HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 5Exhibit #5
Additional correspondence received
Pagel of 3
Campbell, James
From:
ksmc949@aol.com
Sent:
Friday, February 15, 2008 10:08 AM
To:
Campbell, James
Cc: Clauson, Robin; Lepo, David; rhawkins @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: Aerie
Dear Mr. Campbell
After reviewing the most recent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Aerie project
in Corona del Mar it is difficult to understand how this application has ever been considered for
development by the City of Newport Beach. Clearly the new MND is not sufficient for a project of this
massive scale and we believe that a complete and concise Environmental Impact Report should be
prepared for this project before it moves further in the approval process. Having observed several of the
previous planning meetings it is clear the Mr. Jennette has tremendous influence with the City and it is
our hope that his being on several advisory boards for the City, and being the architect/ business partner
of Aerie will not be a factor in your decision regarding their application without further and more in
depth review.
It is my understanding that during the City Council meeting of August 2007 the developers were given 3
feet more for vertical development that an other property on Carnation Avenue - 50.7 feet versus the
established 53.7 - which set a precedent for future development on Carnation Avenue. After reviewing a
bit of the proposed plans I noticed that the excavation and two subterranean floors are going to be at an
elevation of considerable less that 50.7 feet above mean sea level (msl) and actually closer to 20 feet
above msl when excavation for footings for the structure, footings for the elevator and slab for the fast
floor are complete. The first subfloor is indicated at 30 feet above msl on the revised submitted plans.
The subfloors are actual usable, workable spaces designed to fit the entire footprint of the proposed
building and intended to be used full time. Hiding two full stories behind and below artificial or man
made rock and what little natural rock is left after gutting the bluff should not and cannot be considered
of little or no significant impact to the bluff or the environment as suggested by the planning
department. Excavating and starting construction below 30 feet above msl is completely against City
Council Guidelines, coastal protection policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan, The General Plan and The
California Coastal Commission guidelines.
The stability of the existing homes on either side of the proposed development and those across the
street during excavation and construction have not been discussed nor to my knowledge have they been
taken into consideration in the rand - as stated by a staff member of the Planning Department during a
meeting held in January. It would be impossible to remove the amount of rock and dirt being proposed
without undermining numerous homes, utilities, the entire street at the junction of Carnation Avenue and
Ocean Boulevard and who knows what else. We do not want an incident similar to the recent slippage
of homes in La Jolla and Los Angeles. Shouldn't the City take more caution and care to insure the safety
of its residents, their homes and neighborhoods. Clearly this is another one of the major problems of
this proposed project that needs to be addressed in a complete Environmental Impact Report and not just
suppositioned by the developer.
The sheer mass of the proposed structure is completely inconsistent, out of scale and out of character
with all of the existing homes built along Carnation Avenue and the surrounding streets which should be
one of the primary considerations for this property as it is entirely on Carnation Avenue. If the property
02/15/2008 �q5
Page 2 of 3
at 201 Carnation were subdivided into lots and the existing single family residence at 207 was not under
consideration for rezoning to multi use would the City ever consider such massive development for the
resulting 4 or 5 lots - which is what the property could possible support. Would a different developer or
architect be given such latitude, be allowed to gut the entire bluff and throw caution to the wind - I think
not.
The environmental impact during the demolition of these existing 60+ year old structures which contain
asbestos and lead paint has been discussed and supposedly determined not to be a danger.
There are full time residents, elderly people and children living in close proximity to this project -is it
sufficient to say that "existence of these hazardous materials in not considered a significant public health
risk "(mnd). Shouldn't the Environmental Protection Agency have a say in a project of this magnitude
when known cancer causing materials, foreign particles and other substances will be in the air for
months and months during demolition of the the existing structures and excavation approximately
30,000 cubic yards of rock and dirt. These hazardous materials will then be trucked through our public
streets and highways. Where will all of the waste be dumped and where will it be stored until it can be
removed from our streets and staging areas.
One of the biggest threats to the environment, however, is that which has already been done without a
study the the City of Newport Beach or the California Coastal Commission and that is the filing of the
bay and the previously small sand beach below the property in question. Without owning the property
Mr. Julian evidently managed to apply for and obtain a permit form the City or the Harbor Department
to use part of the dredge material removed from around the docks at a the Channel Reef condominiums
two doors south of his intended development without any of the neighbors being notified. The vertical
height of the beach was raised at least 4 feet and the width of the beach from the existing stairwell and
deck area to the water was increased by 30 to 40 feet. This was a huge increase of property. I cannot
help but wonder what was gained in terms of extending lot size by adding this sand. Eel grass, which
was non existent, was introduced to this part of the bay when the sand was pumped in and is now
flourishing, the sand dollar population was buried and rock formations were either filled in or buried.
For the first time in the 22 years that we have lived in our home a large portion of our dock now sits our
of the water on an average low tide where in years past on the most extreme low tide of the year there
was still at least 4 to 5 feet of water under that portion of the dock. Unfortunately since no study was
done prior to pumping new sand into this cove no one knows what the long term effect of this shifting
sand will and who will be responsible for the damage it causes. Should water and sand, which are both
unusable in terms of building even be considered in terms of square footage or acreage (1.4 mnd page 4)
for this building footprint. Taken out of the equation it would become clear that the buildible footprint
is considerable smaller than currently suggested by the architect and that the applicant for this project
has far exceeded the allowable square footage before all of the exclusions, exemptions and exceptions
requested and would be denied a permit on that basis.
Additionally, we feel that it is imperative that a complete and final plan for his proposed dock and boat
slips be submitted along with his aerie plans for consideration by the Planning Commission and that it
too should be included in the Environmental Impact Report as it is such a sensitive issue to the Bay.
Plans for the dock and boat slips have been drawn, a complete scale model built and they have been
presented to prospective tenants and neighbors for review in the past. Why these plans were submitted to
the City is a major concern to all of us and we feel that they should not be considered two separate
projects because of the magnitude of the work and time involved if this project should be allowed to go
forward. We would also hope that no plan changes or modifications or revisions (which are apparently
already in progress) to the currently submitted plans be considered or approved without public
notification and review prior to permits being granted - this in the hope that nothing else of public
concern slips through the cracks.
02/15/2008 ��4
Page 3 of 3
We thank you for you time and consideration and hope that our concerns and those of other neighbors
will be heard and warrant a more in depth study of the impact of such an enormous project.
We all look forward to the property being redeveloped as previously stated and hope that after an
Environmental Impact Report has been completed we may resolve some of the outstanding issues on
this extremely sensitive project.
Sincerely
John and Kathleen McIntosh
cc: California Coastal Commission
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
02/15/2008 0