Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - AERIE Project - Attachment ECJ C Correspondence E E. Page left blank intentionally I-/ STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS H TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY REGEItTCE; BY ARNOLD SCHW 4RZEh'EMER Gn�em'r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT District 12 o 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 AUG 07 2007 . ®Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2241 Fax: (949)724 -2592 CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH Be energy ejTzcren!! August 3, 2007 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2007021054 Log #: 1833B PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AERIE (PA2005 -196) project. The proposed project is for demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, grading, and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock. The project site is located on 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in the City of is Newport Beach. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisford at (949) 724 -2241. Sincerel a L. / C Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Callrans improves mobility ncross California" E�-.3 July 30, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: t t I am now a resident of Newport Beach, California for 3- years. I love our community and coastal environment we all have to share and enjoy. I am originally from Tacoma, Washington and now make Newport Beach, California my permanent residency. As a Newport Beach, California resident and citizen I would like to express to you my full support for the proposed AERIE real estate improvements for the project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with Rick Julian at the project site and reviewed the model and designs for the proposed contemporary and innovative project. I spend many days taking family and friends along the Balboa Peninsula on bikes to The Wedge at the mouth of the harbor. The views of the ocean, harbor, and Corona Del Mar are impressive and I always take pride in showing off our beautiful city. J believe in the tradition of Newport Beach, California development this proposed property improvement exemplifies the care and planning this city wants and that is mandated by the California Coastal Commission goals for the Coastal Act of 1976. I am sure The City of Newport Beach, California can appreciate the well planned consideration, research, and energy devoted by the AERIE developer to this project since your recent efforts also to improve the area spent $3,945,000 to complete the Corona Del Mar State Beach Improvements. We all want to see our beautiful city continue to make progress forward in development and beautification while preserving our coastline. Approving this project will be another step, by The City of Newport Beach, to move in the right direction. Please call me at 949.422.6908 ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, Mark Bakke 307 36`h Street Newport Beach, California 92663 CC: James Campbell, Senior Planner David Lepo, Planning Director Rick Julian, Developer /Applicant k Sent To: r inch Member Tor i J Q 0 E�- y O 11 July 30, 2007 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 I've been watching the progress on the Aerie project on Carnation. I know the apartments that have been an eyesore there, and I love the planned new design. The whole concept, and the way it has been developed in consultation with the community, seems ideal for Newport Beach. I've listened to the objections, ® and they seem minor. It's always possible to find something to object to with any proposal, but this seems to me like a project that should be approved. I urge you to do so. (h] es K: Turner 309 Vista Suerte Newport Beach, CA 92660 Z Date Cc: Planning Department Gen .s--Sent TO: y0r jjj- /Lxunril Member 0 0 O E July 30, 2007 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 To Members of the City Council, i am sending this letter in the hope that you do not pass the Aerie project at the August 14 City Council Meeting. My wife and I live in Corona del Mar, and often walk Ocean Boulevard and Balboa Island. This project is much too big for that location, and will look more like a large hotel. It will result in there being no more natural bluff left, as the entire hillside will be engulfed with building. There must be better options for such a prime location then a project of this size. As this is something all residents enjoy, shouldn't the City Council be responsible for its preservation? And isn't that why we voted for you? Please help us keep what enhances Newport Beach! Isn't that why people pay so much to live here? Sincerely, �6e,-j G. QS Si ff! To: David Cord A/Yd Q Q 7`IX Co/? C / Mayor 2 Canyon Lane J'ici! "member Corona del Mar, CA 92625 h!anaaer El ❑ 6.& CJ 11 E TO: Newport Beach City Council FROM: Gloria Hickman RE: AERIE Proposed Condo Development on Carnation Ave. In my letter to the Planning Commission in April, I expressed my dismay regarding the proposed project on Carnation and Ocean Blvd. I have been a voting, tax- paying resident of Corolla del Mar since 1974, and am someone who enjoys boating and the views from the water. I would not want to see that development standing out from all the rest, and i can't imagine why the City Council would even consider it, if you've ever seen this area from a boat. Furthermore, our bluffs are a fragile resource of beauty we should not put at risk.. Please reject this proposed giant as not fitting in with our community. Something smaller should bring sufficient income to the owners and please the many current residents of Newport Beach. ® P say NOl o a c "U 746� 4 Canyon Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Date El El El Member 61 July 30, 2007 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECE�D g SENT RIANNING DEPAR AUG 02 2 ©�I C1iY OF N�NPOR� �EAC� I've been watching the progress on the Aerie project on Carnation. I know the apartments that have been an eyesore there, and I love the planned new design. The whole concept, and the way it has been developed in consultation with the community, seems ideal for Newport Beach. I've listened to the objections, and they seem minor. It's always possible to find something to object to with any proposal, but this seems to me like a project that should be approved. I urge you to do so. Charles K. Turner 309 Vista Suerte New port Beach, CA 92660 E C- S L RUDY MARIMAN & CO. 341 BAYSIDE DRIVE • SUITE 3 • NEWPORT BEACH •CALIFORNIA .2HU 949.673.1221 - ® 949.673.1415 FAX :- July 18, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport-Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the AERIE project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the Property. 1 am wholeheartedly in support of the project. ® The AERIE is a World Class community, replacing a 60 year old dilapidated apartment complex. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and increases the City's property tax Roll. The property is currently assessed at approximately $1,100,000. AERIE is estimated to be assessed at approximately $90,000,000. These are just a few of the multiple benefits that the AERIE development will bring to our community. , Rudy A. Matiman President Cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Rick Julian, Applicant J �±4a'f0r atfltit El ❑ _-._.._ ❑ -- E. 9 YI LAWRENCE A. BROWN, D.P.M. 1 Foot and Ankle Specialist Surgery, Diseases & Injuries of the Foot & Ankle /port Superior Medical Plaza 1501 Superior Ave.. Suite 304 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 642 -2329 July 20, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport'Beach, CA 92553 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the Aerie project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the property. I am wholeheartedly in support of the project. I have been a practicing physician and resident of Newport Beach since 1984. The present structure is an eyesore, whether viewing it from land or sea. The proposed development would be beautiful, not only now, but for many years to come. Please approve this project quickly and allow the construction to begin without further delay. The sooner it is finished, the sooner we can all enjoy it. S`inDcerelll v, Dr. Lawrence A. Brown Date a Copies Sent To: Mayor until Member are ;er �'ir�yrney r' J L1 11 &-to KENT S. MOORE 210 CARNATION AVENUE CORONA. DEL MAR, CALIFORNIi�1D2625 ? ~ pp 1 TELEPHONE.: (949) 673-7692 rAC$IMILE: (949) 073-7099 9cEntm ®�r'eC�3�• dik m lo July 10, 2007 RE: Proposed Aerie Project - CDM Dear Mayor and Council Members' I would like to bring a few facts to your attention regarding the proposed Aerie Development in Corona del Mar.. For 37 years I have lived continuously at the corner of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. and during this time have observed every new construction project undertaken in our neighborhood. All of the following data I am presenting to you can be easily corroborated through city records. I have read the petition and other communications presented by those who oppose this project. It is interesting to note that some signers are not property owners while at least 3 others don't reside at the addresses shown.. (Public testimony.) Many asked that their names be removed after they personally met with Mr. Julian and looked at the model. The organizers of this petition are two homeowners who live directly adjacent to the proposed project and they are spreading disinformation throughout the area. You will be interested in learning something about their backgrounds. The owners of 2495 Ocean Blvd. received City and Coastal approval and built a huge home on and below the bluff face next door to the proposed Aerie project. In their communications they point to the potential destruction of the bluff, the eradication of certain flora and fauna and the loss of public views, yet they engaged in these very activities when constructing their home. They even attempted to modify the design of their garage at the top of the bluff durine construction but inspectors stopped them. Additionally, after their home was built, they were cited on numerous occasions for blocking the public right of way with trees and other shrubbery which, eventually, they were forced to remove. A story of their attempted public view blockages even appeared on the front page of the Daily Pilot. Yet, now, these neighbors have the audacity to spread lies about the applicant.. As I stated to the Planning Commission, "This is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and hypocrisy and "nimbyism" at its best." Meanwhile, the owners of 2501 Ocean Blvd. received City and Coastal approval to remodel their home and roofline which cut off both private and public views. They said to the neighbors, "Work with us on this." They, too, were later cited by the City and were forced to remove trees which they decided to plant in the public right of way after the completion of their approved project. They, too, are guilty of using a double standard ' opposing the Aerie Project. As I also stated to the Planning Commission, "people whoC C�., live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." ,. The vast majority of the neighbors are solidly behind the proposed Aerie ® and I hope that you will approve what will be a beautiful addition to our i AL61 s Sent To: 'A-mber El G•Il RICHARD & REG/NA}{DNSAKER 117 (-*ru/ Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92662-1144 July 17.2OU7 Mr. Steven F|0VanShv.Mayor CITY (]F NEWPORT BEACH 33OO Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CAB2G83 ' Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the AERIE project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the property. I am wholeheartedly in support of the project. | live nn Balboa Island and | approve uf the elevations of the building which | will view when | walk the small Island, which |dua couple 8f times aweek. The project will reduce the number ufdwelling units from the 15 that exist today, b}0units that is proposed by Aerie. Traffic is always an issue, but this reduction in units will help mitigate the traffic on our busy streets. The project utilizes only 24.5% of the site, preserving 75%88 open space twice the amount Of open space required bvcode. — I appreciate your support of this development of the AERIE project. Very truly yours Rioh8odHu8Saker . I RH1U Xz David Leon. Planning Director 6^/ƒ, �l Date ^» ~' �-��' �= mlayof ������. —.-v.r_��� ~ � 6^/ƒ, \J l J AERIE (PA 2005 -196) comments attached Campbell, James Page I of 1 From: Marko Popovich [marko @uci.edu] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:31 AM To: Campbell, James; Lepo, David; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; rhawkins @earthlink.net; scoff @peotter.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com; bhillgren @cox.net; strataland@earthlink.net Subject: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) comments attached Attachments: AERIE.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Attached is a letter from SPON regarding Agenda Item No. 3. AERIE (PA 2005 -196), 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, 101 Bayside Place. Thanks for your consideration, Marko Popovich SPON co- presiding officer 08/08/2007 G• 3 SPON P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, California 92662 May 16, 2007 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Agenda Item No. 3 AERIE (PA 2005 -196), 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, 101 Bayside Place Dear Chairperson Jeffrey Cole and Planning Commissioners, SPON appreciates the opportunity to comment on the AERIE project. The bluffs in Corona del Mar represent one of its most beautiful assets. The AERIE site currently possesses a wonderful example of bluff face, and the site is a prominent landmark near the entrance into Newport Harbor. SPON is concerned that overdevelopment of the AERIE site would destroy a unique feature that makes Corona del Mar a special place. We have reviewed the current and past staff reports, and believe from the extensive discussion on the Predominant Line of Development (PLOD), there is significant latitude in determining where it is located on the site. Beyond the AERIE site itself, establishment of the PLOD on this site will set a precedent that may allow neighboring properties to further develop the remaining bluff. Given the importance of this site as a landmark entrance to Newport Harbor, SPON recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the April 5, 2007 staff recommendation establishing a PLOD of 52 MSL. A 52 MSL PLOD would allow for further development on the site while retaining a significant portion of the existing bluff. In our opinion, at 52 MSL, the project is much more attractive as evidenced by the photosimulations below: View 11 View 1 11 1, u .£. ry Planning Commission AERIE Page 2 of 2 We hope that you will agree with our assessment and recommend the City Council approve the PLOD at 52 MSL Sincerely, Marko Popovich SPON Presiding Officer cc: David Lepo, Director of Planning James Campbell, Senior Planner \_J E 6.15 May 17, 2007 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Condominium Development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave., CDM Dear Commissioners, My husband Joe and I live adjacent to the proposed project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. I spoke against the project at the February 22 "d meeting, and we are still opposed for multiple reasons. From the beginning we have been amazed that the feasibility and suitability of this project, for this site in Old Corona del Mar, hasn't been questioned and examined more thoroughly. There has been a lot of misinformation and inconsistencies supplied by the applicant, as well as complete disregard for the staff recommendations and the provisions in the CLUP. I am surprised that his architect, Mr. Jeanette, would not be familiar with these. Especially important are those policies which address protecting coastal bluffs and public views. These can be found in Chapter 4.4, Scenic and Visual Resources, which I read at the February 22nd Meeting. There are many other important provisions I have listed here, (policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3), but will refer to policy 4.4.3 -12 which states "Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible." Also of great importance is the implication of Policy 4.4.3 -8, which allows, in some cases, "bluff development when no feasible alternative exists as long as it is designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face ". In this case there are plenty of feasible alternatives to minimize this project, however, the applicant chooses to maximize by flagrant overdevelopment, completely destroying the bluff and building something so massive that it is completely out of scale and character with the surrounding area Also, by having his attorney's pick apart the language of these policies, it does a disservice to both the Planning Commission and the City Council, who voted unanimously to approve it. We are all very much aware of the obvious intent of these provisions. If they weren't meant to protect this particular very prominent coastal bluff, then what bluffs are they meant to protect? As this is a precedent setting situation, maybe the CLUP needs to be reworded before any decisions are made. Furthermore, why are we allowing the applicant to continue to push the envelope when it comes to the predominant line of development. To even consider the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory which was built on the beach in China Cove in1926, and the Channel Reef G• t(� ® Apartments which were built in 1962, is absurd. As there were no definitive land use policies at that time, we're lucky more Channel Reefs weren't built, as then Corona del Mar would look like Miami Beach. Also, these structures are 250 feet northerly on Ocean Blvd., whereas the project site is on Carnation Ave., so it would seem that the predominant line should be calculated using only the other buildings on Carnation. Another area of the CLUP protects the Ocean Blvd. Public View Corridor. In Policy 4.4.1 -6 it states "Protect Public Coastal Views from the Following Roadway Segments ". It appears from the plans that the view corridor will be diminished due to the multiple decks and overhangs. This is where the request for story- poles, which have been ignored by the applicant, would determine the extent of the loss of public view from different sidewalk locations along Ocean Blvd. I am submitting a photo of the Ocean Blvd. View Corridor as Exhibit 1. Another area of obvious concern is the highly inconvenient parking configuration. With a total of 34 subterranean parking places, accessed only by the use of car elevators, many potential problems are created, including blocking of the public right -of -way if the elevators are in use and there is queuing into the street. This could cause a potentially dangerous situation on what is already a blind comer, as cars in the public right -of -way may attempt to go around those queuing in the street. This is especially true on weekends and during the summer, when the streets are very congested with beachgoers looking for ® on- street parking. There are provisions addressing this in Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP, as well as in the Circulation Element Policy CE 71.1, which are both part of the General Plan to protect our neighborhoods from this kind of negative impact. We would also like to express our concern regarding the stability of the bluff, and potential damage to surrounding properties when such a massive amount of material is removed, and we would like to put the City on notice that "they" will be liable for any damage to our home. I am submitting an aerial photo of the multiple cracks in the streets on Ocean Blvd. and Carnation (Exhibit 2), and a photo of a collapsed bluff (Exhibit 3). It appears that by following the Staffs most conservative application to policy, by allowing redevelopment of the property within the footprint of the existing buildings, many potential problems, code violations and the need for a modification permit would be eliminated. In section "A" of the above mentioned CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 it states "siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources ". We have lived on Ocean Blvd. for seventeen years, and in that time have watched the North end of Ocean become a neighborhood. A commendable redevelopment a few years ago was done by our neighbors the Rasners, who took out two older duplexes, and had the opportunity to develop six condominiums, but instead put in three lovely single family homes, which has greatly enhanced our neighborhood. C 611 In summery; I have talked with many more people in our immediate area since the February 22 °d meeting, and most of them were not aware of this project. Upon learning of it they are opposed. As I mentioned at that meeting, if this goes through as planned many people will realize what's been done "after the fact ", and say "how did this happen ?" We respectfully ask the Commission to deny this project. Sincerely, Joe and Lisa Vallejo Exhibits will be available at the May 17 Planning Meeting. e7, l Cl 11 n U C Page ] of 1 Campbell, James From: EIIenTrujillo [emailln @roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:52 AM To: Lepo, David; Campbell, James Subject: Aerie Project Dear Planning Commission members, I am a resident of Corona del Mar. I had the priviledge of living at 205 Carnation for 26 years. I have seen the plans for the Aerie project several times. I have spoken to the architect and developer on many occassions and have found them to be very interested in planning a project that fits the neigborhood.l know the Brion Jeannette and Rick Julian have worked with all the neighbors to develop a building that does not block views as much as allowable. I think they have accomplished their goal. I am very much in favor of the project. I know that one of the concerns is parking. Having lived there for 26 years I can attest to the fact that parking was never an issue. The current building has 12 units and 8 parking slots. At various times there were 16 -24 people living at the building,all with cars. Parking was NEVER an issue, Nobody EVER leaves or returns home at the same time. It is ridiculous to think that people living in the Aerie project would all be leaving or returning at the same timelll I saw a copy of the petition that was being circulated and notice the various address' of the signers. I found it interesting that at least 50 of the signitures were from people that don't live in the immediate area and are not affected by the project. They don't live any where near 201 -207 Carnation. Traffic issues and view issues do not affect them in any way. I do live near the project. Thank -you for your time and consideration regarding this project. Please vote in favor of the Aerie project. 08/08/2007 Sincerely, Ellen Trujillo 2624 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar 6, 1 l Campbell, James From: Laura Curran [lauracurran @mac.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:33 PM To: scoff @taxfighter.com; bhillgren @cox.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net, jeff.cole @cushwake.com Cc; Varin, Ginger, Campbell, James Subject: Comment on AERIE Proposal and Line of Development for PC Meeting tonight Dear Planning Commission members: I am writing to express my support for the Planning Staff's recommendation regarding the proposed line of development for the AERIE project. April 5, 2007 Report Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building . does not extend on the bluff face below 52 feet above mean sea level. This option provides a balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through minimizing its alteration while siting the building within the predominant line of existing Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff to 44, 34 or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominant line of existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes alteration of the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. A line of development at 52 feet and preservation of the bluff face would balance . development and public interests in the natural and scenic bluffs, specifically: View from Begonia Park and the Bay Sufficient scale to establish coastal bluff habitat proposed in the Negative MND. During the LCP planning meetings and related Council meetings in 2005, there was significant discussion about Newport Beach's intent to balance development and coastal bluff habitat preservation in the future, with significant interest in preserving natural bluff faces going forward. Coastal bluffs are an irreplaceable resource which are enjoyed by all; this project is an important opportunity for Newport Beach to demonstrate that it values coastal bluffs for their scenic beauty and natural habitat. A. line of development at 52 feet would enable the developer to continue with the project, while maintaining the bluffs as a ,scenic and natural resource. While this is an attractive project in many ways, the line of development at 30 feet proposed in the project by the applicant would run counter to the LCP policy and its intent. Relevant LCP Provisions: 4.4.1 -3: Design site development to minimize alteration to significant natural land forms, including bluffs, cliffs, and canyons 4.4.3 -9: Where principal structures -exist along Ocean Blvd and Carnation Avenue, require all new development to be sited in accordance with existing predominant line of development in order to protect coastal views.nd construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to maximum amount feasible. 4.4.3 -12: Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible Please note: I am writing as a private citizen, and not in my capacity as an appointee t• the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC). Sincerely, 1 Laura Curran 437 Dahlia Avenue. Newport Beach, CA uracurran @mac.com 714 351 7379 -4�- E C 2 92625 E.ZI Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: PVCDM @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:35 PM To: Lepo, David; Campbell, James Cc; lindabv @adelphia.net Subject: Petition being circulated about the new condo units on Carnation Dear Planning Commission members, The other day I signed a petition opposing the condo complex being planned overlooking the bluff on Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar. After talking about the project with several of my neighbors, I find that I did not have all the correct information when I was asked to sign the petition. Therefore, I regret that I signed it, and would like to have my name removed from the above mentioned petition. Thank you. Pat Vranicar 214 Heliotrope Ave. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 See what's free at AOL.com. L_J 11 08/08/2007 15�' 2 Z Jeffrey & Marilyn Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949 -723 -1773 mdbrcubecicl rustee. corn May 15, 2007 VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 2501 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Re; 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Condominium Development Dear Commissioners: I am the owner of a residence at 303 Carnation Avenue, one block above this is proposed development. In talking with members of the planning department I was told that `most neighbors' approve this project. I was quite surprised by that comment because most of my neighbors are opposed to it. Therefore, I decided to take a poll of the neighborhood and found that `most' people are not even aware of the design or implications of it, least of all in support of it. I only began a week ago to talk to neighbors and hereby submit to you the signatures of 82 individuals who live in the immediate area and are opposed to the design, size and ramifications of this project. I also reviewed the petition submitted by Mr. Julian and found that only 41 of the signatures are residents of the immediate surrounding neighborhood and a number of his signatures are from residents who live outside the city of Newport Beach entirely. Additionally, his petition describes the project as "9 Single - Family Attached Homes." This certainly is NOT what has been proposed to the planning commission. Residents of the immediate area, as they become aware of what is being proposed (including some who originally signed Mr. Julian's petition), are deeply concerned about this project in its current form and the implications of the design, which is totally out of character with the neighborhood of Corona Del Mar, and the destruction of one of the last remaining coastal bluffs; all of which fall under the protection of Section 30251 of the Coastal Act'. Residents are additionally concerned about the serious parking issues caused by 34 underground spaces accessible only by car elevator. "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public ® importance. Permitted development . shall be ... visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas ... New development... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. [Emphasis added] 6 --0 I respectfully submit these petitions to you and will continue to send in petitions for submission as I obtain them. Many of us intend to continue canvassing residents of Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach in the hope that all residents become fully aware of a major project proposed on a `Promontory' point (to use Mr. Julian's description in his publicity of the project) of Newport Beach. Very truly yours, Mari yn Bee c cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Counsel E 6,.Sq PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will he replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE -�r • I& 6.25 �/1. A,.o _ i ►.lei ar1'li`Il/� 'h�. �.' _ at IN Iwo, F.� �,6 � : >`..� ►.� GPI 10 Rl -�r • I& 6.25 PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building_ In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME, AnDRE.Rfi iIATT 7� lJ is , .,, 11 il' A � ; I ► i r w �Q � ' 171' .��II/ i J PIP • �, I .. CTf�i'lI I� 7� lJ is PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN C 11 I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE G0 rAUPFW IVAN F , :���►��i�: ^�i a .. � �. �a"N, [f�a /�.7 i ► f �W s1 r G0 PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE. U U 2 0 E.ZK u t Cf1tlanA n ?, !� [� a 27 CAIkZ 5i, s!!!J3 � • ., � Ec� Mc I►S `m - 2145 acF n:l Q�Jl� a � o ;(r E6 5 >:Jt1 2 0 K rte s f ..' 0 h,j' ,; �'_ A,4 au r V cC. - r 57( 1 !t-1 C" ��Tf4LJ Ave-. 0 s-//3-/07 f 1 5 oZ n �� T 17 O it Rtor A $Zt LA�KgPUR 77 --Z 5 — .' ! . c Z_ et , 7 eree 22:+ lay 5 rSja U U 2 0 E.ZK *PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN E 11 I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the nafEc�d landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building isla ver7RE `change from the character of the neighborhood. �IGI NAME ADDRESS DATE I -- TDUA, o4w SK, +� 01 N u'A Ave �,/ v�1� l`;2 aC� �I`� 1 �irie_T ✓9�u'- a"7 - - J F�v l mvi 2112 SWI Cmn 51( z � C•Sq PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE CO E J 6.30 3 � Tq �/�'�CE'E�✓ �N /N /c <c � � ,� Y- � S �'/ jam:• �, 0 CO E J 6.30 May -14 -07 05:26pm From - California Coastal +5625905084 T -736 P.001/003 F -461 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ ARNOLD SCHWAnENEGGER. Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Area uth Coast ea Office 0 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590.5071 May 14, 2007 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: COMMENTS ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AERIE (PA2005 -196), SCH# 2007021054 Site: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, Orange County Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AERIE project. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project is the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single family residence and construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit 76,333 square foot condominium complex, appurtenant facilities, 32,400 cubic yards of grading and expansion of an existing private dock system from 4 slips to 9 slips. The ® subject site is comprised of 3 lots that contain a total of approximately 1.4 acres. According to the MND, the site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff that is subject to marine erosion and includes a sandy and rocky cove. The project will also require changes to existing land use designations. The following comments address, in a preliminary manner, the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. This letter is an overview of the main issues we've identified at this time based on the information we've been presented and Is not an exhaustive analysis. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. Coastal Commission Authorizations Required, The MND accurately states that a coastal development permit is required from the Coastal Commission. However, the project also requires changes to land uses identified in the certified Coastal Land Use Plan. Therefore, the project would also necessitate a Local Coastal Program amendment for the project. The City should refrain from authorization of any development permits that rely upon the changed land use designation until the City has sought and obtained authorization for a land use plan amendment from the Commission. Aesthetic Impacts. The MND states that the "... proposed building will extend down the bluff face between 20 to 30 feet below the existing buildings" resulting in a significant expansion of building coverage of the bluff face. MND concludes that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on scenic resources and visual quality in the area. We don't concur with this conclusion. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires the protection of scenic ® qualities of coastal areas, through, among other means, minimizing the alteration of natural land forms. The proposed project results in significant alteration to the bluff and does not minimize the alteration of natural land forms. 6.31 Clay -14 -07 05:26pm From - California Coastal +5625905084 T -736 P.002/003 F -461 AERIE Project — CCC Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 3 We also do not concur with the MND's analysis of the project's consistency with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan policies. While there are a number of statements in the policy analysis with which we disagree, as well as omissions of certain policies that are applicable, among the most notable is the absence of analysis of the projects consistency with Coastal land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -4 (pertaining to bluff top setbacks), the projects' purported consistency with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 that pertain to development proposed on bluff faces, and the purported 'inapplicability' of Policy 4.4:3 -12 regarding minimizing alteration of coastal bluffs. These are discussed in greater detail below. Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3 -3 requires that principal structures and major accessory development on bluffs subject to marine erosion observe a minimum 25 foot setback from the bluff edge. Policy 4.4.3 -4 requires accessory development to be setback at least 10 feet from the bluff edge. The proposed project is clearly inconsistent with both of these policies in that the proposed development encroaches beyond the bluff edge and onto the bluff, face. Rather than considering the requirements of Policies 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -4, the MND jumps to applying the allowances for development on bluff faces provided in Coastal Land Use Plan Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. The MND provides no demonstration that these policies are applicable to the proposed project. For instance, existing principal structures on the site would need to be located on the bluff face in order to utilize the allowance for bluff face development. If these policies are applicable, the project must conform to all of the requirements of those policies. For example, Policy 4.4.3 -8 requires that improvements on bluff faces occur only when no feasible alternative exists and where alteration of the bluff face is minimized. No alternatives were considered or analyzed in the MND and the removal of 20 -30 additional feet of bluff face doesn't minimize the alteration of the bluff face. Policy 4.4.3 -9 allows for development on the bluff face "... in order to protect coastal views... ". This provision was enacted largely to protect public views from the bluff top walkways and roads (e.g. Ocean. Boulevard) in Corona del Mar toward the water by prohibiting projections above curb height along Ocean Boulevard and allowing some limited development on the bluff face. The proposed project includes development that is at least 25 feet above curb height along Ocean Boulevard. Thus, the proposed project is attempting to utilize the allowances for bluff face development without adhering to the view protection features for which those allowances were created. The MND states that Policy 4.4.3 -12 regarding minimizing alteration of coastal bluffs is rendered 'inapplicable' by the provisions of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Commission staff disagrees with this conclusion - there is no provision in any of these policies that overrides the requirements of Policy 4.4.3 -12. The proposed project does not minimize the alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible as required by Policy 4.4.3 -12. Finally, the MND provides an analysis regarding the 'string line' and 'predominant line of development', however, no graphics were provided showing how this analysis was carried out. Therefore, Commission staff are unable to provide comments on whether we agree or object to the conclusions made in the MND regarding conformance with the limits of allowable development: Public Access. The Coastal Act as well as policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan require that public access be maximized. The MND states that the proposed project makes no E. 3Z May -14 -OT 05:27pm From- California Coastal +5625905084 T -736 P.003/003 F -461 Ll C AERIE Project — CCC Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 3 accommodation for public access to the small bay that is seaward of the proposed development. Even though this small bay appears to be inaccessible to the public via land from either upcoast or downcoast access points, and the proposed project would obstruct access from Camation Avenue /ocean Boulevard to this beach, the MND concludes that such access is 'unwarranted' due to the steepness of the topography and the proximity of nearby access. On the other hand, according to the MND, there is an existing walkway on the property that descends to this beach that will be retained by the proposed project. This walkway could feasibly be used to overcome the access limitations imposed by steep topography. There is no other access nearby to this beach. Thus, Commission staff do not concur with the access conclusions made in the MND. Further analysis of the issue is warranted. Habitat Impacts/Water Quality. The MND states that a biological resources analysis has been prepared for the site, however, a copy of that study was not included in the MND, thus, we cannot provide comments on the adequacy of that study. However, the proposed project includes expansion of a boat dock system as well as discharge of runoff into areas known to be occupied by eelgrass. Aerial photographs of the site show that rocky intertidal habitat may also exist. The proposed project must avoid impacts to sensitive eelgrass and rocky intertidal habitat. These are some of our initial concerns; we hope these issues will be addressed in the City's review of the project. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when it is submitted to the Commission for formal review. We request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Sincerely, Karl Schwing Supervisor, Regulation & Planning orange County Area co: State Clearinghouse E - 13:31 To: James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) Subject: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Review Date: 8 May 2007 EQAC is pleased to submit the following comments on the proposed project in hopes of improving the project for the residents of Corona Del Mar and the City of Newport Beach. 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (pages 1 -2) The proposed project includes 9 condominium units on 7 levels, but the table on page 2 does not show which units occupy these 7 levels. It would be helpful to show which units occupy which levels under the "level' column on the figure and which are on top and bottom. It appears that provisions are made for 2 garage spaces in the vicinity of each of the 9 units with 180 -185 sq. ft. allocated for each parking space. The report states that Level 4 is (approximately at ground level) will provide for 4 residential parking spaces plus 3 guest spaces. Where are the additional 4 proposed guest parking spaces located? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (pages 9 -10) With such an extensive excavation activity, the potential exists for excavation debris to migrate into the beach/cove area and ultimately into Newport Bay. Is a mitigation measure needed to prevent this potential contamination? 1. AESTHETICS (pages 16 -26) a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The document states there would be less than a significant impact on this scenic vista and we concur b) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No. The project will be revised so that it is to be within the predominant line of existing development, which will result in the reduction of the project's impact on the visual 6.3cf ® quality of the coastal bluff. Mitigation measure I -1 will ensure that the project will not have a significant impact to visual resources. Please clarify the definition of "predominant line of existing development ". Should there be two for the proposed project, one on each of two bluff faces? c) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No. This residential development replaces an existing apartment building and should be no more obtrusive than the existing structure with reference to night visuals and glare. The document states that `outdoor lighting within the project site would be to illuminate the affected activity area on site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits.' II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (page 27) The site has never been farmland. Therefore there is no loss of farmland and consequently no impact. III. AIR QUALITY (pages 27 -29) Only one category [c] has been deemed other than "no impact" or "less than significant ". With mitigation measures outlined on page 29, it appears that the contractor is required to ® take such measures as to reduce fugitive emissions caused during construction from soils, building materials, and construction vehicles, therefore qualifying for the designation of "less than significant with mitigation incorporated ". VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (pages 31 -32) iv) This section addresses the issue by reference back to the response to VI.a.iii and this seems like an inadequate response. The site is on a very steep hill and a landslide either during construction or as a result of the site being undermined by water during heavy rains or a break in a water pipe is not adequately addressed. Landslide is the prima facie first issue that comes to mind when viewing the site. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING (pages 37 -46) b) The discussion on page 38 states that the General Plan and Zoning allows up to 28 dwelling units on the site. This seems counterintuitive since the zoning excludes submerged lands and slopes greater than 50% and the General Plan does not. Clarify the allowable zoning density by applying the allowable density ratios to the project area that excludes submerged lands and slopes greater than 50 %. Page 38, 4h paragraph - Provide greater discussion on the criteria to allow encroachments into setbacks. Is maintenance of area character a reason to allow development to ® encroach into setbacks or does the encroachment require a Variance with findings? 35 Page 39, 2 "d paragraph - The allowance of subterranean parking garages accessed with elevators would seem to be a far less convenient parking management plan than most every home in Newport Beach and therefore, inconsistent with the spirit of Policy 2.9.3- 1. How can this inconsistency be resolved?. Page 40, 4h paragraph - Replace the word "in" with "is" as in "public access is not necessary... " Page 41 - Please clarify whether Mitigation Measure IX -5 would allow subterranean development below 52 MSL. If so, how will the applicant assure that the bluff face will not be disturbed below 52 feet MSL during construction'? Policy 4.4.3 -13: Page 45, 3`d paragraph - Change sentence 2 regarding habitat restoration to read: Project would implement this habitat restoration project through engagement of a certified restoration ecologist with experience in Orange County coastal sage scrub (CSS) bluff restoration. A suitable monitoring program will be put in place, with regular monitoring and suitable maintenance in effect, for a suitable period of time, generally 3 years. Background: Hydroseeding is not necessarily the most effective way to achieve habitat restoration for coastal bluffs, as it may not provide for the incorporation of signature CSS species into the selected CSS plant pallet, which can include grasses, bushes, and succulents. CSS plants are widely available in 1- gallon sizes for use in habitat restoration. Use of a combination of seeds and starter plants selected by a restoration ecologist with experience on coastal bluff developments will create a higher likelihood of success in the CSS plant restoration. There are multiple restoration ecologists locally who can provide AERIE with the necessary expertise. XI. NOISE (pages 46 -47) EQAC is concerned that the construction noise levels may be objectionable to the nearest neighbors. Please supply supporting noise analyses. Please provide a monitoring plan to prove compliance with the noise levels asserted on page 47, paragraph d. XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC (pages 49 -52) The MND does not indicate what the maximum size vehicle can be handled by the elevators. With the increased ownership of large SUV and Hummer type vehicles, the documentation should indicate if the elevators were large enough to handle the likely sized vehicles condominium occupants would own. The designers are very creative in the elevator issue. However, these issues should be discussed: (1) How will the people exit E.3( in an emergency (earthquake) with their vehicles if the power is out? (2) This is probably not a traffic /transportation issue but are there stairs for people to exit from their units to the street? (3) What would prevent someone from going into another person's garage and entering their until from the garage? This again isn't a traffic /transportation issue but one involving security. The streets in the project area are narrow and if all parking spaces are occupied, large vehicles will have difficulty negotiating around the area. This could be a minor problem after construction is completed but could be a major problem during construction. The proponent should submit a traffic analysis by some appropriate expert indicating that the types of vehicles that will be coming to the site during construction will be able to negotiate all the streets in the area even assuming that all public street parking is occupied at the time of the visit of that vehicle. The proponent and the City have evidently agreed on a number of methods to ease the traffic and parking problems associated with construction. Mitigation measure XV -1 appears to be fully set forth on page 52, and if fully enforced, should resolve most traffic issues during construction and occupancy. This is a significant sized project that will require 2700 truck trips to haul away the debris from the demolition of the existing apartments and one residence and a lot of dirt and rock to prepare the site for the construction phase (six weeks). There will be 75 concrete trucks for construction of shoring and walls (3 work weeks). There will be 500 concrete ® trucks and other related construction equipment for "approximately 12 months ". Has the proponent offered or has the City staff discussed, limiting the number of daily trips allowed to draw out, over a longer term, this early phase to cut down the traffic problems that could develop with the more intense truck traffic and congestion on these narrow streets? This project doesn't need an EIR for traffic /transportation. It needs a Construction Management Plan that will be strictly enforced to make this project one that will be constructed in a manner to make it livable in the area for other residents. This means open streets and adequate parking for the guest of residents and vehicles of service providers to existing residents. One viable approach is to limit all construction activities of any type to the five -day workweek of Monday through Friday. This means the weekends will give some respite to the nearby residents from the noise that this project will necessarily cause by the demolition and then building activity and the increased large truck traffic that is associated with such major construction projects. A Construction Management Plan should consider offering limited hours of work as indicated above as well as limitations of certain types of work that would involve large amounts of truck traffic in the area during the peak summer months or at least during the ® weekends in the beach summer months. The construction management plan could also 6.37 set forth specifics with regards to construction workers vehicles and the parking of those construction workers vehicles and make sure that the agreements for an off -site parking lot and for ferrying the construction workers from that off -site parking lot to the scene. EQAC is concerned with such off -site parking facilities for construction workers as this has generally been considered to be "not feasible" because so many of the construction trade workers arrive at work in their pickup trucks which have and carry many of the items that they need to work on their particular specialty in construction. Therefore having them park their trucks at some off -site area and ferry them to the site may not be practical However, all details should be discussed in the MND so the decision - makers and the public can comment on them. It does appear from discussions of various mitigation measures and agreements that have been worked out between City representatives and the proponent are geared to trying to ease the traffic and congestion problems that necessarily occur when substantial construction projects take place in residential areas. At the very back of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION is a document dealing with air quality analysis. The last page of this 9 page document has a number of suggestions to deal with construction personnel and construction traffic and construction vehicles and many of these would be the type of mitigation measures that should be required by the City in order to lessen the impact during the construction phase to the lowest significant level possible considering the size of this project being built in a residential area. Please consider reducing the idling period of construction equipment from five minutes to 30 seconds. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (pages 52 -53) The proponent is encouraged to use pervious surfaces to the extent possible and minimize eventual landscape water runoff by appropriate use of catch basins and "smart' watering systems. Electrical energy consumption is not mentioned, but the addition of a heavy lift freight elevator system and a passenger elevator system would seem to put abnormal demands on the local electrical delivery facilities. Are additional, increased capacity support facilities needed? r -1 L_ J 6 .35� E L J Page l of 1 Campbell, James From: carole [carole @geronsinteam.comj Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:17 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: 201 Carnation, Corona del Mar Dear Jim, attended one of the previous meetings on this project and wanted to voice my opinion. Long before I owned in Corona del Mar, I would come and walk up and down Ocean Blvd. taking in the breathtaking views. The comer of Ocean and Carnation is a particular popular area as many of us congregated and still do to watch the amazing sunsets over the entire harbor. I felt blessed when I found a home to purchase there on Ocean many years ago. I literally still walk down to that specific area and join others overlooking the harbor even though I can view it from my own home. I, under no conditions want that taken away from myself or others. Ocean is a public scenic corridor that needs to be kept that way. Corona del Mar itself has a wonderful reputation for being this village of lovely homes and cottages that almost has an eastern feel to it. I feel this project takes away that specific area of the harbor view that we all love. I am also deeply concerned about the construction all the way down the bluff. I am also extremely concerned about the construction process in general. I live a few houses away and can not even begin to imagine the dirt, congestion,etc. The streets of Corona del Mar are extremely narrow. I do not know how all the vehicles that would be mandated to tear down, grade, and construct that project will be able to navigate the narrow streets of Corona del Mar. I know numerous homes have been torn down but none near the magnitude of this project. In addition I would think they would cause a substantial amount of congestion and parking problems for its residents. One of the most narrow turn radius is at Carnation and Seaview. Last, and most minor of all of the above it the architectural design of the building, in my mind, is awful. It appears to be a giant mushroom and is certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area, although I do know there are no ordinances for architectural design. I hope you as a commission will thoroughly scrutinize every aspect of this project. Once something is approved there is no going back when one realized something was overlooked. Corona del Mar is a fabulous community and I am hoping you will make good decisions to keep it that way. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carole Geronsin Direct Line 714.283.6649 2528 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, Ca. 08/08/2007 6.37 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Vallejo Gallery [vallejogallery@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday; April 18, 2007 1:01 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: 201 -207 Carnation - -- Forwarded Message-- - From: Vallejo Gallery Sent: Apr 18, 2007 3:55 PM To: gvarin @city,newport- beach.ca.us Subject: 201 -207 Carnation Attn: Planning Commissioners RE: Proposed development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave.. My wife and I were first invited to one of Mr. Julian's champagne and hor d'oeurve gatherings about two years ago, where we were able to view his plans for this development. We expressed our concern at the time regarding the massive size and uncharacteristic architecture, but did not quite realize from our brief look at the architectural renderings, the full ramifications of something of this size. As my wife pointed out at the first Planning Meeting on February 22, this project includes the destruction of a coastal bluff that would impact public views from many areas of the city, as well as the harbor. Upon first viewing the plans, I had mentioned to Mr. Julian that it was difficult to get a sense of heights, distances, and projections and that it would be beneficial to stake the property, which at the time, he replied was a good idea. Several months later we spoke again at which time he agreed to stake the property. My next conversation with him was on the day of the April 5 Planning Meeting, and when I inquired about the staking, he said it was too expensive, and didn't wish to do it. I think it would be in the best interest of everyone concerned, including the City, local residents, and the public who view this area from the beaches, parks, public view corridors, and the harbor, if the City required the property to be accurately staked and flagged. Especially as it appears that the building Hairs outward from the foundation, as well the as balconies and overhangs. I would also like to recommend that photos of Mr. Julian's model become exhibits available at the Planning Commission for everyone to view, especially as the current photos of the building from the harbor appear very different from the look of the building in the model, lacking the curving mushroom- shaped balconies and overhangs. It should also be noted whether or not the model is of accurate scale. As public awareness and concern grows regarding this project, it would seem that the true size, elevations and projections of what is proposed would be a crucial element in helping to decide if this project is right for the residents of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar. And most importantly, is it respectful of the character of our area, and the unique natural beauty remaining in our City? Thank You, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo 2501 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 .J u 08/08/2007 E. CIO Page t of 2 Varin, Ginger From: KSMC949 @aol.com ot: Thursday, April 12, 200712:36 PM To: Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David, beaton @ city.newport- beach.ca.us; rhawkins @city.newport- beach.ca.us, speotter @ city.newport- beach.ca.us; emcdaniel @ city.newport- beach.ca.us; mtoerge @city.newport- beach.ca.us; bhillgren @ city.newport- beach. ca. us; Henn, Michael, mhenn @ city.newport- beach.ca.us; srosansky @city newport- beach.ca.us; Webb, Don; ngardner @ city.newport- beaech.ca.us; kcurry@ city.newport- beach.ca.us; eselich @ city.newport- beach.ca.us, Ida igle @city.newport- beach. ca. us: Selich, Edward; Gardner, Nancy; jcole @city.newport- beach.ca.us; vallejoga Ile ry@earth link- net; dobehave @earthlink. net Subject: Copy of letter to Rick Julian Rick John and I want you to understand that our feelings about your proposed project have never been personal. We have always been in favor of redevelopment of the property and are looking forward to the change and in fact have had several conversations with you about your plans and our feeling regarding them. While we are absolutely not in favor of your project as currently planned due to the overall mass of the structure and the loss of so much of the Bluff and the fact that it is visually completely out of character with the surrounding homes - we are no the deciding force for this project. The City will decide how much is allowable based on City of Newport Beach Building Codes and the California Land Use Plan and what is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and what is not. We do, however, have the right to express our opinions and have never been anything but honest with you. We still look forward to redevelopment of the property but will be living next door to what is ultimately built on the property and feel that we have the right to express our opinions, especially when you have asked us, as well as all the other neighbors in the area. My husband and I have always been under the assumption that you are an honorable man and that no matter what the end result of all your efforts are and not matter how many people are in favor or not in favor of your project - in the end something good will be built on the property - perhaps a compromise of all of your ideas, perhaps your current idea or perhaps something 4gether different but the point is we all have a right to free speech, our own opinions and the right to private property. After our telephone conversation yesterday morning I felt that I should let you know exactly how we feel about your surveyors coming onto our property again without our permission. Since this was not the first time your surveyors have been on our property in the recent past, without permission, I am extremely upset and disappointed in you, your lack of boundaries and tactics. All of our plans are on file with the City of Newport Beach, including surveys done before and after the completion of our home. You had no need to sneak onto our property again, if asked we would never deny entry to your surveyors. For you to try to pass the buck by telling me that the City requested it, that the timing was crucial, that you needed to measure the points of our house, that you had just made the arrangements and they were able to offer same day service is a little far fetched in my opinion - you must have called them at 4:00a.m. to have them on our property before 8:00a.m. Telling me that you had no knowledge that they would not ask permission does not wash - they clearly knew what you wanted, what to do and how to get on our property without contacting us. They work for you and ultimately you are responsible for whatever your people do How difficult could it have been for you, as one of the ownerldevelopers of this project to ask permission first? I am guessing that you have the attitude that it is better to ask for forgiveness later that ask permission up front. But I am learning the hard way that perhaps you are not the up front person that you make yourself out to be. We are aware of the numerous cocktail parties you have thrown recently to let people from all over Newport view the model of the proposed project and to get them on board with your plan and to write letters of approval to the City - great thinking —this seems to have worked in your favor based on the number of letters you have submitted. I attended one of the parties more than a year ago, it was lovely, however. I heard many people say that night that telling you what they really thought after your generosity in hosting such a party was difficult - I am happy to say that I gave you my honest opinion,when asked that night and it has not changed since - even though it was clearly not what you wanted to hear. We have heard you try to sell the idea that the project will be a great benefit for all of Newport Beach /Corona del Mar. It will; in fact, only benefit those able to afford the purchase price of one of the units. Unfortunately, for more than a year have also heard about the incentives you have offered to various people in the neighborhood to vote your way. Also not up front - or perhaps the ultimate up front. Rick', we have never been anything but optimistic and excited about a redevelopment of the property but also want to be realistic and explore all the negative possibilities of what could happen on the project and ultimately to our property. We want to who is going to be financially responsible for our homes if and when they are damaged if something goes wrong on the t. The City will require a Completion Bond to be provided by you and your company but what about the surrounding h eowners? What guarantees do we get regarding monetary damage to our homes? What type of insurance are you offering us or what type of bond - based on the value of our homes on today's market. What will be done to provide us with financial protection for damages caused by the destruction of the Bluff and construction of your proposed project? Why can't we get these questions answered and guaranteed up front? We haven't even addressed the issue of at least 3,000 trucks 04/12/2007 E-. q j Page 2 of 2 invading our streets to haul the Bluff away - what about all the pollution and debris from that and who is going to clean up all the accumulated mess that will be caused at each of our homes during the haul out time and for the next 2 to 4 years during construction. Who is responsible for the damage to the streets from the weight of the trucks and the constant movement across them? Why have you not been willing to put up building stakes on the entire property to indicate all the correct heights, projections and levels of the entire development as you have been asked to do on numerous occasions and not just the o small section above Bayside Cove -for the sake of a deal brokered with a former neighbor? Considering the cost of the ov project by the time it is completed the marker stakes represent a small dollar amount but will give everyone involved from the City Council to the neighbors a true picture of what is to be built per the current plans. These are extremely important requests if you are intending to build your project and I sincerely hope that you are not planning to leave your neighbors hanging out in the cold. You seem to have great optimism and I am guessing a greater stubbornness because you have had this property in escrow for approximately 4 years, have had ample opportunity to get everything in order and now that it is crunch time you are trying to disregard the City Staff recommendations, the City Building Codes, the California Land Use Plan and the people who are speaking out against the project. The people who have written letters of approval talk about what a great guy you are - what a great family you have - what a first class job you do in building'- to my knowledge no one has ever disputed this - this is not the issue. We are just asking that you answer our questions, hear our concerns and not be so blind sided about getting all or more than all of what you want without opposition from concerned citizens and the city of Newport Beach. This is a major project that will affect all of us and once started any potential damage cannot be undone - so why not take the time to explore that rather than focus on the fact that if you don't get to build all 9 units to the size you want - you won't break even or make money on the project. More important issues are at stake. Sincerely Kathleen McIntosh See what's free at AOL.com. E l_ J 04/12/2007 Li y Z C April 4, 2007 Robert Sprague 101 Bayside Place Corona del Mar, California David Lepo Planning Director 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Mr. I.epo: 0966 Ab W PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 3 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I want to be sure that you have a record of the fact that I whole - heartedly support the AERIE project. My home is the water -front that is directly north and contiguous to the project. I have lived in this property since 1950. During our many years here in this community, we have been actively involved with many functions at the City, as well as the Sherman Gardens, and Orange County Art Museum. I am very proud of our community and want nothing but the best for this City. I have been fully apprised of the progress that the Julians have made during the past four years in designing the property. I have commended them on their design in that it is a beautiful new look for this very- special location. I have had discussions with them during the various stages of its creation, including the idea that it would grow out of the rock formations. I believe they have accomplished this. I further think that they have been very considerate of the neighbors surrounding the property. I received a flyer from the one neighbor that I understand is opposing the project. I am puzzled as to why this neighbor would have a problem with such a beautiful property located near their home. I believe that it not only enhances their living conditions, but offers a final solution of what will be located nest to them The property is perfect for this location. I support the AERIE project, and would appreciate you voting in favor of it. Sincerely,_., Robert Sprague G. 9 3 Varin, Ginger S - r-, Pagel of 2 From: Lepo, David a iO P C Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:04 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Newport Beach Planning Commission Agenda for April 5, 2007 Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f From: Jeffrey H. Beck [mailto:jbeck @becktrustee.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:15 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Marilyn Beck; Jeffrey H. Beck; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net scoff @taxfighter.com; strataland @earthlink.net; Lepo, David Subject: Newport Beach Planning Commission Agenda for April 5, 2007 Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place Dear Mr. Campbell: My wife, Marilyn and 1 want to thank you for your generosity with your time yesterday to discuss the 201 -207 Carnation project with us. This is probably one of the first opportunities the City has in respect of a sizable residen al development on the front bluffs along the ocean to demonstrate that it meant what it said in adopting the new General Plan. We truly believe that this project does not conform to the City's General Plan standards. That is true first and foremost in respect of Land Use Policy LU 1.6 regarding preservation of public views of the harbor and ocean from public vantage points but also including other policies in LU 1, such as LU 1. 1, LU 1.3 and LU 1.4. This is also true concerning the impact on the bluffs themselves in respect of Natural Resource policies such as NR 23.1 regarding preserving the bluffs, NR 23,7 regarding minimizing removal of native vegetation, rock outcroppings and coastal resources and in particular respecting NR 23.4 regarding predominant lines of development along the bluffs. Lastly, the project design seems wholly inconsistent with the character of the location of the project and represent abrupt changes in building form and style as proscribed by LU 5.6.1; LU 5.6.2 and LU 5.6.4 (especially on the impact on the bluff). We believe that this is so for reasons beyond those that apparently form the basis of your current recommendation to the Planning Commission. Your recommendation addresses principally the impact of the construction of the project downward into the bluff below street level. We recognize that the intrusion into the lower portions of the bluff that you have pointed out go beyond existing development lines and intrude far too much into the bluff and existing rock and vegetation. We agree with those conclusions. But the project also threatens a very important existing visual resource of the public from a number of vistas including Begonia Park by going so far beyond the outermost line, much less the predominant line of rearward projection along the bluff at Carnation Avenue. As I indicated to you yesterday, the existing building that is to be demolished is already at the outermost limit of the line of buildings along the bluff of Carnation Avenue in this location. See the attachment "Aerial view of Begonia Park to 200 -300 Block Carnation Ave" which shows the existing rearward development line of the buildings along Carnation Avenue (except the 215 Carnation which was built after this aerial on Google). The planned structure, Per than being within any predominant" line or setback will forge a new extension beyond any existing structure. In fact, the predominant or average line of setback is closer to the street (Carnation) than the existing structures at 201 -207 04/04/2007 y Page 2 of 2 Carnation. So, it seems highly inappropriate to allow the In anned structure to go even further. Further, this is not merely a technicality with no impact on public policies and rights. If this is permitted as planned, ucture will severely negatively impact the public's current vistas of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and the ocean. lent you, I am attaching "Aerial view of Begonia Park to 200 -300 block of Carnation Avenue" which shows the relative position of Begonia Park to Carnation near Ocean Blvd. where the project is located and "Aerial angle view from Begonia Park to 200 -300 Carnation Ave" which shows the orientation of the current vistas toward the ocean available to the public now from the entire upper part of Begonia Park adjacent to Begonia Avenue, available to the public now from Begonia Avenue itself and available to the public now at the intersection of Pacific Drive at Begonia. This portion of the park is heavily used many days of the week and especially weekends for picnics, sunbathing, and family gatherings. The view here is truly part of the attraction. To show this view and the impact of this planned development, I have attached several photos of the actual views. One is "View from Begonia Park bench" from the bench at the western edge of the park and "View from the western end of Begonia Park ". This view is typical of most of the upper area of the park and along Begonia Avenue and shows that the existing buildings at 201 -207 Carnation already extend furthest into the view of the harbor, peninsula and ocean of any existing building along the bluff at Carnation Avenue there. The next photo is "View from Begonia Avenue just before Pacific" which again shows the beautiful views and the existing position of the 201 -207 buildings as the furthest into that view. The last photo is "View from intersection of Begonia and Pacific" and also shows that the existing building again already extends the furthest into the view from Begonia/Pacific. If you look closely at the bluff area just below the existing building at 201 -207 Carnation in this last photo, you can see what appears to be mock ups in wooden 2X4s of the further extent to which the planned structure will encroach on the public views from Begonia Park, Begonia Avenue and the intersection of Pacific and Begonia Avenue. I believe from the plans we saw yesterday that the actual structure would extend on the top two floors to the vertical line formed by the left set of 2X4s and on the floors below to the vertical line formed by the right set of 2X4s. This would be a very significant negative impact on the view at these public locations. V gese photos and aerials, it is plain that the planned structure encroaches well beyond the predominant line of construction along the rear of Carnation Avenue and in so doing seriously encroaches on precious public views of the harbor, peninsula and ocean from various public vistas. We urge the Planning Commission to require that this development conform to the predominant lines of existing development as the law requires and as the public interest warrants. Thank you for your valuable time. As I am not sure we wil I make it to the meeting tomorrow night, I am taking the liberty of copying the Commission (except Mr. McDaniel whose email was not available on the City web site) and your Director to share our views on this important matter. Jeff and Marilyn Beek Jeffrey H. Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 C C.q 5 04/04/2007 py 8 t 4 ' ks';�Yq YR' 415 a cT' vllm ,Oy` -" 4 i� f� .di ih: icy �Ss :tom tY,�, "8"1 rT4� a h y 7 .4 s . �m IY- W X41 � M4 9^ 4 4 t F -c exwW 5€ at 'yj Ile mj - '"' 3s �yz� �15�MEAt��x F � - � s ��tme°�'"``""a- _- `-,�,k �'S";�'� n� ���e -'�"a .++��a'�w�� �'`x��'�Ik�`i �'�a9«zA�'��✓d'��P3?£ - d . 5.> �H-'y �a �+.�"jc G �w''S,q..- ° „`� °- k t 'W s°.✓ °°�'� ,_ +'.,.,�tzl` .1 T - u10 NA U'A NM t V e� u rzy_ - r'n•�a.*.v+'"{+''.d -33 .'F"+'N'4 ro. >k r �, ,y FS .` r s� av, yoipy � h XD y 3 ue.0.'MTf is a„°i'IY. aaS �w I I tyxi s * } n > rN aei t �Cl f ' $$, kk b � .yy .i.k� � - 3 � {'f $.�C i tI Vr* +3• » i sd F' e0.T'? '`� J ° ° e wry r � �i.� � �' ut° vra 7 ' s �� VS�r"fi �• � s.,z} � s � � , & gpt 8 ;« .. +grPs �u'tt! 47 F k #d c t P ° i S 1� ( `, ,+rP} 'K� 7 r z in . NN 11 R 'i?"^ Ws.. 'w7FS `N3"tr`w r s v� snYi'4 y+YY. �`"�.��. , }fix. w+ ezo 'I0 e BS3 r .� 7' y Pgv (/x� ''r:`a'` A' lk xE, x ZNa', aA t: -,.4 =nay fJ tea w'4i ti•' ^# $, i sFcJ eCet e 4t' }�t� I" I'll fi t, r =?P'PS aid ., �g-`V r 6yf �'4 ItI n 0. yir 7 c s.J q 4 ' 3 t ;hT a'4 na "p It i" W"kx,iR 4+ {$ t- in 4 tat" �. s rr` .3 rkea :k JKLna - R �rt P n >c - '•< aJ] �4L i -s y' �� t. u x L` -'f -; 3?# � �r. �a s r- "� L n TO: City of Newport Beach FROM: Gloria Hickman RE: AERIE Proposed Condo Planning Commission Development on Ocean Blvd. y.q-o1 I have been a resident of Corona del Mar since 1974, and have been saddened by the news of the proposed project on Carnation and Ocean Blvd. If built as proposed it would be startlingly out of scale and clearly out of the mix of other buildings along the bluff, As someone who enjoys boating and the views from the water I would not want to see that development standing out from all the rest. Furthermore, the bluffs are a fragile resource we shouldn't. put at risk. If the bluffs are excavated and mostly destroyed along that corner It might jeopardize adjoining properties. It certainly does not seem prudent to tamper with them by building so far down the embankment. Please reject this proposed giant as not fitting in with our Community. Something smaller should bring sufficient income for the owners and make lovers of the area much happier. Please say N01 Gloria Hickman 4 Canyon Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 PC- C LJ E -52 11 J ARES h,/7-r: - -;c. INVITATION To all my friends r1-h6are coming to the Planning Commission meeting to support the AERIE project r -)A 1 h•.: I'hthsdav, April 5, 21007 TI:K!Ii: 45 p.,N1. Vi-1 Lido Ncxvpori licac:h, Cdifnl7»a '949) 075 -1818 V11 !XI': I losted appetizers and, cocktails prior to Plarinifig CcammissioT� :t wc>ndt:t-l'ul lr!acc that is a short walk to the Planning Conmais inn MQC!iati. 1 hupc vclu will a!1 he able to be there. 1 appreciate the effort you arc purting into this. 1 r Yol.l wish to send a letter of support, in the event that you ha:tiYt l):cade srlji onw, plc„sc send it to my nfficc by April 3'; to be delivered t:r the: Phnrniry C;cmtmi skin, by late. Wednesday, the. 4th. {i!1!'t' :!!!1t117 I Rl)1)sc:Cia:!❑ All yC?lIi- hC11i. Biel 1t11ian AR, i 21191 ?ni,"Neid Blv?.:i•.+i;r: 100 _aic =:;: i;n Phone !9 /Ai Tnz (gay; .59; 1901 wvrr..�:3v.:+:rs +'.+xrrne:cero E -53 Varin, Ginger From: Richard Lewis [cdmdogmom @road runner,com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:29 AM To: Lepo, David; Varin, Ginger Subject: Proposed condo development Page 1 of 1 Regarding the proposed condo development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave. in Corona Del Mar, I object to the project on the following grounds: (1.) It is out of scale for the neighborhood (2.) It does not meet code requirements. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Lewis 2889 Way Lane CDM, CA 92625 (949) 675 -0993 C 04/04/2007 E- Sy Page 1 of 2 Caml ® From Sent: To: Cc: )bell, James Bill Varon [bill @billvaron.com] Tuesday, April 03; 2007 3:22 PM Campbell, James; Lepo, David Richard Julian Subject: Proposed Aerie project in CdM on Carnation Av. To: David Lepo James Campbell Members of Newport Beach Planning Commission From: Bill Varon 212 Carnation Ave. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 673 -0037 Dm Mr. Lepo and Mr. Campbell, I have been a resident of Corona del Mar for 12 years and a home owner at 212 Carnation Ave. for seven of those years. I am totally in favor of the "Aerie" project proposed by Rick and Karen Julian down at the "foot" of Carnation. Why am I in favor of yet another construction project in my ®neighborhood? Because this is the fast of many that I feel I am a part of, and it is the ONLY one that will enhance, rather than ruin, the landscape and will preserve what precious little view is left on my street. This project is different for many reasons. First, the Julians reached out and collaborated with all the neighbors that could conceivably be affected by the project, including the household that I suspect is currently in opposition and that was behind the recent propaganda mailed throughout Newport Beach ( "Help Preserve The Coastal Bluff At Carnation Cove ").. The Julians were not only kind enough to solicit input from their new neighbors, but they were sincere enough to willingly implement our advice. This includes putting into action, at great expense I'm sure, the requests from the folks that I suspect sent the recent propaganda! When does that ever happen, especially in the last few years on Carnation Avenue? Second, one only needs to glance at the ugly trend that began on the 100 -300 blocks of Carnation several years ago to appreciate what Aerie is all about and to say, "thank goodness for Rick and Karen Julian." While other neighbors may have opted to exploit an oversight in building codes and show blatant disregard for their neighbors, the Julians are not taking up every square inch of dirt and every square inch of air to build a "large ugly box." Rather, they have put considerable thought, research, and money into an innovative, attractive, and (importantly) "tapered" design. Those big box style houses may be really nice on the inside, but I'm looking forward to viewing a more interesting and artistic structure from my bedroom, living room and front patio. Finally, I hate to call somebody else's child ugly, but I believe the bluff face is long overdue for some good old fashioned Newport Beach plastic surgery. From the plans I've seen, Aerie will bean enhancement, not a detriment. My understanding and expectation is the natural rock formation will remain in place, contrary to the mailer that showed up in my mailbox last week. But the rest of the bluff face needs improvement as it is not the nicest portion of the cove in my opinion, and it's certainly not 08/08/2007 C 55 Page 2 of 2 the first thing I'm drawn to when sailing through the harbor and channel. Please vote in favor of the Aerie project, and let's hope that future homeowners building new homes in Corona del Mar will follow The Julians' great example of neighborliness and community mindedness. They have gone about the project the right way by involving their neighbors and following the rules of common decency. Rick and Karen are decent human beings and, God forbid their project isn't approved, one can only imagine what might happen with 101 Carnation Ave. in the hands of any other homeowner /developer. Sincerely, Bill Varon E 11 08/08/2007 E - S(io FROM : BOB FAX NO. : 9496798878 Apr. 02 2007 02:45PM P1 4r -� -P-0�7 4,i�. V 1 ev ® 4/1 Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger y•V of From: Vallejo Gallery [vallejogallery@earthlink.net] n � nn Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:22 PM C l To: Varin, Ginger Subject: for the Planning Commissioners attention please Ginger This is the type of campaigning that has been going on for several months. We thought that we would bring: this to your attention. Sincerely. Joe 8 Lisa Vallejo 11 11 04/04/2007 E _ 5 Page I of I Campbell, James ® From: Captbergey @aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:59 PM To: Campbell, James; Lepo, David Cc: rcerruti @advancedonline.com Subject: Ares project Carnation & Ocean CDM James Campbell & David Lepo Sirs, I am a close neighbor to this project living at 214 Carnation and have watch Rick Julian for the past few years trying to put his project together and satisfy all concerned. After being educated by him and other neighbors in the area I feel his project will enhance the neighborhood and city. I support him and his project and feel he should be able to proceed without anymore delay. Sorry I will be unable to attend the planning commission meeting on April 5th. Sincerely, G. Scott & Leslie Bergey 214 Carnation Ave (949) 675 -7571 ® See what's free at AOL.com. u 08/08/2007 C-57 March 22, 2007 PLANNING €b'EP R By A�MENT David and Betty Cord MAR 3 0 2001 2 Canyon Mar, OF NEWPORT BEACH Corona del l M Mar, CA 92625 To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council, RE: AERIE Proposed Condominium Development My wife and I have lived in Corona del Mar for many years, and have recently become familiar with the proposed condominium project at the north end of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. This is, by far, the worst possible re- development plan imaginable for this beautiful location. We regularly walk Ocean Blvd., and so enjoy the view from that area, as you can look down at the bluff, cove and harbor. Anytime we have relatives visiting from out of town, that's one of the best places to get a beautiful photograph. The proposed development seems to be the exact opposite of what the street represents, with its' lovely homes and views, and we're surprised that this project would be allowed at all, especially since it is so much larger than the existing building. We urge the Planning Commission to look at the possibility of reducing the number of condominiums so that the building would not impact the natural environment and public views. Thank You for your consideration, Sincerely,. . David and Betty Cord C E 11 E -6c) STATE OF CALIFORNIA— B17SMSt TRAMPORTAMN AMID HO SIN AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Gavemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 ® Tel: (949) 724-2267 rax: (949) 724-2592 March 13, 2007 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 19 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2007021054 Log #: 1833 PCH af `s 1 hZex your power! Be energy efficient! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for AERIE (PA2005 -196) project. The proposed project is for demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single -family residence to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, grading, and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock: The project site is located on 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and we have no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. . Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincere! Ryan Chamberlain Branch Chief Local Development /Intergovernmental Review C:. Terry.Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" E —C'1 February 14, 2007 Grant Sadler 207 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Former Corona Cove Apartments/planned 9 Single Family Attached Homes Tract 16882 — Acrie Development Dear Mr. Lepo, I am very familiar with Rick Julean's development since I live on the property now and have seen and reviewed the plans. The careful and thorough planning is very impressive. In addition, Rick has used first class architects and designers. The project will be fantastic and enhance the neighbor is hood from the street, the homes themselves and also from the water. I enthusiastically endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U C,6 z, u L] Ll Jeffrey H. Hopkins 2725 Bungalow Place Corona Del Mar, CA 92673 2/15/07 Sent via e-mail. Re: AERIE Proposed Development February 22, 2007 hearing Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I send this letter in strong support for the AERIE Development ("Project "). RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH My wife and I live in Corona Del Mar and I was bom and raised in Corona Del Mar and in fact grew up going to the beach, just a few hundred feet from the Project. As it stands, if the Project is approved, due to the complexity of this project, is still several years out of being completed. Denying the Project, by contrast, will force the developer to go back to the drawing board which will, at best, delay the Project for another 45 years or more and, at worst, prevent its construction altogether. Either of these latter scenarios would do a great disservice to the citizens of Corona Del Mar generally, and the homeowners located near the project specifically. . I have been tracking the history of the re- development of the Project for well over four years. This not about land use or zoning. This project is about a re- development of a blighted and dilapidated apartments and single family dwelling units that are being re- developed into one of the most premier developments along the cost and harbor. In addition to the foregoing research, I attended a meeting in with the Projects developers and architects as well as with some of the local homeowners within the area. All involved were very open about the details of the Project and candidly answered all questions posed to them. After reviewing the plans for the Project and participating in the question and answer session, I fully support the Project and strongly urge the Planning Commission to approve it without delay. In closing, I had high expectations for the Project before I saw the detailed design drawings. The Project, as proposed, exceeds those expectations. The developer and City staff have done an outstanding job. I ask that you please approve the Project; it will be a welcome addition to our community. Thgnk you for your time. H. Ron and Marsha Beard 3208 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA Feb 13, 2007 E RE: former Corona Cove Apartments to be replaced w/ 9 single family attached homes To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and / or City Council, I have met w/ Rick Julian several times regarding the subject development as there was a time yvhen 1 was a potentially interested purchaser of a unit. I must tell you that I absolutely love the plant Clearly, there has been so much time, effort, and thought put into it. I think it's a great addition to our neighborhood, and I think it's in character for the neighborhood. I believe that the team of architects and designers on this project as well as the developer has really placed a tremendous amount of architectural features and beauty into the project. I believe that the development will be very attractive from the street, and it will be even more beautiful from the water. We live in a world class area, and we are getting a world class development on this site. I strongly endorse the project, and I hope that you do as well. Respectfully, Ronald P. Beard E RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Fab 15 07 09:17a Bud 19496735922 ® KEXT S. M11OHE 219 C&UNATEON AVENVE CORONA ]DIM W.&IM, V. YJEF08FIA 195996 Tz7,% (949) s7s -7s98 FAX: ®9.19) 979 -7999 houtnooreaworlaeat.att. ®et February 14, 2007 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 42663 RE: Aerie Project, 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Ave,, CDM Dear Members of the Planning Commission: PA RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I am writing in support of Mr. Rick Julian and his proposed project at the site of the old Corona Cove Apartments located at the corner of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar. I have owned property across the street from this location since 1975 and have seen several building projects undertaken in our neighborhood over the years, some good and some bad. In reviewing Mr. Julia s. plans it is obvious that he is attempting to create a world class residential development at this beautiful and scenic location above the barbor entrance. He has also gone out of his way to get to know the local property owners and outline his project plans for them. I have spoken with many of my neighbors who favor the current plan which is now before you for approval. I hope that, upon careful review, the Commission will also come to realize that the adoption of the Aerie Condommiums plan will be a win. -win situation for this neighborhood and will enhance life for both residents and visitors in this very unique corner of Newport Beach. Sincerely, ✓ ,t'` ' G 6_G5 February 14, 2007 Lloyd Bud' and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: —Aerie Development Dear Mr. Lepo, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH We live at the comer or Ocean and Carnation. Arguably our home is potentially the most affected of all residences by this development. Mr. Julian as owner of the project has been very forthright with and responsive to our concerns. His outreach to the neighborhood has been admirable and congenial. We unconditionally suppo fft the project and have seen the plans on a continuing basis since the project was conceived years ago. The recent model confirms our approval decision. The existing building has been an eyesore for the 35 years that we have lived in Corona del Mar. Of course we expect some impact from construction but that would happen under any development I am certain that this project will be considerate to the neighborhood and to the greatest extent possible mitigated to cause the least impact We earnestly endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well. The view from the comer and water will see a fast class endeavor. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, r t Dr. 'L. & Linda Rasner El 11 ,� .. "�A ARES ADVANCED! DAI._ESTATE:aE` ! 1 -S2 February 12, 2007 Robert C. Hawkins Secretary Newport Beach Planning Commission P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Hawkins: RECENED BY PLANNING DEPART FEB 12 tOa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH via electronic and US mail rha-,vkins@earthlink.net I am very excited to announce that after nearly four years of planning and coordinating with Staff to create AERIE, we are now scheduled for the ® Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, February 22, 2007. We are devoted to making AERIE the landmark gateway at the entrance to Newport Harbor. During the four years that we have worked on AERIE, we have spent a considerable amount of time meeting with neighbors in our community in order to define their wants and concerns. We feel we incorporated several benefits for the community into our design, and would like to personaBy show these to you. We now have a 1/8h scale model of AERIE in our office on site at 207 Carnation Avenue; and we would like to show it to you. I would greatly appreciate a call or e-mail with times that would work into your schedule. My office number is (949) 595 -5900, home (949) 768 -8247, and cell (949) 933 -6006. My e -mail address is 4ulian@advancedonhne.com. Sincerely, ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Rick Julian u ARES 23792 RockBeld Blvd. Suite 100 take Forest, CA 92630 Phone (949( 595 -5900 fax (949) 595 -5901 v -advancedonline.com G, (P 7 February 9, 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 COASTKEEPER EDUCATION / ADVOCACY / RESTORATION / ENFORCEMENT 3151 Airway Ave., Suite F -110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.850.1965 Voice 714.850.1592 Fax www.coastkeeper.org RECEIVED BY RE, "AERIE" Tent. Tract 16882 in Newport Beach Dear Mr. Lepo: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 12 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Orange County Coastkeeper is a non - profit corporation focused on water quality and healthy marine habitats. Our mission is to protect and preserve our marine habitats and watersheds through education, advocacy, restoration and enforcement. One of our programs is to constructively work with the development community to review and make recommendations on proposed water quality management plans of specific development projects.. This effort is to ensure that new development projects embrace state -of -the -art technologies, design, and management to eliminate polluted runoff from discharging off the project property. Coastkeeper has reviewed the water quality management plan for the AERIE project (Tent. Tract map 16682) and have met with the applicants on several occasions. The project proposes to install media filters to remove trash, grease, oils, and metals. We have made a recommendation to add a technology to the water quality plan. Though we realize current regulations do not require it, we recommend technology, such as AbTech's "Smart Sponge ", that will remove approximately 90% of the bacteria from the discharge. Coastkeeper believes this to be important since the project discharges directly into the harbor. The applicant has agreed with our recommendation to install this type of technology. Coastkeeper endorses the proposed water quality management plan for the AERIE project. When completed, the water quality management plan will be state -of -the -art and exceed regulatory standards. It is our opinion that the water quality of the runoff discharge into the harbor will be significantly improved over the current runoff condition from this property. E E ® RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ralph W. and Karen R. Spargo 26 Sandy Cove Newport Coast, CA 92657 February 16, 2007 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Commissioners: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As 30 year residents of the City of Newport Beach (6 of which were spent 4 blocks away from the proposed project) we would like to heartily endorse the approval, of the AERIE development plans in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue. We have reviewed the plans that have been prepared by Advanced Real Estate Services and believe that the concept will be a unique response to a very challenging site and will provide a source of pride for the surrounding neighborhood and the community as ,a whole. Again, we sincerely hope that through your careful evaluation of the proposed project that you will approve the AERIE submittal. Ralph W. Spargo I Karen R. Spargo e-7 U