Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.2 - Additional Materials 2 - 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. Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 and WED.becktru stee.corn June 1, 2009 Planning Commission Via Email to All Commissioners CC: Planning Department CC: City Council Re: Aerie (PA 2005-196) Dear Commissioners: It is encouraging to see that the Applicant and the City are willing to consider other alternatives, but Alternative 8A is a very minimal improvement to the project as it still descends an entire level below the PLOED, the swimming pool is still below the PLOED, and marina still goes out to the pierhead line and beyond into the harbor, and the project will still require setback variances and modification permits to allow it to exceed both the vertical and the horizontal PLOED on Carnation. The primary issue seems to be the definition of the Predominant Line of Existing Development along Carnation Bluff. The City Council set the line at 50.7. The General Plan has specific requirements for development along coastal bluffs and requires a conservative approach with detailed policies stating what can and cannot be built below the PLOED. 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 Altemative 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 hi her 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 Planning Commission June 1,2009 Page 2 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? Will other swimming pools be allowed to be built below the PLOED on the Carnation bluff? There is an exit tunnel to the marina at 44.4 feet. It is called an emergency exit, but it is in reality the passageway to the marina. How can this be acceptable? I own a property on the Carnation bluff, built above the PLOED. Will I be permitted to build a swimming pool below the PLOED on my property as well? What is the point of the General Plan if the first bluff project to come before the City after the implementation of the Plan is approved with multiple variances, allowing 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. There is a better Alternative which might be of interest to both the City and the Applicant, which would allow the Applicant most of his objectives without too much of a compromise, and would presumably allow for preservation of the bluff below the 50.7 PLOED. This would be the 5-unit Alternative. Although there is little information about this Alternative, it appears to possibly conform to the General Plan and CLUP policies. Here are some points to consider: A 5-unit project would potentially preserve the bluff below the 50.7 PLOED • 5-units would allow the Applicant all the amenities he wishes for his project The Applicant has stated that he has 5 investors (including himself} who are committed to the project and will live there. The 5 units will be available to all 5 investors. • 5 boat slips instead of 8. The Harbor Commission stressed that individual property owners do not have a right to one slip per owner, certainly not if it causes environmental harm. 5 slips rather than 8 may preserve the integrity of the Cove and allow the Applicant slips for each of his units Planning Commission June 1, 2009 Page 3 The negatives of the 5-unit Alternative as presently submitted are that the swimming pool may yet require variances below the PLOED. This option does not, as proposed, eliminate the utility poles or improve the catch basin. I believe that if the Applicant were to consider this Alternative, he may wish to provide these improvements in any case as it will improve the value of his own property. But even if not, I believe that saving a natural coastal bluff from significant destruction, preserving marine life and protecting the environmental integrity of the harbor, maintaining the PLOED on Carnation, and staying within the guidelines of the General Plan are all significantly more important to the City than 2 utilities poles and an upgraded catch basin. I would suggest that the Applicant be asked to provide details about the 5-unit Alternative and allow this plan to be circulated to all concerned. Thank you. Sincerely, Marilyn Beck