site south drivers have to be alert for crass traffic. The project site represents the transition point from the Newport Heights residential neighborhood to the Mariners Mile commercial village. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Rep latory5pecialist s, Inc_ Page 42 of 45 4-27-2020 dave@earsi.com Businesses on Riverside Avenue generate/attract many vehicles which enter or exit on the west side of Riverside Avenue from the project site to West Coast Highway. There are 5 ingress/egress locations within a couple hundred feet. Many times, drivers exiting onto or crossing Riverside Avenue don't see the cyclist's or see them at the last second. Their attention is focused on vehicular traffic not cyclists. Existing cross -traffic along this segment of Riverside Avenue represents significant risks to cyclists. Of the 5 access points, the existing access drive to the project site from Riverside Avenue represents the greatest hazard because cyclist speed is greatest, the access drive is closest to the curve, site visibility is often blocked by parked cars, and the road gradient is the steepest. Many times, cyclist's visibility is limited by existing structures which can obstruct views of cross traffic. Cyclists also have to deal with open car doors from people entering and exiting their vehicles parked on the west side of Riverside Avenue. Traffic volumes are high on this segment of Riverside Avenue. Often times cars pay more attention to their left and right turn movements into the Garden center than to cyclists' safety. This segment of Riverside Avenue is a known safety hazard to local residents and cyclists. The existing conditions represent a safety hazard to cyclists, particularly children, seniors, tourist cyclists who are less familiar with the area and may not be as experienced as others in riding a bike, and the occasional cyclist who has had a little too much at one of the areas many local bars. The combination of these factors makes this an unusual circumstance. Most identified hazards are mitigated by the City or by conditions placed on new developments. In this case the City should reduce the Project's safety impact by requiring all access be taken from Avon Avenue_ The Project proposes to widen the existing access point on the west side of Riverside Avenue, just a few feet north of Avon Street to provide access to a proposed parking structure. This access point is upslope from Avon Street at the beginning/end of a curve and will represent a safety hazards to cyclists. Cyclists will have to be able: to safely brake to avoid the hazards from vehicular turn movements into and out of the proposed parking structure. While traffic volumes operate at an acceptable traffic Levels of Service, the popularity of the uses in the Garden center (example: US Postal Service) generate high traffic turning volumes adjacent to the project site. As the newly renovated Garden center increases in occupancy traffic volumes and turn movements into and out of the center will increase. The users of the proposed Project parking structure are not restricted and could be subject to a parking agreement(s) serving other bars and restaurants in the area. The Project's intention to create excess parking compounds the already existing unusual circumstances. The Project access onto Riverside Avenue has the potential to contribute to an existing safety hazard. Normally, a new project will be required to address existing safety hazards. The fact that this Project is not required to do its fair share to mitigate this impact is another unusual circumstance. The Project design should be modified to mitigate this potentially significant impact by eliminating vehicular access on Riverside Avenue. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Spedallsts, irnc. Page 43 of 45 4.27.2020 dave@earsi.com Compliance with the traffic volume thresholds do not relieve the lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project's environmental effects may still be significant. No traffic safety analysis is contained in the public record to support any finding relating to the Project's public safety impact, Combined these factors represent an unusual circumstance and there is reasonable possibility the Project will contribute to a significant public safety risks to cyclists, including children, seniors and less experienced tourist cyclists traveling southbound on Riverside Avenue adjacent to the proposed Project and therefore does not qualify for a Class 32 CEQA exemption. E. GENE, R4L PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PRUGRANI CONSISTENCY As described above in response to the applicability of the Project for a Class 32 exemption, the proposed Project is inconsistent with numerous General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies. ■ The Project application be amended to require a General Pian Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Amendment.. o Project amendment to the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan Land Use policies would request modifications to allow impacts to significant biological resources, scenic resources, impacts to protected coastal bluff faces, to minimize commercial residential buffer policies and design objectives - Davi d bjectives_ ❑avid J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 44 of 45 4-27-2020 dare@earsi,com Attachment I Mr. Greg Applegate Arborgate Consulting Inc. Letter to Mr. Hal Woods Subject: Oak Impacted by the Garden Office Parking Structure Project Dated: March 23, 2020 David J. Tanner, President En VlYannlental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. Page 45 of 45 dare@earsi.com 4-27-2020 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:19 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: EW: Rare old Oak Tree -----Original Message ----- From: Dan Clark <dcpcgm@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 5:40 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Rare old Oak Tree [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My wife, Peggy, and I have lived in the heights for 60 years. We are familiar with the ancient, rare Oak Tree in the vicinity of 215 Riverside Drive Parking structure. By California law, it (and it's roots) nee ds to be protected from construction projects. We would greatly appreciate you taking this into serious consideration. Thank you. Daniel O. Clark Sent from my iPhone 42 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:06 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Please save the 100 year old tree on Riverside From: Gregory Cox <GCox@pacificsymphony.org> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 3:33 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Please save the 100 year old tree on Riverside [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Best, Gr6gory Gregory Pierre Cox Vice President of Development and External Relations I Pacific Symphony t: (714) 876-23981 m: [31 0) 882-8259 1 e: GCoxg PacifigSymphony,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 Pacif_ _ic5ymphony•or I facebook I instagram I twitter 1youtube A 66 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:10 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: PROTECT THIS RARE OAK TREH!!!! From: Jeanne Fobes <jeannefobes@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 6:48 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: PROTECT THIS RARE CIA TREE! 1! 1! [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, My family lives in Newport Heights; we have lived here and loved it for fifty years! I am writing to ask you to protect the rare oak tree that is located within the vicinity of the 215 Riverside Drive parking structure project!!! This ancient (between 100 and 200 years old!) oak is on private property and the project cannot require the property owner to remove the tree, but the arborist states that the excavation required for the project will severely endanger the tree!! "California law protects native trees, including oak trees. The state of California bans the removal of certain native trees, including oak trees. Oak trees existed in the state during ancient times and were used by Native Americans and Spaniards living in the area," - LA TIMES This is important to anyone who values our area and our history and the law of California, that endeavors to protect our environment from such projects. Thank you for listening to the appeals of your constituents. Sincerely, Jeanne Fobes 328 Aliso Ave. Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 202010:35 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Oak tr e e -----Original Message ----- From: Elaine Linhoff <elinhoff555@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:50 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject. Oak tr e e [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please save the oak tree near 215 Riverside/ Elaine Linhoff 1750 E. Ocean Blvd ,Newport Beach Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2024 8:02 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Oak tree on Riverside __-_-Original Message ----- From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierio@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2024 6:06 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncii@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Oak tree on Riverside (EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attention: City Council and Mayor 0' Neill: Please do not engage in construction that will cause damage to that beautiful oak tree on Riverside ( 215) Drive. I have a beautiful old Chinese Elm in my front yard and could not stand for it to be damaged. The tree in question not only is important and brings pleasure to its owners, but to the community as well. Please protect it. Thank you, Lynn Lorenz 434 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, Ca Sent from my Wad Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:05 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject_ FW; 100-200 YEAR OLD OAK TREE ON RIVERSIDE & 15 Mature Trees along Cliff Drivel! From: Linda <queenmoml@gmaH.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 3:28 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; mfluor@nmusd.us; kyelsey@nmusd.us; mbarto@nmusd.us; aanderson@nmusd.us; vsnell@nmusd.us; cmetoyer@nmusd.us; dblack@nmusd.us Subject: 100-200 YEAR OLD OAK TREE ON RIVERSIDE & 15 Mature Trees along Cliff Drive!! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DQ NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please don't approve the pro ject....we need trees to keep us alive! They clear the air of the "SMOG" from the Airplanes polluting us overhead and the gas and diesel fuels belching from the cars on the road and the diesel fuels from the boats in the Harbor....HELP! we are cutting down (or damaging the root zone and therefore killing) trees that "clean our air'!!! Sincerely, Linda Martin 67 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:28 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: oak tree near 215 riverside From: Vicki Ronaldson <v.ronaldson@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 6:21 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: oak tree near 215 riverside [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. dear NB city council members, when we moved here 28 years ago, newport hts had lots of trees. lots less now. one beautiful tree does still stand a very lovely, very old oak tree who will surely not survive construction required to build the proposed 215 riverside parking structure. old tree friends cannot be replaced. please consider the life of this tree when weighing 215 buiIding. plz vote no. thank you for your service, especially through this pandemic. with appreciation, vicki ronaldson 506 san bernardino ave, nb Sent from my Phone vicki 949-933-2332c 25 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:38 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Save the tree! From: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2020 9:34 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Save the tree! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, You know that I am a tree hugger from way back and there is finally a tree issue coming in front of you for me to hug! Please take action to ensure that the gorgeous oak tree on Riverside Or will not be damaged by the construction nearby. As you likely know, certain trees have roots that spread superficially for a considerable distance from the tree. According to a respected gardening site: "Most oak tree roots lie only 18 inches under the soil. They may spread, though, to occupy a space four to seven times the width of the tree's crown." This tree is huge and so its root `spread' will be huge as well. The site also says that "cutting large roots, say 3 inches and greater, will deprive the tree of much-needed water and nutrition. The symptoms of malnutrition may not appear for several years after the cut, at which time the tree will begin a slow decline." Help us protect this ancient tree! please make sure that any construction nearby is done with the assistance of an arborist to direct the process and prevent damage. Thank you and stay safe, Susan 17 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:01 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FIN: Spare the trees -----Original Message ---- From: Pally Smith rpolly-smith@pacbel1.net> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 5:56 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounci I@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Spare the trees [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK (i n ks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please spare the oak tree and other big trees at Ensign. Polly and Mike Smith This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antiv'irus Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10.04 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Please Save The Oak Tree From: Erin Walsh <erinwalshmoloney@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 3:01 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Please Save The Oak Tree [EXTERNAL EMAIL] ❑O NOT CLICK finks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please use your authority and voice to advocate for our community. HELP U5 SAVE THE 100-200 YEAR OLD OAK TREE The 100-200 year old oak tree is on private property adjacent to the 215 Riverside Parking Structure Project; however, the arborist states that due to the age of this "senior" tree (could be between 100-200 years old), the excavation required for the project will endanger the tree. There is a root zone that extends far beyond the tree canopy that supports the tree itself and any damage to roots within that zone could seriously damage or kill the tree. The project cannot require the private property owner to remove the tree, but the project could certainly cause the tree to be severely damaged or to die. California law protects native trees, including oak trees. The state of California bans the removal of certain native trees, including oak trees. Oak trees existed in the state during ancient times and were used by Native Americans and Spaniards living in the area. — LR TIMES Respectfully, Erin Walsh -Maloney Newport Beach Resident Sent from my iPhone 70 Mulvey, Jennifer From: RiefF, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:33 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Oak Tree a Preservation -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Weiner <starboxinc@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2020 7:12 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Oak Tree 0 Preservation [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please act to keep this century old oak tree from injury or death due to construction or any other cause. Thanks Robert Weiner 410 Kings Road Sent from my iPhone manatt April 27, 2020 VIA EMAIL Mayor Will O'Neill and City Counciilmembers City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658 Received After Agenda Printed April 28, 2020 Item No. 9 Susan K. Hori Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (714) 371-2528 shori@manatt.com Client -Matter. 63060-030 Re: 215 Riverside - City Council Hearing, April 28, 2020; Appeal of Coastal Development Permit No. CDP 2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit 2019- 003 Dear Mayor O'Neill and City Councihnembers: This letter is sent on behalf of Laidlaw Schultz Architects C 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 C'Owner), the owner of the property on which the Project will be implemented. The appeal was originally scheduled for a hearing before the City Council on April 14, 2020, to allow the appellants and applicants to explore resolution of the appellants' concerns. Since that time, we have been in discussions with the appellants and have made significant progress in reaching full resolution, and since the Planning Commission approval on October 17, 2019, the Applicant has made additional modifications identified below to address those concerns. Despite the lack of a full resolution, during discussions over the last two weeks, the Applicant has agreed to incorporate six conditions proposed by the appellants to address lighting on the upper level of parking, the hours of operation of the upper level of parking. and measures to ensure that no City protected trees would be impacted by construction. Those conditions are listed and discussed below. The 215 Riverside project site is currently occupied by an existing office building and surface parking. The existing building is 8,056 square feet, 28 feet 3 inches high and the parking lot provides 18 spaces. The elevation of the existing parking lot is at an elevation that is 10 feet higher than the proposed upper level of parking. The property is zoned CG Connnercial General and conforms to the General Plan land use and zoning and applicable development standards. 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'Neil and City Councilmembers April 27, 2020 Page 2 1. The Amlicant Voluntarily Reduced the Building Height from 32 feet to 28 feet3 inches. Since Planning Commission approval of 215 Riverside, the Applicant volruitarily reduced the height of the structure from 32 feet (which is penmitted under City zoning) to not exceed the maximum height of the existing office building (28 feet 3 inches). 2. The Proposed Conditions Discussed After April 14 City Council Hearing. After the April 14, 2020, Council hearing was continued, the Applicant and appellants tried to reach a compromise that would resolve the appeal. The appellants presented a ivanber of demands including extending the trellis proposed over the parking spaces facing Avon Street to all uncovered parking spaces, and limiting the hours and fighting of the upper level of parking. Discussed below are all of the new conditions that the 215 Riverside Applicant would agree to inrnplement to address the appellants' concerns. These conditions addressed the proposed conditions that were presented to us last week by the appellants' counsel. A. Extending the Trellis Over All Parking Spaces and Providing Foliated Coverage. The Planning Commission adopted Condition 61 requiring that a trellis be extended over die entire row of parking facing Avon Street The appellants requested the following condition to extend the trellis over all uncovered parking spaces: 1. The trellis on the upper level of the parking structure will be extended to all currently uncovered parking spaces. 'the Applicant has agreed to do this. In addition, in order to f Tffier muvinize lights and noise from the cars, the Applicant also agreed to cover the trellis top with organic material, i.e.. vines, to block views of any of the cars parked Linder the trellis. In response to appellants' request that the Applicant consult with them about the design of the trellis, the Applicant provided appellants last Tuesday with renderings of the trellised parking areas, the proposed landscape plan, including details regarding the plants and vines used to foliate the trellis, and information regarding the structure and materials used for the trellis. To ensure implementation, the Applicant proposed the fallowing new condition. ?. The trellis on the upper level of the parkingstructure will be completely folialed with vines and other organic material do provide a green, landscape covering that will help to fitrther reduce noire and light spillage. manatt Mayor Will ❑'Neill and City Councitmembers April 27, 2020 Page 3 B. Limiting the Upper Parking Level Hours and Lighting. The appellants also expressed concern with Conditions 62 and 63 imposed by the Planning Commission to not allow cars to enter the upper level of parking after 11 p.m., and limiting lights on the upper parking level after 11 p.m The Applicant agreed to limit both entrance and exit from the upper level of parking after 10 p.m., and to limit all non -security lighting on the upper level after 10:15 p.m. The Applicant's conunitment would be reflected in the following revisions to Conditions 62 and 63: 3 All vehicles will stop entering and exiting the upper level at 10 p. m. seven (7) days a week. 4. Lighting on the upper level will be reduced to the minimum level required for surface parking security at 1 0:15 p. m. seven (7) days a week. C. Compliance with City Council Policy G-1 Regarding City Tmes. Lastly, although neither City staff nor the Planning Con-nnission identified this as a concern, appellants expressed concern regarding whether project construction could impact City protected trees on adjacent City property. First, the 215 Riverside project will not remove any trees that are on City property or on property of any adjacent landowner, Second, to ensure that the project does not conflict with the City Council Policy G-1 regarding City Trees. the Applicant agreed to implement the following two additional conditions: J. The City's Arborist will review the project �V plans for conformity with applicable City regulations. 6. The Project Applicant or Project Developer will retain a licensed arborist to observe construction ofthe project and to ensure compliance )vith the Cry's Policy G-1 regarding City Special Trees and the City Arborist 's findings during the construction ofthe project. Lastly. the Applicant also agreed to identify a designated contact person for the appellants to contact regarding compliance with the operational conditions, 3. The Project Has No Impact On Any Oak Trees. We understand that the City has received comments about whether the project wilg irnpact an oak tree. There are several oak trees on public and private properties adjacent to the 215 Riverside project site. There are no oak trees on the 215 Riverside property. There is an oak tree that is located at least 40 feet from the 215 Riverside project site that is entiu ely on private property. The root system for mature trees typically follows the drip line from the oak tree's canopy, and no portion of the tree canopy overhangs the 215 Riverside property. There are also manatt Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers Apri] 27, 2020 Page 4 designated oak trees on the adjacent City parkland - none of which are near to the 215 Riverside property line. In actuality, the project is moving construction further away from the City parkland than the existing condition. 4. New Conditions Received on Friday, April 24 Are Not Feasible or Acceptable. •-• ----- On Friday, April 24, the appellants' attorney informed the Applicant that his clients had three new demands, as follows: I. The extension of the trellis addressed in Condition 1, must cover the entire upper level of parking, not just the parking spaces. 2. The 10 p.m closing hour for the upper Ievel of parking addressed in Condition 3 must be applied to both the upper and lower levels of parking 3. All motorcycles be barred from using the parking spaces. The Applicant is not willing to accept any of the three new conditions. First, for structural and engineering reasons, h is not feasible to cover the entire upper level of parking. Second, there is no reason to limit parking on the lower level. The appellants requested that the upper level be closed at 10 p.m to reduce the noise from car doors opening and closing, ignition noise, restaurant patrons or employees talking, and lights from headlights and tail lights, The adjacent residents will see no lights from cars on the lower level, and the upper parking level as well as the entrance/exit to the lower level off of Avon will avoid noise impacts to adjacent homes, Lastly, as the City does not ban motorcycles, the Applicant VAH not impose a ban on motorcycles. 5. Conclusion. In conclusion, atthough the Applicant has not been able to reach resolution with the appellants since the last Council hearing., the Applicant will honor its ofFer to incorporate the sic new conditions that it agreed to as part of the good faith negotiations with appellants over the last two weeks. We urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Conmi scion approval, deny the appeal, and approve the 215 Riverside project. Very truly yours, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP s v -S. K. HorL,/ Susan K. Hori manatt Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers April 27, 2020 Page 5 cc: Seimone Jurjis Gregg Ramirez James Campbell Makana Nova Yolanda Summerhill, Esq. Aaron Harp, Esq. Scott Laidlaw 326157411.1 PA2019-023 Good day Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, 4128120 My name is Charles Klobe. I am a resident of Newport Heights and the president of the Newport Heights Improvement Associatio considering the crisis and total lack of n' I am sorry you are hearing urgency that this be decided todayhis today. Others writing and speaking tonight will a asking you to grant thea sk You to dela ppeal and deny it in its entirety.Y this project for more review. I am 1• The cit Here's why; y has never approved an open-air parkin g g garage adjacent to single family homes. The CUP for this is NOT 2. The protected Avon wetlands are rnught. consultant's re h closer to the site than outlined in the port from September 2019. 3• The previously undisclosed 100 -200 -year-old NO mitigation or care is considered. adjacent property Heritage Coast Live Oak tree o ed. _ Y may have its roots destroyed by this project. n the "special" in the General Plan. It May be G 1. Where is this addressed in the staff "dedicated" This tree is deemed tree according to Council Policy 4• The staff report alleges this project uaff report? Possible. q ifies for a Class 32CE 5• The staff report QA exemption. Not p rt says this is not piecemealing and does not With the adjacent restaurant application. W 6• The top level adjacent t uncovered need to be considered We will see if other bodies agree. With bar customers leaving parking structure o g at 1:30-2:p0AM Derating late f night, illuminated, between the nearest residences. with a minimum 5 -foot setback provided Hello! These will be the basis for a CEQq challenge or a Coastal Commission appeal as this is a clear probable connection between this proposal impacts that the City says are " Staff needs to review BOTH in totali and one surface under the future CUP. it is non-existent" under the current proposal totality. This means impacts occur under either traffic, noise, MY pinion that it is a ver p poral may very well or light, Y weak conclusion that no Drawing your attention to the staff re back for consideration. The previous report page 13, Item 3 Off-site you have the option to send this parking for future restaurants within The Garden said "The project is intended to support part of the proposed pping center located south of p posed restaurant at 2902 West Coast use establish a permit (CUP) is required as parking management plan for the shopping for off-site proposed structure. pping center includingparking and to valet parking for the 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. 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 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:43 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Saving the Trees at Ensign and on Riverside Drive From: Mike Talbot < mike@taIbot. com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:08 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Saving the Trees at Ensign and on Riverside Drive [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DD NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. strongly support saving the beautiful trees at Ensign and on Riverside Drive. These are historic and beautiful trees beloved by the entire Cliff Haven and Newport Heights neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration_ Mike Talbot 324 Signal Road Newport Beach CA 92663 M. D. Talbot Aerospace & Defense Consultant Telephone: 949-386-0000 Cell Phone: 949-795-9900 Email talbot@spacelines.com Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:42 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Proposed Parking Lot From: Tracy Rath <trath32@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:05 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounci I@newport beach ca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Proposed Parking Lot [E IFERNAL EMAIL DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. It would be unethical to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Even further, how do you live with your conscience when you look at your children espousing morals and ethics when you yourself may choose to have none over the above proposed parking? Yes, you'll walk with money padding your back pocket. Do you think we don't know? You won't though ever really be able to like what you've dome and who you've become. Karma is real, Do the right thing. You have the opportunity to preserve your honor. For the sake of our neighborhood, we most certainly hope you do. Tracy Rath Resident of Newport Heights for over 20 years Sent from my iPhone 83 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kirn Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8.27 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Drive Project - Parking deck roof and a process change are both needed From: Chris Budnik <dbudnik2003@yahoo.com5 Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 7:55 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCounci!@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Drive Project - Parking deck roof and a process change are both needed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I want to express my concerns regarding an open roof parking deck planned for 215 Riverside Drive. I believe similar parking decks adjacent to residences were required to have covered roofs. Examples include the original Jaguar dealership (now Sterling BMW) located at 3000 West Coast Highway, the retail center Mariner's Pointe located at 100 West Coast Highway and the new Newport Harbor Medical Plaza located at 330 Old Newport Blvd. All these developments were required to cover the parking structures and I encourage you to maintain the same standard for the development at 215 Riverside Drive. also encourage the council to review the Planning Commission procedures for development proposals of this type. If city councils have routinely required covered roofs on parking structures adjacent to residences, shouldn't the Planning Commission require it before approving such projects? I do not see benefit in causing months of anguish for adjacent homeowners and I'm sure the commercial property owners would rather deal with required changes promptly to avoid project delays. Considering all the time and energy spent on this project, I believe a process change would really help us in the future. Sincerely, Christopher Budnik Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2029 3:95 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed @ 21S Riverside Ave. (PA2019-923) From: connie cherry <conniecherry@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 1:23 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncit@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure Proposed @ 215 Riverside Ave. (PA2019-023) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK finks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Connie Cherry 1901 Mariners Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rief€, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:27 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Letter to the City Council re 215 Riverside Attachments: Letter to Mayor O'Neill re Applicant's Response to 215 Riverside Appeal {April 27 2020}.pdf From: Mori, Susan <SHori@manatt.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:24 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@new portbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbeIt@new portbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; Summerhill, Yolanda <YSummerhill@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; slaidlaw@lsarchitects.com Subject: Letter to the City Council re 215 Riverside [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor O'Neill and City Councilmembers, As you recall, at the Council meeting on April 14, 2020, the Applicant agreed to a continuance in order to work with the appellants on a possible resolution of the appeal. Attached is a letter submitted on behalf of the Applicant summarizing our work with the appellants and the additional conditions we are willing to accept to address the concerns expressed by the appellants. If you have any questions, please let us know. My client and I also will be available to respond to your questions at Tuesday evening's Council hearing. Thank you. Susan Hari Partner Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 D (714) 371-2528 F (714) 371-2571 SHori@manatt.com 0OVID-19 Updales and Resources Cl ick here CONFIDENTIALITY N0I'ICE. This a -mail transmission, and any doeumenls. Ines or pre via us a -mall messages attached to 11. may contain ccWide ntie l information that is legally prrvileged If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified Thal any disclosure, capying, dIstab utic n or use or any of the information contained In or attaclied to this message is STRICTLY PRDHIBITE 0 If you have received this transirossicn in error. please immediateiy notify us py reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading Them or saying them to disk. Thank you. Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:08 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW; 215 Riverside Proposed Parking Structure (PA2019-023] From: siobhan.robinson@ymail.com <siobhan.robinson@ymaH.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 20201:31 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Proposed Parking Structure [PA2019-023] [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable Mayor O'Neill and City Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. The City Council's historically, long-standing protection of residential properties and consistent requirements of developments that are adjacent to boundaries of dissimilar use is very much appreciated, Regards, ICIi]il-in Robinson Newport Beach resident Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3:04 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 riverside drive parking structure From: Brett Robinson <bprobins@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 20201:20 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCounciI@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 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Brett Robinson Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 3;20 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed Parking Deck at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: Barbara Yeager <socr2xs@sbcgioba1.net> Sent: Monday, April 27, 20201:41 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@new portbeachca.gov> Subject: Proposed Parking Deck at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) [EXTERNAL EMAIQ DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, E. Kurt and Barbara Yeager 2332 East 15th Street Newport Beach 92663 (949)887-8197 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside From: slaidlaw@1sarchitect5.com <slaidlaw isarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:50 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana <M Nova new ortbeachca. ova Cc: Jurjis, Seimone rsjurils new ortbeachca. ova Subject: 215 Riverside [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Gregg, 1 saw some correspondence from someone in the community regarding a large oak tree in the vicinity of 215. 1 went out and looked at the oak tree, and the tree is entirely on the neighbor to the east's property between the back of his house and Riverside. The tree canopy actually overhangs the sidewalk on Riverside. It is located 45' north east up Riverside from the closest property corner at 215, and at least 40' away from any of the proposed improvements at 215. The tree root system typically follows the drip line from the canopy above and no portion of the tree canopy overhangs 215. Just wanted to pass this along in case you did not have a chance to look yourself. Thanks, Scott Laidlaw LSirc -lILeC t_!; Lntcr"w scl r W t r�t 3111 Second Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 7:949.645,9982 F:949.645.9554 W;LSarchitecls.com rx ,ryl I This C0111M LIM CaTI rm rno Contain ociyrleged in Ox sonhdenhaI rnftirnnotign It is intoodoo s01aly kir 1110 use ti [he awreegee If yw aro not 'tie u)Tend ea s%1Pb@nt. yt)q ari�-stnrtly Olrrlr111led fru nr :lIs( fnaau} lupytng destritnrlrrlrg ,r I r?1Q 6r)V of 11118 11ftrnlei lion A]I klfawrncjs irlrl WTI" I rrmaier'Iri( iJ)DOOelIIq `W& IP rautstllLit- L 11 tjVIrlI `bili 11f5pmiisf Opo Ani'Y ni the s Ilrlti f and tTMV not Le 11rrIULI100 r+bed c dist:loBEd w111)Od I 100 *41I16ri .01 NO lI I r! La01lrgw SchUlt: a{ClVet,U Mulvey, Jennifer From: Harp, Aaron Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:55 AM Cc: Leung, Grace; Jurjis, Seimone; Brown, Leilani; Summerhill, Yolanda Subject: 215 Riverside Appeal Good Morning Honorable Mayor and Council Members, The hearing regarding this item is likely to be somewhat controversial given that the applicant and appellant have been unable to reach agreement. To avoid any allegations that the City violated the due process rights of the appellant or applicant, Council Members should announce any direct communications they had with the applicant, appellant, or others, and the general nature of the discussion at the beginning of the hearing of this item. In regards to records, Leilani will ensure that all emails received by the entire Council are part of the administrative record. Also, I have forwarded the April 27, 2020 communication from Susan Hori to the appellant as well as an email that Susan Hori sent on April 24, 2020 directly to the Mayor. If you have received direct written communications, other than those set forth above, please forward to me and I will make sure they are included in the administrative record. Thank you. Aaron C. Harp City Attorney City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA, 92660 Phone: (949) 644-3131 Fax: (949) 644-3139 Email: aharp@newportbeachca.gov CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of the addressees only. The information is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work -product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible records. If you are not an addressee or an authorized agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to a designated addressee, you have received this e-mail in error, and any further review, dissemination distribution, copying or forwarding of this e- mail is strictly prohibited. Moreover, such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside From: "Hori, Susan" <SHori@manatt.com> Date: April 24, 2020 at 7:25:30 PM PDT To: William O'Neill <wco@rossllp.com> Subject: 215 Riverside Dear Mayor O'Neill, Per your conversations with Leslie, here is some background information for you regarding the current status of our discussions with the appellants. Listed below are all of the new conditions that the 215 applicant would agree to implement to address the appellants concerns. These conditions addressed all of the proposed conditions that were presented to us last week by the appellants. We had agreement on most of these conditions last Thursday (April 16) but they wanted more information about the trellis. We provided renderings of the trellis and information about the vines and landscaping and proposed the revised language in condition 2 regarding vines and landscaping listed below on Tuesday. We heard back this afternoon that the appellants wanted more. Specifically, in condition 1, they want the trellis to cover the entire upper level, not just the parking spaces; they asked that condition 3 apply to both the upper and lower level of parking — even though they cannot see or hear cars on the lower level; and they added a new condition that all motorcycles be barred from using the parking spaces. Trellis Conditions 1. The trellis on the upper level of the parking structure will be extended to all currently uncovered parking spaces. 2. The trellis on the upper level of the parking structure will be completely foliated with vines and other organic material to provide a green, landscape covering that will help to further reduce noise and light spillage. Upper Level Parking 3. All vehicles will stop entering and exiting the upper level at 10 p.m. seven (7) days a week. 4. Lighting on the upper level will be reduced to the minimum level required for surface parking security at 10:15 p.m. seven (7) days a week. Arborist Review 5. The City's Arborist will review the project's plans for conformity with applicable City regulations. 6. The Project Applicant or Project Developer will retain a licensed arborist to observe construction of the project and to ensure compliance with the City's Policy G-1 regarding City Special Trees and the City Arborist's findings during the construction of the project. We're available to answer any questions you may have. Susan Hori 1 Partner Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 D (714) 371-2528 F (714) 371-2571 SHori@manatt.com WaWaing CO-jLg Updatesarrd Rewources Click here CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:01 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Riverside parking garage From: Carol Anne Dru <carol@thedrufamily.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 10:22 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Riverside parking garage [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Subject: Fwd: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) Date: April 27, 2020 at 11:43:52 AM PDT To: undisclosed -recipients:; Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) Dear Friends and Neighbors of Newport Beach, The City Council will be hearing an appeal tomorrow night, 4/28/20, regarding the proposed building of an open air parking structure just 20 ft. adjacent to residential properties. The city of Newport Beach has NEVER allowed an open rooftop parking structure in the past. Instead they have required the Jaguar dealership [now Sterling BMW] on PCH, Mariner's Pointe Retail at the corner of PCH and Dover, and the new Newport Harbor Medical Plaza on Old Newport Blvd. to all cover their parking structures. They city council members will be counting 'Yay or Neigh" emails from residents today by 5 p.m. So, if you could please take just 5 mins. to copy, paste, and email the message below to the Newport Beach City Council it would make a tremendous difference in getting the parking structure at 215 Riverside covered so all nearby residents can preserve their quality of life! And please pass onto other NB friends & neighbors to also send in emailsl l I THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 10:50 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Save the trees!! From: Hayley Nester <hnester@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:25 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Save the trees!! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilperson, We just moved to the area last year, and one thing I realized quickly was how much I loved the area I drove through on the way to my son's new school, NHHS. The Oak trees on Cliff Dr. by Ensign Jr High are magnificent, lined with amazing trees which need to be left for the neighborhood and Earth to enjoy. What would make anyone even consider making them fall? How could anyone allow those awe-inspiring trees to be chopped down? These trees provide animals' homes and nesting places, provide neighbors and visitors history and beauty, shade and oxygen. If you allow it to happen... "you will become a part of the problem." Dr. Seuss-The Lorax Please don't allow yourself to become a part of the problem. Don't allow yourself to be one of those who voted to cut down these iconic trees everyone enjoys and destroy the majestic beauty and history of this Cliff Dr. neighborhood forever. We're counting on you to make the right choice! Maybe you missed watching Dr. Seuss's The Lorax with your kids or grandkids? If that's the case, please take time to watch it before making a decision to end these tree's lives. I say that because they are important, living, viable things, yet they can't speak for themselves! So, "I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues." -Dr. Seuss "now that you're here, the word of the Lorax seems perfectly clear. UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not!" Dr. Seuss, The Lorax Thank you for your time and service to our community Hayley Nester and family Balboa Island, CA Sent from my iPhone 22 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 10:17 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Dr. - cover roof From: Tom Anderson <tom.andersonl@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 7:36 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Dr. - cover roof [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:55 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed 215 Riverside Uncovered Parking Structure - NAY (NO) From: Jim Bob <mmgarb@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:49 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Proposed 215 Riverside Uncovered Parking Structure - NAY (NO) [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:17 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: 215 Riverside rooftop parking From: Madaneh Afkhami Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:16:17 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office; Dept - City Council Subject: 215 Riverside rooftop parking [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof. This will leave a precedent and will allow many future developments to ask for open roof parking. This will impact the entire coast highway within Mariner's mile negatively and ruin property value and life quality. The fact that even the idea is entertained by City Planning is very puzzling. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Marjaneh Afkhami -Principal MEGT ARCHITERRA Planning I Urban Design I Landscape Architecture Cell: 714.813.8134 1 Fax: 213.348.2258 445 Santa Ana Avenue I Newport Beach, CA 92663 CA3953 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 12:56 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Drive From: Jimmy Thomas <jtx12@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 12:55 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside Drive [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. NB City Council, Please apply the same roof criteria to the parking structure at 215 Riverside Drive as you do to all other parking structures. Everybody should be held to the same roof requirement standards. Thanks Jim Kociuba Fullerton Ave. Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:48 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure From: Susie Gilchrist <sgilchristl@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:48 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. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Susan Gilchrist Cliff Haven resident Sent from my Whone Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:28 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking structure -----Original Message ----- From: Pamela Vegher <pvegher@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:09 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. I would like you to have a cover on the parking structure that has been proposed on Riverside. Protect our citizens Pam Vegher Kings Road Sent from my Whone 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:34 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:33 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, TJ & Amy Williams 1110 Kings Road Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:16 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: Jason Finney <jasonsfinney@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:30 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Best Regards, Jason & Rebeca Finney 510 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-230-9494 0asonsfinney(Dyahoo.com Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:17 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: From: Karen Brutman <karenbrutman@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:33 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Karen Brutman 2011 kings road Sent from my Phone Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:11 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Parking Structure From: nscarbrough@scarbroughdesign.com <nscarbrough@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:17 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. 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: 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. 3. 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 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 pe 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 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:07 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Covered Parking Structures From: robert weiner <starboxinc@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:10 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Covered Parking Structures [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please follow precedent when deciding on the open air parking structure for 215 Riverside Avenue. Hopefully you will continue to only permit closed roof parking structures in all of Newport. Thank you, Robert Weiner 410 Kings Road Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:08 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Garage 215 Riverside From: Tom Gyulay <tgyulay@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:10 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Garage 215 Riverside [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Councilmen: Enough already. Please vote to APPROVE this project so that old eyesore can be removed and the adjacent new shopping center can flourish. We can't keep thinking we're going to set the way back machine to 1963 and drive our woodies down to the beach. Finish this project and don't allow 5 people to hold up profess for the entire population. Thank you Typing with my thumbs on iPhone Resident of Kings Road Tom Gyulay Sage Retail Group 5015 Birch Street, Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 474-1566 office (714) 813-9876 cell tom@sageretailgroup.com Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:08 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: I've lived in this neighborhood since 4th grade! I'm 64 now, yes a very long time. Please don't allow this. From: valerie miller <wasabismom@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:11 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: I've lived in this neighborhood since 4th grade! I'm 64 now, yes a very long time. Please don't allow this. [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Valerie and James Miller Sent from my Whone Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:53 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Comments - Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023) From: dave@earsi.com Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:53:02 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William Cc: Harp, Aaron Subject: RE: Comments - 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. Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council 1. Oak Tree - It is my understanding people have claimed the oak tree's root system does not extend beyond the drip line of this tree and suggested the City arborist monitor project grading. Because the roots grow near the surface, what good will it do to have an arborist stop grading once the roots of this fragile tree are damaged? Why has Staff not raised this issue in their staff report ad before the Planning Commission? Why has the City Arborist not commented? Why do you think the existing parking area in the rear of the building is split level? Do you think there is a possibility there are tree roots under the paving. Yes, that is the opinion of experts, not laymen. The Arborist who inspected this tree is one of the most experienced arborist in the Country! Here is a list of their clients: https://www.arborgate- consulting.com/Clients.htm Below is one of many exhibit depicting an oak trees root system. It is clear, an oak tree's root system extend well beyond the dripline of the tree canopy. Grading equipment will damage these roots! According to experts, because the tree is old ,it is very fragile. This Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption from CEQA. The City must require this Project tp comply with CEQA. 19 Source: The Antisocial Network https://antisocialnetwork-21abz.blogspot.com/2018/02/oak-root-systems-for-dummies-freelance.html Vegetated Trellis — It is my understanding people have claimed a vegetative trellis covering all or a portion of the top level of the parking structure will partially obstruct night-time light impacts to adjacent residential homes. That is, as long as the vegetation completely covers the trellis, does not die -out and the species is evergreen (does not lose its leaves in the fall & winter). Some had alleged a vegetated trellis will block noise. It will not. An acoustical engineer should certify this statement, not a layperson. This Project does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption from CEQA. The City must require this Project to comply with CEQA. Thank you for considering my comments. 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. From: dave@earsi.com <dave@earsi.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 12:29 PM To: 'citycle rk @ n ewpo rtbeac hca.gov' <cityclerk@new port beachca.gov> Subject: Comments - Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023) Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council Attached are my comments on the de novo public hearing for Resolution No. 2020-33: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for the Garden Office and Parking Structure Project (PA2019-023). Attached are two documents. One a condensed summary, and the second a detailed point by point analysis with an attached opinion from a professional Arborist. David J. Tanner, President Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc. 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 646-8958 wk 20 949 233-0895 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. 21 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:58 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside From: luke@thedrufamily.com <luke@thedrufamily.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:56 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. NAy Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:58 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: luke@thedrufamily.com <luke@thedrufamily.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:57 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I vote NAY Luke Dru 949.642.2001 Subject: Fwd: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) Date: April 27, 2020 at 11:43:52 AM PDT To: undisclosed -recipients:; Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) Dear Friends and Neighbors of Newport Beach, The City Council will be hearing an appeal tomorrow night, 4/28/20, regarding the proposed building of an open air parking structure just 20 ft. adjacent to residential properties. The city of Newport Beach has NEVER allowed an open rooftop parking structure in the past. Instead they have required the Jaguar dealership [now Sterling BMW] on PCH, Mariner's Pointe Retail at the corner of PCH and Dover, and the new Newport Harbor Medical Plaza on Old Newport Blvd. to all cover their parking structures. They city council members will be counting'Yay or Neigh" emails from residents today by 5 p.m. So, if you could please take just 5 mins. to copy, paste, and email the message below to the Newport Beach City Council it would make a tremendous difference in getting the parking structure at 215 Riverside covered so all nearby residents can preserve their quality of life! And please pass onto other NB friends & neighbors to also send in emailsM THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) Send to: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:45 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside rooftop parking From: Marjaneh Afkhami <megtarc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:16 PM To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 215 Riverside rooftop parking [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof. This will leave a precedent and will allow many future developments to ask for open roof parking. This will impact the entire coast highway within Mariner's mile negatively and ruin property value and life quality. The fact that even the idea is entertained by City Planning is very puzzling. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Marjaneh Afkhami -Principal MEGT ARCHITERRA Planning I Urban Design I Landscape Architecture Cell: 714.813.8134 1 Fax: 213.348.2258 445 Santa Ana Avenue I Newport Beach, CA 92663 CA3953 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:51 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: City Council Meeting 4/28/2020 regarding 215 Riverside Drive Project From: marcdido@aol.com <marcdido@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:31 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: City Council Meeting 4/28/2020 regarding 215 Riverside Drive Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. In would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Mary DiDomenico 609 Aldean Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:58 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: Gordon A <goadamsl3@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:57 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Gordon and Anne Adams 1800 Kings Rd Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:09 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Project From: Portia Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:09:03 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: 215 Riverside Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please protect the magnificent, rare Coast Oak, located adjacent to the proposed Garden Office and Parking structure at 215 Riverside. The adverse impact that the current project proposal presents, not only to this priceless tree but also to the sensitive habitat of the adjoining Avon Wetlands, is unacceptable to our community. There must be a plan to redevelop the parcel that will integrate well with the needs of the neighboring ecosystem and residents. The existing building and past tenants did not present any concerns to us neighbors over, at least, the last 25 years. Since this is a non-essential public hearing that the public is unable to physically attend, please reschedule this item to a later date when those of us whose daily lives will be impacted permanently may voice their concerns. Thank you for protecting the best interests of our community. Portia Weiss Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:09 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) From: Christine Sturgess <csturgess601@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:09 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Parking Structure Proposed at 215Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) [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, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. Sincerely, Christi Sturgess IGLOBAL LUXURY_ 10 CHRISTI STURG SS CaIBRE # 01526300 Global Luxury Specialist Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 100 Newport Beach , CA 92660 C.949.230.1441 christi.sturaessCcDcamoves.com www.coldwellbankerluxury.com www.coastallivingbydesign.com TO SEARCH ALL PROPERTIES IN NEWPORT BEACH SEARCH HERE 11 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:54 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: 215 Riverside rooftop parking From: Kayvon Goodarzy Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:52:59 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: 215 Riverside rooftop parking [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive, please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all the other parking decks constructed adjacent to residential property. It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof. This will leave a precedent and will allow many future developments to ask for open roof parking. This will impact the entire coast highway within Mariner's mile negatively and ruin property value and life quality. The fact that even the idea is entertained by City Planning is very puzzling. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Cordially, Kayvon Goodarzy (714) 305-9522 -Cell Kayvong@gmail.com Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:28 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 RIVERSIDE - LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL From: Hal Woods <hal@centerstone.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:27 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Aaron Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Stefanie M. Sitzer <ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Coralee Newman <cora@govsol.com>; EVC Management Services <evcmanagement@centerstone.com>; Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.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 Mr Mayor and members of the city council. My name is Hal Woods and I have resided at 2919 Cliff Drive, for 30 years, located directly above and adjacent to 215 Riverside. As I have stated many times in the past few weeks, I strongly believe in property rights. I am educated and trained as an architect and I am also a licensed general contractor. I am a developer and for the past 18 years have run a home building company. I am one of the original owners, and planned the development for the four homes that sit above 215 Riverside. I believe that property rights are a privilege and with that right comes a responsibility to be a good neighbor and care about your surrounding property owners who have the same rights. Our legal council has been working with Mr. Jabara's team non-stop for the past two weeks, trying to find common ground to resolve our differences. I believe that what we have before you this evening, is a compromise on both sides, that we can be very proud of. We all must coexist and acknowledge change is hard but inevitable. This building has been in a state of disrepair and in need of renovation for many years. Mr. Jabara's attention to detail, and quality construction will no doubt be continued on this project. Respect for neighboring residents with regard to quality of life and safety, are imperative. We all know there is a precedent being set here this evening, therefore, we must tread carefully. We must work together as a community to protect our standard of living. When blending mixed uses there is a fine balance that must be considered in seeking the right combination to protect both property rights and the well being of those who reside nearby. I would be happy to support the project if the following conditions of approval were added to staffs conditions before you this evening. 1. The North and West walls of the parking structure to be built with solid material, such as concrete or concrete block. With no openings toward the upper residence or the view park. This will help with both noise and exhaust fumes. 2. The parking structure is used only for parking cars and no other uses or gatherings would be allowed. Thank you for your time and hours of dedication and service to our great city. You are setting the bar for our quality of life, standards and values. Respectfully Hal Woods 11 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:41 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 RIVERSIDE - LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL From: Jack Staub <jstaub@criticalio.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:38 PM To: Hal Woods <hal@centerstone.com>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Aaron Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>; Stefanie M. Sitzer <ssitzer@sitzerlawgroup.com>; Charles Klobe <cklobe@me.com>; Coralee Newman <cora@govsol.com>; EVC Management Services <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, my primary residence is 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 High, and my son, who attends Carden Hall. I want 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; but you have the ability to make this situation right and balance everyone's interests. 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 had very limited use outside of normal office hours since I moved there in 2006; including when Nisei Restaurant was there. This parking structure is not consistent with the Planning Commission's prior approved structures in such 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 that 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, but that I am disappointed that the applicant would not agree to common sense. A solid roof over the entire upper parking structure is the only way to 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, not setting adverse precedent. Finally, the tree mentioned in Mr. Tanners report in on my property. If this 175 year old tree was killed due to the planned excavation then the community would be at enormous loss. I would feel horrible, as would each of you. And so 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 implore you to require changes to the project so it is compatible with the fact that my home is only 5 feet away, just as each of you would want if you lived there. Jack Staub Appellant 2911 Cliff Drive Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:42 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer, Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Return the 215 Riverside Project to the Planning Commission From: TOMLU BAKER Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:42:07 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Cc: TOMLU BAKER Subject: 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 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 a myriad of concerns and 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 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 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:27 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 215 Riverside Drive -----Original Message ----- From: Jerry Conrow <jconrowcpa@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:26 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: 215 Riverside Drive [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >April 29, 2020 >Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: >Regarding the proposed parking deck at 215 Riverside Drive. Please require a covered roof on the structure similar to all other parking decks previously constructed adjacent to residential property in Newport Beach. >It would not be fair to allow the project to proceed as proposed since the city council has previously required similar parking structures to have a solid roof in order to mitigate the potential for light and sound disturbances and protect and preserve the quality of life for adjacent residents. >Sincerely, >Jerry L. Conrow >501 Kings Place >Newport Beach