HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - Attachment F - Supplemental Correspondencerion Jeannette Architecture
July 18, 2008
Mr. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: . Aerie (PA 2005 -196)
201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place
Dear Jim:
Please accept this revised sheet as a replacement for A-1 8b in the previously submitted
drawings. It has just come to our attention that the artist's perspective of the rendering
in this exhibit (View from Bayside Drive Beach - Superimposed North Elevation) was
skewed from the angle of the photograph. The original rendering showed the southwest
corner of the building extending further oceanward than the existing building. The
rendering has been revised at the southwest corner to show the actual extent of the
building and decks — portions of which are actually behind the extent of the existing
building. In addition, the opening between the two proposed buildings, which varies
from 18' -6" to 20' -0 ", has been emphasized for clarity.
Please let us know if any further clarification is needed for this matter.
Thank you,
Brion S. Jean :e te, AIA
Architect
470 Old Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, CA 92663 . T: 949.645.5854 F: 949.645.5983
Members AIA 3 NCARB . www,custorncirchitecture.corn
Energy Consdous Design
U
m
v
Q
m
3
a
e
— w
C
h >Z
m co op
of
1 _
n
a
�Ia
L
z
.
u
--
z z
f1
'1O
I
x
L�
i
W
oN
L
I•«
x0 xO
=�
■■
E'
so
Q'
tEtkr
_
= rr{
U
m
v
Q
m
3
a
z
z
0 o
C
h >Z
m co op
of
1 _
�I
L
u
--
e
L
I•«
..J.t
E'
U
m
v
Q
m
3
a
z
z
0 o
C
h >Z
m co op
of
1 _
N w' -- ■
U' W N d Q =
ZJW r d>
w,� a aW i -
NO W� Sw
xUm_zU 1a
WN z 1 J
�3 Np O
x Up LL j
O OW
WG (iJ
>r 11
MIT?
UPn
� I ■s
A
ii
1.
$' inn
da.
mI •.
ip '
li
•- U
i
16 �
� w
1
1 CI
I
' 111
_
�
;- v
� LL1
q � i m
u1
u
LI
Q
{ m
Brown, Leilani
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from Blackberry
Harkless, LaVonne
Friday, July 18, 2008 9:25 AM
Brown, Leilani
Fw: Aerie support
----- Original Message -----
From: Beverley Johnson <Bjjohnsonrealtor@roadrunner.com>
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: Richard Julian <rjulian@advancedonline.com>
Sent: Fri Jul 18 09:22:22 2008
Subject: Aerie support
Dear Mayor and City Council,
"RECE'itl' WO -TER AGEii 1A..n
ti\ 1 LL.
I support the project that Rick Julian is proposing for the property known as Aerie.
Kind regards,
Beverley Johnson
3301 E. Coast Hwy
Corona del Mar
1
Jul 17 08 06:36p Connie Hughes 9497190863
I OPPOSE AERIE
I OPPOSE AERIE
. ... .... ---- ...... ....
From: Jo Carol <jc4rea1estate@earthlink. net>
To. Iharkless@city,newport-beach.ca.us
Subject: I OPPOSE AERIE
Date: Jul 17, 2008 6:32 PM
........ . ........... . ..... . ......
I oppose Aerie in Corona del Mar because it's so out of keeping with the area
in size and open space.
And I'm really suspect as to why your organization would greenlight a project
so out of keeping with the area.
It makes an honest and ethical person like myself wonder just how many palms are
being greased.
Jo Carol Hunter
4220 Park Newport
Newport Beach, CA.
P. I
Page I of I
... .......
bttp.-//webmaii.earthlink-net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=47&x709034546 1 7/17/2008
To: All City Council Members
From: Newport Beach Alliance — and all those opposed to Aerie
Re: AERIE Development at Ocean and Carnation
A group of concerned residents have been meeting with and
talking to Council members regarding the proposed development
at Ocean & Carnation which will come before the Council again
on Tuesday, July 22"d. We have been asked to share with all
Council members some information we have put together. We
thank you in advance for your consideration of these concerns.
• There are currently 10 properties along the Carnation bluff, including the two parcels
that make up the Aerie property.
• The total square footage of the 8 buildings along the Carnation bluff, excluding the Aerie
properties is approximately 30,000 sq feet. There are 5 condos ranging from 2 to 4 units
each and 3 single family homes. The current structures on the Aerie property total
approximately 17,000 sq feet.
• Added together, the square footage of all current existing structures on Carnation bluff is
approx 47,000 sq feet. Even if you add 25% more to that number for decks, garages,
etc .... the total for all structures. including the Aerie Drooertv is less than 60.000 so feet
• The proposed Aerie development alone is more than 63.000 sq feet.
• The properties adjacent to the Aerie project and across the street are all single family
homes.
• The properties on Carnation on the other side of the street are similar, small condo
complexes of 2 to 4 units each and relative in size to those on the bluff.
• There are 4 other structures on the Carnation bluff which are original and will be rebuilt
at some point in the future.
• Aerie, as proposed, sets a precedent of major proportions along this bluff. It will push
the envelope as to size and volume, and both the horizontal and vertical lines of
development. Horizontally, the development is at the furthest most point of the property
line. Vertically, it extends 25 feet below the 50.7' ft PLOED.
Why is this of concern to residents? Look at what is happening along Ocean over the public
beach. Older properties are being torn down, replaced by large homes squeezed onto small
lots and cascading down the bluff face. The most recent Brion Jeanette project is a prime
example. (See attached photos) New construction extends beyond the predominant line of
development both horizontally and vertically. The house next door has since begun a remodel
and now extends even lower and further out than the Jeanette project. The last parcel,
adjacent to Inspiration Point had a small cottage on it which will follow the same pattern.
This is what will happen along Carnation bluff once Aerie is approved at 63,000 sq feet. There
are still four other original structures on Carnation which will be re -developed, Aerie sets a
dangerous precedent for future Carnation development.
How does approval of Aerie fit within the guidelines of the General Plan and the provisions of
the CLUP? If you vote in favor of the project, are you responsibly representing the constituents
of Newport Beach who voted for a General Plan which protects neighborhoods and coastal
bluffs? How does a 63,000 sq ft building on a coastal bluff which is 4 times larger than the
existing structures minimize development of coastal bluffs. And how is it in keeping with the
size, scale and character of the existing neighborhood as required by the General Plan, when it
is larger in square footage than all other structures combined on Carnation?
r
C)
� Qom
e�°
Pv 6t 1L. 66"0
s
— �r
� � ��
F�
�'
i�
_.
r
��S7su�6•�i
Vw�wer� "7
�iaie4 2R+w ,� -
a8i'
:r�'b
Sunday March 9, 2008
Dear Members of the Harbor Commission,
We received the Notice of Public Hearing on March 120'regarding the proposed 201-207
Carnation Avenue Dock Replacement Project, and after reviewing the information on the
Harbor Resources website have many concerns regarding this project, including the
massive size of the proposed marina. It appears this request is coming to you under the
guise of a dock repair, when, in fact, it is an unprecedented and unfeasible proposal for
Newport Harbor and the City of Newport Beach.
The proposed dockage for nine (9) large vessels, including four (4) for vessels over 50'
and two (2) for 60' vessels is extreme considering the existing dock is for two (2) small
boats. In addition, if the 20 -foot existing gangway was replaced with a 60 -foot gangway
the docks would then project approximately 75 feet beyond the furthest point of the
existing dock and further then any other dock into the harbor entrance. This would
obstruct the flow of boat traffic going in and out of the harbor.
We are also concerned with the environmental ramifications of the proposed project and
will forward you a preliminary California Coastal Commission Report from May 14,
2007, which addresses the MND and is negative towards both the proposed Aerie
condominium complex and the dock system. To quote from this report "Habitat
Impacts/Water Quality. The MND states that 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 and 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'. How can the building of a 155' wave attenuator
NOT impact this sensitive area, as well as cause other problems?
We would assume that due to the special location of Carnation Cove, and the public's
enjoyment of its natural beauty over the years, that there would be many resource
protection agencies involved with any changes to the existing dock structure, as well as
CEQA issues.
If you were not already aware, the Aerie project was passed by the Planning Commission
last May, and then denied by the City Council last August due to it's massive size and the
destruction of a coastal bluff. It was recently passed again by the Planning Commission,
but it now appears that the MND was not accurate, so a new document will have to be
drafted, or perhaps a full EIR, before it goes back to the City Council. This project is
excessive in every way and continues to push the envelope. We, as citizens, appreciate
that we have a City Council who values the intent of the GP and CLUP policies.
We hope you will take these points into consideration and oppose this project.
Thank You,
Joe and Lisa Vallejo
2501 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar
Page 1 of 2
Lisa Vallejo
From: <KSMC949@aol.com>
To: <JCorrough@aol.com>; <ralph@rodheim-markefing.com>; <Dz7law@aol.com>;
<sbeek@earthlin k. net>; <tim@tcollins.com>; <dufty@duftyboats.com>;
<Rhyneharbor@aol.com>; <trossmiller@city.newport-beach.ca.us>; <cmiller@city.newport-
beach.ca.us>; <jlarcese@city.newport-beach.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Dock replacement project 201-207 CarnatlonAvenue
Monday, March 10, 2008
Dear Members of the Harbor Commission:
After reviewing the proposed dock replacement project for 201-207 Carnation Avenue we have several concerns that we
would like address before Approval in Concept is considered by the Harbor Commission or the Harbor Resources
Department.
Our first concern is that the applicant states that they are requesting eight (8) replacement moorings for the eight (8) new
residential units proposed and yet the plan dearly shows 9 moorings for boats. This is an interesting application in that the
applicant has not secured permits for any units to date, has had previous plans denied by City Council for being inconsistent
with City and State policy, for over massing the site and numerous other reasons. He has just reapplied for 8 units versus
the original 9 without reducing the massing or adhering to policy. It is our belief that the applicant will be required by the
City and State to continue reducing the number of units until he conforms to all Policies. We now feel it would be more
appropriate to Walt until all permits for an exact number of units have been issued before plans for new moorings are
considered or permitted as there would be no confusion as to the number or size of moorings allowable.
Our second concern is that if the existing structure of under 5004eet can moor four (4) 25 -foot class boats per Harbor
Resources report why is the applicant requesting approximately 3,000 more feet of space to accommodate 4
more moorings or less. Based on the drawing submitted it would seem that If the applicant stayed with the existing
configuration they could easily accommodate more moorings larger than 25 -feet, not exceed the property line and a wave
attenuator would not be necessary.
Our third concern is that the applicant is asking to project into Public Right of Way by a distance of almost 75 -feet and a
length of 155 -feet. 75 -feet represents the new dock plus a 20 -foot beam on a 60 -foot yacht tied to the outside as delineated
on the plan. Of course that beam width could be wider depending on the type of yacht the applicant intends to have. This
proposed plan exceeds the property line by approximately 40 -feet without the yachts and 60 -feet or more with the
yachts tied outside. This would seriously affect the flow of traffic in the harbor particularly smaller boats, electric boats,
rentals, kayaks and canoes that tend to stay close to the docks and out of the lane of large traffic,
Others speakers will address the eel grass, the natural rock outcroppings, the marine habitat and the environmental
ramifications of the proposed marina. I would like to address the damage that has already been done to the cove.
Evidently the applicant secured permission to have sand removed from the Channel Reef Condominiums and had
it pumped into the cove and beach that he did not own and did so without any of the neighbors being notified. This sand
infusion resulted in the height of the beach at Carnation Cove increasing by approximately 4 -feet and the depth of the beach
from the stairs to the water increasing by at least 30 -feet. Existing rock outcroppings were either buried or partially buried,
the natural course of the water through the cove was changed, the sand dollar population that inhabited the entire bay was
covered or destroyed, the kelp bed that existed for the 20 + years we have lived here has disappeared and our dock which
never sat out of the water during the lowest tide of the year now sits partially out of the water on an average low tide.
Kayaks and canoes had always been able to move through the cove and under our dock ramp - during low tide the water
under the ramp was always 5 to 8 feet deep - now it is sand. What will happen as the imported sand continues to shift?
What will happen to all of the existing docks and boats on this side of the Bay if a 155 -foot wave attenuator is approved and
how will that further affect the cove.
I grew up In Newport Beach, we live on the cove, still swim in it during the summer and have enjoyed watching families drop
anchor outside of our dock, swim in with children, snorkel and generally enjoy this clean safe bit of the harbor, now there is
a buoy partially blocking the entrance and I can't help but wonder how much more it will be destroyed. Mr. Julian
approached us 2 years ago asking to join his new proposed dock to our dock In the hopes of creating a private marina for
the use of he and his tenants and ourselves -we opposed that idea, we oppose his excessive dock replacement plans, feel
that they do not serve the best interest of Newport Harbor and its residents and hope that you too will be in opposition to
this project.
Thank you for you7= *
time a d consideration. (�
3/11/2008
Is this the Future of Newport Beach?
The density
and massing
of this hotel -
like structure
is too much
for the area.
The Proposed Aerie Condominium Complex
at Carnation Avenue & Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar
- Eight Condos Averaging 5,000 sq. ft. Each
- Six Levels
- Approximately 62,822 sq. ft., Nearly Four Times Larger Than Existing Structures
- Existing Structures Total Less Than 16,498 sq. ft.
- Does this conform to the Coastal Land Use Plan to minimize alterations to coastal bluffs?
Existing stmctures
Think this
isn't a
problem
because it's
not in your
neighborhood
... yet?
This scenic bluff and cove are visible throughout Newport Harbor
The Peninsula * Balboa Island * Ocean Boulevard * Carnation Avenue * Begonia Park
This Complex does not conform to the City of Newport Beach's
General Plan, its Land Use Policies, or the Coastal Act which
promise to protect our scenic and visual resources.
The Project includes a massive dock
expansion including a 155 foot concrete
seawall. with docks extending into
the main channel.
This could potentially restrict public access
to Carnation Cove, and present a threat to
protected marine life.
This Project is strongly opposed by Newport's
pre-eminent environmental group, SPON.
You Can Help Preserve the Quality of Life We All Enjoy in Our
Beach Community Today & for Future Generations
Please Oppose This Project - NO on AERIE
Yes For Responsible Development
Come to the City Council Meeting Tuesday, July 22nd at 7:00 PM, Newport Beach City Council Chambers
and Make A Differencel
e City ouncf ac For More Information Contact
�Iha�rkloss;cl't� or on-beach.ca.us Newport Beach Alliance 949-224-2373
or
Fax City Clerk at 949-6443039 The mbrmanon con;emenmmis amcle is Hasse upon lydnmvnon recelvee regaramg ae neva commas ala s benmee ;o ee acwraie nay mors
m Ae :2eslmise�p' d,951alemen; o1;ne mbnnanon nere;n Is unin;entbnal. arM any nebllily f". mbe;nlemem re epeafiGay ewmea
attention Mavor Fd Selich I
a
I ,
IL
KEYNOTES:
l� I QS PROPOSE➢ 4Cx'F.DNSD CYR•i
I
l �
� PPn.ACL sEE=z v zvDRu
� � � �, � r' r RbACE WinME FA•L'NrS
_ n
L PRtAGSW mm I. D''.a mmc [Du_
_ Pz
3'` I � •cr ANENTss M"y DAR [CSTRG
E"N" DDO' 'I'D G.RGF'A• 1L 8£ R£MDKD
A 195• I 11ll - \ry, , RDUR EKl RE 5^PS
l�
i•1DA
LEGEND:
e1
EE. cRa
i, `Trt 1� ' • / u PRO•DSEO DON;. Om
�N ••I �' Paa85ED rgro pccx 1G[ •wiy
l N10PDSED PDrvL DENTw
1 4t ,+, I. �. • PROPoiED PYE
1) t FF Tp.R-
REPLACEMENT TERRACE AREA = 720 S.F.
1 ,�R+1 - •r- 1 1.t ~;.1�` EXISTING TERRACE AREA = 720 S.F.
REPLACE ELEVATED WALKWAY AREA . 570 S.F.
"Erb, `• • ' \ EXISTING ELEVATED WALKWAY AREA . S705 F
•L `
(R) GANGWAY PLATFORM PILE COUNT. 4 PUS @ 14.4
(E) GANGWAY PLATFORM PILE COUNT; 4 PILES ®14•E
M �. (1 �1 •' L REPLACEMENT GANGWAY: 5x44'
EXISTING GANGWAY: 4'X20'
if
PROPOSED DOCK AREA : 3.448 S.F.
EXISTING DOCK AREA 490 S.F.
� 1 _ .i NE�iVCP,EASE y 2.Q58 S.F.
PROPOSED DOCK PILE COUNT: S PILES Jiro
f F 1 F)`Llt \ 9PILESQ 24.0
'1L EXISTING DOCK PILE COUNT: 5 PILES
DOCKS OVER EEL GRASS = 0 S.F.
Carnation Cove
DOCK LAYOUT
iJ2 o Po sE D Dock
07/17/2008 13:36 9496463318 LAWRENCE A BROWN DPM PAGE 01
LAWRENCE A. BROWN, D.P.M. ? ! ,_ ! t':
1 Foot ono Ankle Specialist'' Surgery, Diseases & Injuries of the Foot & Ankre
Newport Superior Medical Plaza
1.501 Superior Ave., Suite 304
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949)642-2329
C'! -+,y Clerk
Attention: Maynr Pd Relich.
Newnnct. Beach, CA
RE: 6tipport of Aerie proje t in Corona, Del Mar.
Dear Mayor Ed. Sellch,
Z hav had a. medical practirp and resided in News --t
1Q8?. T was cttrpr=sed ant, a.�nallr-rl, by the 6113 na. r.1e ad Rpnr Ag Jnn
n the "Daily Pilot" on Sunday 107-13-08?. 1 :-aye Swan 77.1 th.,
information, attended all the meetings- vis -t Pd the a,rt!?al
and npnke nersor'ally to Mr_ .7uliar, and Mr. .7panstt,+. My 7rT-,-,
i9 that this is a terrific project_ t am flilly s•inrortipq thJs
project and renuest that. the City C'ntlnril Vote In fatter -F _'+
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence A. Rrnwn, n.M,E
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Peggie Fariss ipeggiefadss@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: Rick Julian
Subject: Support for Aerie Project
Honorable Mayor Selich and Esteemed Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my support for the Aerie project. I've followed the proceedings for some time
now and been continuously impressed with Mr. Julian's commitment to the highest standards of
design, his sensitivity to the concerns of his neighbors, to enhancing the quality of our community
and his unflagging efforts to find the best solutions.
I hope you, too, will give this worthy project your support.
Respectfully,
Peggie Fariss
418 Heliotrope Ave
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Harkless, LaVonne
From: v4mccaffrey@adelphia.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:33 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: rjulian@advancedonlin.com
Subject: AERIE Project
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council: I have lived at 2525 Ocean Blvd for over 22 years. I have studied
the Aerie project in great depth, attended most of the public hearings and spoken numerous times
with Mr. Julian. This is a first class project from a first class guy, it fits in with other development in
the neighborhood, specifically here at Channel Reef, and it should now be approved. I am greatly in
support of this project. Regards, Bill McCaffrey P.S. Thanks so much for your help last year with our
sand, a win-win for everyone affected.
LaVonne
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear council members:
Berk Kellogg Ib.kellogg@sbcglobal.netj
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:58 AM
Harkless, LaVonne
Aerie Condominium
err:• ,�.,
t;
My wife and I have lived on Ocean Blvd. for 50 years and we have seen
a great deal of development
but nothing on the scale of this project which will overwhelm its
neighborhood. Please vote against it unless it is substantially
reduced. In our neigborhood the height level is limited to the curb
height.
Sincerely,
Berk & Laurie Kellogg
3309 Ocean Blvd.
1
""F i'.: .
My wife and I have lived on Ocean Blvd. for 50 years and we have seen
a great deal of development
but nothing on the scale of this project which will overwhelm its
neighborhood. Please vote against it unless it is substantially
reduced. In our neigborhood the height level is limited to the curb
height.
Sincerely,
Berk & Laurie Kellogg
3309 Ocean Blvd.
1
Harkless, LaVonne
From: LYLEEN EWING [Ijewing@coldwellbanker.com] � `' "
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:43 AM ;
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: Richard Julian
Subject: Aerie
Dear Council, We are enthusiastically endorsing the Aerie project. This beautiful improvement at the corner of
Ocean Blvd. and Carnation will be a definite asset to CDM and specifically to that neighborhood. Mr. Julian has
been more than willing to listen to his neighbors' concerns and has complied in every way possible. We look
forward to the completion of this worthy project and ask that you grant your prompt approval.
Lyleen and Bob Ewing
46 year residents
07/16/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Larry Romine [larryromine@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:07 AM
57
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Attion: Ed Selich Regarding the Aerie Project
Dear Sir,
My wife & I have lived in old Corona del Mar for more than 40 years. We generally believe in allowing property owners to do as
they please with their property as long as it is in compliance with all planning restrictions. We have been disappointed in the past
with the variances allowed by the Planning Commission. It is our opinion that their decisions have allowed a deterioration of the
ambience of the city -
With respect to the Aeries Project, if the proposal is as described in the Daily Pilot of Sunday July 13,2008, we request that it not
be approved until the plan is modified and can be built without any variances.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Larry Romine
07/16/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: MaCampanaro@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:44 PM — - -
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: Oulian@advancedonlin.com
Subject: Aerie Project
Dear City Council,
I do realize that free speech is one of the cornerstones of our freedom's. However, I wish that the representations which
occur under our free press would include reality.
First, the old building that has been overlooking the harbor entrance was there when I lived across the street 30 years ago,
and it was in sore need of removal at that point.
Second, if the dock pictured in the Daily Pilot was anywhere near the size that they depicted, half the channel would be
encumbered. Ridiculous.
The people who have a problem with a better looking and more efficient building , replacing an older and inefficient
building, have some sort of an personal agenda against the new, improved model. The way in which they have depicted the
entire project stupefies anyone with a reasonable knowledge of coastal building patterns and norms.
The project is a feather in the cap for Newport Beach and will renovate and rejuvenate the entire cliff, which has been in dire
need of a face-lift for some time.
Sincerely,
Mark Campanaro
Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
07/16/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: cleoparker@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:35 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie
No, no, no!! How could anyone who works for or lives
Corona del Mar village. Apparently there is an enormo
government of Newport Beach.
L!'.:^
JU
in Newport Beach`support this monstrosity in
,e dysjunct bdWeen the residents and the
The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now!
07/16/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Ron Michelson [channelf5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:14 PM f
To: Harkless, LaVonne
6fe to I(�'
Subject: Aide project
Dear Newport Beach City Council,
As owners of two condominiums in the Channel Reef I would like to weigh in on the proposed Aerie project.
We are OPPOSED to this huge, development.
It does not reflect the neighborhood and would disrupt the quality of life in this corner of Corona del Mar for years.
I am also VERY concerned how the construction of a new 155 foot seawall and large marina would alter the continual sand
buildup and dredging problems that we already experience.
Unfortunately our community association president sent a letter to the City several months ago stating that The Channel Reef
Community supported the development. He did this without polling the owners. There are many here that do NOT support the
Aerie and want to let you know that his letter does not represent us as a whole.
Thank you,
Ronald and Mary Michelson,Channelf Reef, Units F-5 and G-1
Making the world a better place one message at a time. Check out the I'm Talkathon.
07/16/2008
�ZOOY
Patricia V Zorn `
,�- LIT��� c
,(XI d(4�-
9,�`q -b73
"RECESUr AI iER A xZMiM
Brown, Leilani
PRINTED:" — D
From: Harkless, LaVonne
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:07 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fw: Absolute NO ON BUILDING ON CARNATION BLUFF
Sent from Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Watson <pitipat@roadrunner.com>
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Sent: Tue Jul 22 16:56:03 2008
Subject: Absolute NO ON BUILDING ON CARNATION BLUFF
In the interest of preservation of the beauty of the natural bluffs at Corona Del Mar - I am
ABSOLUTELY AGAINST the building at Carnation bluff. Also, I oppose the futher down -building of
the bluff to the beach. Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to keep our "natural look" for posterity.
Pat Watson
515 Poppy Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
aa- I-aa-oq
URS
Cash & Associates
July 21, 2008
Mr. Jim Campbell
Sr. Planner
City of Newport Beach
Subject: "Aerie" Waterfront Project
Dock Views/Wave Attenuator
URS Project No: 30990114.00001
1 have been requested to comment on 1) the impact of the installation of the Proposed Docks, from the
standpoint of Unloaded Docks; re: Existing vs. Proposed Dock plans, and how this may impact the
views from and to the Main Channel and existing bluff and residences; and 2) the Wave Attenuator.
Impacts to Views
The existing docks are composed of four (4) slips, perpendicular to the coastline with a short 20ft
gangway landing on these docks, also perpendicular to the coastline. The length of this dock is
approximately 40ft, with an approximate freeboard (dimension above the water surface to the upper
limit of the docks) of 18 inches.
The Proposed Docks have eight (8) permanent slips and one (1) small guest slip side tie. The length of
the overall dock perpendicular to the coastline is approximately 190ft, with 155ft of this overall
dimension relating to the end tie Long Dock. The gangway for this dock will be approximately 55ft an is
oriented on a diagonal, fronting the rock outcropping. This dock system will also have a floating
freeboard of approximately 18 inches.
Based on the Unloaded condition, existing residences would have unblocked views of the Main
Channel and Channel activities. Views of the Bluffs from the Main Channel would not be impacted by
the Proposed docks. Views of the rock outcropping from the Main Channel will be impacted, to the
extent of the height of the Proposed docks (18 inches) and the open trussstructure of the gangway
fronting the rock outcropping.
Wave Attenuator
Due to the results of the Coastal Engineering Report, we no -longer have the perceived need for a Wave
Attenuator (Floating dock with a deeper submerged draft) and will replace this with a standard floating
dock made from heavy structural construction, similar to the rest of the dock system. This portion of
the dock will hence forward be referenced as the "End Tie".
Sincerely,
Randy H. Mason, PE
C030661
URS Corporation
5772 Boise Avenue, Suite 100
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Tel: 714.895.2072
Fax: 714.895.1291
Mail, P.O. Box 2715
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
�''� -. ':'.... �.�`=�'&� __, �, �:..,.y--•�.m.- mss. •.S -P' -
y �:
n
f L
._ _ -+ v _,-'R ... _.,.,'-• n, �ga:ulp �' ' ' r..vu.�.�..:;. w...+enn N€, a�, .,. --. _ _: — _ _. _ - -._
.- ...+r;'�a �{i:+ C4 N.r_w li .� w i,v,", Vie•_ .�r�
�d �µµ�I �•
-
j
lie
"•- 6� moo.... � � .. _••
i
_ w
WINTER SUMMER
SOLSTICE SOLSTICE
32° 78°
� 1
� 1
1 �
AERIE
DOCK SHADOW
LAYOUT
Hello, My name is John Michler.
I live at 1704 Avenida Salvdor in San Clemente.
I formerly I lived at 2323 Bayside Drive, which is located on Carnation cove, just below
the subject property. From this location you can see the existing apartments very clearly.
I had always hoped that someday someone would tear down those ugly old apartments
and build something nice there.
I believe that the Aerie project is just the right thing for this site so near the harbor
entrance. It will add architectural beauty and character, it will be and apt replacement for
the old China House which used to be the architectural icon at the entrance to the harbor.
It will provide architectural diversity and interest and thus be a benefit to the entire
community.
On another topic, I would like to express my opinion regarding the opposition to this
project. The most vocal opponent to this project lives next door to the site. To me they
are the most two faced and duplicitous comments of all. These people live in a 5,000 sq.
ft. house with a one car garage which is built right on top of and down the bluff face from
top to bottom at the water.
Starting with the garage, which appears to be on stilts, the house looks like a bunch of
containers right out of Long Beach Harbor. It looks like they have been stacked on top of
one another and painted white so that you can see them from a mile away. I see no
reason why they should be so vocal against this project when their own home is an
eyesore when compared with the Aerie project.
Thank you for your time.
John A. Michler
i
r
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
July 22, 2008
Mayor Ed Selich and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Re: Aerie
Mayor Selich and Members of the Council:
baa - 'I-a.D-d)�
Tim Peons
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371-2519
E-mail: tpaone@manatt.com
This letter is written on behalf of Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc, the applicant for
the project known as "Aerie" which is on your agenda for this evening. This letter will
respond to three last-minute submittals which clearly were timed to encourage you to
either delay tonight's hearing or deny the application. We urge you not to take the bait.
Our comments on the respective letters are as follows:
Coast Law Group Letter: This letter misstates the facts and the law in several
respects:
1. Fair Argument Standard: Not only does the letter fail to properly apply CEQA's
"fair argument" standard in the proper context, it also does not present an
argument which falls within the very definition of "fair argument" quoted by the letter
itself:
■ The standard derives from CEQA Section 21080(d) which states that an EIR must
be prepared if there is "substantial evidence, in light of the whole record ... that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment...." As noted by the
letter, Section 21080(e)(1) defines substantial evidence as "fact, a reasonable
assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact' (emphasis
added). What the Coast Law Group fails to reference is the next section
(21080(e)(2)) which provides as follows:
"Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, [or] evidence that is clearly inaccurate or
erroneous...."
Thus, simply "throwing mud on the wall" does not alone constitute a fair
argument. The Coast Law Group has thrown a lot of mud at the project this
afternoon, but none of it sticks for the reasons discussed below.
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Mayor Ed Selich and Members of the City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 2
■ Additionally, the fair argument standard must be viewed relative to Section 15070
of the Guidelines which states that the City "shall' prepare a mitigated negative
declaration if the project has been modified by the applicant to mitigate potential
environmental impacts. As you all know quite well, the Aerie project has been
substantially revised on several occasions in response to issues raised by staff,
the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The fair argument
standard must be applied to the project as described only in the current MND.
That MND does, in fact, reflect the applicant's agreement to incorporate specific
mitigation measures into the project itself to address environmental concerns.
Thus, the issue before the Council is not whether a fair argument existed BEFORE
mitigation and project changes had been incorporated into the proposed project
(which occurred BEFORE the final MND was circulated), but rather whether a fair
argument remains after the project has been so modified. In this case, either (1) the
MND itself establishes that the potential environmental impacts cited by the Coast
Law letter have been addressed or (2) the "evidence" submitted by the Coast Law
Group does not meet the requirements to establish a fair argument. Specifically:
a. The threat to the bluffs cited by the letter refers to comments made by Mayor
Selich on August 14, 2007. Since that time, the perceived threat has been
mitigated by project revisions which keep development above the PLOED
established by the Council, consistent with the quoted comments of Mayor
Selich. The MND prepared for the revised project establishes compliance with
the PLOED, thus protecting scenic coastal views. This is what CEQA requires.
b. With respect to the alteration of the bluff, the letter ignores that the City's CLUP
(Policy 4.4.3-8) specifically allows development at this location on the bluff face
to the PLOED. While we understand that all CLUP policies must be addressed
individually, this affirmative statement evidences the City's intent that alteration
of the bluff face is permitted for this property, subject to the PLOED constraints
and other policy considerations. However, those policies cannot be interpreted
to negate Policy 4.4.3-8 any more than Policy 4.4.3-8 can be applied to eliminate
all other applicable policies.
c. With respect to the proposed excavation, the letter does little more than to recite
the project description relative to excavation quantities. It ignores the MND's
direct conclusion that excavation behind the bluff face is consistent with the
City's policies related to minimization of alteration of landforms. The basis for
this conclusion is that the various policies at issue here are intended to address
preserving the scenic qualities of view of the exposed and visible bluff, as has
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Mayor Ed Selich and Members of the City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 3
been accomplished by the modifications to the project since the August 2007
City Council meeting. The fact that the Coast Law Group "finds it hard to
understand" or simply disagrees with this logic simply does not establish that
there is a fair argument that the proposed excavation has a negative impact on
the environment.
a. With respect to the numerous alleged fair arguments pertaining to geotechnical
issues, the to the letter received just today from David H. Lee & Associates falls
well short of establishing any fair argument. On its face, Mr. Lee's letter does
little more than recite portions of the project description and speculate that a
parade of horrible could follow from construction of the project. Even if Mr. Lee
can be qualified as a geotechnical expert, his opinions must be supported by
facts. To the contrary, he has provided the City with nothing more than a string
of conclusions without reference to any reports or data to support those
conclusions. His logic suggests little more support for his conclusions than
"because I said so." Curiously, he has mixed his unsubstantiated opinion
regarding geotechnical issues with commentary regarding planning issues, an
area in which he clearly has not demonstrated any expertise. Therefore, based
on CEQA's definition of substantial evidence (the same thing as "fair argument")
quoted above, Mr. Lee has provided only unsubstantiated opinion and
speculation which is clearly designed to delay rather than inform.
b. With respect to compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the Coast Law
Group and its clients appear to be urging the City Council to violate its own
General Plan and CLUP by limiting this landowner to single family development
despite the fact that virtually all of this site is designated for multi -family use.
Further, had the Coast Law Group reviewed the City's planning documents, it
would have realized that this area is, in fact, primarily designated for multi -family
use. And, no matter how they may try, the reality is that the neighborhood
includes, among other multi -family uses, the Channel Reef condominiums,
which is the southerly neighbor of the Coast Law Group's clients. This gross
mischaracterization of facts hardly constitutes a "fair argument" that an
environmental impact exists.
c. References in this letter to tiebacks into adjoining properties ignore the fact that
the project's geotechnical report does not indicate the need for tiebacks on the
property of the Coast Law Group's clients. Therefore, the unwillingness of the
Mclntoshes and the Vallejos to consent to tiebacks is irrelevant.
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Mayor Ed Selich and Members of the City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 4
2. Coastal Act Issues: The letter's references to provisions of the Coastal Act range
from inaccurate to speculative to simply inappropriate. The City Council is charged
with interpreting and applying its general plan and the CLUP. The Coastal
Commission will issue the Coastal Development Permit for the project. In doing so,
it will interpret and apply the provisions of the Coastal Act. Suffice it to say, the
Coast Law Group's interpretation of the provisions of the Coastal Act is just that:
interpretation. The Coastal Commission will have its review of the project at the
appropriate time and, as you know, that is AFTER the City issues its approval in
concept. The Coast Law Group might prefer to circumvent the City's role in this
process, but that is not the law.
3. tight and Glare: The MND finds that there is no glare from the structure (Page 30)
and that lighting will not spill from the structure (Page 34). Additionally, the MND
finds that "lighting associated with the landing and the boat dock would be similar
to that which currently exists in this area," resulting in no additional lighting and
glare impacts. Therefore, the concern raised by the letter is effectively addressed in
the MND because the MND establishes that there will be no significant change in
glare or lighting from existing conditions. Therefore, a significant impact could not
be found and there can be no fair argument of a significant impact on resources
from glare and light.
The David H. tee tetter. This letter has been discussed above. In short, it fails to
constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument because it does little more than to
recite certain aspects of the project description and offer unsubstantiated evidence
without the benefit of factual support, technical data, or geotechnical reports. The
project's geotechnical consultant will be present at tonight's hearing to address any
issues which the Council may have.
The Selman tetter. For starters, although Aerie obviously does not dispute that the
project must be consistent with the general plan and the CLUP, the opening reference
to Government Code Section 65867.5 has nothing to do with this project as it comes
from the State's Development Agreement statute. This displays the author's lack of
familiarity with the entitlement process which is reflected throughout this letter.
GP / CLUP Consistency: This letter fails to consider recent amendments to the
City's CLUP which arose directly from the interpretation of the policies applicable
(or not) to this project. The two references to CLUP Policy 4.4.3-8 is outdated.
That section has been amended and a new policy added which clarifies that the
"no feasible alternative" requirement applies only to public projects and not to
private development. But far more important, as for all of the policies cited, to the
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Mayor Ed Selich and Members of the City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 5
extent that they accurately reflect the current CLUP, the letter simply recites
policies, but makes not attempt to indicate how those policies have been violated.
The letter says absolutely nothing on the consistency issue.
2. Visual Compatibility: Contrary to their public statements, the Mclntoshes and
Vallejos do not want the property developed in the manner provided by the general
plan. It is grossly disingenuous for them to argue that they want general plan
consistency. As noted above, while they have gone to great lengths to convince the
public and the Council that this is a single-family residential area, the reality is that
virtually all of this property is designated multi -family residential, the existing
structure is a multi -family structure, the bulk of the immediate neighborhood is
multi -family residential, and the Mclntoshes and Vallejos have elected to live
between multi -family properties.
3. Coastal Bluff. Please see the response to the same issues as presented by the
Coast Law Group and David Lee.
These letters make broad unsubstantiated statements with absolutely no legal or factual
support. They add little to the discussion and certainly fail to present any substantial
evidence of a fair argument that a significant adverse environmental impact will result
from the project as revised and now before the Council.
A remarkable amount of time and effort have gone into the refinement of this project so
that a superior plan could be presented to you tonight. Your staff, Rick Julian, and
Rick's professional team have spent countless hours to respond to direction from the
Council and the Planning Commission and to address, within reason, the concerns of
the community. Aerie continues to request your support for approval of this project.
Sincerely,
171T�%%ia
"RECEIV AFTER A ENDA
PRINTED:"
Brown, Leilani
From: Harkless, LaVonne
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:07 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fw: Absolute NO ON BUILDING ON cARNATION BLUFF
Sent from Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Watson <pitipat@road runner. com>
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Sent: Tue Jul 22 16:56:03 2008
Subject: Absolute NO ON BUILDING ON cARNATION BLUFF
In the interest of preservation of the beauty of the natural bluffs at Corona Del Mar - I am
ABSOLUTELY AGAINST the building at Carnation bluff. Also, I oppose the futher down -building of
the bluff to the beach. Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to keep our "natural look" for posterity.
Pat Watson
515 Poppy Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
THE FICKER GROUP
"RECEIVE aR a7 A OYi
PRIM ED:" d
CONSULTING a PLANNING
__.
URBAN PI.ANNIN(;
AU70K TI I- • RFTAII.
WILLIAM P. FICKER. AIA• NCARB LAND ''I'T -AR(1NITFr LURE
✓;REATIn;`l•'A1AT I`,TR(,-NT
MEMO
Date: July 22, 2008 Y`
To: City Council. City of Newport Beach
From: William P. Fidcer, AIA Emeritus
Re: AERIE (DA 2005-196)
July 22, 2008 Council Agenda Item 22 A
1. I have visited the site, and viewed it from various land and water vantage points.
2. 1 have read the staff report and reviewed the applicants' drawings in the planning office.
3. Comments
3.1 Planning
Good planning is sensitive to a surrounding community and this project in scale and
design ignores its community and neighbors.
3.2 General Plan
There has been great pride expressed in our General Plan and the Chamber of
Commerce has diligently expressed the importance of implanting it. If this project "fits"
the intent of the General Plan, then we should declare a "General Plan Emergency' and
declare it "invalid."
3.3 The Coastal Bluff
A. There are enough people to point out the "insensitivity" of this plan, as it treats
the community and its overwhelming size and aesthetic imposition, so I will
restrict my following comment to only one point 1 consider overwhelmingly
important and that is the "Coastal Bluff."
B. What I read seems only to be concerned with the "visual" or "surface" of the
coastal bluff. This bluff provides "buttressing" of the surrounding property.
Merely removing it with 40 foot vertical cuts at the street and the adjacent
property may seriously jeopardize the stability of these surrounding public and
private properties.
4. Conclusions
4.1 1 strongly recommend that you deny this application because of its negative impact on
the natural bluff and the surrounding "twitt community.
417 THIRTIETH 5TRELI % NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662's PHONE (949)676-9628. FAX (840) 675-9638
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Derby [derbyw@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:34 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Project
"REHIV�-:At-TER AGENDA
I would like to let the Council know that I believe this project would be an asset to the community and am
fully in support of it. The design is very creative and would enhance our community.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fran Williams
a
07/22/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Helga Pralle [hpralle@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:26 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: AERIE project
I am a Corona del Mar resident (2727 Ocean Blvd.) and I strongly
object to the Aerie project as planned. For years now the City Council
has approved projects that have gotten larger and larger and taken
away from our scenic beauty. I feel that the Aerie project, as
planned, would do irreparable damage to the beauty of the neighborhood
and Newport Beach harbor. I believe that any new development on the
site should not exceed the existing structures and should preserve the
bl uff.
Helga Pralle
07/22/2008 14:12 FAX 9496756903 WELTON & CO. IM001
by fax to 644-3039
I am opposed to the project in its revised form.
The mass is stM very excessive for the site.
"RECEIVP AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:°
Fa
Remember that in the six ies, Cedric Roberts had to use dynamite
to complete the Channel Reef koting emea.vation.
1 1 _ r: 1 li t ♦1 11 . ,L 1 :� 1 1, f :. - - +• 1.] . il.l •, ,
=1.. 1'�i• .L.1 1 q • 11' :.11 Y. 1:-f 11 N11.' T 4 I
In that eventuality, the project could be stalled. ,with it being
even mare uneconamie than its &Iready tortMMd, OOnfiguratmm
Because of high land price, this project design was Forced into
unknown and untested territory , giving rise to the possibility of
the City having to deal with an abandon{ white elephant.
The project Should be dr& be0y reduced and the City should
require a project oompleiaan band.
Remember that in the six ies, Cedric Roberts had to use dynamite
to complete the Channel Reef koting emea.vation.
1 1 _ r: 1 li t ♦1 11 . ,L 1 :� 1 1, f :. - - +• 1.] . il.l •, ,
=1.. 1'�i• .L.1 1 q • 11' :.11 Y. 1:-f 11 N11.' T 4 I
In that eventuality, the project could be stalled. ,with it being
even mare uneconamie than its &Iready tortMMd, OOnfiguratmm
Because of high land price, this project design was Forced into
unknown and untested territory , giving rise to the possibility of
the City having to deal with an abandon{ white elephant.
The project Should be dr& be0y reduced and the City should
require a project oompleiaan band.
Harkless, LaVonne
From:
Donna Wall [dwallnpt@roadrunner.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:36 PM
To:
Harkless, LaVonne
Cc:
dulian@advancedonline.com
Subject: Aerie Development
To the City Council of Newport Beach:
MNITH. wale
7 as �0
Just to go on record that as a resident of CdM and as a realtor specializing in CdM for the past 20 years;
I feel the Aerie Development is a positive addition to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Donna Wall
402 Iris
92625
07/22/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Keith Dawson [kdawson@dawsondawson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:05 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Project
ldW%i
Mayor Selich and Members of the Newport Beach City Counsel, although I plan to appear and speak at tonight's
meeting in support of the Aerie project, please add my name to the list of CDM residents who are in favor of the
Project. I look forward to appearing before you tonight.
KEITH DAWSON
949-720-9414 FAX 949-759-9144
THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE
RECIPIENT AND CONSTITUTE PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
07/22/2008
SELMAN
%BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Jennifer Rend
714.647.2516
jfriendeselmanbreitman.com
July 22, 2008
Via Messeaser
Via E -Mail
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
F3 0I
600 West Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 501
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4551
Telephone 714.647.9700
Facsimile 714.647.9200
www.selmanbreitman.com
"RECEI1t 1, ER AGE
FRIM -.TEC:"
/ o U
Re: AERIE PROJECT (2005-196)
July 22, 2008 City Council Hearing
201-205 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Drive
Comments Regarding Project Revisions, Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Coastal Development Permit
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Selman Breitman, LLP submits this letter of opposition on behalf of Kathleen McIntosh, residing
at 2495 Ocean Blvd., and Joe and Lisa Vallejo, residents of 2501 Ocean Blvd., in Corona del
Mar. This letter also references and incorporates all written and oral comments made by Selman
Breitman, LLP, Coast Law Group, LLP, David Lee & Associates and Scott Porterfield of The
Moote Group, on our clients' behalf. The written documents and oral arguments in opposition of
this proposed development, establish that the approval of this project is unauthorized by the
City's own land use documents inclusive of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as well
as the Coastal Act. The approval of this project is not supported by fair or substantial reason,
and must be denied This project will substantially alter and destroy the coastal bluff and natural
landform upon which it will be placed. Further, the negative environmental impacts of this
project, which are significant, have not been adequately reviewed in the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, and a full environmental review is required.
1. THE "REVISED" AERIE PROJECT VIOLATES THE CTTY'S OWN GENERAL
PLAN AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
Pursuant to Government Code §65867.5, there is a public duty not to approve development
rights unless the legislative body finds the provisions of the development proposal are consistent
with any general or specific plan for the area. The City may only permit development that is
5322&1 300.25035
Los Angeles . San Francisco Orange County/inland Empire . San Diego . las Vegas
SELMAN
CiBREITMAN
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 2
allowed by its General Plan and land use documents. The land use element is the controlling
element when decision makers review the proposed and allowable uses of city land. Cal.
Government Code §65302(a). The Aerie Project is not allowed by the City's General Plan.
Accordingly, to allow for the proposed development, would constitute an abuse of discretion.
The City of Newport Beach has authored and ratified the General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan (CLUP). Within the CLUP, the City mandates the following:
(1) "Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative
exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of
bluff face ... and to be visually compatible..." CLUP 4.4.3-8;
(2) Require visual compatibility to the maximum extent feasible. City
can only permit development to PLOED when no feasible
alternative exists and must be designed to minimize the alteration
of the bluff face. CLUP 4.4-8&9;
(3) Where feasible, restore and enhance visual quality in visually
degraded areas. CLUP 4.4.1-1;
(4) The mere establishment of a PLOED should not be interpreted to
determine the boundaries of development size and scope.
CLUP 4.4.3-19;
(5) Development site design and construction techniques must
"minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent
feasible". CLUP 4.4.3-12;
(6) Development shall minimize the alteration of natural landforms.
CLUP 4.4.1-3;
The AERIE Project violates each of these provisions. The applicant does not have a vested right
to build a project that violates the City's own land use documents. The applicant has not had any
approval of this Project nor been issued any permit for its development. The City has the
responsibility to deny proposals that do not comply with its General Plan, Coastal Land Use
Plan, and the Coastal Act. The City has no obligation to approve a non -conforming project. In
fact, to do so, is an abuse of its discretion.
53229-1 10015035
SELMAN
k4BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 3
The AERIE Project Is Not Visually Compatible With The Surrounding
Neighborhood
The Aerie Project is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The
General Plan requires that it be compatible. Here, the predominant character of the
neighborhood is single family residential. The area is comprised of 30, 40 and 60' wide lots with
6' to 7' spaces that run all the way through the property. In stark contrast, the Project is one
massive complex consisting of a 160-footwide uninterrupted development. Clearly, this is not
compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. To allow for this Project to be
constructed, is to violate the clear and concise policies of the General Plan and CLUP Sections
2.9.3-1, 4.4.3-8, 4.4.3-12, 4.4.3 -19, among others.
Despite grave concerns about the aesthetic effect of the Project, little, if nothing, has been done
to address the issue. This Project is completely out of character for the surrounding and adjacent
areas. The marina alone will dramatically change the appearance of the tranquil cove and the
eradication of the bluff and subterranean development will completely alter the aesthetic quality
and nature of the coastal bluff area.
The City Council has already denied the Project once. On August 7, 2007, the City Council
stated that the mass and scale of the Project was not visually compatible with the surrounding
area as required by the General Plan. In protection of its natural resources, the City Council also
cited its concerns for the destruction of the coastal bluff. The Project still violates the General
Plan, and seeks to destroy the protected coastal bluff.
The AERIE Project Will Maximize Destruction of the Coastal Bluff
The Project will result in destruction of the protected coastal bluff. The proposed development
will create and significantly contribute to erosion, geologic instability, and destruction to the site
and potentially to the surrounding area. The Aerie Project requires the construction of protective
devices that will substantially alter the natural landforms along the coastal bluff. The Project will
maximize the alteration of the coastal bluff as it seeks to destroy 47% of the coastal bluff.
As stated in the attached report of David H. Lee, PE, GE, "the existing, natural bluff edge,
approximately 70 feet in elevation above MSL, will be destroyed in order to meet the proposed
construction daylight on the bluff face, which is 50.7 feet above MSL, i.e., the Predominant Line
of Existing Development (PLOED). Thus, the bluff edge will be re-established approximately
20 feet lower than the existing natural bluff edge." Further, "the proposed tunnel will create an
opening in the bluff face at an approximate elevation of 40 feet above MSL, which is about 10
53226.1 10015075
SELMAN
t-)BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 4
feet lower than the established PLOED. The tunnel will also require stabilization and rock fall
protective devices, which are not permitted by the Coastal Act." The unique design and
construction plan of this Project will maximize the destruction of the coastal bluff. Clearly, this
significant destruction and alteration of the coastal bluff does not comply with the City's General
Plan and will not be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
2. THE MAY 16, 2008 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FATALLY
FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
As stated throughout the course of this Project review, a MND is insufficient to analyze the
environmental impacts of the AERIE Project. A structure of this scale that will have adverse
impacts on traffic, noise, parking, the stability and eco system of the bluff, the aesthetic character
and nature of the community, and geology of the land, requires a full environmental impact
report. The necessity of an EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res.
Code Section 21080), is further exasperated by the almost tripling of the existing dock space,
creation of a marina with the placement of a concrete wave attenuator and utilities, and
substantial disturbance to the sandy cover intertidal & shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and
sand dollar bed, within the existing cove.
This Project will have a significant impact on the environment. At a minimum, a fair argument
has been made for the necessity of an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines require that if any portion of a
Project may have a significant impact, an EIR must be prepared. Here, the demolition of over
24,000 cubic yards of bluff and the creation of a boating marina, at a minimum, provides
credible evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore,
CEQA requires an EIR be prepared for this Project. Pub. Res. Code Section 21080 ( c)(2); No
Oil v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,75; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v.
City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.0 1597, 1602.
Most of the mitigation referenced in the MND are post -approval mitigation measures to be
adopted at a later date. The City cannot rely upon such measures, as they are neither specific nor
the subject of analysis. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29
Cal.App.0 1597, 1602. The MND is legally insufficient.
3. CONCLUSION
This Project violates the City's General Plan, Local Land Use Plan and Coastal Act. The size,
scale, mass, and destructive construction design make it infeasible and non -conforming.
Despite the passing of time, the applicant has failed to design and submit a Project that complies
with the City's General Plan, CLUP, the Coastal Act, or CEQA. Further, an Environmental
53228.1 100.25035
SELMAN
%BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 5
Impact Report must be prepared before this Project is considered. The MND is insufficient to
address the environmental impacts of this Project. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that
the City Council deny the Applicants request and reject this Project.
JAF/jaf
5322&1 100.2503S
DAVID H. LEE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 6 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
DAVID H. LEE & ASSOCIATES
Primary Business Address
23011 Moulton Parkway
Suite D -I I
Laguna Hills. California
92653
Phone: 949-461-5690
Fax:949-461-7901
email: dhla@dhla.com
http:Hwww.dhla.com
Dwm H. UE, PE. GE
Corm E. Curemu,eu. PG. CEG
xm¢n E, Gout, PE
SANw, D. Hu". BS
Mayor Ed Selich
City of Newport Beach
Cite Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915
"RECEIII fTER AGENDA
pDill-i ED:"
dg --
?2?: 01
P; 1,
July 21, 2008
Our ProjecrK08.I41.00
SUBJECT: Comments regarding the Aerie Project, a Proposed Condominium
Complex at 201-207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California
Dear Honorable Mayor Selich, and Members of the City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity, to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Aerie project (PA2005-196) located at 201-207 Carnation Avenue in the City
of Newport Beach. I am of the opinion that there is a fair argument for an
Environmental Impact Report (FIR) and technical review by the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) prior to project approval.
These comments are submitted on behalf of (1) Mr./Mrs. John and Kathleen
McIntosh and Mr./Mrs. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are Corona del Mar residents and
homeowners of the neighboring properties at 2495 and 2501 Ocean Boulevard,
respectively, and (2) their legal counsel, Ms. Jennifer Friend of Selman Breitman
el LLP.
I have performed a third -party review of the publicly available project documents, as
well as the Coastal Iand Use Plan (CLUP) for the City of Newport Beach. As a
'I result, I hereby offer the following third -party geotechnical opinions regarding the
Aerie project:
1. The proposed project will involve substantial alterations to the natural
landform and have a significant impact on the natural bluff.
(a) Approximately 25,240 cubic yards will be excavated from the natural landform
during site grading. The excavation will extend over 40 feet below existing grade
and into the bedrock.
(b) Two subterranean levels and an access tunnel are proposed, which will replace a
significant portion of the excavated rock mass, substantially altering the composition
and character of this landform.
1511'aUJLt'I71Arai'.rN/.rrggurrulra>_I rl i!-�I UINh7ui\_1Ji1't7:H n-?!?rulx,lNk. Pgwr�lf
Mayor Ed Selich Aerie Condominium Development
City of Newport Beach July 21, 2008
(c) The structural integrity of the rock mass will be compromised bayward of the proposed subterranean levels,
which can cause rockfalls and further deterioration on the bluff face. The remaining pillar of rock is not
expected to have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure. Protective
devices will be necessary to ensure public safety if this hazard is created, however, such protective devic&sare
not permitted by the Coastal Act.
(d) Stress relief within the rock mass is expected to contribute to excavation cave-ins, failure on the bluff face,
and possible instability on adjacent properties. The inherently folded and faulted character of the site bedrock
will also create localized areas of instability during installation and removal of shoring elements. Tieback
anchors used for the shoring system have been recommended to penetrate earth materials supporting adjacent
properties. It is my understanding that permission to install tieback anchors beneath the McIntosh and Vallejo
properties adjacent to the Aerie site will NOT be granted. Further evaluation of the excavation's stability is
needed due to its extreme size and significant impact.
(e) The existing, natural bluff edge, approximately 70 feet in elevation above MSL, will be destroyed in order to
meet the proposed construction daylight on the bluff face, which is 50.7 feet above MSL, i.e., the Predominant
Line of Existing Development (PLOED). Thus, the bluff edge will be re-established approximately 20 feet
lower than the existing natural bluff edge.
(f) The proposed tunnel will create an opening in the bluff face at an approximate elevation of 40 feet above
MSL, which is about 10 feet lower than the established PLOED. The tunnel will also require stabilization and
rockfall protective devices, which are not permitted by the Coastal Act.
(y,) The proposed stairway and appurtenances will require anchorages that will penetrate the bluff face and
further contribute to bluff erosion.
2. In addition, the project violates several principles of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) that
were established by the City of Newport Beach and approved by the California Coastal
Commission, including the following (underline added):
(a) The proposed development incorporates a substantial excavation into the natural landform, which will
destroy a lipificant portion of the bluff, and will likely require the construction of protective devices along the
bluff face. In addition, the bluff face itself will be significantly altered and will become more vulnerable to bluff
erosion.
QtIPSettion4.4.3-9: 'Tenvitpnb#chwpmmwewsprorndingpnbNcaa-ess,pnver/ing�aslalvrronnts,orprotiding
for public safely on coartal blxff faau gjr4 when Ha A=hk abernatinr exacts and wben deamed and a ftsbuded to
mianvr' . olteraliau of !t x b!>�lTfacr. to sat canttibute t¢fnrthererotion Qftbe bbrflYace. and to be rdmahl compatible witb
the rnrrannding ana to the mmdwum extent feasible."(CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
k\I'a($lic.7:4'\IdMW1,reJ\tit>hvNJlxl h1f7.1_OYINIOA'_lliT17:1(_n%: J:ixle.!)!H. ('4o'1 y<
Mayor Ed Selich Aerie Condominium Development
City of Newport Beach July 21, 2008
(b) No building setback from the bluff edge is incorporated into the project design. The California Coastal
Commission has typically enforced a minimum building setback from the bluff edge, even when coastal bluffs
are relatively stable, both to protect coastal views and to acres a safety buffer to address anticipated bluff retreat
over the economic life of the development. The bluff is reportedly subject to marine erosion along the west -
facing bluff, and is not subject to erosion along the north -facing bluff. Therefore, building setbacks should be
incorporated into the design, as appropriate.
CLUP Sedron 4.4.3-3: 'Regnire all mew b/ufftop derelop.vemllocaledon a& snbied10 Nor erosio to be.itediv
awardancenrlb the predamiranl line of e -,7.W lg dertslopmtenl in Ihe.m�w arra, bul nal Aur beau 25 feel fmai taw
erre. This reguirewenl.hall apply to the brrn ' l rhmdnre andn1WMMimimarhrrdv.•er rine asgverlbanrer and pw&
The .elbark slap be increased wbere necessary la ensnn safely and slabiYaty of Ibe demlopnrent "
C LUP Seerior =1.4.3-1: "On bbr rm ed to Maw. rggl#re new accessary r/nldnnr rndr ar deekt,
=MULthat do vol regnire .Inrdmral fotimdalioti. to be riled in xwdance with the predominant &e of evslrvg
denrhpmenl in the subject area, bill mat less than l o [ from ll)e blf Regnin accessory rtruchnrr Iv be rent ted or
relocated landward when threatened by etesiou, inrlabrro, or other hatiardt "
CLUP See6on 4.4.3-5: 'Regnhr all new bhfftop detehpmenl
.,...,f ",q ...s ,, r 9W5 -L9 aernruaua unto rve hreaamavaal line qt etigu L014majz is the ru a arm Tlvr
regmremevl.ball applyto Ihepnncrpal rlrmdtireand,wajoracce.rmrystnrdure.snd a.gtieslbamoiand peal.. The selback
shall be increased when tiecesmry td eti.ure safety and stability of the develspmeul. "
CLUP Section 4.4.3-6:
bredaminant he Bfe+�itius n. ;;,,� Reglhr aarr..ory ,drtldwrer to be IxWI Pd orIrlwated latldwanJwhw
threatened by erosion, iwtabilily or other /atiards. "
CLUP Sediov 4.4.3-7: 'Rearm all mew dens t /ems - ov a b/ tolito be rotback fmw The blDer
lto essnn stability, ensure that it wrll not be endamgercd by eroriou, and M amid The rased for prmla7itr decrees
durimg The econanne life of the stroctrrre (75yearxJ Stich setbacks must take into consideration expected hug -term blm
retreat ens The nod75ff
year., as well as.hpe.tabi/ily. To risers stability, the deix/OMent rm1.l maintain a mrmimhnt
fetor ofsafety of 7.5 against landrhdisg for the eeonnw life of Ibe rlrndnre. "
(c) The "PLOED" should be re-evaluated so that it defines the minimum horizontal setback distance from the
top of the bluff edge, and not as a target elevation for new development on the bluff face. In addition, the
"bluff edge" needs to be defined in accordance with the CLUP and California Coastal Commission
requirements. New development is required to incorporate a setback from the bluff edge, and not reshape the
bluff edge itself.
CLUP Glo..ary: `Predominant Line ofExdrtimg Detalepmsenl (PLOED k
exwmpk, The predominant lime of emrting da+e%poems for a black of borne. on a cnarlal bbtff (a rpecifttd group of
slrndnres) mmld be delenvimed by calenla/ing Zbe melon distance (a repnsenlatbr distance) there rlrmdnnr atefioor the
bluff edge (a specified lime). " (CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
111avp.Ils�uw.wirequxxunxi nIIL�_rurNron IlT/7iR_0'J7Mk/RPf7f.
111W 104
Mayor Ed Selich
City of Newport Beach
Aerie Condominium Development
July 21, 2008
GZt1P Section 4.43.8: '73mbibit denelopmeul on bluff fairs, e V pritute deselopnlesl oa'Matal b1HJ Jaen a1mg
Oeran Bonlerurd, Caruadw Amore and Pa4fir Drive in Camua del Alar determined to be mnWsleut with The
prr&xnant hue of misting detvlopment. Bstabbsh a Am wtuant Ime 94 aw ng detV&P- bet kr bath nnriba/
shvcleres and a etxtratyrotxraredt. " (CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
CLUP Section 4.4.3-19: '7n all rases wbere the predowinaut line of edf ing deralopweut is aced to establish a
dvo/ pment limit, it shall mot be the only criteria used far thisparbwe. %Vl croslalland use -Adder shall be muddemd is
de m&ju9 the gWa i & e�hnt of new derelpbweut and si faew structure.."(CLU P Amendment 2007-003)
(d) The subterranean levels of the structure will have a destructive impact on the rock mass supporting the bluff
face. Therefore, the policies for "new development" should be re-evaluated as they relate to the subsurface
conditions of the bluff landform, and not just to the bluff face itself. Similarly, the tern "setback
encroachment" should be re-evaluated, whether setbacks are defined only at the ground surface or are subject to
subsurface limitations as well, to ensure the continued stability of adjacent properties.
In conclusion, it is my professional opinion that substantial alterations to the bluff inherent in the proposed
project design will cause ssienificant impacts to the protected natural landform. Therefore, it would not be proper
for the City Council to approve the project based upon analysis in the proposed MND currently under review.
Because a fitiz a0men exists that significant impacts will occur, an OR should be prepared for the project, and
it should include assessment of any feasible alternatives to avoid or mittiinize anticipated impacts to the bluff.
Given the project's complexity, size, and significant environmental and geotechnical concerns, the City is further
encouraged to seek technical review by the California Coastal Commission.
Thank you for your consideration in
Respectfully submitted,
DaWd .9711. 4&e
d
7
David H. Lee, PE, GE
President
� J, .
NO 5 0
EXP. VD
Distzibution: Addressee
(n
Ms. Jennifer Friend, Esq.
(1)
Selman Breitman LLP
Mr. Scott Porterfield
(1)
The Monte Group
Mr./Mrs. John and Kathleen McIntosh
(1)
Mr./Mrs. Joe and Lisa Vallejo
(1)
1'\PRD(tA.la\AYIKIN i.!#I\NAWN J/eI hf it.l (N'!A'N)A! iliPt7il�n^/Y#AAfN)G Iigp JoJ�
Harkless, LaVonne
From:
courtneywat@juno.com
Sent:
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:56 AM
To:
Harkless, LaVonne
Subject:
Construction on CDM bluffs
I am against the proposed dock & construction on Carnation Avenue bluffs. I am also against the
construction above Corona del Mar State Beach that covers more of the bluff. Please stop approving
projects that will eventually eliminate all the natural beauty of the bluffs above our bay and beaches
that are part of the enjoyment for everyone that lives (or visits) here!
Courtney Watson
515 Poppy Ave #B
See the Internet how it was meant to be seen with Cable Internet. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/Ioyw6iiectOv4sMSII4EZCwjBhEXTJnuTwFhaSnV YgDcLm
IRc75B]V/
Harkless, LaVonne
From: William Michaelsen [willmichaelsen@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:50 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Condos
hirI''.00
To The City Council,
As an engineering student at UC San Diego, I think that the proposed condo project should be approved.
Thanks,
Will Michaelsen
2000 Marlin
Newport Beach, Ca
07/22/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: H. Malmon [hmalmon@hotmail.00m]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:17 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie
To Whom it May Concern,
p . ,:, . r: -D .
Please count us among those who support the Aerie project. We are residents of Corona del Mar and feel that the creative design
and scale of Aerie are appropriate and would enhance the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Herbert and Harriet Malmon
344 Hazel Drive
Corona del Mar
i
07/22/2008
Jul 21 08 08:61p William Beckman 949-6753279 p.1
r
u�, n r ' -f
., e�E�AHEIt Ar�,RQ a _
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Date: 21 July, 200A
TO: CITY CLERK— Attention MAYOR ED SELICH
NEWPORT BEACH CA CITY HALL
ADDRESS : 3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
NEWPORT DEACEL CA 92660
FAX No.: 949-644-3039 Phone No. 949-644-3005
FROM: WILLIAM & SANDRA BECKMAN
ADDRESS: 206 % FERNLEAF AVF.NiTF.
FAX No.: (949) 675 - 3279 Phone No.: (949) 673 - 6630
TRANSMITTING 2 PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER
City Clerk: Please provide this message to Mayor ED SELICH in regard to
problems with the proposed Aerie Condominium Complex.
ED SELICH sir.
We are opposed to the proposed Aerie Condominium Complex at Carnation Avenue &
Oman Boulevard in Corona Del Mar for the following reasons:
1) The proposed Complex does not conform to the Coastal Land Use Plan to minimize
alterations to the Coastal Bluffs here in Corona Del Mar,
2) The proposed Complex does not conform to the City of Newport Beach's General
Plan, its Land Use Policies, or the California Coastal Act which promitse to prated
our scenic and visual resources,
3) The construction of this proposed Complex will have a severe impact on those of us
who Five in Corona Del Mar between the only two streets to this site - Ocean
Boulevard and Seaview Avenue. Previously the architectlbuilders have indicated
they will have to move 25,000 cubic yards of dirt (and rocks) from the site to make
room for the Complex' game and lower Condo Units. That will require that 2,500
truck bads of material be hauled out on either Ocean Boulevard or Seaview Avenue
— assuming 10 cubic yards per truck bad, at approximately 35,000 pounds per truck
load. If a truck can be loaded every 15 minutes, within each B hour work day there
will be 52 trick loads that can be taken away. Assuming 5 day work weeks, then for
nearly 10 weeks (234 months) we win be subjecW to constant truck movement on
Jul 21 08 08:52p William Beckman 949-675-3279 p2
those 2 streets and thus will have limited access to and from our homes on the two
access streets — Ocean Boulevard and Seaview Avenue, and the constant truck
noise while trucks are waiting to load and exiting. This will severally impact all
residents living on the following streets in Corona Del Mar from Carnation Avenue,
Dahlia Avenue, Femleaf Avenue, Goldenrod Avenue, Heliotrope Avenue, Iris
Avenue, Larkspur Avenue and to Marguerite Avenue (which will be the only entrance
or exit to Pacific Coast Highway) for trucks that can haul 10 cubic yards of earth and
rocks. Note on Femleaf Avenue hill we have not previously seen such large size
trucks negotiate to and from Bayside Drive. And to have such trucks there would
severely impact Corona Del Mar residents access to their homes via Fernleaf
Avenue. There are approximately 250 single family residences, 10 duplex
residences and 10 apartment buildings in this group of Olde Corona Del Mar homes
— probably averaging 3 persons per unit/residence, totaling more than 750 people
that will be impacted by construction of this Complex Ill
4) This construction project will have a severe impact on beach goees trying to reach or
exit the Corona Dei Mar State Beaches, with traffic backups on Marguerite Avenue
and Pacific Coast Highway that we already experience every day. Ocean Boulevard
Is only 2 blocks to the traffic fight at Pacific Coast Highway, that only permits turns
every 2 % minutes, -typically five autos make each cycle on left tum to Pacific Coast
Highway from Marguerite Avenue.
If this proposed Complex is approved the builderfoontractors should be required to find
an alternate method of moving the dirt (and rock), such as by loading it onto a sea -going
barge in the channel below the site.
And further impacts on us will last for months with the hauling in of material to buil! the
Complex. This will last much longer (probably a year or longer) and have more impact
on us living here in Olde Corona Del Mar. imagine the amount of material required
being hauled in - including concrete, steel reinforcing materials, lumber, steel framing,
wallboard, roofing materials, and all other materials necessary to build and furnish the
building. And we will be impacted as well by the parking of autos for the work crews.
The builder should be forced to compensate (financially"??) us for being impacted, if
this Complex is approved.
Please do not approve such a large construction project that will impact us who own
property and live near the proposed Aerie Condominium Complex.11!
Respectfully,
William and Sandra Beckman,
Property owners of 206 & 206 % Femleaf Avenue
Corona Del mar, CA KWS-3213
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Jack King [king@kingparret.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:50 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: Richard Julian; Glenda Richardson
Subject: Aerie Project
July 22, 2008
Newport Beach City Council
Re: Pending Aerie Project
Ladies/Gentlemen:
PRINT EV'
I would like to express my support for the Aerie project which has been proposed for the bayfront bluff in
Corona del Mar.
The architecture is stunning, and would be a big improvement over the present "box", as well as an
enhancement to an area now dominated by Channel Reef, which obviously is somewhat dated and not an
architectural masterpiece. Brion Jenette has done quite a job in designing a distinct, interesting, and very
attractive project for this very visible location.
I have seen the ad opposing the project, and criticizing its alleged interference with navigation in the
channel. As a boat owner myself, that would be of concern to me. However, in reviewing material obtained
from the proponent, it appears that the proposed docks do NOT intrude into the channel, and are within the
pierhead line which is established, and to which all other owners extend their projects.
I would urge your approval of this project. The only problem I can see with this project is that it may
contribute to collisions between boaters as they divert their attention from the waterway in order to gaze up
at this very interesting design!
Very truly yours,
Jack King
415 Bayside Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
07/22/2008
JUL-22-2008 14:02 PDEC,INC.
714 428 1101 P.01
PACIFIC DESIGN „moo ER Ac�t�°�
E S T A T E ��
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
FAX•
O 42832°d Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: (949) 723-7744 Fax: (949) 723-5093
To:
, �in L_
From:
Ile/rv? (f'�poe
Fax:
Pages:
(includingy.s cov)
RE:
AWx/W4.
Date:
17 • 22 - o®
CC:
f(PQl;e 1w aeA Celle e0a"I
JUL-22-2008 14:03 PDEC,INC. 714 428 1101 P.02
,.44!�K- G - 3v 3 5
r
jld�
�� rn
l
TOTAL P.02
July 22, 2008
Hon. Mayor Ed Selich
City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
"RECEly D AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED_" �
169 Saxon/oa
Suits 204
Encinitas, CA 92024
tel 760-942-8505
fax 760-942-8515
- wx+x.coastlevrgroup.can
Via Electronic Mali to Planner Jim Campbell
ocam pbell@ city.newpo rt-beach.ca.us)
RE: AERIE PROJECT (PA 2005-196)
201-205, & 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place
Comments Regarding Project Revisions, MND, CDP
Honorable Mayor Selich and members of the City Council:
Coast Law Group LLP (CLG) submits the following comments on behalf of Lisa and Joseph
Vallejo, and Kathleen McIntosh regarding the Aerie Project at 201-205 Carnation Avenue and
101 Bayside Place (Project). Because virtually all of our prior comments regarding the Project's
consistency with CEQA, the Coastal Act, and the City�s CLUP have not been adequately
addressed by City staff or through Project redesign, we would like to hereby incorporate by
reference prior comment letters submitted on February 21, 2008 and August 13, 2007.
For the reasons discussed below, we continue to assert that the proposed Project cannot be
legally approved as currently designed, and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR):must be
prepared.
CEQA's Fair Argument Standard
As we have reminded the City in the past, CEQA has a very low threshold requirement that
must be met to compel production of an EIR. To avoid an EIR and legally rely on an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) all potential impacts caused by the Project must
be avoided or mitigated "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would
occur." Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2).
If any portion of the Project may have a significant impact, an environmental impact report
(EIR) must be prepared. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1) (emphasis added). Case law is
unequivocal; CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR "whenever it can be fairly argued on the
basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact." No
Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75. "Substantial evidence... means enough
relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can
be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions may also be reached.' CEQA
Guidelines § 15384.
Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumption predicated upon facts, and expert
opinion supported by facts. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1). Substantial evidence to support a
fair argument that there may be significant impact on the environment may be provided by the
general public or by expert opinion. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.
App. 4th 903, 928.
Aerie Project • IS/MND Comments
City Council Hearing
July 22, 2008
Page 2
In this case, both the public and experts have identified a number of potentially significant
impacts warranting production of an EIR.
The Bluffs Remain Threatened by the Revised Project
At the August 14, 2007 City Council meeting (according to the City Council Minutes) then Mayor
Pro Tem Selich explicitly noted his belief "that the PLOED is the maximum limit of where to
build and the other policies in the CLUP and General Plan take precedence over the PLOED."
He further noted that the structure is not in scale with the neighborhood, that the proiect
excessively alters the bluff, and requested that a revised project be "reasonable within the scale
of existing development, and does not result in an excessive alteration to the bluff." (emphasis
added). According to the City Council minutes, the applicant's architect Mr. Jeannette stated
"he understands that the bluff needs to be protected."
Again, as we have pointed out repeatedly to City staff and to the Planning Commission, the
revised project continues to propose near -destruction of the bluffs at the project site. According
to the IS/MND, the project will now include 8 luxury condominium units on 6 levels (2 of which
are to be subterranean) with a gross floor area of 62,822 square feet. In order to achieve this
floor area, the project would require excavation and removal of 25,240 cubic yards of the bluff
the City is supposed to protect. We find it hard to understand how totally grading and
excavating a bluff could constitute protection as contemplated by the City Council last August.
Important for purposes of assessing the legal sufficiency of the IS/MND, the record before the
City Council reflects substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will cause
significant impacts to the bluff. Expert testimony provided in a letter from David H. Lee &
Associates, Inc. dated July 22, 2008, and to be presented before City Council this evening,
provide the requisite "fair argument" to require preparation of an EIR.
A MND will only be upheld when there is no credible evidence that the project may have a
significant environmental impact. Quail Botanical Gardens Found. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29
Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1602. If there is a disagreement between experts as to whether an
impact Is significant, the lead agency shall treat the impact as significant and prepare an
EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(g); Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th
1307, 1317 (emphasis added).
Land Use Impacts Relating to Bluff Destruction
The IS/MND accurately recites the appropriate Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) regulations, but
without sufficient analysis or justification finds impacts to be less than significant. Please
consider the following:
Setbacks: The IS/MND considers encroachment into setbacks to be less than significant solely
because most of them are subterranean. There is no legal justification for this position. Further,
the record reflects at least one or more of the building's decks will encroach into the setback
and neighboring property privacy impacts may occur. Further, as detailed in other
Aerie Project - IS/MND Comments
City Council Hearing
July 22, 2008
Page 3
correspondence in the record, the massive shoring of excavated walls will require placement of
tie -backs into not only setbacks, but also adjoining properties. Because permission for such
setback incursions is not requested here, and because the neighbors have all indicated
unwillingness to give permission for placement of the tie -backs, land use impacts from setback
encroachments must be considered significant. See CLUP Policy 2-7.1 (requiring the
maintenance of appropriate setbacks).
Policy 2.8.1-4: CLUP policy 2.8.14 requires avoidance of site disturbance such that
construction of protective devices would be required which would result in substantial alteration
of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. As noted in the above -referenced letter from David
H. Lee & Associates, Inc., the proposed subterranean design of the Project will result in a
strong likelihood of collapse of the bluff face below the PLOED. Elimination of the "wedge" of
bluff below the above -ground portion of the structure and replacement with a seawall of any
kind would violate this CLUP policy. Hence, a fair argument exists based upon substantial
evidence that policy 2.8.14 will be violated, and therefore a significant land use impact exists.
An EIR must be prepared. See also, Policy 2.8.6-10 (siting and design of new structures must
avoid need for shoreline protective device); and, Policy 2.8.7-3 (new development mut be free
of geologic hazards).
Policy 2.9.3-1: This policy requires parking configurations and management programs that are
not difficult to maintain and enforce. Despite purported design changes to the parking layout
and on-site vehicular elevator ingress and egress, the Project continues to violate this policy.
Bluff Protection Policies: The City of Newport Beach does not have a certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP) for the subject area, and therefore the California Coastal Act provisions for
coastal bluff protection will ultimately control issuance of a Coastal Development Permit by the
Coastal Commission. The City does have a certified Coastal Land Use Plan which provides
guidance to both the City Council and the Coastal Commission in considering whether a
proposed project will ultimately meet anticipated LCP standards. If the City is to ever achieve
the ability to issue its own Coastal Development Permits, it must strictly construe the
provisions of its CLUP, or risk continued oversight by the Coastal Commission in
perpetuity.
As such, we are dismayed by staff's acceptance of the Project as consistent with the CLUP with
regard to substantive bluff protections. While the Predominant Line of Existing Development
has now been conclusively set at 50.7 NAVD88, this line is not being appropriately applied to
the Project. Both the subterranean aspects of the development, and the presence of a building
egress ("emergency exit") below the PLOED render the project inconsistent with the CLUP, and
therefore responsible for significant impacts upon the bluff. Substantial evidence in the record
supports a fair argument that significant impacts will occur from the Project, so an EIR is
required.
Policy 4.4.1-3 mandates design and siting of new development to minimize alterations to
significant natural landforms, including bluffs such as those on site. Policy 4.4.3-12 requires
development site design and construction techniques to "minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to
the maximum extent feasible." There is no carve -out for upper versus lower bluffs. There is no
qualification that development need only minimize alteration of the bluff below the PLOED. The
Aerie Project -IS/MND Comments
City Council Hearing
July 22, 2008
Page 4
analysis in the IS/MND utterly fails to explain away appropriate application of these policies to
the Project. And as noted prior, any development below the PLOED, and especially where such
development may result in the destabilization of the lower bluff face, constitutes a significant
land use impact requiring an EIR.
While not addressed in the MND, the City has approved and eventually will submit to the
Coastal Commission CLUP 4.4.3-19, which is directly applicable to the current Project. This
policy clarifies that mere establishment of a PLOED should not be interpreted to determine the
boundaries of development size and scope. As noted by then Mayor Pro Tem Selich, above,
the Project must conform with both PLOED and other CLUP requirements.
As noted in CLG's prior letters, the project will violate numerous provisions of the Coastal Act,
the City's Local Coastal Program, and the CLUP. The tortured discussion and purported
analysis in the IS/MND constitute mere conclusions intended to support project approval. There
is no credible means for arguing consistency with the CLUP given the massive excavation
proposed, and the blatant evisceration of the current bluff condition. The conclusion that,
"grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line
and the project is consistent with [CLUP policies] ° is absurd without further explanation that the
Project itself has not been designed to comply with the CLUP. MND at 69.
As far as we are aware, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has not commented on the
Project since its May 14, 2007 correspondence. While that letter purported to provide only an
overview of main issues identified based on limited information available at that time, we believe
the concerns noted therein remain applicable today. Just as the City Council advised the
Project be revised to comply with all CLUP policies, we expect the CCC will reject the Project
for failing to meet CLUP requirements. Given the likelihood of ultimate Project failure, It is a
complete waste of resources to move forward with City consideration of the Project as
proposed.
Noise Issues
The IS/MND indicates the dock structures will include "either driven steel pipe or pre -stressed
concrete piles set in pred-frilled augered holes." IS/MND at 5. Assessment of noise impacts
from dock replacement do not indicate expected impacts from pile driving on adjacent
properties and across the bay. Because pile driving can result in noise in excess of 125dB,
without further discussion and analysis a presumption of possible significant impacts is
warranted.
Liaht/Glare
The discussion of potential impacts from light and glare (IS/MND at 30) focuses solely on
potential impacts to neighbors. There is no discussion of potential impacts to the sensitive
beach and intertidal habitat below. The IS/MND is therefore deficient.
Dock Construction
The IS/MND recognizes the potential for significant impacts, both short and long term, to eel
Aerie Project - IS/MND Comments
City Council Hearing
July 22, 2008
Page 5
grass resources. Yet, the mitigation measures for the most part solely require compliance with
NMFS' established eel grass mitigation policy. CEQA requires mitigation measures to
encourage avoidance of impacts where feasible, and despite reference to Best Management
Practices (IS/MND at 42), none of them have been incorporated into mitigation measures.
Specifically, turbidity impacts associated with various elements of dock demolition and
construction must be mitigated via required employment of sediment curtains and screens and
other BMPs alluded to, but not specifically described, in the IS/MND.
Conclusion
Given the foregoing, the Project cannot be legally approved by the City Council absent
certification of an EIR. Significant additional information and analysis regarding the
environmental impacts of the proposed revision must be derived and disclosed before the City
can determine the adequacy of mitigation proposed. We respectfully request that you deny the
Project.
Sincerely,
COAST LAW GRO LLP
A/10- elJ
Marco A. Gonzalez
e -1FYr �%SLl
TT_7�a�
761 Oak Street, Laguna Beach, Ca 92651
949-494-1630 — charlottemasarik@cox.net
r
July 17, 2008
Newport Beach City Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Aerie Condominium Development — JUST SAY NO
Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council,
Regarding the Aerie condominium development proposed on the bluff in Corona del
Mar, please deny this complex due to the negative visual and environmental impact it
will have on our city and harbor. This overly -massive building and marina, near the
entrance to Newport harbor, presents a new and disturbing direction for the future of
Newport Beach.
The whole California coastline is under siege from huge developments that impact and
compromise the natural beauty of our Blue Belt. Please think about the view shed that
our children and grandchildren will be forever denied if you allow this proposed project
to be developed.
Sincerely, .
Charlotte & Alex Masarik
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Battaglia Inc. [bi@battagliainc.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Project -Approval Requested
To: City Council Members;
211 tr
��]]
F �Li%il sill it
I have lived at 233 Carnation Avenue Apartments for eighteen (18) years and I am the owner. I am very
much in favor of this project as I believe in individual property rights and not selected neighbors who
do not want construction noise and the inconvenience of the construction effort nearby.
Rick Julian and his wife Karen have done more than anyone should to work with the neighborhood to
try and compromise their design to meet the needs of all concerned. I believe they have met all the site
conditions and the concerns of the planning commission as well.
This design process has been going on now for over five (5) years. There is a need for fairness in your
decision which is long overdue.
Please approve the Aerie Project as presented this Tuesday.
Thank you in advance for your consideration
Best regards,
Rich Battaglia
Rich Battaglia
Owner 233 Carnation Avenue Apartments
07/21/2008
tr
ROBERT SPRAGUE'
101 BAYSIDE PLACE
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625'::'.
July 18, 2008
Mayor Ed Selich
City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Honorable Mayor Sellch and Members of the City Council:
I am a longtime resident/owner of the property located at 101 Bayside. I have
been following the progress and plans of the AERIE project closely since it is
adjacent to my property. I have been shown the plans for the proposed
adjacent dock at AERIE and have discussed the plans in detail with Rids Julian. I
find the plans to be very acceptable and a tremendous asset to the area. I
fully hack the entire orell . The ultimate development will only be a great
asset and added value to the City.
The development has been carefully designed in every aspect. Mr. Julian has
taken into consideration the surrounding neighbors and community and it will
only be a quality development. As you know he has worked closely with the City
Council and Planning Commission to make the recommended changes to the
AERIE plans that were requested by the City Council and Planning Commission.
I am confident that after your review of this project, the fathers of our City will
see all that AERIE offers to make our community a better and more desirable
place to live and will approve it immediately. I look forward to this beautiful
project being directly adilaeent to my proneft and having it as my
Bsfllahbo[•
Harkless, LaVonne
From:
Knudson, Barry [Barry. Knudson@colliers.com]
Sent:
Monday, July 21, 2008 10:14 AM
To:
Harkless, LaVonne
Subject:
AERIE
Attachments: Knudson, Barry.vcf
Dear Councilmember,
I am a resident of the City of Newport Beach and for the past several years have been following the progress of the development
in Corona Del Mar called Aerie. I'm very familiar with the facts regarding the development and have attended multiple city council
meetings in support of the project. Not only would the project strongly enhance the property but its also a rare opportunity for the
City of Newport Beach to demonstrate that it supports environmental friendly developments. I strongly support the development of
Aerie and believe it would be foolish for such a great city to turn down such a high profile opportunity, especially when the
developer is carrying much more than simply the burden of cost.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Barry P. Knudson IV, Senior Associate
Private Capital Advisors I Multi -Family
Maximizing Value I Minimizing Risk I Accelerating Transaction Velocity
Colliers International
Tel
949 474 0707
Direct
9497245%1
.,.:,
949 395 8431
Fax
949 724 5661
bany. knudson@colliers.com
I am a resident of the City of Newport Beach and for the past several years have been following the progress of the development
in Corona Del Mar called Aerie. I'm very familiar with the facts regarding the development and have attended multiple city council
meetings in support of the project. Not only would the project strongly enhance the property but its also a rare opportunity for the
City of Newport Beach to demonstrate that it supports environmental friendly developments. I strongly support the development of
Aerie and believe it would be foolish for such a great city to turn down such a high profile opportunity, especially when the
developer is carrying much more than simply the burden of cost.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Barry P. Knudson IV, Senior Associate
Private Capital Advisors I Multi -Family
Maximizing Value I Minimizing Risk I Accelerating Transaction Velocity
Colliers International
Tel
949 474 0707
Direct
9497245%1
Mobile
949 395 8431
Fax
949 724 5661
bany. knudson@colliers.com
www.collierspea.com
Our Knowledge is your Property
Just launched! Go to www.collierspca.com to find investment opportunities targeted to private clients.
Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies
This e-mail and attachments (if any) is intended only for the addressee(s) and is subject to Copyright. This e-mail contains information which may be confidential or
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return e-mail, do not use or disclose the contents and delete the message and any attachments
from your system. Unless specifically stated, this e-mail does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or Colliers International or any of Its subsidiaries.
Colliers International respects your privacy. Our privacy policies Can be accessed by clicking here: http:Nwww.colliersmn.comlpnvacy
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: LD Christiano [ldchristiano c@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:28 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
AG4ii,A
Subject: AERIE
Please register my complaint and vote against the Aerie project. The duty aria encrAaehment forced on the
environment and public community is overwhelming. For the fleeting selfish pleasures of a few, the community and
environment should not be burdened in perpetuity.
W Chn4msno
Port Ramegate PL
mt Beach, CA 98880
949.640.8001
This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute
this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software
viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept
liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be
confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to
receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect.
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne PRMTU"—n?;
From: Eldridge, Ray @ Newport Beach [Ray. Eldridge@cbre.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:54 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: In Support of Aerie
Dear Council Members,
May this act of confirm my strong support of the Aerie project.
As a one-time resident of the apartments at 205 Carnation, and a Corona del Mar homeowner since 1995, 1 enthusiastically await
City Council's support of the Aerie development in tomorrow's City Council meeting.
Best Regards,
Raymond Eldridge III
934 Goldenrod Ave.
CdM, CA 92625
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: BILLBNS@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:22 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: Julian@advancedonline.com
Subject: (no subject)
Newport Beach City Council members, July 21, 2008
PRINTED:"
As a resident of Newport Beach for over thirty years I would like to put my support behind the AERIE project in Corona Del Mar.
For the city not to approve a project that has met all the cities requirements and codes would be a shame.
The improvements of this project and what it gives the city as opposed to the apartment building that is replacing is truly great.
These are the types of improvements that the city should be embracing for the future of our great city.
Bill Brooks
67 Beacon Bay
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sian up for FanHouse FantastFootball today.
07/21/2008
;.4"'3y�..}i Yift`L iii =.:tS
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Patexcels@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 200810:43 PM
To: Selich, Edward
Cc: Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Henn, Michael; Curry, Keith; don2webb@earthlink.net; Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Condominiums
Dear Mayor Selich:
I am writing for 2 reasons—First, to correct a statement made by our Board President, William McCaffrey
(Channel Reef Condominiums, 2525 Ocean Blvd.), who apparently indicated at 2 meetings (May 17th and
August 14th, 2007) that the residents of Channel Reef were "almost unanimously" in favor of the
project. Actually the opposite is true, and a number of residents and I will be at the Tuesday meeting
to express that to the City Council. Second, I want to personally register my own strong opposition to
the project as currently proposed—] am definitely for redevelopment of this site, but not at the magnitude
that the Aerie group is still trying to get approved. As disturbing as destroying the bluff, is their attempt to
place a marina with a 155 ft. concrete breakwater jutting out into the harbor, with docks for 60' yachts, etc.
Regarding the Notice of Public Hearing signed by LaVonne Harkless, I was shocked that the City of
Newport Beach has prepared a declaration stating that, "the subject development will not result in a
significant impact on the environment." How can that be, when the City in its own Coastal Land Use
Plan states that developers must "design and site new development to minimize alterations to
significant natural landforms, including bluffs"?
I look forward to a full discussion at the Council meeting.
Sincerely
Patricia F. Parsons, Ph.D.
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sion up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Bill Klein [bandcklein@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:24 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: The Aerie Project
AGE l"I )A
The Aerie project seems to be getting undue negative press from a small group of activists who are overlooking and
understating the benefits to the whole community of this well planned and beutifully designed project. These high end
condos will replace a relatively run down rental complex and will certainly increase the appearance and value of the
surrounding nieghborhood. It will have a significant increase in annual revenue to the city as well.
We all live with a little inconvenience when new construction occurs in our neiborhood but it is short term comparared
with the long term improvement that usually follows.
Please don't let a small group with self interests block this kind of progress for our city.
Respectfully,
Bill Klein
60 Linda Isle
07/21/2008
P Ri!'i i Eii.ri
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Emily Ball [ballemily@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:12 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Support Aerie Project
Hi, please support the Aerie project! As a beach lover, especially a Corona
del Mar beach lover, I feel this project will be an asset to the community.
Thank you, Emily Ball
_ 7F1
CD J
1
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Fredric J Forster [fredforster@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Project
To: the City Council of Newport Beach
Subject: Strong support of the Aerie project
Request: Approval of the project in its current configuration at Tuesday's Council meeting
Dear Council Members:
C9
As a 30 year resident of Newport Beach I wish to offer my very strong support of the Aeries project: My wife and I and
our friends visit this area frequently as runners and walkers and can attest to the need finally to get something done.
This piece of real estate is long overdue for a dramatic change of character, and I feel the current design is unusual,
creative and beautiful and will change an eyesore into another fine landmark for us all to enjoy.
I also have deep concerns over due process. This project has been reviewed and modified extensively to get City
approval, and, frankly, enough is enough. The recent Daily Pilot ad paid for by those objecting to the project painfully
misrepresents the facts (unit size, for example), and their general concern seems to be exceptionally short term in
nature. Your view must take a longer view.
Please approve this project and help Newport eliminate a mess and replace it with a thing of lasting beauty.
Fred Forster
1221 Starboard Way
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-759-8917
07/21/2008
•'t .�. A.34t. �•-
LaVonne
From: Aviva Forster [avivaforster@cox.net]
Sent. Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:41 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Support Aerie Condominium Project
Dear City Council Members:
Please approve the proposed Aerie Condominium project. As a resident
of Corona del Mar, I am interested in seeing my council approve
projects that are attractive and unique. I admire the proposed
design and feel the Aerie Condos will enhance the beauty of our city.
Sincerely,
Aviva Forster
1221 Starboard Way
Corona del Mar
1
N
F�
cw -TJ
c
C�
IV �
AGENDA
LaVonne
From: Phastimes [phastirnes@yahoo.corn]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:59 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: NO to AERIE
Saw ad in Daily Pilot and ask you vote this down - don't cave into these interests...
7D
J
AGES&
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Roger Naff [rtnaff@sboglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:57 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: NO on AERIE
Please don't sell out our bay to appease a few wealthy boat owners... I oppose this project and will work against anyone
approving this in the next election!
01/21/2008
LaVonne
From: Sharon McNalley [sharonmcn@adelphia.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:59 PM jFr,2 111 2 1 Al $. 05
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie project
3228 Ocean Boulevard
Corona del Mar,
California, 92625
July 20, 2008
Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the Newport Beach City Council:
I am writing to protest the Aerie project at the corner of Carnation
and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar.
My first concern is for the adjacent properties. Approximately two
years ago, my neighbors commenced the building of a home on three lots
that has caused considerable damage to my property and to the Beards'
home on the other side. The excavation of a very deep basement and
subsequent compression of the soil destroyed my wall, caused large
cracks in the garage and exterior patio surfaces, as well as in the
interior walls of my home; it is impossible to assess what further
damage may lie beneath and within my home. Jackhammers exposed the
re -bar on my retaining wall. Other damage included exterior and
cabinet doors which no longer close properly, paintings knocked off the
wall by vibrations, etc. The Aerie project is approximately five
times larger than the Ahmansons' home and would most certainly
negatively impact all the adjacent properties.
Secondly, I am concerned about the negative impact on the bluff. If
you have driven on the Pacific coastline between Seattle and Corona del
Mar in recent years, you would have observed massive parts of the
highway which have broken off and fallen into the ocean below. Now,
instead of a scenic drive, it is more of a precarious one. Bluffs in
Encinitas and San Clemente are eroding; surely, city geologists don't
consider Corona del Mar to be immune from erosion. Please look at the
quarter coin representing New Hampshire ---their symbol, the Old Man of
the Mountain, thought to be between 2,000 and 10,000 years old,
collapsed one night in 2003 and no longer exists --it was granite,
considerably harder than the geological composition of our landscape.
At a Council meeting several years ago, I heard a Councilman gleefully
exclaim that the "mansionization of the bluff' would produce more
revenue for the city. Is that more important than preserving the
geological integrity of the bluff for future generations?
My third concern is preservation and protection of the community of
Corona del Mar. Our community is enjoyed and appreciated by visitors
from far beyond the city limits of Newport Beach. The City Council
holds the public trust to consider the welfare of the entire community,
not a favored few.
Our family moved to Corona del Mar in 1970 when my husband, the late
Dr. Michael McNalley, was recruited to found the cardiology department
at Hoag Hospital. He, as the first board-certified cardiologist at
Hoag Hospital and Director of the Cardiology Department, trained
staff, secured equipment and was responsible for building a department
that is his lasting legacy to the City of Newport Beach. Our family is
extremely proud of his contributions to our city.
What will the legacy of each of you be ---to preserve and protect or to
damage and destroy?
It is beyond my comprehension that you would even consider approving
this project.
Yours sincerely,
Sharon McNalley
949 675-3656
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Jack Meyers Umeyers9@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:32 PIVI
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: AERIE ... ..
I will be out of town on July 22nd, but do want to register my OPPOSITION to the AERIE c6ndofninium project.,!
Jack L Meyers
3012 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-673-4893
07/21/2008
R AGENDA
f_ FYI
Harkless, LaVonne
From: lindarasner@gmail.00m on behalf of Linda Rasner [Iindabv@adelphia.net)
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:49 PM
To: Harldess, LaVonne
Subject: Support for Aerie, July 22, 2008
July 20, 2008
Mayor Selich and City Council Members:
I want to emphatically support the Aerie Project as it will be presented to you on Tuesday. When it was presented to the
Council last August, you, the Council, chose to make it a Carnation project ignoring any other structures located on
Ocean Blvd. The Council also chose to have the development not extend down the bluff face below the 50.7 foot line.
The project as presented to you at this time accomplishes both of those stipulations which were imposed last
August. Some opponents of the project seem to think that it should not be more than a single family dwelling,
although the vast majority of the lots on Carnation are multiple family dwellings, and the bluff side of Carnation is
zoned MFR. Out of at least 37 addresses on Carnation (South of Bayside), only 7 of those are single family dwellings,
and those are zoned MFR. Even if you would look down the North side of Ocean Blvd, in the first block, there are
only 4 out of the twelve residences that are single family, it is zoned R-2. The Council also said that Channel Reef
should not be considered, although it is only three lots away from the proposed Aerie project on the South side of
Ocean Blvd and it has 48 condo units. How can anyone possibly say that the proposed project is too large for the
neighborhood? Look what was built not that long ago at the comer of Seaview and Carnation -5 large units with
underground parking on a much smaller sized lot!
The architecture of Aerie is based on Antonio Gaudi and is a nice relief from the Mediterranean style architecture that
is so prevalent today- unlike the standard set in Newport Coast; Corona del Mar is allowed the advantage of having a
diversity of architecture. It will be an attractive sight driving down Ocean Blvd toward Carnation when Aerie is
completed, especially with the proposed enhanced widening of the view toward the bay, which is enjoyed by so many
people today whether walking, biking or driving.
I could go into a lot more detail about the features of Aerie including the water quality management plan, the use of
solar energy, the eco -friendly building techniques, and minimized alteration to the bluff face, just to name a few areas
of attention to the environment that the plan encompasses. But this information will be included in the presentation to
you at the Council meeting on Tuesday. I know each of you will be getting many emails about the Aerie project, so I
am trying not to be redundant, just showing my support.
Respectfully,
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Grant Sadler [gsadler@gmsdent.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:31 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne E �!.I!- 2 i ' 05
Cc: rjulian@advancedonline.com;'Bud Rasner
Subject: Aerie Project
Good Aftemoon!
I am writing this e-mail in enthusiastic and wholehearted support of the Aerie Development on the corner of Camation and Ocean
Avenue in Corona del Mar.
I lived at 207 Carnation for a few years and observed this project from the beginning. Rich Julian and his team have met all
requirements, accommodated all legitimate concerns and been extraordinarily mindful and considerate of the neighborhood's and
neighbor's needs and desires. This project has already been approved by the planning commission and now its time to get on
with it.
Please approve this project.
Thank you!
Grant Sadler, President
Group Management Service, Inc.
36 Anchorage Way
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949/723-1790
Houston Office
1445 North Loop West, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77008
713/58011721
gsadler@gmsdent.com
07/21/2008
Arguaoiy my property is more arremea Dy ine Aerie rrojeci inan arty.
1_
I am in full support of the plan as it now exists.
I live on the North East corner of Ocean and Carnation. The Julian's came to this area
to live and decided to purchase this premier comer in our beautiful Xty,11171wy
immediately started an outreach campaign that has great support on Carnation and
Ocean because of his willingness to listen. However one of the neighbor's (who has; one
property between his location and Aerie) told me at the onset 'he did not want, to be.
friends with the Julian's as someday 'I am going to have to fight them'. This "ia bl afore
a design plan was even presented. It was later uttered by the same person, that it
'wasn't personal'. Yeah like the sun isn't going to rise either. Among other statements
has been "I don't care how high it is along Carnation Avenue". The reason for opposition
has morphed many times through the years that it has taken to get to this point. The
only real traction that has been gained by this opposition has now become claiming the
size as too big. It is not too big especially with relation to other properties on Carnation,
that are zoned as multi family residence (MFR) and is predominantly duplexes,
triplexes, and beyond. An example property on the block is 0.25 Acres with about 10K
SF of residential area. This does not include parking and the front large area. Aerie is
1.4 acres of land (not water) and is designed to be under 30K SF of livable area all in.
A full page spread in the local newspaper contains many errors. The antagonists went
door to door 'badmouthing' the project and now are personally attacking the applicant.
Some of the people who signed their 'petition' have publicly rescinded their signature as
'having been gained without the accurate representation of the plan'. There has always
been an open door policy with Aerie for anyone to gain the truth of the development.
This includes water recovery for natural vegetation and solar panels just as starters.
How the municipal process has become to be driven by opposition is puzzling, many of
the people on their list do not even live in the area. The have continued to change the
"Coalition" as they call R from one thing to another the latest iteration is 'Newport Beach
Coalition" what will the next title be? The threat from them for a lawsuit and the personal
character attacks is unconscionable. It has certainly changed the nature of our
neighborhood. They have not been involve in other City project (ie Centennial, City Hall
etc) The constantly changing style of opposition is a perfect example of 'Nimbyism' in its
most vitriolic form.
Of the over six years R has taken to get to this point, at about year four I fully realized
that this was a top quality project and my wife and I decided to invest in the venture.
Luckily we were accepted and are pleased to call the Julian's as true friends and
welcome them as future neighbors. As such we are owner -partners with 4 other parties.
Please support this applicant and their many advocates as well as recognizing the
recommendation your own Planning Commission who have done much more than
simple 'due diligence' in learning about this submission especially knowing its sensitive
nature. Aerie has been modified multiple times to what the city directed. We have a
primary chance to improve Corona del Mar with a benevolent builder. I don't wish to
think what the alternatives could be. It is time to approve it and move on.
Thank you for strong consideration of "Property Owners Rights" not just the bitter
ruminations of strong minded naysayers who present no alternative solutions.
Bud Rasner
CdM resident and business owner over 35 years.
2500 Ocean Blvd
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
01
From: Carolyn Klein [cjklein 101 @yahoo. conn]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:32 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie
I am in support of the project Aerie. It is a beautiful project. Designed environmentally correct and it
would be a benefit to the neighborhood. It should go through. Carolyn Klein, Newport Beach, CA
1
Harkless, LaVonne
From: kentmoore [kentmoore@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:01 AM
r4
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Letter to City Council regarding Aerie Project hearing, 7-22-08
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
I urge you to approve the Aerie Project when it comes before you Tuesday evening. Your Planning Commission has sent it back
to you once again, with further modifications, and again with the overwhelming approval of their panel. My neighbors and I have
given testimony to both you and the Commission at all previous hearings.
The majority of the neighbors and I believe that over these past few years Mr. Julian has done an excellent job addressing the
numerous concerns brought forth by the City and the vocal minority who oppose the project. Again. I ask you to consider the
motives of those detractors who are inclose proximity to this property. How have they personally conducted themselves over the
years regarding building density on their own bluff face sites, preservation of public views from their locations, protection of natural
vegetation, street parking problems and neighborhood cohesiveness? As I've said before, it points to pure hypocrisy and
"Nimbyism" on their part. If things are so sensitive in this particular area, why has the City consistently granted variances and
modifications on the adjoining properties? As part of the Rotary Club 4 -Way Test reads, "Is it fair to all concerned?"
Mr. Julian's vision for our neighborhood has been truly commendable and after working with the City of Newport Beach all these
years he certainly deserves your support. Please approve what will be a beautiful and world class addition to this special part of
Corona del Mar.
Kent S. Moore
210 Carnation Ave.
Corona del Mar
(Resident at Ocean and Carnation for 38 years.)
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Trish Knapp [trishknapp@cox.netl F
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:53 AM
To: Harkless, LaVonne ""
Subject: FW: Propsed Aerie Cndominium Complex
From: Trish Knapp [mailto:trishknapp@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:51 AM
To: [harkiess@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Cc: edselich@roadrunner.com; lesliejdaigle@aol.com; curryk@pfm.com; gardnerncy@aol.com
Subject: Propsed Aerie Cndominium Complex
?aa/o
I, for one, approve the project at Carnation & Ocean Blvd. in CDM. It
will be a hugh improvement over what exist there now. No one,
including myself, likes change but there are times when it's necessary
to bite the bullet and get on with what's important and what will
improve our beautiful city.
I don't see where it will be 6 levels as stated in the paper's ad. How
gorgeous to have a condo at 5,000 sq.ft. The people who composed
the ad running in the Daily Pilot sound as tho' they are jealous of
those who will be able to afford such beautiful living conditions.
There are many homes in and around our city that are large and have
become lovely sights to view.
The people at SPON need to do better research before running such
an inaccurate ad! The project is NOT massive, it will not restrict
public access to Carnation Cove, and it will not be a threat to marine
life.
The structure that exist now is totally disgusting to look at and what's
proposed will be a delight and a fabulous addition to our community.
Please feel free to pass this e-mail on to SPON!
I notice that neither SPON or the people responsible for the ad didn't
07/21/2008
submit their e-mail addresses???????rrUM
A concerned citizen,
Patricia Knapp
2704 Hillside Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.640.5037
TrishKnapp@cox.net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1563 - Release Date: 7/20/2008 12:59 PM
07/21/2008
LaVonne
From: seanagirl@mac.com on behalf of Jean Millikan [seanagirl@mac.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:45 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Project
Dear Sirs
I am Jean Millikan. My husband, Dr. Michael Millikan and I live
across the channel from the proposed Aerie project. We have studied
the model and the artist's renderings for more than a year and
heartily approve of its beauty as an addition to this community.
We've been impressed by the desire of the builder to have his project
amenable to the community especially because he plans to live here.
We were disturbed by the obvious distortions apparent in the recent
advertisement in the Daily Pilot (Sunday 13 July 2008).
We both urge you to approve the project.
Sincerely yours,
Jean Millikan
^1 N
.`J
i
a. � J
LaVonne
From: williamthomas@adelphia.net
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 1:25 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: No on AERIE
This is way too much development for this size property, how about keeping within the general plan?
Bill Thomas 949 548-0425
1
July 18, 2008
Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear members of the City Council,
I live on Balboa Island and I'm a boater and I can't believe the city of Newport Beach
would let something like the big ugly Aerie building be built. This block of building
seems to take the term over -building to a whole new level. I don't want to see something
like that when I run the island every day, or when I take my boat out. I also can't
understand how they could allow the construction of a marina of that size at one of the
narrowest points in the harbor. I won't be available to speak at the meeting on Tuesday,
but I would ask that you please vote NO.
Sincerely,
Tony Guanci
109 Grand Canal #B
Newport Beach, CA
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Fran Moran [franmoran200l@yahoo.com)
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 3:05 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominium complex
I am opposed to this project!!! Thank you. Frances Moran
r�
I
LL
V— s � �
Mitchell McCoy
2600 Bayside Dr
Corona Del Mar, CA
92625
July 21, 2008
"RECEIVED M ER AGENDA
MINTED:"
7 ��
Mayor Ed Selich
City Council Members ;
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard. -
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Co
Honorable Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council,
I was born and raised in the city of Newport Beach and currently reside in Corona. Del
Mar. I am very familiar with the property located at 201-207 Carnation from both the
street side as well as the harbor. I regularly jog and walk past it, and as a boat owner I
fiequently view it from the harbor. As I'm sure you are all aware, the current structure
and surrounding landscape negatively impacts such a beautiful neighborhood. The state
of the property looks even worse from the harbor, and stands out like a sore thumb
against the luxury of the surrounding homes.
I have taken the time to review the Aerie plans in detail with Rick Julian and find the
development to be well thought out and a very positive addition to the local community.
For the record, I support the Aerie Project and believe it should be approved for the
benefit of the city and surrounding community.
I hope all of Mr. Julian's due diligence, amiable willingness to continually review and
adjust the original plans, and cooperation with neighbors and city officials will be
recognized by approving this wonderful project.
Respectfully submitted,
Mitchell McCoy
PRINTED:"
LaVonne
From: Ilschilling@adelphia.net
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:15 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie Condominium Complex
AGENDA
I am writing you regarding my concerns about the Aerie Condominium Complex proposed for Corona
del Mar. I am concerned because it is not in keeping with the neighborhood surrounding it. It is
massive and an eyesore that will not only impact the neighborhood negatively, but the views from
the channel and other island communities. It will impact the geophysical integrity of our coastal bluff
and what's left of our precious marine ecosystem. Please put some careful consideration into the
decision to approve this project. Newport is known for its beautiful harbor, marine life, and
picturesque bluffs not 6 story condominiums which provide additonal unneeded high end housing.
Thnak you for representing my views and the views of my family (one is an architect who is
dismayed by the lack of responsibility this design shows for the site and the community).
Laurie Schilling
332 Piazza Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Travis Boyd [Travis. Boyd@cushwake.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:36 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Cc: qulian@advancedonline.com; pjulian@advanceonline.com
Subject: AERIE Development
Dear Mayor Selich,
"RECEiV R AGENDA
FRIit EEV.
�a �
I wanted to take a moment to write a short note and provide my full support of the AERIE Development. I am a longtime resident
of the Newport Beach area having lived in Corona Del Mar for many years. I currently live in Eastbluff. I will be very brief and to
the point. Newport Beach is truly a world class community and one that has global and far reaching effects. Asa result, the area
Should be filled with world class developments to demonstrate how great this community really is. These developments should be
done by world class developers. I have known the Julian family for many years and believe their organization to be second to
none. Further, and specifically with respect to AERIE, being in the real estate business I see the project as simply in keeping with
the standards that have been set forth for this great community.
I am hopeful that with this email I can count on your support of the project, Please feel free to reach me with any questions or
comments.
Graciously
Travis N. Boyd
Executive Director
Cushman & Wakefield
2020 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine CA, 92614
(949) 930-9236 direct
(949) 885-0083 fax
(949) 677-8209 cell
travis. boydacushwake. com
www.cushmanwakefield.com
07/21/2008
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Cynthia [cynthia@smithtique.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:14 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne 1 1 16
Subject: Aerie construction project
We are against this project because of its size and the protrusion of the proposed dock.
(Signed) David and Cynthia Smith
z!��IAFIER AGENDA
7o
07/21/2008
LaVonne
;,
From: Larry Smith [all@mhi.occoxmail.com]
Serle: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:01 PM ]
To: Harkless, LaVonne �, n ❑ t ^ ] ;'j tk
Subject: AERIE Project
"iifCfl' "l7 gr fRA6fhiDA
I am a 37 year resident of Newport Beach who supports the AERIE PR]33fi ; a
project. Larry Smith `''
Harkless, LaVonne
From: Trent Walker (TWalker@voitco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:51 PM
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: AERIE Project
To whom it may concern:
"RECEI €? ACE". .
--
-----.
I've recently taken a tour of the above mentioned project, and would like the city council to know that I support AERIE's desire to
redevelop the site. It currently needs at a minimum a major renovation, and after taking the time to understand the totality of
Rick's vision, I would recommend the council to approve this project.
Trent Walker
Senior Vice President
Voit Commercial Brokerage
2020 Main Street, #100
Irvine CA, 92614
(949)8515100 Phone
(949)261-9092 Fax
07/21/2008
07/21/2008 15:12 9494994089
July 18, 2008
Newport Beach City Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Aerie Condominium Development
TRADEMARKMG PAGE 01/01
LSt±.,k •t!,± !1 i r,•v± nil
. rn _ < 'a �• �
Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council,
Regarding the Aerie condominium development proposed on the bluff in Corona
del Mar, please deny this complex due to the negative visual and environmental
impact it will have on our city and harbor. This overly -massive building and
marina, near the entrance to Newport harbor, presents a new and disturbing
direction for the future of Newport Beach.
Please speak on my behalf, other voting citizens and boaters and deny this
development.
Sincerely,
"Wiaie 1f56row
Willie Disbrow
32 Jetty Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Sent via email to iharklessgbcatv.newoort-beach.ca.us and fax 949-644-3039
Harkless, LaVonne.--
From: Paul Root [proot@madisonstreetpartners.net]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:48 PMio
To: Harkless, LaVonne
Subject: Aerie
Dear City Council- , ,
I live in Corona del Mar on Bayside Drive, and I've seen the plans and I approve of the Aerie development and hope that you will approve it as
well.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul Root
Partner
MADISON STREET PARTNERS
8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 730
Irvine, CA 92618
949.468.2243 Direct
949.874.5698 Cell
949.585.9866 Fax
See our website:
madisonstreetpa rtners. net
07/21/2008
"RECE' c[S "TER AGFiI?A
FRiNITED:' 77d#,T)
SELMAN
CiBREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Jennifer Friend
714.647.2516
jfriend c@selmanbreitman.com
July 22, 2008
Via Messeneer
Via E -Mail
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
600 West Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 501
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4551
Telephone 714.647.9700
Facsimile 714.647.9200
www. se I ma n b r e it m a n. c o m
Re: AERIE PROJECT (2005-196)
July 22, 2008 City Council Hearing
201-205 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Drive
Comments Regarding Project Revisions, Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Coastal Development Permit
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Selman Breitman, LLP submits this letter of opposition on behalf of Kathleen McIntosh, residing
at 2495 Ocean Blvd., and Joe and Lisa Vallejo, residents of 2501 Ocean Blvd., in Corona del
Mar. This letter also references and incorporates all written and oral comments made by Selman
Breitman, LLP, Coast Law Group, LLP, David Lee & Associates and Scott Porterfield of The
Moote Group, on our clients' behalf. The written documents and oral arguments in opposition of
this proposed development, establish that the approval of this project is unauthorized by the
City's own land use documents inclusive of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as well
as the Coastal Act. The approval of this project is not supported by fair or substantial reason,
and must be denied. This project will substantially alter and destroy the coastal bluff and natural
landform upon which it will be placed. Further, the negative environmental impacts of this
project, which are significant, have not been adequately reviewed in the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, and a full environmental review is required.
1. THE "REVISED" AERIE PROJECT VIOLATES THE CITY'S OWN GENERAL
PLAN AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
Pursuant to Government Code §65867.5, there is a public duty not to approve development
rights unless the legislative body finds the provisions of the development proposal are consistent
with any general or specific plan for the area. The City may only permit development that is
53228.1 100.25035
Los Angeles . San Francisco . Orange County/Inland Empire . San Diego Las Vegas
SELMAN
t4BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 2
allowed by its General Plan and land use documents. The land use element is the controlling
element when decision makers review the proposed and allowable uses of city land. Cal.
Government Code §65302(a). The Aerie Project is not allowed by the City's General Plan.
Accordingly, to allow for the proposed development, would constitute an abuse of discretion.
The City of Newport Beach has authored and ratified the General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan (CLUP). Within the CLUP, the City mandates the following:
(1) "Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative
exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of
bluff face ... and to be visually compatible..." CLUP 4.4.3-8;
(2) Require visual compatibility to the maximum extent feasible. City
can only permit development to PLOED when no feasible
alternative exists and must be designed to minimize the alteration
of the bluff face. CLUP 4.4-8&9;
(3) Where feasible, restore and enhance visual quality in visually
degraded areas. CLUP 4.4.1-1;
(4) The mere establishment of a PLOED should not be interpreted to
determine the boundaries of development size and scope.
CLUP 4.4.3-19;
(5) Development site design and construction techniques must
"minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent
feasible". CLUP 4.4.3-12;
(6) Development shall minimize the alteration of natural landforms.
CLUP 4.4.1-3;
The AERIE Project violates each of these provisions. The applicant does not have a vested right
to build a project that violates the City's own land use documents. The applicant has not had any
approval of this Project nor been issued any permit for its development. The City has the
responsibility to deny proposals that do not comply with its General Plan, Coastal Land Use
Plan, and the Coastal Act. The City has no obligation to approve a non -conforming project. In
fact, to do so, is an abuse of its discretion.
53228.1 10025035
SELMAN
%BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 3
The AERIE Project Is Not Visually Compatible With The Surrounding
Neighborhood
The Aerie Project is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The
General Plan requires that it be compatible. Here, the predominant character of the
neighborhood is single family residential. The area is comprised of 30, 40 and 60' wide lots with
6' to 7' spaces that run all the way through the property. In stark contrast, the Project is one
massive complex consisting of a 160-footwide uninterrupted development. Clearly, this is not
compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. To allow for this Project to be
constructed, is to violate the clear and concise policies of the General Plan and CLUP Sections
2.9.3-1, 4.4.3-8, 4.4.3-12, 4.4.3 -19, among others.
Despite grave concerns about the aesthetic effect of the Project, little, if nothing, has been done
to address the issue. This Project is completely out of character for the surrounding and adjacent
areas. The marina alone will dramatically change the appearance of the tranquil cove and the
eradication of the bluff and subterranean development will completely alter the aesthetic quality
and nature of the coastal bluff area.
The City Council has already denied the Project once. On August 7, 2007, the City Council
stated that the mass and scale of the Project was not visually compatible with the surrounding
area as required by the General Plan. In protection of its natural resources, the City Council also
cited its concerns for the destruction of the coastal bluff. The Project still violates the General
Plan, and seeks to destroy the protected coastal bluff.
The AERIE Project Will Maximize Destruction of the Coastal Bluff
The Project will result in destruction of the protected coastal bluff. The proposed development
will create and significantly contribute to erosion, geologic instability, and destruction to the site
and potentially to the surrounding area. The Aerie Project requires the construction of protective
devices that will substantially alter the natural landforms along the coastal bluff. The Project will
maximize the alteration of the coastal bluff as it seeks to destroy 47% of the coastal bluff.
As stated in the attached report of David H. Lee, PE, GE, "the existing, natural bluff edge,
approximately 70 feet in elevation above MSL, will be destroyed in order to meet the proposed
construction daylight on the bluff face, which is 50.7 feet above MSL, i.e., the Predominant Line
of Existing Development (PLOED). Thus, the bluff edge will be re-established approximately
20 feet lower than the existing natural bluff edge." Further, "the proposed tunnel will create an
opening in the bluff face at an approximate elevation of 40 feet above MSL, which is about 10
53228.1 10025035
SELMAN
'-4BREITMAN LLP
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 4
feet lower than the established PLOED. The tunnel will also require stabilization and rock fall
protective devices, which are not permitted by the Coastal Act." The unique design and
construction plan of this Project will maximize the destruction of the coastal bluff. Clearly, this
significant destruction and alteration of the coastal bluff does not comply with the City's General
Plan and will not be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
2. THE MAY 16, 2008 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FATALLY
FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
As stated throughout the course of this Project review, a MND is insufficient to analyze the
environmental impacts of the AERIE Project. A structure of this scale that will have adverse
impacts on traffic, noise, parking, the stability and eco system of the bluff, the aesthetic character
and nature of the community, and geology of the land, requires a full environmental impact
report. The necessity of an EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res.
Code Section 21080), is further exasperated by the almost tripling of the existing dock space,
creation of a marina with the placement of a concrete wave attenuator and utilities, and
substantial disturbance to the sandy cover intertidal & shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and
sand dollar bed, within the existing cove.
This Project will have a significant impact on the environment. At a minimum, a fair argument
has been made for the necessity of an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines require that if any portion of a
Project may have a significant impact, an EIR must be prepared. Here, the demolition of over
24,000 cubic yards of bluff and the creation of a boating marina, at a minimum, provides
credible evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore,
CEQA requires an EIR be prepared for this Project. Pub. Res. Code Section 21080 ( c)(2); No
Oil v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,75; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v.
City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.e 1597, 1602.
Most of the mitigation referenced in the MND are post -approval mitigation measures to be
adopted at a later date. The City cannot rely upon such measures, as they are neither specific nor
the subject of analysis. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29
Cal.App.4`h 1597, 1602. The MND is legally insufficient.
3. CONCLUSION
This Project violates the City's General Plan, Local Land Use Plan and Coastal Act. The size,
scale, mass, and destructive construction design make it infeasible and non -conforming.
Despite the passing of time, the applicant has failed to design and submit a Project that complies
with the City's General Plan, CLUP, the Coastal Act, or CEQA. Further, an Environmental
53228.1 100.25035
SELMAN
%BREITMAN+«P
ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 22, 2008
Page 5
Impact Report must be prepared before this Project is considered. The MND is insufficient to
address the environmental impacts of this Project. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that
the City Council deny the Applicants request and reject this Project.
IAFljaf
53228.1 100.25035
DAVID H. LEE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING v ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
DAVID H. LEE & ASSOCIA
i
Primary Business Address
23011 Moulton Parkway
Suite D -I I
Laguna Hills, California
92653
Phone: 949-461-5690
Fax:949-461-7901
email: dhla@dhla. tom
http://www.dhla.com
DAvIo H. LEE, PE, GE
CouN E. CuNNINGr . PG, CEG
KAREN E. GEFACI, PE
SANom D.
Mayor Ed Selich
City of Newport Beach
City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685-8915
July 21, 2008
Our Project:K08.041.00
SUBJECT: Comments regarding the Aerie Project, a Proposed Condominium
Complex at 201-207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California
Dear Honorable Mayor Selich, and Members of the City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Aerie project (PA2005-196) located at 201-207 Carnation Avenue in the City
of Newport Beach. I am of the opinion that there is a fair argument for an
Environmental Impact Report (FIR) and technical review by the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) prior to project approval.
These comments are submitted on behalf of (1) Mr./Mrs. John and Kathleen
McIntosh and Mr./Mrs. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are Corona del Mar residents and
homeowners of the neighboring properties at 2495 and 2501 Ocean Boulevard,
respectively, and (2) their legal counsel, Ms. Jennifer Friend of Selman Breitman
LLP.
I have performed a third -party review of the publicly available project documents, as
well as the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the City of Newport Beach. As a
result, I hereby offer the following third -party geotechnical opinions regarding the
Aerie project:
1. The proposed project will involve substantial alterations to the natural
landform and have a sigAificant impact on the natural bluff.
(a) Approximately 25,240 cubic yards will be excavated from the natural landform
during site grading. The excavation will extend over 40 feet below existing grade
and into the bedrock.
(b) Two subterranean levels and an access runnel are proposed, which will replace a
significant portion of the excavated rock mass, substantially altering the composition
and character of this landform.
`.1TI01"I:t\K/1F,rur.IXAK!IXW rUI_DHL9_orm�ioN_rF.l'17 R_rP,2r:MxiX.D2C I>aA, rn/4
' Mayor Ed Selich Aerie Condominium Development
City of Newport Beach July 21, 2008
' (c) The structural integrity of the rock mass will be compromised bayward of the proposed subterranean levels,
' which can cause rockfalls and further deterioration on the bluff face. The remaining pillar of rock is not
expected to have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure. Protective
devices will be necessary to ensure public safety if this hazard is created, however, such protective devices are
' not permitted by the Coastal Act.
(d) Stress relief within the rock mass is expected to contribute to excavation cave-ins, failure on the bluff face,
' and possible instability on adjacent properties. The inherently folded and faulted character of the site bedrock
will also create localized areas of instability during installation and removal of shoring elements. Tieback
anchors used for the shoring system have been recommended to penetrate earth materials supporting adjacent
' properties. It is my understanding that permission to install tieback anchors beneath the McIntosh and Vallejo
properties adjacent to the Aerie site will NOT be granted. Further evaluation of the excavation's stability is
needed due to its extreme size and significant impact.
' (e) The existing, natural bluff edge, approximately 70 feet in elevation above MSL, will be destroyed in order to
meet the proposed construction daylight on the bluff face, which is 50.7 feet above MSL, i.e., the Predominant
' Line of Existing Development (PLOED). Thus, the bluff edge will be re-established approximately 20 feet
lower than the existing natural bluff edge.
' (0 The proposed tunnel will create an opening in the bluff face at an approximate elevation of 40 feet above
MSL, which is about 10 feet lower than the established PLOED. The tunnel will also require stabilization and
rockfall protective devices, which are not permitted by the Coastal Act.
' (p) The proposed stairway and appurtenances will require anchorages that will penetrate the bluff face and
further contribute to bluff erosion.
' 2. In addition, the project violates several principles of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) that
were established by the City of Newport Beach and approved by the California Coastal
Commission, including the following (underline added):
(a) The proposed development incorporates a substan ' excavation into the natural landform, which will
' destroy a significant portion of the bluff, and will likely require the construction of protective devices along the
bluff face. In addition, the bluff face itself will be significantly altered and will become more vulnerable to bluff
erosion.
' CLUP Section 2.9.14: 'Require new detrlopment to assume rtalnYity and strictural integrity. and neither create nor
CLUPSection4.4.3-9:'Termitpubkt-impmvementspmtidingpublicaecess,pmteeWngcoastalresourcer,orpmtading
' forpublic safety on coastal bls�,ff fares onla when no feasible alternative exists and mben destt ed and constricted to
minimi -e alteration of the bl ace to not contribute to-t5mrtber erosion of the blru,�face and to be nisually compatible wttb
due surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. " (CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
' P:\PR01lc7:f'�k7�8Wr.a�\KQri1Fu)0_nw_9_oPINION IL•77rx_rn2lZ�px.ncx: Pg1v: arf
1 Mayor Ed Selich
City, of Newport Beach
1
1
1
k
1
1
1
1
h
1
1
Aerie Condominium Development
July 21, 2008
(b) No building setback from the bluff edge is uncot-porated into the project design. The California Coastal
Commission has topically enforced a minimum building setback from the bluff edge, even when coastal bluffs
are relotively stable, both to protect coastal views and to act as a safety buffer to address anticipated bluff retreat
over the economic life of the development. 'The bluff is reportedly subject to marine erosion along the west -
facing bluff, and is not subject to erosion along the north -facing bluff. Therefore, building setbacks should be
incorporated into the design, as appropriate.
CLUP Section 4.4.3-3: '7Zegaue all ne:v blydf top development located on a binff�'nbject to marine ernsionto be sited in
accordance ndtb the predominant line of existing development in lbe subject area, bad not less than 25 feet from the blir�
ems. This requirement shall apply to die prinoc al structure and major• accessop, stniclures such asguesthonses and pools.
The setback shall be increased nibere necessary, to ensure safey and stability of the development. "
CLUP Section 4.43-4? "On blIgTc sid eel to marine erosion require new accessory;rtrsretures sue/r as decks, Patios and
walk—EV lbal do not require structural foundalions to be sited in accordance, uiith the predominant line of existing
developniernt in the subject area, but not less lban 10 feel froth the bldffedee. Require accessory stniclures to he removed or
relocated landrvard when lbreatened by erosion, intlabiliP, or other ba aids. "
CLUP Seclion 4.4.3-5: 'Requireall new bb f§'top deielopmerrt localed ole, a blit ff not iii feel to marine erosion to be set
Bark jroni /he bhgj' wive in accordance with the bredorrirrant litre of erre,/irrg development in the srrbdect area. 7 his
requirement shall app�i to lbe priniipa/stnicxrrre and major accessoy s/rrrclrnes such as gnesthorrses andpoa/s The setback
shall be increased wbere necessar3, to ensure sajey and stability of the development "
CLUP Section 4.4.3-6: "On bh�s nat std iecl to marine erosion, require new acees og struclures such as decks, patios
and walkways that do not nVaire sinictural foundations to be .ret back from the blrr(% edee in accordance will) the
Predominant line of existing accessoli denelopmenl. Require accessory sh7icline3 to be reriioned or relocated landward when
lbreatened by erosion, inslabiliy or other hatiards. "
CLUP Section 4.4.3-7: 'Regriire all new development. located on a bbt oP to be setbackfironi the bh4edae a sufliiient
distance to ensure stabiliy, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion; and to avoid the need forprnledive devices
dming lbe economic lije afthe structure (75years). Such setbacks mast take into consideration expected long-term bh�-
retreal over the nest 75 years, as well as slope slabili jl To assure stabiliy, lbe deve.lopmenl must maintain a minimum
factor of safey of 1.5 against landsliding for the economic life of the structure: "
(c) The "PLOED" should be re-evaluated so that it defines the ini nimurn horizontal setback distance from the
top of the bluff edge, and not as a target elevation for new development on the bluff face. In addition, the
"bluff edge" needs to be defined in accordance with the CLUP and California Coastal Commission
requirements. New development is required to incorporate a setback from the bluff edge, and not reshape the
bluff edge itself.
CLUP Glossary: 'Predominant Line ofEvishog Development (PL OED):
example, the predolainani line of existit g developneal for a block of homes on a coastal Miff (a spnc zzed group o f
slnrc(ures) could be deleznuned by calollatinglbe median distance (a representative distance) these strriduresare from the
bliff edge (a spec ed lune). " (CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
' R\PIi(1fHCIA KOV41aN11KOVO4(UN11�LOPINION—U-7.1 h R_OiMOOS.. 006 Loge 3 of!
' Mayor Ed Selich
City of Newport Beach
r
I
Aerie Condominium Development
July 21, 2008
CLOP Section 4.4.3-8: `Pmhibit detvlopmenl on bluff fans, except private development on roastal bb ff faces along
Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Awnue and Paifrc Drive in Comna del Afar determined to he consistent with the
pndominaut line of eazsting development. Establish a predominant line of existing developmenl for bob) principgl
slrrUlnres and aaLeuoa improvementr. " (CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
CLUP.Section 4.4.3-19: `7n all cases when Ibe predominant line of existing development is used to establish a
development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land usepolicies shall be considered in
determining Th��mpriate extent g/ new development and sire o new stncchrres. " (CLUP Amendment 2007-003)
' (d) The subterranean levels of the structure will have a destructive impact on the rock mass supporting the bluff
face. Therefore, the policies for "new development" should be re-evaluated as they relate to the subsurface
conditions of the bluff landform, and not just to the bluff face itself. Similarly, the term "setback
' encroachment" should be re-evaluated, whether setbacks are defined only at the ground surface or are subject to
subsurface limitations as well, to ensure the continued stability of adjacent properties.
' In conclusion, it is my professional opinion that substantial alterations to the bluff inherent in the proposed
project design will cause significant impacts to the protected natural landform. Therefore, it would not be proper
for the City Council to approve the project based upon analysis in the proposed MND currently under review.
' Because a fair argument exists that significant impacts will occur, an EIR should be prepared for the project, and
it should include assessment of any feasible alternatives to avoid or minimize anticipated impacts to the bluff.
Given the project's complexity, size, and significant environmental and geotechnical concerns, the City is further
' encouraged to seek technical review by the California Coastal Commission.
Thank you for your consideration in this OFESSi
Respectfully submitted, ��Q` ❑
Data X Cee d aj a YN+e S 0 m
' d EXP. 3 !1 lQ y
David H. Lee, PE, GE
President
' Distribution: Addressee (7)
Ms. Jennifer Friend, Esq. (1)
Selman Breitman LLP
t Mr. Scott Porterfield (1)
The Moote Group
Mr./Mrs. John and Kathleen McIntosh (1)
Mr./Mrs. Joe and Lisa Vallejo (1)
' r`1PRoJFCTsNxox041.r>7\tuawu1fni_ntrr_�_orwrorv_te'rrH�nrzrrxix.ocx:
Pq&Jof4
s
■
AERIE CONDOMINIUMS
City of Newport Beach, CA
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
July 22, 2008
Environmental Concerns
DAVID H. LEE ASS&-
Scott Porterfield
The Moote Group
David H. Lee, PE, GE
David H. Lee & Associates
GROUP T
Land Management Specialists
Existing Bluffside Landform and Apartment Building
CL UP 4.4.1
Excavation
Export of Bluffside Earth = 25,240 cubic yards
natural landforms.
CLUP 4.4.3-12 requires development site design and
construction techniques to "minimize alteration of coastal
bluffs to the maximum extent feasible."
Proposed Design
CLUP 4.4.3-8 `Permit such improvements only when no
feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed
to minimize alteration of bluff face... and to be visually
compatible..."
Existing to Proposed
Bluffside — Natural Landform will be destroyed by approximately
47%
o
CLUP 4.4.3-8 "Permit such improvements
only when no feasible alternative exists and
when designed and constructed to
minimize alteration of bluff face... and to
be visually compatible..."
CLUP 4.4.3-12 requires development site
design and construction techniques to
"minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to
the maximum extent feasible."
Existing to Proposed
Bluffside - Natural Landform will be destroyed by approximately 47%
CLUP 4.4.3-8 "Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when
designed and constructed to minimize alteration of bluff face... and to be visually
compatible..."
CLUP 4.4.3-12 requires development site design and construction techniques to "minimize
alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible."
Aerial Overall Site
CLUP 4.4.3-5 "Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed
and constructed to minimize alteration of bluff face... and to be visually compatible..."
CLUP 4.4.3-12 requires development site design and construction techniques to "minimize alteration of
coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible."
AERIE PROJECT DATA
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1 BLUFFSIDE - NATURAL LANDFORM
TO BE REDUCED / DESTROYED BY APPROXIMATELY 47%.
2 SUBSTANTIAL DISTURBANCE TO THE EXISTING COVE, HABITIAT,
EELGRASS AND SAND DOLLAR BED AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED
8 SLIP - MARINA.
3 DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
ESTIMATED DURATION
TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY
TOTAL ESTIMATED TRUCK TRIPS
4 EXCAVATION/ EXPORT OF BLUFF SIDE EARTH TO BREA LANDFILL
July 22, zoos
6,288 SQUARE FEET
2 MONTHS
14 TRIPS
616 TRIPS
ESTIMATED DURATION
6
MONTHS
EXPORT VOLUME
25,240
CUBIC YARDS
TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY
154
TRIPS
TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS (36.4 DAYS OVER 6 MONTHS)
5,606
TRIPS
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRT HAULING MILES / DAY
4,811
MILES
TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRT HAULING MILES (OVER 6 MONTHS)
175,119
MILES
5 SHORING
ESTIMATED DURATION
6
MONTHS
DRILL AND SET CASSIONS
LAGGING/ SHOTCRETE
DRILL HORIZONTAL TIE -BACK SYSTEM
DELIVERIES: STEEL CASSIONS, CONCRETE, TIE -BACK CABLES...
6 CONSTRUCTION
SUBTERRANEAN / SUB -BASEMENT, BASEMENT & 1ST FLOOR
6
MONTHS
APPROXIMATE CONCRETE QUANTITY
1,800
CUBIC YARDS
TOTAL ESTIMATED TRUCK TRIPS
360
TRIPS
UPPER FLOORS WOOD CONSTRUCTION; 2ND, 3RD, & 4TH FLOOR
6
MONTHS
SRUCTURE AND SITE FINISH
10
MONTHS
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION
30
MONTHS
2.5
YEARS
Existing to Proposed
m
u
• n,
a
A -A'
Limit of
Destroye
Bluff
Cross -Section
TUNNEL
Limit of
Destroyed
Bluff
Excavation
Export of Bluffside Earth = 25,240 cubic yards
1 existing condition
2 proposed grading
3 proposed grading
50.7' PLOED denoted in red
proposed gradin
f�-
50.7' PLOED denoted in red
5 proposed building
6 existing and proposed building section comparison
50.7' PLOED denoted in red
existing building section shown in white
Carnation Ave.
proposed building section shown in red
4� 2- -7-22--o8
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by
Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6' I a.
September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am
over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to or interested in the below entitled
matter. I am a principal clerk of the
NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA
DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the
City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange.
State of California, and that attached
Notice is a true and complete copy as
was printed and published on the
following dates:
July 12, 2008
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 14, 2008 at
Costa Mesa, California.
AERIE CONDOMINIUMS
ftMS-1961
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City I
the City of Newport Beach will hold a
caring on the application of Advances
affecting 201 g 207 Carnation .
Bayside Place in Corona del Mar.
would allow the demolition of an
apartment building and a single -f
the construction of a 6 -level,
family residential condominium
subterranean parking on a 1.4 a
bayward of the intersection of (
and Carnation Avenue. The existi
Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoni
of a small portion of the site (E
would be changed to be cons
larger portion of the site if
ential to multi -family residential). The so -
tion includes a tentative tract map for the
tion of eight (8) condominium units for
idual sale. The Modification Permit applica
requests the encroachment of subterranean
ons of the building within the front and side
setbacks and above glade encroachments
Residential
critaria,are known to exist, and therefc
replacement of affordable housing units
rired.
)TICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that
gated Negative Declaration has been prepa'
.he City of Newport Beach in connection w
a
of
associated Initial Study are av
Hic review and inspection at
rartrmnt, City of Newport Bea
t Boulevard, Newport Beach, Calif
)15. (949) 644-3200. Please subs
its to James Campbell at the addn
HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that s
g will be held on July 22. 2008
:e any and all persons interested r
and be hear thereon. If you challe
ject In court, you may be limited
rnly those issues you or someone l
t the public hearing (described in
or in written correspondence delive
My, at, or prior to, the public hears
mation call (949) 6443200.
M. Harkless. City Clerk, City of Newp
Published Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily
Pilot July 12,2008 Sa47811
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGG ER
Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Filed:
South Coast Area Office
49th Day:
December 2l, 2008
February8, 2008
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 �� ��
i562> 590-5071
180th Da Y
Staff:
June 18, 2008
Fernie Sy -LB
ct5 .A "
Staff Report:
May 29, 2008
Hearing Date:
June 11-13, 2008
Commission Action:
STAFF REPORT: REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION NO.: 5-07-327
APPLICANT: Richard J. Livoni Second Family Limited Partnership
AGENT: Brion Jeannette & Associates
PROJECT LOCATION: 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar
(Orange County)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove existing unpermitted retaining walls and beach access
stairway from bluff face, regrade lower bluff to natural contours, add
to residence a new caisson -supported deck with enclosed bathroom
and spa equipment room on upper bluff face, extend an existing
bluff face deck, and construct new at grade pathway from new deck
to beach. Grading will consist of 163 cubic yards of cut, 10 cubic
yards of fill, and 153 cubic yards of export to a location outside of
the Coastal Zone. Landscaping is also proposed.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The subject site is located between the first public road and the sea in Corona del Mar (Newport
Beach) and is immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach, which is a public beach. The
application seeks removal of existing development and construction of new development on a
coastal bluff face within a lot currently developed with a single family residence. The primary
issues before the Commission are the appropriateness of approving the project given the
importance of preserving scenic resources and minimizing landform alteration, preventing
adverse impacts to public use of the beach and avoiding development in hazard prone locations.
Commission staff believe part of the development can be approved because that development is
consistent with other development approved by the Commission in the surrounding area.
However, part of the proposed project, a private pathway down the bluff face to the beach, is not
being proposed consistent with other such pathways that have been approved by the
Commission in the vicinity of the site. Thus, Commission staff do not support the new pathway.
Staff recommends that the Commission take one vote adopting a two-part resolution, which
would APPROVE removal of the existing unpermitted bluff face stairway and walls, regrading the
lower bluff to natural contours, landscaping, and construction of a new deck that would be in
alignment with surrounding approved decks; and DENY the proposed new private pathway from
the new deck, down the bluff face, to the beach.
Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the proposed project subject to ELEVEN (11) SPECIAL
CONDITIONS requiring: 1) an assumption of risk, 2) submittal of final project plans showing that
Ir
I
6
WVN "—.Cl VNO'Mt,
'NOAil
...... ..... .. .
. ........ .....
...
Col.)
...... ..... .. .
Col.)
ISE
CD
COD
C-')
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
baa. -1-22-(i8
Brion Jeannette Architecture
July 18, 2008
Mr. Jim Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Aerie (PA 2005-196)
201-205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place
Dear Jim:
Please accept this revised sheet as a replacement for A-1 8b in the previously submitted
drawings. It has just come to our attention that the artist's perspective of the rendering
in this exhibit (View from Bayside Drive Beach - Superimposed North Elevation) was
skewed from the angle of the photograph. The original rendering showed the southwest
corner of the building extending further oceanward than the existing building. The
rendering has been revised at the southwest comer to show the actual extent of the
building and decks — portions of which are actually behind the extent of the existing
building. In addition, the opening between the two proposed buildings, which varies
from 18'-6" to 20'-0", has been emphasized for clarity.
Please let us know if any further clarification is needed for this matter.
Thank you,
Brion S. Jeanre,
Architect
470 Old Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, CA 92663 . T: 949.645.5854 F: 949.645.5983
Members A'A & NCARB . www.cus`.omarch'xc.ure.cc i
Energy Conscoos Design
u
i
b`
ym
ox
G
17
R
Fr
OX
y
m Z
_
�
C
7A�
�n
Z.y
p-
m0
t m
QX
m1
<*
Cm
Qn
ry
=Z
i
}t
yO
�<
<Q
OZ V�
3N
m—�m
yT
M
y
ri_
f
I
r-
D
mzz
*
DzN
mo
j
00
Oo
W
1
Zm
W
C
�T
v
m
o
s
D
b`
ym
ox
G
17
R
C m
H
CQ
m T
� m
OX
y
m Z
_
�
C
O_
Z
O
D