Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 068_SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, WESTCLIFF GROVE*NEW FILE* E 1 R 068 • RECE1�'=� `� PlAflflfT�1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH tt ��pcc ec OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MAI 121987. a aV OF May 12, 1987 NEWPOORT DFAC", TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC AREA PLAN Please send to Mr. Fischer of the County Planning Department and any other official of the County that you deem appropriate,the final adopted City Specific Area Plan for the Santa Ana Heights. I believe it im- portant that they know of our plan so that in the implementa- tion of the redevelopment they will be knowledgedable and able to conform to our regulations. ROBERT L. W N KHALOGHLI AND ASSOCIATES 19600 FAIRCHILD. SUITE 240 IRVINE. CA92715 It14) 476.0320 Planning Commissioners CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners: February 19, 1987 I, Khosro Khaloghli, am a resident of 2242 Mesa Drive, Newport Beach. I have lived in Newport Beach for the past 23 years and own several pieces of property which are; 2919 Cliff Drive and 1014 Mariners Drive. I am a very concerned citizen of Newport Beach and have been a frontiersman in desiring to see the annexation of Santa Ana Heights to Newport Beach as seen by former Mayors ,Jackie Heather and Evelyn Hart. I am opposed to the elimination of the cul de sac on south Birch and the widening of Birch Street. I am opposed to any additional conversion of residential properties to office use, particularly on Mesa Drive. I am opposed to any zoning and/or changes that would deviate from the approved County Specific Plan now in effect. I have enclosed, for your review, a copy of previous correspondence to Supervisor Riley which shows my opposition to a General Plan Amendment proposed for consideration last December by an individual property owner. If my position is not considered and if the City' of Newport Beach wants to make any changes; I am strongly opposed to this and will, along with my neighbors, vigorously contest any such proposed changes. G^�Wely yours, . Khosro Khaloghlitoo KK:ba encl. cc: Newport Beach City Council 6 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 21, 1987 Joan Sunderland Environmental Management Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 SUBJECT: UP85-76P/SP-175, DVM Bristol Office Dear Ms. Sunderland: Thank you for providing the City of Newport Beach with the proposed changed plans for the DVM Bristol Office development and the opportunity to comment on them. As you probably know, the City has recently adopted a specific plan for the Santa Ana Heights area as an initial step prior to the initiation of annexation proceedings. The City and the County are currently involved in a joint traffic study for a portion of the Santa Ana Heights circulation system. The findings of this traffic study will be used to complete the circulation portion of the specific plan. After the adoption of a complete circulation plan, the City will consider initiation of annexation proceedings. The DVM project as originally adopted by the County is in closer conformance with the specific plan adopted by the City than the proposed changed plan. Under the provisions of the City's specific plan an opaque screen consisting of walls, solid fences and berms or a combination thereof is required along project boundaries abutting residential districts. The screening is required to be a minimum of six feet in height except no more than three feet where sight distances are involved. A minimum ten foot landscaped setback is required along all property lines abutting residential districts. This setback may only be used as a buffer area. Therefore, the trash enclosure and some of the parking spaces are too close to the residential district. A Land Use Plan Map is attached identifying the residential districts. While the transformer is located in the required ten foot setback area, the City would allow such a passive device to be located there. However, since the installation of the transformer is necessitated by the construction of the office building, the City would require that it be inside the project screening. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 6 • Joan Sunderland August 21, 1987 Page two Office development in the Business Park District of Santa Ana Heights -is subject to general design guidelines with specific regulations concerning openings in the second and third story of a building and the use of glass. Approval of a use permit for a development in the Professional and Administrative Office District would be subject to similar conditions of approval. When the specific plan is amended to complete the circulation plan and prior to the initiation of annexation, planning staff plans to recommend that standards like those in the Business Park District concerning openings and glass be added to the Professional and Administrative Office and the General Commercial Districts. The City therefore requests that the County maintain the project as originally approved and not allow the proposed changed plan. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at the above number. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director CT A2 At xc: Lynn Dosherry L FA: RSA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PdC Honorable John Cox, Mayor _ JUL2c�'�g 10 duly 21, 1987 City Hall ! t !ry, '' 3300 Newport Blvd. 'N�'hORr Newport Beach, Californian CALIF. tiCH Dear Mayor Cox; i. I own a'property located at 20152 S.W. Birch Street. It'was with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I read in the Santa .:'; Ana Heights Newsletter that this area is in the process of being i ! annexed to the City of Newport Beach. later read that on May 11, 1987 the Newport Beach City Council i•11'ammended its municipal code and made some changes which differ from the specific plan adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors .in October, 1986. ;•; ,, Considering that this plan resulted after'many years of controversy with numerous public neighborhood committee hearings, these changes i' surprised me greatly. I am highly concerned with the reduction of ;'„the maximum building height in the business park area from 37 feet to 35 feet with no allowance for mechanical equipment above it. " Please bear in mind that these lots, such as ours, are 66 feet by „- 300 feet. And, the only feasible way to develop these lots is to provide parking beneath the building in order to accomodate vehicle and equipment storage and parking space. Therefore, I strongly urge you to retain the existing maximum height restriction of 37 feet _ with an allowance for mechanical equipment not visible from the street. I am also concerned with right-of-way requirements being changed from 60 feet to 80 feet. In the case of Birch Street there are some exist- �j��� ing structures which would have to be torn down in order to allow this. Date t'�f'uTO: :I�.,..Et~ r,l..1 I would appreciate it very much if you would reconsider the propose G changes concerning these two items in the interest of a more practical L3 r tTun^,;irsen j : and balanced design and construction. C7 Pn;1ce Ciiiei Respectfully, •��e�7 D. Jim Parsa, President Parsa Development Company, Inc. 2043 Westcllff Dr. Suite 307 Newport Beach, CA 92660 )714) 642-5733 ■ y, Clarence J. Turner s 9e0G1A'981 July 29, 1987 t� N Cp�1F Mr. D. Jim Parsa, President Parsa Development Company, Inc. 2043 West Cliff Drive, Ste, 307 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: 20152 S.W. Birch Street, Santa Ana Heights Dear Mr. Parsa, I am in receipt of your letter, dated July 21, 1987, regarding your property on Birch Street. Let me respond to your request. Yes, the council is considering the annexation of Santa Ana Heights. This process tends to be long and somewhat cumbersome and there is no guaranteed outcome. Since I have received many inquiries regarding that process I prepared a memorandum which briefly outlines how annexation will take place, if it does, and an approximate timetable to see it'completed. I enclose a copy of that memorandum for your information. Prior to annexation the council is required to take some specific steps. One of those was to adopt a Specific Area Plan for the area which will become effected if annexation occurs. You are correct in that the council placed a height limitation of 351, including equipment, in the commercial district. You are equally correct about the proposed street widening. While the council could change those specific requirements I personally would not be in favor of making this change and, in my opinion, I doubt that the balance of the council would wish to take this issue up at this time. In the case of the height limitation you do have the option of appealing for a variance when and if you feel that it may be necessary for any proposed development. 1507 ANTIGUA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OFFICE PHONE: 751-4420 MESSAGE PHONE: 631-3947 Page Two I have also talked to our planning department about your concerns. You will be receiving additional correspondence from the department to supplement my own. Please contact me if you have additional questions. Sincerely, I Clarence J Turner Newport Be h City Councilman CJT/mj Enc. cc: Jim Hewicker 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265&8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 11, 1987 Mr. D. Jim Parsa, President Parsa Development Company, Inc. 2043 Westcliff Drive, Suite 307 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 RE: 20152 S.W. Birch Street, Santa Ana Heights Dear Mr. Parsa Since I was the project planner responsible for the prepara- tion of the City of Newport Beach's Specific Plan for Santa Ana Height I was requested to respond to your letter of July 29, 1987 addressed to Mayor Cox. The City's public hearing process for the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan involved three Planning Commission Meetings and two City Council Meetings. During these public hearings the subject of building height was discussed and information concerning building height was presented in the Planning Department staff reports. No opposition to the 35 foot height limit was expressed at the, City Council hearings by either property owners or developers active in the area. The Planning Commission recommended a building height of 35 feet to the City council for their adoption for the following reasons. 1. The 35 foot height limit does not preclude the construction of three story buildings. 2. Given the 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR), the permitted square footage and rooftop screening can be constructed within the 35 foot height limit. Since the FAR is based on a lot size inclusive of setbacks, a third story is not necessary to accommodate the additional floor area that might be gained by toe combination of lots if the FAR calculation excluded setbacks. The complicated measurement, verification, and enforcement problems created by a sight analysis for a height of eye located on the highest floor plane permitted in the R-1 zone. Since the rooftop screening and its absence from the line of sight is intended to protect property owners from visual impacts occurring above 35 feet, the line of sight would necessarily be taken from a height of eye'located on the highest floor plane permitted in the R-1 zone.* 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. D. Jim Parsa August 11, 1987 Page 2. 4. Building heights over 35 feet were not analyzed in the EIR. There is a pending litigation concerning the adequacy of the EIR prepared for the specific plan as a result of the County's adoption of a standard higher than 35 feet. The City did not wish to be included in that action or become involved in a similar action. Resolution of the pending litigation may require either reduction of the permitted height to 35 feet or additional environmental work and public hearings. Further none of the office buildings recently approved by the County are over two stories or 35 feet in height. The primary limitation on the size of the office buildings has been the 0.5 FAR not the height limit. The change of right-of-way width along Birch Street from 60 feet to 80 feet was made to accommodate projected traffic in the area. Approximately one million square feet of office development will be located in the Santa Ana Heights Business Park District. The additional traffic generated by future business park development combined with other traffic in the area will result in traffic volumes that fall within the standards for the wider right-of-way. The traffic analysis in the EIR and both City and County street standards support the wider right-of-way. The wider right-of-way will accom- modate a four lane street with a two-way left turn lane to provide for increased turning movements and also afford greater traffic safety. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director 0 CRAIG T. Senior F CTB\A t� Ppp fro April 11, 1987 Mayor John Cox and Newport Beach City Council Members r. Frank Eisendrath 104 Rings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 548-6680 Dear Mayor Cox and Council Members: Being the owner of 20232 Birch Street in Santa Ana Heights since 1962, I do not look forward to joining Newport Beach with the potential Master Plan of no growth! I do not feel that it is justifiably in my interest to widen Birch and orchard so as to allow traffic to get to the extensive development that the Council has already permitted on the north side of Bristol Street. Very truly i s, -P ll Frank Eisendrath • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3222 April 8, 1987 Mr. Jack W. Mullan, Chairman Santa Ana Heights Annexation Committee 3400 Irvine Avenue, Suite 101 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Mullan: I am in receipt of your letter of April 2, 1987, regarding Santa Ana Heights. Please be advised that the Planning Department will be transmitting the recommendations of the Planning Commission to the City Council with a report for the public hearing by the City Council on April 27, 1987. The staff report will be delivered to the City Manager on April 20th; will be distributed to the City Council on April 22nd; and will be available for you to pick up at the Planning Department on April 23rd. If you have any further questions, you may contact Craig Bluell at 644-3225. Very truly yours JAME D. HEWICKER nning Director JDH/kk JDHVII cc: Craig-.B1ue11, Senior PlaDner+" --- ~- 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach rw & UCLA PE 20434 SOUTHWEST CYPRESS STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 ARR �C1997� 0%i F.EUP-7 April 8, 1987 6 � Mayor Cox and Council Members Newport Beach, California My husband and I are 39 year property owners in Santa Ana Heights.. We have watched the changes from a rural residential community to a freeway outside our front door and the roar of planes overhead. We could no longer consider our street residential, so we worked very hard for the last six years to obtain our business park zoning. We intend to relocate to Cypress street in the future, because of our horses and other animals. This is the reason we are interested in both phases of planning for the Heights. We feel with good solid planning in the business park and residential the area could be a very unique place to live and work. The most important is the circulation plan. The Birch and Mesa connection is a must, if not implemented the whole plan is useless. The residential would not be protected and traffic would be imposs- ible, as it is now. The alignment of Birch and Mesa, as suggested by your advanced planning,'5at the first meeting on March 5,1987 provided the answer to the problem. Thank you, 47 - ce mice A6,C1,? Lorraine and Bill Warren 20412 Birch Street Santa Ana, Ca. 92707 A- F + f April 6, 1987 Tot Mayor Cox and Council Members of City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 , Mr. & Mrs. Phillip A. Stevens 32138 Via Buena San Juan Capistrano, Calif. 92675 SUBJECT: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan N APR 161987 As long time property owners in Santa Ana Heights we heartily agree with the proposed changes to the subject specific ,plan as recommended by your planning commission and think it is cohsistant with good planning. - However, a firm proposal for the allignment'of the Birch Street/Mesa Drive connection to Irvine Avenue was omitted. To complete a good • solid plan, it is hoped the City Council will urge utilization of the present Mesa Drive right of way from Irvine Avenue as well as the Birch/Mesa Intersection realignment as shown on "Exhibit 10" of the Circulation Plan. Sincerely, �Ih 0 C—U; Mr, and Mrs P A. Stevens PAS /bas File JACK HOLLAN, CRAIRM4N INL AEBISMR PATRIC14 0 W N. 'BUCK' JOINS NANCY MUFMAN JOIN VFLYNI FRED PETERSON 6ERALD SILSBEE HARRY TERRELL WAIANNE TOIIERSEY CITY OF NEWPCt118EACH, F. APR 71987" f, RECEIVED CITY CLERK SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ANNEXATION COMMITTEE 3400 IRYINE AVE., SUITE 101, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 April 5, 1987 Wanda Raggio, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEtts[q PtennWr ,, Depar',nt,�nt APR 101987, m CITY or NEWPORTBEACH, ,( CALIF, i Dear Wanda: ZI am enclosing a copy of my letter to Jim Hewicker.,' As Chairman of the Santa Ana Heights Annexation Committee, I request that all notices of activities pertaining to Santa Ana Heights be sent to 3400 Irvine Ave., Suite 101, Newport Beach,or if you phone 852-9111 I'll arrange to have it picked up. Ael yours, . Mullan, Chairman Santa Ana Heights Annexation Committee JACK NULLAN, CIWIRMAN RAL AEBISCWR PATRICIA COX NI. 'BUCK' JDN1S NANCY KAUR0 JOIN D'FLYRi FRED PETERSON SER4LD SILSBEE WRY TERRELL WAIANNE TOIIERSEY SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ANNEXATION COMMITTEE 3400 IRVINE AVE., SUITE 101., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 April 2, 1987 James Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hewicker: RECEIVED j` Flanni,v; i Dt3e�rtm�nt APRG 19$7, r® sly C17:' Cz �.E1YP0,17F SEACH. The Santa Ana Heights Annexation Committee would like to be informed of all studies, staff reports or other information pertaining to Santa Ana Heights and/or annexation. Our group was responsible for the original annexation petition. Our Committee was very disturbed not to receive information on the "Circulation Plan" until the day before the first meeting of the hearings on Santa Ana Heights pre -zoning. I appreciate the opportunity to have met with you and the other staff members. I felt that you were helpful and informative. Mr. Bluell apparently has personally expressed bias toward converting more of Santa Ana Heights to office use even though it is not economically sound to do so. I feel that after six years of planning, the County Plan should be given a chance to work. The County circulation plan meets the needs of the Community and gives time for a transition. Please adopt the County Plan with the cul-de-sac on Birch Street. I hope that our committee will receive adequate notice of all future hearings and any plans that will be submitted to the Council. Please mail to the above address and I will see that the information is distributed in the community, or if you phone my office number--852-9111 I will arrange to have documents, etc. picked up. Si•cerely ours, Ja Mull n, Chairman Santa Ana Heights Annexation Committee 987 C Cl tx IT Gam- 1,4uv--Ah '*Zp Cti�.��'rt+�,„� . �..eo ��-N�c'�,,, r4 �,e�Z'c,� ...�c�-� ,t fi-t� lt'�4r —-�'��•z, �1�-l�(/_�/e.�C_ w'l�'GGr�L�U`� �"'�iC� L-[�l`�tl C��� �.<t•. U ' YJ _�-�i�-L�-�� �/�t.�• �1�-�.Gu-zC�Q �- C�iW/�-P'�'-c�c� ,.� �.�G�i`�'�,.iji�r,= • ti DATA ON ZONING FORE NORTH BLOCK OF CYPRESS, STA ANA FIGHTS April 1987 The following names with telephone.tftumbers represents owners of land in the one block of Cypress'Street in Santa Ana Heights from Orchard to Bristol. This combined ownersh6p represents 4801000 square feet of land area who want this block.changed from R1—Q to C zoning. The remainder of the land area consists of 142,000 square feet of which 102�00want R1—Q; while the two owners making up 391600 have not decided. In short 79% plus want C zoning; 16.5010 want R1—Q; and less than 4% are undecided. Don Koll 1059000 sq. ft. ....... (Paul Regness) 955-1100 Marie Berland 19,800 - 6,600 = 19,21D 0 756-8444 Norm Batchelder 199800 Mike Noone 19t800 Dan Hill " i Richard Van Kiersbelk 502400 Ron Chaves 192800 Don Berry - 54X300 Wayne Du Boise 19�800 Steve Caballes 39,600 Frank/Phillip Lisi 19t800 Clyde Hartwigsen 199800 A B.F. Trust J. Belt 902000 el 756-9104 963-0363 839-7194 779-2800 1 838§956 756o5460 756-8718 556-1758 548'-1559 SIR-S92y 731-2273 It is to be noted that the last four (4) lcfis on either side of Cypress at Bristol are already Commercially Zoned. ,¢ the southern end of the blond puT4CWC5-r S1DL one half of the last four lotsAare already Commercially Zoned. This is held in trust by Richard Van Kiersbelk. The power of attorney has been given to effect this zone change. y 4 4/13/87 • Mayor John C. Cox and Council Members 3100 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA, Gentlemen: / C1l I ' rACH. `r fi�f4NF(' " APR 161987 'EC�JVED GW We the owners of the North Block Cy -press Street of Santa Ana Heights area wish to state that Planning did not recognize our interest. We wish this northern part to be rezoned from Rl-Q to C. This portion is unique in that it has C zoning at the northern end (at Bristol); and a portion of the South end- that part behind the School). Almost all lots are being used commercially at the present time in violation of the R1-Q zoning. We represent 80% of the owners on the block. We are sending a list of owners along with their phone numbers to authenticate this claim. As to the other suggestions from Planning, we concur, such as: a) 35 foot limit to the corgmercials, b) widening of Birch Street, c) a proper Mesa -Birch connection. Thank you. n Sincerely yours, Committee for Commercial Zoning for North Cypress ✓ 1444LII �, 2 ZO I e!01 V-1 i Ae� a 4 0 ,� � /-// -.5. a,) I ta- m '�- '.. .' � �����-•~^��� Ufa r SlLlli \' • I S min e7r" T ------- Li- � APR 161987 0 2 i+- 3?iP/ 1 u r. ply �kq' 4m?an:wax a y Members of the City Council Newport Beach, California Re Santa Ana Heights Circulation Plan _-, I We urge you to support the circulation plan recommended by your Planning Commission, the Mesa to Birch connection utilizing a portion of the golf course and the vacant lot at the corner '= = of Birch and Mesa. This route will provide good circulation through the business park, while sparing existing homes. We fervently hope you will reject any plan ' which would slash diagonally through the block '=?•'•. r between Acacia and Birch Streets. This route x _ . j._ would fragment many properties and destroy many homes. It was rejected by the Board of Super- visors because it would condemn so many properties. You will be told that we who supported BP zoning are anxious to leave. This is not true. Many of us wish to continue to live here as long as possible. This was what the county promised. No-one should be forced to leave by condemnation. We have borne the greatest burden of the airport, and we deserve your consideration. Sincerely, 1971 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, Califor 756-9355 0 r !! t M, April 16, 1987 _ AFIR 1619B7ro 20401 Cypress Street Santa Ana Heights, California 92707 Mayor and Council Members: We understand that the 80 plan for circulation wi4FI be considered. We are against that as we know it Mould be held up with litigation and become very costly. We feel this is not the way to go. We support the plan proposed by your planning commissioners and trust this will be the plan you accept, especially after all the hours of study and meetings your planning commissioners have put in. Please make a decision April 27th. This has gone on too long for us. We would like to see this finalized in order for us to go on with our lives J,..,.-,. George, Ri :i April 16, 1987 Mayor Cox and Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Cox and Council Persons: As long time property owners in Santa Ana Heights, we agree with the proposed changes to the specific plan as recommended by your planning commission and we think it is consistent with good planning. We own the property at 20341 S. W. Birch and our son and daughter, will be moving into the house May 1, 1987. However, we consider this only as a temporary measure until the property can be sold as commercial property and hopefully as soon as passible. Sincerely yours, Robert and Sondra Dittce 2321 Bayfarm Place Santa Ana, California 92707 bPT � ` ��c�ACTr• ��� of r r ` �� �;,Lsf• ta- APR �,41961 °' Apri 1 14, 1987 P,�CEl.�CB44 cart �( To Mayor and City Council: The Back Bay Community Association authorized Mr. Mullen to present our signatures for annexation on their behalf. The intention was they be utilized soley for the annexation to Newport Beach. They were never intended to be used for the personal gain of anyone! At this point, it is our understanding that Mr. Mullen has formed a new committee to pursue annexation. To my knowledge this is not connected to the Back Bay Community Association. I am unclear as to their purpose and would like to see the annexation continue to proceed with the current recommendations r-.._ "- .., w+ D-,- o,� r mm;��; -9,. ,..A ,Ca and circulation Sincerely, Martha Durkee President Back Bay Communis (714) 756-9162 cc: Mr. Robert I Mr. Robert I Mr. James Hs art-4;r /// 19 �F 7 L DATA ON ZONING FOR jj NORTH BLOCK OF CYPRESS, SANTA ANA H-IGHTS April 1987 The following names with telephone {numbers represents owners of land in the one block of Cypress Street in Santa Ana Heights from Orchard to Bristol. This combined ownershbp represents 480t000 square feet of land area who want this block.changed from Rl-Q to C zoning. The remainder of the land area consists of 142,000 square feet of which 102LOOwant RI-Q; while the two owners making up 391600 have not decided. In short 79% plus want C zoning; 16.5916 want R1-Q; and less than 4% are undecided. Don Koll 105,000 sq. ft. ....... (Paul Hegness) 955-1100 Marie Berland 19j800 - 6,600 = 13,20 0 756-8444 Norm Batchelder 19,800 Mike Noone 19,800 Dan Hill It Richard Van Kiersbelk 50�400 Ron Chaves 19�800 Don Berry 54X300 FFiQ�` Wayne Du Boise 19�800 ``-Ii[ t7- ^61g�1 � Q� a Steve Caballes 39v600 Frank/Phillip Lisi 19,800 Co Clyde Hartwigsen 19t800 B.F. Trust J. Belt 90)000 756-9104 963-0363 839-7194 779-2800 8385956 756t-9460 756-8718 556-1758 548-1559 731-2273 It is to be noted that the last four (4) lots on either side of Cypress at Bristol are already Commercially Zoned. ,Ut the southern end of the blot!h 0,0 14r-WL-58 51DL one half of the last four lotsAare already Commercially Zoned. This is held in trust by Richard Van Kiersbelk. The power of attorney has been given to effect this zone change. M 4/13/87 Mayor John C. Cox and Council Members 3100 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. Gentlemen: We the owners of the North Block Cypress Street of Santa Ana Heights area wish to state that Planning did not recognize our interest. We wish this northern part to be rezoned from Rl-Q to C. This portion is unique in that it has C zoning at the northern end (at Bristol); and a portion of the South end- that part behind the School). Almost all lots are being used commercially at the present time in violation of the R1-Q zoning. We represent 80% of the owners on the block. We are sending a list of owners along with their phone numbers to authenticate this claim. As to the other suggestions from Planning, we concur, such as: a) 35 foot limit to the coz;mercials,, b) widening of Birch Street, c) a proper Mesa -Birch connection. Thank you. i Sincerely yours, Committee for Commercial Zoning for North Cypress r -In-n ' 1 %LOVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" �p • • The Manning Company 3919 Westerly Place, Suite 201, Newport Beach, CA 92660 April 27, 1987 �7 CITY OF tJEWPO:?T' QEACH, Mr, John C. cox, Jr. ( „iki'. II APR 271987 City Council Member City Clerks Office F�EiE€►1I �J 3300 Newport Blvd,' Qi�`,'s•'.. !�iG Newport Beach, CA 92663 (o / RE: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan - Circulation System Dear Mr. Cox: Our Company will soon begin the development of a 24,000 square Of foot BirchOffice andbuilding orcharrdonStreet6iacre site tthe northwest corner we control 2.27 acres immediately Santa aHthhtsIn addition, site. We will the Norl have both projects under constructions consistinour g of 70,000 square feet of office space on a total of 3.43 acres, Within the next twelve months. As such, we are very concerned about the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and its circulation. Our biggest concern pertains to the road circulation. We are writing to you to emphasize the importance of Orchard, and Birch Street, along, widening Acacia, with providing a connection between Mesa Drive and Acacia and Birch Street. The Santa Ana Heights Business Park will add approximately 11000,000 square feet of commercial development and will lincrease the traffic on the already overburdened Irvine Avenue from 39,000 to 57,000 vehicles per day. Irvine Avenue, which will ultimately be a six lane, 1,08 foot wide right-of-way, carry 57,000 cars per day, which is equivalwill be expected to ent to the volume of traffic currently on Jamboree Road which has 8 lanes and is 146 feet wide. it is obvious overburdened. Therefore that Irvine Avenue will be Street be widened and connected topMesa 1Drive ve atoAhandle and Birch of the North/South traffic in the Santa Ana Hei ghts Areof a. We firmly believe that the Circulation Plan by the Newport Beach Planning Commission is necessary forrthe ssuccessful development of Santa Ana Heights and ask backing this plan. for your support in Sincerely, 5�i!mesc.? C.Manng President • "RECEIVED WER.AGENDA PRINTED:" Z? -- / /9 CITY OF N"rC'T BEACH, APR 221987 r, #;E��il1ED \/ tit r DAVID G.•SWINFORD 348 Woodcock Road Sequim, Wa. 98382 Tel: C206)683-5015 Bus: C206)683-1191 17 April 1987 City Council CitX of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Dear Sirs, Although I currently live in Washington State, I own property on SW Birch Street in Santa Ana Heights. I lived there for quite a few years, and consequently I still know the people there and communicate with them regularly. As I am sure yoV are aware, this area of Santa Ana Heights is under consideration for annexation to your City. From my knowledge, I believe that almost everyone in the area of proposed annexation is In favor of the annexation. All of my previous contacts with your Planning Department regarding this annexation indicate that they have done an excellent job. I have been impressed with their competence, and I think their plan is about the best one could expect, considering the existing constraints. However, as with all plans, there are those who would do things differently. There are those who would destroy a good plan by establishing -a road across several properties from Mesa Drive diagonally generally East to Birch and Orchard Streets. I understand this harebrained proposal is labeled 8C. I hope you will support your Planning Commission on this issue and the proposed use of Birch Street from Mesa Drive as the main thoroughfare for the new plan. Sincerely, { Ag- D. G. Swinford V Copy to: File. "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" qpR� :qM April 27, 1987,,'��-,� 19a1� Mr. John Cox - Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Cox: Please be advised -that we approve the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Amendment Number 646 as recommended by the Planning Department. Of particular interest is the recommendation by the Planning Commission for a Mesa Drive/Birch Street connection. We live at the Northeast corner of Birch Street and Mesa Drive - 20462 Birch Street. The Mesa Drive/Birch Street corner has been in need of redesign for the last several years. There have been numerous accidents on Mesa Drive at and near Birch Street. Mesa Drive from Irvine to Birch Street, and Birch Street are heavily traveled morning and evening hours during the work -week. As a result, we -have been impacted by traffic noise and pollution. It is our opinion that good planning and careful design of Mesa Drive and of the Mesa Drive/Birch Street intersection will reduce noise and pollution levels. Therefore, we believe the Mesa Drive/Birch Street connection, as illustrated in Attachment 4a, provides the best solution for an ade- quate circulation plan through this area of Santa Ana Heights. This plan impacts fewer properties than plan Attachment 4h or the County's Acacia/Orchard/Birch Alignment plan, and will discourage business traffic in residential areas. Our thanks to Mr. Craig Bluell and the Staff of the Planning Depart- ment for their thoughtful attention to concerns expressed by those of us who live in Santa Ana Heights. rjerely, . / p Alice J. R'drigue ul ,) c.c. Councilmembers: E. Hart P. Maurer R. Plummer P� Sansone D. Strauss C. Turner Lee Waverly 20102 Bayvlew Avenue Santa Ana Heights, California 92707 April 27, John C. Cox Jr., Mayor Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, SP-7; Amendment No. 646 to Title 20 of the Municipal Code Dear Mayor Cox and Council Members: As residents of Santa Ana Heights, we vote FOR the Newport Beach Specific Plan, which includes eliminating the planned cul-de-sac on Birch Street. We also vote for eliminating the planned cul-de-sac on Cypress Street. We are concerned about the traffic that will be added to Bayview Avenue by:the cul-de-sac on Cypress (and by the cul-de-sac on Birch, too, if implemented). Cars wanting to go north on Cypress from Mesa to Bristol will find fewer 90 degree turns using Bayview than using Cypress -to - Orchard -to -Orchid -to -Zenith -to -Spruce. Cars wanting to go south on Cypress from Bristol to Mesa will use Spruce. Many of these will then travel Bayview. Establishing an equestrian path on Cypress does not require imposing a cul-de-sac. Proof of this is the proposed equestrian path on Mesa Drive, where no cul-de-dac is planned. Thank you for your serious consideration of these points. Sincerely, 4/� ,p 41, (7 Ct j., A �/1^�✓`��� G� APR 1619ST ell Ctic�a'rn4,�•� . �.i/..co �.+.-t�-�l!z.,, �. �e�c,� ..�c�-�e�,�.�u� Ct'�4r —�.ei ��C�.e, �It(•-'Q� A �'-C��d /i`�!✓� �.P2L� Q,�ih 7yu/LU�cc� ..�i11.�/�-�/l.t� O�C I.C�✓ 2a �C'�/ .A.: - � •. _ - is .L' `iM1' b.../_ :z,. _ - .'xtf«f.• .�0. � �i V""vl.[�♦ �2. /.//� VV/%-V Lax '- �(j-�('Jj��' L� {�� (/!f/. /� ^' �1 ' / ///J�. "RECEIVED AFTER AGE• • PRIKEW' KHALOGHLI AND ASSOCIATES 19600 FAIRCHILD, SUITE240 IRVINE, CA 92715 1 (714) 476.0320 March 20, 1987 The Honorable John Cox. Council Member P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Councilman Cox, 1. I have been a resident in Newport Beach for a long time with Santa Ana Heights residence being the most recent one, The charm of the community is being eroded away by massive traffic jams everywhere and a speeding motorist along every scenic route. It is true that the development will continue and the roadways will continue to be more congested. However , if we turn every backstreet, every available greenbelt into new roads, that will still not serve the motorist adequately and the beauty lost will forever be felt by residents and visitors alike. Therefore I believe that we truly need to arrive at an efficient traffic flow system by what is already existing, which I believe there is an adequate supply of. I am an urban planner by training and just signalization and traffic circulation pattern on Bristol Street alone leave much to be desired. Unless we want to end up a city admist a massive road system we need to say stop and review the effiency of the existing roadways. I sincerely hope that the council members will exercise its good judgement and leadership by deleting the co Universi Drive from the County Master Plan of Highway Sincerel yours, Khosro Khaloghli KK/cm .0 March 20, 1987 Mr. John Cox, Jr., Mayor Ruthelyn Plummer, Councilwoman Donald Strauss, Councilman Evelyn Hart, Councilwoman Clarence Turner, Councilman Philp Maurer, Councilman Phil Sansone, Councilman Newport Beach City Council P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear. -City Council Members, "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED. . Z CITY 0r CH �1� � HEaIi:ORt gEA ' Gn;1`r. 9 �,AR 23198T �' ci alb }r This letter is to voice to you my very strong'support in removing from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways reference to a University Drive extension across ecologically sensitive Newport Back Bay between Jamboree Boulevard and Irvine Avenue. The Newport Back Bay is a precious resource. Its ecology is unique. Further, as recreational resource and habitat for wildlife its continued maintenance in a natural state is not elective - it ,is imperative. This essential preservation in its natural state applies equally to the Bay's shoreline and bluff area in Santa Ana Heights. .Damage has already been done to the nesting and feeding areas by cutting an asphalt trail through the sensitive area. The price paid is less land for wildlife and more access for non -motorized vehicular traffic - in each case altering the natural setting and privacy of the entire area. As a major thoroughfare in this area construction of University Drive as part of the Del Mar - Fairgrounds system would be an act of forceable rape. Economic considerations also clearly dictate alternatives. Orange County EMA Cost Summary Estimates (attached) reflect a cost savings of as much as $22,400,000 can be realized if the alternative to the University Drive extension is adopted. Under any reasonable circumstances a savings to taxpayers of $22 million dollars is cause for good cheer and a credit to planners and city council members who have done their homework. Please support an act of good sense by voting to remove the University Drive extension from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Sinc ely, ho as�rTTierney 4�� 2412 Mesa Dr. Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 I' . This study was conducted to determine if the EMA report on University Drive and the Cost Summary Estimates dated January 2, 1987 are comprehensive enough to provide the Orange County Board of Supervisors with enough information to determine if the University Drive extension or its alternative should be adopted for "future" transportation needs. i Zif'l Iu ui:�i`j Accepting the staff's determination that "future" (up to 25 years) development will create traffic problems, a saving of as much as $22,400,000 can be realized if the alternative to the University Drive extension is adopted. Documents studied: 1. University Drive: Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road presented to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, January 6, 1987. 2. Cost Summary Estimates EMA/Transportation Planning, January 2, 1987. ' 3. Road complex, San Joaquin Hill Freeway, University Drive (North & South); McArthur Boulevard form the Newport Beach Traffic Planning Department. Experts Contacted: 1. Ben Nolan, Newport Beach (714) 644-3311 2. Don Webb, Newport Beach (714) 644-3311 3. John Sully, Caltrans (213) 620-2607 4. Paul Gonzales, Caltrans (213) 620-2607 5. Harry Persand, O.C. EA (714) 832-6921 6. Chris Dahl, Costa Mesa (714) 754-5334 The present road system is sufficient to handle the traffic from present development and any additional "near -term" development (report, page 4). According to the report future traffic need for the next 25 years may be met either by (1) the construction of the University Drive extension (U.D.E.) or, (2) widening the Corona Del Mar freeway (73) to ten lanes plus the addition of connecting links from the Costa Mesa Freeway (55) and the widening of Bristol Street. The Costa Mesa Freeway (55) completion is scheduled to start in the spring of 1988. It will be built without the connecting links to the Corona Del Mar Freeway (73). The connecting links can be added at any time (Dahl). If the alternative were to be built soon, the local agencies would bear the cost of construction (Gonzales). If the alternative can be p6stponed to a later date all or most of the cost will be borne by Caltrans (Gonzales). The University Drive Extension will always• require local funding (Gonzales)., The following cost comparison is admittedly an approximation but it shows a comparison of the EMA estimates to road projects of a similar nature. University Drive Extension: Jamboree to Irvine approximately one mile in length. EMA Construction estimate $3,353,000 The :Pelican Hill bypass (6.1 miles) construction estimate ranges from $4,000,000 per mile to $8,000,000 per mile (Webb). Since the University Drive Extension is mostly on a slope, a cost of $6,300,000 may be a more reasonable estimate. Bridge over Delhi Flood Control Channel 20' high (Webb). EMA Construction Estimate $1,462,000 Caltrans will be building a new bridge over the Santa Ana River on the Coast Highway. The bridge will be six lanes, 17' clearance and 500' long. The estimated construction cost is $4,500,000 (Gonzales). If the bridge was four lanes wide the estimated cost mould be $3,500,000 (Gonzales). The two four lane bridges would be reasonably comparable. University Drive Extension: Irvine Avenue to Newport Beach, approximately one mile in length. EMA Construction Estimate $1,927,000 The cost of this extension should be comparable to the lowest cost of the Pelican Hills bypass at $4,000,000/mile. Cost of Alternative Road Improvements. EMA Costruction Estimate $10,998,000. The cost estimate of the Alternative R:.aa Improvements (widening the Corona Del Mar Freeway (73), adding the connecting- links to the Costa Mesa Freeway (55). widening Bristol Street, were discussed with Caltrans personnel (Sully, Gonzales). They believed that the u4A estimate was reasonable. If the University Drive Extension is to connect to the City of Irvine, the University Drive North must connect to University Drive South via a bridge (not yet built) over the San Diego Creek on California. This link is approximately .7 miles long at an apprcxi-,ate cost of $3,000,000. REVISED CCv= S7'h4MRy 1. University Drive Extension inclur'_zg bridge from Newport Boulevard to Jamboree_. T1IA Estimate Plus Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Plus Irvine Boulevard to Irvine Bridge University Drive North 2. The Alternative $ 12,831,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 $ 22,831,000 $ 400,000 COST SUMMARY ESTIMATES EMA/Transportation Planning January 2, 1987 Cost of Building University Drive ° From Jamboree to Irvine Avenue Right-of-way County $2,318,000 Road Construction County 3,353,000 Bridge 'County 1,462,000 Subtotal $7,133,000 ° From Irvine Avenue (Del Mar) to Newport Boulevard Right -of -Way County 685,000` Right -of -Way City 3,085,000 nstruction County 476,000 Road'Cons uction City 1,451•,000 / s: Subtotal $5,698,000 J Total $12,831,000 Cost of Alternative Roa Im rovements: ' Cost of Arteriia Highway Improvements: 'stol S Feet South Right -of -Way -0- (Spruce to Jamboree Construction . $400,000 ° Freeway (Route 73) Improvements: - Connector Ramp Right -of -Way -0- (Northbound SR55 to Construction $1,274,000 Southbound SR73) - Connector Ramp Right -of -Way -0- (Northbound SR 73 to Construction $8,004,000 Southbcund SR55) - Additional lane in each Right -of -Way -0-. direction between Jamboree Construction $1,320,000 and SR 55/SR 73 Interchange 2.8 lane miles Total $10,998,000 / RP:cs(TP1/033) wi III //�� _j'/j>,, II�i- .'1 ����,�. �• :,. .. :.It r,,•.. •, .-z .`,. , - IIIIIII.,�/f •'/%/Ir II.�jI ',,,,,,,,�. . •'"t� is 'y.. ^�'1 :'�'. ' O i 1\�`. ,.l - 00 Az r � '� III �. '.. ?r?•'� � •.i -•w ;jl ! to ITY oaf j ,.•I� WE NORTHAj 4 Sari-diego — veek :....... •i • ' ,\,, -*rm*ttnnrrrit�irtfftlfritIITttAmII• cul . , t I •O:• .•- ,•,fit i\ \ky� i - J'1/ \\ ':i:` '1t \ I'• � \ i,�V j •. 1, � National Car Rental System, Inc. 7700 France Avenue South . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 612-830-2121 „National Car Rental A HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL COMPANY March 12, 1987 Mr. Craig Bluell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan/Alley Dear Mr. Bluell: This letter is to confirm the fact that the Planning Commission has removed the alley plan for the commercial properties fronting on So. Bristol Street between Birch and Cypress Streets, from the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. As I indicated to you during our telephone conversation, National feels that this deletion of the alley from the Specific Plan is in the best interest of the parties involved. National is certainly gratified that the Planning Commission has taken this action. If, in the future, the Planning Commission or the City Council is considering any matter to include this alley in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan other plan, I would appreciate it if you would let me know as soon aor any s possible. I thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, NATIONAL R�EEN(TAL SYSTEM, INC. TI Albert B. Beety (/ Senior Attorney Properties Department /jo cc: Andy Buza Bill Smidt RECEIVrn 4 Planni", % Dcpedm+11t MICR 161987, lr CITY �tSYiFOR? G�, CALIF. Im Affiliates: Eumpcar, Tilden `' ' 0 • March 5, 1987 City Council of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Dear Council Members: I am the owner of the property at 2222 S. Bristol, which is presently leased to National Car Rental. If there were to be any significant alteration in the size of my property, due to the addition of an alley, National could cancel their lease. This would cause major financial hardship to me and my family. We bought this property 31 years ago and raised our children here. It is our retirement security. The proposed one-way alley between Birch and Cypress streets is not wanted by most of the property owners involved. It would cause unnecessary loss of parking space. Moreover, this costly project would put an unneeded burden on taxpayers. If the cul-de-sac on Cypress is causing such a traffic problem, why not eliminate it and the resulting difficulties? Eliminate the alley from any future plans f This same proposed alley was opposed by the and rejected by the Orange County Board of I ask that you do the same. Sincerely, Robert L. Jump 2602 N. Alona Santa Ana, California 92706 or development. property owners Supervisors. 439 - 341 - 15 4P* THOMAS A. FUENTES 2532 UNIVERSITY DRIVE • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 March Fifth Nineteen Eighty Seven Chairman James Person and Planning Commissioners Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Chairman Person and Planning Commission: I am one of the owners of 20401 Birch Street. The road connection which was shown on the staff report appears to go through my property. We would object to this. We also object to the 80 foot width of Birch and the opening of Mesa Drive. We have no current plans for anything other than resiential use. Sincer y, T A uen F: Jm A'P 4 - 31S 1 - 04 O'A a DX4 �e ors / S.Sµ•2. '1''�� Nkrl�q " �' I4S tr.. �/�- GG�N.�... ��S •s �2ct., s� k1�Sk Ill?.¢' a, 4, mo. - Sep 44?r ;Wd,u' -77W AAL ��l.edr-•►ti...g �Ly r �v� c �r,ot'res �iN.ar��+�/ s�j�-o2 �A� ? oe-�ss � �ov �..- west-:��s � 400L .�J �&;p4 .,„�. �' 4« f eCE'V"D Planning Departnjennt MAR 5 1987 Cl NEWPDRTry of BEACH, CALIF. Aapr.k � 'j `7 AP � 431- C�4-1 - 14 0 AP4- 439 -024-ors Les Waverly 20102 Bsyvlew Avenue Santa Ana Heights, California 92707 James C. Person, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, SP-7; Amendment No. 646 to Title 20 of the Municipal Code Dear Chairman Person and Commission Members: March 4, 1987 R P/ e / pe��nint MgRs ant Nay C1 r cAG ��cN, i As residents of Santa Ana Heights, we vote FOR the Newport Beach Specific Plan, which includes eliminating the planned cul-de-sac on Birch Street. Discussion of Circulation Improvement Test Program Still, we are concerned about the traffic that will be added to Bayview Avenue by the cul-de-sac on Cypress (and on Birch, too, if implemented). Cars wanting to go south on Cypress from Bristol to Mesa will use Spruce. Many of these will then travel Bayview. Cars wanting to go north on Cypress from Mesa to Bristol will find fewer 90 degree turns using Bayview than using Cypress -to -Orchard -to -Orchid -to -Zenith to Spruce. The original traffic analysis in the County Specific Plan omitted the Bayview Tract because it was outside the Plan area. (Note that all increase in traffic was shown on Acacia. See Figure 8 in the County Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis.) As an afterthought, a nebulous "Circulation Improve- ment Test Program" was added. Imprecise objectives fail to Newport Beach Planning bommission Waverly March 4, 1987 Page 2 indicate -how traffic -monitoring data will be used. Resident opinion appears to form the chief basis for final decision - making. However, residents on Spruce, Azure, and half of Orchid will be little impacted by the Cypress traffic blockage caused by the cul-de-sac. Thus the test's use of resident votes is flawed: those unaffected will outnumber those affected. Further, the many working couples who leave early and arrive home late will expr-rience little traffic increase.. Outnumbered Bayview Avenue residents with small children, and retirees, will suffer most from the degraded environment. Our recommendation is to place in the test objectives a limit of 10% increase in traffic on Bayview Avenue. This should be the sole objective of the test. Use of resident opinion should be limited to selection of the least objectionable cul-de-sac in the test. (After a11, any cul-de-sac will cause some inconvenience to some group of people.) Thus the test should clearly state the need for a cul-de-sac protecting the Bayview Tract from the increase in commuter and non-resident traffic caused by creation of the Cypress cul-de-sac. A point worthy of mention is the omission of the entrance/exit at Spruce and Bristol from the list on page 6 of Agenda item 6 for the Planning Commission meeting on March 5. Bayview Avenue and its short offset to Spruce via Zenith forms a part of the Santa Ana Heights traffic pattern. Thank you for your serious consideration of these points. Sincerely, cc: Craig Bluell Bob Lenard V, • National Car Rental System, Inc. • 7700 France Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 612-830-2121 AHOUSEHOLD March 4, 1987 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Newport Beach Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights Dear Sirs: It has come to the attention of National Car Rental System, Inc. that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 5, 1987, will consider the Specific Plan proposed by the City of Newport Beach for the Santa Ana Heights area. It is my further understanding that a portion of the Plan to be considered by your commission is a public alley between Cypress Street and Birch Street located on or behind the commercial property fronting on So. Bristol Street. Please consider this letter an expression of the concerns National Car Rental feels for the proposed alley. The Properties Department was unable to send a representative to your meeting as the notice of the consideration of this Plan was inadequate to allow for proper scheduling. National Car Rental is extremely concerned about the proposed alley as National has a major facility on a long term lease located at 2222 So. Bristol and 2192 So. Bristol. This facility is used by National to service the John Wayne Airport in Orange County. First, a critical part of any car rental facility is the parking space available for car storage, cleaning, maintenance, etc. It is my understanding that this alley may take a 12 to 24-foot wide strip from the rear portion of the property occupied by National Car Rental. This loss of space would result in a serious adverse impact on National Car Rental's operation. It would increase our expenses and decrease the level of service we would be able to offer our customers. We would also anticipate the necessity of instituting additional security measures for the rear portion of the facility. A viewing of our facility would indicate to you that space is at a premium at the present time. The loss of such a large amount of space from this facility is a matter of extreme concern to National as that space is very valuable to US. As you know, the Orange County Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan deleted the alley from the Plan in October of 1986. This deletion was the result of the opposition expressed by the occupants of the commercial property on So. Bristol. It is my understanding that the alley is designed primarily to service the customers from these businesses. However, the businesses all expressed their strong preference to retaining all the property available to them at the present time. This led to the staff recommendation for removal of the alley and the subsequent removal from the Plan. Affiliates: Europcar, Tilden M N. City of Newport Beach March 4, 1987 Page Two Secondly, it is the opinion of National, from the information received by it, that the alley would serve an inadequate number of vehicles to have any significant impact on the traffic considerations for the surrounding area. Therefore, in balancing these considerations, National Car Rental would strongly urge the Planning Commission to delete the alley between Cypress and Birch Street behind the commercial property fronting on So. Bristol from the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan currently being considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me at 612/893-6245. Very truly yours, NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. Albert B. Beety V Senior Attorney Properties Department /jo cc: Andy Buza Bill Smidt S RECEIVE Pla OePzriri•r- ;t b MAR3 1997, ar u- We E h" r.r"TM P G',LI" ofQj r ,he under- signed, are residents and/,or owners of les within 3Uo Feet of Belt Property, on the corner ass St. and Urchard Drive. Said Property is also witn- Feet of intersection namely, Orchid Drive and Orchard uri.v. We favor four(4)Residential Estates thereby conforming to the established residential area, We are opposed to a Senior Citizen Congrecate Care Center, which would bw a business,We are opposed to spot -zoning and the domino affect it causes. Z S Z p rclfa�U/ rQogn� SWQ�� 0k E���z Ors%far eZdoi..2/.Qsu . (•-mac , ada o a0.2.0 Ir2Z II ba �fe4b rri"i.Il POLL 11RMW bi-A- i 5 r/e All 01A % HCR(iT 'eARW EF JPSETTS ,�'otjY Arm Ero �, G ��N�Rrns� •� I n Oau A h n A f A4 c £ i3�T�/fE«e,o r We the under- signed, are residents and/,or owners of properties within 300 Feet of Belt Property, on the corner of Cypress St. and Orchard Drive. Said Property is also with- in �5uo Feet of intersection namely, Orchid Drive and Orchard Drive. We favor four(4)Residential tstates thereby coni'orming to the established residential area, We are opposed to a Senior Citizen Congrecate Care Center, which would b*-a business,we are opposed to spot -zoning and the domino affect it causes. 2013� S Cy PR�4S � aUa7� aoa9a Orakq/ �oZ�lz oe�i�%o 5.a Mlk�'R��).YJ`�f'r sa m t reeo e� !, /J� S-RI AO) �S T 'aG�5 /p00h ri^ B�VR I iWlllelll 1---j3,1F77,5 J/w� -. r-/S E We the under- signed, are residents and/cLr owners of properties within 300 Feet of Belt Property, on the corner of Cypress St. and Orchard Drive. Said Property is also wicn- in 3UO Feet of intersection namely, orchid Drive and Orchard Drive. We favor four(4)Residential tstates thereby conforming to the established residential area, We are opposed to a Senior Citizen Congrecate Care Center, which would bw a business,We are opposed to spot -zoning and the domino affect it causes. �✓�y�'�D� � 2o2G2 Or�iii'o�ST S�zTa Ana Ca 9z7o7 , 07 OrLl t'J sT i Saw¢ct 4n4 'e k cy 707 1^PC 4X 'Z2,3.1 do. &tort 5f 2Dz31 S.iw• Drz-cN�� I Z c110171-5 r, f.a q e L- I S 5_7 ]ERN -5bl''19 SWEDE5 a Mlotzt-R T--AA 1C_ K2o / 2-4-1 A, lVl I LUDN We the under- signed, are residents and/or owners of properties within 300 Feet of Belt Property$ on the corner of Cypress Sto and orchard Drive. Said Property is also wiLh- in jUU Feet of intersection namely, Orchid Drive and Orchard Drive. We favor four(4)Residential estates thereby conforming to the established residential area, We are opposed to a benior citizen Congrecate Care Center, _ which would bw a business,We are opposed to spot -zoning and the domino affect it causes. �U0 �o i 81 gac's Theo B rifels 0 11 March 2, 1987 Planning Commissioners City Councilmembers Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners-: RECEIVED r t�lanntnr bC�avtn^Cnt MAR 6 198f '" rlTy,of NE�hPti7?7'tsACK =s' You are currently developing a specific plan for Santa Ana Heights, prior to annexation procedures. Your Blanning Department presented a plan of February 19th that is destructive to residential Santa Ana Heights. This plan engages in more land use conversion. The County's adopted "compromise" specific plan and land use plan, while not pleasing everyone, should be adopted by Newport Beach with the cul de sac on Birch Street and through office traffic on Acacia Street. There should be no more office zoning on Mesa Drive and no more land use conversion. The County plan allows for plenty of office space potential for Newport Beach's planned annexation, yet retains the unique residential community that Newport Beach should be proud to have. Please give these thoughts your most positive consideration. Sincerely, J. Gar � y 20411 Upper Bay Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 ,&e 0, 43q- 041 - 30 March 2, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission' Dear Mr. Craig Bluell This letter is being written to you regarding the hearing on March j, 1987 concerning the planning issues for the area of Santa Ana Heights. As a longtime resident on Bayview Avenue in Santa Ana Heights, I am very concerned about the planned changes in' this neighborhood. Consider very carefully at this meeting not to adopt the plan that would engage in more land use conversion. The County Specific Plan and Alternate Plan 8C are more ac- ceptable. I am certain you will be very fair in planning of our future. Sincer4y �cr le. Maxine E.' Holland 2001 bayview Ave. Santa Ana Heights, -Calif., 92707 �3q c�2;= V"7 0 RECEkf��,c 9��,t F'• FiZRrTi 1 RA ?. h'F ClTy OF JAMES G. MAYNARD • March 2, 1987 City Council Members Planning Commissioners Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights Council Members & Commissioners: It is understood that you are considering the above matter prior to action toward annexing the area to the City of Newport Beach. As you are aware several years of meetings, hearings and petition gathering by property owners and county government agencies resulted in a compromise agree- ment adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors last fall. Of paramount concern to all parties was the allo- cation of land use between residential and commercial uses and the means of maintaining separation. It would seem logical for the City of Newport Beach to recognize the result of all the previous effort and to adhere to the plan that was developed. Mod- ifications to the plan such as permitting some com- mercial uses on the westerly portion of Mesa Drive would be counter to the agreement reached over the many years of negotiations and would make additional portions of Mesa Drive vulnerable to creeping com-• mercial encroachment. It is hoped that careful consideration will be given to past efforts before action is taken by the City of Newport Beach. Respectfully yours, � ies Maynard 9 REc 1 Co-trutee for "`•n "''t 2362 Mesa Drive. pe:•.,, �gai ao 2141 VISTA ENTRADA, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 039M_SMii, 700-0553 Please distribute to all Planning Commissioners. Thank you. •.-\ t._ \ Gc4.rr. MA�3 1981, " C�S� '•;�H NSNP0,; - I % Barry E. Terrell, Jr. 20475 Upper Bay Drive Santa Ana Hts, CA 92707 March 2, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92662 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to you regarding the proposed changes to the County Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights recommended by the Newport Beach Planning Commission staff. .The plan developed for Santa Ana Heights was the result of about five (5) years of "give -and take" between the residents of this area and the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. It was a "compromise plan" that we could live with. Now the staff of the Newport Beach Planning Com- mission, for reasons not clear to me at this writing, has elected to make changes that would be disruptive to our small community adversley affecting a larger num- ber of residents than under the present Specific Plan. We appreciate the concern of the City of Newport Beach for improving the quality of life for the residents of Santa Ana Heights. It would be in the best interest of all concerned -if the County Specific Plan would be accepted by the Planning Commission of Newport Beach. Sincerely, Harr Terrell, Jr. r.. • HAL AEBISCHER 20392 Bayview Ave. Santa Ana, Calif. 92707 March 1, 1987 City of Newport Beach Councilmembers Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 t Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners: After many years of discussions and negotiations with Orange County officials a specific plan for Santa Ana Heights has been achieved. Considerable concessions by both sides were made to accomplish this goal. Now there is an effort by the City of Newport Beach to reopen the wounds that have healed. Santa Ana Heights has always been a residential community. The deteriation that exists here is a direct result of the City of Newport Beach's battle with the County over airport expansion. We have been the pawns. The City of Newport Beach does not accept us in their ranks, apparently because we cannot contribute enough to their coffers. When the Bayview Project, which was a section of Santa Ana Heights, was carved from our area and incorporated into your city, we were told by j,our Mayor "It means millions to us." Would an increase in commercial area make us more desirable? We wish to keep this a residential area as much as possible. Eliminating the residences on Mesa D;ive and replacing them with commercial buildings would cause an increase in traffic. The aesthetic values of the neighborhood would definitely suffer. When the City of Newport Beach commits itself to accepting Santa Ana Heights as a viable addition, any recommendations might be justified. Until then, let us live in peace and accord with those who govern us. Res full1 V,0zHHAAL AEBISCHER 4P # 4.3C1-0�2-07 RECEIVED` MAR 3 1967 v' Motor C1tY of Ne�+P°�� \ HAROLD W. ANDERSON � '2335 MESA DRIVE / SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CA. 92707 .^v�~ March 1, 1987 Dear Mayor: My wife and I have lived at this address for over 17 years" We feel that the impact of the Orange County Plan for our neighborhood is acceptable for the redevelopment of this area. We object to any more office buildings» the elimina- tion of more homes, and hhe'incurrence of traff5c flow patterns contrary to that plan.. We are curious as to why the City of Newport Beach 5s re- planning the redevelopment of Santa Ana Heights when we are not a part of that City; and no date has been given to us or our neighbors as to when, if ever, we will be a part of the City, We would appreciate your response to this question., If the City of Newport Beach adopts a different Specific Plan for our area, we would most likely vote ''non to annexation" Om looking forward to hearing from you., Sincerely, 4e�4;� Harold W. Anderson 6� ��� �1�|~�y~ ��\ ^� ���7 �w^�| «/� 0 March 1, 1907 Planning Commissioners City Councilmembers City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Cox, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners: I feel I must write to you about your plan to change Santa Ana Heights. The residents have worked with the County for many years to agree on a "plan" that we all could live with. Now you want to change all this! Please study the County Compromise Plan and the County 8C and consider their merits. Cordially yours, Helen Hobson 2431 E. Mesa Drive Santa Ana Heights, Calif. 92707 Apt 439-041 -23 v`✓\" }}�� EIS 4 \"vt 5 FnQR3�.�.i oF�cN, N�eocP �' ROBERT NICHOLS 2321 MESA DRIVE VP SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CA" 92707 cmw / � March 1, 1987 Dear Mayor Cox: My wife and I have lived at this address for over 13 years" We feel that the impact of the Orange County Plan for our neighborhood is acceptable for the redevelopment of this area. We object to any more office buildings, the elimina- tion of more homes, and the incurrence of traffic flow patterns contrary to that plan" We are curiousas to why the City of NewporL Beach is re- planning the redevelopment of Santa Ana Heights when we -are not a part of that City; and no date has been given to us or our neighbors as to when, if ever, we will be a part of the City" We would appreciate your response to this question" If the City of Newport Beach adopts a different Specific Plan for our area' we would most likely vote "no" to annexation. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Robert and June Nichols kF--w 4-39 - o4/ - /7 February 28, 1987 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Craig Bluell: You are currently developing a Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights prior to annexation procedures. The Newport Beach Planning Department presented a plan on February 19 that is destructive to residential Santa Ana Heights. This plan engages in even more land use conversion than the County's Compromise Specific Plan. I prefer the County's Plan 8C to the"compromise" plan that was adopted by the County. Plan 8C routed office traffic behind the residential area. The Newport Beach Plan has a unique approach to traffic: ***If office traffic is a problem in the residential area then eliminate the residential area by drawing The County's adopted "compromise" Specific Plan has evolved through many years of work and study. It does not please everyone, however it addresses the planning problems such as traffic, set -back and buffer requirements, with less devastation to the Community than the Newport Beach Plan. There should be no more office zoning on Mesa Drive and no more land use conversion. Yours truly, %.� EDPatricia E. Cox 2612 MesaDrive ntSanta Ana, CA 92705 87 P- (CVNEWPORT ACH,APB qsq-osl- (o&+o7) 0 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 2011 Mesa Drive Santa Ana EIeights Feb. 28, 1987 I have owned my home at 2011 Mesa Drive, Santa Ana Heights, for the past 21 years. The gradual increase in flights, noise and soot frop the John Wayne Airport has made this area very undesirable. My property is not large enough to keep a horse. My son Jack M. Weatherford owns the property at 2001 Mesa Drive. I have a 10 foot easement across the back of his pronertyfor my driveway access to Acacia Street, so my son does not hive room for horses either. I realize that this block between Acacia and BirUh was zoned Equestrian Residential as sort of a compronise, but it seems unfair when all the proper- ty owners in this block with the exception of one would prier to have this block on Mesa Drive rezoned as Business Park. I am an 81 year old woman, I enjoy my home and beautiful view and do not enjoy the thought of moving, but I truly believe this is the most logical way to resolve a very difficult situation. Sincerely, AP ,44- 43q- 3q2-D2 REOE,YEO V' Fla�riw'S pep rtY �t Ow MARS 19�? '� �, • Feb. 28, 1987 Dear Residents of Santa Ana Heights: 1 We are writing this letter to encourage you to become involved in the planning process for Santa Ana Heights. We know many of you and you know that the outcome of the planning for Santa Ana Heights is of very serious concern to all of us. Currently, Newport Beach is considering adopting a Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights that is different from the County's Plan. The Newport Beach Planning staff wishes to change the County's circulation and zoning plan. People on Birch Street are going to end up with a road, in many cases, 10 feet from their homes, and some homes on Mesa and Birch Street are currently being shown as a road on the Newport Beach Plan. The County Specific Plan --the "Compromise" plan approved after five years of planning --protected residential Santa Ana Heights by routing office traffic and other through traffic down Mesa and up Acacia Street with a residential entry monument at Acacia and Mesa.Drive to discourage through office traffic. Cul de sacs were proposed and promised. Alternate Plan 8C puts through office traffic behind the properties of people who wish to remain in their homes on Birch Street and behind the homes on Mesa Drive. This road goes through parts of 11 properties, all of which are already designated for conversion to office. All of the properties disturbed belong to people who have asked to have their residential uses converted to office. .CEIVED -Yq) Planninl . p3pmirn¢nt �� MAR4 1987 0- !: CITY OF p,EWPORT BEACH. . j CALIF. zl\� The Newport beach Planning Staff proposes a plan that routes office and other through traffic further into Santa Ana Heights --down Mesa Drive to Birch Street with a residential entry monument on the other side of Birch Street at Mesa and a Business Park entry monument at Acacia and Mesa, making an 80 foot "industrial" street connecting Mesa to Birch St., and widening Birch Street to an 80 foot "industrial" street. This road goes through 7 properties. Homeowners on Birch Street will be severely damaged. This plan engages in more land use conversion and would put more offices on Mesa Drive between Acacia and Birch. It will cause 5 more homes on Mesa Drive to be eliminated. What will be next? There are Drooerty owners on Mesa ce is called the "domino" effect. If 4 lanes of office traffic stretch down Mesa toward Cypress, what do you think will be the outcome? Think about itl! Commission issues are being decided. They will be voting on which Circulation Plan to adopt. The Newport Beach Planning commissioners are not necessarily committed to the Plan that their staff has proposed and have demonstrated fairness. The Newport Beach Planning Commissioners will have their third meeting on Santa Ana Heights. They are attentive and ready to hear all sides before they vote. Please make sure that your voice is heard. We hope that you support the County Specific Plan or 8C, both of which route office traffic up Acacia Street with a residential entry monument at Acacia and Mesa Drive and a cul de sac on Birch and Cypress to insure that through traffic is routed up Acacia. These are our opinions. We hope you agree. Pat Cox Fred Peterson Barbara Rohrer Marianne Towersey Hal Aebischer Bev Mullan Gerald Silsbee Marlene Hester 2011 Mesa Drive Santa Ana HeiehtF Feb. 28, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commissinn City of Newport Beach I have owned my home at 201.1 Mesa Drive, Santa Ana Hei-hts, for the past 21 years. The ^.rad'lal incrrase in flights, noise and soot frnip the John Wayne Airport has made this Area very undesirable. My property is not lar,me enough to keep a horse. My son Jack M. Weatherford owns the property at 2001 Mesa Drive. I have a 10 foot easement across the back of his pronertyfor my driveway access to Acacia Street, so my son does not have room for horses either. I realize that this block between Acacia and Birhrh was zoned Equestrian Residential as sort of a comnrorise, but it seems unfair when all the proper- ty owners in this block wi`h the exception of one would pier to have this block on Mesa Drive rezoned as Business Park. I am an 81 year old woman, I enjoy my home and beautiful view and do not enjoy the thought of moving, but I truly believe this is the most lo¢ical way to resolve a very difficult situation. Sincerely, I� February 28, 1987' Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Chairman James Person: You are currently developing a Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights prior to annexation procedures. The Newport Beach Planning Department presented a plan on February 19 that is destructive to residential Santa Ana Heights. This plan engages in even more land use conversion than the County's Compromise Specific Plan. f. 3` MARS City Manager i( City of New^ort Reach I prefer the County's Plan 8C to the"compromise" plan that was adopted by the County. Plan 8C routed office traffic behind the residential area. The Newport Beach Plan has a unique approach to traffic: ***If office traffic is a problem in the residential area then eliminate the residential area by drawing a road on ton of the homes.*** The County's adopted "compromise" Specific Plan has evolved through many years of work and study. It does not please everyone, however it addresses the planning problems such as traffic, set -back and buffer requirements, with less devastation to the Community than the Newport Beach Plan. 11 There should be no more office zoning on Mesa Drive and no more land use conversion. Yours truly, �y "�(R7 �iid. "Y_ Patricia E. Cox 2612 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 February 24, 1987 City of.Newport Beach Councilmembers Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners: During the last few years, Santa Ana Heights has been undergoing many changes. John Wayne Airport has had an affect upon the land use planning for the future of Santa Ana heights. After several years, the County has adopted a Specific Plan that converts part of Santa Ana Heights to Business Park and designates residential entry monuments to inhibit office traffic -from encroaching into the residential area. The cul de sac on Birch St. is a necessary part of this plan. The Newport Beach Specific Plan proposes to move the residential entry monument from Acacia and Mesa to Birch and Mesa, eliminating the cul de sac on Birch St., thus engaging in further land use conversion and bringing office traffic closer to my home. The expansion of the Business Park and the intrusion of office zoning onto Mesa Drive is not favorable to the residential community and should be discouraged. 2 would not be in favor of annexing to Newport Beach if it meant the opening of Birch St. and the possibility of converting more residences on Mesa Drive. Enough is enough. Adopt the County Compromise Plan. Truly, s 4 Egon Reich RECEIVED 2182 Mesa Drive b Ptanrr.• Newport Beach, CA 92660 Deaermcnt MAR2 1987, z- E CITY nF NEWPORT _ACH, n. CALIF. /� February 24, 1987 City of.Newport Beach Councilmembers Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners: During the last few years, Santa Ana Heights has been undergoing many changes. John Wayne Airport has had an affect upon the land use planning for the future of Santa Ana Heights. After several years, the County has adopted a Specific Plan that converts part of Santa Ana Heights to Business Park and designates residential entry monuments to inhibit office traffic from encroaching into the residential area. The cul de sac on Birch St. is a necessary part of this plan. The Newport Beach Specific Plan proposes to move the residential entry monument from Acacia and Mesa to Birch and Mesa, eliminating the cul de sac on Birch St., thus engaging in further land use conversion and bringing office traffic closer to my home. The expansion of the Business Park and the intrusion of office zoning onto Mesa Drive is not favorable to the residential community and should be discouraged. I would not be in favor of annexing to Newport Beach if it meant the opening of Birch St. and the possibility of converting more residences on Mesa Drive. Enough is enough. Adopt the County Compromise Plan. Truly, O Egon Reich t+Eo�o� a t , 2182 Mesa Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 9 p�z ��z`0 1 pr L • City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 To Whom It May Concern: February 24, 1987 I have lived at 2161 Mesa Drive for over 30 years. I do not want any more office zoning on Mesa Drive. I support the Specific Plan as adopted by the County. I am not in favor of the Newport Beach Plan which eliminates more residential property on Mesa Drive. Yours truly, Beth I. Bath 2161 S.E. Mesa Drive Santa Ana, Calif.92705 RgG nn1";D ��,rafi�19ai � N�PGC� 1F February 24, 1987 City of.Newport Beach Councilmembers Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners: During the last few years, Santa Ana Heights has been undergoing many changes. John Wayne Airport has had an affect upon the land use planning for the future of Santa Ana Heights. After several years, the County has adopted a Specific Plan that converts part of Santa Ana Heights to Business Park and designates residential entry monuments to inhibit office traffic from encroaching into the residential area. The cul de sac on Birch St. is a necessary part of this plan. The Newport Beach Specific Plan proposes to move the residential entry monument from Acacia and Mesa to Birch and Mesa, eliminating the cul de sac on Birch St., thus engaging in further land use conversion and bringing office traffic closer to my home. The expansion of the Business Park and the intrusion of office zoning onto Mesa Drive is not favorable to the residential community and should be discouraged. I would not be in favor of annexing to Newport Beach if it meant the opening of Birch St. and the possibility of converting more residences on Mesa Drive. Enough is enough. Adopt the County Compromise Plan. Truly, Egon Reich 2182 Mesa Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 AP* 459- NO( -©& bFFICE F THE YOR CiAIES3ENi Tg,. ouncYk£n ❑Manager ❑Attorney [I City Clerk 00ther ,❑ RECEIVED MAR 2 1987 P Mayor pity of Newport February 24, 1987 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 To Whom It May Concern: I have lived at 2161 Mesa Drive for over 30 years. I do not want any more office zoning on Mesa Drive. I support the Specific Plan as adopted by the County. I am not in favor of the Newport Beach Plan which eliminates more residential property on Mesa Drive. Yours truly, ,&-dz-4 '-�. 4a,-a( Beth I. Bath 2161 S.E. Mesa Drive Santa Ana, Calif.92705 of i M . 003 ggT,�' tt N February 19, 1987 Mr. Craig Buell Director of Advance Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Buell: Please be advised that we approve the Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights as presented by Advance Planning of Newport Beach. Of particular interest are two sections for improvement in the circulation plan. Those sections describenthe entrance tocthe business park at Birch Street and Mesa Drive, and the design features for entrance to the residential area on Mesa Drive, east- erly of Birch Street. This,intersection is of particular interest to us because we live at the Northeast corner of Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Our address is 20462 Birch Street. (Exhibit I of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, Land use Plan Map shows our property within .the EQ overlay.) We approve the Plan for both sections as outlined. The proposed Plan designing Birch Street and Westerly Mesa Drive as secondary collectors for traffic circulation seems a most sensible plan since Birch Street crosses Bristol Street, allowing direct access to business areas north of Bristol Street. However, we direct your attention to: our property, consisting of two parcels; both addresses are Birch Street; and access to both properties is on Birch Street, approximately seventy feet north of Mesa Drive. Location ans design of the entrance to the business park is of particular concern to us since we have been unable to sell our property as a residential property over the last seven and one-half years. 2. • We, who have lived in Santa Ana Heights for many years, congratulate you and your staff for taking a good plan, one that was labored over for years, and working to further define its details. Sincerely, CA/ Alice J. Rodriguez (Mrs, aul E.) 20462 Birch Street Santa Ana, California 92707 c.c. Commissioners: Gary W. Pommeroy Pat Eichenhofer Rena Koppelman James "Buzz" Person Joan Winburn Harry Merrill John A. Kurlander h P # ¢3r-I - 332-(01 � 0z) 0 KHALOGHLI AND ASSOCIATES 19600 FAIRCHILD, SUITE 240 IRVINE, CA 92715 (714) 476-0320 Planning Commissioners CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners: February 19, 1987 I, Khosro Khaloghli, am a resident of 2242 Mesa Drive, Newport Beach. I have lived in Newport Beach for the past 23 years and own several pieces of property which are; 2919 Cliff Drive and 1014 Mariners Drive. I am a very concerned citizen of Newport Beach and have been a frontiersman in desiring to see the annexation of Santa Ana Heights to Newport Beach as seen by former Mayors,Jackie Heather and Evelyn Hart. I am opposed to the elimination of the cul de sac on south Birch and the widening of Birch Street. I am opposed to any additional conversion of residential properties to office use, particularly on Mesa Drive. I am opposed to any zoning and/or changes that would deviate from the approved County Specific Plan now in effect. I have enclosed, for your review, a copy of previous correspondence to Supervisor Riley which shows my opposition to a General Plan Amendment proposed for consideration last December by an individual property owner. If my position is not considered and if the City' of Newport Beach wants to make any changes; I am strongly opposed to this and will, along with my neighbors, vigorously contest any such proposed changes. c97�ely yours, Khosro Khaloghliu-0R) KK:ba encl. cc: Newport Beach City Council AP -W; 459 -06/ �03,o-1,p89 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Plan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council vie support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at 'Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. l'z-7 °7 Alp + 4�c��3c�2—off February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council 4e support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. c ro �'J February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Yiesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. .1 It- ^ February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Niesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. kF 419 Yl February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council Ae support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 4F 4- 43q - 34 � - 6 8 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Niesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. t' ao 131 S C.y P ASS ip� A K"'O, it s . CA February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council de support the Newport Beach Specific Plan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 92- ')Lo -�� February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. P�fo't i '2z-- �- .mac �\ � e0 5. 4 . f4-PbL U AP --/� 4 39- 34z - (02 � 6-a) ter. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. ACO7 — 6 a fix,, `h, QA Q;V O? J February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. AP4 r February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Plan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. zd 3 C( �I-,s 9 Sf- S�J offs l % z /7a7 0 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. ?�4 ��M I�r- 9a �07 A-p -A- 4-b 9 ^ 341- February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council 4e support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council 4e support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. �P # 439- �S4-2-.os February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council Ne support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. C5, 4!�//.5mai-A .Zoi3,2 Grj press 5-W 5an-h rya , car. 9-2 7e)� February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. v �J p96-� 5.). CA %z��'/ X P # 4-39 3-� 2-18 w 0 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. _ y • • February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. VP P✓!%��O "' �a 7-�O-7 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. - r •o 4!:n - D 24 - I I February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council 4e support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. MP + 4-3q- o23-c�q February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. Z�kZZ Zewt¢y is February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Niesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. l+� ' Y. �r , AP# 439--023-10 NoN—owPJ�. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Plan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 1-4�wal-t �WO-.-Y ?a747 mm - OWNm February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council ode support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 6 6� rey U-el6CI SQr'1 7q ClGiR e✓�l r� AP-f- 439-OZ4-08 • NON - Ow NEL February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council sae support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. -7 . A P 439 - 024- oq ✓ '** • NON -OW, February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Niesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. A•P.* 43q-024- r3 77, E February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. r d�15 l Z� lei /q VC s A H,_g -rs, ��2a February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council 4e support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. /& � � j arry a03y/ r w 0 • Nohi- owNE(L February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. A, P #- - 342 - 03 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council ,'fie support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 0 NON -owNer February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council 4e support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary Increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and 'klesmm2p06 Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. V" " Z6z,74 AI -T� 43R- 3I 1- ►8 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. %l �7 Sze - / ?- 67 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Ilan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Plan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 2 �� �� -7 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council Ae support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 161 - February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Plan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Iviesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. 1&. 4'&" 6, /q-32,-- --?Ta .A_ , - Pi 0 February 19, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Council We support the Newport Beach Specific Flan with the necessary increase of width of Birch Street and Acacia Street, and the road alignment at Birch Street and Mesa Drive. Also traffic tests at Spruce Street and Zenith Avenue and the south block of Cypress Street. J 11 .ROBERT L. HOPKINS ATTORNEY AT LAW 17601 CARTWRIGHT IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92714 TELEPHONE (7141 6441• 225 February 19, 1987 HAND DELIVERED James C. Person, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, SP-7; Amendment No. 646 to Title 20 of the Municipal Code; Environmental Impact Report 508A Dear Chairman Person and Commission Members: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. BOX 7006 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 This letter is intended for inclusion in record of the Commission's proceedings in the above 51 2-19-87 agenda) and to supplement and expand my the matter. the formal matter (item testimony on The City Council, on October 13, 1986, adopted General Plan Amendment 86-1(G) which, inter alia, redesignated various portions of the property located southerly of Bristol Street, easterly of Irvine Avenue, westerly of the Bayview Development, and northerly of the Upper- Bay in .thy unincorporated area of Orange Count, from ' Low- ensD" ty es ent3-XV' -and=-" Residentaa7" Cto'_"A,]Aini.stsattve,,_ -Prof ess-tong F�9itP�ficial' and designated the area as a S Plan Area. The proposed Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan SP-7 creates zoning classifications to implement each element of the General Plan applicable to the area, and it includes landscape and building design guidelines to improve the image and establish an identity for Santa Ana Heights. A public improvement component is included which describes changes to the area's circulation system, as well as sewer, -water and stormdrain improvements. plans, as well as a community design program. Newport Beach Planning Commission February 19, 1987 Page Two In preparing its proposed Specific Plan, the City has relied upon the Environmental Impact Reports prepared by the County of Orange for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatability Program (EIR 508), and the County Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (EIR 508A) On February 5, 1986, the Commision held its first public hearing on the City's proposed Specific Plan for the area. In its report to the Commission, staff explained that the intent of the Specific Plan was not to establish land uses, but to create standards for the implementation of the land uses established by the City in October, 1986. (2-19-87 Staff Report, page 2). The Commission heard public testimony regarding the plan and continued the hearing to February 19, 1987. Mesa, Drive/Birch Street Realignment Staff has made several modifications to the plan as adopted• by the County, the most significant of which is the realignment of the intersection of Mesa Drive and Birch Street, and the upgrading of Mesa Drive from Acacia to Birch and all of Birch Street to "industrial collector" standards. The purpose of these changes is stated to be "to provide for the new trips [generated by the business park] and to relieve demands on Irvine Avenue and Bristol Street." (2-5-87 Staff Report, page 4). Staff further states, "EIR 508A does not address why substandard street widths were proposed by the County Specific Plan for the business park areas ." (2-5-87 Staff Report, page 4). The configuration and sectioning of Circulation Plan of the Specific Plan adopted by the County are intended to reduce through traffic within the resideniial` areas and to separate business and residential traffic. The County Specific Plan states as follows: II B. Circulation Plan "The Circulation Plan is designed to provide for safe vehicular, equestrian and pedestrian movement within and adjacent to the specific plan area. The area has been heavily impacted by nonresidential traffic attempting -to_'avoid congested conditions on surrounding arterials. Thus, a primary Newport Beach Planning Commission February 19, 1987 Page Three consideration in the development of the plan was reduction of through traffic within residential areas. With the planned development of business park uses, another consideration was the separation of busness park and residential traffic." EIR 508A was prepared to solely to assess the impacts of the proposed County Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights (EIR 508A,, page 1) the circulation element of which was intended to: 1) reduce through traffic and 2) separate business and residential traffic and not to relieve congestion on adjacent arterials. Assuming arguendo the accuiacy of all trip generation and other traffic data for the business park based on the allowable square footage contained in EIR 508A, kt—d-se's-'n-ot Such a significant departure from the specific plan for which'EIR 508A was prepared, i.e. the opening of Birch Street to Bristol to relieve Irvine Avenue congestion, must certainly be regarded as a significant impact on the project area. Just as one cannot look to EIR 508A for a discusson of street widths, neither can one look to. it for a discussion of either the impacts or mitigation of the impacts of a realignment of the intersection of Mesa Drive and Birch Street as eighty foot rights of way and a sixty-four foot roadways. Neither does EIR 508 provide a basis for adopting the realignment of Mesa and Birch. Nowhere among the alternatives evaluated in EIR '508 is the specific alternative being considered here. Rather, it proposes to mitigate the added congestion on Irvine Avenue by upgrading it from a primary to a modified six -lane major. arterial and; tom mitigate the congestion on Bristol by adding a fourth through lane. (EIR 508A, page 34). Lastly, there is the question of whether to adopt a Specific Plan at such variance with the approved County Specific Plan violates the provisions of the airport litigation settlement agreement under which the City is obligated to accept County land use designations and zoning of land in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport upon annexation by the City. In summary, EIR 5.08A is inadequate and does not provide the Commission with a basis for adopting a realignment of the intersection of Mesa Drive and Birch Street and upgrading them Newport Beach Planning Commission February 19, 1987 Page Four to industrial collectors. For the Commission to so act would be a violation of the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resourses Code, Sections 21000, et seeq.), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Administrative Code, Sections 15000, et seq.). rJ RL•'CEIVED FEB 181987, /yr /�F Z7 RECFfVF;I C. _..i FEB 181987 Clr•, C...-:, . b-uNc,l�i.�J A?-� 43G-39k- 61 J� RECEP D pi•n, rr FEB 181987 vG�Z6 �Gll� l ZCGL`j GGZ�� f �° v 7271t rf � Yf� 7' plf ��� eta G� zn,el ea Y- lx_," ��- /A f p ��� ���'� `�� �� �` �'`��- 'I P ,0 7fN1) UG G�`f PE�ssUtil AP-�r 43q-372-03 to 0 K44ALOGHLI AND ASSOCIATES 19600 FAIRCHILD. SUITE 240 IRVINE. CA 92715 (Y14) 476.0320 Planning Commissioners CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners: February 19, 1987 I, Khosro Khaloghli, am a resident of 2242 Mesa Drive, Newport Beach. I have lived in Newport Beach for the past 23 years and own several pieces of property which are; 2919 Cliff Drive and 1014 Mariners Drive. I am a very concerned citizen of Newport Beach and have been a frontiersman in desiring to see the annexation of Santa Ana Heights to Newport Beach as seen by former Mayors.Jaelde Heather and Evelyn Hart. I am opposed to the elimination of the cul de sac on south Birch and the widening of Birch Street. I am opposed to any additional conversion of residential properties to office use, particularly on Mesa Drive. I am opposed to any zoning and/or changes that would deviate from the approved County Specific Plan now in effect. I have enclosed, for your review, a copy of previous correspondence to Supervisor Riley which shows my opposition to a -General Plan Amendment proposed for consideration last December by an individual property owner. If my position is not considered and if the City' of Newport Beach wants to make any changes; I am strongly opposed to this and will, along with my neighbors, vigorously contest any such proposed changes. SJV,,Oely yours. Khosro KhaloghliW) KK : ba encl. cc: Newport Beach City Council 4) ., �6" . & - RECEIVED \ Planning Q Department FEB 181987 CITY OF 5 NEWPORT BEACH, / CALIF. C% - CI��AvLr, - 1. G 12,� A -A t& CYN G� �U'm4H.r �Q�a�.l�t AP #.439-372.-og 9 Feb I8 1987 RECEIVED Plannire, To: Planning Commission, Deppdmnt City of New Port Beach, FE6181987 m- 3300 Newport Blvd, CITY OF New Port Beach, Calif (2663 NEwPOPT 'EACH, / CALF f Subject; Proposed Amendment No 646 tothe Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Commissioners: Addressing the proposed amendment.We support the staffs plan to a point. We support the circulation for B.PX the Cul-de Sac North of Cypress and feel the alley way would help the business, and hopefully discourage parking North of Cypress in front of R.EQ Knowing horses, the split rail fence should be of durable materi'.l and higher than three and one -half -feet on the property side.. The surface of the equestrian trail should definitely�be,.decomposed granite. Existing soil would need more upkeep,which would be costly, it would also eleminate dust problems,and mud after a rain. Hopefully with the Cul-de-Sac there will be no need for the horse trail on West side of Cypress.Cows,Sheep,Pigs ? Please reconsider. We have had our property for 23 years,and very interested to see it upgraded,that is why our interest in the B.P. area..For good Planning in that area,wi�l^l make for good planning in our area.. Thank -You George Hitt n'd J.�.jr/Joxies. 2040I Cypress Street,-' Santa Ana Heights -, California. 92707 AP# 43c4- 3-71 - 07 U Frank Eisendrath 104 Rings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 February 18, 1987 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Commission: RECEIVED (/ PI- Dep , 1 cnt FEB181987 clrr o / 5 NEWPORT 'FaCH. CALO. 91i_ I have been the owner of 20232 S.W. Birch, Santa Ana, since 1962. I approve of Newport Beach's Specific Plan Amendment 646, except for the street width specification. I believe either James Manning's plan or the County's plan would be far superior. Newport Beach's plans for widening the street sacrifices the property owners, putting an undue hardship on them which I feel is totally unecessary. Respectfully, Frank Eisendrath ,A.p* 43q - 35Z -- OI i �v RECEIVED Planning �( Departnxnt FE 1181987. ob clrr OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 2DB71— Z ti 311 �31�2t�t�nT ,AP-9 439 — 381— ,14 0 February 17, 1987 Tot Planning Commission of City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Mr. & Mrs. Phillip A. 32138 Via Buena San Juan Cap SUBJECTt Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan - Amendment No. 646 Stevens Calif. 92675 RECEIVED C Planning Department FEB 181987, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIF. We have been property owners in the Santa Ana Heights area since 1975, been involved with parents property since 1960 and are members of ABCOM. We have recently read and heartily approve of the subject specific plan in its entirety with the minor exception of the recommended 8 foot side- walks on Birch street, as shown in Exhibit 5. We feel the foot traffic on Birch Street can be accomidated as well by a 6 foot side walk ( as in Exhibit 6) and the additional 2 feet could be better utilized in the buildings parking areas. Sincerely, 1 t `- a S Mr. and Mrs. Phillip A. Stevens 34 30 :c Y-\((NG 4\)G PAS/bas 43q- 362 - 0& A P File AW. I( RECEIVED Planning Department FEB 181987. °- CITY OF NEWPDRT BEACH CALIF., x APO 439 - 381,= ( 12-15) !7i /9 F7 7.1 ,zs�eZ - ��.�r:..Gt,•�-rc�.c•�,�uv ��c-�-•- �a�U 7�`. �e�ie% .. a 57 '' w 1 . _12 -- .�2-�-<.2� ..��ci Z� S 4? ii .�c-ai /�'ta}- ��C�.�u-C'ti•...Qi ._ - .. � -- �y7/�• � cK.���/V''/-•-'z-�d�-P/ �L-�C�cO�-�/ll/l��� �/J�Ld"7��njJ' � .. - �' .. �.1f1//7��2•..G/tk� .ids-%� . L� /�✓�ti�' � �/ . �7%. � - _. .. ._. .. ..�L�li[.�GP/.q/ � G%z•'C..(ir!:c"�c.ca�.-I�/!`i =s=�ai,^`�_i�.i�a^-�„-�—"i i ---' .. _. _ - - i �c o lii p Qc.lt�, 6 cl. J, RECEIV Plannirkg �! DePOrtnvmt A FEB181987. ®- �� NEW PDRT BEACH, S � CALIF. M . / rj l .w�.i.-.r e _ .�-vr .+V.-s. w��AW�wew'+wr��'wa��s�ar.�.+i+++���.�.iw�i•.w�-__+w - r /9F7 �rT `1�i�vu �"7� a� cal D �3/ Ceti � ��' ���Z.,✓ �i�r.� a�O�D r ��.�-�: a�sr� 1a%'�I C�a�Z�jx,�,.`..�a ..ter✓ �i-a�ii RECEIVED `C Planning A Q S Dsp,-rrmrnt A p �- FEB181987 D- CITY OF NEWPORT , F+.CH, ' CAL / I u RECEIVED X? Pl.rni� "' S D�c^fir.�t FEB 181987 5 Urry OF NEWPORT BEACH. CALIF. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Dear Sirs, February 15, 1987 My husband and T have resided and owned our propery at 20402 and 20412 Birch Street for 39 years. We have been members of ABCOM since 1981, working to change our zonning to business park. We feel the City of Newport Beach's traffic circulation plan is the first realistic answer to the traffic problem, it not only allows the business traffic to flow freel,y,,and it also protects the residential area. We liked the suggestion of Mr. Manning, regarding the width of Birch street and giving the city an easement. The alley from Cypress, to Birch and the cul-de-sac would also pro- tect the residential on Cypress, as we are thinking of relocating there. Sincerely, zm4j2m�' Bill and Lorraine Warren 20412 Birch Street Santa Ana, California, 92707 AP �-- 43q-382- 00-07) 4r N 0 .9 FEB 181987 WY Cz NEINORT H ep� :. I 1W .,. iae10 BEACH, CA 9 1714) 833-8560 February 13,1987 Mr. Greg Bluell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Cal 92663 Advanced Planning Dear Greg; isle] Per our previous conversation, I am writing this letter addressing the City of Newport Beach's proposed amendment No. 646 to the Santa Ana Heights specific plan. I developed the spanish styled buildings on the corner of Acacia, Orchard,and Irvine which we recently completed. I am also planning additional office buildings adjacent and on Acacia. I have been actively involved with the area and am currently serving on the Redevelopment Committee as appointed by the County. I am concerned as to any changes that take place that are different than the approved County Specific Plan. The city must realize that these plans were a result of intense public hearings and input from all concerned property owners and public agencies and that there was give and take on all sides. Finally, the County's plan was approved. All parties had to give in a little, including optimum traffic and planning solutions. As stated, I am concerned with any changes from the County's Plan but I am most concerned with the City proposing large full, optimum right of ways which require taking of property. I believe the City is not working with the spirit of final settlement which the County finally obtained if it does not make a better effort to live with the existing right of ways. The traffic lanes and street sections as proposed are optimum and more than what exists in some parts of the city. l5� 3931 MAC ARTHUR BLVD., STE. 110 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 833-8560 February 13,1987 Mr. Greg Bluell page 2 I will be out of town and unable to attend the planning hearing of February 19,1987. I will however attend future hearings and I would like to research and propose alternatives that are more in keeping with the spirit of compromise which has already been accomplished. S,in�e/rely,� Dan DeMille cc:Rich Adler, County of Orange Rita Jones 4eofrk G �% `�OY'N151On jjrACHMENT NO. 3 %"\oecs, �e�o 13,19 87 Can b �Cmmrm L(m, A Ar'soc�k�n, cn� loon rc� O� Sw�c ViS�s We zstZorr el f e-V ion com kq,\er b��1c�; nqs pc���Ction,� be.�eav�. W�•.s on\� mv'o'%V� Amso6ak- kot) st-k-??WA- WNc QTpecf4e. ����s.SC1 �.�vlo.� �e.. br,d�► p�,�pcess_ t e s�,� �'reekthen�s b��e-en b�s'r�s p� ^ 0.t1d rG.5�C12Jn"I"�q� e$^ttie�S�InoJI� St \d \G��.s iCI�L 11es�SSacy �J�c�rv�.:r�q e5't �irc� Skre�� .1�-�oq on � ZoS �1u� pceSS i-B\:cc�+�5►.��Ae-`re._ bvs�ness pac� we-SicR�i4 1 CkfN'IMpcove�enks �;11 \we. ;Mple"VenW 0.s 0"s Act presfde�t S'�ncec� "�, N •• ,z4 7,; u�w�r a, 7 A - 17 FEB 181987. CITY Or iIVMPORT':i: }C�. Z/Aez ,,�4 ems' qLz All I • Fe�ary 7, 1987 Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach and Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 I am a homeowner in Santa Ana Heights and I am concerned about potential traffic problems from the business park area. My home is at the corner of Orchard and Orchid. My concern is traffic coming from Mesa Drive, onto Cypress, onto Orchard and then past my house through the Bayview track to Bristol. tin other words, the cul de sac at Cypress and Bristol may encourage business commuters to use the Bayview housing track as a thoroughfare to Bristol. ) I hope there will be a deterrence to this potential traffic pattern, for example a cul de sac at Cypress and Mesa Drive. Thank you for your attention and consideration to these traffic problems. Sincerely, Jean Swedes 20261 Orchid St Santa Ana, CA 92707 A-P�t 45q -032 - 01 0 Molls O ena 1456 San (:ad,,venue, #103 San Carlos, CA 94070 Z-7-/yP7 0 p I a/� US6 Sao Me San Codos v ED ttG o�� 0 aoWeo 19 two �`cc�— 'Fx o5v— 9/5 QUALITY, ORIGINAL (S) ,;r;.!rar,j,';Yy Al ; rry}n!v . \ '* f1'•"it 1,' ` o r..v,., i R• + t1�1 ti,J,? r , ; �S'tt)`J. ep� � " r �': �4 r1p(` �r ,r lii 't' A l r 1 1,' M •'{Yi., Iy'r,'i hk`I• C 1. L ..r.r x� G:. o t:�� 'y� t}��q?y , •'li. t'IR i ;f Rt' `' ,i+kt. ( �, T ,� 4,. 1il�a'�ft�'{hr$+Y'i,'Y. rr,� �Ix,\��. 'J1�f'`{'>h 7: rrt 'MF•,�'�:�1 :����\{., i" �',y'}4 �'�`iY,�, i 'A''' {.`"•.� •::i'0''��'�y,�, '¢ci. prjkf .i'apT' {(!h'>ryiY aa't11Zi �A.l,�i �rl(�1`a' ( i,iRiif�i •,ti •: t,5'+1,��;;1'r�)JF yi ) r t l:.a t'' . : iY,<{y b-A YT {• Yjy\: . + ,r.F i.r� .r' r' nl { �. •kilv'f r;....:\i >: �y�t�;..e�'t��i;.•. _ ,i'• • ,•t�„,<, , 4.r#>y: ��'Y�.'. f •i� , : .. .i. ,a,. ix �• '' " )1 c!',: [A; 1. y! `j,., r{-. g i' 4`yy y"'•f •t '!� t.\Sli^;r.L`{' i Jr ',nS 1`, f' A^' �'ry �F.i^• ii'.!, �,'t �'• z�.'�' F' " �:ir; : J is d: '' Y�� ?1{.'cl '4` @ �'. tr�5 >t7.r I.4;,.ijy, • ,+'.++{-�i�'r't7 x'� �. ) � {1�,aCl 1 :,�! ,�11: ,\''iS ry :�• ,. 1 Xia � err°y"ei.. \"*Ai'J{ i. 'ice r A y j •�` � • ' Sk b.` N ri{ 1 ''j1f( ��,1 C. r fi . ' 'fi.• r i r, ,., . ` :J�',}{. ]ir^'lp': 27rx .F: },i ',S T ♦ e. c• • IV Y }: 'j ryr�r ,� lC,r•�eAel r ,Ctr :,I :M�r yt ' it •'-it 'rP �!, j. + 'S''y: •t: r•rt,,,��,t 1, n+. r'xf;' (� t ,{;hl �'e'titJ'i xlts'A,#�KK{( i t'• J>l,Ei::_,�u�_i a�\tt:�x t.`'Y i�{F�.4j:1•i" y'•,).",5 r\�` tY�;'• LL5y: N �''f�. ', � i� yl d'•. ,al i7},'�..71��,iiti•:. %� � n'.'�r31}h<,1`''i�eJ�rH,i't' x'• . `fir :!^J.: }< .,1'i"7S :f� . �-, ;.f' J' 4'• v'M1 �- V. frtti (I(i��r,-p.\t+•}.y „�)tl ,'t• r<,` ! '4` :.5�,` ){ 'S } i +\' r Gi I•,•ir; ai++-' ir, ..'iF t;J•A�9 t'f`i-,•r„ a �,p.., !'•� (''., .ny (! \r- yr, i � ,'�, .n, �' $ :+Fla :{ .� •+ ,. �t 1'n ;t;,i~; T;.lt-:, ,Y. +' .i Y ;,. fd ,, • , �,• � i , YY. n. __ rq,; _.r _f _ L '•,! :'1••!:f r.ynn A \`h: r�i'; `NM1utt+`�:'M'. •• �'{�•t u"1.•' t !1 •{�.i: y'Ir�'t1`r+S•. K h`r.; r., jf:kri ;,Y.: w\!ti .%• 7f':f" I 1 �'�'t8:.:')j.12 y �r rylx��: ryA'4,' = • " 1I i \..'(!�C•^ ! �IiA Y� i<••i .i' •i•yi l:), :t. i'•SiJ,,.'-',''lt•Aiin' i� +j �j.l.':'L,fx'.�'•:: xf,{'r, i' :d{'•tf:R� .:'11''11,45 •lid. +' !:•�f YS1'i'{!1}h�'�18if•�j•Z{% •�N,,,e { ., f f.�a 1. IL".. 4L Kr tC ri'. z. .,r•• :r.,..+ �+"1 �i y'i:f'i�'. 1;' f' ,, ,L'li8 .:SL,.i{CO:,„. , S „Cn yfi A, ntaJw XM1;i•V J` {. ryr• 1" A \ ^ ,� � a'�_wpj\ ^) S • h in n•.:: 4.'.:,•h't:r.'�: -' 1 !•'t' ayG. "\��� VS. \ C.'r31'P�•W �e rJQil ��Y� S.' 1 •`,�:•.'., "'1:: �i "i4'i +y � t :l :C��' ir,•i4�?A' L r? ::. c{,, t c ;u; !> :i.."'rdLc r{vy; r,_. y t� o. ,> ',Tiytyi .� •l,�^r,9t . .',1. • 7�: { ,y,,,-a.+ r' '; :";• .. '�'•`•, rni f. ;i:,1 1 �'•,1:,;1;;�; u,l, .{,;vF 11yv.}'n le: t$, .ir; ,.:'�•, i "Nt;',' t {"V •ir ''' •' ' 4�o ;�!i;e :), '`i•��" '•i ��:'Url• ;'_ J u;{4t'(7e'•�:Yil,r,?<: �F I'M ,:, ,L. ' .r T'(,'�, 1, '� ., y: �t(,. .v, •. �l .} ✓t, ,, pW'( + y\. .:�.:� r,t .1 i51 K,. .. `r,•..,; oir x Y•• "•'t•�y "� {l'. •,{. r,l� I+,>i r,}\iiit V} ••is•`e' o•, d'l , "1.1• ' :`,',,,'MJ }:r^i :'•' 1 i41 � JYi' [r..J' ^. }t r r�LV.'r rty I+:.y.l 1, 1Y ''• C C .,,5 ,•i(k •\^.e ,l;: .,}::( ri.L;irrJi- .{Y:.Fi Y-i1 \'}nb�:.;rr,nt,rl•fr��ui.';}''.Sp't 1' :'�i!: '4 V al`• ':i 1, •e;A: :"t �0.. Y' r �:,•,.:: �1.`'•. >,hr , i,•r CIJ Ile • ..,..,'. '•y'''\r'' ': !Tl:r y RK�/`''.•.f 1j�;in /,, ^.yli�p/1\♦Jjv ;,: 11• ..{"Is •:�.:,•' .r ll...f; �, .Y4''v'.rr�1i .. r ',.t' n}ir • :y .. Olt, �x, 11I•)...,i '.•, r- a :(` •'ir'. �,Yr'.:^1Yi.•'• �• ',r kne •`-r. 1, i '.''i; 't1`''l,bi:'::lrt \,`. '.:. :.y 1^ �'YfY•' r :.}r is • Is �•'i',� C.;�\ \ Is >• �{ :•per,('; ' _ �, "'y' •': r. iJ" i•. `l i+Li.: •, .,i�ls,..4 i::;'3t.; y.'.•s L'•''•'rr„ , r'(, -,in :. ,r.Yi1 .5 t.� rg .t; a�r'.J, i ....: t\.�4,i .;�5,y,::;��'.. •a. +., LJ ,l+x.y iL'''.�'. ti:P..�lt'Lnlflsi»ei'nCt�hV4°�A1\1d e"'.i}nolPsnet�-'Is ';.,•::,.'• : .Y) S,i..,i. L 7 0 JAMES R. BELT 18912 Silver Maple Way Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 731-2273 fz -I1- F7 TO; Planning Commission Newport Beach, CA. FROM: James R. Belt, owner of 2,06 acres at the NE corner of Cypress and Orchard Streets in Santa Ana Heights. Refl: Circulationa dndcal d' sac location Gentlemen: I am in general agreement with Newport Beach's ciruulation plan for Santa Ana Heights area with these suggestions: 1. Cal d' sac on Cypress should be lo;cated South of Orchard on Cypress. This would restrict only two or three families, while allowing twenty (20) or more faiblies the freedom of normal ingress and egress to thkir properties. This meets with the ideas of Do4x Koll too. 2. Manning's suggestion of a more narrow sidewalk with easement is perferred to existing plans. In conclusion I am interested in PA-35 for the northern part of Cypress. This block will go commercial f'irst�and it will be a step in the right direction in order to get improvement in this area. If R-lq is allowed to stand, this part of the Heights,, - will linger on and on without any improvements. Thank you for your cooperation. i �RECE�VED �!� FEB 181987 CiT': , NEWPOI ' cnCH, CALF Y RECEIV N r: Re pectfull�urjs�, / AP -4- 43`I- -64-L-01 .F ,rL�-,r-: e-aL a<..: 2 v. I dt, 2- 1 4 6"1 3 C- SUPERVISOR. FIFTH DISTRICT TIIOMAS F. RILEY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA. P. O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92702-0667 PHONE 834-3SSO (AREA CODE 714) January 30, 1987 Mr. William Buck Johns President, Inland Group, Inc. 14211 Yorba Street Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Buck: Thank you for your material. I have been advised by my assistants that you wish a letter from me supporting the analysis you have provided and that you would use this letter in presentations to the three city councils to which the Board of Supervisors has referred the recent Environmental Management Agency report. I cannot provide that letter. I believe it would be presumptuous for me to issue such a letter as just one member of the Board of Supervisors. I am confidet support I have and on my .� My view of the missing link of University Drive is well known. I have ex- pressed it to news reporters and in correspondence to my constituents and also many times in public session at the Board of Supervisors. I think the missing link is ill-conceived, that it will be far too costl,Y to construct, that the bay alignment is an environmental disaster and that any alternate alignment aenerally along Mesa Drive would be an unacceptable disruption to the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood. In addition, the alternative set for%h by EMA staff to'construct ramps connecting Route 55 and Route 73 is of much more value to the County's transportation network than University Drive ever would be. I urge you to provide testimony at the city council hearings and to attend the Board of Supervisors hearing. Sincerely, omas F. Riley Supervisor-, Fifth District TFR:ph ., 40 McDonald January 289 1987 Mr. Craig Buell Director of Advance Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 /S RECEII'VED y, Planning Depaiimant JAN3019$7a!t.- CITY CIF NEWPORT Z.ACH, CALIF. Joseph C. Nibeel Jr. McDonald's Restaurant 2290 S.E. Bristol St. Santa Ana Heights, Ca. 92707 RE: Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Cypress Street Cul De Sac Dear Mr. Buell: I have just recently learned about the proposed plans for the Santa Ana Heights area and in specific the Cypress Street Cul De Sac. I had a conversation with Mr. Dave Patterson of Sgt. Pepperoni's Pizza Store and was given a copy of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan by him. Apparently, this plan has already been adopted by the Board of Supervisors sometime late in 1986. It is more than a little disturbing to find out about all these proposed changes after the fact. I was never informed or notified of any of the public meetings that addressed the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, and therefore had no opportunity to voice my concern. The current plan for a Cul De Sac on Cypress just south of Bristol, will have a serious impact on customer travel paths to and from our center and will have a very negative impact on our business. We draw heavily from the Irvine Ave area south of Bristol and these are the customers that I am concerned about inconveniencing. Getting to us poses no problen for them, it is the return trip that generates the concern. If the Cul De Sac customers will have no center, they will have north, and then west o a very inconvenient ro very time consuming if traffic on Bristol and goes in where proposed, these easy return. After leaving our to drive east to Jamboree, then go a Bristol to Irvine Ave. This would be ate, and, depending on the time of day, they get caught in the rush hour Jamboree Streets. Consequently, they LICENSEE OF McDONALD'S CORPORATION 63 (�Mcpona�o January 28, 1987 Page 2 will come less often or, possibly, not at all. Because of these concerns, I believe that the Cul De Sac should be relocated just south of Orchard Dr. on Cypress Street. This would give our customers a direct route back to Irvine Ave. via Orchard Dr. and still stop the thru traffic on Cypress. If you would research the property owners on Cypress Street between Bristol and Orchard Dr. you will probably find that a significant majority of the land use is of a commercial nature. Due to a previous committment on February 5, 1987, I will probably not be able to attend the Planning Commision meeting. It would be very much appreciated if you would take these concerns under scrutiny when discussing and evaluating the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan at this meeting. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, 90-4 C WWZ g-"Z-- Joseph C. Nibeel Jr. Owner -Operator LICENSEE OF McDONALD'S CORPORATION 1 ATTACHMENT NO.7 BRISTOL STORE 2300 S E BRISTOL, NEWPORT BEACH 92707 SGT. PEPPERONI'S PIZZA STORE, INC. (714) 852.9500 GENERAL OFFICE TUSTIN STORE 2300 S.E. BRISTOL. SUITE F. 651 E. FIRST STREET, TUSTIN 92680 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CA 92707-5595 (714) 731.5889 (714) 852.8020 IRVINE STORE 4200 BARRANCA PARKWAY, IRVINE 92714 (714) 857-6861 January 26, 1987 RECE(�Ep $ P)ann31�; �'•tx�rimwlt JAN2 71987 Cl 1.OI Mr. Craig Buell Director of Advance Planning 4, s•1< City of Newport Beach: 3300 Newport Blvd..✓ Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Buell: Confirming our telephone conversation this morning. Sgt. Pepperoni's Pizza Store is located at 2300 SE Bristol, at the corner of Cypress Street, in Santa Ana Heights. We have obtained a copy of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors late in 1986. We were not informed of public meetings concerning the specific plan and thus did not have the opportunity to present our concerns as the plan was being developed. The County's plan provides for a cul-de-sac on Cypress Street a short distance south of Bristol which closes Cypress Street, north of Orchard, to thru traffic. This feature of the circulation element will cause serious problems for our business. Many of our customers, particularly evening customers, live South of Bristol Street and west of Irvine Avenue. These customers proceed to the restaurant taking Irvine Avenue north and Bristol Street east. Currently, the return trip for these customers is a direct route to Irvine Ave by traveling South on Cypress and west on Orchard Drive; a distance of .6 miles. The closing of Cypress Street will require a very long and circuitous return trip to Irvine Avenue; a distance of 1.6 miles, requiring 3 left turns and crossing 7 signalized intersections. (east on Bristol, north on Jamboree, west on Bristol, and South on Irvine Avenue to Orchard) We are convinced that the closing of Cypress Street, as proposed, will result in our loosing considerable business now enjoyed from customers living to the south and west of our restaurant. It is vital to us, and all the retail businesses on Bristol Street, that a relatively direct return route to Irvine Avenue be maintained. 0 Mr. Craig Buell January 26, 1987 Page 2 We believe that a direct return route to Irvine Avenue can best be accomplished by moving the Cypress Street cul-de-sac to a location just south of Orchard Drive, or just north of Mesa Drive. A cul-de-sac at either location will preclude thru traffic within residential areas but still allow a relatively direct return to Irvine Avenue for our customers. (south on Cypress and west on Orchard to Irvine Avenue) We further believe land use on Cypress Street, north of Orchard Drive, should be designated for non-residential use. Of the approximately 25 parcels in that block, less than 5 are owner occupied residences. The remaining parcels are currently used for a variety of "commercial" activities, which do not conform to the Residential Equestrian use prescribed by the present plan. Another alternative to the present plan could leave the Cypress Street cul-de-sac near its currently planned location and construct an Alley/Buffer running behind the Bristol Street commercial properties from Birch Street to Cypress Street or Orchid Street. The Alley/Buffer would provide a return route to Birch Street and Irvine Avenue as well as serving as a buffer between the commercial and residential land uses. The alley would be constructed on parcels to the south of the commercial properties, rather than on the commercial parcels themselves. Land purchased and not used for the alley right of way could be developed as additional parking for the commercial properties. Commercial landowners would purchase the additional parking created. Abandonment of the Cypress Street right of way north of the . cul-de-sac could reduce the cost of the project. I will be out of town on February 5th, 1987 and therefore will not be able to attend the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for that date. I would very much appreciate your making our concerns known to your staff and to the Commission. Sincerel t rson CB01-26.ltr VITA4TECH IN T E R NAT I ON AL. I N C. January 27, 1987 CITY HALL 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Attention: Planning Department 2832 Dow Avenue Tustin, California 92680 U.S.A. (714) 832-9700 Telex: 277714 Cable: VITATECH Please correct your records to reflect the proper ownership for 2412 Mesa Drive Santa Ana Heights, CA. 92707 from Robert H. Lintz to Thomas T. and Elizabeth C. Tierney We have owned this home for over a year. Please place us on distrubution for all matters relating to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, Newport Back Bay and De1Mar-University Drive. -ney TTT/jk Enc: Postcard .JDIfloa4n. — JM ' I U A Tradition of Excellence. Custom Manufacturer of Nutritional Supplements in Tablets and Hardcapsules. December 26, 1986 Supervisor Thomas Riley 10 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Supervisor Riley: We understand that an application for a General Plan Amendment and zone change on Mesa Drive has been filed with the County of -orange. We wish to state our firm opposition to any further office zoning on Mesa Drive. Processing of a General Plan Amendment from residential to employment nrth sa Drive would initiated or encouraged. This zone change would be detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana Heights and would leave the whole area open to spot zoning. We inte d to vigorously contest any such General Plan Amendme t and zone change and hopefully trust that you will spare us the necessity of enduring further controray by discouraging the processing of a General Plan Av ndment for any more office use. Khosro Kha ogh i 2242 Mesa Drive / �� WI ism B. u " Johns 2600 Mesa rive E Mrs. Darrell A. Bath 2161 S.E. Mesa Drive, Santa Ana, California 92705 _.,/�[L �sc� n U November 19, 1986 Mr. Robert Fisher Director of Planning County of Orange P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Mr. Fisher: As of November 19, 1986, we are not interested in applying for a General Plan Amendment on our property on Mesa Drive. W. Mullan 2031 & 2041 Mesa Drive Santa Ana Heights Charles Church 2181 Mesa Drive Santa Ana Heights .:3 Beth Bath 2161 Mesa Drive Santa Ana Heights RGERING &ASSOCI f INCORPORATED ' 5= BIRCH STREET )AICHAEE C WING Wf51 lOWfR SUITE 75fR1 MKNAfE R. JARMAN PO BOR MIA JONN N PENTECOST NEWPORI REACH CAI IIORNIA 47W 17141752 8e7e November 12, 1986 Wr. Jack M, Weatherford 2001 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 bids. Elsie Weatherford -Horne 2011 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 -hack W. i Beverly Mullen 2031 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA-92707 Va. Gloria Terry 2061 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ►(r. William J. Schneider 500 Caqney Lane, i102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Alice 8 Raul E. Rodriguez 20462 Birch Street Santa Ana, CA 92707 vAs. Beth Bath 2161 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 141r. Charles Church 2181 Mesa Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 RE: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING PROFESSIONAL/ADMINISTRATIVE ZONING FOR YOUR PROPERTY Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As you may be aware, our client, Mr. Larry Cano, is interested in having his Mesa Drive property zone designation changed from Residential/Equestrian (REQ) to Professional/Administrative (P/A). The County has informed us that to accomplish same, a General Plan Amendment must be initiated. The County has also informed us that the likelihood of accomplishing a change will be impacted by you, the surrounding property owners, and your positions with regard to such a proposed change. Additionally, many of you have indicated to us that you also desire to see the designation of your property changed. The County has indicated that if all the affected property owners make application together, the more likely the General Plan Amendment would be approved. We have been informed by some of you that perhaps all of the property owners to whom this letter is addressed may now be interested in seeing such a change accomplished in light of X BRING&ASSOCIATES LAWYERS INCORPORATED November 12, 1986 Page -2- the recent County action designating virtually all of the surrounding property to your properties as P/A. To determine the positions of each of the addressed property owners, your willingness to participate in the application, and decisions regarding the process and its attendant ex- pense, we have been requested by Mr. Cano to invite you all to a meeting to be held at our offices on Wednesday, Novem- ber 19, 1986. We propose that the meeting be held at 7:30 p.m. to enable those of you with daytime commitments to attend. By convening the meeting in the evening, we should also have sufficient time to have a full discussion with regard to all matters 6f concern. The County has indicated that if we wish to be considered in the next processing period relating to General Plan Amendments, the deadline to submit our application is December 5, 1986. Thus, the necessity of the short notice of our meeting and the need for full attendance at the meeting. Please take the time to contact the undersigned at our office number of (714) 752-8678 upon receipt of this letter and at your earliest convenience so that we may ensu2Ze everyone's participation. We would appreciate your contacting us even in the event that you do not wish to participate or if the date and time of the meeting prevents you from attending so that we may determine that everyone received this correspondence: I look forward to hearing from each of you and meeting you upon your acceptance of our invitation. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation with regard to this matter. Very truly yours, GERING & ASso IATES Lawyers Incoor orated MICHA G .RING Attorneys for Larry Cano MCG/afr