HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Call for Review of Planning Commission's Approval of a Mixed -Use Project at 2510 West Coast Highway (PA2019-249) - CorrespondenceJuly 26, 2021
City of Newport Beach
City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear City Council,
A Strong Desire for a Sense of Community
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
Residents and homeowners throughout Newport Beach share a common interest— to
sustain and preserve the character and charm of our unique neighborhoods, villages,
and beachfront community. Two principles for guiding our neighborhoods and villages
should be to enhance our community's quality of life and do no harm. As stakeholders,
we should be involved in the decisions that impact our quality of life, safety, health, and
welfare — in this case a Mariners' Mile "Village" design in harmony with our community's
character and core values without adversely impacting the surrounding area.
Mariners' Mile "Village"
Mariners' Mile's significance and impact must not be underestimated. Mariners' Mile is a
gateway destination along Newport Bay and the heart of our charming coastal
community. It is a vital corridor providing access to the bay, beaches, schools,
neighborhoods, business districts, hospital buildings, and post offices. Mariners' Mile is
endowed with a waterfront that houses a large number of private boats, providing the
physical and visual presence of a vibrant waterfront village, with unique opportunities for
marina -oriented businesses, offering public and private access for all to enjoy.
City Council and Planning Commission
A foundational responsibility of the City Council as elected representatives of the
citizens of Newport Beach is to listen to the citizens, not just the demands and desires
of developers —to build a community consensus with a clear vision to guide the
responsible development of Newport Beach. Mariners' Mile has been studied,
evaluated, discussed, and debated for decades — and still no consensus has emerged.
On February 18, 2021, during the hearing for 2510 West Coast Highway, the Planning
Commission acknowledged the need for a Mariners' Mile Master Plan. Also, during the
April 27, 2021, City Council Review Session, Mayor Brad Avery stated, "We could do a
better job from the very beginning of the planning process." I agree.
A Single Community Outreach Event Is Not Adequate
On February 2, 2021, Mark Moshayedi sponsored a community outreach Zoom meeting
to discuss the proposed mixed -use development at 2510 W. Coast Hwy (PA2019-249).
This event was viewed by some as a positive step, as it provided some understanding
of the project's scope and design. Yet, many meeting attendees were deeply
disappointed with the piecemeal consideration of only 2510 W. Coast Hwy, desiring
insight into ALL the Moshayedi Family's proposed projects along Mariners' Mile.
Considering the scope and significance of this proposed high -density project, a request
was made to the City's Community Development Department to host a public outreach
workshop prior to the February 18th Planning Commission Meeting. The purpose of the
meeting would be to explain land use controls, staff's findings and recommendations,
and to answer questions from the public. Inexplicably, the City denied this request.
2510 West Coast Highway and Beyond
described emerging trends, common ground and areas where agreement exists,
presenting a vision, a course of action, and a proven path forward for developing a
Newport -style Mariners' Mile "Village" in a letter sent to the City Council dated April 21,
2021. Lido Marina Village and Lido Village are excellent examples of what is possible
when the city, developers, and stakeholders work together. The process followed by the
city in the development of Lido Marina Village, where formal community outreach
workshops presented the Lido Marina Village design guidelines to all stakeholders, is a
proven model, one that can be successfully duplicated for Mariners' Mile, thereby
preserving and enhancing the character and charm of the surrounding villages on
Newport Beach Bay.
The majority of correspondences sent to the City Council prior to the April 27th City
Council Review, as well as the presentations by community stakeholders during the
hearing, were overwhelmingly against the proposed 2510 W. Coast Hwy Development
Project —objecting to the high -density structure, oversized for the lot, and the
incompatibility of the design and configuration. At the meeting, other than the
developer's team, not a single comment was in favor of the proposed development!
It is impossible to overstate the profound change 2510 W. Coast Hwy and ALL proposed
Moshayedi Family development projects and future infrastructure changes will have on
Mariners' Mile. The cumulative land use for ALL the Moshayedi Family future
developments represents over one-third of Mariners' Mile and will forever
determine the future destiny of this scenic corridor.
2510 W. Coast Hwy sets a precedent for the design, character, size, and density of
future projects being proposed along Mariners' Mile. Since the April 27, 2021, City
Council Review Session, Mark Moshayedi responded by modifying the outward
appearance of the 2510 structure to be similar in design to buildings located in Lido
Marina Village. The essential character, size and high -density of the project with its
potential adverse impact upon the surrounding communities remain. Thoughtful
development is welcome —high -density, heavy traffic, and a walled -in bay front are not
what the community wants.
A decision on 2510 W. Coast Hwy is premature and must be postponed. An analysis of
the total land use and scope of ALL the Moshayedi Family proposed development
projects on Mariners' Mile must be made available to the community for
consideration and discussion. Show how the whole thing works —identify benefits
and potential adverse impacts upon the community's ecosystem, including quality of life,
health, safety and cost of city services, especially police and fire.
The Greenlight Initiative and the General Plan were the result of community consensus,
and the intent of both should be adhered to along Mariners' Mile and applied to the
combined scope of all proposed and foreseeable future developments before any single
project is approval. The expectations of the community in passing the Greenlight
Initiative were lower density, reduced traffic, and improved safety, thereby
enhancing of our community's quality of life.
Mariners' Mile is at a Crossroad
What is urgently needed is an analysis of the total land use and scope of ALL
Moshayedi Family proposed development, as well as ALL future infrastructure projects
on Mariners' Mile, as a prerequisite to the approval of any single piece of the total
development. 2510 W. Coast Hwy sets a precedent for the design, character, size, anc
density of future projects being proposed along Mariners' Mile.
City Council cannot make an informed decision whether to approve or disapprove the
project until material facts are disclosed in City Council -sponsored community outreach
workshops that include the criteria used, and underlying details showing compliance
with governing laws and regulations in support of the City Staff's findings and
recommendations
Legacy
The City Council fought to establish a Harbor Commission. Lido Village was reborn and
revitalized by the city with City Council support. The City Council has previously
recognized the necessity of a comprehensive revitalization Master Plan for Mariners'
Mile "Village" but has thus far failed to follow through on its already agreed upon plans.
How many members of the City Council will now proactively fight for the future of
Mariners' Mile? A comprehensive plan is a proven way for the city to establish
framework necessary to identify and preserve the desired look and feel. Newport Beach
community stakeholders need the City Council's help and support.
Recommendations
Postpone the decision on 2510 W. Coast Hwy until the aggregate of all property
development proposals, including road safety, road -widening, and infrastructure
projects along West Coast Highway are evaluated as a whole, and definitely
before a single project is approved.
2. Establish a Mariners' Mile Steering Committee, composed of stakeholders
(CalTrans, property owners, local merchants, and residents), to shape the future
of Mariners' Mile as a Newport -style "Village."
3. The City Council, Planning Commission, and city staff must assure residents and
business owners that the proposed use of 2510 W. Coast Hwy and ALL Mariners'
Mile property development projects will be of Newport -style "Village" design that
enhances the character and charm of the surrounding villages on Newport
Beach, bay and harbor.
We earnestly request the development and enforcement of a comprehensive Mariners'
Mile "Village" plan, one in harmony with our community's character, community norms,
and core values, to create and preserve the desired look, character, feel and density.
Specifically and urgently, please postpone a final decision on 2510 W. Coast Highway
until all related property development proposals in this corridor are considered together
- including road safety, road widening and other infrastructure projects - and ensure that
the proposals comply with the master plan.
Sincerely,
Your neighbor,
Patrick Gormley, Newport Beach
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
2510 West Coast Highway comments
•On February 18, 2021
the
Planning
Commission
recognized the need
for a
Mariners'
Mile Master Plan
• We absolutely agree
with the need
for such
a plan! It
simply makes sense
to adequately
plan for
development
of such a visible and important part of the city.
•On April 27, 2021, during the City Council Review
Session Mayor Brad Avery stated: "We could do a
better job from the beginning of the planning process."
We agree with Brad!
N Single Community Outreach Event
Is No* Enough Planning'
Mark Moshayedi sponsored a community outreach
zoom meeting on 2/2/21 to discuss the proposed mixed
use development at 2510 W. Coast Hwy.
This meeting
did
not
address
substantial
community
concerns nor
did
the
meeting
present the
entirety of the
Moshayedi Family I s Vision for Mariners' Mile.
However, for some reason the City denied a request to
the amity's Community Development Department for a
public outreach workshop prior to the February 18th
Planning Commission Meeting.
This development sets a precedent
for the design, character, size, and
r'41%wisity of future PCH proj
ects
• Responding to community concerns, the
developer made some design improvements,
but the essential character, size and high
density remain.
• The cumulative land use for all the Moshayedi
Family future developments represent over
one-third of Mari
right!
Hers' Mile - we need to get this
The community demands more
information Aid review
• The preponderance of correspondence sent to the
City Council prior to the April 27th City Council
Review and the presentations by community
stakeholders were overwhelmingly against the
projects high density, enormous oversized structure
for the lot, and the incompatibility of the design and
configuration - all factors negatively affecting the
surrounding area.
• At the meeting, other than the developer's team, not
a single comment was in favor of the proposed
development!
Whig--+ Should Be [-""one?
• Lido Marina Village and Lido Village are excellent examples of
what is possible when the city, developers, and stakeholders work
together.
• Formal community outreach workshops presented the Lido
Marina Village design guidelines to all stakeholders
• A similar
concept
is appropriate
for developing Mariners' Mile as a
"Village."
It is the
City's proven
process and best practice for
development of a "Village"
• The
goal (which can be achieved) is to
enhance the
character
and
charm of the community of villages
surrounding
Newport Bay
with thoughtful responsible development
Reasonable Next �}
• Create a Mariners'Milp- Master Plan by forming a Mariners'
Mile Steering Committee composed of stakeholders to
responsibly plan the future of Mariners'Mile as a Newport
style "Village"
• e.g., CalTrans, property owners, local merchants, and
residents
• Postpone a final decision on 2510 \A/. Coast Highway until all
related property development proposals in this corridor are
considered together - including road safety, road widening
and other infrastructure projects - and ensure that the
proposals comply with the master plan.
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 2510 Project
From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>
Date: July 24, 2021 at 11:07:09 AM PDT
To: Tom@stunewsnewport.com
Subject: 2510 Project
Tom,
I apologize if you were insulted by my email, I was taken back by your comments in your column.
Our organization has worked very hard with both Mark and Manouch Moshayedi and their attorney,
Sean Matsler to create a better project.
We have been working with them since 2017 to make a better project for the community. Consider
what would this project would look like had we not worked with them?
Our group consists of realtors, developers, stakeholders, land -use experts, architects and attorneys.
Our team of experts has guided the 2510 Project into its current state. Without our group, the
development would be a big box of apartments connected to a large car deanship with no walkable
amenities.
At this point in time, we have safety concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure to support this project
that utilizes an alley -way as a primary entrance. We are also concerned about the view plane from John
Wayne Park.
We pride ourselves on being professionals continuing to guide the developer to ultimately create a
responsible project that the community can embrace, but more importantly is safe.
The Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile should be praised for all our hard work for continuing to make a
better path for our children, not to be made out to be NIMBYs or sore losers.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Please remember, that the tax -paying residents of Newport Beach continue to be the largest source of
revenue for the City and we have the right to demand that future projects are compatible with the
surrounding communities.
I am attaching slides, so you can visually see the concerns regarding the project, perhaps these will help
explain our safety concerns. We need a comprehensive plan for Mariner's Mile.
In closing, I sincerely, can not answer whether State mandates "over rule" the City's General Plan,
municipal codes and ordinances, that is the elephant in the room and that is why the 2510 PCH Project,
requires further evaluation.
Peggy V. Palmer
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 8:52 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 2510 WEST COAST HWY MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2019-249
From: ttaw50@aol.com <ttaw50@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 8:52 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 2510 WEST COAST HWY MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2019-249
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
I want to express several concerns I have regarding the height variance being requested by the
developer underneath John Wayne Park.
This project will result in significant traffic and safety impacts:
The project view will impact from West Coast Hwy, John Wayne Park and Newport Bay.
The project does not blend with the community
The project will negatively impact the marine industry
The project should undergo environmental review!!
The community needs time to understand the effect this and 'other' planned projects will have on the
Mariner's Mile.
Sincerely,
Teri Watson
Newport Beach Resident
3
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:52 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Protect Mariner's Mile
-----Original Message -----
From: Corynne Winters <cwinters73@me.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:09 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Protect Mariner's Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members:
I have lived in Newport Beach for 26 years and during that time have seen an increase in buildings, homes, and traffic.
Last Saturday it took me over 1/2 hour to travel from Fashion Island to my home on Lido Isle. Our little beach
community has lost its appeal as we head towards more and more development. We are becoming a "city on the
water" like Long Beach and San Diego rather than a beach community that has always had a unique panache. Please
protect our Mariners Mile and do not allow extra lanes of traffic, blocked views, and large buildings. We like our city as
it is !!!
Sincerely,
Corynne C. Winters
L"
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile Project
-----Original Message -----
From: Margo O'Connor <moconn949@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mariner's Mile Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Councilpersons:
I feel that the proposed project, 2510 PCH Development, will adversely affect the area as it's density and design will
increase traffic and decrease safety as well as change the visual nature of our community.
I hope that you will consider the changes recommended by the Coalition to Protect MarinersMile.
Respectfully,
Margo O'Connor
90 Linda Isle
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Sent from my iPhone
8
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 2510 PCH project
-----Original Message -----
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 2510 PCH project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Newport Beach City Council Members,
Once again, I am writing to request that you very seriously consider postponing this project. There are so many things
that have not been addressed. Parking, traffic congestion (a traffic study at the very least), view obstruction which could
just be the beginning of a future plan. Where is the overall plan to beautify Mariners Mile not make it so much worse
with massive, inappropriate buildings. DON'T THROW THE RESIDENT'S IMPORTANT CONCERNS UNDER THE BUS. It is
your responsibility as elected officials to make sure our beautiful city is preserved and not end up looking like
Huntington Beach. This could become a nightmare impossible to reverse. Frankly, I don't have a lot of hope.
Thank you,
Katherine Choate
Sent from my iPhone
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:49 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile
-----Original Message -----
From: talbot@spacelines.com <talbot@spacelines.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:45 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mariner's Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a long time resident in Cliff Haven, I totally support the positions presented to the City by the Coalition to Protect
Mariner's Mile, and sincerely request that the City clearly address all of the Coalition's requests.
Sincerely,
Mike Talbot
M. D. Talbot
Aerospace & Defense Consultant
Telephone: 949 -3 8 6 -0000
Cell Phone: 949-795-9900
Email: talbot@spacelines.com
10
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:46 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile - project assessment - concerned Newport Beach resident
From: Aspasia Zouras <aspasia_zouras@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 9:31 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mariner's Mile - project assessment - concerned Newport Beach resident
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
You have not addressed my own and my neighbors' complaints or concerns about the following in Newport Beach:
• 1=a;lure to erect Story poles to determine a•n.,,d analyze the Pr,oiect S V5SL,ai i-loacts from .,John
•'`IiAi'layne park ..
+ Denied access for survey to 0nriri 1 asla' .. m..fy'•'•ssion .acpea! 7Jne
�a lure to prepare a Traffr Cfrc-_iiatio�, ar'd -3afety analyst- for ":�; Su; ."J 1,ng neighborhood
allure t0 address Impacts to K. ats or yCiCS LiSing the 3 Lilt i i�na`. d1 "n s!dewaik On 1/"•1CH
• Fahlre to discuss the future '—)I i : H t"'e s gnal at Tustin Ave ;tc, ce `em o./ed i
• --311J e to analyze Off -site parK:i g '1-lpactS
• failure to provide a consistenc'j analysis `/vith the Local Coasta Pr_gral~ i s requirement of the
Coastal Development Permit applicat c,
• Failure to require CEOA env rDnlme `al r� i evb or to evalLiate en l rcn,, e%'a ;mpacts to coastal
resources +the second Is a Coasta De`.jeiccrn;ent Permit recli_;irerrer�t
When are you planning on assessing the above and offering the community this information?
We would like the information shared with the Newport Beach community. Your decisions affect us in the neighborhood
AND visitors and tourism because any changes to Mariners Mile area may affect the entire feeling of Newport Beach.
Everyone enjoys the fact that the area has low -profile buildings and a charming waterfront scene. No one wants a "city
feel".
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Aspasia Zouras
2812 Broad Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
11
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From:
Rieff, Kim
Sent:
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:41 AM
To:
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject:
FW: Mariners Mile
From: Mary Anna Jeppe <majeppe@road run ner.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 20214:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mariners Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Coi_.incil Members
Why have these concerns not be noted nor addressed to the taxpayers and residents of Newport
Beach? You must be aware that there are major concerns regarding these projects. PCH has
gotten more and more crowded each year. What is being done now to keep Newport
Beach manageable for it citizens?
Concerned,
Mary Anna Jeppe
"From \/�/hat. vve have been able to gather fr. Cr nu_ Imlted
expos_;re to ;nfof �t fir, from the ' City by V': _ir Dre i'oUS concerted efforts t^cie ^:as been mai"kecl
mpro`Jemerrs ,r, architectural style - but not one major issue asked by residents has
been addressed!
• Fai'urE erect stor`J ooies to dete'n^:..e �r analyze the arolect s ,ISi;ai . -acts from ..John
-,.emed a',^ess f lr si_Irve�/ to - ll _,rY, r_ o.as+.ai ,r.)mrr-issint aJ�E' i 7:,)r,�
t; u = -��a e aot safety anaiys S *ar ,
s_ g n2 gh
borhoo-i
• - _ a;:,f'.=.Tess ,mpacts t rt''_1 y`., es U s i n t" e h`. at., a4 s';Je'•lvali< vn 1;`.iC 1
• -3 ... ',� -cuss Lisle future 3, i`�.lJ 1 .i,C `JIi n ! --at i usurIJ�
• - =�:I, r_; ty, ara;yze (C ff-s;te dark:`
• `ai ii' to ,r; ,ilde a COnsistenC`/ a,'a;is -oiitr the Local GI—ast_a Prograr' ..a regUlrement of the
,.a ,-:orimen' Per r arC, .:at
se v0 ncl .3 a ._ a L_ e'C ent Pei. i �.
13
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:41 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Mariners Mile
-----Original Message -----
From: Julie Hovnanian <julie@hovieinteriors.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mariners Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To our Newport Beach City Council -
I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1962 when I was 4 years old. I am very concerned about the direction our
beautiful city has been going. I care about the Heritage of Mariners Mile and am deeply concerned that you have not
addressed the concerns of the citizens you are supposed to be representing. The safety of our streets for everyone but
especially children who ride their bikes to and from school is of great concern along with protecting public views, and
the controlling the dense traffic that would be added if this project was to be approved. No one wants a block of
buildings in our beautiful family friendly neighborhood.
I don't feel you are listening and representing the wishes of your citizens which is highly disappointing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Julie Hovnanian
Sent from my Wad
19
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer
Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:39 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Bad call 0
-----Original Message -----
From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 8:58 PM
To: Tom@StuNewsNewport.com
Cc: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Bad call M
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tom,
You made an unfair call today with an uneducated an inferior editorial in your column with regard to the 2510 W. PCH
project.
As a journalist you should be fair and tonight's edition is very very clear that you've been bought off, with your friend Ed
Selich.
It is evident that there is no true journalism anymore.
The one sided Aerial view towards Mark Moshayedi is completely incorrect.
Tom, you should be discredited by displaying gross negligence with regard to the truth ....which makes your fake
assertions even more obvious.
In my opinion, our community should boycott your news source since it's fake news.
Maybe before you cast aspersions, behind your digital cloud, you should report on the front line.
Peggy V. Palmer
20
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:34 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Project Mariners Mile
From: Kathi Glover <keg51@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 1:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Project Mariners Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
My husband and I have lived in Newport Heights for over 40 years. We love our community and are very
concerned with what is planned for the development of Mariners Mile. We are hesitant to want a three story
buiding on WCH which would obstruct views from John Wayne Park, increase traffic and add to parking issues
The Moshayedi brothers have not addressed any of our concerns or those of our neighbors. They also have
made unsubstantiated claims that the project doesn't need Coastal Commission approval due to its size.
However, there is not a land survey to prove this, nor will they allow anyone else to survey the property.
We would hope that these plans are once again put on hold, until all the concerns of our community are
properly answered.
Sincerely,
Jim & Kathi Glover
24
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:31 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: July 27 Council Meeting - 2510 PCH development
From: jocarol@ix.netcom.com <jocarol@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: July 27 Council Meeting - 2510 PCH development
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello City Council —
I've tried to stay current on the subject development, but I don't recall several issues being discussed. One is the
Traffic/Circulation and Safety analysis for that neighborhood. The traffic along PCH is heavy. With more development
being considered, it just means more traffic. I hope you will address this issue.
Thank you,
Jo Carol Hunter
50+ year Newport Beach resident
Virus -free WW\N aVq..COrn
25
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:30 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 2510 W. Coast Highway
From: Kathy Shaw <kathyashaw5@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 2510 W. Coast Highway
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
We live at 204 Tustin Ave, Newport Beach, CA 92663. We believe that an impartial environmental study must be done
to protect the citizens from any safety concerns related to the project at 2510 W. Coast Highway.
Parking - There is not enough parking in this area already, not to mention the talk of removing the 16 parking spaces
already in short supply at Avon and Tustin.
Traffic - The traffic is already a problem in this area. The increase in traffic from this project will create a safety issue for
our community.
It seems as though an environmental study should be a requirement on all projects of this size that are developed in our
city.
Sincerely,
Tony and Kathy Shaw
26
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:28 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Preserve Miracle Mile
-----Original Message -----
From: Joshua Baer <joshwbaer@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 5:58 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Preserve Miracle Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Council.
I am writing to ask you to please preserve the beauty, charm, and safety of Miracle Mile as is. Miracle Mile is a beautiful
area of Newport Beach, and is of cultural, recreational, and economic importance to its residence. As of now, it is very
pleasant to drive and visit nearby businesses. Please keep it from being a dense, dangerous, charmless area. Please keep
it as is to preserve its beauty and charm, while local businesses, and local community can enjoy and thrive. We want to
preserve the parks, ocean views, and natural beauty and charm of Miracle Mile and Newport Beach, and do not want
our coastal community turning in to a dense, highly developed Santa Monica or LA feel with no soul. Many local
residents run, cycle, and enjoy ocean activities on and off of Miracle Mile, and those activities feed in to nearby local
businesses. Even Huntington Beach is awful now with all of its development and I know myself, and many avoid going
there as it is too crowded, dense, and charmless. Please consider preserving the charm and safety of Miracle Mile for
future generations.
Thank you,
Joshua W.Baer
31
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:27 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Please postpone approval of the current project for 2510 W. Coast Highway
From: Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:09 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Please postpone approval of the current project for 2510 W. Coast Highway
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Pleas' dela'•i an i approval of the current pf. \;Vest Coast Higho A%,. .all -UCC 'SSfUl COMMUi itieS
arose ir.rn masterplans - Paris ir`iIh a .,_. ;Ar a;ripr I51ar:j rl.e5e . r, _:riti`S \,v r-2
32
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:27 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: DELAY 2510 W. COAST HIGHWAY
-----Original Message -----
From: drweiss@drweiss.com <drweiss@drweiss.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 11:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: DELAY 2510 W. COAST HIGHWAY
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE DELAY THE APPROVAL OF 2510 WEST COAST HIGHWAY UNTIL A COMPLETE TRAFFIC STUDY IS COMPLETED AND
DISCUSSED WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
Richard Weiss
Newport Beach
33
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile
From: Walt Heim <Lcan_heim@att.net>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:28 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncI@newportbeach ca. Rcv>
Subject: Mariner's Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Councilmembers,
We care very much about our thriving community of Newport heights. Major transportation links from PCI I into our
community are of grave concern. Proposed developments along this main corridor are therefore of paramount interest to this
residential community. It is apparent to many of us in the Heights that developments are being "fast tracked" within the City
that have not been allowed proper or formal scrutiny. Nfuch of Mariner's ivlile is already "underparked" and as a result,
vehicles are gradually being funneled up the feeder streets into the community in search of long term parking. Concurrently-,
others are in search of alternate access around bottleneck traffic at PCH. Therebv, we are witnessing a drastic rise in ,rpeedin�
vehicles that rarely abide by stop signs as they filter thru this "quiet" neighborhood. Furthermore, we have a large population of
bicvcle riders, skate boarders, walkers, strollers, and dog walkers who are experiencing more and more aggressive drivers. I
(we) feel that the proposed development will serve to further overburden our community with vehicular trips. kVe are not in
favor of developments as currently being considered for Mariner's Nfile. Please be responsible and don't allow dense projects
such as this. Help the residents of Newport Heights.
Sincerelv,
Joan Heim
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
Subject: FW: Regarding Mariner's Mile
From: Carolyn Slayback <carriesla�Lback mai .com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 7:34 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil newportheachca.,cv>
Subject: Regarding Mariner's Mile
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Members, Newport City Council,
Mariner's Mile stands, symbolic of Newport's long boating history.
Sadly, the large buildings constructed in the past decades forever block park views and remain empty to today.
We can learn from past mistakes.
Please designate the future of Mariner's Mile to reflect the traditional boating culture of Newport Beach, not high
density, massed view -blocking structures.
Respectfully,
Carrie Luger Slayback
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile 2510 PCH Project
From: Astrid Carlson <acarison2300L@ Lcom_>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CltiCounu_ i��oewportbeac! ca �ov>
Subject: Mariner's Mile 2510 PCH Project
Dear Council Members;
I have lived on Cliff Drive in Newport Heights for 40 years, I am very concerned about the 2510 WCH project.
My list of concerns:
1. The project does not have enough parking for tenants and guest; Last I heard the two 2-bedroom units were allowed
2 parking spaces, 1-bedroom units are allowed 1 parking space (how many couples do you know that only have 1 car?),
the single units have 1 parking space and guest NONE.
Where are the cars going to park, have not heard this issue has been addressed. I am concerned they will walk up the
stairs to use the public parking spaces at John Wayne Park and the theatre besides Tustin and Ocean View streets.
2. Why did the developer denied access for a survey to be done to confirm if the project is in the Coastal Commission
appeal zone? Does he and or the City Planning Department have something to hide?
3. Why are story poles denied so the City Council and community can see the project's visual impacts from John Wayne
Park? I have read in the paper that they have done computer imaging pictures; very convenient, does the developer
think we have never heard of editing?
4. Why no traffic and safety analysis done for the surrounding neighborhood? What are they hiding? Most of the
tenants
will be using Avon alley (people are calling this a street, it is not). Now I read in the paper the developer will be giving
the
city 20 feet of his property to widen Avon alley; this will really help the next big development on Mariner's Mile.
5. 1 worry about the kids crossing WCH attending school at Ensign and in the summer attending Jr. Guards; the
additional cars this project and future Mariner's Mile projects will have a major impact. Why had this not been
addressed!
I am frustrated that the state is mandating how we run our city; these mandates are allowing this and future projects
to be bigger, taller, increase the density and less parking spaces provided. We have water shortage, rolling blackout,
infrastructure that can't handle the population now. What happens to the quality of life in Newport Beach?
This project does not make sense, there are too many unanswered questions. What happened to the General Plans
vision of a Mariner's Mile Village? Will anyone want to walk to this project?
I humbly ask that the City Council hold off before making a decision that can never be reversed and will set the
precedence for future Mariner's Mile projects. The citizens of Newport Beach would be forever grateful!
Sincerely,
Astrid Carlson
2300 Cliff Drive
Newport Beach CA 92663
949 631-3182
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Council Meeting of July 27, 2021 on PCH 2510
From: Joan McCauley <Joan,McCauley �csulb.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 7:10 PM
To: Dept - City Council <City_Council @newpertbeachca,_;ov>
Subject: Council Meeting of July 27, 2021 on PCH 2510
Dear City Council Members:
I am most concerned about the 2510 Pacific Coast Highway development being considered for the area
known Mariners Mile. This project is of absolutely no value to our communities of Newport Heights/Cliff
Haven; quite the opposite. It is most inappropriate for this location for several reasons, a couple of which I've
mentioned below.
Children in Development. Do we really want to increase the population density of the area with this large
development? This does not seem to be a desirable location for a development of this sort. Will any of the
folks in these 36 apartments have children who will go up the hill to the schools in the Newport Heights/Cliff
Haven areas? Will they walk, bicycle, or be driven? Will these new residents be aware of and concerned about
the numerous traffic accidents that have taken place on the existing Pacific Coast Highway and in the Newport
Heights/Cliff Haven/Costa Mesa areas? Traffic is already of concern because of the three schools located in
these areas and the numerous accidents that have occurred, including the death of one student from Newport
Heights Elementary School. See the Newport Heights Neighborhood School Traffic Study from 2018
https://www.newr)ortbeachca.Rov/home/showdocument?id=61025
for information about the student traffic in these areas.
Traffic. All these residents in the Project will go somewhere —work, shopping, medical appointments,
recreation, schools, etc. How will they get to and back from these places? Predominately, they'll drive through
Newport Heights and Cliff Haven —Avon St. to Riverside Dr. and/or Tustin Ave., for one possibility. The
employees in the 5,000 or so square foot office complex will add to that traffic congestion. If they come in
from Coast Highway, have you ever noticed the current congestion at the signals from Pacific Coast Highway
at Riverside and Tustin? A traffic/circulation and safety study should be prepared to analyze the impact of this
development on the general surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for hearing my concerns with this project.
Joan McCauley
542 Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
Subject: FW: 2510 PCH Development
From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 12:53 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com>
Subject: 2510 PCH Development
>> Mayor Brad Avery and Council Members,
>> The new facility, the Professional Mariner Training Center, reflects a maritime theme and has been well coordinated
with the residential communities and the boating community (including Mariners). To their credit, the City and OCC
planned the development in an open and transparent environment. Consequently a significant positive and compatible
asset has been added to Mariner's Mile.
>> In contrast the 2510 PCH development continues to be rushed
>> 1) with minimum open residential involvement with the City,
>> 2) under an obsolete General Plan,
>> 3) while the Housing Element Update is still in work,
>> 4) without a City issued policy on stopping the expansion of PCH ( the residents strongly oppose the expansion),
>> 5) without an issued policy on a method is track the cumulative loss of public view of the Bluffs and the Bay Water
from the Parks, scenic PCH, the navigable Lido Bay Water and the Lido Bridge,
>> 6) without a traffic Study,
>> 7) without a supporting infrastructure and safety plan.
>> The Development of Mariner's Mile has been fragmented by Projects such as 215 Riverside Ave, the Associated
Memorandum of Agreement for Parking Spaces in a nearby parking lot, the Caltrans PCH/Old Newport Boulevard Effort
and the 100 block Riverside Garden Mall (containing the Post Office). These Projects have been worked separately 'in a
vacuum' and failed to address the development of Mariner's Mile as a village of compatible and harmonious elements to
be enjoyed by visitors, tourists, mariners and residents.
>> The 2510 PCH Development should not be permitted to continue the fragmentation of the Mariner's Mile Village.
>> Consequently it is premature to approve the 2510 PCH Development. The City Council should not permit the
detrimental piecemeal development of Mariner's Mile which will result in the permanent loss of the potential charm of
Mariner's Mile and a significant reduction of the public views of the Bay Water and Bluffs.
>> Please delay the 2510 PCH Development until significant residential involvement with the City has been scheduled
and protect Mariner's Mile so that it can be developed so that visitors, tourists, mariners and residents continue to
enjoy this rare Newport Beach visual coastal gem.
>> Sincerely,
>> Tom Baker
>> Newport Heights
1
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:41 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Undergrounding Utilities - Balboa Island
From: Pat Nangle <patnangle@att.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 20214:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Undergrounding Utilities - Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Council Members,
There have been quite a few posts on Next Door regarding the dangers of undergrounding the utilities
on Balboa Island. I live in Bayside Village a short distance away and our utilities have been
underground since the community was built in 1959 / 1960. That I am aware of, there has never
been a water leakage or any other issue causing a power outage and I've lived here for over 35
years.
With underground utilities, the community looks cleaner, there is less danger of power lines being
damaged by wind, fire, falling debris or other issues that may occur with above ground ones.
Sincerely,
Pat Nangle
President
Bayside Village Homeowners Association
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:35 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 27th, 2021
From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 2:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 27th, 2021
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
»»> As I sit here on Cliff Drive looking out from the parking lot of the playhouse at the end of El Modena Avenue, I
notice that I see more grey, brown and white than blue. There are large parking lots and ugly roofs and if I look slightly
to the north I see a messy view reminiscent of a poorly planned community. But if I look a bit to the south, except for a
huge outstretched hotel, I see more stretches of blue. Whoever allowed the BMW dealer to build that sprawling
building with the terrible looking roof must not have given much thought as to how that would look to those on the
cliffs? That roof has been an eyesore for more that 30 years. We do not want to look at our largest stretch of blue and
see instead another poorly planned development which is not aesthetically appealing and which blocks the view from a
public park, not to mention other viewing posts on Cliff Drive.
»»> It is too late to undo what past generations and councils have done, but you can do the right thing by not
allowing the view to the south to be obstructed in the same way by an oversized structure with inadequate parking at
2510 West Pacific Coast Highway.
»»> As a council, you have made concessions to homeowners and have attempted to incorporate their
suggestions. But what still remains is the number one problem -traffic. Already where I live in the Heights, there are
certain streets where I will not walk. You know them well I'm sure by now -Riverside, Tustin, Irvine and Santa
Ana. Traffic on these streets has dramatically increased in the past few decades, making one think twice or three times
before traveling on those streets. And for pedestrians and cyclists, it is acutely dangerous. I take daily walks in the
Heights
»»> and notice how the traffic increases with every new development on PCH.
»»> Increases in traffic because of new developments such as the one at 2510 will most likely mean that more traffic
will be diverted from these streets to penetrate other adjacent streets.
»»> The Heights was not built to sustain this type of traffic. Narrow streets and lack of sidewalks make it difficult
if not dangerous for cars and people to utilize these streets. In your position, I would hate to think that I could be
making decisions that would make travel in this area even more difficult and dangerous. So please consider thoughtfully
and unselfishly the decisions that you make regarding the development in question. Hopefully, the City, the developers
and the residents can come up with the best solutions for all and for posterity.
»»> Respectfully yours,
»»> Lynn Lorenz
Redlands Avenue
»»> Newport Heights
22
»»> Sent from my iPhone
»»> Sent from my iPhone
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:40 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed -Use Project
From: Norm Beres <norm.beres@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 12:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Colleen Rafferty <colleenraff@gmail.com>; Norm Beres <norm.beres@gmail.com>
Subject: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed -Use Project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
TO: The City Council of Newport Beach, CA
Having been property owners in Newport Heights since 1996, we have valued the quiet and safe environment of
Mariners Mile and Newport Heights. Over the past 25 years Newport Beach has grown, accidents on West Coast
Highway and side streets are more frequent and the density of the city has increased significantly with more multiunit
residential buildings. We are extremely disappointed with the City Planning Commission's approval of the 2510 WCH
Mixed -Use Project in February this year as well as the direction that the City Council has chosen to take Newport
Beach.
Over the past half -year, there have been several meetings to discuss the proposed architecture of this project as well as
the traffic and safety issues that will occur with building the 36 residential units. We appreciate the marked
improvements in architectural style for this project by the developer, however not one of the following major issues
asked by the residents has been addressed:
I. There has not been a Traffic and Circulation study that would analyze the impact on local neighborhood streets
with the addition of 50+ additional cars generated from this project. This increase in traffic would severely impact the
intersection of Avon Alleyway, Tustin Ave., Riverside Ave. and Ocean View Ave. It is currently very difficult to drive
from West Coast Highway up or down Tustin to Cliff Drive if there is traffic coming from the opposite direction as cars
are parked on both sides of the Tustin. Another 50 automobiles coming into and out of the proposed residential
project onto Avon Alleyway into Tustin and then up to Cliff Drive would make it impossible to drive and
navigate. Drivers would quickly discover the shortcut to Riverside Ave and up through Newport Heights to East 17th St.
past the elementary, Jr. High and High Schools locations.
2. There has not been a Safety Study to analyze what the impact of this increase in traffic would be on the local
neighborhood adults and children who are either walking or bicycling on Avon Alleyway, Tustin Ave. or Cliff Drive, going
to and from the schools on Santa Ana and Irvine Ave. Currently Avon Alleyway is traveled by primarily children and
adults walking to and from John Wayne Park with less than 5 cars a day traveling on the street. An increase of 50 plus
automobiles per day on Avon Alleyway would be a significant change which must be studied. Additionally all of the
increased traffic from the project would flow from West Coast Highway to Riverside Ave. up to the East 17 St.
commercial district as described above. The crosswalks at the intersection of Riverside and West Coast Highway are
already precarious and additional traffic at this pedestrian crossing would make it more dangerous.
15
3. There has been no analysis of Off -site parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Where exactly would
visitors of these 36 additional residential units be parking given the limited parking currently on Tustin Ave. and the
surrounding area?
4. There has been no discussion of the stoplight at Tustin Ave. and West Coast Highway. In previous meetings, it was
suggested that this stoplight should be removed. Should that happen and this project is approved, there would be
complete mayhem in the entire area of Tustin Ave., Riverside Ave. and Cliff Drive since these streets are the main
arteries from Coast Highway up and into the commercial district of E 17th Street.
5. There have been no story poles erected to determine and analyze the Project's visual impacts from John Wayne
Park.
There are commercial and residential zoning regulations for a reason and a purpose. Typically in small oceanside cities
like Newport Beach, the residential areas are set off from the commercial areas for many good reasons and it has
worked successfully for many years here in Newport Beach as it has in many other small cities and towns. Zoning
Mariners Mile a Mixed -Use residential zone with multi -story residential units up and down West Coast Highway is not
only unsafe but lacks thoughtfulness by the City Planners and the City Council of Newport Beach.
It might make sense in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, or Miami Beach, but not here in Newport
Beach. I understand that California's Governor and State Legislature would like to make every small town and city in
California a mini Los Angeles and San Francisco, by destroying the Single Family Zoning that currently
exists. However, we elected our city council to represent Newport Beach residents and home owners and it is time for
the local Newport Beach government officials to take a stand and represent the rights of each of its local citizens and
residents before it is too late.
We respectfully ask that the City Council reject the approved Mixed -Use 2510 West Coast Highway Project and as well,
reject any Mixed -Use zoning on Mariners Mile.
Norman Beres & Colleen Rafferty
5 Park Place, Newport Beach, CA
16
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
July 27, 2021
Mayor Avery and Members of the City Council,
Subject: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed Use Project (PA2019-249),
CEQA Class 32 exemption,
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-062,
Major Site Development Review No. SD2019-003,
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2020-013, and
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2021-001
Mayor Avery,
The following comments address the revised 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed Use Project.
Recommendations:
1. The City Council deny the Project without prejudice for failure to comply with policies
contained the General Plan and for failure to comply with the provisions of the Municipal
Code (Local Coastal Program). Invite the Applicant to reapply following approval of the
General Plan update.
2. The City Council determine that changes to the Project are design, land uses including the
widening of Avon Drive, frontage of residential use on WCH are a significant change and
require a new development application.
3. The City Council determine the Project has the potential to result in one or more potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts and the Project does not qualify for a CEQA Class
32 exemption.
4. The City Council determines pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30251 the Project has the
potential to adversely impact the scenic and visual qualities of the City's coastal areas and
that environmental review is required to determine compliance with the City's Local Coastal
Program.
5. Determine the Project Coastal Development Permit application is incomplete for its failure
to comply with Section 21.52.015 (C) (Coastal Development Permits) of the Municipal Code.
Specifically, the application fails to provide evidence in support of the findings required by
subsection (F) demonstrating that the Project conforms to all applicable sections of the
certified Local Coastal Program.
6. The City Council determine pursuant to the Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 Traffic Phasing
Ordinance the Project requires preparation of a Traffic Study.
7. Determine the Project requires a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow the
Project's commercial component to exceed the maximum height limit and reduce the
allowable square footage.
David J. Tanner Page 1 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
At the last City Council hearing, Newport residents expressed their opposition to the design of the
proposed Project because of conflicts with the policies of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program
and the Project's potential to result in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. Residents
made it clear they were not opposed to redevelopment of the property. However, any redevelopment of
the property needed to comply with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and all potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts needed to be fully studied and presented to the public for review and
comment prior to their final position on any project proposing redevelopment of the property. Residents
asked for a project design workshop with two-way dialogue with the applicant and with staff, erection of
story poles to better understand the project's visual impacts, a traffic/circulation study, clarification on the
City Council position on the widening of West Coast Highway (WCH) and for adequate time to review
project plans. None of these requests have been granted.
This remains the position of the residents. They welcome working with the applicant and staff to
redevelop the property in a way consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and Local Coastal
Program.
Changing Circumstances
Since the April City Council hearing on the project, circumstances have changed. The City's Housing
Element update has proceeded. City staff has developed a draft Housing Element that the public has had
the opportunity to review. Based on review of the draft Housing Element and information presented at
public workshops before the City Council, the public has learned in order for the city to meet its affordable
housing component of the city's 4,845-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the city will
have to construct a minimum of 9,119 new housing units. This assumes 48% of all new housing is
affordability priced which is 4-5 times higher than the historic average experienced in Newport Beach or
double the most aggressive city's inclusionary housing mandates in California. The first question every
resident asks, is where are we going to put these units? The draft Housing Element and Land Use Element
Update does not answer this question, nor does the public know the impact on the City's circulation
network, city infrastructure or the city's ratio of jobs to housing. The proposed Project proposes 3
affordable units, approximately 8% of the total units, or 11% if you base the calculation on the 26 units
permitted by zoning. This is approximately 12-14 units or approximately 40% short of the assumption set
by the draft Housing Element. Then there is the potential for ADUs and JADUs to be constructed as part
of the project.
Residents have asked the City Council for a workshop to better understand the future changes to West
Coast Highway (WCH) along Mariners Mile and West Newport. WCHs potential expansion will impact
the health, safety and welfare of the city's residents, as well as the general public. Pacific Coast Highway
serves as a major tourist corridor for the public wishing to enjoy the City's spectacular coastal resources.
Any potential changes to WCH along the Mariners Mile will have a direct impact on the proposed Project.
In addition, we now need to consider the cumulative increase in traffic volumes and circulation impacts
from buildout of other City's RHNA housing and the additional housing units beyond RHNA they will
have to build to meet their affordable housing requirements. The increased traffic volume may force the
city to go beyond the current circulation improvements in its General Plan which will have a direct impact
on the proposed Project. If approved, the project setback from WCH will be 3-feet when WCH is
ultimately widened consistent with the city Circulation Element. Temporary public landscape and
sidewalk improvements in front of the Project will be removed. For these reasons, we need to better
understand the future of WCH prior to acting to approve the proposed Project.
David J. Tanner Page 2 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
The State of California is in a drought, perhaps the worst drought in the state's history. Southern
California, including Newport Beach is facing a sever wildfire threat. As we learned from the 2018
Woolsey Fire (Santa Monica), wildland fires can quickly become urban fires causing the need for mass
evacuations on short notice. Our City Fire Chief has stated the only thing that saved Newport Beach
during the 2010 Laguna Fire was a last-minute change in wind direction. A wildland/urban fire could
result in an emergency evacuation on short -notice which will have a direct impact the proposed Project.
We need to better understand the future of WCH and the ability of our emergency service providers to
safely evacuate people on short -notice in the event of an emergency prior to acting to approve the proposed
Project.
The City Development Process
I am one of many residents that disagree with staff s processing of this planning application, its
conclusions and recommendations. This project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code
and the Municipal Code's Local Coastal Program (LCP). These inconsistencies combined with the
project's potential for individual and cumulative impacts, the presence of unusual circumstances which
have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts, each disqualify the project from
the use of a Class 32 exemption as a means to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Another form of CEQA document is required for the project, one that addresses CEQA concerns
and the Coastal Act/LCP environmental concerns. The Coastal Development Permit, and Major Site
Development Review application should either be deemed incomplete based on a failure to provide
required information or be denied on their face. There is no need to comply with CEQA.
Staff has clearly expressed its continued bias in favor of development projects with its one-sided analysis
of how the City General Plan, Municipal Code and CEQA should be applied and implemented in its Staff
Report, draft Resolution and recommendations for project approval.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)
Based on public testimony of nearby residents and Newport Beach Police Department accident report
records, the project will result in potentially significant adverse traffic and safety impacts to WCH at the
project entrance; the intersection of WCH and Tustin Avenue; and the off -set intersection of Tustin
Avenue, Avon Street, Ocean View Street and the un-named access drive running east/west fronting on
northside of the property. The revised Project now proposes to dedicate an easement for additional right-
of-way (ROW) to widen this access drive. The analysis of widening this access drive must be included as
part of the Project's off -site improvements.
The revised Project exceeds the 300 Average Daily Trip (ADT) threshold established by the TPO. A
traffic study must be prepared. The calculation is presented on Table 1.
Without a traffic study the city will not know if the project has the potential to increase peak hour trips by
more than 1% at the intersection of Tustin Avenue and WCH (Municipal Code 15.40.030.C.2. "Any
project that, during any morning or evening peak hour period, does not increase trips by one percent or
more on any leg of any primary intersection').
David J. Tanner Page 3 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Table 1
2510 WCH Mixed Use Proiect Trip Generation
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, loth
Edition (2017)
ITE Code Land Use Trip Generation Rate Trips
ITE 220 - Multi -Family (low-rise) (one or two levels) 7.32 / unit
Project: 36 units (36 units X 7.32 ADT/unit = 263.52) 263.52
ITE 710 -Small Office Building (GFA of 5,000 sf or less) 16.19/ 1,000 sf GFA
Project: 5,096 GFA (5,096 GFA X 16.19 trips/1,000 GFA = 82.50) 82.50
Total Average Daily Trips 346.
TPO Threshold: 300 ADT
Without a Traffic Study, the City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision that the
project will or will not result in potentially significant traffic/circulation impact. Therefore, the City does
not have a factual basis to determine the Project qualifies for a CEQA Class 32 exemption.
Adequacy of other Project Studies
The calculations used in the project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Report and Noise Report are based on
the prior design and also need to be updated.'
Coastal Development Permit Appealability
My interpretation after reading the staff report and in emails from staff to members of the public is that
while the Coastal Commission makes the final decision the Project's Coastal Development Permit cannot
be appealed to the Coastal Commission.
The fact is it can and the Project's Coastal Development Permit will be appealed to the Coastal
Commission if the Project is approved as proposed.
The project is not located in the boundary of post LCP Certification and Appeal Jurisdiction (CDP Appeal
Map) there are other means of appealing a city approved Coastal Development Permit to the Coastal
Commission.
Regulations governing appeals are contained in the Coastal Act, the City's Local Coastal Program
(Chapter 21.64 Appeals and Calls for Review) and the Government Code (Gov. Code 30603 (a)(3)
sensitive coastal resource areas).
12510 West Coast Highway Mixed -Use Development Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads,
July 28, 2020 Table 9.2 Vehicle Movements by Time of Day (page 36)
David J. Tanner Page 4 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
These regulations are recited below because there is no mention of these regulations or opportunities for
appeal in the staff report. Any one of the following can be grounds for an appeal.
The project is located within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tideline
(seawall in this case) of the sea where there is no beach,
The project is located within the top of the seaward 300 feet of face of any coastal bluff, and
The project is located in a sensitive coastal resource area
o Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas (the
General Plan Land Use designation of Visitor Serving Commercial (CV))
The City's Local Coastal Program
Section 21.64.035 Appeal to the Coastal Commission.
"A final action taken by the City on a coastal development permit application for appealable development
as defined in subsection (A) of this section may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance
with this section and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 13111 through 13120 and Section
30603 of the Coastal Act. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this section or Title 14
California Code of Regulations Sections 13111 through 13120 and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act, Title
14 California Code of Regulations Sections 13111 through 13120 and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act
shall control."
A. Appealable Development —Public Resources Code Section 30603(a). A decision by the City on a
coastal development permit application within the appeal areas identified in Public Resources Code
Section 30603(a) as generally depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map
or on any development approved or denied by the City on a coastal development permit application for a
project that constitutes a major public works project or energy facility may be appealed to the Coastal
Commission.
B. Status of Appellant.
1. Who May Appeal. An appeal may be filed by an applicant, an aggrieved person, or two
members of the Coastal Commission in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 30625.
2. Aggrieved Person Defined. As provided by Public Resources Code Section 30801, an
aggrieved person is any who, in person or through a representative, appeared at a public hearing
held before the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or Council in connection with the
decision or action appealed, or who, by other appropriate means prior to a hearing, informed the
City of the nature of their concerns or who for good cause was unable to do either.
The inland side of PCH within the Mariners Mile is not identified within the City's "Appeal Jurisdiction
Map". A detailed description of appealable areas is provided in Section 30603 which provides the
following:
David J. Tanner Page 5 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Section 30603.
(a) After certification of its local coastal program, an action taken by a local government on a coastal
development permit application may be appealed to the commission for only the following types of
developments:
(1) Developments approved by the local government between the sea and the first public road
paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tideline
of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance.
(2) Developments approved by the local government not included within paragraph (1) that are
located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary,
or stream, or within the top of the seaward 300 feet of face of any coastal bluff.
(3) Developments approved by the local government not included within paragraph (1) or (2) that
are located in a sensitive coastal resource area.
(4) Any development approved by a coastal county that is not designated as the principal permitted
use under the zoning ordinance or zoning district map approved pursuant to Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 30500).
(5) Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major energy facility.
The Definition of a "Sensitive Coastal Resource Area" is contained in Public Resources Code 30116
CHAPTER 2. Definitions [30100 - 301221
(Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1330.)
Section 30116.
"Sensitive coastal resource areas" means those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water
areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. "Sensitive coastal resource areas" include
the following:
(a) Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and
designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan.
(b) Areas possessing significant recreational value.
(c) Highly scenic areas.
(d) Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as
designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
(e) Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas.
(f) Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate -
income persons.
(g) Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access.
(Added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1330.)
David J. Tanner Page 6 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Coastal Development Permit Application
The public has asked the city to provide the analysis submitted with the application demonstrating the
proposed development conforms to all applicable sections of the Certified Local Coastal Program. A
requirement of the Coastal Development Permit application. This information is critically important to
determine the project consistency with the LCP and the determination of completeness of the Coastal
Development Permit application.
The city has not provided this information to the public because it does not exist! Without this information
the city does not have factual and/or legal support for the city's decision that the Project is consistent with
the relevant provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program. This is a requirement to reach the Findings
required for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Project application should be deemed
incomplete.
These regulations are recited below because there is no mention of these regulations in the staff report.
Section 21.52.015 (C) (Coastal Development Permits) of the Municipal Code states:2
"It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by
subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision)."
Subsection (F) Findings and Decision. "The review authority may approve or conditionally approve a
coastal development permit application, only after first finding that the proposed development.
1. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program;
2. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act
if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of
water located within the coastal zone."
The Importance of This Project at This Time
This project is before the City Council at the same time the city is updating its Housing Element to meet
the City's RHNA requirements. The city does not know the impact the Housing Element Update will have
on land use, the city's circulation system, and public safety. The city also must consider the cumulative
effects from neighboring cities and regional RHNA growth. The city is in a drought cycle. This year
could be the worst in the state's history. The potential exists for wildland/urban fire requiring a large-scale
evacuation of the city. It is not known if the city can accomplish this on short notice. We do know Santa
Monica and Paradise could not in 2018. The State has declared based on a shortage of housing a housing
emergency and identified a severe shortage of affordable housing. The State has passes dozens of housing
Bills streamlining the housing permitting process and limiting a local governments land use control. And
yet, local governments have the responsibility to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Complicating this process is the fact Newport Beach is a major tourist destination with over 11 million
Z Application Filing, Processing, and Review. An application for a coastal development permit shall be filed and processed in
compliance with Chapter 21.50 (Permit Application Filing and Processing). The application shall include all of the
information and materials specified by the Director, together with the required fee in compliance with the City's fee schedule
adopted by resolution. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by
subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision).
David J. Tanner Page 7 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
visitors based on the 2010 census and Pacific Coast Highway serving as a major tourist transportation
corridor.
Given this background, the precedential value of the City's decision for future interpretations of its
General Plan policies and its responsibility to preserve coastal resources under the California Coastal Act
as further defined under the LCP within the Mariners' Mile is extremely high. The requirement of the
Coastal Act to protect coastal resources is clearly stated in Section 30251 of the Act and the policies to
protect coastal resources affected by the Project are clear stated in the General Plan and LCP.
The city does not have the legal authority to override the California Coastal Act. Conflicts exist between
the City General Plan, Municipal Code, LCP and State housing and density bonus laws. According to the
Coastal Act, the Coastal Act prevails unless stated otherwise in the LCP, which is not the case with the
City's LCP.
By approving the Project's Coastal Development Permit, the city is telling residents of the State of
California and the California Coastal Commission:
1) The Project conforms to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable
discretionary actions; and
2) The project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
For the reasons stated herein if the City approves the project as proposed, the city is failing its fiduciary
duty to the residents of the State of California and Newport Beach "To ensure that any development in the
coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views." 3 and the
city would be failing to "Protect and encourage facilities that serve marine -related businesses and
industries".4
General comments on redevelopment within Mariners Mile:
In addition to the General Plan and Municipal Code, the coastal zone is governed by the certified LCP,
a part of the Municipal Code whose authority supersedes these documents. Coastal Development
permits have their own requirement for environmental review that differ from CEQA. The Coastal
Commission has told Staff this. In the case of the Garden Office and Parking Structure project a
located block away, where a similar staff analysis, a CEQA Class 32 exemption and Coastal
Development Permit were approved by the City, then immediately appealed in August 2020 to the
Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission noted: "the standard of review for this appeal is the
certified LCP. It should also be noted that CEQA policies are not the standard of review for this
appeal. "5
Mariners' Mile is a special place, a sensitive coastal resource area, a significant visitor destination
area recognized as such by the General Plan Visitor Serving Commercial (CV) Land Use
designation.7
a Section 21.10.020.G
n Policy LU 6.19.3
s California Coastal Commission, Staff Report: Appeal - Substantial Issue. Appeal No. A-5-NPB-20-0025, August 23, 2020
6 "Sensitive coastal resource areas", Definition - Public Resources Coode, Division 20, California Coastal Act [30000-30900],
Chapter 2. Definitions [30116]
'General Plan Land Use Element Table LU1
David J. Tanner Page 8 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
• The Mariners' Mile is very important to the long-term image and economic vitality of the City.
• The Mariners' Mile is an area of tremendous public interest.
• The Mariners' Mile is an area of increased regulatory scrutiny and unusual circumstance. Importantly,
the standard of review for development within the coastal zone is the certified LCP. CEQA policies
are not the standard of review for LCP compliance.
• Redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to existing residential areas are subject to
the density and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.8
• "Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach and are considered significant scenic and
environmental resources." "Coastal bluffs play an important part of the scenic and visual qualities of
the City." 9
• The General Plan and Municipal Code identify Pacific Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to
Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive for its scenic coastal vistas and designate it a Coastal View Road. Views
from WCH to Newport Bay, as well as inland to the coastal bluffs are equally important and protected.
The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way is required by the Municipal Code.
• The California Coastal Act states new development in highly scenic areas shall be subordinate to the
character of its setting. to
• A priority of the Municipal Code is maintaining harmonious and orderly growth without endangering
or jeopardizing, the public convenience, health and interest, of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed development.
• There are multi -million -dollar custom homes on the coastal bluff. Revitalization should continue this
exterior look (this character) toward the ocean. The exterior character should increase as development
gets closer to the water.
• The City needs to clearly state its vision for the future of WCH within the Mariners' Mile.
• Land owners/developers should be made aware that major changes will take more time. They should
anticipate working with the community and conducting public workshops. Developers should expect
an extra level of scrutiny. The community does not expect nor want projects rammed through on short
notice. Staff negligence and biases will not be tolerated!
• Landowners and City Staff should not expect to use CEQA Class 2 exemptions within the Mariners'
Mile. Special circumstances exist.
• To help landowners, residents and City leaders come together, future land use and implementation
polices for the Mariners' Mile should be integrated in an updated Mariners' Mile Specific Plan or
updated General Plan and Municipal Code.
General Comments on 2510 Mixed -Use Project:
The project should demonstrate a good faith effort to maintain a marine related use on the site. There
is no evidence in the public the office use will ever be built let alone consist of marine related uses.
This is particularly important given the potentially significant adverse cumulative impact to marine
uses facing the city from other pending development applications and re -use of other sites occupied
by marine related uses.
The project does not comply with the General Plan Land Use Element (Table LU1) which requires
commercial use along the frontage WCH. The Project has commercial use along half of the Coast
Highway frontage.
e LCP-LU Policy 2.2.1-1
9 General Plan EIR & LCP LU Policy 4.4.1-1
10 California Coastal Act of 1976 — Article 6 - Section 30251 PRC, hqp://www.coastal.ca.gov/fedcd/cach3.pdf, February 2,
2006.
David J. Tanner Page 9 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
The General Plan Land Use Element, Table LUI requires residential use to be located in back of the
commercial frontage along WCH. the project does not meet this requirement and should be re-
designed.
Residential traffic should not take direct access from WCH. This segment of WCH is congested and
dangerous. Any increase in traffic and turn movements will add to the existing safety hazards to
motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. This will only get worse as traffic increases in the future and
WCH is widened in accordance with the Circulation Element.
This project looks like a rectangular box -like apartment project placed adjacent to and below one of
the City's most scenic public parks, a designated "public view point" which is bordered by multi-
million -dollar custom homes. The precedent for quality along the inland side of Mariners Mile has
been set by The Garden Newport Beach project located to the west at Riverside Avenue and WCH.
The project's architectural concept and scale is not compatible with the existing community, does not
reflect the areas' theme and character and is better suited to an inner-city location, not along the coast,
particularly, Mariners' Mile.
Applicability of the Housing Accountability Act
Staff and the project Applicant cite the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and continually stress the
urgency for the city to act or face the threat of litigation.
The HAA does not apply to projects that do not meet any of the following: a cty's objective General
Plan and Zoning standards, the standards of CEQA and/or the California Coastal Act/LCP.
In this case, the Project does not meet the City's objective General Plan and Zoning standard, the standards
of CEQA and the California Coastal Act.
Furthermore, the HAA requires "At least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower
income households. Lower -income households are those persons and families whose income does not
exceed that specified by Health and Safety Code, § 50079.5, 80 percent of area median income."" In
this case, 20% of 26 housing units equals 5 lower income units. The Project proposes 3 low-income units.
This is one more reason the HAA does not apply to this project.
" September 15, 2020 HCD, Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Government Code Section 65589.5)
Housing Development Project Definition, Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (h)(2),
Housing for Very Low, Low-, or Moderate -Income Households, Government Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3).
David J. Tanner Page 10 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
A. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES AND MUNICIPAL CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All facts provided in Sections B-D are incorporated by reference. A few examples of the Project's
inconsistencies are provided below.
Please note: if the Project is inconsistent with an objective policy or standard, the Project does not
qualify for streamlining under the Housing Accountability Act.
General Plan Land Use Element
Policies
L U 1.6 Public Views
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space,
mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. (Imp 1.1)
Inconsistent: . The project fails to protect significant scenic and visual resources from public vantage
points. The revised Project visual analysis provided by the applicant is misleading and inaccurate. It uses
wide-angle photographs which distort the perception of the project making it appear lower in height. It
fails to show infrastructure required to be constructed on the building rooftop (solar panels, air
conditioning compressors elevator enclosures, etc) which will add to the projects impact to costal
resources from public places like John Wayne Park located immediately inland from the project site.
The project applicant claims it is infeasible to protect and where feasible, enhance significant scenic and
visual resources. One example being to lower the height of the building to eliminate public view impacts
to coastal resources. No data exists in the public record to support this claim.
LU3.5 Coastal Dependent and Related Businesses
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related
developments. When reviewing proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact on
coastal -dependent and coastal -related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject
property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related land uses on
adjacent properties. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 7.1)
Inconsistent: The project is not designed to avoid impacts to existing coastal -dependent related
developments. Salt -water marine related businesses are coastal related. There is currently a shortage of
boat/yacht storage, parts and supply facilities in Newport Beach. The cumulative impact of the proposed
project combined with other proposed projects will result in a significant cumulative impact to marine -
related businesses. The City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision that boat
sales and storage facilities are not coastal dependent and coastal related.
David J. Tanner Page 11 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
L U 3.7 Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
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. (Imp 2.1, 6.1)
Inconsistent: The project is not designed to protect area with high natural resource value. The project
will impact visual resources from the Newport Bay and West Coast Highway inland as well as from John
Wayne Park and Cliff Drive Park toward Newport Bay.
General Plan Housing Element
This standard is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Infill/Reuse Opportunity Areas
Mariners' Mile
"On the inland side of Coast Highway, land is designated as Mixed -Use Horizontal I (MU -HI), and
General Commercial (CG-0.3 and CG-0.5) to accommodate a mix of visitor and local -serving retail
commercial, residential, and public uses. Coast Highway frontages shall be developed for marine -related
and highway -oriented general commercial uses, and properties located on interior streets may be
developed for free-standing neighborhood -serving retail, multi family residential units, or mixed -use
buildings that integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor. The floor area ratio of mixed -use
buildings is 1.5 with a maximum commercial floor area to land ratio of 0.5 and a maximum of 1.0 for
residential uses. "
Table LU1 Land Use Plan Categories
Mixed -Use Horizontal 1 — MU -HI
Uses
"The MU -HI designation provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses.
For properties located on the inland side of Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile Corridor, (a) the Coast
Highway frontages shall be developed for marine -related and highway -oriented general commercial uses
in accordance with CM and CG designations; and (b) portions ofproperties to the rear of the commercial
frontage may be developed for free-standing neighborhood -serving retail, multi family residential units,
or mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor in accordance with
the CN, RM, CV, or MU-V designations respectively. "
Inconsistent: This policy is not subjective. The project is not designed with a free-standing commercial
use fronting on West Coast Highway. The project is not designed with a free-standing, mixed -use
buildings that integrate residential with retail uses in the rear of the commercial use.
David J. Tanner Page 12 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan
LCP Implementation Plan Section 21.10.020.13. Purpose
This standard is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural
and artificial resources
Inconsistent: This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA. The protect design does
not maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and
artificial resources. The project severely impacts views of and from the John Wayne Park/Newport
Theater Arts Center. The project has the potential to significantly impact views from Cliff Drive Park and
nearby areas of Newport Bay. Staff and the Applicant admit this!
Based on project view simulations, the project's mass and scale will result in a significant adverse view
impact from John Wayne Park to Newport Harbor. (Section 21.10.020.G), (Section 20.52.080.F.2.iii).
The project does not meet the requirement of Coastal Development Permit Finding B.1. when measured
against the requires of the LCP.12
LCP IP Section 21.30A.040, B, 2 Demand for Access and Recreation
The project applicant in anticipation of project approval removed a marine use. The original Staff Report
states "There are adequate marine related businesses in the area including boat dealers, boat rentals and
sailing and seamanship schools to serve current and foreseeable demand." The LCP requires the
applicant justify this assertion with a "Demand for Access and Recreation" analysis. There is no evidence
in the record to support the project assertion that there are adequate marine related businesses in the area
to serve current and foreseeable demand. The City has not provided any substantial evidence supporting
the health of the marine industry in the City. The General Plan states: "unless present and foreseeable
future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. Encourage coastal -
dependent industrial uses to locate or expand within existing sites and allow reasonable long-term
growth." At this time private marine use is surging. The demand on the marine industry is high. In
Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, marine businesses are being forced to close and/or relocate because of
increased rent/leases/or reuse of the property for more profitable land uses' 3. These businesses are being
forced further from Newport Beach resulting in additional traffic, additional vehicle miles traveled and
increased air/GHG emissions. Justification must be provided in light of potentially significant adverse
cumulative impacts to the City's marine industry and marine economy to satisfy Land Use Policy LU 2.2
Sustainable and Complete Community.
Municipal Code Chapter 20.32.020 Eligibility for Density Bonus and Incentives
The City's Municipal Code Chapter 20.32.020 (Eligibility for Density Bonus and Incentives) complies as
required with Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917. However, the Government Code does
not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976
12 Section 21.10.020.B. and 20.30.100 (Public View Protection)
is Examples: Raul's Marine Canvas, Stohl Engine Company, and Petros Marine Services
David J. Tanner Page 13 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
(Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). 14 Therefore, the LCP
supersedes the Government Code and density bonus provisions of the City Municipal Code. When
evaluating the project's density bonus development standard waiver request to increase the maximum
height limits, the City is governed by the LCP.
LCP policy Section 21.10.020.G
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects
and enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental
management is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan. (Ord.
2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A) (part), 2016)
Inconsistent: The requested height increase will increase the project's view impact to coastal resources
from public locations. The request is inconsistent with LCP policy Section 21.10.020.G. Any reduction
in coastal views from public locations is potentially significant. Applicant provided view simulations are
distorted using wide angle lens minimizing the project's view impact, are taken from "best case" locations
and do not include rooftop infrastructure (solar panels, air conditioning compressors of rooftop elevator
enclosures. "Worst case" visual simulations should be provided, including views from Newport Bay,
WCH inland to the site, and from Cliff Drive Park also visible from the site to fully understand the
magnitude of significant adverse impact caused by the project. These simulations should also depict night-
time lighting impacts. The apartments have windows on the sides of the building. Windows face John
Wayne Park and have the potential to generate night time lighting impacts.
In addition to significant impact to John Wayne Park/Newport Theater Arts Center the project's mass and
scale will result in a significant adverse view impact from WCH, a designated Coastal View Road, inland
to the coastal bluffs. The project does not protect significant views from public right(s)-of-way in
compliance with the LCP15, nor does the project meet the requirement of CDP Finding B.2 when measured
against the requirements of the LCP.16 Any reduction in coastal bluff views is potentially significant.
WCH is dangerous in the vicinity of the project site. There are 71 vehicular access points onto WCH
within the Mariners Mile, only 4 of these are signalized. Left turn movements in and out are permitted.
WCH varies from 4 to 5 lanes with parallel parking permitted on both sides along portions. A bike lane
on the south side is shared with parked cars and right -turn lanes. Three striped areas telling motorist to
"Keep Clear" to allow left turn in and out movements exist within the immediate vicinity of the site. Two
striped areas stating "Signal Ahead" alerting drivers of the signal at Tustin Avenue exist in the immediate
vicinity of the site. These conditions create hazards to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and especially
children. There have been 37 accident reports filed with the Newport Beach Police Department since
2015. Nearby residents have testified accidents rates are significantly higher than reported in police
records. This project will add significantly to these hazards both individually and cumulatively by
is Government Code 65915(m) This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the
California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any density
bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is
entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and Division 20 (commencing
with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
15 Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection)
16 LCP 21.30A.040.B.4&7 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts)
David J. Tanner Page 14 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
increasing traffic volume and turn movements on WCH.17 Particularly, given the left turn movements to
and from the project. The Staff Report acknowledges
"Residents have communicated with Public Works staff that they have safety concerns
given the roadway width of 28 feet, the grade of the road, and that parking is permitted on
both sides. A primary concern from residents is that vehicles travelling in opposite
directions cannot pass. For comparison purposes, streets in Corona del Mar are 30 feet in
width with parking on both sides and similar concerns for passing. Public Works staff is
currently working with the Tustin Avenue residents to address their concerns."
Staff does not acknowledge the residents' concerns are not valid or that the Project will mitigate
the safety hazards.
The closest north/south street is Tustin Avenue to the west. Project traffic will utilize Tustin Avenue, a
2-lane street with parallel parking on both sides. Tustin Avenue terminates at WCH and connects to
residential neighborhoods to the north. Access drives exist on Tustin Avenue for local businesses. The
only other north/south street is Riverside Street to the west. Riverside Street is a 4-lane street terminating
at WCH, extending north to residential neighborhoods north of Avon Street. Avon Street is a 2-lane
east/west road. Secondary access to the project site is obtained via a drive connecting Tustin Avenue to
the west and a metered parking lot to the east. This drive is offset (non-standard) and north of the
intersection of Avon Street and Tustin Avenue. Ocean View Avenue also terminates at this location
creating a dangerous condition. This intersection configuration would not be permitted under current
design standards.
One entrance to John Wayne Park is from the stairs located on the northside of the un-named access drive
connecting to Avon Avenue. Pedestrians including many children use these stairs and walk daily on Avon
Avenue. They go up and down these stairs to use the park and the retail uses adjacent to WCH. Increased
traffic increases already significant safety concern. The project design does not provide for the adequacy,
efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access.18 It increases hazards. City Staff and the
Applicant know this, previously admitted this for the prior project design and responded at the time by
saying the project characteristics exempt the project from the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirement
to prepare a traffic study.19 This position can no longer be taken because the Project is required to prepare
a traffic study in compliance with the TPO. Even if the City Municipal Code Traffic Phasing Ordinance
exempt the project from evaluating the project's impact on traffic, which it does not, the City LCP does
not exempt the project from analyzing the impacts on coastal resources including traffic and public safety.
To reiterate, there have been 37 traffic accident reports filed with the Newport Beach Police Department
from 2015-2020 and additional serious multi -car injury accidents thus far in 2021. Many more accidents
are reported by residents.
This project will be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, and endanger,
jeopardize, and constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the project.20 The project does not minimize the
number of driveways that interrupt the continuity of street facing building elevations required to satisfy
Land Use Policy LU 5.3.5 Pedestrian -Oriented Architecture and Streetscapes. Residential access should
17 One cumulative project is the Newport Village project
18 Section 20.52.080.F.2.iv
19 Section 15.40.030.0
20 Section 20.52.0801.3
David J. Tanner Page 15 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
be prohibited from WCH. Left -turn -in traffic movements should be prohibited from WCH, but this turn
movement can't be restricted by the City, because WCH is a Caltrans facility not under the control of the
City. This is a recognized significant unavoidable adverse impact!
The multi -family dwellings are not designed to convey a high -quality architectural character 21, do not
achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality 22, fail to modulate roof profiles to
reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety23 and do not provide
an attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood.24 Building
elevations are not well -designed and landscaped to reflect the areas residential village character.2' The
project design does not incorporate architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass
to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a
singular building volume. The project design does not modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale
of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety.
While staff determined the residential component of the project meets municipal code parking
requirements, reality says, the on -site parking provided is not adequate to meet the anticipated project
population, guests, employees and the potential for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Reality says
additional parking spaces will be required which will reduce public parking spaces in the area, further
burdening existing commercial businesses, nearby residential areas and the draw of tourism to the area.
The Mariners' Mile has an existing shortage of public parking spaces. This shortage is likely to get worse
given the potential for ADUs and projected regional population growth. This shortage is leading to
additional tourists parking in nearby residential areas served by public streets.
21 Policy LU 5.1.9 & LU6.16.6
22 Policy LU 5.1.9 (Building Elevations)
21 Policy LU 5.1.9 (Roof Designs & Policy & LU 5.2.1 (Architecture and Site Design)
24 Policy LU 5.2.2 (Buffering Residential Areas)
21 Policy LU6.16.6
David J. Tanner Page 16 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
B. THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CEQA CLASS 32 EXEMPTION
All Facts in Section A, C & D are hereby incorporated by reference.
CEQA Class 32 Exemption - Overview
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, § 21094.5.)
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), (c)—(f).). 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 Hillside Preservation v. City
of Berkeley (2015) 60 CalAth 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 thereof) with
applicable land use documents (zoning maps, general plans, etc.) and if warranted, some standard
preliminary technical analysis (traffic, biology, noise, etc.).
David J. Tanner Page 17 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
The project is a "shovel -ready" project in an urban infill area within the city limits on a site five acres or
less, bordered by urban uses. The project complies with City General Plan land use designation (Mixed -
Use Horizontal (MU-H 1)), the Municipal Code zoning designation of Mixed -Use Mariners Mile and the
Municipal Code's LCP land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU-H). The project will not result
in significant impacts to noise, air quality, or water quality. The project site is developed and devoid of
sensitive habitat and adequately served by public utilities. The project would appear to be predetermined
for the exact use by a CEQA-driven planning process and need not undergo a more onerous review.
One would expect a project meeting these standards to belong to a class of projects that typically have no
significant environmental effects to qualify for a Class 32 exemption.
In this case, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program
policies and standards, and therefore does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption.
The project will result in potential significant traffic and safety impacts both individually and cumulatively
and therefore, does not qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Despite the testimony of many residents in the
immediate project vicinity who experience these hazards on a daily basis, the fact the Newport Beach
Police Department reported there have been 37 traffic accident reports filed from 2015 — 2020, and the
fact that the Project exceeds the 300 ADT traffic generation threshold established by the city TPO, the
City failed to conduct a traffic study. The City should have prepared a traffic study. Without preparing a
traffic study, the City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision the project will or
will not result in significant traffic impacts.
The City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program each designate West Coast Highway between
Newport Boulevard and Dover Street a "Coastal View Road" for its scenic qualities. The project will
result in potential visual impacts both individually and cumulatively and therefore, does not qualify for a
Class 32 exemption.
Due to the project location in a particularly sensitive area, the project will result in significant adverse
impacts due to the project's design which will impact areas of special significance designated, precisely
mapped, and officially adopted by the City General Plan and Municipal Code. Therefore, the project does
not qualify for a Class 32 exemption as demonstrated by the following 4 tests.
Test 1. Consistency with Applicable General Plans and Zoning Designations
General Plans and Zoning Designations
Inconsistent: The Municipal Code incorporates the LCP which contains a Land Use Plan and
Implementation Plan. Development within the Coastal Zone is governed by the LCP. The LCP requires
that all development be consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code and that the Land Use
Policies and Implementation Plan standards of the LCP supersede the City General Plan and Municipal
Code. The Coastal Commission has told Staff this, yet Staff has failed to take heed. In the case of the
Garden Office and Parking Structure project where a similar staff analysis, CEQA Class 32 exemption
and Coastal Development Permit were approved by the City, then immediately appealed in August 2020
to the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission noted: "the standard of review for this appeal is the
certified LCP. It should also be noted that CEQA policies are not the standard of review for this appeal."
Therefore, the project fails to comply with the land use policies and implementation standards of the LCP.
The City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision that the development is
David J. Tanner Page 18 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the certified LCP. A requirement in order to
make the required Coastal Development Permit Findings. Even if a Class 32 exemption were to be
utilized, which it should not, the City has failed to conduct the environmental analysis required by the
LCP.
Area of Special Significance
The project is located in a particularly sensitive area, the Mariners' Mile. The Mariners' Mile is a special
place. In addition to the General Plan and Municipal Code, the coastal zone is governed by the certified
LCP, a section of the Municipal Code which supersedes these documents. Mariners' Mile is an area of
tremendous public interest. The Mariners' Mile is an area of increased regulatory scrutiny and unusual
circumstances. The Mariners' Mile is very important to the long-term image and economic vitality of the
City.
In addition to meeting the General Plan land use designation and site zoning designation, which the project
does not meet, these documents have a number of site development policies and development standards
the project does not meet. Projects within the Coastal Zone require approval of a Coastal Development
Permit. To receive approval of a Coastal Development Permit, a project needs to be found consistent with
the LCP which requires a Finding that the project is consistent with the City General Plan policies,
Municipal Code policies and all LCP land use policies and Implementation Plan development standards.
There is no evidence in the record that this analysis was completed and therefore, the city does not have
the factual background to make this Finding.
The General Plan and Municipal Code identify Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Dover
Drive/Bayshore Drive for its scenic coastal vistas and designate it a Coastal View Road. Views from
WCH to Newport Bay, as well as inland to the coastal bluffs are equally important and protected. The
protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way is required by the Municipal Code.
The EIR for the General Plan States "Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach and are
considered significant scenic and environmental resources." "Coastal bluffs play an important part of
the scenic and visual qualities of the City."
The California Coastal Act states new development in highly scenic areas shall be subordinate to the
character of its setting.26
In this case, the project is located in close proximity to public areas whose views of coastal resources must
be preserved/protected. The project design is required to blend with the community. The potential impact
to the marine industry is to be minimized and new development shall be subordinate to the character of
its setting. The project must be considered in light of its cumulative impacts.
This project and other mixed -use projects within the Mariners' Mile raise significant conflicts between
the City General Plan, Municipal Code, LCP and State housing laws. The State has passed housing laws,
(examples: Mello Act, Density Bonus Act, Housing Accountability Act) which supersede the City General
Plan and Municipal Code and while not subordinate to, are to be harmonious with the Coast Act/City LCP.
On their face these laws conflict with policies in the General Plan, Municipal Code and LCP such as view
protection, traffic, public safety and community character. The California Department of Housing and
ze California Coastal Act of 1976 — Article 6 - Section 30251 PRC, http://www.coastal.ca.gov/fedcd/cach3.pdf, Accessed
February 2, 2006.
David J. Tanner Page 19 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Community Development recommends coastal localities seek to harmonize the goals of protecting coastal
resources and addressing housing needs of Californians. In order to do so, the City must perform the
analysis required by the LCP to support the findings required for the Coastal Development Permit. In
conducting the analysis required for the LCP, the city will have the evidence to document their Findings
required for the Major Site Development Review. This analysis has not been completed or if it has, it has
not been made available to the public.
The significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision are clearly stated in the City General
Plan, Municipal Code and LCP. The City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision
that the development is consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the certified LCP. A
requirement in order to make the required Coastal Development Permit Findings.
Project Design Impacts
The Project design will significantly impact views from nearby public parks of coastal resources including
Newport Bay, WCH and coastal bluffs. The project will generate night-time lighting impacts. Lighting
from apartment windows on the buildings north face facing John Wayne Park.
The project's design does not comply with the height standard. Discretionary actions are required to bring
the project into compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. However, if the height standard
is allowed to be increased it will increase the impact to public views. There is no analysis in the record to
determine a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is not necessary to increase the height of the
commercial use. There is no analysis in the record to justify the need to increase the height of the
commercial use to make affordable housing feasible. There is no evidence in the record the commercial
use will ever be constructed, let along is in anyway linked to affordable housing.
The project design does not comply with the Land Use Element polices and site development standards
previously discussed. The project design does not comply with the intent of the LCP and its policies, or
its Implementation Plan development standards.
There is no evidence in the public record to indicate whether the project complies or does not comply with
the General Plan Vision Statement requiring a reduction in traffic citywide by 28,920 trips each day over
the life of the plan.
There is no evidence in the public record whether the project complies or does not comply with General
Plan Safety Element's primary goal "to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and
economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human -induced hazards". These risks are
applicable to the project in the event of a significant earthquake, earthquake caused liquefaction, wildland
generated urban fire, or combination of any of these conditions. The project and another nearby proposed
project rely on WCH as their primary emergency evacuation route. Circumstances have changed since
the last update of the General Plan including the 2018 Woolsey fire, which showed the inadequacy of
emergency evacuation plans, inadequacy of circulation infrastructure and failure of mutual aid
agreements.2' These increased risks are not included in the City 2011 Emergency Operations Plan.
2' After a year of analysis, in October the County of Los Angeles issued a report citing a litany of contributing factors. One of
the main conclusions is that fire suppression resources were overwhelmed.
(https://www.lacou nty.gov/wp-content/uploads/Citygate-Working-Draft-Woolsey-Fire-Incident-AAR-10-23-19. pdf)
David J. Tanner Page 20 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Changes in circumstances also include the Shake Alert early warning system28 and enactment of Public
Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) by utility purveyors.29 The City was notified of the possibility of PSPS in
2019 by the Southern California Edison Company. A PSPS could cut power to portions of the City
including traffic signals along WCH during a period of high wind conditions or other extreme conditions.
Project compliance with the certified Local Costal Program
In certifying the City LCP, the California Coastal Commission authorized the City to issue Coastal
Development Permits for projects within the coastal zone.
The LCP requires projects to be compliant with the General Plan, Municipal Code and its LCP. When
there are conflicts between land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary
actions, the LCP requires the more restrictive policies/standards apply.
When approving a Coastal Development Permit the City is telling the Coastal Commission: 1) the project
conformed to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable discretionary
actions; and 2) the project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified LCP.
• The project design fails to "Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal
zone environment and its natural and artificial resources".30
• By approving the project as proposed the City is failing "To ensure that any development in the coastal
zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views." 31
• The project is not sited and designed to:
a. "protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas; and
b. "minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding
areas ".32
• The project fails to demonstrate "There is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative." 33
• The project does not "Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program".34
• The project does not meet the required Coastal Development Permit "Findings".35
The project design's noncompliance with General Plan and Municipal Code policies and development
standards is a significant land use impact and disqualifies the project from use of the Class 32 exemption.
28 ShakeAlert " Early Warning Earthquake System (video) presentation, December 17, 2019, Hosted by: Kevin Tiscareno,
Training Captain, Newport Beach Fire Department.
City website: hgps://www.newportbeachca.g,ov/izovemment/departments/public-information-office/nbtv/streamin z-vt� ideo
29 https://www.sce.com/wildfire/psps
31 Section 21.10.020.B.
" Section 21.10.020.G
32 Section 21.30.060.C.1 & 3
33 Section 21.30B.010.G.2
3a Section 21.52.015.F.1
35 Section 21.52.090.D
David J. Tanner Page 21 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Test 2. Would the Project Result in Cumulatively Significant Impacts?
Cumulatively Significant Impacts
Proposed projects in the immediate vicinity of the project include the Newport Village project. The
Newport Village project is a mixed -use project which will have similar impacts as the proposed project,
only significantly greater due to the larges size and scope of the project. Both projects eliminate or reduce
the size of marine uses. Potential significant adverse cumulative impacts include: traffic, transportation,
land use, visual (WCH a Coastal View Road), coastal resources and public safety. The application of
maximum permitted unit capacity (26du/ac) opposed to the Housing Element's realistic unit capacity
((16du/ac) for the inland side of WCH will have similar potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts
to traffic, transportation, land use, visual resources, coastal resources and public safety. These projects
have the potential to cumulatively impact the marine industry by removing or reducing the acreage of
marine uses within the City. This cumulative change will significantly change the village character of the
Mariners' Mile, something not anticipated by the General Plan and Municipal Code mixed -use
designation. The General Plan and Municipal Code did not anticipate development within the mixed -use
land use and zoning categories to have cumulatively significant impacts on public view points.
The City has determined the Newport Village project will have potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts and required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIRs are
only prepared for projects which have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. The
application of the maximum permitted unit capacity (26du/ac) opposed to the Housing Element's realistic
unit capacity ((16du/ac) for the inland side of WCH will have will result in cumulatively significant
impacts. The project combined with the Newport Village project and other projects will result in
cumulatively significant impacts. The potential for cumulatively significant impacts disqualifies the
project from use of the Class 32 exemption.
Since the April City Council hearing on the project, circumstances have changed. The City's Housing
Element update has proceeded. City staff has developed a draft Housing Element that the public has had
the opportunity to review. Based on review of the draft Housing Element and information presented at
public workshops before the City Council, the public has learned in order for the city to meet its affordable
housing component of the city's 4,845-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the city will
have to construct a minimum of 9,119 new housing units. The cumulative impact on the City's circulation
network, city infrastructure is not known. State Housing laws and the SCAG RHNA allocation will result
in significant regional and local cumulative traffic and circulation impacts beyond that anticipated by the
existing General Plan.
The full extent of the project's cumulatively significant impacts cannot be determined until the
certification of the Final EIR for the Newport Village Project or the General Plan Update.
Test 3. Unusual Circumstances
Substantial Evidence
Development of property within the City is controlled by the City General Plan and Municipal Code.
Properties such as this property and others within the coastal zone must also comply with the certified
LCP, a component of the Municipal Code.
David J. Tanner Page 22 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
In certifying the City LCP, the California Coastal Commission authorized the City to issue Coastal
Development Permits for projects within the coastal zone. The LCP requires projects to be compliant
with the General Plan, Municipal Code and its LCP. When there are conflicts between land use and
development regulations, including any applicable discretionary actions, the LCP requires the more
restrictive policies/standards apply. Therefore, the environmental analysis required for approval of a
Coastal Development Permit must be expanded to include all Coastal Act/LCP environmental concerns.
The CEQA Guideline threshold of Significance cannot be relied upon as adequate for this analysis. This
is an unusual circumstance not anticipated by CEQA for projects such as the proposed project.
The Coastal Commission has told Staff this, yet Staff has failed to take heed. In the case of 215 Riverside
where a similar staff analysis, CEQA Class 32 exemption and Coastal Development were approved by the
City, then appealed in August 202 to the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission noted: "the
standard of review for this appeal is the certified LCP. It should also be noted that CEQA policies are
not the standard of review for this appeal." 36
Two of the purposes of the LCP are to "Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the
coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources" and "to ensure that any development in
the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views ...".37
The LCP is comprised of a Land Use Plan and an Implementation Plan.
The project is located within an area known as the Mariners' Mile. The Mariners' Miles occupies a strip
of low-lying land extending from Newport Bay inland to the top of the coastal bluffs, from Newport
Boulevard bridge, south to Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive. This area has been and remains an area of
intense public interest. Land uses include single-family and multi -family residential, retail commercial,
tourist commercial and marine related uses. The General Plan Land Use Element and Municipal code
were updated to allow areas of mixed -use development. Allowable uses include multi -family residential
use. The project is the first multi -family project to be noticed for public hearing on the inland side of
WCH. A development application for a nearby and much larger mixed -use project containing multi-
family use has been filed and is undergoing environmental review. The project represents the first of what
is anticipated to be a number of mixed -use projects including multi -family use. These projects are of
extreme public interest, particularly since there has been public anticipation that the on -going City General
Plan Housing Element and Circulation Element update will reevaluate the Mariners' Mile and determine
the future vision for the area and West Coast Highway. The General Plan update process is addressing
the City's required Regional Housing Needs Assessment of approximately 4,845 dwelling units of which
approximately 40% must be affordably priced. A requirement the city is not fully complying with in the
current draft Housing Element Update. The City through the General Plan Housing Element process is
trying to identify potential locations for additional the RHNA units. Mariners" Mile is one area being
considered. The State also passed a series of laws ministerially approving Accessory Dwelling Units in
existing and proposed residential units. This includes existing residential units within the Mariners' Mile,
the project and all future projects. The impact of ADUs on the City/Mariners' Mile has not been evaluated
and is part of the General Plan update. Over time ADUs will increase the population per dwelling unit, a
factor relied upon by planners to project future water sewer, electricity and infrastructure requirements.
Therefore, this project is precedent setting and of extreme public interest. The precedential value of the
local government's decision for future interpretations of its General Plan, Municipal Code and LCP is
extremely high.
se California Coastal Commission, Staff Report: Appeal - Substantial Issue. Appeal No. A-5-NPB-20-0025, August 23, 2020
37 LCP Section 21.10.020.13 & G
David J. Tanner Page 23 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
In this case, the General Plan Vision Statement requires a reduction in traffic city-wide 38, while allowing
additional growth through its Land Use Element. The project complies with City General Plan, zoning
and LCP land use designation for the property, but as stated previously, the project does not comply with
the Housing Element density for the site. The project design does not comply with many of the LCP
plan's policies. Nor does the project design comply with the intent of the General Plan. The project
design is not reducing Average Daily Trips (ADT), it is increasing ADT. The project design involves an
increase of intensity compared to the existing condition/use. The existing condition is vacant property.
The project design is also required by the LCP to "protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall
quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources". The project design does
not. The City is required to "ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances
coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views" prior to issuance of a Coastal Development
Permit. Coastal resources potentially impacted by the project design include coastal bluffs and views of
coastal resources from public spaces. Not only must the project design protect views from the land to the
water, it must protect views from the water to the coastal bluffs. The project design fails to do so.
The project design impacts views of coastal resources including views of Newport Harbor from John
Wayne Park and Cliff Drive Park. The project design impacts views of the coastal bluffs as seen from
Newport bay and West Coast Highway, a designated Coastal View Road. Therefore, to be in compliance
with the General Plan, Municipal Code and LCP, the project design would have to preserve and enhances
coastal resources; protect and enhance coastal views; reduce ADT, and comply with a number of General
Plan Land Use policies and zoning standards regulating the project character, quality and interface with
adjacent uses. The project design fails to do so.
Test 4. Will these unusual circumstances create a potential for significant impact?
Fair Argument
Based on the information presented herein, the project design does not meet the policies and design
requirements listed above and is therefore, inconsistent with the General Plan, the Municipal Code and
it's LCP. Inconsistency with the General Plan, the Municipal Code and it's LCP disqualify the project
from use of the Class 32 exemption and represents a potentially significant adverse land use impact.
Additional project design impacts disqualifying the project from the use of the Class 32 exemption
include;
The project design will result in significant visual impacts to costal resources, including John Wayne Park,
Cliff Drive Park, WCH (a designated Coastal View Road), costal bluffs, and Newport Bay;
38 General Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction pg. 1-2
"After receiving community input, GPAC developed a "Vision Statement" —a description of the City that residents want
Newport Beach to be now and in 2025—to serve as a blueprint for this General Plan Update. GPAC, with the assistance of
planning professionals and using the Vision Statement as a guide, then developed this General Plan to ensure that the City
achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing thefollowing:
■ Reducing traffic citywide by 28,920 trips each day over the life of the plan"
David J. Tanner Page 24 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Based on public testimony and Newport Beach Police Department accident reports, the project design has
the potential to result in potential traffic and safety impacts to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on
local streets and WCH adjacent to the project.
The project design has the potential to result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to public safety
from traffic impacts (example: unsafe turn movements onto and from WCH and overburdening of local
streets), sewer odors, and to coastal access through the reduction of available public parking resulting
from the granting of an off-street parking variance for the commercial use.
The project design has the potential to result in potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts from
the reduction of marine related uses in the immediate area, traffic and safety impacts on WCH and local
streets. These facts represent a Fair Argument the project will result in potentially significant adverse
impacts.
Expert Opinion
Mr. Tanner, an individual, is the President of Environmental & Regulatory Specialists, Inc., a Newport
Beach based firm which provides land use, regulatory and CEQA services. Mr. Tanner is considered an
expert in the field, having provided land use, regulatory and CEQA services for over 45 years.
Mr. Tanner's expert opinion is that:
• The project is inconsistent with the City General Plan, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Plan;
• The project will result in significant individual and cumulative scenic impacts to WCH, a Coastal
View Road adjacent to the project;
• The City does not have sufficient factual evidence to support a finding that the project will or will
not result in significant individual and/or cumulative Traffic impacts;
• The project design will contribute to cumulatively significant impacts;
• Unusual circumstances exist;
• The fair argument standard has been met supported by substantial evidence; and due to the unusual
circumstances of the project design, there is a "reasonable possibility" the project "will have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; and
• The project does not qualify for a CEQA Class 32 exemption.
CEQA Conclusion
Pursuant to (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2, subds. (b), (c)—(f).) the infill exemption cannot be used in this
case because the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and LCP. The project
design would cause cumulatively significant impacts and is subject to "unusual circumstances." Due to
the unusual circumstances, the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
David J. Tanner Page 25 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
C. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2019-062
Section 20.66.020
All Facts in Section A, B & D are hereby incorporated by reference.
The City of Newport Beach's action (CDP No. CD2019-062) proposes the demolition of an existing
marine sales facility located at 2510 and 2530 West Coast Hwy (APNs 425-471-55 & 425-471-56). The
site encompasses approximately 0.98 acres. The site is developed with two office buildings, several small
storage sheds, and paved areas for ancillary boat and automobile parking. The site has minimal
landscaping and is situated inland (north) of West Coast Highway a designated Coastal View Road and
south of, and in close proximity to coastal bluffs. The site is relatively flat, sloping to the south. The site
is currently vacant, there are no operating businesses and the site does not generate any traffic.
The project proposes the construction of a new mixed -use development consisting of 36 residential
dwelling units, and a 5,096-square-foot office building. The residential component will consist of 8 studio
units, 22 one -bedroom units and 6 two -bedroom units. Three of the units will be provided as workforce
housing and made affordable to very low-income households. The commercial component of the project
will consist of a 5,096 square -foot office building. The commercial use is proposed adjacent to
approximately 1/2 of the property frontage on West Coast Highway with the residential apartment uses
proposed adjacent to and on the west side of the commercial use. A ground level parking facility provides
a total of 65 parking spaces. The parking facility is predominantly covered by the residential component
of the project and is accessible via two-way access driveways from both West Coast Highway and an un-
named access drive adjacent to the northern property line.
The project includes hardscape and drainage to collect and treat surface runoff before being discharged in
the municipal storm drain system.
The project includes a Major Site Development Review to allow a mixed -use development.
Pursuant to Density Bonus law, the project includes a request for one development concession for the unit
mix and one waiver for the building height.
The precedential value of the City's decision for future interpretations of its LCP within the Mariners'
Mile is extremely high. The requirement of the Coastal Act to protect coastal resources is clearly stated
in Section 30251 of the Act and the policies to protect coastal resources affected by the Project are clear
stated in the General Plan and LCP.
The City does not have factual or legal support for the City to override the California Coastal Act.
Conflicts exist between the City General Plan, Municipal Code, LCP and State housing and density bonus
laws. However, the Coastal Act prevails unless stated otherwise in the LCP, which is not the case with
the City's LCP.
By approving the Project's Coastal Development Permit, the city is telling residents of the State of
California and the California Coastal Commission:
1) The Project conforms to all City land use and development regulations, including any applicable
discretionary actions; and
David J. Tanner Page 26 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
2) The project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
By approving this Coastal Development Permit the city is failing its fiduciary duty to the residents of the
State of California and Newport Beach "To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and
enhances coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views." and failing to "Protect and encourage
facilities that serve marine -related businesses and industries".
The following substantial issues exist should the City approve the Coastal Development Permit as
proposed:
• The project planning application for the Coastal Development Permit fails to provide all required
information. Specifically, Section 21.52.015 (C) (Coastal Development Permits). The development
application is incomplete.
• The City's conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP is not
adequately supported by documents in the record file or the City's findings as stated in Local CDP
No. CD2020-143.
• The City failed to use the correct standard of review for the Coastal Development Permit. The standard
of review for this Coastal Development Permit is the certified LCP. CEQA policies are not the
standard of environmental review for Coastal Development Permits.
• The proposal to construct a new mixed -use commercial residential development that adversely impact
coastal views from John Wayne Park, Cliff Drive Park, views from Newport bay inland to the coastal
bluffs and from West Coast Highway (a Coastal View Road) is not supported by a finding that the
project design is the minimum amount necessary to support the development, nor does it analyze
design alternatives that do not impact coastal views. As the project has been designed the development
would significantly alter coastal views, result in traffic/public safety and night-time light/glare impacts
and adversely impact the character of the community.
• The City prepared a visual analysis of the project site from John Wayne Park. There is not sufficient
evidence that the project would protect scenic resources consistent with LUP Policies 4.4.1-1 through
4.4.1-3.
The City's conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP Section
21.30A.040-A. (Relationship and Proportionality) was not adequately supported by documents in the
record file or the City's findings as stated in Local CDP No. CD2020-143.
The City's conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP Section
21.50.070-B. (Environmental Review) was not adequately supported by documents in the record file
or the City's findings as stated in Local CDP No. CD2020-143.
The city should have required the project applicant to obtain a General Plan amendment to permit the
increased commercial building height and decrease in square footage.
The project is not consistent with (Section 21.52.090.D) Coastal Development Permits, Findings and
Decision in that the project does not comply with the City General Plan Housing Element because there
is no information in the public record to demonstrate the increase in commercial building height, decrease
in commercial square footage or the construction of the commercial use will have any impact on the
feasibility of the project to provide affordable housing.
The applicant prepared visual analysis from Coast Highway adjacent to the project totally block views of
the Coastal Bluff and public park in back of the site. In addition, the city should have required visual
analysis from Newport Bay and public areas on Lido Isle to adequately analyze how the development as
David J. Tanner Page 27 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
a whole could impact views of the coastal bluffs behind the project site. California's coastal bluffs are
significant coastal resources, and great care should be taken when designing new development to protect
the visually aesthetic qualities of these rare landforms. The project is not consistent with LUP Policy
4.1.1-1 in that the project does not include appropriate measures to adequately protect the visual qualities
of the coastal bluff.
The City as the Lead Agency for CEQA compliance should have not approved the CEQA Class 32
exemption based on the presence of special and unusual circumstances which had the potential to result
in significant adverse impacts to sensitive coastal resources. The City should have required CEQA
analysis of the project's potential impacts to sensitive coastal resources, LCP Policies and Development
Standards. If such analysis was undertaken, it is not well reflected in the findings and conditions to
approve the project.
The Project does not conform to the following standards of the Local Coastal Program . (LCP) or the public
access policies of the Coastal Act:
• The Project fails to "Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone
environment and its natural and artificial resources". (Section 21.10.020.13.)
• The Project fails to "To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances
coastal resources; protects and enhances coastal views." (Section 21.10.020.G)
• The Project is not sited and designed to:
a. "protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas; and
b. "minimize visual impacts and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas"
(Section 21.30.060.C.1 & 3)
• The Project fails to demonstrate "The provision of public access shall bear a reasonable relationship
between the requirement and the project's impact and shall be proportional to the impact." (Section
21.30A.040.A)
• The Project fails to demonstrate "There is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative."
(Section 21.30B.010.G.2)
• The Project does not "Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program"
(Section 21.52.015.F.1)
• The Project does not qualify for Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards (Section
21.52.090.A)
• The Project does not qualify for "Considerations". (Section 21.52.090.C)
• The Project does not meet the required "Findings". (Section 21.52.090.D)
Finding #
Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program (e.g. development
standards, no impacts to public views, natural resources, etc); and
David J. Tanner Page 28 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
This Finding is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Inconsistent: See prior comments. The project planning application for the Coastal Development Permit
fails to provide all required information. Specifically, Section 21.52.015 (C) (Coastal Development
Permits) of the Municipal Code. Without this information the City does not have factual and/or legal
support for the City's decision that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of
the certified Local Coastal Program.
The granting of heigh increases and off -site parking reductions is not compatible with the surrounding
area and is not consistent with the purposes of the LCP to "Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the
overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources" and " To ensure
that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and
enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental
management is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan." (Ord.
2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016)" (LCP Section 21.10.020, (B) & (G)). Approval would not serve a
public purpose or need or the general welfare.
While the public need for housing is established by state law, the state Coastal Act requiring the City to
ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources; protects and
enhances coastal views and access; and ensure that growth, development, and environmental management
is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The Coastal Act is
not subordinate to State housing statutes; however, the courts have encouraged harmony between the
statutes.
The Housing Accountability Act is also subordinate to the Coastal Act because the Housing
Accountability Act provides that it shall not be construed to relieve local agencies from complying with
the Coastal Act.
The Density Bonus Act is also subordinate to the Coastal Act because the Density Bonus Act provides
that it does not supersede the Coastal Act or in any way alter or lessen its effect.
David J. Tanner Page 29 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
D. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2019-003
Municipal Code Section 20.66.070(F) Findings and Decision
All Facts in Section A, B & C are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding #
2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph C. 2.c.
C.2.c. Conditions
(1) Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, the certified Coastal Land Use
Plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or
structure;
This Finding is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Inconsistent: The project planning application for the Coastal Development Permit is incomplete. The
application fails to provide all required information. Specifically, Section 21.52.015 (C) (Coastal
Development Permits) of the Municipal Code. Without this information the City does not have factual
and/or legal support for the City's decision that the project is consistent or inconsistent with all relevant
provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program.
The Project design is inconsistent with Land Use Element Table LUL The residential use fronts on WCH
and the residential use is not in back of the commercial use as required by the General Plan. The residential
use is alongside the commercial use. There is no information in the record the project will provide marine
related uses or services, or that the commercial use will ever be constructed.
(2) The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures
to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards
of good design;
Inconsistent: The proposed residential apartment building is rectangular shaped which is not in character
with surrounding residential uses. The roof is primarily flat with angled roofing on the perimeter. Other
nearby residential structures have pitched roofs with architectural features integrated into their exterior
design.
(3) The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment ofstructures on the site and adjacent
developments and public areas;
Inconsistent: The bulk of the apartment building is not compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Rather than a rectangular design, the apartments should be divided into duplexes, triplexes
or fourplex units with individual architectural features that appear as individual units with sloping roofs.
It appears the maximum effort was devoted to obtaining the maximum potential density rather than
producing a project compatible in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and
adjacent developments and public areas
David J. Tanner Page 30 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
This property is too small to achieve community compatibility. There is not sufficient space to allow
effective perimeter landscaping, building setbacks or other measures to effectively mitigation
environmental impacts and compatibility impacts with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The City is
proposing to utilize the property frontage within the ultimate right-of-way of Pacific Coast Highway for
temporary landscape and hardscape improvements. These improvements will be removed when WCH is
widened leaving a 3-foot sidewalk/setback separating the proposed commercial use from WCH. The
existing frontage is currently used by pedestrians including children and bicyclists many of which are
children. The ultimate 3-foot setback will be insufficient to safely accommodate future pedestrian and
cyclists needs. The project fails to fully mitigate impacts on surrounding land uses and is therefore,
inconsistent with the LCP.
(4) The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles,
driveways, and parking and loading spaces;
Inconsistent: See #3 above. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access from Coast Highway into and out
of the project is dangerous. Importantly, the design of the intersection of the un-named drive on the north
end of the property and Tustin Avenue, Avon Street and Ocean View Street is offset and controlled by
stop signs. This intersection is not capable of safely carrying additional vehicle capacity, especially when
considering the width of roads, on -street parking, number of children, pedestrians, bicyclists, crosswalks
and the access stairway from John Wayne Park. The unnamed drive the project takes access from is
designed to provide access to a metered parking lot for 80± cars and provide secondary emergency access
for an office and restaurant use on West Coast Highway.
(S) The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant
and irrigation materials; and
Inconsistent: The project has no exterior landscape to block the mass of the residential structure from
public views on West Coast Highway or from public John Wayne Park and Cliff Drive park which are at
a higher elevation and will look down upon the roof of the building. A significant reduction in building
size, incorporation of pitched roofs and free-standing structures consistent with the Housing Element
residential density would offer the potential for partial mitigation through use of landscaping to buffer the
project's significant view impacts.
(6) The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section
20.30.080(Public View Protection).
Inconsistent: The project does not protect views from public parks or public right-of-way such as West
Coast Highway. The height of the commercial component is excessive and is being used to block the
residential building mass and its height from views along West Coast Highway inland and from John
Wayne Park and Cliff Drive Park toward the bay.
Note: Section 20.66.070(F) C.2.c referenced above 20.30.100 (Public View Protection)
20.30.100 Public View Protection.
A. This section provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from
public view points and corridors. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views from
David J. Tanner Page 31 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
private property, to deny property owners a substantial property right or to deny the right to
develop property in accordance with the other provisions of this Zoning Code.
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Inconsistent: The project does not to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from public view
points and corridors (public parks or public right-of-way such as West Coast Highway). Whomever, wrote
the following language in the Staff report needs to be assigned to a different department! This reflects the
continued pro -development bias of the planning department.
"Applicable public viewprotection policies are subjective, and they do notprovide any objective standard
as to when development may be contrary to the policy. The question rests in the degree to which the view
is altered or blocked."
The height of the commercial and residential components serves to block views from West Coast Highway
inland and from John Wayne Park toward the bay.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply only to discretionary applications
where a project has the potential to obstruct public views from public viewpoints and corridors,
as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay
and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa Ana River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport
Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs,
canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space.
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Inconsistent: The project has the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors,
as identified on General Plan. The height of the commercial and residential component partially blocks
views from West Coast Highway inland and from John Wayne Park toward the bay.
C. Initial Evaluation. Discretionary applications involving a project site adjacent to an identified
public viewpoint or corridor shall be reviewed to evaluate the development's potential to impact
public views.
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Inconsistent: Whoever made the initial evaluation need to see an eye doctor! Whomever, wrote the
following language in the Staff report needs to be transferred to a different department
"Applicable public view protection policies are subjective, and they do not provide any objective standard
as to when development may be contrary to the policy. The question rests in the degree to which the view
is altered or blocked."
D. Visual Impact Analysis. Where a proposed development has the potential to obstruct a public
view(s) from an identified public viewpoint or corridor, as identified on General Plan Figure NR
3 (Coastal Views), a view impact analysis may be required by the Department. The view impact
analysis shall be prepared at the project proponent's expense. The analysis shall include
David J. Tanner Page 32 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
recommendations to minimize impacts to public views from the identified public viewpoints and
corridors while allowing the project to proceed while maintaining development rights.
This policy is objective and applies to applicability of the HAA
Inconsistent: The view analysis is inadequate and miss leading. The analysis utilized wide angle imagery
which distorts the image minimizing the vertical scale of project impacts. The imagery did not include
rooftop infrastructure required by building code (including solar panels, air conditioning compressors and
elevator enclosures) which will ad to the vertical height of the project and increase the visual impact to
coastal resources.
The view analysis did not consider impacts from Newport Bay inland. The coastal bluff and John Wayne
Park in back of the project are not visible from the view analysis prepared from West Coast Highway
looking inland. Are views of these coastal resources totally blocked by the project?
Even with the limited and inadequate view analysis, the analysis clearly shows the project will
significantly impact public view points (John Wayne Park), sensitive coastal resources and public
corridors (West Coast Highway).
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
David J. Tanner
- END -
David J. Tanner Page 33 of 33 July 27, 2021
223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Item No. 12
From:
Rieff, Kim
To:
Mulvey. Jennifer
Subject:
FW: Building proposals in front of you
Date:
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:55:09 AM
Importance:
High
From: Rachel Stone <rachels@sapres.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:48 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Building proposals in front of you
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Newport Beach City Council,
I am a resident of East Side Costa Mesa, located between Tustin Ave and Irvine Blvd, west of 17th
street. I am extremely concerned about the development that is proposed along PCH, just below
John Wayne park. Already Tustin Ave is becoming a busy short cut for cars heading from PCH to 17th
street and beyond. Traffic is already getting to a dangerous level. Permitting a development such as
the one currently proposed would serve to exacerbate the traffic issue on our residential side
streets.
Until very thorough studies are completed to understand traffic/circulation and safety for the
Newport mesa neighborhoods, I am totally against this development. I understand that there are
many other unanswered questions in regards to this particular development.
I am not against development, in fact I am pro continuing to upgrade and improve facilities and
options available. I have called Costa Mesa and Newport Beach home for over 30 years. I love this
area, the people, the myriad of options available to us and the quaint beach feel that we still have.
Having grown up spending my summers on Balboa Island, I care deeply about Newport Beach and
the surrounding areas. Let's preserve it for our future generations and say "NO" to development for
the sake of development!
Rachel Stone
Clean Beauty Advocate
Beautycounter
www.beautycounter.com/rachelstone
Received After Agenda Printed
July 27, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12
Subject: FW: Public comment for tonights 2510 Project Public Hearing ... please include
From: Jimmy Thomas <1tx12 cbhotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 3:21:06 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Dept -City Council<CityCouncilLune__woortbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk;,anewportbeach_ca_ gooy>
Subject: Public comment for tonights 2510 Project Public Hearing ... please include
I Agree ... Lets Do A Traffic Study Disconnected From 2510
Today's Stu News Newport's front page includes the following statement regarding the 2510 project:
"We did, however, collectively agree that an overall traffic study absolutely needs to be completed for the entire area. "
I agree with this reference. I think this traffic study should be done and it should not be connected with 2510.
For decades, this area has been subject to an uncountable number of traffic studies. Unfortunately, they have
all a common defect: They all assume six travel lanes in the currently undersized Mariners Mile. This leaves the
community without the ability to assess Mariners' Mile circulation options.
This time around, we need three Mariners' Mile circulation configurations in the traffic study:
#1 The Protect Mariners' Mile configuration where narrowed lanes and traffic calming devices are installed. That
citizens group insists these changes are a prerequisite to the desired village atmosphere;
#2 The current configuration;
#3 The six travel lane configuration.
The traffic study should conclude:
#1 A six lane configuration provides the lowest regional traffic cut -through volumes on Newport Heights and Cliff Haven
residential streets;
#2 Alternately, The Protect Mariners' Mile configuration delivers the highest regional traffic cut -through volumes on
Newport Heights and CliffHaven residential streets.
Since Newport Heights and Cliff Haven residential streets are heavily travelled by students on bikes, I expect
Protect Mariners Mile will find a way to assemble a village atmosphere without traffic calming and narrowed lanes on
Mariners Mile. Furthermore, you may find a groundswell of support for six lanes from the residents who own homes
that DO NOT back the Mariners' Mile.
Thank You
James Kociuba
Newport Beach
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed -Use Project Proposal
From: Art Knowlson <aknowlson@cklawllp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:18 PM
To: Patrick Gormley ...
Subject: RE: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed -Use Project Proposal
All,
I concur with all of the points raised so eloquently by Patrick Gormley.
Simply put, we need a fully -integrated plan that addresses all of the issues and resolves them for the benefit of all.
There is much at stake. Let's do it right.
Art
Arthur R. Knowlson, Jr. Esq.
Case Knowlson LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1000
Irvine, California 92612
Tel: (949) 729-0700
Fax: (949) 729-0729
aknowlson@cklawllp.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Patrick Gormley <pfg1941@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:08 PM
To: Brad Avery ...
Good Afternoon,
In advance of the July 27, 2021, City Council Review Session pertaining to 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed -Use Project
Proposal attached are the slides of my presentation and a letter that expands on the visuals.
Your neighbor,
Patrick Gormley
Newport Beach
1
FITZGERALD •YAP •KREDITQR UP
July 27, 2021
VIA EMAIL
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Michael J. FitzGerald*
Eoin L. Kreditor*
Eric P. Franciscom
Lynne Bolduc
George Vausher, LLM, CPA$
David M. Lawrence
Robert C. Risbrough
Robert M. Yoakum
Sherilyn Learned O'Dell
Natalie F. Foti
Brook John Changala
Josephine Rachelle Aranda
Derek R. Guizado
Pfrancez Quijano
John M. Marstont
Deborah M. Rosenthalt
Maria M. Rullot
Larry S. Zemant
Author's Email: drosenthal@fyklaw.com
FYK ref # 2021018.01
Re: De Novo Review of Mixed -Project at 2510 West Coast Highway
(PA 2019-249 (949-270-8165) 7/27/2021 Agenda Item # XVIII 12)
Dear Mayor Avery and Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile (Coalition), a
grassroots organization dedicated to preserving the special quality of this stretch of West Coast
Highway in the City of Newport Beach, including its marine orientation, human scale, and historic
character. This communication supplements the Coalition's previous letters, dated February 17,
April 27, and May 27, 2021, copies of which are incorporated by reference into this submittal and
included in the record. The Coalition remains concerned that, even as revised, the proposed
office/multi-family project at 2510 West Coast Highway ("Project") does not implement the
community's vision for future development of Mariner's Mile. This Project offers the City a not -
to -be -repeated opportunity to set a precedent for creation of a vibrant, neighborhood and visitor -
serving village along this prominent and highly sensitive stretch of commercial highway.
Unfortunately, the proposed Project focuses on the landowner's desire to maximize residential
density while treating the City's multi -use vision as little more than a burdensome afterthought.
The City of Newport Beach, and the surrounding community, deserves better.
The Project has changed significantly since it was last reviewed by the City Council and
Planning Commission. Among other changes, the revised Project reduces non-residential uses by
approximately 50 percent and converts it from commercial to office, while adding another market -
rate housing unit. Frontage along West Coast Highway is split between office and residential
access, with no unifying appearance. In terms of design, the residential portion of the building is
elongated to present a smaller north -south and larger east -west footprint. Residential access to
2 Park Plaza, Suite 850 . Irvine, CA 92614 1 Tel: 949-788-8900 . Fax: 949-788-8980 . www.fyklaw.com
*Professional Corporation . tOf Counsel . $Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law, and in Taxation Law, State Bar of California
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 2 of 14
West Coast Highway will be two-way, although the primary entrance remains from the Avon
"Alley." According to the Staff Report, the Project will be required to design and construct
widening of Avon to accommodate new traffic. Setbacks and landscaping will accommodate
future widening of West Coast Highway, essentially eliminating setbacks when the planned
widening occurs. Building heights have not changed and waivers from generally applicable
development standards are still required. Impacts to views from John Wayne Park remain largely
unchanged, although the apartment's bulk is less massive. The financial relationship between the
office and residential portions of the Project remains completely undefined, although the two
unrelated uses are proposed on a single lot with the same owner. The "major" Project
modifications since the last Council hearing are elongation of the multi -family structure, redesign
of open space, substitution of 5,096 square feet of office for 11,266 square feet of boutique
commercial. In summary, the revised Project provides less than half the non-residential
development mandated by the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, reduces the non-residential
frontage, increases the number of market -rate units from 35 to 36 on a .98acre lot, continues to
impact important and sensitive park views, and adds off -site street widening to the Project
description.
Unfortunately, the Project modifications proposed since the last City Council hearing
address only one of the community's concerns about the proposed Project: impacts to views from
John Wayne Park. The modified Project does not eliminate view impacts, it merely narrows them
slightly, leaving a marginally larger sliver of the existing water view from the public park. While
the Coalition appreciates this design accommodation, the modified Project continues to contribute
to the cumulative loss of water views across West Coast Highway, along with loss of the
opportunity for new neighborhood and visitor -serving commercial uses lining this major
thoroughfare. If this precedent is followed in the future, water views from John Wayne Park will
effectively be "nibbled to death," and the north side of West Coast Highway will be a dead zone
of underutilized office buildings and residential entryways. As discussed below, neither the
Housing Accountability Act, the Planning & Zoning Laws, nor the Coastal Act require this result.
Within the confines of these statutes, the City has fully adequate discretion to protect the future of
Mariner's Mile. If the City chooses to approve this Project despite the adverse precedent it sets, it
will be the choice of the City Council, not any mandates of State law. In fact, in full compliance
with State law, the City has an opportunity to approve a project on this site that provides both
community -serving commercial development and needed housing at appropriate densities.
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 3 of 14
SUMMARY
The Project Cannot Be Approved Without Additional Mandatory Studies.
Documentation for this Project was always skimpy, but the modifications proposed since the last
Council hearing highlight the absence of information in the record to support approval. At a
minimum, the Project cannot be approved without the following studies and documentation. At
this time, it is unknown whether the results of these studies will show potentially significant
adverse impacts from the Project, eliminating use of the infill exemption under CEQA and
requiring more extensive environmental review. Currently, there is inadequate information for the
City to find that the Project will have no significant impacts on the sensitive environment along
Mariner's Mile, especially in the areas of traffic, individual and cumulative views, and plan
consistency. Due to the complete absence of financial information, the City has no way to know
whether the concessions requested under the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA") are necessary
or even helpful in supporting provision of 3 units of affordable housing out of a total of 36. Aside
from legal requirements to conduct these additional studies, the City should want to know the full
impacts of this precedent -setting Project before final approval.
1. Traffic Study. The original 35-unit/boutique auto showroom project was determined
to generate 295 daily trips, just below the 300 trips required for a traffic study under
City requirements. Obviously, a 36-unit/office project will exceed the 300-trip
threshold for preparation of a traffic study. Even conservative estimates show that the
Project will generate significantly more than 300 trips on the narrow and congested
streets that provide primary access. The revised Staff Report fails to address the need
for a traffic study, but this may have been an oversight due to the large number of
Project modifications. The Coalition expects the City will follow its own policies by
requiring a traffic study for the modified Project.
2. Avon Widening. The Project proposes to dedicate 20' along the Avon "Alley" for
widening. The Staff Report states the developer will be responsible for the design and
construction of the Avon widening. This is a major change in the Project Description
for the purposes of CEQA, and the City must consider the environmental impacts of
the proposed construction. For instance, it is unclear whether the required widening
will eliminate parking along Avon that serves John Wayne Park. The Staff Report
acknowledges that two-way traffic on Avon is problematic, but does not address
whether the required widening will allow two-way traffic. At a minimum, the Project
Description must be revised to include widening of the Avon "Alley," along with
impacts to usage of John Wayne Park and neighborhood traffic patterns. No
determination on the significance of the Project impacts can be made until these studies
are completed.
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 4 of 14
3. Studies To Support Waivers, Concessions, and Incentives. The HAA allows the
City to grant various waivers, concessions, and incentives if they are shown to result in
"actual and identifiable cost reductions" in construction and operation of affordable
housing. (Govt. Code § 65915.) In this case, among other accommodations, the
applicant has requested a height waiver, residential setback reduction, halving of
commercial frontage requirements, reduction in commercial area requirements under
the General Plan/LCP, elimination of General PlanNision Plan requirements for
neighborhood and visitor -serving frontage uses with a pedestrian or marine orientation,
and lowering of General Plan/LCP water view requirements. To the best of the
Coalition's knowledge, the applicant has provided no documentation in support of its
claim that any of these concessions are necessary to make 3 units of its 36-unit Project
affordable for lower income residents. In some cases, the concessions may actually
increase long-term operating costs. For instance, the applicant does not show either
unmet office demand on Mariner's Mile or a potential user for the proposed office
space. To the extent the cost of the proposed office space is combined with residential
construction, it will increase construction costs. If the office space remains unoccupied
for any significant period of time during the life of the residential project (55 years),
maintenance costs will fall to the multi -family apartments. By proposing to construct
the office and residential uses on the same lot, the developer has linked them financially
— for better or worse — for the life of the Project. By attempting to maximize current
cash flow from residential units, the developer may in fact be endangering the future
financial viability of the residential portion of the Project. As noted in the Coalition's
prior comments, this Project is intended to remain in place for at least 55 years. By
constructing the office and residential uses in separate unrelated buildings on a single
lot, the applicant can neither sell nor reconfigure its highly visible street frontage in
response to market demand. The bottom line is that the developer has submitted no
evidence to support the need for any waivers, concessions, or incentives, except vague
references to feasibility, and the Project cannot be approved without this information
in the record under the HAA.
4. Story Poles. The Coalition has asked that story poles be erected by the applicant to
ensure the neighborhood has a full understanding of the Project's visual impacts. There
has been more than enough time for story poles to be erected in accordance with
procedures in most southern California cities. Computer simulations are not a
substitute for story poles, which cannot be manipulated based on different vantage
points. In the interests of full disclosure and transparency, the Coalition repeats its
request that story poles be erected to ensure the community has a clear picture of Project
impacts on water views. The applicant's consistent refusal to accommodate a common
and non -controversial request for story poles only heightens the neighborhood's
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 5 of 14
concern that Project impacts are being deliberately concealed or misrepresented. The
Coalition would be happy to pay for installation of story poles if the applicant is
unwilling to do so. The Council certainly understands that the current water views
from John Wayne Park are highly prized by the many residents and visitors who use
and enjoy it, so every effort to address their concerns should be made by the City and
applicant. The applicant has never explained why it refuses to install story poles, and
this patent lack of transparency concerns the Coalition.
The City Has Discretion To Disapprove Or Modify The "Project" Under The HAA.
The applicant focuses most of its attention on the City's obligations under the HAA, not
surprisingly because the applicant's sole goal is to maximize the number of market -rate housing
units, while doing the absolute minimum to comply with the City's desire for a true mixed -use
community. However, the applicant does not address statutory requirements that the Project
comply with the City's General Plan, Mariner's Mile Vision Plan, and Local Coastal Plan ("LCP")
regardless of eligibility for concessions under the HAA. The City cannot refuse to approve an
application that is consistent with the GPA/LCP, but it is not required to approve development that
is inconsistent with the City's adopted use regulations. In addition to the critical legal distinction
between use regulations and construction requirements, the City has no obligation to approve
reductions in development standards in the absence of proof they are necessary to reduce the cost
of residential construction to accommodate affordable housing. In this case, the applicant is asking
for approval of a parcel map to merge 5 existing lots into a single lot for the sole purpose of
increasing the number of base residential units, and this maximizing the density bonus. Under
Government Code § 66474(b), the City cannot approve a parcel map where the "design or
improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general or specific
plans." The 5,096 square foot "office" structure is not consistent with the City's requirement that
40 percent of any proposed development on Mariner's Mile consist of non-residential development
and that all proposed uses consist of "general commercial" along the frontage of West Coast
Highway, as reflected in the General Plan, LCP, and Mariner's Mile Vision Plan. The HAA does
not allow the City to grant exemptions to General Plan/LCP use requirements without going
through the statutory amendment process. More importantly, the HAA does not require the City
to grant approval to the proposed single -lot parcel map, which is designed and intended for the
sole purpose of maximizing residential units. The HAA also does not require, or even allow a 50
percent reduction in the minimum percentages included in the General Plan/LCP. The City's
consistent vision for Mariner's Mile has been for a vibrant commercial corridor that serves the
community and attracts tourists — a bland "office" associated with a dense apartment building
sharing the West Coast Highway frontage is not consistent with the City's General Plan and LCP.
As designed, the Project is entirely dependent on the City's willingness to approve a single -lot
parcel map instead of requiring the unrelated proposed uses to be located on different lots. The
HAA controls allowable density and design standards; it does not affect the City's right and
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 6 of 14
obligation to consider compliance of the parcel map and proposed uses with the General Plan/LCP.
In short, the City cannot make the necessary findings for approval of the proposed single -lot parcel
map under Government Code § 66474 because the 5,096 square foot "office" is not consistent with
the General Plan/LCP in terms of size or proposed use. The HAA is not applicable to this decision.
The remainder of this letter addresses specific issues with the modified Project, the Staff
Report, and the proposed Conditions of Approval. The Coalition is available to discuss any of
these items with the Council during the hearing, or at later meetings to address the deficiencies in
the modified Project application.
A. Planning, Zoning and Subdivision Issues
1. Lack of Authority to Approve Use "Concession." Under the City's General
Plan/LCP and Zoning Ordinance, 25 percent of parcel square footage must be devoted to "general
commercial" use, with office or housing allowed to occupy the remainder. The modified Project
proposes a 5,096 square foot office occupying approximately one-half of the West Coast Highway
frontage, claiming that the reduction in commercial from 25 to less than 12 percent is an allowable
concession under the HAA. The applicant does not explain why valuable West Coast Highway
frontage should be devoted to a residential driveway when primary access is from Avon. Nor does
the applicant explain why a use that violates the City's General Plan and Zoning is eligible as a
concession under the HAA. Government Code §65915(k) defines concession in two ways. First,
a concession or incentive can be "a reduction in site development standards or architectural design
requirements that exceed minimum building standards" or, second, approval of mixed -use zoning
if it "will reduce the cost of the housing development" and is "compatible" with existing or planned
development. (Id. subsec. (k)(1)-(2).) No possible interpretation of the HAA allows the City to
approve a project that violates its own General Plan/LCP and Zoning Ordinance simply because
the applicant believes non-residential development along West Coast Highway will be less
profitable than maximizing the amount of market -rate housing. As an aside, the Coalition to
Protect Mariner's Mile is actually supportive of allowing less square footage of non-residential
development on West Coast Highway frontage, provided that it consists of neighborhood and
visitor -serving commercial uses and is adopted through proper statutory procedures — not crammed
through without adequate study under a spurious claim of authority under the HAA.
2. General Plan Non -Compliance. The "office" building proposed to occupy
approximately one-half of the West Coast Highway frontage is not consistent with the uses
contemplated by the General Plan/LCP, Mariner's Mile Vision Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. All
these regulatory actions call for development of West Coast Highway with "general commercial"
combined, at the developer's option, with less intensive office or residential development at the
rear of their parcels. The proposed Project turns this vision on its head. Instead of focusing on
development of a vibrant village on West Coast Highway, the Project proposes to utilize almost
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 7 of 14
90 percent of the property for dense multi -family housing, with shared parking to serve both the
apartment building and office space. The Staff Report finds consistency by picking out individual
words and ignoring the intent of the General Plan — to encourage lively commercial development
on both sides of the West Coast Highway corridor with appropriate office or residential uses at the
rear of the property. Although office uses are allowed in the Mixed Use -Horizontal Zone
applicable to the property, the General Plan itself clearly contemplates commercial (i.e.
neighborhood and visitor -serving) uses along West Coast Highway, rather than run-of-the-mill
offices. The City cannot make the necessary findings that the Project is consistent with the General
Plan, LCP, Mariner's Mile Vision Plan, or Zoning Ordinance under these circumstances.
3. Lack of Authority under the HAA. The HAA states that a concession shall not
"in itself' be interpreted to require a General Plan Amendment. However, where a specific use
requirement is proposed to be modified as a concession, State law requires amendment of the GPA
and Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changed use. (Gout Code § 659150)(1).) There is a significant
difference between development standards, such as height limits or setbacks that affect project
design, and changes in allowable land uses. Separation of uses is the core of the zoning power and
nothing in the HAA suggests that use restrictions are subject to modification for sole purpose of
facilitating residential development, especially when, as here, there is no evidence that a change
in use between "general commercial" and "office" will make even the slightest difference to the
Project economics. The City cannot make the necessary findings to approve a General Plan/LCP
Amendment through the back door, without statutory compliance.
4. Parcel Map Findings Cannot Be Made. Under Government Code § 66474, the
City cannot approve a parcel map that proposes improvements inconsistent with the City's General
Plan/LCP. The applicant strenuously argues that the HAA mandates approval of its Project
regardless of planning consistency. This is not true. While the City cannot refuse to approve a
statutorily mandated density bonus, it is not mandated to approve waivers, concessions, or
incentives without adequate evidence showing they are necessary for the financial viability of the
proposed affordable housing. Further, the City cannot approve concessions that affect allowable
land uses instead of development standards. Finally, the Government Code prohibits approval of
a parcel map that will result in improvements (like small nondescript offices) that fail to implement
the City's General Plan. The proposed parcel map does not meet the minimum requirements for
approval under the Government Code and must be disapproved, in accordance with the discretion
reserved to the City under the HAA.
5. The Proposed Single -Lot Parcel Map is a Problem in Waiting. The proposed
Parcel Map merges 5 separate parcels into a single parcel for the purposes of calculating the
maximum allowable residential development under the City Zoning Ordinance and the HAA. This
results in the perverse situation where a stand-alone office building is located on the same lot as a
multi -family apartment building, even though the office and apartments share nothing but the same
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 8 of 14
lot and developer. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the office building can neither be sold nor
permanently leased. It must be kept in the same ownership as the apartment building, although
there is no requirement that they function as a single economic unit. In other words, the owner
may elect to allow the office building to remain vacant, depending on rental cycles, while assigning
its maintenance costs to the apartment renters. Alternatively, the owner may allow the office
building to remain vacant and fall into disrepair rather than charge maintenance costs to residential
tenants. Under ordinary circumstances, the applicant would propose a parcel map that locates the
office building on a separate parcel so it could be sold or transferred to an interested user.
However, because the developer in this case is solely interested in maximizing the number of rental
units to take advantage of a "hot" housing market, there is no way to separate or transfer the less
profitable office building because it is not located on a separate parcel. The Coalition strongly
suggests the City look at whether it wishes to have two very different uses linked together on a
single parcel. This is not a situation where a developer proposes to devote the ground floor of a
multi -floor residential building to commercial uses. The applicant is proposing two entirely
separate buildings with different uses on a single lot, with no apparent plan for ensuring that the
residential portion of the development is protected from the costs of a failed office development,
or vice versa. For these reasons alone, the proposed Parcel Map must be rejected.
B. Housing Accountability Act Issues
1. Lack of Evidence to Support Waiver, Incentive, or Concession Requests. As
discussed above, the applicant has offered no evidence to show the Project's ability to provide 3
affordable units is dependent on approval of requested accommodations. Under the HAA, the
applicant is required to demonstrate that the provision of affordable units in the Project would not
be feasible without the requested waivers or concessions. In this case, the applicant has requested
a significant waiver of height limits in an area of peculiar visual sensitivity because of the view
corridors that traverse the Project site. It appears the applicant has elected to construct two -stories
of apartments with above -ground parking, resulting in a 3-story structure that reduces water views
from John Wayne Park. Neighborhood representatives have suggested that Project parking be
partially constructed below ground level to reduce the height of the residential building, which has
not changed since the inception of the Project. The applicant submitted a vague statement from
one of its architects that partial undergrounding of residential parking is not feasible, but it included
no analysis or documentation. As a result, the applicant's request for a height waiver lacks any
factual support or documentation and cannot be approved. The Project must be rejected on the
basis of its excessive height alone, unless compelling financial information is submitted to support
the request for building height in excess of that allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant also asks for approval of a use variance (never allowed under State law
except in Los Angeles), for a +50 percent reduction in mandatory commercial square footage on
West Coast Highway. The lack of documentation supporting this request, and the City's lack of
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 9 of 14
authority to approve it, have been discussed above. Finally, the applicant asks for a reduction in
the 100' setback requirement for residential development on parcels fronting West Coast Highway.
The Coalition believes this request is related to the proposed redesign that elongates the residential
building in a north -south direction. However, the applicant makes no showing that the reduced
setback results from anything other than its insistence on maximizing the number of market -rate
residential units in the Project. By designing the parcel map so a commercial use can be located
on a separate parcel on West Coast Highway, and reducing the number of residential units
accordingly, the applicant arguably would need neither a height nor setback variance to squeeze
the maximum number of units on the parcel. Nothing in the HAA requires the City to approve a
single -lot parcel map for the sole purpose of maximizing residential units, to waive height limits
because the applicant elects not to construct residential parking partially below ground, to allow
50 percent of highly visible West Coast Highway frontage to be devoted to secondary residential
access, or to approve a generic "office" along West Coast Highway instead of the neighborhood
and visitor -serving uses contemplated by the General Plan, LCP, and Mariner's Mile Vision Plan.
2. Confusion About Affordability Levels. The applicant claims one density bonus
or 10 additional units in return for provision of 3 affordable unis out of 36 residences. Confusingly,
the Staff Report and Affordable Housing Plan claim the proposed units will be "very low income"
rather than simply "low income." This is a significant difference. Generally, "low income" is
defined as no more than 80 percent of area median income. The proposed rental rates for
affordable units in the Project are 80 percent of estimated market rates. However, "very low
income" is generally defined as below 50 percent of area median income. The rental rates
proposed for the 3 affordable units in the Project are far above the amount a "very low income"
family could afford. It appears the applicant is proposing to rent its 3 "affordable" units to "low
income" families earning up to 80 percent of the area median income, not to "very low income"
families at the 50 percent level. The Staff Report and Affordable Housing Plan should be revised
to clarify the Project does not intend to make units available to "very low income" families or to
confirm that it will do so. While the applicant has not submitted any financial documentation
demonstrating how the requested concessions will support the 3 affordable units, the City should
be clear that the applicant apparently proposes to rent the 3 "affordable" units to families earning
80 percent of the area median income, not to "very low income" families as claimed in the agenda
packet.
3. HAA Mandates. The Coalition accepts that density bonuses and justified waivers,
concessions, and incentives are mandated under the HAA. However, contrary to the claims of the
applicant, the HAA does not authorize or legitimize every conceivable request by an eager
applicant. For instance, assuming the City approves the single -lot parcel map, the applicant is
entitled to a density bonus of 9.1 units which is counter -intuitively rounded up to 10 units by
statute. With a different parcel configuration, the base density could be substantially lower, and
the bonus reduced accordingly. The applicant is entitled to a height waiver if it can demonstrate
the maximum number of residential units cannot be accommodated without a waiver. In this case,
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 10 of 14
the applicant does not explain why a height waiver is required for its office building, nor does it
justify the significant increase in allowable height for the residential structure. The Coalition
believes the applicant is unwilling to spend the additional funds required to construct residential
parking partially below ground, but there is no financial information demonstrating that the 3
"affordable" units could not be offered to lowincome families without the height variance. The
applicant requests a setback variance, apparently to allow elongation of the multi -family structure
without losing any units, but no evidence has been submitted demonstrating the setback reduction
is financially necessary. In fact, the City knows a 35-unit project is financially feasible because it
was previously proposed by the applicant, so there is no reason to assume a 36-unit project with
waivers is necessary to make the same 3 "affordable" units available to low-income families. The
HAA significantly restricts the City's authority to reduce allowable residential density under
specific circumstances; it does not give the City free rein to amend its General Plan/LCP/Zoning
Ordinance without following standard procedures, and it does not grant incentives that merely
increase developer profits rather than demonstrably make units affordable to low-income families.
In this case, the City has no information upon which to conclude that the requested waivers,
concessions, or incentives are necessary or allowed under the HAA. The applicant has failed to
meet the threshold for application of the HAA to a primarily market -rate Project.
C. CEQA Issues
1. Traffic. As noted above, the revised Project will generate more than 300 daily
trips, so a traffic study is now required. The Coalition believes Project traffic will crowd
neighborhood streets, occupy scarce parking, and threaten children walking to and from area
schools. Trucks using the Avon "Alley" access will overburden adjacent neighborhoods. While
the condition requiring the applicant to widen Avon "Alley" is justified, the community is entitled
to understand how it will affect parking and utilization of John Wayne Park. The purpose of CEQA
is full disclosure, and the Coalition wants to understand all Project impacts before final approval.
2. Cumulative Impacts. The applicant acknowledges its Project will affect water
views from John Wayne Park, but argues they are minor and thus insignificant for the purposes of
CEQA. John Wayne Park is renowned for its outstanding water views that emphasize and
highlight the City's marine history. While the Project's visual impacts may appear minor
individually, the cumulative impact of approved, planned, and proposed development on West
Coast Highway will essentially eliminate the horizon -to -horizon vista of water separating
Mariner's Mile from Balboa Island. If other developments follow the bulk and height precedent
set by the Project, future users of John Wayne Park will eventually see nothing but buildings, with
not even the limited water views currently available. Without a full analysis of cumulative impacts
to water views from pending projects, the City cannot judge the Project in context. While the
Project may be only the first bite of the apple, when Mariner's Mile is fully developed, the "view
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 11 of 14
apple" will be entirely devoured by individual proposals unless the City considers and mitigates
for view impacts now.
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration Premature or Inappropriate. Without
additional traffic and view studies, the City cannot conclude the Project will have a less -than -
significant impact on important environmental resources. Without this evidence, the Project is not
eligible for exemption from CEQA as an infill development. The City also cannot find the Project
is consistent with applicable planning regulations because it violates use requirements, along with
height and setback standards. The City must conduct the mandatory traffic and view studies before
it certifies a mitigated negative declaration, otherwise its determination lacks substantial evidence
in the record.
D. Inadequate Conditions of Approval
1. Missing Conditions of Approval. The draft Resolution posted on the City's
website does not seem to include a full set of conditions of approval. The Project has changed
significantly since it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the draft conditions approved
on February 17, 2021 are no longer adequate or applicable. The Project cannot be approved until
the public has an opportunity to review and comment on the final conditions of approval. Of
course, the City Council should want to review the final conditions before they are approved.
2. Inadequate Conditions of Approval. At a minimum, the conditions of approval
for the Project must include the following
(a) Design and Construction of Avon. The Staff Report states the applicant
will be responsible for designing and constructing the widening of the Avon "Alley," together with
offering to dedicate a 20' strip along its rear property line. As noted above, this is a significant
change in the Project Description and the impacts must be considered under CEQA. It is unclear
whether existing parking on Avon will be eliminated when the alley is widened, or if it will be
reconfigured or relocated. In either case, the City must evaluate the environmental impacts of
widening the primary access road to John Wayne Park and eliminating or reconfiguring existing
parking. In any event, the City must ensure that construction is completed by the applicant and
establish the applicable timing_
(b) Timing Of Office Construction. The conditions of approval do not require
that the "office" structure on West Coast Highway be constructed concurrently with the residential
development, or that it be constructed at all. If the City's primary interest under its General Plan
is commercial development along Mariner's Mile, it must ensure that the less -profitable non-
residential structures are actually constructed. A condition of approval must be added ensuring
that the "office" building be constructed and operational prior to or concurrent with the residential
development.
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 12 of 14
(c) Affordable Housing Requirements. As explained above, documentation
for the Project is unclear about whether the 3 proposed units of affordable housing will be reserved
for "low income" or "very low income" tenants. The conditions of approval should clarify the
requirement, and all relevant documents should be revised to be consistent with the conditions of
approval.
E. Coastal Act Issues
1. Incomplete Application. The Project application was incomplete in that it failed
to include an LCP Consistency Analysis. This analysis is mandatory and must be completed by
the applicant before the Project is accepted as complete. The LCP Consistency analysis is
important under both the LCP and the General Plan, both of which require that parcel maps and
CDPs demonstrate consistency with the LCP before a Project can be approved. Without this
essential information, the City cannot approve the Project as consistent with the LCP.
2. Impacts on Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas. Both John Wayne Park and West
Coast Highway are "sensitive coastal resource areas" under Public Resources Code § 30116. The
Park is a highly scenic area possessing significant recreational values and providing recreational
opportunities for low -and -moderate income persons under the Coastal Act. John Wayne Park and
West Coast Highway also provide unique water views that are both locally designated and highly
significant. In recommending approval of the Project, the City has failed to consider the Project's
impacts on views enjoyed by the general public, as well as low -and -moderate income visitors.
Inexplicably, the City has also refused to consider cumulative impacts on water views, despite
pending, proposed, and announced projects that will each nibble away at the water views currently
enjoyed by the users of John Wayne Park. The City acknowledges the Project will impact water
views from John Wayne Park, although it concludes that individual Project impacts will be
insignificant. In concluding the Project will have no significant impacts under CEQA or the
Coastal Act, the City completely ignores other approved, pending, or proposed projects that will
each have arguably minimal effects on coastal views. Cumulatively, though, these projects will
effectively eliminate the water views that characterize John Wayne Park and make it so enjoyable
to the crowds of residents and tourists that utilize it daily. If the City applies the same analysis to
future projects as it has to this Project, the scenic water view from John Wayne Park will evaporate
overtime, as single projects are approved, with individually minimal and cumulatively devastating
impacts to protected views from John Wayne Park. The Coastal Act requires the City to consider
potential cumulative impacts to water views, and to protect them wherever possible. In this case,
the City must at least consider rejecting the applicant's request for a height variance because it will
inevitably contribute to the future cumulative loss of water views.
3. Other Coastal Act Inconsistencies. As a certified local government, the City is
responsible for enforcing the terms of the Coastal Act within the Coastal Zone, regardless of
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 13 of 14
whether the project is located within or outside appellate jurisdiction. In fact, the City's obligations
outside the Commission's appellate jurisdiction are even more crucial because it has final authority
to interpret its LCP, absent judicial intervention. In this case, the Project is inconsistent with the
following provisions of the Coastal Act, among others: (a) lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities like John Wayne Park must be protected when new development is considered (§30213);
(2) the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, such as ocean views from John Wayne Park,
shall be protected as a resource of public importance (§30251); and (3) special communities and
neighborhoods, like the locally designated West Coast Highway corridor, that attract visitors
because of their unique characteristics shall be protected (§30253). The bottom line is that high -
prized and valuable water views from John Wayne Park are protected by the Coastal Act both from
small "nibbles" like those proposed by this Project, and from cumulative impacts caused by a series
of individual projects, each claiming they have insignificant impacts, while their cumulative effect
is to block virtually all historic water views from the 100-year old John Wayne Park. The Coalition
invites the Council to visit John Wayne Park to consider the cumulative impact of all the pending,
proposed, and potential projects within the viewsheds on from the Park and along West Coast
Highway.
For all of the above reasons, and others that may be raised through public comment, the
Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile requests the City Council return the application to Staff for
preparation of additional mandatory studies, preparation of adequate environmental review,
evaluation of the financial necessity of the requested waivers, concessions, and incentives,
consideration of Coastal Act consistency, review of compliance by the single -lot parcel map with
the Subdivision Map Act and City ordinances, the availability of otherwise illegal use variances
under the Housing Accountability Act, in addition to the other items raised above.
FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP
Members of the City Counsel
July 27, 2021
Page 14 of 14
The Coalition thanks the City for this opportunity to comment on the proposed 2510 West
Coast Highway Project. This is a precedent -setting project, and the City Council has a significant
opportunity to implement its vision for a vibrant, neighborhood and tourist servicing commercial
area along West Coast Highway by requiring appropriate commercial development that supports
a vibrant village and neighborhood atmosphere. Alternatively, the Council may doom the future
of Mariner's Mile by approving a project that maximizes residential units at the expense of the
local community.
Very Truly Yours,
Deborah M. Rosenthal, FAICP
cc: Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney
Sean Matsler, Esq.
Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile
Clerk of the Planning Commission