Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVACATION TICONDEROGA ST 1982111111111 lill 11111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* VACATATION TICONDEROGA ST ,1982 r �gW Pp�r� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'�'��' U P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92063.3884 C7<rFo aN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT 640-2197 January 28, 1983 Charles V. McCarty Newport Crest Homeowners Association 201 Intrepid Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: Initial Study/Negative Declaration "Ticonderoga Street Vacation" Dear Mr. McCarty The City of Newport Beach has completed its environmental documentation on the above subject project. The Planning Department has transmitted this information to the City's Public Works Department, they will process the remainder of your vacation application in accordance with City Policy. If you have any questions related.to the enclosed documents please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR BY Fred Tala ico, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach '9 I0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Q Secretary for Resources 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk d Public Services Division P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: TICONDEROGA STREET VACATION FROM: 'Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 PROJECT LOCATION: TICONDEROGA STREET, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of the vacation of Ticonderoga Street. A public street serving the Newport Crest housing development in the West Newport Area. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: SEE ATTACHEDO INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport -Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Date: Environmental Coordinator Hi APPENDIX H Date Filed Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: /I PA<;' '2e% /& 2. Address of project: ac lA,raze rD Si , IY, e.,F r/ G� Assessor's Block and Lot um er 4e , i, / [F^.•u y r,P rrrr 3. Name, address, and to ephoneFnumber of person to be contacted concerning this1project:,11-AICr ffi-%n-`atI j3ptzLoVrA/ro cri , i9 ed. FCUISr C1-2Egley ' rw 4 r3,-(470 [nJ (gyp,✓iJr G:eriL•.F1aC/ 5c-T, 4ei IvVzeP,R $r n/•,3. gwm3 (oil- eYtnc 4, Indicate number of the pe mit application for the project to which this form pertains: 5. s an escr be any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies* l I'zr_vls 6. 7. Existing zoning district: ._ Proposed use of site (Project. which this form is filed): PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. AN f/• 9. Sgaare footage. r71)1 10. Nurober of floors of construcLion. Nor /3P77• 11, AnOU'Zt of off-street parking provided. A✓:>T ppf>- 1F. A1.Lach plans. PAI I`/1-8" /d[TN Crry. 11. Proposed schedullnE. 'y8/•; I kk� TCriT R� ; C,r/ 111. Associated projects. 64-ti-rvAc. GraiEFtcvSF C.R.�STRc'�T-1 4•vr,cr�.rrD, Ir,, Anticipated incremental development. Al-d 11 -�sv- H2 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. dpT- &?-?• 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. WO A -PT 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities, 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. .A)e T /+Fp. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. dr, Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). I YES • NO 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. X 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of•solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ 7� 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. ( 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels In the vicinity. _ _L_ 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 perccrit or more. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 113 Yt•:; NO 30.• Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). x 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). �( 32. Relatiqqnship to a larger project or series of projects. nlvAAt pr 19j�tl4idAd1 �y ✓�iN6 �)20.1c� rn/1y 4'✓rn,io9L�� ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 40AjA1Cr7- To 7//i3 $r.Zr�', ! 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, -historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures.on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of.the site.- Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ;R6A7t0Ry aEFe.zr /fND Al C1%Ff/}NECS, 34.' Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the typo of land use (residential, commercial, ets.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, . 'department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photon will be accepted. ,51W6417 Fi3.n ray CuN Jcmii✓���»s• 43CIZ41e /iwt> /7r71ER. '/Vv E/f-N.V6e. ca CERTIFICATION:• I he certify that the statements furnished above an in the attached exhibits present the data 'and infor- mation required -for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the -best of my knowledge and belief. q Date Lo S% ✓ !` "' /.. • gna ure �/L( 3.T �.LE—�ao..�at"tJ,.+•..ef�C/ i22.C!> C_ - '0 `i APPENDIX I FNVIRONMENTAL CNECYLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent G•t-r_ 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Sct}7r���,x X 3. Date of Checklist Submission 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CkT`i UE-�Gy9of 1. eC�ir 5. Name of Proposal. if applicable V l' C W t Io 1� G 00 � ,r a CC( II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com— paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi— fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 73 YES MAYBE ND .0 YES MAYBE g Expu::ure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth- • quakps, landslides, mudslides, ground tailor•, or similar hazard::? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction•of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations tol the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of•surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 74 NO M •' • • ! PPP.-2A:22 ! t YES MAYBE lal • 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier 1 Eo the normal replenishment of existing species? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or - numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, V_ or insects)? 'b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,] rare or endangered species of animals? c.. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal -result in:. a. Increases in existing noise -levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? -- 7. Light and Clare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? R. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 0 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of 11pset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a.demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation.or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterat•ions to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to no -or vehicles, bicyclists or p=destrians? 14. Public Srrvicet. Will the proposal have an eEft.,cr�upon, or result in a nerd for new or alrered governmental services in any of the folic•a ri: ..•ca+: 76 YFS MAYRF NO f i . c . f'IT-7A:24 .0 a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? YES HAYBE d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require • the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will thf proposal result in a ( need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open i` to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? NO 7 4- .mot! 77 YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the, project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal'community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the projeclI have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of.time while long— term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu— latively considerable? (A 'project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is' - significant.) d. Does the project have environmental ,effects which will cause substantial !adverse effects on hum::n beings, either directly or indirectly? Fll. Discussion of Fnvironmental Evaluation TV. Dotermination (To he completed by the Lead Agency) 78 A SECTION III 2.A The proposed project will/may create the ultimate elimination of existing on street public parking. Visitors to the city beaches during the summer months use this public facility. The visitors will be required to drive additional distances to find parking and this may cause a deterioration of existing ambient air quality. This change would be local in nature. 3.E The proposed project will/may reduce the amount of street maintenance and sweeping provided to the area. 6.A That alteration to existing public parking areas may increase the existing noise levels in other areas by the addition of cars to existing congested areas or by redistribution of these vehicles to other areas of the community. 13.A As previously indicated the project will through the elimination of on -street public parking generate addition vehicular movement during peak summer periods. 13.B The elimination of on -street public parking will effect existing parking facilities and create a demand for new parking. New public in this area will be difficult to provide. •I 13.0 See previous comments 13.D.See previous comments 19. The proposed project may result in an impact upon recreational bicycle trails in the area if the existing trail on the Master Plan.of Bikeway is not maintained. Appropriate mitigation has been suggested that when incorporated into any project approval would eliminate this impact., 21.0 The project has several impacts which are individually limited but might be considered cumulatively significant. The majority of these impacts deal with the loss of parking that is presently available to the general public in the castal zone. This could be seen as a limitation on coastal access. 1 10 OOn—the basis of this initial evaluation: u I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' 0 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature - For I� (Note:- This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial+atudies.) I ' no MITIGATION MEASURES 1. That a bicycle trail easement of twelve feet be maintained on the project site at All times. Said easement should be recorded against the property in a manner approved by the Public Yorks Department and City Attorney. 2. That the applicants provide replacement parking on a one for one basis for each on -street public parking space lost in -the coastal zone. The location and method of replacement parking shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. r CRY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL nO li SF N� d'J BALL GAS May 14, 1984 MINUTES INnEX Crystal Sims, Attorney representing the PA 83-2(b) Legal Aid Society of Orange County, addressed the Council and submitted a letter for the record regarding comments fter the initial review of the draft using Element. She stated that there w 1 be further comment prior to final ado tion of the Housing Element by the City Hearin no one else wishing to address the Cou he public hearing was closed. Council a Strauss and Agee commentethey would like the Council onsider the length•of time that thettaches to rental or affordabs g. \Community Motion x Followinussi n, motion was made to All Ayes scheduleic hea ing as soon as the City heam the tate Department of Housing mmunity evelopment. 3. Mayor Haned the p lic hearing Vacation/ regarding VACATION OF ST ET arbor Hill RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE CONY ION OF (90) PUBLIC STREETS TO PRIVATE BEETS WITHIN 10151 HARBOR HILL. Report from the Public Works D was presented. \artment, Hearing no one wishing to addreCouncil, the public hearing was. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No� Res 84-37 All Ayes 84-37 ordering the vacation and abandonment of Windsor, Hillsborough an Belmont within Tract 10151; and directing the City Clerk to have said resolution recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 4. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing Vacation/ regarding VACATION OF TICONDEROGA STREET Ticonderoga TO A PRIVATE STREET. (90) Report from Public Works Department, was presented. Chris Hansen-, 22 Encore Court, a member of the Newport Crest Board of Directors, addressed the Council and submitted a signed copy of the agreement between Newport Crest and Sea Wind Homeowners Associations, which outlines the responsibilities of the respective associations. Volume 38 - Page 140 Y OF NEWPORT ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL pA� ROLL 9 'A 0 May 14, 1984 MINUTES Mr. Hansen stated that they agree with I Vacation/ the conditions listed in the staff Ticonderoga report of May 14, and with the proposed changes to Conditions No. 6 and 7 of the staff report, as outlined by City Manager Robert Wynn and Public Works Director Ben Nolan. Mr. Hansen added that he would like to thank the Council and City staff for their cooperation, time and effort during the past seven years towards the completion of this project. Rodger Hageman, 7 Goodwill Court, addressed the Council, requesting continuance until such time that the community association can present and fully disclose the costa and plans for Ticonderoga, stating that Council Policy L-11 is not being complied with. Public Works Director Ben Nolan addressed the Council in an effort to answer Mr. Hegeman's concerns regarding the traffic signal and maintenance costs. He stated that with regard to the traffic signal, one of the conditions of approval provides for the association to deposit their share prior to final completion of abandonment, and will be part of the agreement. He added that maintenance costs are relatively modest, particularly in comparison with the maintenance costs already obligated for the existing private streets in the development and the common landscaped areas. In response to Council inquiry, City Attorney Robert Burnham stated that the spirit and intent of Council Policy L-11 has been complied with. He added that when a street is vacated the City has nothing further to do with the street, and reserves the service easement, in this case a bikeway easement, protecting the City's interest and giving up the responsibility of maintaining the street to the Board of Directors of the homeowners association. Further, he stated that the City will make sure that the CC3R1s will empower the Board of Directors to enter into the Agreement in compliance with the draft resolution, which was prepared in advance for tonight's Council meeting. George Salasky, 111 Bonita, Tustin, addressed the Council, stating that he is a homeowner in the community, and supports the vacation of Ticonderoga. Volume 38 — Page 141 CRY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL ROLL May 14, 1984 MINUTES INDEX Roger Hageman addressed the Council acation/ again, stating that inasmuch as the City iconderoga now feels it is appropriate to pass a resolution, he is requesting an additional condition, "that approval for Newport Crest be done in accordance with its CC&R's, and Newport Crest assumes all responsibility for Ticonderoga." He added that none of the conditions really suggest they assume this as common area property. Carl Cheadle, 29 Encore Court, President of Newport Crest Community Association, addressed the Council, stating that he did not agree with most of the comments made by Mr. Hageman. He stated that the association feels they have met all of the conditions, and after having five elections (two in Newport Crest and three in Sea Wind), there was a majority vote. He added that Ticonderoga is going to be hooked up eventually to 15th Street, and it is a question of whether it will be a raceway in the heart of their community, or whether they will have control over it. Motion x' Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 84-38 f 84-38 ordering the vacation o_ All Ayes Ticbnderoga_Street for the conversion_ to a .private street reserving easements for public utilities and publ.ic_servi.ce; authorize the Mavox to execute an Agreement with the Newport Crest Homeowners Association providing for the fulfillment of the conditions attached to the vacation with the form and content of the Agreement to be approved by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director; direct the City Clerk to have said resolution recorded by the Orange County Recorder; and modify the following conditions listed in the staff report to read as follows: Condition No. 6 - "That the Community Association agree to allow Ticonderoga Street to be extended westerly'to connect to 15th Street." Coniditon No. 7 - "That the Community Association obtain the approval of the City for the design and installation of a guard gate or gates on Ticonderoga Street. The design approval is to be obtained from the Public Works Department." Volume 38 - Page 142 Rry OF NEWPORT ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS �9G�V• May 14, 1984 R MINUTES IND 5. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing and /P 30911 City Council review of an APPEAL BY Resub 773/ PULASKI AND ARITA, Newport Beach, from Rsdntl Perm the denial of the Planning Commission on q8 March 22, 1984, of: (88/84) RESUBDIVISION NO. 773 - A request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land, ocated at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, nto a single parcel for residential c ndominium purposes and the acceptance o an Environmental Document; AND USE RMIT NO. 3091 - A request to permi the construction of a four unit reside tial condominium development on propert located in the R-3 District which a eeds the 24 foot basic height limit on the front one-half of the lot in the 24 28 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a modificati to the Zoning Code so as to allow the p oposed ground floor garages to encroach Xour feet into the required four foot eas a ly side yard setback area; RESIDENTIAL COAST DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 8 - A request to consider a Residential Coasts Development Permit for the purpose of stablishing project compliance for a fo unit residential condominium developm nt pursuant to the Administrative Guidel#nee for the implementation of Stat Law relative to low- and moderate-inco housing within the Coastal Zone. tment, was Report from the Planning\ie presented. Appeal application of Rolllaski, was presented. The City Clerk announced after the agenda was printed, lettem Archie and Phyllis Locke and LeoErleEgge supporting denial, we eived. Holly Pulaski, 5120 Birchet,Architect for the Warmingroj t,addressed the Council stathat athe project was denied atlann ng Commission level, he confwithhis client, and they feltthe o y just action was to appeal to the City Council, and emphasize some of the fac s Volume 38 - Page 143 May 14, 1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. , n —C = • TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: VACATION OF TICONDEROGA STREET TO A PRIVATE STREET RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Hold public hearing; close hearing. 2. If desired, (a) adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of Ticondergga Street, and (b) authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Newport Crest Homeowners Association providing for the fulfillment of the conditions attached to the vacation with the form and content of the agreement to be approved by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director; and (c) direct the City Clerk to have the agree- ment and resolution concurrently recorded by the Orange • County Recorder. DISCUSSION: The Newport Crest Homeowners Association originally requested that Ticonderoga Street be vacated in January 1977. The City, however, denied the request at that time because of legal restrictions, concerns of setting a Citywide precedent and the feeling that Ticonderoga was needed for traffic circulation. On September 11, 1982, the Newport Crest Homeowners Association again requested the vacation and conversion of Ticonderoga Street to a private street. On September 27, 1982, the City Council requested that the Homeowners Association inform the members about the cost of conversion, that a petition of members supporting the vacation and conversion be submitted to the City, and then continued the matter until the November 8, 1982 meeting. On.November 8, 1982, the City Council approved in concept the com- mencement of the vacation proceedings for the conversion of Ticonderoga Street from a public street to a private street and directed staff to work with the Homeowners Association and residents to prepare the material necessary for the formal vacation proceedings. On November 22, 1982, the City Council approved City Council Policy L-11 for converting public streets to private streets, thereby approving a formal procedure for vacating Ticonderoga Street. Since the approval of Council Policy L-11, the Newport Crest Home- owners Association has worked to correlate the required steps for converting Ticonderoga Street to a private street. • 0 May 14, 1984 Subject: Vacation of Ticonderoga Street to a Private Street Page 2 On April 23, 1984s the City Council passed Resolution No. 84-35 declaring the City's intention to vacate Ticonderoga Street, and set May 14, 1984, as the date for the public hearing. A copy of the April 23 Council memo is attached for reference. The Public Works Department feels that it is important that Ticonderoga Street be extended to 15th Street to provide a secondary access to Newport Crest. This extension was provided for in the approvals granted for the General Plan amendment for the vacant property westerly of Newport Crest and would be constructed by that developer. The extension is not in- tended to provide through access for the general public. The second access is needed to help reduce the traffic load at the Superior Avenue intersection and to provide another access for emergency vehicles. The Public Works Department supports the vacation of Ticonderoga Street subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Newport Crest Homeowners Association maintain a policy of insurance in the amount of $1.000,000 which guarantees a defense for the City should any law suit arise or loss be in- curred relating to the use of the street. 2. That the Newport Crest Community Association agrees to and guarantees to maintain Ticonderoga Street. 3. That an easement for public emergency and security ingress and egress, and public utility purposes be reserved over Ticonderoga Street. 4. That a bicycle easement he reserved over the southerly parkway of Ticonderoga Street for bikeway purposes. 5. That the Newport Crest Homeowners Association pay 25% of the cost of the traffic signal to be constructed at the inter- section of Ticonderoga Street and Superior Avenue, and that they contribute or provide bonding in the amount of $20,000 for the signal prior to recording of the subject vacation. 6. That the Community Association agree to allow Ticonderoga Street to be extended westerly to connect to 15th Street. At the time of extension, an access control gate can be in- stalledlby the Community Association to restrict the use of Ticonderoga Street (within Newport Crest) to residents. 7. That the Community Association obtain the approval of the City for the design and installation of a guard gate or gates on Ticonderoga Street. The design approval is to be obtained from the Public Works Department. 0 0 0 May 14, 1984 Subject: Vacation of Ticonderoga Street to a Private Street Page 3 • Adoption of the recommended Council resolution will complete the statutory proceedings to vacate Ticonderoga Street. An agreement will need to be prepared and executed prior to record- ing the resolution of vacation. This agreement is to reflect the concurrence of the Community Association with the recommended conditions and is to be re- corded concurrently with the resolution. The City Attorney and the Public Works Director will approve the content.and form prior to execution by the Ma or. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director RLH:DW:jd Att.: (1) April 23, 1984 council memo (2) Sketch showing limits of vacation • (3) Letter of opposition from Mr. Hageman (4) Response from Newport Crest Homeowners Association E • 0 April 23, 1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. J-1 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: VACATION OF TICONDEROGA STREET TO A PRIVATE STREET I RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. a. Waive the $1,000 processing fee provided for under Council Policy L-11; or b. Direct that the $1,000 fee be paid prior to the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution declaring the City's intention to vacate Ticonderoga Street proposed to be vacated, and setting May 14, 1984 as the date for the public hearing concerning the intended vacation. DISCUSSION: The Newport Crest Homeowners Association has requested that Ticonderoga Street be vacated so that it could become a private street. The Newport Crest Homeowners and the Seawind Homeowners, who are affected by the vacation of Ticonderoga Street, have been polled. The majority of the Newport Crest Homeowners are in favor of the vacation. However, it has not been determined whether the Seawind Homeowners are in favor of the vacation as only 50% of the questionnaires were returned with about 50% in favor of vacating Ticonderoga Street. An agreement has been entered into between the Newport Crest Home- owners Association and the Seawind Homeowners Association to provide for the conversion of Ticonderoga Street to a private street, as well as plans pre- pared for the proposed guard gate. The Newport Crest Association has requested that the $1,000 process- ing fee be waived. City Council Policy L-11 which sets guidelines for the conversion of public streets to private was adopted at the same meeting in 1982 at which the Council approved in concept the conversion of Ticonderoga Street. The fee schedule for processing the conversion was adopted at the following • meeting. The Association feels that it was the intent of the City to waive the fee. So far, staff time for processing this conversion has been extensive and the $1,000 fee would only partially cover the costs. The staff recommends that the fee not be waived. April 23, 1984 Subject: Vacation of Ticonderoga Street to a Private Street . Page Two A public utility and public service easement will be retained over Ticonderoga Street to allow the City utilities and other utility access to operate, maintain and replace their facilities. A bikeway easement will also be retained along Ticonderoga Street. It is recommended that a public hearing be set for May 14, 1984 to consider the requested street vacation. An exhibit is attached for reference. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director RLH:do 0 Att. • 15' �ala� �a o+'� �o aa'�' a 10 > oa�3 • ,�• INIII k �I i 1 ` /� Y�, �♦ 1 r ,� w t ' '9r % j ''ram •� Y� Ra ; . ,� ♦ � � _ Lam•- �.�•� � � 1 j� r.�� \"�'`, �Y" ,1; 1 I-` ,-t `I 11j��(4�• 1'1 • �1 I • � '' � t 1 ,' � �� 1 IZ a oj Ij I I'll 3 i • �:, ---- ° �� =� �'. t t.' � ?tii �,' 1 { •I • \t t;' Ill I Y , 41 I II 1 •I`I • 1 AM'r�t' M. I • I 1 •• 1 � { • \ . A�____—r-- •. • . ,... rIl 3!//9EM1G1v k T T rI/2t C• WQ -/ April 3, 1984 !ayor Hart and Fembers of City Council F.C. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California. ')ear mayor ]fart and 1-,"embers of City Council: Re: TICOPMEROGA ABANDONR^rNT/)AVIS vs. NPWPORT .BEACH This letter addresses itself to the question of the City's abandonment of Ticonderoga to the Newport Crest Homeowner's Association. The question of the City's abandonment of a public street to the care, custody, control, and ownership of a community with such little expertise in municipal management and services is one that should have considerable in-depth study. Concern for the well-being of the community prompts this letter which represents the views of a number of residents of Newport Crest. We are totally uninformed as to how the change of our main artery from public to private ownership will affect each and every resident - what will the impact be on us in the form of costs, delivery of public services, allowable street usages, police protection and so on? :'[e want to know this before you, the City, "cut us loose". We recognize that an informal polling was taken some time ago and presumably any objections to the "going private" issue is a minor- ity one. Yet we do not believe this important decision was based upon a written presentation of the facts to the affected resi- dents. We believe an organized minority of residents promoted the request for abandonment. ''[e believe the entire community should be provided an objective impact statement setting forth the advantages, disadvantages, cost factors and so on that such an action will have. This will allow the affected residents to make appropriate jud?;ements of the plan. `[hen one becomes a resident of a. City it is reasonable to assume that the umbrella of services and protections for which one pays taxes will be on -going, and that if the protections are to be • withdrawn, the City will he absolutely certain that the succes- sors are able to provide equal or better protection. CS GV . is O�cc a ;S 4 ❑Od�O❑ O ? 'or instances FINANCIAL Can they bear the cost burden? I can assure you that Xewport Crest is in continual financial stress. it is recently received a large 1aW-suit judgment, but the funds have specific restricted uses and will not be available. Only last month it was necessary to increase the monthly association dues by nearly 6006 to meet ongoing expenses. INGRESS ATID EGRESS How does the back half of the property's residents get out in an emergency? The street is often blocked, as it is this very day, STREET CLEANING AND REPAIRS :;hat facilities do they have comparable to the City's? POLICE PROTECTION The Newport Crest compound is totally exposed at the end of Ticonderoga and half of the property's peri- meters are on vacant land. No true protection staff exists as the personnel are mainly swimming pool monitors and do not provide twenty -four-hour protection, Presumably the City police can still patrol, but we . have already noted a strong absence since the abandon- ment proposal was initiated. In the event this abandonment is effected, it will no doubt set a precedent that will have reactions in other areas of the City, "iris, the criteria for abandornnent you are err>ta:blishinn will h2.ve more consenuencer than for .!ev:port Crest alone. .4t the present time, iewport Beach is highly vulnerable to charges of "elitism" in its housing policies. Does not the promotion of private restricted communities add fuel to the public -interest attorney's arguments that Newport Beach poli- oies encourage exclusionary housing? Perhaps this is a time to shelve the TICONDEROGA issue until (1) we can be absolutely certain the residents will not be short-changed in the quality of services, and that (2) the City not add to the case for the Davis interests, but await the subsidence of that volatile issue. • 0 0 Apo WP ON . em& HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 201 Intrepid Street Newport'6eech, California 92663 April 23, 1984 The City of Newport Beach. ` City Council P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92663 CITY OF ` NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. APR 28.1984► � CLERK Dear Council Members, The Board of Directors of Newport Crest 'I{omeowners Association feels compelled to correct the misinformation contained in the April 3rd letter of R.E. Hageman. Apparently, Mr: Hageman has not availed himself to the public • meetings the Board has held to study the vacation of Ticonderoga or the public statements issued as a result of those meetings. First, two separate petitions have been circulated among Newport Crest residents with an overwhelming majority of residents favoring the vacation of Ticonderoga. The results have previously been reported to the Council. In addition, three votes were taken by our neighboring Association, Seawind with similar results. Second, the cost factors of a private street have been studied and are not a major item. They are: 1. Insurance - No additional cost to our liability policy in the amount of $3 million dollars. 2. Street Sweeping - Cost $600.00 per year for all'streets ' including Ticonderoga. 3. Maintenance - slurry seal $7,500.00 every 6 to 8 years or $950.00 to 1,250.00 per year. The Council should be advised that Newport Crest already maintains streets and courts, the square footage of which is several times that • of Ticonderoga. Third, Newport Crest has the financial strength to undertake the ownership responsibilities of Ticonderoga. The Association reserves are now $650,000. It has been invested and the income for 1984 is being used to supplement Association assessments reducing them 9.5%. Mr. Hageman's claim that fees were increased 60% is just not based on arithmetic. The monthly fee in beginning months of 1984 was $95.90 which was reduced to $92.50 March 1, 1984. i 0 9 ,,,. , , Fourth, restriction of city vehicles is not and cannot be contemplated. Again, Newport Crest already operates private streets and these have bbviously been open to police, fire and other city vehicles. Public or private, we do not anticipate different use by the city's departments. Fifth, in conjunction with the above, ingress and egress will not change. The streets for 460 homeowners, with atleast two cars each, cannot and will not be blocked. It would be foolish to think otherwise. And last, the Council should keep in mind that the Board of Newport Crest HomeoWnehs Association has worked with the Council since 1977 and has met each requirement, including approval of the Coastal Commission. We urge the Council to consider the factual records submitted and approve the vacation of Ticonderoga. Sincerely, Richard Williams President Newport Crest Board of Directors 0 10 1G6w�i]c-t\C��A �o Ip L�.2Qpta ` VA3\�p.\{.s1 1\CC1.JX, W7 Ct�S-T • TRACT 7852 & 7817 ri- CRY OF NEWPORT BACM COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \CAL �April 23, 1984 RO L INDEX Motion All Ayes x 2, a ort from City Manager regarding BALB ENINSULA POINT STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM, wa resented. Motion was made to ado Resolution No. 84-34 establishing "No Par " restrictions on streets on Balboa Peninsula Point on certain days to improve street sweeping effectiveness. General Services/ Balboa Pnsla Pt St Swpg (45) Res 84-34 J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from Public Works regarding Vacation/ VACATIONsbF.TICONDEROGA STREET TO A Ticonderoga PRIVATE STREET, waa presented. (90) Letter from R. E. Hageman regarding Ticonderg�a Abandonment/David vs. Newport•,Beach, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Newport Crest Homeowners Association in response to the letter from R. E. Hageman regarding Ticonderoga Street,.. Mayor Hart advised that she had received a telephone call from Council Member Plummer prior to this meeting, suggesting that the City Council not proceed with this item until she has obtained additional information. The City Manager stated that the purpose of the resolution under consideration is only to set the public hearing for May 14. He advised that he would contact Council Member Plummer regarding her concerns, and have the information she desires available at the time of the public hearing. Carl Chee, Member of the Board of Directors, Newport Crest Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and spoke in support of the proposed vacation of Ticonderoga Street, as set forth in their letter of April 23, 1984. Motion x Following discussion,Lmotionwas made to Res 84-35 All Ayes adopt Resolution No. 84-33 d„ec]aring City's intention to vacate Ticonderoga Street proposed to be vacated, and settings 14L_1984 a� s theatelfor the public hearing concerning the intended vacation; and waive the $1,000 process1 g fee fo provided r under Council_Po7L=]— Volume 38 - Page 130 Y R CWY OF NEWPORT BE CH COUNCIL MEMBERS vc ro -poll" +y " 10 Ni � yt^ in 9Gs April 23, 1984 MINUTES Mayor Hart stated that inasmuch as the Ad Hoc Elections Procedural Review Committee did not review this proposed amendment, she could not support it. Ayes x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. Noes x x ursuant to City Council directive, a roposed Code of Ethics was scheduled r consideration on May 14, or May 29. 2. 0 NANCE NO. 84-12, being, Ord 84-12 Finance/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT Recreational EACH AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF Veh Campst TER 3.16 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH Tax ICIPAL CODE REGARDING COLLECTION (40) 0 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX FOR SP E OR CAMPSITES OCCUPIED BY REG IONAL VEHICLES IN PRIVATE CAMP ROUNDS OR STATE PARKS, was presen d for second reading and adoption, w h report from City Attorney dated April , 1984, Richard Luehr Executive Director, Newport Harbor rea Chamber of Commerce, addressed the C until and indicated that their Board was pposed to the proposed tax. They felt a City should be more cautious about ra ing taxes without the benefit of a speci it need, or use. Motion x Motion was made to opt Ordinance No. Ayes x x x x x 84-12. Noes x I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Report from Parks, Beat a 6 Recreation PB&R/Cncl Commission regarding CO RCIAL USE OF Policy PUBLIC RECREATION FACILI PS, was (62/69) presented. During course of discussion it was recommended that staff elimi ate "suggested caterers" from th packet of information given to potentia renters of City facilities, It was al o recommended that security guard be State licensed. Motion x Motion was made to approve the All Ayes recommendation that adds a new commercial use category, and amend Council Policies I-5 and G-4 to com y; and adopt the proposed fee schedule hat establishes rates for commercial use. Volume 38 - Page 129 April 23, 1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. -Zr — / TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: VACATION OF TICONDEROGA STREET TO A PRIVATE STREET IRECOMMENDATIONS: 1. a. Waive the $1,000 processing fee provided for under Council Policy L-11; or b. Direct that the $1,000 fee be paid prior to the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution declaring the City's intention to vacate Ticonderoga Street proposed to be vacated, and setting May 14, 1984 as the date for the public hearing concerning .the intended vacation. DISCUSSION: The Newport Crest Homeowners Association has requested that Ticonderoga Street be vacated so that it could become a private street. The Newport Crest Homeowners and the Seawind Homeowners, who are affected by the vacation of Ticonderoga Street, have been polled. The majority of the Newport Crest Homeowners are in favor of the vacation. However, it has not been determined whether the Seawind Homeowners are in favor of the vacation as only 50% of the questionnafres-were,returned with-about•50% in,favor of vacating Ticonderoga Street. An agreement has been entered into between the Newport Crest Home- owners Association and the Seawind Homeowners Association to provide for the conversion of Ticonderoga Street to a private street, as well as plans pre- pared for the proposed guard gate. The Newport Crest Association has requested that the $1,000 process- ing fee be waived. City Council Policy L-11 which sets guidelines for the conversion of public streets to private was adopted at the same meeting in 1982 at which the Council approved in concept the conversion of Ticonderoga Street. The fee schedule for processing the conversion was adopted at the following • meeting. The Association feels that it was the intent of the City to waive the fee. So far, staff time for processing this conversion has been extensive and the $1,000 fee would only partially cover the costs. The staff recommends that the fee not be waived. Y April 23, 1984 Subject: Vacation of Ticonderoga Street to a Private Street Page Two .7 A public utility and public service easement will be retained over Ticonderoga Street to allow the City utilities and other utility access to operate, maintain and replace their facilities. A bikeway easement will also be retained along Ticonderoga Street. It is recommended that a public hearing be set for May 14, 1984 to consider the requested street vacation. An exhibit is attached for reference. Benjamin B. Nolan ►mot Public Works Director ;_. .. Att. 0 C: ti v April 3, 1984 • I.ayor Hart and P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, vembers of City Council California. Dear Mayor Hart and 1:4embers of City Council: Y N�yhY, 4P Re: TIMMEROGA ABANDOMIFFT/DAVIS vs. DIEVIPORT BEACH This letter addresses itself to the question of the City's abandonment of Ticonderoga to the Newport Crest Homeowner's Association. The question of the City's abandonment of a public street to the care, custody, control, and ownership of a community with such little expertise in municipal management and services is one that should have considerable in-depth study. Concern for the well-being of the community prompts this letter which represents the views of a number of residents of. Newport • Crest, we are totally uninformed as to how the change of our main artery from public to private ownership will affect each and every resident - what will the impact be on us in the form of costs, delivery of public services, allowable street usages, police protection and so on? We want to know this before you, the City, "cut us loose". We recognize that an informal polling was taken some time ago and presumably any objections to the "going private" issue is a minor- ity one. Yet we do not believe this important decision was based upon a written presentation of the facts to the affected resi- dents. We believe an organized minority of residents promoted the request for abandonment. ''Ve believe the entire community should be provided an objective impact statement setting forth the advantages, disadvantages, cost factors and so on that such an action will have. This will allow the affected residents to make appropriate judgements of the plan. °then one becomes a resident of a City it is reasonable to assume that the umbrella of services and protections for which one pays taxes will be on -going, and that if the protections are to be • withdrawn, the City will be absolutely certain that the succes- sors are able to provide equal or better protection. ~ c w j k p3 Ntoo ,gr�npE3❑ 13 �' (2) u For instance: FINANCIAL Can they bear the cost burden? I can assure you that Newport Crest is in continual financial stress. It • has recently received a large law -suit judgment, but the funds have specific restricted uses and will not be available. Only last month it was necessary to increase the monthly association dues by nearly 600 to meet ongoing expenses. INGRESS AND EGRESS How does the back half of the property's residents get out in an emergency? The street is often blocked, as it is this very day. STREET CLEANING AND REPAIRS What facilities do they have comparable to the City's? POLICE PROTECTION The Newport Crest compound is totally exposed at the end of Ticonderoga and half of the property's peri- meters are on vacant land. No true protection staff exists as the personnel are mainly swimming pool monitors and do not provide twenty -four-hour protection. Presumably the City police can still patrol, but we • have already noted a strong absence since the abandon- ment proposal was initiated. In the event this abandonment is effected, it will no doubt set a precedent that will have reactions in other areas of the City. Thus, the criteria for abandonment you are establishing will have more consequences than for Mewport Crest alone. :At the present time, P-,ewport Beach is highly vulnerable to charges of "elitism" in its housing policies. Does not the promotion of private restricted communities add fuel to the public -interest attorney's arguments that Newport Beach poli- cies encourage exclusionary housing? Perhaps this is a time to shelve the TICONDEROGA issue until (1) we can be absolutely certain the residents will not be short-changed in the quality of services, and that (2) the City not add to the case for the Davis interests, but await the subsidence of that volatile issue. • Re .E. Newport 4ach,irCa. 92663 i i • K 4 March 14, 1984 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTENTION: PAT TEMPLE FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: TICONDEROGA STREET - CONVERSION OF PUBLIC ST.TO PRIVATE ST. Attached is a copy of the California Coastal Commission Staff Report on Ticonderoga Street for your files. The Coastal Commission did not require that replacement parking be provided. Jim Hewicker has conveyed to Don Webb that the Planning Department would not pursue the replacement parking requirement previously required by the Planning Department, since the Coastal Commission did not require it. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at Extension 281. Richard L. Hoffstadt Subdivision Engineer RLH:do Att. � : R EPlann r8 t • �Ag L NEWPORT BFA�H. � �• State of California. George Deukmeji•Govrrnor California Coactal Commission SOUTH CO4CT DISTRICT e`�' y✓ 0O West Broad" a%, Suite 380 P Box>U tong Beach. California 90801.145n (213) 590.50' 1 S AFF REPORT .:».,T�. ��•�•: sr i•..a.?R: 5-83-383 Newport Crest Homeowner's Assn. Ag=: Filed: 49th Day: 180th Day: Staff Renort: Meeting of: Staff: Lars C. Hansen ''= Ticonderoga g Street (west of Superior Ave.) Newport Beach, Orange County Vacation of a public street 1600 in length. The street will revert to private status. No physical improvements are proposed. LX AFMA N/A :.A!z5:AF=- C: -Eram-- N/A tea= . - '" D15_�: N/A -,._ . ,..u:,.,- N/A Z_. .,_ N/A °=-:,N: Ax.= A: �.:.7F. c- GRAM: N/A City of Newport Beach --- - ed d - o n•t..W. fi . -, ::. F�:•:u::ec• C!:r: he^•:•i Sssdc: b t-7^.,. the Proposed dz o,T•en-, s-L.... to arn;:r� ":+n1:7:::. ado;ted [•r the Cmr-'ssie.^, ari^Specs CondY::,rs CYrt• �:+; �d� that: ac cord!tiorr-d, the develoTf -n- r --, confomnity w::t. the prc•ri_:o,s of Cta,ter ? o: t*,=e Act o. _, w-1no. pre;ud:.e t',, a :iL• or ttn�l.^;�: er•ment to �, corf:,rrlty w::t ttr• F•v p"e,w- a Lora. Coasta. I'^o�•a t.-: pro. :or.: o ?:,; :. ; 9 ,t e any s:,.: f!: a^: adverse w:t"r the eea:.!r tt f_-, w:i n:. tav e. c Sr;aca on t x env:^.:ran: `� -a•- ......:n•: ,,._.. Ac:. A:;: deveio;rr, located between the nea^_ maand the sea Is in conl.-M.'.:j w::1, t! ;. :^ a^c.zr a'1. plat:, :e-.-eat:on pc•:Sc1es of CYa,:er 3. r-. v...r (see attached) None. Mir OF r#Mf ORT BELCH. sws raelof 3 ..• • 5-83-383 I. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS A. Access The proposed project consists of the vacation of a public street. The street to be vacated is 1600' in length. Several sections of the Coastal Act contain strong policy provisions which guarantee the public's right of access to the shoreline. In meeting the objectives of the Coastal Act to maximize shoreline access for the public, a primary concern of the Commission is to ensure that new developments provide adequate parking and do not diminish the supply of existing available parking. This is particularly true in urbanized areas of. the Coastal Zone where competition for on -street public parking occurs between residential users and beach visitors. Therefore, the Commission, in prior actions on applications to vacate public streets, has care- fully.evaluated the negative effect such proposals would have on.the supply of public parking spaces. With respect to the current application, the Executive Director notes that the proposed street to be vacated is located inland of Pacific Coast Highway, on a coastal bluff which has previously been developed for residential uses. The Executive Director determines that due to the upland location of the project, its usability by beach visitors for on -street parking is very limited. The Executive Director further determines that vacation of Ticonderoga Street as a public street will not adversely affect the supply of public parking available'to serve beach visitors and that as proposed, the project is consistent with the relevant access policies of the Coastal Act. Page 2 of wl max, AA k ez �•> AK7 AKl Y r • w". �wr rwn w I, 031 .IC /JI/ rr� Y .I IA a Page 3 of 3 L .XA f 1. L oCAr:oN vsu' Attachment To: Permit Applicants From: California Coastal Commission, South Coast District Subject: Standard Conditions The following standard conditions are imposed on all permits issued by the California Coastal Commission. I. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowled ement. The paredt is not valid and -development sTallnot commence until a copy of the permit. signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extenstion of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the props set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Cbrm;issior.- approval. 4. Inter rotation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of Yrry condition w e resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. S. IR ge,ti�ons. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the aita a ana Lhe development during construction, subject t. 24-hour advance notice. 6. AssiKnment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affadavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions steal a perpetua and it is t e ntent on of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 714/640-2281 February 18, 1983 Newport Crest Homeowners Association c/o Louise Greeley 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Conversion of Ticonderoga Street to a Private Street Dear Mrs. Greeley: RECEIv~C Devv'tment � PEB 181983m cIry oft �+EwPOR7 �:tACH, CALIF. Enclosed is a copy of City -Council Policy L-11. This policy lists the steps for converting public streets to private streets. Following is a description of the items that need to be completed before the City Council can schedule the final hearing for vacation of the roadway. Item 1. Newport Crest has submitted sufficient information to satisfy this item. Only a letter from the board of Seawind Homeowners Associa- tion has been received. A poll of the Seaward property owners has not been received and is needed. Item 2. A filing fee of $1,000 has not been received. A review of the City Council action on your request indicates that the Council has not waived this fee. If you feel the fee should be waived, it will re- quire City Council action. Item 3. Completed. Item 4. A copy of both the Newport Crest and the Seawind bylaws/CC & R's must be submitted to show that -the associations are empowered to do the listed items. If the bylaws/CC & R's need to be amended, this must be done prior to the vacation hearing. The association's attorney should also work out with the City Attorney the insurance and bonding require- ments described. A formal agreement between the two associations will be needed to provide for joint ingress and egress in the roadway as well as a sharing of maintenance costs and liability. This must be completed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach February 18, 1983 Newport Crest Homeowners Association Page 2 Item 5. Does not apply Item 6. Complete. Item 7. Complete. The replacement parking mitigation has not been resolved. Item 8. This has been completed by the City. Item 9. This needs to be completed by the association's attorney for Item 4. Item 10. This has not been completed. Item 11. This must be done before the remaining steps can be completed. Item 12. When the first 11 steps have been completed, an item will be scheduled for City Council consideration. Item 13. This will be done at a regular evening City Council meeting. Item 14. These stamped and addressed envelopes will be required a minimum of 20 days prior to the scheduled public hearing. Item 15. Self explanatory. Item 16. In lieu of posting bonds for• the construction of the entrance improve- ments, the associations may enter into an agreement (prepared by your attorney) which provides for the associations to come to the City for permits to perform the construction necessary to install guard gates in substantial conformance with those plans that you have submitted. Items 17. & 18.Self explanatory. I hope the above explanation will clarify what needs to be done for the conver- sion. You asked for a procedure to determine how many replacement parking spaces would be required to fulfill mitigation measure number 3 in the environmental document. The following is recommended: 1. Perform a 7-day survey of occupied parking spaces on Ticonderoga Street. This can be done by counting the total number of cars parked on Ticonderoga Street. This can be done by counting the total number of cars parked on Ticonderoga at 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. This will establish the normal wintertime parking and will be an indicator of the spaces required to service the residents. 0 February 18, 1983 Newport Crest Homeowners Association Page 3 Submit the above counts to the Planning Department. An average resi- dent parking demand will be determined. This figure will be sub- tracted from the total spaces available for parking•(100) to determine the spaces available for visitor and outside parking. Of this surplus parking, it will be assumed that 50% should be for visitors to Newport Crest. The remaining 50% would be assumed to -be available for outside parking and would be the number of.spaces to be provided as replace- ment parking in a location and manner to be approved by.Planning Commission. You asked for a comment concerning the installation of a traffic signal at Superior Avenue and Ticonderoga Street. Unless it is changed by the City Council, the policy for installation of signals at intersections of a public street and two private streets is for the private street owners to pay 100% of the cost of the signal. Once.Ticonderoga Street is converted to a private street, the cost of the signal would be the responsibility of Newport Crest, Seawind and Villa Balboa: I hope this letter addresses the concerns that you have raised.and answers your questions. P ruly yo r ,bb City Engineer Att. cc: City Manager Planning Director City Attorney Environmental Coordinator E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 714/640-2281 February 18, 1983 Newport Crest Homeowners Association c/o Louise Greeley 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: 'Conversion of Ticonderoga Street to a Private Street Dear Mrs. Greeley: RECEIVED \ PI nni,, D�c.�r„vent FEB 181983d ar+ -F NElVPrr•' -,CH, 2 / Enclosed is a copy of City -Council Policy L-11. This policy lists the steps for converting public streets to private streets. Following is a description of the items that need'to be completed before the City Council can schedule the final hearing for vacation of the roadway. Item 1. Newport Crest has submitted sufficient information to satisfy this item. Only a letter from the board of Seawind Homeowners Associa- tion has been received. A poll of the Seaward property owners has not been received and is needed. Item 2. A filing fee of $1,000 has not been received. A review of the City Council action on your request indicates that the Council has not waived this fee. If you feel the fee should be waived, it will re- quire City Council action. Item 3. Completed. Item 4. A copy of both the Newport Crest and the Seawind bylaws/CC & R's must be submitted to show that -the associations are empowered to do the listed items. If the bylaws/CC & R's need to be amended, this must be done prior to the vacation hearing. The association's attorney should also work out with the City Attorney the insurance and bonding require- ments described. A formal agreement between the two associations will be needed to provide for joint ingress and egress in the roadway as well as a sharing of maintenance costs and liability. This must be completed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach February 18, 1983 Newport Crest Homeowners Association Page 2 Item 5. Does not apply Item 6. Complete. Item 7. Complete. The replacement parking mitigation has not been resolved. Item 8. This has been completed by the City. Item 9. This needs to be completed by the association's attorney for Item 4. Item 10. This has not been completed. Item 11. This must be done before the remaining steps can be completed. Item 12. When the first 11 steps have been completed, an item will be scheduled for City Council consideration. Item 13. This will be done at a regular evening City Council meeting. Item 14. These stamped and addressed envelopes will be required a minimum of 20 days prior to the scheduled public hearing. Item 15. Self explanatory. Item 16. In lieu of posting bonds for the construction of the entrance improve- ments, the associations may enter into an agreement (prepared by your attorney) which provides for the associations to come to the City for permits to perform the construction necessary to install guard gates in substantial conformance with those plans that you have submitted. Items 17. & 18.Self explanatory. I hope the above explanation will clarify what needs to be done for the conver- sion. You asked for a procedure to determine how many replacement parking spaces would be required to fulfill mitigation measure number 3 in the environmental document. The following is recommended: 1. Perform a 7-day survey of occupied parking spaces on Ticonderoga Street. This can be done by counting the total number of cars parked on Ticonderoga Street. This can be done by counting the total number of cars parked on Ticonderoga at 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. This will establish the normal wintertime parking and will be an indicator of the spaces required to.service the residents. 0 February 18, 1983 Newport Crest Homeowners Association Page 3 Submit the above counts to the Planning Department. An average resi- dent parking demand will be determined. This figure will be sub- tracted from the total spaces available for parking•(100) to determine the spaces available for visitor and outside parking. Of this surplus parking, it will be assumed that 50% should be for visitors to Newport Crest. The remaining 50% would be assumed to -be available for outside parking and would be the number of.spaces to be provided as replace- ment parking in a location and manner to be approved by Planning Commission. You asked for a comment concerning the installation of a traffic signal at Superior Avenue and Ticonderoga Street. Unless it is changed by the City Council, the policy for installation of signals at intersections of a public street and two private streets is for the private street owners to pay 100% of the cost of the signal. Once.Ticonderoga Street.is converted to a private street, the cost of the signal would be the responsibility of Newport Crest, Seawind and Villa Balboa. I hope this letter addresses the concerns that you have raised.and answers your questions. Ver truly yo r , o ebb City Engineer Att. cc: City Manager Planning Director City Attorney Environmental Coordinator • 0 VANCE and LINDA McCARTY 17 Barlovento Court Newport Beach, California 92663 November 239 1982 Fred Talarico Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Talarico; r 9 R�F� I °r 9tigg2 I am writing as a member of the Board of Directors of the Crest Homeowner's Assoc. and a member of the Ticonderoga St. Committee. Now that the Newport Beach City Council has given formal approval for the City to proceed with our application to have Ticonderoga St. returned to the Crest Homeowner's Association, we would like to begin whatever action might be required on the part of the Association. At the present we have no plans for a gate guard structure although we envision such a building in the future. There are no plans to change Ticonderoga from its present condition except for certain signs that might be required. The bicycle path shown in the City Master .Plan will not be changed. It is of no consequence whether the Banning property project is started or not. If the street is continued through, we have an agreement with Mr. Banning which is satisfactory to both our interests. We have investigated such areas as insurance coverage, law enforcement, easements and maintenance and can see no difficulty in our assuming these responsibilities. We would like your office to investigate the transfer of Ticon- deroga St. and report to us how we might accomplish the transfer in the easiest possible manner. You may call myself or Louise Greely with any questions. Her phone number is 631-1475. My phone number is 642-4337- Yours, Charles V. McCarty NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Q Secretary for Resources 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 t� County Clerk IG� Public Services Division P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 NAME OF PROJECT: T cot�deco �� Sfi��T V �'xla PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: c pro��acc� ��osc�. ca s�sc s oK -t2 — �AGa(loe� ac T�coadcco c� SC- f* p�wlic STC�T sccvlN� �`�- FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: �cc. ,t'N-77,`" A SN rely S� INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: 01 � � _---- INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Environmen/tal Wordinator Date: �/ �7/�Z— • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 15, 1982 TO: James D'. Hewicker, Director FROM: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: Draft Initial Study - "Vacation Ticonderoga Street" Pursuant to your direction I have completed a "Draft Initial Study" for the proposed vacation of Ticonderoga Street. I have, as you have suggested, required that .the applicants maintain existing public access to the coastal zone by the provision of public parking. I deviated from your suggestion that it be maintained on the site allowed the applicants to replace each lost space on a one . for one basis within the coastal zone. If you agree that replacement parking within the coastal zone is an appropriate mitigation and the one for one concept meets your approval please advise me. This material has not yet been finalized for review by the applicant or E.A.C. As you realize the State Department of Fish and Game for impacts on the Bay has suggested a 4 to 1 mitigation ratio. If you prefer this type of mitigation the E.A.C. will probably concur. Fred Talaric , Environmental Coordinator MITIGATION MEASURE 1. That a bicycle trail easement of twelve feet be maintained on the project site at all times. Said easement should be recorded against the property in a manner approved by the Public Works Department and City Attorney. 2. That the applicants provide replacement parking on a one for one basis for each on -street p�bli marking space lost in the coastal zone. The locatio o replacement parking shall be approved by the AWWW Planning Commission. 3. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all Tel\1C� TJYUITT 9YG90 -J 1lii aYi.fec • 4 Z. % A : ,,\, I r,�y ok - -- ------ - -- - -- -- q a7u3N aka-- -- -- vo - -- --- --- ----- ----- ------ — -- ro�QS�—,tbJcc---wm— - - - - ---- — wA.� �iZ� Wit.? Cl( -8Cte - - � � �• _-- Cc� pre�� � C-O SUM �. NTH . _ � - i I t- --- U , —M� u c C-zca tJ �2ccC cca�t o f�pr0 �✓�, J�a-Lq L.� 5 m � hv.�• V�-�� 'T �a_ ��-r✓� � �l cp r�T� e n1. �� c<,o�.✓c�' r ---�-- - G iL.✓f- ---7 -fi47 /. C� - �D /C -- l - - -Ge-✓ r • MITIGATION MEASURES GENERAL: Page 7 40. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material form other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 41. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 42. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas. tvupen �e applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A eekih� -agu.1.aw-basis. 44. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 45. The project should investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. 46. The proposed project shall be developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. 47. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent residential uses. 48. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 49. That prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter form the Costa Mesa Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. MITIGATION MEASURES PUBLIC SAFETY: Page 6 32. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department Shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 33. That any cul-de-sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. � 4, The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 35. That all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 36. The proposed project shall incorporate an internal securing system (i.e. security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Planning Department. 37. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 38. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 39. That fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department.