Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03a_Materials Rec'd After Packet Published
Chairman Earl McDaniel 5 October 2010 RECEIVED Planning Commissioners 2010 OCT —5 '9111: 1 q Subject: PA2010 -102 OFFICE OF THc C'YCL[RK CITY lil O at 481 - The Project site (PA2010 -102) is located within the Old Newport Boulevard comm ercia r Kt 495 Old Newport Boulevard. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial Office (CO -G) with a maximum allowable development limit of 0.5 FAR. The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable FAR above the 0.5 level. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a use permit to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. The applicant is requesting the City to ignore the GP standards and policies which reflect a significant effort and expenditures by the City and its citizens on the development of the updated General Plan. The existing GP FAR of 0.5 represents to the residents (nearby Old Newport Boulevard) the sincere desire by the City to minimize the impact on the residents, the residential streets, and the commercial /residential neighborhood in general. (Documented in attached 28 February 2010 letter signed by approximately 140 residents and was submitted as part of Agenda Item No. 12 City Council Meeting on 9 March 2010.) Per my understanding, the applicant previously received a building permit for this site in February, 2010 and may proceed without approaching the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is requested to deny the proposed GPA and the use permit as incompatible with the surrounding uses and the intent of the existing GP FAR 0.5 specified in the electorate approved GP. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 5 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2 City of Newport Beach Attention: Mayor Curry Council Member Rosansky All other Council Members Planning Department Subject: Disapproval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 and associated applications We, the Newport Heights residents, whose residential neighborhood is adjacent to the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area, strongly oppose the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 and the associated applications of Michael C. Adams Associates (328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard). Details: General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 requests a 100 % increase in the allowable FAR from 0.5 to '1.0 (an increase of 12,862.5sq. ft. of entitlement) and m the d�rrnnurion, of the quality of life for.New:pork Heights_ and.specially. fox th will result near,. residents of streets, includmg,but not limited to, Westminster, Holmwood, Catalina, Br oad and Clay The. existing GP:FAR of 0.5 represents to.the.residents (nearby Old Newport Boulevard)ahe sincere desire bythe`City via the updated GP fo minimize the impact on the residents, the residential streets and .the commercial/residential neighborhood in gerieraI The. impact,of GP2008 -001 with'its proposed;associated development on our neighborhood safety,.health, traffic, noise, and parking is detrimental to our quality of life and this. impact will only be augmented by additional future redevelopment of the remaining portions of Old Newport Boulevard. This compromise of the general plan for this project also establishes undesirable precedent for future commercial projects on Old Newport Boulevard. These concerns have become of paramount importance since the demographics of our residential area has recently changed with a significant increase in the number of children in the neighborhood. Per the Planning Commission Staff report, 14,012 sq. ft. of office / medical office and one apartment currently occupy the site. We would support the General Plan FAR of 0.5 for a smaller development which sincerely takes into account below Iisted concerns /issues and any approved plan would have to include no vehicular access from the alley, no vehicular parking on the alley, thus all vehicular access would be limited to Old Newport Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 and associated applications should be disapproved. 2 1. The following is a list of specific detailed concerns /issues to be resolved for the currently proposed development of 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard. • The 2006 comprehensive update to the City's General Plan (GP) specifies a FAR of 0.5 which should not be changed to 1.0 Details:.The applicant is to be complimented on proposing a new development on Old Newport Boulevard and the defined vehicular access; however, the applicant of the proposed development is requesting the City to ignore the GP standards, and policies which reflects a significant effort and expenditures by the City and its citizens on the development of an updated GP. The existing GP FAR of 0.5 represents to the residents (nearby Old Newport Boulevard) the sincere desire by the City to minimize the impact on the residents, the residential streets, and the commercial/residential neighborhood`in general. Additionally, the existing GP FAR of 0.5 maintains compatibility with the existing businesses and results in small increments of additional traffic.. Currently, the Old Newport Boulevard area has existing businesses of smaller sites /structures with predorrugatelyaow_coxnme c al�nteris ty,:.and thQ.pro.posed, FAR .o.f.l,.O.would..result.iii..a,. contrasting gross structure (a leviathan)'for the area and with a significantly increased. .commercial intensity...Jhe existmg;businesses as a result of -the proposed doubling of the FAR will expernence'al *6fold increment m traffic and associated traffic circulation on Old Newport Boule and wMe' li is heavily flaveled. The increased traffic circulation is further complicated by the pi oximity of this ouensized:.pnoject to the lii= directional . " interchange°' of Old'New pot 'it oulevard/Newport Boulevard.. The proposed project requires seven spaces of on- street parking which results iii the existing businesses losing seven public parking spaces. Additionally,. the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 4'February 2010, addressed a concern of fairness associated with the requested FAR change to 1.0 and requested the Planning Commission to consider the fairness of granting an increased 1.0 FAR intensity to a single property owner within an existing commercial corridor area. The City Council is asked to consider the fairness and the effects on the future development in this existing commercial corridor area and the fact that such precedent might establish new expectations' for future applicants which are above and beyond the general plan. The City Council is requested to disapprove this project, return it to the Planning Commission for downsizing and request the applicant to consider a redesign reflecting a smaller development with the General Plan FAR of 0.5 and possibly consider developing the separate parcels individually with smaller structures with low commercial intensity to maintain compatibility with the existing businesses. This proposed commercial project is too large for the Old Newport Boulevard area (advantageous for the applicant), is not compatible with the existing businesses (disadvantageous to the existing business owners), 3 does not minimize the impacts on the nearby residents (disadvantageous to the residents), requires an unacceptable amendment (100% increase in FAR) to the General Plan and additionally still requires a modification permit, a parking credit approval permit, and a use permit. The proposed project is too large and represents an egregious disregard of the 2006 GP developed by the City and its citizens. • The proposed project fails to comply with three basic development standards (setback, height, and parking) of OId Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP -9) and requires the creation of an Anomaly. Details: 1. The project requires an encroachment (2 feet ?) into the 5 -foot rear yard setback (necessitating a modification permit). 2. The project has an elevator and stairwell in the northwest corner which exceeds the. base height limit (necessitating a use permit). 3. The project requires seven spaces of on- street parking. (necessitating a parking credit approval permit). In- addition, to.-an amendment.to, theG,eneral Plan, .this,project requires the generation, of. an Anomaly. The number of projected peak Hour Trips for any development on this site should be considered with respect to potential' future cumulative amendments in this existing eommercial corridor area (Reference Charter ter S.ectioir: 423):. . Details: The understanding rs that the 51.45 evening trips (P.M.). (.Charter Section 423 Peak Hour Trip Calculation),esnits'in the utilization of approximately 40% of the cumulative 100 peak hour vehicle trips constraint of Charter Section 423. Is the 40% of the cumulative 100 peak hour vehicle trips associated with this site development (0,59 acre) judiciously appropriate /proportional to the total acres in the existing commercial corridor area and associated future cumulative amendments? Are other future development sites penalized by this proposed project? Does the Planning Department/Commission have a method/procedure to address this concern? The proposed project will result in the reduction in the value of the residential property. Details: Mr. J. Vanderwal states in his letter (Reference letter, Attachment # A received by the Planning Department 7 Jan 2010) that he is a Real Estate developer/builder and the value of his property will be greatly,reduced as a consequence of the proposed project. The concern is that a proposed project of this size will not only reduce the value of Mr. J. Vanderwal's property, but will reduce the value of other nearby residential properties. Iq G/ • Lighting impacts and privacy concerns of the adjacent residential properties for any development on this site should be minimized by acceptance of the recommendations specified on page 17 under the Lighting/Privacy paragraph of the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 4 February 2010. Details: To minimize lighting impact and address privacy concerns, the finalized project design should include automated internal shades set to close in the evenings and an internal lighting system that would auto -dim after standard working hours, leaving limited task lights illuminated for the janitorial activities. • The Vehicular Access currently contained in this proposed project should not be changed in future project modifications. Details: Non - residential projects with ingress and egress from alleys accessed from Holmwood are subject to Site Review to minimize traffic and parking impacts on adjacent single - family residential areas. No vehicular access from the alley adjacent to the residential area is proposed. No vehicular parking on the alley adjacent to the residential area is proposed. All vehicular access will occur from Old Newport Boulevard. ...... There should be no change to the Vehicular Access in future project downsize modifications. 2. The following is a list .of specific detailed concerns /issues to be considered for a and every future proposed` development of '328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard. • Historically, the type of business conducted at the subject sites has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business). Any approved development for these sites should be limited to the historical usage. Details: The commercial property at 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard is unique in that it is adjacent to residential property. The nature and type of business conducted at 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard directly affects the quality of life of the local residents. Historically, the type of business at this site has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business). Any approved development for these sites should be limited to the historical usage. t7 During construction all deliveries /pickups (materials, construction trash, etc.) to the site under development should be restricted to Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. Details: This will minimize the safety, health, traffic, noise and odor impacts on the quality of life of our neighborhood. • Trash pickup from the completed site should be from Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. Additionally, all deliveries /pickups (business, laboratory specimens, supplies, etc.) should be restricted to Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. Details: This will minimize the safety, health, traffic, noise and odor impacts on the neighborhood quality of life. The restaurant in the area (which has a parking . structure) was restricted by the Planning Commission to trash pickup using Old Newport Boulevard. Several years ago, the restaurant moved trash pickup to Westminster Avenue (residential area). The neighbors complained to the city and subsequently the restaurant shifted the trash pickup back to Old Newport Boulevard. (Reference letter Attachment # B reQeivQd.by.the.City Planning:Dept..on.July,,13, 2006.and subsequently included .in- Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2 dated July 20, 2006). Trash pickup . from -the completed site and all business deliveries /pickups (laboratory.:.. specimens, office supplies, medical supplies, etc.) should be from Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. • No on- street parking credit should be.permitted. Details: Currently existing businesses including the businesses at 400/404/408 Westminster, 350 Old Newport and 300 Old Newport, three being medical complexes / establishments and the others being traditional commercial business, already generate significant parking on the residential streets of Beacon, Holmwood, Westminster and Catalina. Further large developments with allocated street parking will only exacerbate the already existing issues / concerns. • The Employee Parking Spaces should be designated with posted signage stating "Employee Parking Only." Details: This will minimize the safety, traffic, noise and parking impacts on the quality of life our neighborhood. The current parking concerns noted earlier which are due to existing businesses are generally due to employees of such stated businesses parking in residential areas in order to accommodate already limited parking for their said customers. • The storage of vehicles and/or trailers on decorative paving, defined landscape area or parking spaces should be prohibited. Details: A tent trailer is currently stored on an existing medical business site. This concern has existed since July 10, 2006 and is documented in the attached letter which is part of Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2 dated July 20, 2006 (Reference Attachment #B). It is not known if the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space or a defined decorative / landscape area. If the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space, then the medical business parking area is unable to accommodate one less employee / patron who must consequently park on the street where there are few parking spots on Old Newport Boulevard and the commercial portion of Beacon. If the storage. of vehicles / trailers is on decorative paving or landscape areas, the intended aesthetics of the site are diminished. Parking should be prohibited on any area specified as decorative paving or landscape areas by signage. Details: Current businesses have decorative paving and / or landscape areas which.are currentlyaeing dsbd.fbr.;parking. . Such - should. be.piohibited- and.marked . accordingly ,with proper signage. This ensures the desired aesthetics of the site is maintained:. , on cell Details: This wi'll'nmm11 ize the "safety, health, noise and'odor impacts on the rghl)orhood :quality of life. Infhe.past, various employees of the existing businesses iedical, commercial, etc.) would lean on residential walls or stand on residential property lines along the alley while smoking and/or engaged in disruptive noisy cell phone conversations: (Reference Attachment # C, letter dated 14 December 2003) M Several items to be considered in the downsizing of this project include. 1. Elimination of office level two in order to address many of the concerns about alley activities including but not limited to (noise, parking, trash, deliveries, lighting, height intrusion, privacy, etc.). Elimination of office level two also addresses the unfair precedent of approving the.applicant's currently proposed project beyond the scope of the General plan FAR of 0.5 2. Increase the turning radius of the parking levels for safety of patrons using the southeast stairwell (Reference Attachment # D) 3. Eliminate the need for on- street parking 4. The residents strongly support the "no vehicular access from the alley" and "all vehicular access from Old Newport Boulevard" for any development on the proposed site. 5. In assisting the neighbors in making final recommendations, we suggest the planning commissioners and city council members meet with the neighbors in order to conduct a visual inspection of the proposed property space and the current traffic / parking situation as presented by current. businesses, .The neighborhood 'coalition requests such review occur between the days of Monday through. Thursday between the hours of 9:006m..aud.5:00pin..- The finalized project should be equitable and judicious to.all parties. Attached is a signed list of the residents who are greatly concerned about the aforementioned issues. We thank you in advance for your considerations of these issues .and the associated impacts on the quality of life for Newport Heights.and specifically for the residents of nearby streets. Sincerely, �L g FEB :�- G / Tom Balser 413 Holmwood Drive toinlubaker@hotmail.com Eric nde.; 400`Holhtwood':Drive X7, 4+k i x'33 F-I o(w�w��ol �►%' 308 Holmwood Drive q-Z-`a UW�S M1t�s`�viv �e- j�2tz�u;�ut- t�z+cN- I R�ey— -113�1 < Lj -S(C 6f MAY cCv I (od 30 WC 5,9-, t1Y� r4 la j n X4 Address -t" .. r -..- M ,yiru.�vrr! l,�hoh� rAaUQYib &"-o 14N I lmv��i Or. Sjnr�e�°�8 Vii- I I �-� - - �t.. ,� rwa5. U1 rz�vJ a'-15 ail a Sr' 609 !E'. ' LrrJ�Jplr�/ ��W ,�2o Noz�vtii/aaD D At -t" .. r -..- M ,yiru.�vrr! l,�hoh� rAaUQYib &"-o 14N I lmv��i Or. Sjnr�e�°�8 Vii- I I 2-3 We1T'"w'Tcrv, 97 f� eS��� ;�-7F-P,4 �-O/ o 5 y na*&4 re. 6 C4 W-1- = 16 AIL-/ 7+ P � +16 4-If+I I Name (Print) Address Signature �, �� ITC7ii�•��'99 -1./3° -Q��' 1�O 4.Mwooa� �f21vC "U _ 1 ZTc4141 -Ch? O-" �/p 11 0 04'F b�irlllfl/tit� K--1 ['Vl '�J C`�..iz•@- '--��'/ ✓' ���1'G'�` �iWl. Am We- TV c✓i f!?Nq Zlbn C+- — Q�GIa� 42i GAa G� LGS r ,7 Ih'. /.1111 ,I pry afv- Ouof.4vL 2/13 l'o -4 hW.G Ap 5 y na*&4 re. 6 C4 W-1- = 16 AIL-/ 7+ P � +16 4-If+I I �z,�3 I . r I Vanderwal 325 Holmwood Drive Newport Beich, CA 92663 January 6, 2010 Jaime Murillo, Associate' Planner, City of Newport -BO-66h- 3300 Newport' Boulevard Newport,Beach,-!CA92658 Tel: .(949) 631-4984 Fax: (949) 631-4996 Subject: old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PA2008-047) Dear Mr. Murillo, My residence_ is located accross the alley of the above project. Here aremy comments: 1. Being a Real Estate develop ' er/builddr myself, I don't oppose reasonoble developments that comply witly City/County regulations. qtaO that projects. that are. .too small. often.do n� not pencil'out. I - As to the inVoA-Verihent of a project's ne'i('Ihboi.§, 't, -know all about that:- Three years ag,61 I ourl .. , when I;a:s owner/builldeiri in Iki or-s:ide CA ty was building .4 homep�.,q 3.000: sq.. ft.. each. (total, 12,000 ,Ft.)'; was kol, 66a f ipa it, of fioir' the b n6 r 0 e fit of .theneTghbqrs in ord er to .get, .it approved... .4 My r",id6nqe! is. lqqateq. ap�qross.. our.joint. back alley 8. 0 percent o�f...t h a new. medical for abou., I boil.dipg s;-Iqngthj which Will have. a... m4ssiyb! -1 Ippact on the. 14, windows. of-;,my:xesidence.;.a-1ong ;the entire.medical,:bulldiny. I I . ' As a consequence that will greatly.reduce the value.of my property. 5 1 propos . e ;.that- we pit down so. that 'this Medical 'building- can be built, and here 6rEi°two.ways to do that: A.. -I sell my residence, to the -owner of th!;I.kfddica-l"6f fide'. B..• The City rezones my,property so c'that i.--I-With' �t:ffie =Assks. tande of the mdd*lda;l buildinqbuilding's owner' tould build'.2 cond6'8'6n: the second level of my residence, which actually would serve as a transitional-. z.onihg.- between the comml�dric:xal-�z"Onlnq. '. 6 , f --.Old Newport Boulevard: and the residential'z6ninq 6i4olmw6od Dr. Please •ftot6*- My residence has already dity-appr6yed plans for a second story.. Please contact;me.if you have. questions. RECEIVED nv With regards, 4a Ot/I a- / 7 ial, . y Vanddrwal PLANNINGIDEPART99111 JAN - I 20I9 b- m qff OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach Gregg B. Ramirez Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Update Dear Sir, P rIC(,CVCU CI7y©I=tVF!jlrjRiiT ACH AY Jt1(, 1 3 2006 Our Newport Heights residential neighborhood is adjacent to the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area. The current increasing impact of this commercial area on our neighborhood has resulted in the diminution of the quality of life for the residents. Generally affected areas include': and safety concerns from commercial trash pick -up, on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial C) i reased traffic volume on residential sfre'ets, with associated safety concerns. Specific.current problems which significantly. affect the residential neighborhood include A 1) comiiiarcial tr8 drestaurant garbage bins located on Westminster Avenue; and'ad�acent to the residential portion of said Aveniie Wlueli is predominately . residential: (Does the city have.code/glanung requirements iii'the updated general plan that prohibit the location f t ras h/garbage bins adjacent to residential areas to minimize the resultant noise, traffic and safety impact on the residents?) A. 2). coiercial trash/garbage trucks after the, noisy pick =up of trash/garbage on Westminster Avenue drive to reverse with limited visibility out of the tmsh/garbage storage area onto Westminster and partially block both lanes of the Avenue, resulting in a significant safety problem: (Does: the city have code/plannhig "requirements which address the location and access of trash/garbage bins and associated traffic safety concerns ?) A 3) commercial trash/garbage trucks after the-noisy-pick-up of trash/garbage quite frequently.drive an unnecessary: circular route -tiuough the residential neighborhood. (Does the city have code/planning. requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit these large commercial trash /garbage trucks from driving unnecessarily through the residential neighborhood when there have been no service requests made by the residents ?) 1-� 9 B 1) employees and/or patrons of nearby businesses (medical, restaurant, commercial, etc.) have been using the residential streets for commercial parking. This leaves the streets of Westminster, Beacon, Broad and Holmwood with serious parking for the residents of said streets. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that specify that employees must park on their business employment parking area and not on the residential streets? Is there a requirement that the parking spaces be specifically -and .clearly marked /reserved for employees ?) In addition, the alley parallel to Holmwood is predominately residential but is currently used extensively for commercial parking and traffic. This significantly detracts from the residential quality of life. Is this addressed in the updated general plan by prohibiting parking and through traffic in such situations? B 2) additionally, if there is an.off -site parking agreement; what are the city requirements for lease duration; legal recordation with accessibility by the public and individual parking spaces sign'ago specifications to assure the markings are clear and specific in the iht6ded usage7, What actions are taken by the city and imposeduponthe commercial-,business uponihe expiration -of said agreement? B 3) again;,relafed to parking,.a.tentlrailer is presentlystored'oh a rrtedical business property it.is not.known �f the >tent truier occupies an approved p space of thebustness: (Does the cityty' have code /plannthg reguiretnerits, inthe updated,general, plan that prohibif die storage of tent trader, vehicles, etc. on cdiiimeYeial`,ro .c - , very and multi- ouroose. buildm`as.wiil create more traffic andassociatedisafety on'bur' , Of MM associated updated City Code will adequately address dnd ri olve the issues and restore a goodquality of life to the neighborhood. We thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of our requests and ask., that you please contact us via e- mail. Sincerely, Tom Baker, tomiubakerChotmail.com Ralph Kdesjian, r ik @yahoo.com 7110 Ad 15 a ril "% # 13 p ar e ,3 Signed, ) IP V Signed, R G Signed, IV Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Dear Planning Director, A-ff a C�M paje I 1_ 14 December 2003 We strongly oppose the approval of the. application, User Permit UP2003 -048 (PA2003- 280), by Andrew Noakes. The commercial property at 408 Westminster Avenue is unique in that it is adjacent to residential property (i.e., it is not surrounded entirely by other commercial property). The nature and type of business conducted at 408 Westminster-Avenue directly -a ffect•the:qualityof life of the local - residents. • Historically the type. of;business at 408' Westminster Avenue has been basically.from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.ivith mmimal.or no business on weekends.and,is conducted; inside.the_building. . Adglts and children of the nerghborhood are affected directly by the type of business at neighborhood. It is strongly recommended that the application be. rejected. Sincerely, �- Jaltmuvod Dr , Cl� 401 t fDL� (WOO 1a �fz' �EU��o�T 8i'AGl -F r. '� q_ f-%1nzcoe-'T4 (-eve /'/ _; File : NB Planning Department - Q. •tea• r• -� •c 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCEDU DI SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 LOWER PAP 4Y , Ltllff,�;J�IR7111 la It. t 0� A -1 Y UPPER 326 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD CITY OF MWPM BEAC.CA A -2 J W05A 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ®� % WOOD BLIRGHARD SUITE 203 IRVINE "CA, 92604 SA as 2 C14rfj E vPw aweso UPPER 326 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD CITY OF MWPM BEAC.CA A -2 J Hall & Hall Property P.O. Box 2450 Newport Beach, CA 92656 -6972 (949) 650 -4555 September 30, 2010 Michael Toerge, Secretary Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Planning Committee City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Project File No.: PA2010 -102 Location: 481 -495 Old Newport Blvd. Dear Sirs, Activity No.: GP2010 -003, UP2010 -019 LM2010 -002 The day before yesterday, September 27, 2010, we received your Notice of Public Hearing for Project File No.: PA2010 -102. As we are located very close to this location we are concerned about the following items listed on the notice: 1. We object to the increase of FAR. 2. There is already congested parking in this location and we object to utilizing on- street parking to meet the parking requirements for this project. 3. We are not opposed to combining the three lots with the notation of "adjacent abandoned right -of -way'. We have spoken with Jaime Murillo, your Associate Planner on Wednesday morning, September 29th Sincerely, �? xa, �4-- -- K.G. Parkhurst Executive Assistant oe ,V,WED By PLAtTSING DEPARTWENT OCT : 5 ZM MY OF NEWPORT BEACH J. Vanderwal 325 Holn wood Drive Newport Beach, CA 91863 October 5, 2010 The City Council Newport Beach, CA. -- RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PC' 62010 Tel: (949) 831.4984 Fax: (949)631.4996 OF NEWPORT BEACH C Iiti i Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 2010 -003. Dear Council, I live accross the alley from the earlier approved medical offices at 332 Old Newport Blvd. I have read the various reports regarding this new proposed project on the triangular property, and as a Builder /Developer I understand that the subject proprty is difficult and expensive to develop. with that being the case, the owner should have done his homework prior to purchasing the property, and not afterwards complaining about it. He /she did it all without being pushed in by anyone. As a remedy, the owner seeks all kinds of favors from the city_ such as increasing the allowable building height to 32 feet, which will severely impact the entire neighborhood, because: a.. It will destroy the friendly ambiance of lowlevel Old Newport Blvd, b.. it will heavily impact the resideneas behind the building. The time has come for everyone to understand that many nearby medical officess have relocated recently to the new HOAG offices at 500 Superior Blvd, and there's also that new half empty.+ medical building on Newport Blvd, south of 17th street, as ugly as can be. That is the kind of thing you will be looking at. The City has to take a stand to protect the livability of this part of Newport Beach, NOW is the time to do it. All of the Council members were elected to do that. Now go do it, the City needs it. With regards, CPm /Vvk' /Jay Vanderwal V From: TOMLU BAKER [mailto:tomlubaker @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:18 AM To: emcdaniel @sunwestbank.com; Murillo, Jaime Cc: Tom & Lu Anne Baker Subject: PA2010 -102 Old Newport Blvd Dear Chairman Earl McDaniel 7 October 2010 and Associate Planner Jaime Murillo Subject : PA2010 -102 In the Planning Staff Report (PA2010 -102) there is a letter from WBSA, Dated October 1, 2010 with no signature. Question 1: Is this an official letter from WBSA with their final assessment or is it a rough draft? Question 2: The letter seems to imply that the loose fill is causing the excavation of 10 feet of soil and additional cost. Independent of the soil type ( loose fill or not) how many feet of soil would have to be excavated to accommodate the parking and building and still stay within height constraints? The General Plan was approved by the electorate. Question 3: What is the exact date the General Plan was approved? Question 4: What is the exact date this property was purchased? My understanding is that the Planning Commission and the City Council may approve amendments to the General Plan. Question 5: How many General Plan Amendments have been approved? Specifically, how many resulted in an increased FAR, what section of Newport Beach was affected and were the associated projects started under the electorate approved General Plan? My understanding is that the City notifies residents within 300 feet of a proposed project? This appears to be a very limited distribution of the notices to the surrounding residents? Question 5: Is it possible to increase the area for better distribution of the notices? Can a system be established whereby a resident can requested notification of proposed activities in a specific area (e.g. Corona Del Mar, etc.)? Mr. Murillo and I have partially discussed some of the above items. It is respectfully submitted that these items be included in the October 7,2010 Agenda Item No. 3. Mr Murillo has been very helpful and he is an asset to the City Planning Department. Thanks in advance for your response. Sincerely, Thomas Baker Newport Beach 'J �e►m.rT•� �.�U,l1� /nUs �z It S/7 A WSS 7TH USE 11jIII'111111II I 1I- t lto-�n& szru7'?-/- H " `AV �. MOW /7 fo on sr. ,yX '`usr fklewi) ,doll i (�Iw6e-- aye 17(Oler"6 �Uesl -5 /les �2vnos�� �Zc�c� 6 soi c. r-tfEr-li Vi fc.J &fo se- /x7-i5 A-u- TFIE C s c.�osD 7W-/s r'105r�> fh'It� - Z>W.Latr,-, 5T71 F 72oylT.s EiYl�7�% Cvl 0,4x�rF A/ UVW4- ?wl mq- A-I-OW6- �L.S/(r/69�� � A-61 1'111111I�lIIIllui m Nb t ki 0 .S7b?2� �,�OyLT �s G�J�I,L AS Sti-GoYI �BPp /S (f cASC 1 e)t —1,YiS 2 / & T 70 & - ?//� . L_