HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for The Garden Office and Parking Structure Proposed at 215 Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023) - Appellants' Attorney CorrespondenceMay 12, 2020
Agenda Item No. 21
From: Jurjis, Seimone
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: FW: Continued Public Hearing on Appeal Regarding 215 Riverside (Garden Office and Parking Structure)
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:56:04 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
image003.pnna
For item # 21
SEIMONE JURAS, P.E., C.B.O.
Community Development Department
Community Development Director
siuriis(a)newportbeachca. aov
949-644-3282
�lewport,
gether.
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Summerhill, Yolanda
<YSummerhill@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez,
Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; Hori,
Susan <SHori@manatt.com>
Subject: Continued Public Hearing on Appeal Regarding 215 Riverside (Garden Office and 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 Councilmembers,
We are legal counsel for Ernest Castro, Stefanie Sitzer Pilalas, Jack Staub, and Hal Woods (collectively
the "Appellants") with respect to their appeal ("Appeal") of the Planning Commission's granting of
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003 for the
proposed project located at 215 Riverside ("Proposed Project"). This email identifies Appellants'
requested project changes, beyond those proposed by the applicant, for consideration during the
May 12, 2020 continued public hearing on the Appeal.
Most fundamentally, the Appellants request that the City Council require the applicant to submit
revised project plans replacing the proposed trellis at the upper deck of the parking structure with a
solid roof with a minimum STC rating of 55, and solid side walls, over the entire surface area of the
parking structure. Since the proposed project does not presently include a roof there and the design
of a roof is critically important to protecting the Appellants' and the community's interests, the
Appellants request that the City Council direct the applicant to submit accordingly revised project
plans and table the pending public hearing until that has occurred so the Appellants and public may
comment on the proposed parking structure roof design before the City Council considers project
approval.
Assuming that an appropriate parking structure roof design is approved by the City Council following
a further public hearing, then the Appellants request that the City Council adopt the following
changes to the Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval:
61. DELETE.
62. DELETE.
63. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter or exit the parking structure from 11:00 p.m. through 6:00
a.m. seven (7) days a week.
64. DELETE.
65. Prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits, the City Arborist will review the project's
plans for conformity with applicable City regulations.
66. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant or Project Developer will retain a
licensed arborist to observe construction of the project to ensure compliance with Council Policy G-1
(Retention, Removal and Maintenance of City Trees) related to Special Trees and the City Arborist's
findings.
Please note that Conditions of Approval Nos. 61, 62, and 64 are resolved through requiring a roof
over the parking structure and thus may be eliminated.
Thank you again for your time and consideration of this important matter to the Appellants and the
community.
Best,
Aaron I Ehrlich i Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich(fterdingweil.com I Profile I vCard
WALNUT CREEK COSTA MESA SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Dieoo
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
www.berdinaweil.com I Linkedln I Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client
communications and attorney work product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is
prohibited.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 12, 2020
Item No. 21
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 7:15 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Public Hearing on Appeal Regarding 215 Riverside (Proposed Garden Parking
Structure and Office)
Attachments: Attachment A - Proposed Garden Office Project (215 Riverside) -- Appellants' Counter -
Demand to Resolve Pending Appeal.pdf; Attachment B - Letter to Mayor O'Neill re
Applicant's Response to 215 Riverside Appeal (April 27 2020).pdf, Attachment C - Letter
to Seimone Jurjis re Condition of Approval 63 (May 8 2020).pdf; Attachment D - Letter
to Mayor O'Neill and City Council re Response to Aaron Ehrlich (May 11 2020).pdf;
Attachment E - 215 Riverside Correspondence.pdf; Attachment F - Re 215 Riverside
Correspondence.pdf; Attachment G - Re 215 Riverside Correspondence.pdf
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Summerhill, Yolanda <YSummerhill@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis,
Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Ramirez, Gregg <G Ramirez@ newportbeachca.gov>; Nova, Makana
<MNova@newportbeachca.gov>; Hori, Susan <SHori@manatt.com>
Subject: Public Hearing on Appeal Regarding 215 Riverside (Proposed Garden Parking Structure and Office)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
We are legal counsel for Ernest Castro, Stefanie Sitzer Pilalas, Jack Staub, and Hal Woods (collectively the "Appellants")
with respect to their appeal ("Appeal") of the Planning Commission's granting of Coastal Development Permit No.
CD2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003 for the proposed project located at 215 Riverside ("Proposed
Project"). This email provides further clarification concerning Appellants' requested project changes in conjunction with
our email of May 7, 2020 for consideration during the May 12, 2020 continued public hearing on the Appeal and
responds to the applicant's actions and correspondence since our last email.
Appellants Support Mandating a Roof
The Appellants request that the City Council require the applicant to submit revised project plans replacing the proposed
trellis at the upper deck of the parking structure with a solid roof with a minimum STC rating of 55, and solid side walls,
over the entire surface area of the parking structure. A roof is the simply solution to resolve Appellants' concerns with
the proposed project and is consistent with other similarly situated parking structures approved by the City next to
residentially zoned areas.
The design of a roof is critically important to ensure the proposed project's impacts are properly mitigated for the
Appellants living next door. Since no roof design has been proposed, the Appellants request that the City Council direct
the applicant to submit plans containing a roof for the parking structure and then hold a public hearing so Appellants
and the community can provide feedback on the proposed design before the proposed project is approved.
If an appropriate design is approved by the City Council after the Appellants have provided feedback on it, then several
of the Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval can be eliminated, though certain additional Conditions are still
needed, as follows:
61. DELETE.
62. DELETE.
63. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter or exit the parking structure from 11:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. seven (7) days
a week.
64. DELETE.
65. Prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits, the City Arborist will review the project's plans for
conformity with applicable City regulations.
66. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant or Project Developer will retain a licensed arborist to
observe construction of the project to ensure compliance with Council Policy G-1 (Retention, Removal and Maintenance
of City Trees) related to Special Trees and the City Arborist's findings.
Full Trellis Covered with Vines Compromise
Appellants again thank the Mayor and the City Attorney for helping facilitate negotiations between the Appellants and
the applicant concerning the Appeal. As a good faith effort to resolve the Appeal, Appellants proposed a very reasonable
compromise in advance of the City Council's April 28, 2020 public hearing concerning this matter, a copy of which is
attached hereto as "Attachment A". That compromise called for, in part, an extension of the limited trellis on the upper
level of the parking structure to cover the full surface area with foliated vines on top of the trellis to create a green,
landscape covering. Certain operational standards were also specified to reasonably mitigate the negative impacts of the
proposed project on the neighbors. The applicant rejected Appellants' compromise on April 27, 2020, forcing the public
hearing to proceed the next day. No reasonable justification has been provided by the applicant for rejecting the
proposed compromise.
While Appellants' position continues to be that the City Council should require a roof over the parking structure,
consistent with other parking structures requiring a Conditional Use Permit, if the City Council utilizes its discretion to
impose a full trellis covering over the parking structure instead of a roof, Appellants believe the following language is
appropriate to change the Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval to ensure that the parking structure's negative
impacts on the neighbors are reasonably mitigated—requiring a full trellis alone is not enough:
61. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project plans shall modified to extend the proposed trellis at the upper
deck of the parking structure across all of surface area. The trellis will be completely foliated with vines and other
organic material to provide a green, landscape covering to help reduce noise and light spillage. Prior to submission of
the revised Project plans to the City, the Project Applicant or Project Developer shall meet with the public, including the
appellants, to review the materials board for the trellis structures and the plants being considered for the trellis
structures (i.e., the types of vines) to ensure the materials and plants are appropriate to completely foliate the trellis
structure on the upper level of the parking structure.
62. Exterior lighting shall be limited to the minimum level required for site security after 10:15 p.m., seven (7) days a
week, on the upper deck of the parking structure.
63. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter or exit the upper level of the parking structure from 10:00 p.m. through 6:00
a.m., seven (7) days a week.
64. DELETE.
NOTE: There is no need for a 6 month review before the Planning Commission with these revised conditions.
65. Prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits, the City's Arborist will review the Project's plans for
conformity with applicable City regulations.
66. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant or Project Developer will retain a licensed arborist to
observe construction of the Project and to ensure compliance with the Council Policy G-1 (Retention, Removal and
Maintenance of City Trees) relating to Special Trees and the City Arborist's findings.
67. Motorcycles shall be barred from entering and utilizing the upper level of the parking structure.
68. Only one vehicle shall be permitted to enter and utilize the upper level of the parking structure for each parking
space thereon.
69. The upper level of the parking structure shall only be used for vehicular parking purposes.
Applicant's Rescinded Prosect "Concessions" Since April 28, 2020 Hearing
On April 27, 2020, the applicant sent the letter attached hereto as "Attachment B" to the City Council committing to
project concessions, including, in part, "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
commitment 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 10:15 p.m.
seven (7) days a week."
Contrary to the applicant's written commitments to the City Council in its April 27, 2020 letter, the applicant sent the
letter attached hereto as "Attachment C" to the City's Director of Community Development on May 8, 2020 rescinding
the project concessions it agreed to on April 27, 2020—we note that the applicant did not copy our office on this
communication or any of its other communications with the City, a practice we find highly disturbing and consistent with
the applicant's attempt to play by their own rules ignoring public participation. Specifically, the applicant no longer
agreed to stop all vehicles from entering and exiting the upper level at 10 pm daily and instead now only agrees to stop
all vehicles from entering, but not exiting, the upper level at 10 pm daily.
This critical change has broad significance. First, the applicant already committed in writing to this condition of approval.
Rescinding its agreement to this condition at the last moment demonstrates bad faith and appears to be the applicant's
attempted retribution for the Appellants' request that the City Council require a roof over the parking structure. Second,
watering down this condition to be limited to vehicles entering the structure renders the condition meaningless since
vehicles can operate 24/7 on the upper level of the parking structure under the auspicious of "exiting." More practically,
the applicant has provided no explanation or mechanism for how it would potentially limit vehicles from entering, but
not exiting, the upper level after 10 pm. Staff indicated during the Planning Commission's public hearing on the
proposed project that a gate or other automated/mechanized barrier system can be used for the parking structure due
to inadequate queuing space and thus that a chain would need to be used to block entry and exiting to the structure.
That functional limitation means that there is no practical way to potentially limit vehicles to exiting, but not entering,
the structure after 10 pm, causing this proposed condition to be meaningless and in no manner mitigating the
foreseeable negative impacts of the structure on the neighbors.
Appellants are also concerned that the Staff Report for tomorrow's hearing omits this critical change. The Staff Report at
page 2 indicates in relevant part that: "At the April 28, 2020 meeting, the applicant agreed to additional and/or revised
conditions of approval for the project in order to address concerns raised by the applicants. For City Council's
consideration to include the attached resolution are the following proposed revised conditions:
63. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the upper level of the parking structure from 11:00 p.m.10:00 p.m. through
6:00 a.m., seven (7) days4y a week."
This statement is incorrect. The applicant at the April 28, 2020 meeting agreed that the above condition applied to
vehicles entering and exiting the upper level of the parking structure, consistent with the applicant's April 27, 2020
letter. Not until May 8, 2020 did the applicant change its position to limit this condition to only vehicles entering the
upper level of the parking structure. The Staff Report's misrepresentation of the conditions the applicant agreed to at
the April 28, 2020 meeting and wholesale failure to note that the applicant withdraw its written agreement to Condition
No. 63 is thoroughly disappointing and requires correction through a revised Staff Report and notation during its
presentation tomorrow.
Response to Applicant's Letter of Todav
Staff forwarded us a further letter from the applicant attached hereto as "Attachment D" which was emailed today
responding to our email of May 7, 2020 to the City Council—the applicant, yet again, refused to copy us on its
correspondence, though we have copied the applicant's counsel on all correspondence we have sent to the City Council.
That letter argues against requiring a roof on the parking structure because the applicant contends it is not need to
mitigate impacts on the Appellants and also contains materially misleading claims concerning the negotiations to date.
The letter asserts that a roof is not required to minimize noise or light spillage because the anticipated noise has been
modeled to not exceed City noise levels and the parking structure is more favorable to the existing conditions. Neither of
this arguments have merit. As set forth in the Appeal, the noise modelling paid for by the applicant is fatally flawed by
using a dissimilar project as a comparable baseline—the study used a parking lot of an office building in Lake Forest as a
comparison, but that is not what is sought to be built here so the baseline used for the noise study is artificially lower
than what should be reasonably anticipated here (e.g., this is a parking structure with an accessory office use unlike the
dedicated office building with an accessory parking in Lake Forest and this parking structure is proposed to be used 24/7
unlike the Lake Forest parking lot that was only used during normal, weekday business hours).
Moreover, justifying that noise will not be a problem because the proposed project has been modeled to comply with
the City's bare minimum is contrary to the very reason the proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit. Zoning
Code Section 20.40.070(6)(3) provides: "Parking Structures. When adjacent to a residential zoning district, the
development of structured parking, including rooftop parking, shall require the approval of a conditional use permit to
address potential impacts to adjacent residential uses." If meeting the bare minimum was acceptable then a conditional
use permit would not be required so that the use is conditioned "to address potential impacts to adjacent residential
uses." Given the incredibly close proximity between the parking structure and the Appellants' homes, using the bare
minimum is unacceptable and belies the purpose of the required conditional use permit. Also, the project would have to
be redesigned anyways if it could not comply with the City's minimum noise levels so this argument is circular and
meaningless.
The assertion that the proposed project reduces impacts versus the existing conditions is a red -herring and incorrect.
The City Council is required "to address potential impacts to adjacent residential uses" regardless of what existing
conditions may be since the existing conditions are irrelevant to the impacts the proposed project will have upon
adjacent residential uses. Even if the proposed project improved the existing condition, which it does not, that still
would not have any relevance whatsoever to required findings supporting a condition use permit. Naturally, the
Appellants disagree that the proposed project will lessen impacts. The reasons for which include: (a) the applicant is
substantially increasing the number of parking spaces adjacent to their homes versus the existing condition; and (b) the
existing, lesser number of parking spaces near their homes are used only during normal business hours on weekdays,
whereas the applicant intends to rent out the parking structures' spaces to third parties for 24/7 use (e.g., Hornblower
patron parking) so the use will be radically changing and causing negative impacts during sensitive times like late at
night.
Also critical to note that that the purported buffering of the parking structures relied upon by the applicant to allegedly
reduce noise and light spillage consists of trees and other vegetation on the slope between the parking structure and the
Appellants' homes. Those trees and other vegetative improvements violate the Appellants' view rights set forth in the
previously provided easements. Mr. Jabara represented to the Planning Commission that his project will comply with the
Appellants' easement rights. Though we have noted at least three violations of those rights (i.e., building height in
violation of maximum, trees and vegetation height in violation of maximum, and physical encroachments of structure
into exclusive use areas of the slope), the applicant has only resolve the building height issue to date. Since the proposed
project continues to violate the Appellants' easement rights, the applicant cannot rely upon improvements that can
never be built to attempt to justify setting a new precedent by not having a roof over its proposed parking structure
adjacent to residential uses.
The applicant's portrayal of the Appellants being a moving target is also spurious. We have attached the proposed
compromise shared with the applicant on April 24, 2020. The applicant chose not to agree to that compromise, which
has not changed since shared. The false narrative of Appellants changing its position is a ploy to obfuscate the
applicant's rejection of the compromise to maintain a cheaper project. Appellants expressly noted that it would request
a roof from the City Council if the applicant rejected the proposed compromise. Appellants have acted 100%
consistently with that and instead Appellants, and the community, have been victimized by the applicant playing by their
own rules. Appellants did not know that the applicant had submitted last minute, revised project plans until they
learned through the Staff Report before the April 14, 2020 hearing since the applicant refused to copy Appellants on its
revised submission. As discussed above, on Friday the applicant rescinded a critical condition of approval is agreed to in
writing to the City Council, which Appellants did not know until Staff forwarded that letter since the applicant refused to
copy to copy Appellants on its letter. As further discussed below, we learned for the first time today at 4:42 pm through
Staff that the applicant submitted last minute, revised project plans yet again since the applicant refused to copy
Appellants on its revised submission. The record of being a moving target, in order to actively subvert public
participation in the discretionary project hearings, resides solely with the applicant.
Even Further Proiect Changes
Appellants are highly disturbed to have received the email attached hereto as "Attachment E" from Staff today at 4:42
pm containing further revised project plans submitted by the applicant on May 8, 2020 at 11:25 am—the relevant
excerpts of the attachments to this email have also been included in "Attachment E" hereto. Appellants did not learn
about the further revised project plans until Staff's email of 4:42 pm today since the applicant yet again refused to copy
Appellants on its correspondence with the City. It appears that Staff forwarded the revised plans to the City Council on
May 8, 2020, the same day it received them, yet did not apprise Appellants that the revised plans had been submitted,
or provided a copy of those plans, for seventy seven (77) hours after receiving them from the applicant—see a copy of
Staff's May 8, 2020 memo to the City Council, provided by email from Staff to Appellants minutes ago, attached hereto
as "Attachment P.
As outlined above, this is the second time that the applicant has submitted last minute project changes without notifying
Appellants. Twenty six (26) hours before the public hearing on this matter, Appellants have been made aware of project
changes, including a new parking structure envelope, materially hindering their ability to prepare for the public hearing.
It also does not appear that the project changes are reflected in the Staff Report or that the revised project plans have
been posted to the City's website. Simply put, the community has no idea about these changes and may not learn of
them until the hearing itself. Inquiries about issues have not been substantively addressed by Staff—see email thread
concerning the same attached hereto as "Attachment G".
This practice of last minute project changes by the applicant without any notice to the Appellants is reprehensible and
justifies a further continuance of the public hearing. The applicant has, and continues to, purposefully manipulate this
process to quash public participation and deny Appellants a fair hearing consistent with their Constitutional rights. The
City Council should not reward this behavior violating the public trust, thereby setting a precedent for other applicants
to similarly manipulate the public hearing process to minimize community involvement.
Thank you again for your time and consideration of this important matter to the Appellants and the community.
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich I Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingweil.com I Profile I vCard
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
www.berdingweil.com I Linkedin I Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
6
Aaron I Ehrlich
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:31 PM
To: 'Hori, Susan'
Subject: Proposed Garden Office Project (215 Riverside) -- Appellants' Counter -Demand to
Resolve Pending Appeal
Dear Ms. Hori,
Thank you for forwarding Scott Laidlaw's renderings of the proposed project with the additional trellis structure and
vines over the trellis structures added consistent with the applicant's last counter-offer. The appellants have reviewed
the same and do not believe those additions will adequately reduce noise and light disturbances since there will be a
large gap between the structures for the portion of the upper parking level without parking spaces, leaving the driving
lanes and other non -parking space areas exposed to the appellants' residences. Moreover, several appellants strongly
believe that a roof structure over the upper parking level should be required given the close proximity to single family
homes and community standards established by the City's approval of similar projects. We understand that is a common
opinion shared by many community members interested in the proposed project and will likely be the appellants'
position should the appeal not be voluntarily resolved. In a continuing good faith attempt to resolve the appeal, and to
reach terms the appellants believe will be more agreeable to both the City Council and the community, appellants
provide the following counter -demand to the applicant:
The addition of the following provisions as further conditions of approval for the proposed project:
1. The trellis on the upper level of the parking structure will be extended to cover all surface area;
2. The trellis on the upper level of the parking structure will be completely foliated with vines and other organic
materials to provide a green, landscape covering that will help to further reduce noise and light spillage;
3. All vehicles will stop entering and exiting the parking structure at 10 pm every day of the week (Sunday through
Saturday);
4. Lighting on the upper level of the parking structure will be reduced to the minimum level required for surface parking
security at 10:15 pm every day of the week (Sunday through Saturday);
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; and
7. Motorcycles will be barred from entering and utilizing the parking structure.
Further, the following provisions will be memorialized between the Project Applicant/Developer and appellants through
a Memorandum of Understanding:
1. The Project Applicant will meet with the appellants to review the materials board for the trellis structures and the
plants being considered for the trellis structures (i.e., the types of vines) to ensure the materials and plants are
appropriate to completely foliate the trellis structure on the upper level of the parking structure; and
2. The Project Applicant or Project Developer will designate an individual to promptly respond to the appellants and
address compliance with the agreed upon operational standards.
We look forward to your favorable reply.
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich rPartner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingweil.com Profile vCard
www.berdingweil.com ( Linkedln ( Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
2
SAN DIEGO
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
www.berdingweil.com ( Linkedln ( Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
2
manatt
April 27, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92658
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 Councilmembers:
This letter is sent on behalf of Laidlaw Schultz Architects ("Applicant'), the applicant for
a coastal development permit ('CDP') and conditional use permit ('CUP') to develop a 2,744
office structure and 41 parking spaces ("Project"), and 215 Riverside, LLC ("Owner'), the owner
of the property on which the Project will be implemented. The 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 Commercial 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'Neill and City Councilmembers
April 27, 2020
Page 2
1. The Applicant Voluntarily Reduced the Building Height from 32 feet to
28 feet inches.
Since Planning Commission approval of 215 Riverside, the Applicant voluntarily reduced
the height of the structure from 32 feet (which is permitted 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 number of
demands including extending the trellis proposed over the parking spaces facing Avon Street to
all uncovered parking spaces, and limiting the hours and lighting of the upper level of parking.
Discussed below are all of the new conditions that the 215 Riverside Applicant would
agree to implement 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
the 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 further minimize 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 under 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 following new condition.
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.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
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 commitment 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 10:15 p.m. seven (7) days a week.
C. Compliance with City Council Policy G-1 Regarding City Trees.
Lastly, although neither City staff nor the Planning Commission 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 wig 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:
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 -I regarding City Special Trees and the City A rborist's findings during
the construction of the 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 Proiect Has No Impact On Any Oak Trees.
We understand that the City has received comments about whether the project will
impact 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 entirely 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 Coimcilmembers
April 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 farther 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:
1. 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 level 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, it 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 will not impose a ban on
motorcycles.
5. Conclusion.
In conclusion, although 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 six
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 Connnission approval, deny the
appeal, and approve the 215 Riverside project.
Very truly yours,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Swy4wv K. HO-ri'
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
manatt
May 8, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Seimone Jurjis
Director of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92658
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, May 12, 2020; Appeal of Coastal
Development Permit No. CDP 2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit 2019-
003
Dear Mr. Jud is:
At the City Council hearing of April 28, 2020, the City staff presented six revised and
new conditions of approval that the Applicant, Laidlaw Schultz Architects ("Applicant"), had
worked on with the appellant as part of the exploration of a resolution of the appellants'
concerns. During the appellants' presentation, their attorney stated that the appellants were not
in agreement with any of the six conditions.
One of the conditions was a revision to Condition 62 that was added by the Planning
Commission at the October 17, 2019 hearing. As originally adopted by the Planning
Commission, Condition 62 limited entry to the upper level of the parking structure after 11 p.m.
The appellants had requested that that the upper level be closed at 9 p.m. to both entry and exit.
As a compromise, the Applicant agreed to closure of the upper level at 10 p.m. as part of a
package of conditions to achieve resolution of the appeal. Although these conditions did not
result in a resolution of the appeal, the Applicant remains willing to have these conditions added
— subject to the requested modification below - if the City Council approves the 215 Riverside
project.
Limiting the Upper Parking Level Hours of Entry Only
Planning Commission Condition of Approval 62 required the following:
62. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the upper level of the parking structure 11
p.m. through 6 a.m. daily.
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
Seimone Jurjis, Director of Community Development
May 8, 2020
Page 2
As a compromise to appellants concerns, the Applicant agreed to limit use of the upper
level of the parking structure to 10 p.m. and that the time limit would apply to both entry and exit
from the upper level.
Given the difficulties of implementation and enforcement, the Applicant requests that the
wording of Condition 62, which was re -numbered as Condition 63 in Staff's presentation, remain
the same as adopted by the Planning Commission, but with the closure hour changed to 10 p.m.
As modified Condition 63 would read:
63. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the upper level of the parking structure
10 p.m. through 6 a.m. daily.
While the Applicant can prevent vehicles from entering, if a car owner does not return to
pick up their car before 10 p.m., enforcement of the rule would require the Applicant to either
tow the vehicle which would cause more disruption, or impose some gating mechanism which is
not proposed for this project.
With the exception of this request to return to the wording of this condition as adopted by
the Planning Commission, the Applicant will agree to accept the other six conditions presented
by the City staff at the April 28, 2020 hearing.
In conclusion, we urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission approval,
deny the appeal, and approve the 215 Riverside project with Condition of Approval 63 as
modified.
Very truly yours,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Swsa,w K. Ho -rt'/
Susan K. Hori
cc: Mayor O'Neill and the City Council
Gregg Ramirez
James Campbell
Makana Nova
Yolanda Summerhill, Esq.
Aaron Harp, Esq.
Scott Laidlaw
326240486.1
manatt
May 11, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Will O'Neill and Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Susan K. Hori
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371-2528
shori@manatt.com
C I lent -M atter: 63060-030
Re: 215 Riverside - City Council Hearing, May 12, 2020, Agenda Item 21;
Response to Aaron Ehrlich Email dated May 7, 2020
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the City Council:
This letter responds to the May 7, 2020, email that was sent to the City Council, City staff
and legal counsel for 215 Riverside applicant, Laidlaw Schultz Architects ("Applicant"), by
counsel for the appellants, Aaron Ehrlich, requesting yet another hearing continuance of the
appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of this project. The Applicant has been waiting
since November, 2019, for this appeal to be heard by the City Council and hopes that the City
Council will proceed to hold a hearing and render a decision at the May 12, 2020 City Council
hearing.
Mr. Ehrlich has requested that my client re -design the project and submit revised plans
that incorporate "a solid roof with a minimum STC rating of 55, and solid side walls, over the
entire surface area of the parking structure." The appellants also requested that the Council
postpone its hearing on this project until revised plans are submitted and an opportunity for the
public to review and comment said plans are provided. The Applicant opposes yet another
postponement of this appeal in the hopes of attempting to satisfy the appellants. As described in
greater detail below, since the April 14, 2020, City Council hearing, the Applicant has been
working with the appellants to satisfy its concerns. Yet every time we believe we have reached a
compromise, the appellants add additional conditions and move the goal line. We cannot
continue negotiations with a party that changes its demands every time we are close to reaching
agreement. For these reasons, we request the Council to deny the request for a continuance and
to proceed to hold a hearing on the appeal on May 12, 2020.
As the staff report recounts, this project was approved on October 17, 2019, by your
Planning Commission. On October 31, 2019, the appellants filed an appeal. It was the
Applicant's understanding that in order to prepare the staff report and agendize the appeal for a
City Council hearing, we should expect the appeal to be heard at the second Council hearing in
January, 2020. Since that time, the hearing has been postponed six times. Three postponements
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and Councilmembers
May 11, 2020
Page 2
were due to the appellants' attorney's schedule conflicts, and one due to his inability to travel in
light of the Bay Area COVID-19 orders. At the April 14, 2020, hearing, both the Applicant and
appellants agreed to continue the hearing until April 28 to see if a resolution could be achieved to
address the concerns of the appellants regarding noise and light spillage. The appellants
originally requested a trellis be extended over all parking spaces which has now evolved into a
roof with solid surrounding walls.
Given both design and location, a roof is not required to minimize either noise or light
spillage because:
• the 215 Riverside project does not generate any noise that exceeds the City
standards for day and nighttime noise levels as confirmed by noise studies, and
• the 215 Riverside project lowers the elevation of the parking lot, increases the
distance between the parking spaces and the adjacent houses, and reduces the
number of parking spaces visible to the appellants as compared to existing
conditions thus minimizing light spillage.
Even though there are no significant noise and light spillage impacts, the Applicant
agreed during the negotiations to construct a trellis over all parking spaces, agreed to heavily
foliate with vines those trellises, and agreed to limit the hours of use of the upper parking level to
address the appellants' concerns of light spillage and noise. In addition, prior to the April 28'
hearing, we worked with the appellants' attorney to address their remaining concerns including
providing appropriate protective measures for adjacent trees.
In response to our willingness to reach a compromise, the appellants changed their
conditions and requested three new and/or modified conditions, which then expanded to six new
conditions during Mr. Ehrlich's presentation at the April 28, 2020, Council hearing. And which,
based upon the May 7th communication, has once again changed.
My client has been more than willing to work with the appellants to provide a well-
designed project that will be enhance the appearance of the property through reducing the size of
the building, not exceeding the existing developed footprint of the site, lowering the elevation of
the parking as compared to existing conditions, increase the distance between the parking and the
appellants homes, and providing additional landscaping both on and adjacent to the project. The
proposed project will be far less impactful on the community than re -tenanting the existing
building and using the existing, uncovered parking lot.
rlff-�Vp lipRM
Mayor Will O'Neill and Councilmembers
May 11, 2020
Page 3
In conclusion, we ask the Council to move forward with the scheduled May 12, 2020,
hearing and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the 215 Riverside project.
Very truly yours,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Suwycui, K. Ho-rb
Susan K. Hori
cc: Seimone Jurjis
Gregg Ramirez
James Campbell
Makana Nova
Yolanda Summerhill, Esq.
Aaron Harp, Esq.
Scott Laidlaw
326256109.1
Aaron J. Ehrlich
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich
Subject: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Attachments: 215 Riverside_email.pdf, 215 Riverside -A.100 reduced.pdf; 215 Riverside -A.200
reduced.pdf, 215 Riverside -A.201 reduced.pdf; 215 Riverside -A.202 reduced.pdf, Letter
to Mayor O'Neill and City Council re Response to Aaron Ehrlich (May 11 2020).pdf;
Letter to Seimone Jurjis re Condition of Approval 63 (May 8 2020) (1).pdf
Hello Aaron,
I wanted to pass along the attached that was received from the applicant.
Regards,
G regg
From:
slaidlawCa)lsarchitects.com
To:
Ramirez, Gregg; Nova, Makana
Cc:
Judis Seimone
Subject:
215 Riverside
Date:
Friday, May 8, 2020 11:25:48 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good Morning Gregg,
I wanted to provide you with revised site and floor plans for our upcoming hearing next week. These
plans show the addition of the trellis along the back side of the parking. While the location of parking
and distance from the neighbors of the parking has not changed and always been a minimum of 11',
I was able to modify the north west corner of the parking to eliminate any encroachment into the
hillside beyond what already exists. This provides a minimum 10' setback to the structure and
maintains the minimum 11' setback to the parking in this location.
I would also like to point out something which I believe is important in describing the "structure" and
significantly distinguishes it from other or future above grade structures. While we have two levels
of parking this is a one story structure, in fact the lower level parking meets the building code
definition of a basement due to the manner in which we slope down into it and the way it is cut into
the hillside (50% of perimeter of roof structure above less than 6' above adjacent grade and no part
of the roof above more than 12' above grade). I believe it is more appropriate to describe the
parking as one level of basement parking with one level of on or above grade parking.
Scott Laidlaw
I—<-1r'e_-I -Iitc c: t
L" A" d!p l Ir1.1
31 1 1 Second Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 7:949.645.9982 F:949.645.9554 W:LSarchifects.com
;;
T
rY,
Igo
01
T
rY,
T
U6
l
Al111
o
AA
1
CD
'LL4
V)
A 0 111
u
C, i
f 3
OV;9
7 R
Aaron J. Ehrlich
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:33 PM
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone; Summerhill, Yolanda
Subject: Re: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Attachments: 21 - Appellants' Attorney Correspondence.pdf, 21 - Correspondence v.2.pdf; 21 - Staff
Memo and Applicant COA 63 (1).pdf
Hello,
I have attached the additional items here for your use.
G regg
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:02 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: 215 Riverside Correspondence
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Gregg,
Can you please direct me to where the information is posted online? Following the links in the online agenda, I don't see
it noted anywhere in the Staff Report that further revised plans were submitted by the applicant and it looks to me that
the Attachment H (Project Plans) is the old plans. I also don't see Scott Laidlaw's submission in the "Correspondence"
linked through the agenda. Simply put, I don't see this anywhere online and we are highly concerned about the
appellants being provided notice of new project plans 26 hours before the hearing (not 24 hours as noted below) when
the City received them last Friday and there being no identification that the public has been made aware of these
changes whatsoever. I certainly hope I'm mistaken.
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingwe0.com Profile vCard
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
www berdingweil.com Linkedln Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:30 PM
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Subject: Re: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Aaron,
This additional information was sent to the Council and has been posted on the agenda website. Staff will
mention the revision to the plan and the applicants will as well. Please note that the Council meeting is
starting early, at 4pm. As a result, the public hearing is scheduled to begin at 7pm.
Regards,
Gregg
Click here to view the Regular Meeting agenda packet.
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:01 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: 215 Riverside Correspondence
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks Gregg, though I'm very concerned about learning of a significant project change 24 hours before a public
hearing. How is this going to be addressed with the City Council?
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingweil com Profile vCard
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
2
www berdingweil com Lmkedln Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Subject: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Hello Aaron,
I wanted to pass along the attached that was received from the applicant.
Regards,
G regg
11:9 WCr_ T-,0 111111 o
To: City Council
From: Gregg Ramirez, Principal Planner
Date: May 8, 2020
�jlj tc
iYri'.
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Re: Agenda Item No. 21 — The Garden Office and Parking Structure at 215
Riverside Avenue (PA2019-023)
Attached is correspondence from the applicant regarding proposed condition of
approval No. 63. Additionally, the applicant has submitted revised project plans
and a description of the revisions which are also attached.
manatt
May 8, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Seimone Jurjis
Director of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Susan K. Hori
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371-2528
shori@manatt.com
CI fent-Matter: 63060-030
Re: 215 Riverside - City Council Hearing, May 12, 2020; Appeal of Coastal
Development Permit No. CDP 2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit 2019-
003
Dear Mr. Jud is:
At the City Council hearing of April 28, 2020, the City staff presented six revised and
new conditions of approval that the Applicant, Laidlaw Schultz Architects ("Applicant"), had
worked on with the appellant as part of the exploration of a resolution of the appellants'
concerns. During the appellants' presentation, their attorney stated that the appellants were not
in agreement with any of the six conditions.
One of the conditions was a revision to Condition 62 that was added by the Planning
Commission at the October 17, 2019 hearing. As originally adopted by the Planning
Commission, Condition 62 limited entry to the upper level of the parking structure after 11 p.m.
The appellants had requested that that the upper level be closed at 9 p.m. to both entry and exit.
As a compromise, the Applicant agreed to closure of the upper level at 10 p.m. as part of a
package of conditions to achieve resolution of the appeal. Although these conditions did not
result in a resolution of the appeal, the Applicant remains willing to have these conditions added
— subject to the requested modification below - if the City Council approves the 215 Riverside
project.
Limiting the Upper Parking Level Hours of Entry Only
Planning Commission Condition of Approval 62 required the following:
62. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the upper level of the parking structure 11
p.m. through 6 a.m. daily.
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
Seimone Jurjis, Director of Community Development
May 8, 2020
Page 2
As a compromise to appellants concerns, the Applicant agreed to limit use of the upper
level of the parking structure to 10 p.m. and that the time limit would apply to both entry and exit
from the upper level.
Given the difficulties of implementation and enforcement, the Applicant requests that the
wording of Condition 62, which was re -numbered as Condition 63 in Staff's presentation, remain
the same as adopted by the Planning Commission, but with the closure hour changed to 10 p.m.
As modified Condition 63 would read:
63. Vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the upper level of the parking structure
10 p.m. through 6 a.m. daily.
While the Applicant can prevent vehicles from entering, if a car owner does not return to
pick up their car before 10 p.m., enforcement of the rule would require the Applicant to either
tow the vehicle which would cause more disruption, or impose some gating mechanism which is
not proposed for this project.
With the exception of this request to return to the wording of this condition as adopted by
the Planning Commission, the Applicant will agree to accept the other six conditions presented
by the City staff at the April 28, 2020 hearing.
In conclusion, we urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission approval,
deny the appeal, and approve the 215 Riverside project with Condition of Approval 63 as
modified.
Very truly yours,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Sv4zLi-, K. Ho-riv
Susan K. Hori
cc: Mayor O'Neill and the City Council
Gregg Ramirez
James Campbell
Makana Nova
Yolanda Summerhill, Esq.
Aaron Harp, Esq.
Scott Laidlaw
326240486.1
From:
slaidlawOlsarchitects.com
To:
Ramirez, Gregg; Nova, Makana
Cc:
Judis, Seimone
Subject:
215 Riverside
Date:
Friday, May 8, 2020 11:25:48 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good Morning Gregg,
I wanted to provide you with revised site and floor plans for our upcoming hearing next week. These
plans show the addition of the trellis along the back side of the parking. While the location of parking
and distance from the neighbors of the parking has not changed and always been a minimum of 11',
I was able to modify the north west corner of the parking to eliminate any encroachment into the
hillside beyond what already exists. This provides a minimum 10' setback to the structure and
maintains the minimum 11' setback to the parking in this location.
I would also like to point out something which I believe is important in describing the "structure" and
significantly distinguishes it from other or future above grade structures. While we have two levels
of parking this is a one story structure, in fact the lower level parking meets the building code
definition of a basement due to the manner in which we slope down into it and the way it is cut into
the hillside (50% of perimeter of roof structure above less than 6' above adjacent grade and no part
of the roof above more than 12' above grade). I believe it is more appropriate to describe the
parking as one level of basement parking with one level of on or above grade parking.
Scott Laidlaw
LS . F( (7114
31 1 1 Second Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 T:949.645.9982 F:949.645.9554 W:LSarchitects.com
C = 1. :ass
U0
. .4 . . . . . . . .
j j_
- - - - - - - - - - -
'"v apl.OAI$ I
T-tml
vcoetr1lZE
q: i
. .4 . . . . . . . .
j j_
- - - - - - - - - - -
I
ID
O
I
T-,
- ---------
fr
6`1
°A
lop.
T-,
I
CN J
c
mid
\{� /� \� \\
�
IfM 'T
Inn
4z i8b H.,
I
CN J
c
mid
I
manatt
May 11, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Will O'Neill and Councilmembers
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
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, May 12, 2020, Agenda Item 21;
Response to Aaron Ehrlich Email dated May 7, 2020
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Members of the City Council:
This letter responds to the May 7, 2020, email that was sent to the City Council, City staff
and legal counsel for 215 Riverside applicant, Laidlaw Schultz Architects ("Applicant"), by
counsel for the appellants, Aaron Ehrlich, requesting yet another hearing continuance of the
appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of this project. The Applicant has been waiting
since November, 2019, for this appeal to be heard by the City Council and hopes that the City
Council will proceed to hold a hearing and render a decision at the May 12, 2020 City Council
hearing.
Mr. Ehrlich has requested that my client re -design the project and submit revised plans
that incorporate "a solid roof with a minimum STC rating of 55, and solid side walls, over the
entire surface area of the parking structure." The appellants also requested that the Council
postpone its hearing on this project until revised plans are submitted and an opportunity for the
public to review and comment said plans are provided. The Applicant opposes yet another
postponement of this appeal in the hopes of attempting to satisfy the appellants. As described in
greater detail below, since the April 14, 2020, City Council hearing, the Applicant has been
working with the appellants to satisfy its concerns. Yet every time we believe we have reached a
compromise, the appellants add additional conditions and move the goal line. We cannot
continue negotiations with a party that changes its demands every time we are close to reaching
agreement. For these reasons, we request the Council to deny the request for a continuance and
to proceed to hold a hearing on the appeal on May 12, 2020.
As the staff report recounts, this project was approved on October 17, 2019, by your
Planning Commission. On October 31, 2019, the appellants fled an appeal. It was the
Applicant's understanding that in order to prepare the staff report and agendize the appeal for a
City Council hearing, we should expect the appeal to be heard at the second Council hearing in
January, 2020. Since that time, the hearing has been postponed six times. Three postponements
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and Councilmembers
May 11, 2020
Page 2
were due to the appellants' attorney's schedule conflicts, and one due to his inability to travel in
light of the Bay Area COVID-19 orders. At the April 14, 2020, hearing, both the Applicant and
appellants agreed to continue the hearing until April 28 to see if a resolution could be achieved to
address the concerns of the appellants regarding noise and light spillage. The appellants
originally requested a trellis be extended over all parking spaces which has now evolved into a
roof with solid surrounding walls.
Given both design and location, a roof is not required to minimize either noise or light
spillage because:
• the 215 Riverside project does not generate any noise that exceeds the City
standards for day and nighttime noise levels as confirmed by noise studies, and
• the 215 Riverside project lowers the elevation of the parking lot, increases the
distance between the parking spaces and the adjacent houses, and reduces the
number of parking spaces visible to the appellants as compared to existing
conditions thus minimizing light spillage.
Even though there are no significant noise and light spillage impacts, the Applicant
agreed during the negotiations to construct a trellis over all parking spaces, agreed to heavily
foliate with vines those trellises, and agreed to limit the hours of use of the upper parking level to
address the appellants' concerns of light spillage and noise. In addition, prior to the April 28th
hearing, we worked with the appellants' attorney to address their remaining concerns including
providing appropriate protective measures for adjacent trees.
In response to our willingness to reach a compromise, the appellants changed their
conditions and requested three new and/or modified conditions, which then expanded to six new
conditions during Mr. Ehrlich's presentation at the April 28, 2020, Council hearing. And which,
based upon the May 7" communication, has once again changed.
My client has been more than willing to work with the appellants to provide a well-
designed project that will be enhance the appearance of the property through reducing the size of
the building, not exceeding the existing developed footprint of the site, lowering the elevation of
the parking as compared to existing conditions, increase the distance between the parking and the
appellants homes, and providing additional landscaping both on and adjacent to the project. The
proposed project will be far less impactful on the community than re -tenanting the existing
building and using the existing, uncovered parking lot.
manatt
Mayor Will O'Neill and Councilmembers
May 11, 2020
Page 3
In conclusion, we ask the Council to move forward with the scheduled May 12, 2020,
hearing and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the 215 Riverside project.
Very truly yours,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
S&t5a411L, K. HOVEL
Susan K. Hori
cc: Seimone Jurjis
Gregg Ramirez
James Campbell
Makana Nova
Yolanda Summerhill, Esq.
Aaron Harp, Esq.
Scott Laidlaw
326256109.1
Aaron J. Ehrlich
From:
Aaron J. Ehrlich
Sent:
Monday, May 11, 2020 7:40 PM
To:
'Ramirez, Gregg'
Cc:
Jurjis, Seimone; Summerhill, Yolanda
Subject:
RE: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Thank you, Gregg. I see your memo to the City Council was sent on May 8, 2020. Where are the contents attached to
that memo available online for benefit the public and why do you delay until today, 77 hours after receiving the revised
plans from the applicant, to advise the appellants that revised plans had to submitted and to share the same with the
appellants?
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich I Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingweil.com I Profile I vCard
B- R D I 1 Y Y Y_ I L
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
www.berdingweii.com '; Linkedln i Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:33 PM
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Summerhill, Yolanda<YSummerhill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Hello,
have attached the additional items here for your use.
G regg
I
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:02 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: 215 Riverside Correspondence
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Gregg,
Can you please direct me to where the information is posted online? Following the links in the online agenda, I don't see
it noted anywhere in the Staff Report that further revised plans were submitted by the applicant and it looks to me that
the Attachment H (Project Plans) is the old plans. I also don't see Scott Laidlaw's submission in the "Correspondence"
linked through the agenda. Simply put, I don't see this anywhere online and we are highly concerned about the
appellants being provided notice of new project plans 26 hours before the hearing (not 24 hours as noted below) when
the City received them last Friday and there being no identification that the public has been made aware of these
changes whatsoever. I certainly hope I'm mistaken.
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich I Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingweil.com I Profile I vCard
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
www.berdingweil.corn r Linkedln Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirezCu@ newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:30 PM
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Subject: Re: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Aaron,
N
This additional information was sent to the Council and has been posted on the agenda website. Staff will
mention the revision to the plan and the applicants will as well. Please note that the Council meeting is
starting early, at 4pm. As a result, the public hearing is scheduled to begin at 7pm.
Regards,
G regg
Click here to view the Regular Meeting agenda packet.
From: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:01 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: 215 Riverside Correspondence
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks Gregg, though I'm very concerned about learning of a significant project change 24 hours before a public
hearing. How is this going to be addressed with the City Council?
Best,
Aaron J. Ehrlich I Partner
925.683.4969
aehrlich@berdingweii.com I Profile j vCard
ATTORNEY'S AT LAW
WALNUT CREEK
COSTA MESA
SAN DIEGO
2175 N California Blvd.
575 Anton Blvd.
1660 Hotel Circle North
Suite 500
Suite 1080
Suite 701
Walnut Creek
Costa Mesa
San Diego
CA 94596
CA 92626
CA 92108
P 925.838.2090
P 714.429.0600
P 858.625.3900
F 925.820.5592
F 714.429.0699
F 858.625.3901
,,vww berdingweil corn Linkedln Facebook
This communication is intended to be protected by all applicable privileges, including those protecting attorney client communications and attorney work
product information. Use of this communication or its information without approval is prohibited.
From: Ramirez, Gregg <GRamirez@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:42 PM
3
To: Aaron J. Ehrlich <aehrlich@berdingweil.com>
Subject: 215 Riverside Correspondence
Hello Aaron,
I wanted to pass along the attached that was received from the applicant.
Regards,
G regg