HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.1 - Additional Materials 1 - PA2005-196 Material(s) received after the Planning
Commission packets were distributed, or
received at the meeting. These material(s) were
distributed to staff, Commissioners and made
available to the public.
Aerie Project
April - 2009
Storm Wave Conditions
r _ r
NA
r
�3
r
wu i f`f`
4
The Noble and Associates review did not consider documented storm
events that resulted in waves from the southwest breaking across the
mouth of the Jetty and rolling into the Harbor. These events in 1969
and in the early 1990's have caused head waves and storm surges that
destroyed docks and piers on both sides of the harbor entrance. The
residential piers at 2137 Bayside Drive and 2209 sustained damage or
loss during these events. These locations are inbound from the subject
location.
None the less the Noble and Associates do admit that "damage to
moored vessels and or docking facilities may occur" (draft EIR 4.9-11 )
If a 1 00' foot vessel is tied to the outside dock with a 24 beam
during one of these events:
➢ There is no mooring big enough in Newport Bay to
accommodate the vessel. Chris Miller stated that there are
only four double point moorings of 80-95 feet in the Harbor.
They may not be available during a storm event
➢ The OCSD would be unable to secure or move such a large
vessel in a large storm event with the equipment they have.
➢ A Captain is not permitted to remain or live on board such a
large vessel and therefore no one would be onboard during
storm events to move or secure a vessel of this size.
Sediment Process and Flow patterns
INNER
9 P 8�w
i ; I rvmt
a
a o .
m S
1�
5.
R
t h7 1
The EIR does not address how a Marina this size may effect sand
deposition in the area. The "eddy zone" as described in 4.9-11 of the
EIR does not address how a more vigorous tidal exchange may scour
the bottom of the bay more robustly, resulting in more sand movement.
These increased flows through the relatively narrow entrance channel
are to be expected as a result of dredging activities in the upper bay.
The piles and mass of the vessels and over 3,400 square feet of new
surface area may further slow water and sand movement and lead to
future sand deposition.
Shoals that built up by the Channel Reef Apartments and Kerchoff have
lead to the abandonment of vessels slips. Dredging removed over
7,000 yards from this site in 2007. The shoal condition and loss of slips
still remain.
If the same pattern of shoal deposition occurs at the South side of the
property line, the neighbors usage and pier permit would be altered.
Additionally this adjacent cove are has been identified as the last
remaining habit for sand dollars in Newport Bay. Future dredging
permits might be very hard to obtain if a shoal formed here. We need to
be accurate on where the normal flow of sand will go and how this
development impacts its movement over its 75 year projected life.
Page 4.7-17 of the draft EIR describes the site: "The project lies within
an area of active sand transport near the Harbor entrance that subject
to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave
exposure and tidal energy transport". While biological communities may
not be affected by sand transport, neighboring properties maybe.
➢ More study needs to be performed on how sand will move if a
new pier and surface area is allowed to project over 75 feet into
the bay. The photo record from 1928 certainly shows a history of
sand accumulating in this area.
➢ If permitted, there needs to be a plan for dredging sand that
does not impact the Public budget and other dock permit holders
whose use would be diminished. The pier permit should
establish who is responsible for maintenance dredging in the
future.
vda��t'pg dY�t ¢�xtd epl�vtia �, vt rYUs r fir_ ,";" x s a P , "+�
akY k+ rg` �'yY o V 6 X41' 4 x i �x e '� * S'+' s 3y?� t {r tr✓'a �f t" t X`
� " v
Pre '� z x,
'{r� 4 i, 1 p� gg��l�xh 3 �lXl ,��'J�Ertl w�f �e A +i`h sh�„ r L �3r r 3 r .g�FLi La*•.vrP 'x r d ;r r
rr
+
„
yr�
s>�
m
a.
6w's':.,,US
owl WI t ,
ryas AgaWs
us
vsMA
i-3 E.{th
. . AKTI
'.G.h S r a-a:5 rr6ij
\ »
, !
\ !
. \
10
. 2 :
\�
, ƒ] N 3�\�
» v
� . \ <
» ! y .
DOCK LAYOUT
(24 k Beam ndMon) . - -
Navigation
The project would be the second pier in this area to extend to the pier
head line. The other project was constructed in an area where its
impact to the Harbor is not as pronounced. The Project further shows a
vessel with a 24 foot beam that will extend further into the bay. This
vessel alone adds another 2400 square feet of restricted water space
to sailing, boating and fishing activities in addition to the 3450 of dock
surface plus vessel shading.
➢ The project docks could be constructed to accommodate 8 vessels
and stay behind the bulkhead line.
Channel Marker
w
_ l
r ,
Bulkhead Line
Pierhead Line
Project Line t "=
➢ If the full project is built to the pier head line, outboard piles should
be marked with radar reflectors to make the location clear in severe
fog conditions.
A A
44
a i
Y � k
t
➢ Will this project in this area, set a precedent by encouraging
property owners to build their docks out to the pier head line
throughout Carnation Cove? Some existing docks are only
constructed to the property line. If allowed to go to the pier head line,
the County single point moorings would be impacted. They would
either have to be removed or placed further out in the Bay.
Something to consider.
Proposed Dock Layout
R
Can the project meet ADA design requirement s for a multi unit development at this
location?
The use of rotationally molded floats will allow the pier to sit a lower than normal.
What is the plan to control and repel pinepeds (Sea Lions) if they take advantage of
these easier to access floats?
XM
YcT y�`y's�
X
Waste Management Plan, Fire Suppression
The location is a long distance from trash and sewage disposal. Will there
be standpipes to handle a vessel fire? These should be addressed in the
planning process.
Revisions to the 12h' and 13th WHEREAS for the draft resolution for Alternative A -
(handwritten page 44).
WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with
General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number
of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms
and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and
used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project
provides two spaces for each sf2-uRitsunit without vehicle lifts, and thfee-seven additional
spaces using vehicle lifts. Five &guest parking spaces, ne mise
are provided for a total of 31-28 covered, vehicle spaces.
Provided parking is in excess of the
minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20
spaces for 8 units proposed).
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and
Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3-1 that require new development to
avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to
maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient
parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken
from two vehicle elevators. Five-Four of the six-five guest parking spaces and parking for one
unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates
are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street-level parking. Only seven of the eight
units and one guest parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below-grade
parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle
elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid
significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required
so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas
within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit
consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer.
Planning Commission, June 4, 2009-AERIE (PA2005-196)
Revisions to the 12th and 13t' WHEREAS for the draft resolution for Alternative A -
(handwritten page 44).
WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with
General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number
of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms
and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and
used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project
provides two spaces for each of-=-nrt:sunit without vehicle lifts, and thFee-seven additional
spaces for Ranh of 2 units with using vehicle lifts. Five &K-guest parking spaces,ene se,~o;se
�h. and 2 gGlf Ga4 spaGes are provided for a total of 34-28 covered, vehicle spaces.
An :rem f0F MOtf)FGYG'e ^F biGYGI^ park Rg iS ^'S^ iRGIUded. Provided parking is in excess of the
minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20
spaces for 8 units proposed).
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and
Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3-1 that require new development to
avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to
maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient
parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken
from two vehicle elevators. Five-Four of the six-five guest parking spaces and parking for one
unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates
are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street-level parking. Only seven of the eight
units and one guest parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below-grade
parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle
elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid
significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required
so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas
within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit
consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer.
Planning Commission, June 4, 2009 -AERIE (PA2005-196)
v
13. Harbor Commission (Minutes of April 8, 2009)
Although formal DEIR comments were not submitted by the Harbor Commission, these responses
address the environmental issues reflected by the minutes of the Harbor Commission's April 8,
2009 meeting. Where a comment did not raise any environmental issue, no response is provided.
Response to Comment No. 13-1
Analysis of design wind waves was based on long-term wind conditions recorded at two locations
as presented in Section 2.1 of the Coastal Engineering Impact Assessment Report(May 9, 2008).
In addition, long swell statistics from 1970 to 2005 were applied to determine the typical and
extreme swell conditions at the project site. Tables 1 and 2 in that report show the probability
distribution of wind conditions while Tables 4 and 5 present the deduced typical and extreme wave
conditions for wind wave and long swells, respectively. The discussion of"Wave Conditions and
Potential Impacts" on pages 4.9-8 through 4.9-11 provides a summary of the information included
in the Noble Report.
Response to Comment No. 13-2
The City's mooring fields generally have between 75 and 100 vacant mooring cans in the harbor,
which are available for rental to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis
through the Harbor Patrol. The mooring cans can generally accommodate project boats with the
exception of boats that exceed 60 feet due to a lack of availability of these larger sized moorings
in the harbor. Boats larger than 60 feet would need to secure berthing at a larger dock (if
available) or use the City designated anchorage area within the harbor. Boat owners sir a
contracted boating service company would be responsible to manage such an event.
Response to Comment No. 13-3
Noble Consultants, Inc. determined that the dock project would not significantly affect sediment
transport in the area. There are no sand dollars present near the dock; they are all located in the
protected cove southeast of the proposed dock. Therefore, any sand movement would not be
related to pier-induced sand movement since: (1) engineering studies suggest that there would
be no interruption of sand movement from pier pilings and (2) sand movement is from south to
north.
Generally speaking, sand dollars and other sand-associated macrofaunal species are adapted to
shifting sand regimes. Unless there is an extreme storm event sand dollars are well adapted to
daily and seasonal changes in sand movement and they are capable of adjusting their position in
the sand to prevent burial. Even when they are temporarily buried they can upright themselves to
their usual orientation to the currents. Large storm events can result in changes in the southern
California sand dollar populations as well as other sand bottom epifaunal species relative to
population and distribution. These events are known to occur following extreme storm and wave
conditions. These conditions, however, are likely muted to a degree within then confines within
Newport Harbor.
Response to Comment No. 13-4
The sediment shoaling pattern in the entrance channel was presented in the Noble report(refer to
Section 2.2). The impact assessment for the proposed dock facility was also performed (refer to
Section 3.2). The information presented in that document is summarized in Section 4.9 (Soils and
Geology) in the Draft EIR (refer to pages 4.9-8 through 4.9-13). As indicated in the Draft EIR, the
Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking
Aerie(PA 2005-196)
Responses to Public Comments
May 2009
Page 60
facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions and, with regard to sand transport, no significant
impacts would occur as a result of project implementation.
Response to Comment No. 13-5
Noble Consultants, Inc.,which analyzed sediment processes and flow patterns in the project area,
concluded that the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is
insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide
piles within the sand-moving path may occur. In addition, the project's potential impact on
sedimentation at updrift locations such as China Reef is inconsequential. As a result, no
significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no
mitigation measures are required.
Response to Comment No. 13-6
The applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to
accommodate nine vessels (8 permanently berthed vessels and 1 guest slip). The dock and
landing would include lighting similar to that which currently exists in this area. Such lighting
would cast light down on the docks for safety and security purposes for both project residents and
passing boaters.
Response to Comment No. 13-7
Piers will be installed as required based on the City of Newport Beach requirements. Section 4.7
(Biological Resources) revealed that sea lions inhabit the harbor and, specifically, in the vicinity of
the Pavilion The Draft EIR concluded the project implementation would not result in significant
impacts to marine mammals, including sea lions. Should sea lions haul out on the proposed dock
structure, the dock system will be able to support several individuals given that the dock design
will be engineered to withstand the increased wave energy associated with the project location.
Sea lion haul out is considered a nuisance issue and deterrent measures such as fences, netting,
watering or other physical and visual obstructions are routinely employed when sea lions frequent
the harbor's docks. This is not an environmental issue, but rather a harbor management issue
under the constant supervision of the Harbor Resources Division and the Harbor Patrol.
Response to Comment No. 13-8
A Class II wet stand pipe that will serve the docks was incorporated into the proposed project as
required by the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide enhanced protection for firefighting at
the docks. Trash will be hand carried to Carnation Avenue for removal. Sewage pump-out stations
are not required for residential docks and are they are only required for commercial marinas with
50 or more slips. Sewage disposal from boats is prohibited within the Harbor unless at a pump-out
station.
Response to Comment No. 13-9
As indicated in this comment, the proposed dock facility will be larger(approximately 3,448 square
feet compared to 490 square feet) compared to the existing dock facility. However,the dock has
been designed to avoid sensitive habitat (e.g., eelgrass) and incorporates project design features
to ensure that eelgrass, sand dollars and other marine resources are adequately protected.
Furthermore, public access to the small cove below the bluff will be maintained and no significant
visual impacts to aesthetic resources would occur based on the analysis presented in the Draft
EIR (refer to Section 4.7—Biological Resources and Section 4.5—Aesthetics).
Aerie(PA 2005-196)
Responses to Public Comments
May 2009
Page 51
Response to Comment No. 13-10
Refer to Response to Comment No, 13-5.
Response to Comment No. 13-11
Boat owners or a contracted boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels
as deemed necessary by the boat owners.
Response to Comment No. 13-12
The City currently has up to 100 mooring cans within the harbor that may be used during storm
events. use of these moorings is permitted on a"first come, first served°basis. As noted above,
a boat maintenance service may be engaged to relocate the vessels to the mooring cans or other
locations as deemed necessary by the boat owners.
Response to Comment No. 13-13
Table 6 of the report provides the guidelines for acceptable wave conditions in the harbor. For
head seas it is less than 0.6 meter(approximately two feet)and it is 0.25 meter(approximately 0.8
foot) for beam seas. In practice, it is difficult to precisely measure the wave height in the middle of
a storm event. Due to the orientation of the entrance channel, SSE-S waves can propagate
through the entrance channel without being blocked by the jetty. Therefore, preparation of
temporarily relocated vessels to the mooring area should primarily be based on the approach
wave direct from SSE-S. The extreme wave conditions for wind waves presented in Table 4 and
long swells as listed in Table 5 occur infrequently.
Response to Comment No. 13-14
The proposed docks are within the federal Pierhead Line and the main channel is over 500 feet
wide in this area. The proposed docks with boats would not encroach any farther within the
channel than a nearby navigational station,which has been in-place for years. City policy currently
allows boats to extend beyond the Pierhead Line no farther than the beam (maximum width) of
the boat, which is typically not wider than 24 feet. The proposed layout is consistent with the
Municipal Code and Council Policy, as determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and the
only condition proposed by the Harbor Resources Manager is that boats tied to the side of the
proposed docks closest to the main channel must not have a beam wider than 24 feet. With this
condition, the Harbor Resources Manager has determined that the proposed docks will not cause
any Impediment to navigating the main channel
Response to Comment No. 13-15
The DEIR has identified the potential for damage during storm surge conditions (Impact 4.9-2.)
Mitigate measures have been prescribed, which include moving boats to sheltered mooring
location (Mitigation Measure: 4.9-2a) and dock design based on extreme wave conditions
(Mitigation Measure 4.9-2b.) As a result, the DEIR concludes that potentially significant impacts
related to storm surge damage will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Response to Comment No. 13-16
Public access to the cove below from the harbor would not be adversely affected by the proposed
project, including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the
existing access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers, or others.
Aerie(PA 2005496)
Responses to Public Comments
May 2009
Page 62
Response to Comment No. 13-17
Refer to Response to Comment No 13-4.
Response to Comment No. 13-18
Refer to Response to Comment No. 2-4.
Aerie(PA 2005-196)
Responses to Public Comments
May 2009
Page 63
Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714-665-8535 p.2
NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES
City Council Chambers
April 8, 2008
CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Cha"uman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek,John Corrough, Tim Collins,
Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff:
Lorrie Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin
MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved.
ACTION ITEM
ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS
ITEM #f
Subject: General Harbor Commission Orientation-POSTPONED
ITEM#2
Subject; Aerie Dock Project at 201-207 Carnation Avenue
Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201-207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to
replace the existing double U-shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing
8 vessels for residents and 1 coast side-tie
Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Iviason with URS Spoke on
the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat `lanes" in that channel. The
boats berthed at Aerie will be moved m moorings or other places during storm
events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking
issues, saying they will have at least 15-23 additional parking spaces on-site,
beyond what is required by the Code.
Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project,
showing what he feels are issues with the project. The storm viave conditions
were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and IC-90s.1 l
These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 f, Z
vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event.
Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar population.13
There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more stu ly,lt]
J�Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem. such as who is
responsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into pubicl 6
waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the
other slips in this area.. The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the sea(
lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and selvage?115
Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space
( that is now open. He Said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example
has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24
foot overhang and can restrict the side tie. All residents don't have to have a slip.
19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. 1!4
{Commissioner Rhyne asked who will ;Hove the boats during storm events and
11 1wave action. Are there moorings available and what are the other options if they
j24need to move? What happens between 1.5 to 2 feet?1�A 100 foot boat is too
massive and who will monitor the overhang? r4•{5
Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not
been nept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and
Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714-665-8539 p.3
has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with
previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical
situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built, We need to
set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled
by this project: gave specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The
proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is
representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in
this harbor.
• Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for
extensions; but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead line. let
• Commissioner Rodheim said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead lines of the 1930's
were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in
redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The
approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may
end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going cut
further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He tJ�
would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. we
want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor
Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the
right to have a pier.
• Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that storms go directly into our harbor as
designed by the Army Corps. Pitting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that
action. There has been a lot of work put into the pier; and we are net against new
docks. but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City
Council makes the ultimate decision, but vie are boaters and can make
recommendations. Storm events do happen, so vee need a plan that will viork.
Why riot come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, vie would like to work
with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a
storm season?
Public Comments:
• Kathleen P7iclntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has
not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Public
access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe jjb
eliminated. Shoaling is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is(
shoaling under the neighbors' docks. This project doesn't consider the prcbiemst)7
the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17
feet. She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker
buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone
concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what wail be taken
away from them.
• :toe and Lisa Vallejo. who are not on the water and don't have a dock. wanted to
add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago
they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would
not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited
Municipal Code 17.50 Rules for Interpretation and Harbor Development Permits
which says the application shall be denied if it may interfere with the rights of other
permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform
to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel
that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant 15
said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does
that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your
consideration and time,we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor.
• Marilyn Beck, 303 Carnation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City.
There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General
Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in t'neir
projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan
Jun 03 09 09:10a Keeton K. Kreitzer 714-665-8539 p.4
so wa would have responsible development within the City. This is a super-sized
project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how
hard the wind blows and how destructive it can be. Boats have capsized and
docks have broken up.
• John Conne:ly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside
Drive, said if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant
damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump In
the harbor that doesn't need to be :here. No one receives prior notices of high
wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety. Owners could be out of town
or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent
for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor.
• Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's mos:
people are. He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work
experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't
include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be
impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed
on to a new dock owner. Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a
quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element
to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place
and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't.
Action: The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock
system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Seek made an advisory
motion, "WWe not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and
capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would
create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating In the
harbor". The motion carried with all eves. Harbor Resources will forward this
input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire
project as a whole.
ITEM #3
Subject: Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport Blvd.—Update
Issue: The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay
Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard.
Discussion: The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special
conditions. It has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle
V'deed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract weter related
business to attract tourists_ They don't have any commitments but will be
consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise
and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but
they will comply with the Fi°e Cede. The commissioners felt it was a good,
responsible plan.
Action: Receive and file.
ITEM#4
Subject: Harbor Projects and Funding Projections
Issue: The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an uodated list of Harbor
Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the
future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first
draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with at,.
updated draft for further review.
Discussion: Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission Lavvrenz
added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects; such as Eelgrass.
Public Comments: Mark Sites reminded everyone :hat fees wilt need to be raised to fund this.
Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with
the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging
permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport.
=XA]
Nehlett&Associates
Advanced Real Estate Services,Inc. June 2,2009
23792 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 100 Project No.: 416-000-03
Lake Forest, California 92630 "
Attention: Mr.Rick Julian
President
Subject: Alternative A
Aerie Condominium Site, 201-205 and 207
Carnation Avenue,Corona Del Mar, California
Reference: Neblett & Associates, Inc., Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report,
Condominium Project, T.T.M. 16882, 201-205 and 207 Carnation Avenue,
Corona Del Mar, California, dated September 30,2008,Project No. 416-000-03.
Dear Mr. Julian:
This letter relates to the stability of the bluff relative to the proposed project versus Alternative
A.
Response
The original proposed design includes a subbasement and basement level and incorporates a
shoring system along the bluff side to facilitate excavation.
Alternative A eliminates the subbasement level entirely and will also reduce the plan area of
the basement level. The basement level at Elevation 37.5 feet for the Alternative A will have a
horizontal distance of approximately 13 to 28 feet from the bluff face. The excavation for the
basement level along the bluff side will also incorporate temporary 1:1 (horizontal to vertical)
layback slope in lieu of shoring system, with the top of temporary slope layback approximately
5 feet minimum horizontal distance from the Elevation 50.7 feet daylight bluff line.
The original proposed design and Alternative A concept are considered similar with respect to
bluff stability,and neither concept will adversely effect the stability of the bluff face.
P.O. Box 1159•Huntington Beach, CA 92647
4911 Warner Avenue, Suite 218•Huntington Beach• CA •92649•tel(714)840-8286•fax(714)840-9796
Advanced Real Estate Services,Inc June 2,2009
Alternative A Project No.: 416-000-03
Aerie Condominium Site,201-205 and 207 Page 2 oft
Carnation Avenue,Corona Del Mar,California
We trust that the above response is adequate for your needs at this time. Should you have any
questions or need additional information,please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully Submitted,
NEBLETT&ASSOCIATES,INC.
PR4FF
By: EF yc By: J.
idn S.N S.NFe c� ie J. orikawa, F,
CE 252, eg. E pir /09 �F� RGE 2726, Reg. Ex 9/ /10 x
c
P sidenNo CEG252 �� Chief Engineer
NExp.9-30.09
9TF�F GALIFo��\P
Distribution: Addressee(3 copies)
i
Neblett&Associates, Inc.
� v
�EWvogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
U S
(949) 644-3200
Cq(lFOM1NtP
DATE: June 2, 2009
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Campbell, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005-196) —Attachments to Response to Comments
Four attachments to the Responses to Comments were inadvertently omitted. They are:
1. Existing Vegetation Map — referenced from responses 2-30 and 5-1 on page 11
and 26 respectively. This map is also within the project plan set.
2. Letter from Lyleen Ewing - referenced from response 3-27 on page 21.
3. Vibration summary tables - referenced from response 10-19 on page 49.
4. Water Quality Management Plan Exhibit A - referenced from response 11-3 on
page 55.
The items are attached to this memorandum and I apologize for any inconvenience and
they have been added to the Response to Comment document. If you have any question
regarding this memorandum, please contact me at 949-644-3210 or
jcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us.
qp
AREA Q
AREA#3
-2u
AREAp6
AREA
AREA� YE
mm q AREA� EAW
.. . ...........
AREA
M�, 'R
AREA16
SEE SHEET L-2 FOR AREAS 9 THROUGH 14 s I
ENTIRE SITE
AREA p)
A—....
AREA 0 GO PRUNNO&CLEARING
A,
O
ea (D sl M.
} (LSE eu
t Eke x Xy X Rp a$ x
MA
It
�S dva
Io- L 6 Sd S A F CX en D
gR°t isE$gdSI� $ § HeseSs € 90aL,Xe
L f. �ix S Y §zli ex f ° c; F pjb jg= $,f3 H3� % ;!€ YeM i¢
.
ki.38 s z °
pg �F,s' i aH
SDo
i 3 C d
Ogg
ip
% z ' ' R38 Xes � 3 ? 4 `, Bz g { ii & � k � i zs X33 g §e�y
e 2 e
f i
n \y n
{4
'B%fie{ a � ��y '��.�R ,�L,�• 3 "�
13,
1z rsr
2
4-
'04
tea\ t
N,
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -
FAIR
E%6TING VEGETATION MAP
OLDWELL BANKER PREVIEWS
LYLEEN EWING
SOCIETY OF EXCELLENCE
Mr.Jim Campbell
Senior planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach,CA 92663
Dear Mr.Campbell,
I have been selling real estate in Orange County for over 35 years. In my career,I have personally
handled hundreds of real estate transactions,of which the majority have been in the Newport Beach-
Corona del Mar area.
I have been asked to render an opinion on the market absorption time for three speculative single
family homes located on the property commonly known as 201-207 Carnation Avenue in Corona del
Mar. I understand that each of these three homes would have expansive coastal views,a roof deck and
one boat slip. The average size of the three homes would be approximately 8,300 livable square feet. I
also understand that,as with much of the newer bluff top construction in the area,these homes would
be highly amenitized and would involve significant excavation and grading and the placement of
caissons.Given the remarkable location and view of these homes, it is my professional opinion that
these homes likely would be listed for sale within an approximate price range of$14,000,000 to
$16,000,000 even in today's depressed real estate market.
Demand for luxury homes in Newport Beach has declined significantly as a result of the economic
downturn,and there is no clear indication as to how deep or how long this decline will last. Most
recently,for the 22 business days ending January 15,2009,DataQuick reports that the pace of sales in
Corona Del Mar(Zip 92625)was down 38.5%from the same time last year. Further,according to the
January 22,2009,home inventory report from Steve Thomas of Altera Real Estate,in Orange County,
350 homes were listed for sale at asking prices above$4 million,but only three had pending sales in the
previous thirty days. While these numbers may not be a precise predictor of performance for the sales
of any individual home or category of homes,for statistical purposes,this translates to an absorption
rate of almost ten years(116.67 months)for these 350 homes. This same report discloses that even in
the much stronger real estate market of two years ago, it would have taken over 31 months to absorb
the current homes on the market. (Report available at
4 San Joaquin Playa suite#260 Newport Beach CA 92660
949-6441600•Direct 949-759-3786•Cellular 949-233-8051•Fax 949-644-5384
IJewing0coldwellbanker-com
C*,,wlaanArR,S,c JA amk< Zc. uW Op wby NRT.IM.
http://www.ouragentspot.com/sthomos/MarketTime Jan-22-p9,doc.) So what does all this translate to
on the ground? Simply put:homes that once would have quickly attracted multiple offers are now likely
to languish on the market,in some cases fora matterof years rather than months.
The current economic reality has fundamentally changed the economics of speculative home
development. Today,experienced builders have adopted a"wait-and-see"approach. For multiple-
single family home sites such as these,builders will"wait-and-see"where the money is coming from
before they assume the risk and expense of construction.
Based on the ongoing economic downturn and the high cost of construction associated with this site,on
one hand,and the premier location of these home sites on the other,it is my opinion that it would take
a bare minimum of four years to pre-sell the three home sites,with one site sold an average of once
everytwo years. Generally speaking, I expect one home site to be sold at the beginning of year one,the
second home site to be sold at the end of year two,and the third site to be sold at the end of year four.
Based on a two year per home construction schedule(per Brion Jeannette Architecture),total buildout
of all three homes would therefore take approximately six years from the time of the first sale.
I hope that this opinion is helpful. Should you desire any further information,please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Lyleen Ewing
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Construction Generated Vibration Annoyance
Vibration Annoyance CrIterla
Approximate Velocity _ Approximate Winner Approximate Velocity
Equipment Level at 25 R,WE Closest Distance(Net): Average Distance(test) Level,VdB Level,VdB
Exoavator(Small bulldozer) 58 113 80 65 43
Backhoe Loader(Small bull2ozap 58 11.5 80 65 43
Loaded rocks 86 25 80 86 71
Creeds 78 TB
IwAym o, )...,':.la r I5r
Approximate Velocity Ax_p_D._o.....mIlaele Velocity .. i......,.._Approximate
at.eear,Velocity
.'elociry
Equipment Lvala25fl,VdBClosest Distance(Net): Avenge Oslance(Nen Level. s.=.N
WE Level,Von
Largemus(Smr e] 9 60 96 72
Load.,tm(Smallbdlldozer) 58 9 00 87 43
Loader(Smog bulldozer) 56 9 61 e] 43
Loaded lmeka 88 25 80 66 ]t
Criteria ]B ]e
( ix1.1414G.k5r w:.n�.�k %6, pp ,VetoApp Velocity Approximate ValocXy ApproximaN Velocity ApprLevelNVelociry
Large mem Level NBfi R,VtlB Closest Distance(Neq: Average Distance(Net) Level,VtlB LaveL Vale
Re.No.
87 9 60 96 72
Cam Hoe 87 9 8o Be 72
Loader(Small engender)ImIl Br) 58 9 81 67 43
Loaded
(Small bulltlozep 58 9 81 67 43
Loatletl t[Ycks 86 25 80 88 71
Criteria ]e 78
ppn ._smarm a,Velocity
Art �ta9 ocity11ikt?5
ApproximaN Velocity Appreemale481osRy Approximate Velocity
Lp,m bun[ Level at 26 R,VtlB Closest Distance(Net): Average Distance(Not) Level,Vtl8 Level,VdB
Lxcavat r(Smr e] 12.5 86 93 72
excavator Witoidoxep 58 12.5 80 64 43
Loaded truck)bulltlexer) 58 160 64 43
Loaded[rucks m Be25 80 86 71
cir
ul. 78 78
Si W1f.?aF P40-.11€iHIP'.JMJQs?.�!M,lc,.stx
Approximate Vslofty Approximate Velocity ApproximatsVelocdy
Equipment Level BIBS R,VdB Cloaeet Distance Net): Average Distance(Ne) Level,VdB Leval,Vale
ca Cam.0119 87 9 Bo 96 72
Back Hca Loads,(Small bulldozer) 58 9 8067 43
Pumps, 58 Be 80 47 43
Loatled trucks 86 25 80 86 71
Criferm 78 78
Concrete Pour
Approximate Velocity Approximate Velocity Approximate Velocity
E ulpmem Level at 25 R,VdB Closest Distance(feet: Avera eDlnfanae feep Le I,VEB Levd,VdB
Pumper 86 86 So 75 71
concete Mhter 86 68 Bo 75 ]i
Crlterla 78 78
ONvA.1apo'.c ao11a5lvmnaea�,BMn hMNR uou.0e enuasuft—aemoCbnnaE'elanual}S ktl
XMN'.AYS vmGBralabadlreA TeXannwllYtlBlutW lAa�e4�en[eolam mimlrtNznonE.
Somca:Beaedm mtlMd•logyfmm Ne UnNetl Slates DryadmanofTanepunatisn F�eml TmnsMPdminlsVeYon,Tmvl Abim a7tl YlbralivrlmpeG Aawamrenl(2006).
Construction Generated Vibration-Structural Damage Criteria
Structural Damage Criteria [[ t
.k r�3;iI `l;,;nK : :_ IN';c`?=._..__M�., DN§I>E "�;�..c.:w.L:a
,4-13,:.... ! . °i. €i tlfflifl -.«�aa��-...__u i5
Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS
Velocity at 25 ft, Velocity Level,
Equipment inch/second inch/second Closest Distance(feet):
Excavator(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.010 11.5
Backhoe Loadeg5mall bulli 0.003 0.010 11.5
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25
Criteria 0.200
; �.� t�XS $ ` s. s 's?!k s. ` �k:`�v�: 3�iMi�BtMi�Ti�Y.. ..i,;^ .:_. r` RMY
a{
Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS
Velocity at 25 ft, Velocity Level,
Equipment inch/second inch/second Closest Distance(feet):
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.412 9
Excavator(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9
Loader(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.003 25
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25
Criteria 0.200
�vcd'� nM"#;. 1 ..t."� """'N"r �'t�5 s F�e rs s 4� � ��r
,4� ',k9.� ,a.ai.�kra,.+xlaadi,et I ,A:, a''
Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS
Velocity at 25 ft, Velocity Level,
Equipment inch/second inch/second Closest Distance(feet): "
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.412 9
Ram Hoe 0.089 0.412 9
Loader(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9
Excavator(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.014 9
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25
Criteria 0.200
�. ¢rte. ,gat ' ' g ti�rSJ TM
;" t'.r�E�R111�. ' ..�.,i�;')' �s(T.Pi"�i3'lSas... ,Y; .33,IS���`i"�..,M'�,�..t,r'r
Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS
Velocity at 25 It, Velocity Level,
Equipment inch/second inch/second Closest Distance(feet):
Large bulldozer 0.003 0.008 12.5
Ram Hoe 0.003 0.008 12.5
Loader(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5
Excavator(Small bulldozer) 0.003 0.008 12.5
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25
Criteria pp 0.200
MM, 4 f fi a k -
�r r� -t'+!a3i#�.�F'C..,`> <:u.i.,m 0MR)","r
Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS
Velocity at 25 It, Velocity Level,
Equipment inch/second inch/second Closest Distance(feet):
Caisson Drill 0.089 0.412 9
Back Hoe Loader(Small be 0.003 0.008 12.5
Pumper 0.076 0.012 88
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25
Criteria 0.200
,+ �.;(�ggae^ta v' '^*',`y r L` tpw"S o".a^9�d '�'IRssO
fES1:1;!a «, i;' i.',r;1P ,14a``a'xs,``+ktt�:5.. :k'-N �'..-,. sc,�..t Sk s,,.�...l;w:: s,�.ltiiSk�7,l`�k!?p�,,,
Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS
Velocity at 25 It, Velocity Level,
Equipment inch/second inch/second Closest Distance(feet):
Pumper 0.076 0.164 15
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.076 25
Criteria 0.200
I NOTE: EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND NOT TO r VICWY MAP
(RI SCALE. ALL FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED INSIDE THE
"PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT'. ` 6
NAP
/ SITE
M^ NAP AT GR�PARK
l�
NAP�� LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
NAP NOT A PART
I/ T�5n1
DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW
GRAVITYOW INES AND
P/ FORROOF LANDLAREA DRAINS DIRECTION
STORMWATER FORCE MAIN
EXISTING SITE -- ^- PROPOSED CONNECTION TO EXISTING SD
DISC POINT �r_ ENTRA ---Db- EXISTING STORM AND AREA DRAINS
HARGE i\ ®HRD WET WELL AND STORMWATER PUMP
C IN EXI TING GB.\ ••� STORMRLTER WATER QUALITY UNIT OR RM DRAIN PIPE
Qy ABTECH SMART SPONGE PLUS INSERTS
NAP
`W tib LANDSCAPE AREAS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP'a:
N (MAINTAINED BY HOA)
4 COMMON AREA EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
COMMON
ABU
RNOFF-MINIMIZING
LANDSCAPE DESIG
\NAP MOW AREA DRAINS (PRIVATE) WITH BMP:
50 STENCILLING WHERE FEASIBLE
gP�NAP\ EXISTING CATCH BASIN/AREA DRAINS
/ \\ TRASH ENCLOSURE-EXACT LOCATIONS
/) TD BE DETERMINED
• V / •_ul ADS STORM WATER DUALITY UNIT OR EQUAL
PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: p,�wq^pLp DATE PREPARED:
®rw�xR
-U-S,
S .KER 6 ASSOCIATES i/'�RLJ 5/12/09 AERIE' W
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 16882 EXHIBIT
R..°�"iw`Z>+> :m,�ro nnzwrP°mmr.�u vmm�140 W0 T5t-5X CORONA DEL MAR
nwl��Fnoo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. CA
I have asked J read this on my behalf as I am
unable to attend:
This project excavates to 28 feet with a finished elevation at 30 feet.
This corresponds to the PLOED on Ocean Blvd, not on Carnation
Avenue as required by the City Council determination. The
Alternative 8A is only marginally better, with a finished elevation at
37.5 feet, still well below the 50.7 set by the City Council. Neither of
these elevations are acceptable and more importantly, both set a
precedent on Carnation Avenue. There are no other existing
properties built along the Carnation bluff which go below the PLOED,
either on the face or behind the bluff. And all these properties were
built prior to the implementation of the General Plan. The General
Plan sets an even higher standard than what existed at the time the
older properties were built, therefore it just doesn't make sense that
now, under the policies of the General Plan, a project like Aerie can
be approved by re-defining the bluff as bluff face only.
Not only is this key to the Aerie project but there are 4 other
properties along the Carnation bluff which are in original condition,
two of which are presently on the market as 'tear down' properties
and will be redeveloped in the near future. Aerie will set the
precedent. If you define the bluff as `bluff face' only, all new
development will be allowed to build subterranean as well. Once you
allow this precedent with Aerie, you might as well give up the
remainder of the Carnation Bluff to concrete... .with fake bluff rebuilt in
front of the concrete.._ .because that is what will happen.
The Aerie plan calls for a swimming pool to be built entirely
below the 50.7 line, how can this be acceptable under the policies of
the CLUP? There is an exit tunnel to the marina at 44.4 feet. It is
called an emergency exit, but it is the passageway to the marina.
How can this be acceptable?
What is the point of the General Plan if the first bluff project to
come before the City is approved with multiple variances, allowing for
the most aggressive construction since the building of Channel Reef?
The City has a duty to the residents of Newport Beach to deny this
project as it is currently proposed, including Alternative 8A.
-
03 LCCA —�c�i�a
Varin, Ginger
From: john.martin.associates@gmail.com on behalf of John Martin [john@martin-associates.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:04 PM
To: Campbell, James; Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David; Brown, Leilani; beaton@city.newport-
beach.ca.us; rhawkins@city.newport-beach.ca.us; spoetter@city.newport-beach.ca.us;
emcdaniel@city.newport-beach.ca.us; mtoerge@city.newport-beach.ca.us; Wood, Sharon
Subject: Letter to Planning Commissioners
Attachments: R. Julian Letter 5-18-09.pdf
Dear Commissioners:
This email is to express my opposition to the Aerie Project as planned and proposed for development. I respect
the applicants right to develop the property but I am convinced that his proposal is wrong for the site, the
neighborhood, the greater Newport Beach and Corona Del Mar community as well as his own best interests. I
have so expressed this in an email and letter sent to Rick Julian prior to the last scheduled Planning Commission
Meeting which was postponed. A copy of this letter is provided for your reference and information.
My opposition to this project is based on my professional experience of over 40 years in Community
Development, Residential Home Building, Urban Planning, Residential Architectural Coordination, Research,
Marketing and Consultancy in the Community Development and Home Building Industry. I have worked on
projects in Newport Beach since the mid 1960s for John D. Lusk and Son on Eastbluff and have been involved
in major projects within the city in the four succeeding decades.
The development that the applicant proposes is completely out of scale for the site and has been planned in total
disregard for the principles expressed in the CLUP process where sensitive bluff locations in coastal areas are to
be respected.
My wife and I have lived at 239 Carnation (this is a property owned by Linda Martin) and on the subject
property site for several years. Therefore, we are intimately aware of the issues, constraints and opportunities
associated with the development of the Aerie site. However, it is from my professional perspective that I am
most concerned. Development plans in practically all areas of the Country are being reconsidered in the light of
the current economic environment and changed consumer demand characteristics. The applicant has chosen not
to do this related to the Aerie site and proceeds with a project scheme that I can state, with considerable
certainty, will not built as designed.
If it is approved the challenges in getting such an expensive and complicated structure financed are highly
questionable. However, it is the development risk and the liability exposure that is of the greatest concern to
me. Once the bluff is sheared away there is no putting it back. The potential for cost overruns which will
contribute to making this project scheme unfeasible to develop loom large in this consideration.
If this project is approved at the Planning Commission Hearing, I know the neighbors, other informed parties,
and I will continue to oppose the project when it appears before the City Council and Coastal Commission.
Thank you very much for considering my perspective regarding the Aerie Development.
Sincerely,
John Martin
i
John Martin
Martin &Associates
Martin-Associates.net
(714) 641-9022
2
Planning Commission:
The SPON Steering Committee has asked me to renew my review and comment
on the project. To that end I have met with the developer several times. On this
basis we received a set of the now most recent plans from the architect on which
we base the following comments. We have scheduled a design session with he
(and he has invited his architect) to investigate inclusions of form and scale in
that a more suitable alternative might be found in the final design.
The SPON Steering Committee, in a unanimous vote June 6, 2008 asked that
the City recommend denial and re-design of the project. More recently the
SPON Steering Committee has asked me to review with the applicant our
specific major concerns for the latest proposal which has been completed June
3, 2009. Toward this end, we ask that the Planning Commission recommend
that the project if approved, be redesigned, per the mitigation in this letter and in
the suggested alternatives below, to alleviate the concerns of SPON. Those
concerns/ comments and related mitigation measures follow:
1. The project is still, even after the most recent minor reduction in size,
intrusive in the environment of this immediate coastal hillside community.
The new development is still more than three times the area of the
original apartment. But, more importantly, as a precedent setting
attached Condo, which is required to be in keeping with the Community in
accordance with General Plan Policies, has no rival or sister project at
approximately 8,000SF per living unit. Most housing, attached or
unattached in the community is at or nearly half that 'developed square
foot/ per living unit'.
2. When the Council remarked that 'it was too much of a good thing' in their
record of a 2008 meeting, we find that this criticism is still accurate. The
changes made recently deal with buried mass to presumably help the
project reduce impacts related to truck trips during what is an impactful
period of construction. There is little or no change to the most basic
previous City Council criticism. And, SPON finds the mass and bulk of
the project not in keeping with the policies in the General Plan that purport
to make such development compatible with the community.
3. The establishment-and preservation of the PLOED is, in the latest design,
improved but, needs to be an item of mitigation. The City has allowed no
distance buffer to the PLOED at the building line. This will contribute to
destruction of the bluff at that point. The developers volunteering
'rebuilding of construction damaged bluff with look- a- like bluff, is not
acceptable. Every retaining structure at the PLOED shall be placed
inland from that PLOED/ daylight a point at a minimum of 2' to protect the
coastal bluff at the PLOED.
4. The establishment and preservation of the bluff near the PLOED's
daylight point is obscured by deep precedent setting balconies. As there
are balconies on many homes above PLOED's in and around the site, the
City shall mitigate the length of overhang and the height of the balcony
above the PLOED, to conform to an average of such distances shared by
neighboring structures of the adjacent Community. After all, it is that
immediately adjacent community where compatibility is hoped to be
achieved.
5. Developable area entitled for this development by the City, which lies
below a tide line has resulted in a developable area, in this proposal, far
in excess to what would be considered reasonable and customary
entitlement. The lesser developable area is referred to herein as 'tidal
mitigation entitlement'. The City shall not allow a project encumbered by
such a natural state as tidal action to be allowed full ordinary entitlement
based on its land area that is submerged. The property shall be allowed
'tidal mitigation entitlement'. In an interview with the developer, he
indicates that the developed area, on the present design is at or equal to
an area that would be allowed under this 'tidal mitigation entitlement'.
The City shall calculate and entitle only to the point of this reasonable
limit.
SPON is guardedly optimistic that if the PC were to include these mitigation
measures, the design sessions might produce a less bulky project that would be
considerably better for all concerned.
Don Krotee, for SPON
SPON Steering Committee Member
G �
Planning Commission:
The SPON Steering Committee has asked me to renew my review and comment
on the project. To that end I have met with the developer several times. On this
basis we received a set of the now most recent plans from the architect on which
we base the following comments. We have scheduled a design session with he
(and he has invited his architect) to investigate inclusions of form and scale in
that a more suitable alternative might be found in the final design.
The SPON Steering Committee, in a unanimous vote June 6, 2008 asked that
the City recommend denial and re-design of the project. More recently the
SPON Steering Committee has asked me to review with the applicant our
specific major concerns for the latest proposal which has been completed June
3, 2009. Toward this end, we ask that the Planning Commission recommend
that the project if approved, be redesigned, per the mitigation in this letter and in
the suggested alternatives below, to alleviate the concerns of SPON. Those
concerns/ comments and related mitigation measures follow:
1. The project is still, even after the most recent minor reduction in size,
intrusive in the environment of this immediate coastal hillside community.
The new development is still more than three times the area of the
original apartment. But, more importantly, as a precedent setting
attached Condo, which is required to be in keeping with the Community in
accordance with General Plan Policies, has no rival or sister project at
approximately 8,000SF per living unit. Most housing, attached or
unattached in the community is at or nearly half that 'developed square
foot/ per living unit'.
2. When the Council remarked that 'it was too much of a good thing' in their
record of a 2008 meeting, we find that this criticism is still accurate. The
changes made recently deal with buried mass to presumably help the
project reduce impacts related to truck trips during what is an impactful
period of construction. There is little or no change to the most basic
previous City Council criticism. And, SPON finds the mass and bulk of
the project not in keeping with the policies in the General Plan that purport
to make such development compatible with the community.
3. The establishment-and preservation of the PLOED is, in the latest design,
improved but, needs to be an item of mitigation. The City has allowed no
distance buffer to the PLOED at the building line. This will contribute to
destruction of the bluff at that point. The developers volunteering
'rebuilding of construction damaged bluff with look- a- like bluff, is not
acceptable. Every retaining structure at the PLOED shall be placed
inland from that PLOED/ daylight a point at a minimum of 2' to protect the
coastal bluff at the PLOED.
Varin, Ginger
From: JonV3@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:24 AM
To: Campbell, James; Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Tonight: AERIE Project, Oppose and Modify
June 4, 2009
Scott Peotter, Chair, and
Newport Beach Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re:Agenda Item Number 2: Aerie Project(PA2005-196), Oppose and Modify to 5 units
c/o Ginger Varin, David Lepo, Jim Campbell
Dear Chair Peotter and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to request that you oppose the 8-unit Aerie Project in favor of a scaled down 5-unit project that would not
need any variances or exceptions to existing standards, regulations, and codes, would not go below the 50.7 feet PLOED
either on the bluff face or behind the bluff face, would preserve the natural resources of the bluff and the bay, and would
be more compatible in scale and character with the rest of the neighborhood.
This project cries out for a compromise that would be accepted by the neighborhood and yet be feasible for the project
proponent. This compromise could be accomplished with a smaller 5-unit project.
I believe the 5-unit alternative should be more completely analyzed before moving forward with this project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jan D. Vandersloot, MD
2221 E 16th street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 548-6326
Limited Time Offers: Save bio on popular laptops at Dell
1