The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdditional comments after packet distributionNote to File: Material(s) received after the Planning Commission packets were prepared. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public Ate, k Jh1(10) NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOSED AERIE DEVELOPMENT 2/21/08 4:07 PM We look forward to a reasonable and responsible redevelopment of the subject property that will not only fit into the surrounding neighborhood but one that will be designed to minimize alteration to significant natural land forms, the bluff, cliffs and canyons and one that will also protect the existing habitat which includes raccoons, possum, squirrels, rabbits and a variaety of resident birds per the City General Plan Policy, the Coastal Land Use Plan and California Coastal Commission Policy. Clearly the plans should not go any further in the process without a complete and concise ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT as it ignores so many of the requirements necessary for consideration and as all of us here tonight know clearly has a huge negative impact on the environment. I realize that some of you are undoubtedly bored with these proceedings this evening because your decision has already been made but I hope you will give consideration to all of the objections voiced here tonight and those presented to you in the past several weeks during the public review period. By designing such an enormous and complex plan the developer and architect knew that they would have to ask for major exemptions, exceptions, modifications, rezoning and variances to existing policies and that they would have to call in as many favors as possible for their plan to reach the Planning Commission and the City Council. They also knew from the beginning that they would undoubtedly be required to reduce the scale and scope of the project to conform to policy and after the August 2007 City Council meeting when their application was denied for numerous reasons they knew that they would have to reduce the size by major proportions to adhere to the parameters established by Council that evening and to those already existing in City Policy, the CLUP and so many other policies governing properties such as this. Although they did reduce the project by 1 unit it would seem that they have chosen to ignore most of the other requirements presented by Council. The existing property consists of 2 structures with a habitable space of approximately 16,000 square feet, the new project would be in excess of 62,000 square feet with 2 complete stories buried below ground, covered with artificial rock and would be over 25 feet below the established predominant line of development of 50.7 feet above mean sea level. Hiding 2 complete stories of the building does not alter the fact that the revised plan still blatantly exceeds the existing vertical PLOED nor does it make it any less of an impact on the environment by gutting the entire bluff. The proposed horizontal projection also extends beyond the existing horizontal line of development on Carnation Avenue by at least 20 feet. Carnation Avenue being the ONLY consideration as this is the location of the proposed project. The horizontal projection will have a considerable impact on the view now enjoyed from Begonia Park, most of the Harbor and will set a damaging precedent for future development of the Carnation Bluff. If presented by any other architect I am sure this project would have been met with rejection before it ever got this far. This is an example of a grossly over designed property and we feel that it would not be considered http: / /wehmail.aol.com /34032 /wi /en- usiSuite.mpx# Page 1 of 2 A%W)i1, (1Sa) 2121108 4:07 PM punitive to deny this application on the grounds that it does not conform to the policy of coastal bluff protection, the City General Plan Policy and many others. It would be an injustice to the people living in the area who have conformed to policy and or reduced the size of their new structures, remodels and current plans to avoid Planning Commission denials, if this application is passel again without further consideration, enforcement of policy and a complete Environmental Impact Report. In closing I would like to say that our hope is that Newport Beach will not become known for being a City that breaks policy and promises for the glorification and edification of a select few but rather a City that follows policy for all. Thank you for your ti me and consideration. Kathleen McIntosh http: / /webmall.aol.eom /34032 /aol /en- us /Sulte.aspx# Page 2 of 2 February 18, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project I am compelled to write this letter of support for the AERIE project as it has been revised. The recent timing of opposition in public letters is somewhat predictable but more than over the top with suspect motives. As you know, based on the prior appearances at City meetings for both the Planning Commission and Council meetings, there are many neighbors within sight of this project who fully support it. Our neighborhood has certainly changed. Two of the most outspoken adversaries, only one of whom is adjacent to the project property, continue to vehemently oppose the development. One neighborhood pundit described it as though, `unless if it were to become a passive park and was possibly named after them, they would probably oppose it'. My wife and I live across the street from AERIE and are looking forward to the new project. It frustrates us significantly that the new development cannot be built down the bluff as the opponent's existing homes are. It is with great interest that we see that now even the existing structure could not be rebuilt or replaced because of the City Council mandate declaring the Predominant Line of Development at 50.7' which is higher than the existing structure extends. Since the beginning, the proposed project was designed to and will occupy a significantly less percentage of its property dimensions than any other structures on Ocean Blvd. I am concerned about the gross negligence of property rights in the city by these two neighbors and one other whose primary residence is apparently in another state. As this process has unduly taken so long, to answer each objection, each year finds more onerous conditions placed. This appears evident to people who have a belief in property rights that it is clearly an unfair condition. One Commissioner accurately stated, in effect, that the longer a project is contemplated the more nit picky everyone gets. Another comment by a City representative was that everyone must get his or her `pound of flesh' Another example of what may just be the latest officious unjust decision, could be the new park fee of over $26K per unit which was just recently adopted may now affect AERIE. Mr. Julian may now owe over two hundred thousand more dollars. The over five -year delay has caused a tremendous expense, but Mr. Julian has hung in there because he wants to live here; any potential profit undoubtedly disappeared years ago. I recall that in the 1950's the City of Newport Beach approved 46 units to be built on this very site. Mr. Julian came to this project going on six years ago and made direct contact with the neighbors. He decided, reasonably, not to build the contemplated 20+ units (there are 15 now) and pared it down to nine units and now eight smaller units that are well designed, beautiful and carefully engineered town homes well within the neighborhood MFR zone concept. Now even some wag ignoring reality suggests that they rezone the property. Julian should be recognized as the considerate developer he is. Instead he is inundated by these self interest driven neighbors, with demeaning accusations by emotionally borne words such as "destruction, excessive, massive, cancer, architect business partner, violates, over built" and is accused of doing it all for a 'financial motive'. The Julian's are certainly paying more than their dues to meet their dreams of residing in our great community of Corona del Mar. A property of this size and value is difficult enough to justify let alone expect to make a profit on. Other developers who have been solely profit driven would have pushed the envelope to its maximum. It might turn out that property lines could be revisited. It certainly appears to have become easy for people to try and influence the "property rights" of others. Even to the utterances of 'stability of the bluff like other areas of California' while using `cracks in the street' as evidence. I have been a resident and business owner in Corona del Mar since 1972 and endured the construction of 2495 Ocean (well into the bluff face) and the remodel of 2501 Ocean. The cracks in the street were there well before either of the present owners emerged. The existing condition did not seem to be a concern to either of them to get their desires met and in order to get what they wanted. Another recent part of 'throwing the kitchen sink' at the project involves eelgrass. There are most certainly public records showing the existence of marine eelgrass (Zostera) right in this location well before Mr. Julian arrived on the scene. I believe, in fact, that AERIE has spent considerable effort to not disturb the protected grass as is mandated by the State of California. The project has significant applications, which could be described as 'green'; catch water treatment and solar panels being the most visible illustrations. We implore the City of Newport Beach to recognize the Julian's as a family who is making every endeavor to provide a wonderful project for the community in which they intend to live. In the opinions of some, what they have had to endure has come close to hardship and harassment. We ask you to provide for the rights of property rather than to succumb to the complaints about virtually everything, of a vociferous few. The city has the expertise and authority to see that this project is sensible and move it along with a minimum of additional encumbrances. Sincerely, Bud and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Page 1 of I Varin, Ginger e ft p Subject: FW: aerie project From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM To: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net Cc: Varin, Ginger; 'Barry Eaton'; Lepo, David Subject: RE: aerie project Greetings, Thank you Ms. Linhoff for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RCH From: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net [mailto:elinhoff@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:03 PM To: rhawkins @earthlink.net Subject: Fw: aerie project - -- Original Message - -- From: elinhoff &sbcglobal.net To: rehawkins(caearthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:42 AM Subject: aerie project Dear Chairman Hawkins: I strongly urge the Planning Commission to require a full EIR for this project. The environmental effects of this projects are huge and the precedent it sets is irreversible. The digging into the bluff to such an extent goes against the General Plan. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Please either deny this project (which would save the applicant time and money) or require a full EIR. Elaine Linhoff 1760 Ecean Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2009 10:26 AM 02/20/2008 Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 February 16, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Revised Aerie Project Dear Mr. Lepo, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I have read the MND of the revised Aerie Project which will come before the Planning Commission on Feb 21, 2008. 1 have also read the recommendations on the Staff Report for approval of the revised project. I have a number of concerns and submit this letter as an appeal of the adequacy of the MND. Furthermore, I am requesting that the City prepare and submit a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the project The City has recently amended the Coastal Land Use Plan related to development on coastal bluff on Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. This project sits at the junction of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard on a prominent bluff which is viewed from Ocean Blvd, Carnation Avenue, Bayside Drive and Begonia Park and is visible throughout the harbor and inlet of Newport Beach, and can be seen from miles out to sea. The CLUP policy numbers 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3-8,4.4.3-9, 4.4.3 -12 and 4.4.3.19 are all designed to protect this very important type of natural coastal bluff face. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how the Planning Staff can issue an MND which shows no concern for the environmental consequences of this project and recommends approval of it. Please see my comments in bold: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. How does the Aerie Project 'enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone'? This is an excessively large structure of nearly 63,000 square feet replacing two existing structures which together are less than 14,000 square feet The design of this project is avant garde and completely out of character with the surrounding environment 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. This project pushes the envelope of acceptable development in scale and size. The revised plan is for 62,822 sq ft to be built on a 61,284 square foot lot. The outline of the building covers the entire bluff, and pushes the boundaries to the property line on all sides. This cannot 'minimize' the impact to public coastal views. Additionally, I dispute the findings that the view corridor from Begonia Park will not be impacted. The developer should be required to provide a mock up of the building on the bluff in relation to the other Carnation Avenue properties and specifically address the view corridor from Begonia Park. Please see attached photo. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. This project as planned will significantly alter the natural landforms. The natural landforms will be destroyed in order to accommodate this project. Two levels will be submerged below the 50.7' line and the construction plan provides for the removal of 25,240 cubic feet of bluff. How can the BAND possibly state that this project will 'minimize alterations' to this bluff? 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit private development on coastal bluff faces, except those along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacifrc Drive in Corona del Mar. Require all new development to be sited within the predominant line of existing development Establish a predominant line of existing development for both principal structures and accessory improvements. The City has determined the predominant line of existing vertical development to be 50.7' for this project. Nonetheless, the project proposes two levels to be subterranean below this level. Additionally, there is no consideration of the horizontal predominant line. The proposed development pushes this to the extreme outer limits, both horizontally and vertically. I attach a photo of the current horizontal line of development along the Carnation Avenue bluff. 4.4,3 -9. Permit public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety on coastal bluff faces only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually comaatib /e with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. This project fails completely on this point. The design is extreme, as is the size and scale of this project 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an altemative location is more protective of coastal resources. Proposed project fails this requirement. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. Proposed project fails this requirement , C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. Proposed project fails this requirement E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. Proposed project fails this requirement H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. 4.4.3 -19. In aff cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land development and size of new structures. This policy was added because of the Aerie project in order to keep the PLOED from being the only criteria used to determine a development line. All coastal land use policies MUST be considered to protect the bluff. The City has worked so diligently to provide a comprehensive general plan to protect the coastal areas and the quality of the residential neighborhoods. The Aerie project pushes the envelope on each and every condition of the CLOP. If the Planning Department and City Council approve this development, it will make a mockery of everything the City has been trying to do with the implementation of the CLUP. Please give this project careful consideration. The MND is inadequate as presented. If ever there was a project that warranted a full EIR, it is this one. I again repeat my request that a full EIR be required and that the Planning Commission deny this revised plan. Thank you. Sincerely, M ril n L Bee �� +f 1 � - { i {� k• > � �_ �� ,, is "�. . _ ,�- ��: �� R' s\ �' 4 ` ��4+ �z, iR i' _; ,�,� �� f :, �� ry � `y ,� �. A'� / f , 1 1. 1 ` 11 .�.� �..`�.� � `.a1.. { �i. _ Y' � ` A >� $ `��. 1~ �� ti,� -., QP. , N; I xh 4 d * I xh Linda J. Martin P.O. Box 5220 Newport Beach, California 92662 February 16, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ta,f.j -in ' -e The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. (CEQA) states: "Whenever a project may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certifted." Therefore, since we believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has not adequately considered the impact that this proposed project will have due to the massive excavation and structure development on an environmentally sensitive coastal bluff, we request that the City require a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the resource protection policies contained within Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) are to implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states: "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. " Also, CLUP contains policies that regulate potential development of coastal bluffs. How can these items be considered to have been addressed by this project? The public view of the natural bluff will be destroyed as there no longer will be any remaining "natural bluff' to view. As for "minimize(ing) impacts to public coastal views.", the public will not realize, until it is too late, what the impact will be without story poles. The developer has already removed all the natural vegetation without, as far as we know, City or California Coastal Commission approval. If this project is allowed.... there will be NO NATURAL VEGETATION ON THE BLUFF! Below is a list of the CLUP items that the applicant is disregarding: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. Without the requirement of a full, or at least a focused EIR, approval of this project will result in a development which will cause irreparable scenic degradation at the entrance to Newport Bay. I find it difficult to understand why story poles have not been required for this project as it would never have gotten so far in the process if the size of it was known. Once the public realizes the huge mass of the structures and the destruction of the existing natural bluff, the opposition to this project will increase dramatically. In this regard, the project cantilevers out an additional 20' past the existing residences on Carnation Avenue, and down an additional 3 feet so it will be visually incompatible with the character of surrounding areas. We have a home in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue and on Balboa Island and if this extreme project passes, I can honestly say that "living on Newport Bay" will not be as desirable as it has been. I am an interior designer and can visualize the disproportionate size and scale that has been created which resembles a wart on the very prominent nose at the entrance to the bay. This project is extremely out of proportion with the rest of the properties surrounding it in its volume and design which is only matched by the Channel Reef Complex. "New development... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. " An EIR is also necessary to protect the residents and the city regarding the construction viability and bluff stability due to the geotechnical implications of the massive cliffside excavation and its effect on the neighboring properties. The city will be exposed to expensive litigation if damage to the surrounding properties occurs as a result of grading this site (plans show a fault line exists on this blufJ). The mushroom style of the large home in Cameo Shores, is considered by some to be compatible with the location as it is virtually by itself encompassing 3 lots and the face of the cliff over the beach. However, the overblown size and scale of the proposed Aerie structure will dwarf all other "beach" scale homes in the area except Channel Reef Condos, which is a project that would never be approved today. The project will also be visible from Balboa Island, the Peninsula, and other areas of the City as well as from Newport Harbor. I believe that the City should do EVERTHING in its power to protect this precious coastal resource. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the city to require story poles and a full and complete Environmental Impact Report on this project before it goes any further in the approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Martin February 12, 2008 Mr. David I epo Planning Director city of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 + i- RE: Revised Aerie Project RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Imo„ -W tt, Pleas accept this comment letter regarding the revised Aerie pmjcect proposed for 201- 209 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place in Coruna del Mar. Based upon our review of documents in the record, meetings with community members, and longstanding participation in the project review process, we respectfully request that the City require preparation of a fluff and complete Envfrommeatal Impact Report (BLR), as the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) Is inadequate for a project with such extreme proposed excavation, grading, and construction on an environmentally sensitive and legally protected coastal bluffi We believe there are a number of issues that have either been omitted or not been property evaluated in the MND, and as such, an EIR must be prepared. Since project inception, we have been perplexed as to how this pruject could come so far in the City's approval process. Our concerns 'include: a) The massive size and over -built nature of the project coupled with the lack of any meaningful assessment of visual consistency and compatibility with other properties in the neighborhood. (There are policies in the Oencxal Plan which specifically address this issue: that the size, scale, and character of new development are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.) b) The excessive excavation involved, and the significant construction impact (traffic, noise, pollution, hazardous materials etc.) on adjoining properties and the Test of our small beach neig . c) The proposed destruction of an irreplaceable coastal bluff without an appropriate f in -depth evaluation of the loss of this natural resource to the City and its residents; in addition, the precedent this project will set for further destruction of the Carnation Avenue bluff. d) Lack of clarity regarding why the project is minimizing alteration of the bluff above 50.7 feet mean sea level, or disturbing the bluff below 50.7 feet mean sea level? e) The failure to provide a detailed assessment of the full ramifications of this project on the envirunment, including whether such impacts are consistent with coastal protection policies in the CLUP, General Plan and the Coastal Act. From our perspective, it appears the project violates the aforementioned polices. Specifically, Coastal Act Policy 30251 requires that the City "protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, minimize the alteration of natural landforrm and [require development] to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas'". Not only does this project utterly fail to meet this and other standards in the Act, but as we have all seen through each project " revision", the proposal actually pushes the envelope to the extreme of scenic quality destruction, near maximization of natural landform alteration, and visual incompatibility with any development in the entire City. Simply put, the developer and archit' interests in building a unique and financially lucrative project do not entitle them to run roughshod over the City's and State's planting regulations. The project is not reasonable as proposed and should be denied, In furtherance of our request that a Hall EiR be prepared, we would like to cite a specific example where the MND fails to accurately depict conditions at the project site. While prior versions of the MND indicated that only non-native, introduced species of plants existed on the bluff, just last summer we documented the presence of at least three native species there. Sines that time, the applicant has removed signifieant vegetation on site, thereby manipulating the environmental review process inappropriately. Such actions should not W condoned. As residents immediately adjacent to this property, we have significant additional concerns such as with the short and long term stability of the bluffs and surrounding streets given the project's extensive excavation. You will recall, we previously submitted a photo of the multiple cracks evident in our streets, and mentioned that this project will have the impact of building an entire city block in our Coma del Mar neighborhood AT ONE TIME! We believe the community deserves, and the project requires, the in -depth analysis provided by a full pnvironmental Impact Report, Production of such a document is in the best interest ol'everyone, since we will ALL be affected by this project for generations to come. As there is no time limit on the right answer for what's best for our community, you should take all the time necessary to ensure the project will cause no harm. Once done, this precedent setting project will be with us forever. Sincerely, JEFFREY BECK February 17, 2008 Members, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach, California Re: Aerie Project: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � * te Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Aerie resubmitted project I will be brie£ The initial submission of the Aerie project was rejected by the City Council because of the excessive magnitude and mass of the building proposed which required that the project extend beyond the predominant line of development down the bluff along Carnation Avenue and above the height permissible along Ocean Boulevard. At that time, the developer was attempting to have it both ways: using the height restrictions as if the project was one solely along Carnation Avenue and the incursion down the bluff as if the project was solely on Ocean Boulevard. The scale of the building proposed could not be accommodated within the predominant lines of existing development and /or within the height restrictions of Ocean Boulevard. While the developer has slightly scaled back the project, it remains an excessively massive building for this site. So now, instead of having the project extend below the line the City Council set for incursion down the bluff face and still build such a massive structure, the developer has now extended the building area well beyond the predominant line of existing development along Carnation Avenue as to the depth of building back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue. This project, as now proposed, would not only extend much farther back from Carnation Avenue than any reasonably determined predominant line of existing development, but would actually extend much farther back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue than any existing structure along Carnation Avenue. As such, it should be clear that the project cannot be approved within the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, To meet these requirements, the developer will need to do that which it has been unwilling to do. That is, to downsize the structure to a more reasonable scale and one which can be accommodated within the requirements mandated by the land use restrictions intelligently chosen by the City. Very truly yours, �Jeff Beck 301 CARNATION AVENCF. - CORONA DEL MAR. CA - .92625 PHONE: 949923.1773 - FAX: 561 -948 -4796 February 19, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hawkins, RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH bM� -b CC. This letter is in reference to the Aerie project currently under review by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. There are the obvious issues relating to size, parking, excavation and destruction of the bluff which are all precedent setting and out of character with the existing adjacent development and Corona del Mar in general. However, the calculation of "Buildable Area" is an issue which should be addressed. After hearing the descriptions of the Aerie project, I became curious about how a 62,288 sq.ft. structure could be constructed on pad area of 13,481 sq.ft. (representing a coverage ratio of over 460 %). I reviewed the building plans prepared by Brion Jeannette Architecture (revised 1/3/2008) and met with James Campbell, Senior Planner, for clarification of the City policy regarding building area calculations. Mr. Campbell indicated that the site area and building calculations contained within the Jeannette building plans are incorrect. Mr. Campbell explained that "Buildable Area" was not really buildable area, but as defined by City policy, is determined by deducting setback areas from the gross lot area. By this policy, submerged land and/or non - buildable slope areas are included in "Buildable Area'. The gross lot area of the Aerie site is 61,284 sq.ft. (1.3 acres). The City calculated 28,413 sq.ft. to be submerged land. Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicates 15,146 sq.ft. of non - buildable slope. Submerged land and non - buildable slope total 43,599 sq.ft. representing 71.1 %of the sites. The Aerie site contains a unique combination of non - buildable slope and submerged land, clearly outside of the proportions that the City policy was intended to address. Submerged land and bluff slopes represent over 70% of the 1.3 acre Aerie site. The Aerie project represents an exploitation of a flawed City policy allowing the inclusion of submerged land and bluff slopes in "Buildable Area" resulting in a proposed development far beyond the capability of the site. This exploitation is emphasized by the proposed excavation of 25,240 cu.yds., representing the removal of the bluff and bluff face material equivalent to an 88' x 88' x 88' cube, or excavating the building pad to a depth of 50 feet below Carnation Avenue. Note inconsistency in bluff slope area computations. City computations indicate 11,936 sq.ft. of non-buildable slope as compared to Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicating non - buildable slope of 15,146 sq.ft.. February 19, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page -2- The magnitude of the development in relation to the inadequate size of the site is further emphasized by the proposed parking garages. Seven of the eight condominium units require shared car elevators to access their garage spaces. The feasibility of the parking system, including size limitations, entry and exit time and street queuing are unknown. The unique components of the Aerie site (including submerged land and bluff face), the proposed removal of 25,240 cu.yds. of bluff material, the proposed 62,822 sq.ft. structure size, and the proposed parking by elevator access are all precedent setting issues to Newport Beach and the Corona del Mar neighborhood. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project or require a complete environmental impact report to fully understand the ramifications of this project. Sincerely, h,4.q / William R. Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 cc: David Lepo, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Council Page 1 of 2 Varin, Ginger From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:43 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments For the record ... David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f 0M+-p i% ft. From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkrotee@krotee.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:30 PM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxrighter.com; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; jeff.cwle @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments Mr. Lepo Having reviewed the latest changes to the proposal and the MND I continue to hold a strong opinion, as Planner, resident and Architect, that the proposal is simply more than the land can bear. Having been part of the GPAC and the development of the City's General Plan, I know of few residents (and several developers) who could support or even find any comfort with the staff findings in regard to the GP /LCP policies. The notion that this 6 story structure on this site, that will overlook the Newport Bay and is viewed by many in the City, preserves natural land forms, one of the key parts of the CLUP is beyond land use planning reconciliation. In that the policies in the GP/ LCP are stated generally does not allow the staff to gerrymander around these policies with findings to provide development of this unprecedented scale. The MND discusses aesthetics but, somehow avoids the study and the making of findings in specific regard to the comparison scale of the surrounding structures (in a community that the General Plan intends to protect) in regard to the proposed massive building. Although the noise and air quality of this residential community are impacted deeply by grading and the operation of hauling, it is the following picture that your department intends to represent that this fulfills the vision of the beach community wanted by so many in the development of the new General Plan. This image is not in the vision. [O7 ►W17# i11il:? v. �� k . 3 �� '�' l�.f� � _ i j.: Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 PM �- To: Varin, Ginger UUUU Subject: RE: Proposed Aerie Condominiums This is one that I did not hand to you. It looks like it went to 6 of 7 commissioners - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:08 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Proposed Aerie Condominiums For the administrative record David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Kovach ( mailto :david @kovachcompanies.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:45 AM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net; ADK1 (E -mail) Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums Mr. Lepo, The continued movement of this proposal within the city remains a serious concern for the entire Newport Beach citizenry. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts on the subject, as provided enclosed. If possible, I would appreciate any comment or response you can provide. As well, I am happy to discuss the project as you deem appropriate. Thank you. David Kovach 1 Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger e Subject: FW: aerie project From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM To: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net Cc: Varin, Ginger; 'Barry Eaton'; Lepo, David Subject: RE: aerie project Greetings, Thank you Ms. Linhoff for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RCH From: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net [mailto:elinhoff @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:03 PM To: rhawkins @earthlink.net Subject: Fw: aerie project -- Original Message - -- From: elinhoffCa2sbcglobal.net To: rehawkins earth link. net Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:42 AM Subject: aerie project Dear Chairman Hawkins: 1 strongly urge the Planning Commission to require a full EIR for this project. The environmental effects of this projects are huge and the precedent it sets is irreversible. The digging into the bluff to such an extent goes against the General Plan. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Please either deny this project (which would save the applicant time and money) or require a full EIR. Elaine Linhoff 1760 Ecean Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/202008 10:26 AM 02/20/2008 Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:20 AM To: Lepo, David; Varin, Ginger Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) Attachments: resize before dscn7817.jpg; supercloseup encelia lemonadeberry.jpg; opuntia resize fz8.jpg; resize bluff0013Jpg; resize bluff0018Jpg; resize 02- 01- 2008_Plant- losses.jpg James Campbell, Senior Planner - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: JonV3 @aol.com <JonV3 @aol.com> To: rhawkins @earthlink.net <rhawkins @earthlink.net >; Campbell, James; Harkless, LaVonne Cc: JonV3 @aol.com <JonV3 @aol.com >; LauraCurran @mac.com <LauraCurran @mac.com>; dobehave @earthlink.net <dobehave @earthlink.net >; JWatt4 @aol.com <Jwatt4 @aol.com >; JSkinnerMD @aol.com <JSkinnerMD @aol.com >; abeek @flash.net <abeek @flash.net >; slgenis @stanfordalumni.org <slgenis @stanfordalumni.org>; martlit @earthlink.net <martlit @earthlink.net >; BakerDJ @mindspring.com <BakerDJ @mindspring.com >; jenniferwinnart @hotmail.com <jenniferwinnart @ hotmail.com>; Dubbietub @aol.com <Dubbietub @aol.com >; ayeblack @sbcglobal.net <ayeblack @sbcglobal.net >; harveydonw @juno.com <harveydonw @juno.com>; elinhoff @sbcglobal.net <elinhoff @sbcglobal.net >; bobbylovell2000 @yahoo.com <bobbylovell2000 @yahoo.com >; dkrotee @krotee.com <dkrotee @krotee.com >; johnebuttolph @yahoo.com <johnebuttolph @yahoo.com >; andylingle @sbcglobal.net <andylingle @sbcglobal.net >; marko @uci.edu <marko @uci.edu >; PhilDrachman @hotmail.com <PhilDrachman @hotmail.com >; christinecarr @mac.com <christinecarr @mac.com>; john @martin - associates.net <john @martin- associates.net >; vallejogallery @earthlink.net <vallejogallery @ earthlink.net>; mdb @becktrustee.com <mdb @becktrustee.com >; KSMC949 @aol.com <KSMC949 @aol.com >; queenmom @the - castle.net <queenmom @the - castle.net> Sent: Thu Feb 21 02:23:43 2008 Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) February 21, 2008 Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 3, AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) Comments on the Mitigated Neg Dec Request further analysis and full EIR Dear Chair Hawkins and Newport Beach Planning Commissioners, This is a comment on the Mitigated Neg Dec on the AERIE Project and a request to do further analysis of the project, including further biologic and coastal bluff analysis, including protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) present on the coastal bluff of the property, public views, geologic instability due to construction, lack of consistency with horizontal PLOED, building size inconsistency with the neighborhood, unusual parking arrangements that are difficult to maintain and enforce, and to do a full EIR due to the many unresolved issues with this project. The Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, (CLOP) Chapter 4 policies identify and protect coastal resources such as coastal bluffs. CLUP policy 4.1.1 identifies southern coastal bluff scrub as a rare natural community by the California Department of Fish and Game and therefore qualifies as ESHA. There is evidence that coastal bluff scrub vegetation exists on the property, which has been partially removed by recent unpermitted vegetation removal. Policy 4.1.1 -1 defines southern coastal bluff scrub as ESHA. Policy 4.1.1 -2 requires analysis that defines ESHA as containing any of the attributes of an ESHA. Policy 4.1.1 -4 protects ESHA against significant reduction of habitat value. Policy 4.1.1 -5 precludes new development in ESHA and to minimize impacts to ESHA. Policy 4.1.1 -6 requires adjacent development to be compatible with the ESHA. Policy 4.3.1 -7, requires construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including native vegetation. The Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element also states: "NR 23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource" "NR 23.7 New Development Design and Siting Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. " The Initial Study, Mitigated Neg Dec, and staff report all fail to recognize the impacts to the coastal resource protections of coastal bluffs in both the General Plan and CLUP. The Mitigated Neg Dec fails to identify the existence of ESHA on the property as evidenced by the coastal bluff scrub on the property, including prickly pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) , Coast sunflower (Encelia californica) and Lemonade Berry (Rhus integrifolia). See below photos taken in June to August 2007 confirming the presence of these species. However, much of this vegetation has been removed by February 2008, and the bluff scraped clear without permits from the City or Coastal Commission. Complaints have been lodged with these agencies. This vegetation ought to be acknowledged in the EIR, replaced and protected prior to approval of this project. The Mitigated Neg Dec is insufficient in its analysis of the coastal bluff onsite, the applicable protections under the Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, and the CLUP. Please do not approve this project until the environmental document has been revised to include an analysis of the coastal bluff and its protections under the General Plan and CLUP, and the violations caused by the unpermitted vegetation removal have been corrected. A full EIR would be the appropriate type of environmental document for this complex project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 E 16 Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548 -6326 Coastal Bluff with vegetation in June 2007 A resize before :n7817.jpg (6' Coastal Bluff Specie Lemonadeberry, and Encelia californica on bluf 2 a s fpW.`. xis+ � a VOW Ff u " .. .: � � 2 .yv,..� >. :. « » » v�y 2 m: .m . . � \\ « » \ \< » y«x Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Aerie Project/ MND FILE COPY - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:50 AM To: 'Brion Jeannette'; 'Susan /Barry Eaton'; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; strataland @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; emcdaniel @metropacificbank.com Cc: Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David; Campbell, James Subject: RE: Aerie Project/ MND Greetings, Thank you for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Brion Jeannette [mailto :Brion) @customarchitecture.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:30 PM To: Robert C. Hawkins; Susan /Barry Eaton Subject: RE: Aerie Project/ MND Bob, Mrs. Martins letter is simply self serving. She claims the view from Bagonia Park is compromised, as shown in the photo, but the photo is not taken from the park but possibly from her rear deck or patio substantially oceanward of the park and west of Bayside dr. Her depiction of the AERIE project is NOT accurate. Her comments on the MND are also baseless and again self serving, and shows a lack of understanding the project. Brion 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 T: 949.645.5854 F: 949.645.5983 email @customarchitecture.com BJA Job # - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:32 PM To: Susan /Barry Eaton Subject: Fw: Aerie Project MND - - - -- Forwarded Message ----- >From: Marilyn <mdb @becktrustee.com> >Sent: Feb 17, 2008 9:28 PM >To: Jcampbell @city.newport - beach.ca. rhawkins @earthlink.net, rclauson @city > Subject: Aerie Project MND >Please see my attached letter. > Marilyn L Beck >303 Carnation Avenue >Corona del Mar, CA 92625 us, dlepo @city.newport- beach.ca.us, .newport - beach.ca.us No virus found in this incoming message. RCH Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1291 - Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM February 18, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project FILE COPY &zj,.t �d -Fo PC. ? • a 1•a6o%r I am compelled to write this letter of support for the AERIE project as it has been revised. The recent timing of opposition in public letters is somewhat predictable but more than over the top with suspect motives. As you know, based on the prior appearances at City meetings for both the Planning Commission and Council meetings, there are many neighbors within sight of this project who fully support it. Our neighborhood has certainly changed. Two of the most outspoken adversaries, only one of whom is adjacent to the project property, continue to vehemently oppose the development. One neighborhood pundit described it as though, 'unless if it were to become a passive park and was possibly named after them, they would probably oppose it'. My wife and I live across the street from AERIE and are looking forward to the new project. It frustrates us significantly that the new development cannot be built down the bluff as the opponent's existing homes are. It is with great interest that we see that now even the existing structure could not be rebuilt or replaced because of the City Council mandate declaring the Predominant Line of Development at 507 which is higher than the existing structure extends. Since the beginning, the proposed project was designed to and will occupy a significantly less percentage of its property dimensions than any other structures on Ocean Blvd. I am concerned about the gross negligence of property rights in the city by these two neighbors and one other whose primary residence is apparently in another state. As this process has unduly taken so long, to answer each objection, each year finds more onerous conditions placed. This appears evident to people who have a belief in property rights that it is clearly an unfair condition. One Commissioner accurately stated, in effect, that the longer a project is contemplated the more nit picky everyone gets. Another comment by a City representative was that everyone must get his or her'pound of flesh' Another example of what may just be the latest officious unjust decision, could be the new park fee of over $26K per unit which was just recently adopted may now affect AERIE. Mr. Julian may now owe over two hundred thousand more dollars. The over five -year delay has caused a tremendous expense, but Mr. Julian has hung in there because he wants to live here; any potential profit undoubtedly disappeared years ago. I recall that in the 1950's the City of Newport Beach approved 46 units to be built on this very site. Mr. Julian came to this project going on six years ago and made direct contact with the neighbors. He decided, reasonably, not to build the contemplated 20+ units (theme are 15 now) and pared it down to nine units and now eight smaller units that are welly designed, beautiful and carefully engineered town homes well within the neighborhood MFR zone concept. Now even some wag ignoring reality suggests that they rezone the property. Julian should be recognized as the considerate developer he is. Instead he is inundated by these self interest driven neighbors, with demeaning accusations by emotionally borne words such as "destruction, excessive, massive, cancer, architect business partner, violates, over built" and is accused of doing it all for a 'financial motive'. The Julian's are certainly paying more than their dues to meet their dreams of residing in our great community of Corona del Mar. A property of this size and value is difficult enough to justify let alone expect to make a profit on. Other developers who have been solely profit driven would have pushed the envelope to its maximum. It might turn out that property lines could be revisited. It certainly appears to have become easy for people to try and influence the "property rights" of others. Even to the utterances of 'stability of the bluff like other areas of California' while using 'cracks in the street' as evidence. I have been a resident and business owner in Corona del Mar since 1972 and endured the construction of 2495 Ocean (well into the bluff face) and the remodel of 2501 Ocean. The cracks in the street were there well before either of the present owners emerged. The existing condition did not seem to be a concern to either of them to get their desires met and in order to get what they wanted. Another recent part of 'throwing the kitchen sink' at the project involves eelgrass. There are most certainly public records showing the existence of marine eelgrass (Zostera) right in this location well before Mr. Julian arrived on the scene. I believe, in fact, that AERIE has spent considerable effort to not disturb the protected grass as is mandated by the State of California. The project has significant applications, which could be described as 'green'; catch water treatment and solar panels being the most visible illustrations. We implore the City of Newport Beach to recognize the Julian's as a family who is making every endeavor to provide a wonderful project for the community in which they intend to live. In the opinions of some, what they have had to endure has come close to hardship and harassment. We ask you to provide for the rights of property rather than to succumb to the complaints about virtually everything, of a vociferous few. The city has the expertise and authority to see that this project is sensible and move it along with a minimum of additional encumbrances. Sincerely, Bud and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 February 16, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Revised Aerie Project Dear Mr. Lepo, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH +" ff. I have read the MND of the revised Aerie Project which will come before the Planning Commission on Feb 21, 2008. 1 have also read the recommendations on the Staff Report for approval of the revised project. I have a number of concerns and submit this letter as an appeal of the adequacy of the MND. Furthermore, I am requesting that the City prepare and submit a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the project. The City has recently amended the Coastal Land Use Plan related to development on coastal bluff on Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. This project sits at the junction of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard on a prominent bluff which is viewed from Ocean Blvd, Camation Avenue, Bayside Drive and Begonia Park and is visible throughout the harbor and inlet of Newport Beach, and can be seen from miles out to sea. The CLUP policy numbers 4.4.1-1,4.4.1-2,4.4.1-3,4.4.3-8,4.4.3-9, 4.4.3 -12 and 4.4.3.19 are all designed to protect this very important type of natural coastal bluff face. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how the Planning Staff can issue an MND which shows no concern for the environmental consequences of this project and recommends approval of it. Please see my comments in bold: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, Including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. How does the Aerie Project 'enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone'? This Is an excessively large structure of nearly 63,000 square feet replacing two existing structures which together are less than 14,000 square feet The design of this project is avant garde and completely out of character with the surrounding environment 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. This project pushes the envelope of acceptable development in scale and size. The revised plan is for 62,822 sq ft to be built on a 61,284 square foot lot. The outline of the building covers the entire bluff, and pushes the boundaries to the property line on all sides. This cannot 'minimize' the impact to public coastal views. Additionally, I dispute the findings that the view corridor from Begonia Park will not be impacted. The developer should be required to provide a mock up of the building on the bluff in relation to the other Carnation Avenue properties and specifically address the view corridor from Begonia Park. Please see attached photo. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. This project as planned will significantly alter the natural landfomvs. The natural landfonns will be destroyed in order to accommodate this project. Two levels will be submerged below the 50.7' line and the construction plan provides for the removal of 25,240 cubic feet of bluff. How can the MND possibly state that this project will 'minimize alterations' to this bluff? 4.4.3-8. Prohibit private development on coastal bluff faces, except those along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar. Require all new development to be sited within the predominant line of existing development. Establish a predominant line of existing development for both principal structures and accessory improvements. The City has determined the predominant line of existing vertical development to be 50.7' for this project. Nonetheless, the project proposes two levels to be subterranean below this level. Additionally, there is no consideration of the horizontal predominant line. The proposed development pushes this to the extreme outer limits, both horizontally and vertically. I attach a photo of the current horizontal line of development along the Carnation Avenue bluff. 4.4.3 -9. Permit public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety on coastal bluff faces only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible on this point. The design is extreme, as is the size and scale of this project 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. Proposed project fails this requirement B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. Proposed project fails this requirement C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. Proposed project fails this requirement E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. Proposed project fails this requirement H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. 4.4.3 -19. In alf cases where the predominant fine of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered In determinina the approarlate extent of new development and size of new structures. This policy was added because of the Aerie project in order to keep the PLOED from being the only criteria used to determine a development line. All coastal land use policies MUST be considered to protect the bluff. The City has worked so diligently to provide a comprehensive general plan to protect the coastal areas and the quality of the residential neighborhoods. The Aerie project pushes the envelope on each and every condition of the CLUP. If the Planning Department and City Council approve this development, it will make a mockery of everything the City has been trying to do with the implementation of the CLUP. Please give this project careful consideration. The MND is inadequate as presented. If ever there was a project that warranted a full EIR, it is this one. I again repeat my request that a full EIR be required and that the Planning Commission deny this revised plan. Thank you. Sincerely, M ril L Bec � o U� N O N O M N d Q 00 d O wC) _ N L W N Q � (6 N LL �ro d v O N lC d 0 •tea. O 3 m N J T ? �a i f a 4 t Linda J. Martin P.O. Box 5220 Newport Beach, California 92662 February 16, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project RECOVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH tvlt.,-I•? -t. The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. (CEQA) states: "Whenever a project may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified" Therefore, since we believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has not adequately considered the impact that this proposed project will have due to the massive excavation and structure development on an environmentally sensitive coastal bluff, we request that the City require a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the resource protection policies contained within Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) are to implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states: "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. " Also, CLUP contains policies that regulate potential development of coastal bluffs. How can these items be considered to have been addressed by this project? The public view of the natural bluff will be destroyed as there no longer will be any remaining "natural bluff" to view. As for "minimize(ing) impacts to public coastal views. ", the public will not realize, until it is too late, what the impact will be without story poles. The developer has already removed all the natural vegetation without, as far as we know, City or California Coastal Commission approval. If this project is allowed.... there will be NO NATURAL VEGETATION ON THE BLUFF! Below is a list of the CLUP items that the applicant is disregarding: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. Without the requirement of a full, or at least a focused EIR, approval of this project will result in a development which will cause irreparable scenic degradation at the entrance to Newport Bay. I find it difficult to understand why story poles have not been required for this project as it would never have gotten so far in the process if the size of it was known. Once the public realizes the huge mass of the structures and the destruction of the existing natural bluff, the opposition to this project will increase dramatically. In this regard, the project cantilevers out an additional 20' past the existing residences on Carnation Avenue, and down an additional 3 feet so it will be visually incompatible with the character of surrounding areas. We have a home in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue and on Balboa Island and if this extreme project passes, I can honestly say that "living on Newport Bay" will not be as desirable as it has been. I am an interior designer and can visualize the disproportionate size and scale that has been created which resembles a wart on the very prominent nose at the entrance to the bay. This project is extremely out of proportion with the rest of the properties surrounding it in its volume and design which is only matched by the Channel Reef Complex. "New development... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. " An EIR is also necessary to protect the residents and the city regarding the construction viability and bluff stability due to the geotechnical implications of the massive cliffside excavation and its effect on the neighboring properties. The city will be exposed to expensive litigation if damage to the surrounding properties occurs as a result of grading this site (plans show a fault line exists on this blu, y). The mushroom style of the large home in Cameo Shores, is considered by some to be compatible with the location as it is virtually by itself encompassing 3 lots and the face of the cliff over the beach. However, the overblown size and scale of the proposed Aerie structure will dwarf all other "beach" scale homes in the area except Channel Reef Condos, which is a project that would never be approved today. The project will also be visible from Balboa Island, the Peninsula, and other areas of the City as well as from Newport Harbor. I believe that the City should do EVERTHING in its power to protect this precious coastal resource. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the city to require story poles and a full and complete Environmental Impact Report on this project before it goes any further in the approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Martin February 12, 2008 Mr. David Upo PlanningDirector City of Newport Beech Newport , Is? =i'r=R=,'= RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH b� +A t e. Since project inception, we have been perplexed as to how this project could come so far in the City's approval process. Our concerns include: a) The massive size and over -built nature of the project coupled with the tack of any meaningful as mssmerrt of visual consistency and compatibility with other properties in the neighborhood. (There are policies in the General flan which specifically address this issue: that the size, scale, and character of new development are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.) b) The excessive excavation involved, and the significant construction impact (traffic, noise, Pollution, hmmdous materials etc.) on adjoining properties and the test of our mall beach neighbatixbod. c) The proposed destruction of an irreplaceable coastal bluff without an appropriate in evaluation of the loss of this natural resource to the City and its ra4dents; in addition, the precedent this project will set for further destruction of the Carnation Avenue bluff. d) Lack of clarity regarding whether the project is minimi7 mg alteration of the b #sift' above 50.7 feet mean sea level, or disturbing the bluff below 50.7 feet mean sea level? a H bir i 'f Sincerely, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo JEFFREY BECK February 17, 2008 Members, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach, California Re: Aerie Project: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LSD i ta Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Aerie resubmitted project I will be brief. The initial submission of the Aerie project was rejected by the City Council because of the excessive magnitude and mass of the building proposed which required that the project extend beyond the predominant line of development down the bluff along Carnation Avenue and above the height permissible along Ocean Boulevard At that time, the developer was attempting to have it both ways: using the height restrictions as if the project was one solely along Carnation Avenue and the incursion down the bluff as if the project was solely on Ocean Boulevard. The scale of the building proposed could not be accommodated within the predominant lines of existing development and/or within the height restrictions of Ocean Boulevard. While the developer has slightly scaled back the project, it remains an excessively massive building for this site. So now, instead of having the project extend below the line the City Council set for incursion down the bluff face and still build such a massive structure, the developer has now extended the building area well beyond the predominant line of existing development along Carnation Avenue as to the depth of building back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue. This project, as now proposed, would not only extend much farther back from Carnation Avenue than any reasonably determined predominant line of existing development, but would actually extend much farther back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue than any existing structure along Carnation Avenue. As such, it should be dear that the project cannot be approved within the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. To meet these requirements, the developer will need to do that which it has been unwilling to do. That is, to downsize the structure to a more reasonable scale and one which can be accommodated within the requirements mandated by the land use restrictions intelligently chosen by the City. Very truly yours, 4 e 1 ff Beck 303 CARNATION AVFNCF. • CORONA DEL MAR, CA •.92625 P14ONE: 949 -723 -1773 • FAX: 561- 949.4796 February 19, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hawkins, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH dM.f...a -to fc. This letter is in reference to the Aerie project currently under review by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. There are the obvious issues relating to size, parking, excavation and destruction of the bluff which are all precedent setting and out of character with the existing adjacent development and Corona del Mar in general. However, the calculation of `Buildable Area" is an issue which should be addressed. After hearing the descriptions of the Aerie project, I became curious about how a 62,288 sq.ft. structure could be constructed on pad area of 13,481 sq.ft. (representing a coverage ratio of over 460 %). I reviewed the building plans prepared by Brion Jeannette Architecture (revised 1/3/2008) and met with James Campbell, Senior Planner, for clarification of the City policy regarding building area calculations. Mr. Campbell indicated that the site area and building calculations contained within the Jeannette building plans are incorrect. Mr. Campbell explained that `Buildable Area" was not really buildable area, but as defined by City policy, is determined by deducting setback areas from the gross lot area By this policy, submerged land and/or non - buildable slope areas are included in `Buildable Area ". The gross lot area of the Aerie site is 61,284 sq.ft. (1.3 acres). The City calculated 28,413 sq.ft. to be submerged land. Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicates 15,146 sq.ft. of non - buildable slope. Submerged land and non - buildable slope total 43,599 sq.ft. representing 71.1% of the site. The Aerie site contains a unique combination of non - buildable slope and submerged land, clearly outside of the proportions that the City policy was intended to address. Submerged land and bluff slopes represent over 70% of the 1.3 acre Aerie site. The Aerie project represents an exploitation of a flawed City policy allowing the inclusion of submerged land and bluff slopes in "Buildable Area" resulting in a proposed development far beyond the capability of the site. This exploitation is emphasized by the proposed excavation of 25,240 cu.yds., representing the removal of the bluff and bluff face material equivalent to an 88' x 88' x 88' cube, or excavating the building pad to a depth of 50 feet below Carnation Avenue. Note inconsistency in bluff slope area computations. City computations indicate 11,936 sq.ft. of non - buildable slope as compared to Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicating non - buildable slope of 15,146 sq.ft.. February 19, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page -2- The magnitude of the development in relation to the inadequate size of the site is further emphasized by the proposed parking garages. Seven of the eight condominium units require shared car elevators to access their garage spaces. The feasibility of the parking system, including size limitations, entry and exit time and street queuing are unknown. The unique components of the Aerie site (including submerged land and bluff face), the proposed removal of 25,240 cu.yds. of bluff material, the proposed 62,822 sq.ft. structure size, and the proposed parking by elevator access are all precedent setting issues to Newport Beach and the Corona del Mar neighborhood. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project or require a complete environmental impact report to fully understand the ramifications of this project. Sincerely, William R. Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 cc: David Lepo, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Council Varin, Ginger From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:43 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments For the record ... David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f From: Don Krotee Imailto:dkrotee @krotee.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:30 PM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland@earthlink.net Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments Mr. Lepo: ta,+ —P i%fg . bhillgren @highrhodes.com; jeff.cole@cushwake.com; Page 1 of 2 Having reviewed the latest changes to the proposal and the MND I continue to hold a strong opinion, as Planner, resident and Architect, that the proposal is simply more than the land can bear. Having been part of the GPAC and the development of the City's General Plan, I know of few residents (and several developers) who could support or even find any comfort with the staff findings in regard to the GP /LCP policies. The notion that this 6 story structure on this site, that will overlook the Newport Bay and is viewed by many in the City, preserves natural land forms, one of the key parts of the CLUP is beyond land use planning reconciliation. In that the policies in the GP/ LCP are stated generally does not allow the staff to gerrymander around these policies with findings to provide development of this unprecedented scale. The MND discusses aesthetics but, somehow avoids the study and the making of findings in specific regard to the comparison scale of the surrounding structures (in a community that the General Plan intends to protect) in regard to the proposed massive building. Although the noise and air quality of this residential community are impacted deeply by grading and the operation of hauling, it is the following picture that your department intends to represent that this fulfills the vision of the beach community wanted by so many in the development of the new General Plan. This image is not in the vision. 02/20/2008 i. y I 1 Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 PM to.+J *4 C To: Varin, Ginger Subject: RE: Proposed Aerie Condominiums This is one that I did not hand to you. It looks like it went to 6 of 7 commissioners - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:08 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Proposed Aerie Condominiums For the administrative record . . David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Kovach [ mailto :david @kovachcompanies.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:45 AM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net; ADK1 (E -mail) Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums Mr. Lepo, The continued movement of this proposal within the city remains a serious concern for the entire Newport Beach citizenry. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts on the subject, as provided enclosed. If possible, I would appreciate any comment or response you can provide. As well, I am happy to discuss the project as you deem appropriate. Thank you. David Kovach 1 Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger e P Subject: FW: aerie project From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM To: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net Cc: Varin, Ginger; 'Barry Eaton'; Lepo, David Subject: RE: aerie project Greetings, Thank you Ms. Linhoff for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RCH From: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net [mailto:elinhoff @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:03 PM To: rhawkins@earthlink.net Subject: Fw: aerie project -- Original Message - -- From: elinhoff @sbcglobai.net To: rehawkinsaearth link. net Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:42 AM Subject: aerie project Dear Chairman Hawkins: I strongly urge the Planning Commission to require a full EIR for this project. The environmental effects of this projects are huge and the precedent it sets is irreversible. The digging into the bluff to such an extent goes against the General Plan. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Please either deny this project (which would save the applicant time and money) or require a full EIR. Elaine Linhoff 1760 Ecean Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM 02/20/2008