Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials received after PC packets distributionMaterial(s) received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed, or received at the meeting. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public. Frank Hugged 4Pwbwdt Lane Newport&& & CA92660 Tel 949 644 -0574 Fes: Home Fes Pbeee fbeetaw@wx.net Russell Bunim Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach P. O. Box1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Wednesday, November 12, 2008 Re: PA 2007 -210 Big Canyon Country Club Dear Russell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH On this date I visited your offices for the purpose of reviewing the Negative Declaration for the pro- posed rezoning and approval of a residential lot by the Big Canyon Country Club. I appreciated your patience in describing the report and regret my lack of knowledge of what is to be covered in such a document. However, I was disappointed to discover there were issues which the document failed to address and which I felt logically would have been included in the text. As a preamble, I was disappointed to see that the document did not address the issues that the site was previously used by the Club as a dump site (and at times by residents), there were no indica- tions as to how the applicant would provide utilities to the site, and the less than acceptable loca- tion of a residential driveway onto a community roadway with a speed limit of 35 mile per hour, and often exceeded. The Club is relying upon The Irvine Company deed for roadway ingress and egress when the intention was that was solely for access to the clubhouse site and the maintenance vehi- cles of the Club. This would constitute the only residential driveway onto Big Canyon Drive within the entire community. Only being able to review the document in your offices, I have tried to make notations to the vari- ous sections. Air Quality - Section 111(6) Perhaps, the question really relates as to how the applicant will propose to handle the existing soils conditions. Many long term residents are aware that the site was used as a dump site. The report did indicate that approximately 7500 cubic yards would be removed from the site and 5000 cubic yards would have to be imported. The community has had to endure years of large trucks hauling dirt in and out Now, it appears that dirt will again be strewn onto our streets, but, this time possibly in and out the West gate. With 20 cubic yard trucks that is 625 truck trips which could qualify as an environmental issue. Biological Resources - Section IV(d) Over the years our community has realized considerable ani- mal habitat which visits. These have included at least coyote, possum, bobcats, and skunks. The site of this residential lot is very likely one of the paths that those visitors used. page 2 Geology and Soils - Section VI(b) Since a soils report has not yet been required, we have no way of knowing if there may be an unstable condition. As indicated earlier, it is common knowledge that the Club used the site to dump deleterious materials on the site. Before this application is forwarded on to the City Council, a determination should be made whether or not the suspected material as it exists constitutes an unstable condition for a building program. Land Use Planning - Section IX(b) Obviously it is in violation of the intended land use since the application is coupled with an amendment of the General Plan and the PC. The residents of Big Canyon should be able to rely on the approval of the City Council on January 26, 1981 of the Big Canyon Planned Community, Amendment No. 4. That document clearly states on Page 15 that resi- dential is not a "Permitted Use". It was never the intent for the Club property to be used for other that golf related purposes. The Club certainly accepted this when they received the Corporation Grant Deed from The Irvine Company in 1974 which stipulated that the property would be used only for golf related purposes. The residents of the homes on the northerly side of Rue Villars certainly had a reasonable right to expect that their privacy would not be invaded by the construction of a private residence in their back yards. I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission consider the concerns of residents and their reli- ance upon previous zoning decisions and request that the application be forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Sincerely yours, Fr nk Hughes J Southern Cafrfornia Gas Company A Sempra Energy ut iity- November 13, 2008 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Russell Bunim 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPAMENT NOY 17 2608 CITY OF NEWPORTBE4CH Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Big Canyon General Plan Amendment and Subdivision. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area, Dave Baldwin at (714)634 -3267. Paul Simonoff i Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim PS/mr mitnegde.doc Bunim, Russell I From: Barry D. Eaton [eaton727 @earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 5:19 PM To: Bunim, Russell Cc: Alford, Patrick; Lepo, David; Harp, Aaron; Tucker,Larry Subject: Proposed Big Canyon GPA, PC Amendment, Parcel Map, etc. Russell, I have now read this staff report, attachments, and the MND; and I do have some questions: 1) In the 2nd paragraph on page 3 of the staff report, it states that the site was used "...as a place to deposit soil under City Review and inspection [in 20061." But, on page 3 of the MND, that document states that "..approximately 7,500 cubic yards of soil (from previous fill projects on site)..." will have to be removed, and a new 5.000 cubic yards imported. If there were more than one fill projects on site, when were the others, and what did they consist of? If the previous fill projects were only soil, why does 7,500 cubic yards of the fill have to be removed, and partially replaced? If it was only soil, could it not just be recompacted on site, without all the trucks required to export 7,500 yards and import 5,000 yards? If it is not just soil, what else is there that may have been placed on the site? Is any of it possibly hazardous? Why was no generalized soil report prepared and included in the MND? 2) The 4th paragraph on the same page notes that the site slopes down from Big Canyon Drive towards the Golf Course. The topo lines on the tentative Parcel Map indicate to me that it was probably used as an access down from the street all the way to the construction project on the Golf Course, with the sloped access area ending at a point on the Golf Course where the City sewer and storm drain easement begins on the Golf Course itself. Was the site also used for this purpose? If so, does it still need to be utilized to provide access to the City easement? If so, would that access interfere with the proposed building pad, and does it need to be preserved as an easement? 3) At the bottom of page 6 of the staff report, and in the answer to finding no. 5, on page 3 of the proposed Resolution of Approval, it is stated that there are no easements on the site. I assume that this will have to be corrected, as the proposed Parcel Map clearly shows two easements on the site. Is this correct? 4) The proposed site does not have access to any public streets. I assume that that means that it must use Big Canyon Drive for access (and it will apparently be the only homesite in Big Canyon with direct driveway access to Big Canyon Drive); and my understanding is that Big Canyon Drive is a private street, owned by the Master HOA for Big Canyon. Is this correct? If so, does the parcel need to be annexed to the Master HOA, in order to secure access rights to Big Canyon Drive? If so, have you heard from the Master HOA whether that is a problem or not? Does it also have to be annexed to one of the individual HORS? If so, which one, and is that a problem? If not, will it be subject to the same architectural review that all other homes in Big Canyon have been 1 the subject of? If not, is that a problem for any of the adjoining homeowners who will overlook the site? Is this an issue that should have been discussed in the MND? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. I look forward to your response. Barry 2 IRVINE COMPANY Since 1864 November 17, 2008 Russell Bunim Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Re: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, Big Canyon Country Club Dear Mr. Bunim: The Irvine Company in its 1974 Grant Deed to Big Canyon Country Club reserved solely unto itself the right to approve of any uses of Club property for other than "a private country club and uses reasonably associated therewith." The Irvine Company has reviewed the proposed plans of the Club for a one lot subdivision for one home to be located on approximately 1.9 acres adjoining Big Canyon Drive, between Rue Villars and Rue Biarritz. The Irvine Company supports the Club's plan because The Irvine Company does not believe that one house in the proposed location will have any impact on the master plan for Big Canyon. Best regards, i Dan Miller Sr. Vice President Entitlement & Public Affairs ,r vl l .; :� AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 December 1, 2008 Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Initial Study for Big Canyon Genera plan Amendment and Subdivision Dear Mr. Bunim: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the proposed single - family detached dwelling unit in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land 'Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP). We wish to offer the following commentsand request consideration of these comments: as, you proceed with preparation of your Mitigated Negahve:Declaration,(MPII3) _ The proposed project is located within-the F Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 NotificationxAreafor JWA.,ALUC staff re viewed the Proposed.vroiect -and based on the data rewive4, we found that portio .6f: j ojebt appear to surpass the 100:1 notification surface. Penetration of this surface requiras'that the project applicant file FAA Form 74601 wi�tltthe_FAA Regi Office in orderfor that agency to determine any potential irripacts by tkte protect ftpo,s};tgabie airspace sutroundeng JW:A. We recommend that the MIVI) "discuss the project's loeatidn;within the FAR Part17 Notification Area_ -for JWA and state that the FAA deteriination will be considered in developing the prupoaed�proiect A referral by the City to the ALUC is recommended for this project due to the location of the proposal within an AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Amendment) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission suggests such referrals to be submitted and agendized by the ALUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. Also keep in mind that a copy of the FAA 7460 -1 determination must be part of your submittal package before the project can be accepted for filing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea Umnas at (949) 252 -5123 or via email at lumnas mir.com if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni L'V Executive Officer FROM CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF BIG CANYON JULY 2009 This letter is being sent to all residents of Big Canyon by fellow residents for what we believe is of material concern to all. It is a precedent which we feel could significantly adversely affect the community and that you need to be informed. sale of a residential lot on the Club's property. The proposed parcel fronts onto Big Canyon Drive between Rue Villars and Rue Biarritz. The City Planning Staff is processing the application subject to a Public Hearing, the date to be announced .later by the City. There are a number of issues which must be considered_ The master planning of our community is now approaching 40 years. It provided several distinct parcels for single family and condominium homes which would not have direct driveway access to Big Canyon Drive. If the driveway onto Big Canyon Drive. The proposed driveway is at a potentially dangerous location. It is.at a point on the down slope of the roadway, limited sight distance, and a 35 mile speed limit, which as you have observed is regularly exceeded. The proposed site was in the past used by the Club as a dump. Based upon a soils analysis, a determination would have to be made by the Club and the City whether the dumped materials would have to be removed from the site: By any chance could there be a connection with the Iarge and this site? If so, that would subject us to another huge amount of'dir and debris being hauled across our streets. Enough is enough of dirty streets and large dirt hauling trucks. It is presumed that in order to provide the necessary utilities to the site, the Club would propose to open cut Big Canyon Drive, subject to the concurrence of the -Big Canyon Community Association Board of Directors, It appears that the Club would apply to the Canyon Crest Community Association and the Big Canyon Community Association for annexation of the parcel to the associations. Such annexation by the CC &R's requires a two thirdg affirmative vote of all owners. When the Club accepted the deed for their property in 1974, The Irvine Company (TIC) stipulated in the deed that the Club property was to be used for golf purposes only. Uses other than golf related constitutes a breach of contract. The Club received the approximately 140 acre property at a significantly reduced market value of about $5,000 per acre. The TIC deed provided for ingress and egress for the Club to Blg Canyon Drive. That provision was included only to provide driveway access to the clubhouse and the use of_the road for Club maintenance vehicles. The Club is trying to use that as a right for a residential driveway. We, as residents, have purchased our homes with the assurance that the Big Canyon Planned Community approved by the City Council clearly indicates that residential is not a "permitted use on the golf course The expressed reason by the Club for the parcel is purely financial. Apparently the Club is realizing significant cost overruns. We do not feel control their financial affairs. The sale of this proposed lot will not solve - their financial overrun and there may be other methods available to the - Club to address their financial difficulties. It may be speculated that the addition of one lot at this time by the Club could give precedent to propose additional lots along gig Canyon Drive. If you feel as we do: - F-6NC>a YVUI UVI Il M M, tV U M fly 1id11YU1I trV111111U111QE rrbbuumlull directors, - Be rgreepared when the Public Hearing is Wheduled to express This letter was prepared, paid for and distributed by individual residents. ff is past time that the Club reveal their intentions to all of Og Canyon. You deserve to be made aware of this application by the Club and that is why we decided to serif this letter.