The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTIM PAONEPage 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Robert C. Hawkins (rhawkins@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:02 AM To: 'Paone, Tim'; Lepo, David Cc: 'Wun Sze Li'; 'Amy Creager'; Campbell, James; Wood, Sharon; 'Brion Jeannette'; rcerruti@advancedonline.com; rjulian@advancedonline.com; eaton727@earthiink.net Subject: RE: Aerie PLOED Todd is that you?? Robert C. Hawkins, Esq. (SBN 144906) Law Offices of Robert C. Ilawkins 110 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 ph: 949 650 5550 fax: 949 650 1181 mobile: 949 500 1232 e-mail: rhawkins@earthlink.net ***************************************** This e-mail message and any attachments arc confidential and may he attorney -client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the Law Offices of Robert C. Ilawkins by telephone (949) 650 5550 or by e-mail at rhawkins@earthlink.net, and destroy the original and all copies and/or versions of this message and any attachments. -----Original Message From: Paone, Tim [mailto:TPaone@manatt.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:44 PM To: Lepo, David Cc: Wun Sze Li; Amy Creager; Campbell, James; Wood, Sharon; Brion Jeannette; rcerruti@advancedonline.com; rjulian@advancedonline.com; eaton727@earthlink.net; rhawkins@earthlink.net Subject: RE: Aerie PLOED Candidly, it is important that the staff report clarifies that the PLOED discussed by staff in the MND is just one possible location for the PLOED. Dave, you have stated several times, including at EQAC last night, that staffs location of the PLOED in the MND is "the most conservative" possible location, and that many interpretations are possible under the LUR It is quite unfortunate that the MND does not convey that fact as clearly as it could, although it does state that "the establishment of the predominate (sp) line of development remains open to interpretation...." This should be particularly obvious since the Planning Commission itself addressed different possible locations for the PLOED at a public hearing which occurred before the revised MND was prepared and circulated. This point needs to be emphasized in the staff report, with a clarification that the parenthetical statement in Mitigation Measure IX-5 (incorrectly referred to within the MND text as Mitigation Measure XI-5) applies only if the PC determines that the PLOED is set at 52 feet. Therefore, MM IX-5, if correctly applied, means that the project must be revised, if necessary, to assure that the principal building is within the predominant line of existing development. Please consider this email to be a comment on the MND requesting clarification that (1) the MND's statement that the exact location of the PLOED is "open to interpretation" qualifies the ensuing discussion regarding its possible location, (2) textual discussion and the parenthetical statement within MM IX-5 referencing a 52-foot PLOED are intended to address only the most conservative of the possible locations of the PLOED, and (3) the mitigation measure is intended to require that the project be built within the PLOED as finally determined by the City Council. Such a clarification, in my opinion, is an insignificant modification to the MND; particularly in Tight of the MND's clear statement that the PLOED is "open to 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2 interpretation." As a result, this clarification, if made, would not be a substantial revision to the MND. Tim Paone manatt I phelps I phillips 695 Town Center Drive, Fourteenth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-371-2500 Assistant: Sudha Subramanian (714-371-2501) Fax: 714-371-2550 Email: tpaone@manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission; and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it. may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying. distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at tpaone @manatt.com or telephone at (714) 371-2500 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. • IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by recently issued treasury regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by us, and cannot be used by you, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.manatt.com/uploadedFiles/Areas_of Expertise/Tax Employee_Benefits and Global Compensation/Cir 08/08/2007 Page l of 2 Campbell, James From: Paone, Tim [TPaone@manatt.com] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:02 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Lepo, David; Richard Julian; Robb Cerruti; Brion Jeannette; Amy Creager Subject: Changes to MND Jim, I would suggest the following changes to the MND and the project description to deal with the issues which we discussed today. • The applicant withdraws from the application - and, therefore, the project description - its request for a modification of the existing docks. To the extent that any submittals reflect modifications to the docks, those references should be considered withdrawn and deleted We understand that this means that any future decision to modify the docks will require a new application with appropriate CEQA review. As we discussed today, as a result of this change. the MND should be modified as follows (and similarly in any other respect in which the final circulated MND refers to the docks): • Page 2: Delete the two sentences beginning with "Lastly, the project proposes..." and ending with "a focused environmental impact assessment." That language should be replaced with: "The project proposes no improvements to the existing private boat dock Any future permit application to modify or replace the existing boat docks will require a new application with environmental review consistent with CEQA." • Page 33: Replace the two paragraphs under Question "b" with the following: "The project is located on a bluff above and fronting on Newport Bay. Construction of the proposed building is located well above the marine environment Storm drainage currently empties from the site into the Bay, and the proposed project will reduce stormwater runoff form 3.04 cubic feet per second to 2.94 cubic feet... (continue from this point of the existing final paragraph to the end of the existing final paragraph).... • Page 33-34: Delete the entire second full paragraph under Question "c" which begins "The project proposes modifications to the existing boat docks...." Unless there are additional changes to the MND which not contained in the draft which we received a few weeks ago, this should cover the issues removed with the modification of the application to delete modification of the existing docks. Nonetheless, would you please review the MND to be certain that there are no further references to modifying the docks. Thanks, Jim. Take care. IRS CIRCCLAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by recently issued treasury regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by us, and cannot be used by you, for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.manatt.com/uploadcdFiles/Areas_of Expertiserrax Employee_ Benefits_ and_(ilobal_ (ompensation/Circular230. 08/08/2007 Page l of l Campbell, James From: Paone, Tim [TPaone@manatt.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:03 AM To: Lepo, David Cc: Wood, Sharon; Campbell, James; Harp, Aaron Subject: Aerie Staff Report Dave. I will try to keep this email short. We will be responding to the staff report in greater detail in the next few days. Suffice it to say we remain disappointed at the less than complete and accurate analysis of the predominant line of existing development issue. Although we were given assurances that the specifics of the Planning Commission's prior straw vote would be referenced in the staff report, they were not. We also feel that the casual dismissal of Channel Reef from consideration in the PLOED discussion shows a lack of both objectivity and consistent analysis of this most critical issue. We will have more to say on that issue in the next few days and would hope to meet with staff on Wednesday to see if we can avoid an unnecessarily pointed public discussion before the Planning Commission. For the moment, we would like to focus on one of Commissioner Eaton's comments. He appropriately has asked if the PC can act on Thursday if it places the PLOED at a different point than referenced in the two resolutions which accompanied the staff report. Obviously, this can be done. The bottom line is that it is the PC's decision as to where to locate the PLOED and if the project either complies with that location or is conditioned upon compliance, then it shouldn't matter where the line is for purposes of approving a resolution on Thursday night. A resolution should be before the Commission which allows the substitution of either a single PLOED or, consistent with the prior PC straw vote, multiple lines as determined by the Commission (a "fill in the blank" resolution). We are attempting to proceed as constructively and politely as possible. but would like assurances that we are not headed for another unnecessary delay. Please let me know your thoughts. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed by recently issued treasury regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (includine any attachments) is not intended or written by us, and cannot be used by you, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.nianatt.comluploadedFiles/Areas_of Expertise;'Tax Employee_ Benefits and..(ilobal_Cornpensation/Circular230 08/08/2007