HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIDO ISLE CV-MCF.S RESPONSELl
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 18, 1986
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT:
At the City Council Study Session of February 10, 1986, Councilman Strauss
requested that I redistribute to the Planning Commission a letter from the Lido
Isle Community Association dated September 17, 1985. Councilman Strauss was
concerned that there may have been members of the Planning Commission who
either had not received or read the letter as it reflects the position of the
Lido Isle Community Association at that times
In response to Councilman Strauss' request, I have attached a copy of the Lido
Isle Community Association letter of September 17th and our response to that
letter on September 30, 1985. In addition, I am also forwarding to you other
correspondence related to the September 17th letter. The additional corres-
pondence is as follows:
1) Memo dated October 1, 1985, to the Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/
McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Committee.
2) Letter from the Lido Isle Community Association dated October 22,
1985.
3) Letter from Betsey Dougherty to Marilyn Hendrickson dated September
23, 1985.
4) Letter from the Lido Isle Community Association dated November 25,
1985, in response to a staff presentation to the Lido Isle Community
Association in mid -October of 1985.
JDH/kk
JDHVI
Attachments
cc: Councilman Strauss
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3225
September 30, 1985
Lido Isle Community Association
701 Via Lido Soud
Lido Isle
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: John O'Donnell, President
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated September 17, 1985, concerning the Draft
Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Perhaps the information
presented herein will alleviate some of your concerns.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan,(; which the City adopted in May of
1973, designates the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area for a mix of
"Recreational and Marine Commercial," "General Industrial," and "Medium Density
Residential" uses. As stated in the Land Use Element, "... this area is to be
preserved and enhanced by: 1) prohibiting the encroachment of separate
residential uses; 2) developing a Specific Area Plan to resolve existing
orientation, access, and parking problems, and improving the visual environ-
ment; and 3) development of a plan and program to preserve the marine repair
and service uses in the Cannery Village Area." (Page 10)
The City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, which was certified by the
State Coastal Commission in May of 1982, designates the area for "Recreational
and Marine Commercial," "Retail and Service Commercial," and "Two -Family
Residential" uses. Both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use
Plan, permit a wide range of coastal dependent, coastal related, visitor -
serving and marine oriented businesses in the study area.
The land in the study area is zoned for C-1, C-2, C-0, M-1, and residential
uses. In general, these zoning designations permit a variety of commercial and
professional office uses, retail and visitor -serving uses such as hotels,
restaurants, marinas, yacht clubs, and industrial use's. In addition, resi-
dential uses are permitted within those areas designated as such.
As a planning tool, a Specific Area Plan allows more flexibility in resolving
the problems of larger areas than standard zoning mechanisms. Specific area
plans may establish permitted or desired land uses, set forth criteria for the
orderly and cohesive development of the land, and provide for the involvement
and participation of the local government agency implementing the specific area
plan. State law also requires that specific area plans conform with the stated
goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Lido Isle Community association
September 30, 1965
Page 2
Use Plan. Upon the motion of Councilman Strauss, the City Council, at its
meeting of August 270 1984, retained the services of The Arroyo Group, a
Pasadena based consulting firm, to prepare a Specific Area Plan for the Cannery
Village/McFadden Square area, implementing the appropriate provisions of the
General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. A contract was executed
and work on the plan began in September of 1984. At the suggestion of the
Consultant, the City Council adopted Resolution No, 84-121, establishing the
Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Committee,
consisting of twelve members, appointed by the Mayor, with equal representation
from residents and merchants within or generally affected by the study area.
During the preparation of the Draft Specific Area Plan, this Citizens Ad Hoc
Committee was to meet with City Staff and the Consultant to identify issues and
provide comment on the proposed plan.
The first meeting between City Staff, The Arroyo Group, and the Citizens Ad Hoc
Committee was held on October 18, 1984. Notice of this meeting was sent to all
persons who, up to that point, had expressed an interest in the Cannery Village
or McFadden Square areas. During this time, Staff was preparing a list of all
property owners within the area and within a 300 foot radius of its boundaries.
Unfortunately, this property owners' list took a tremendous amount of Staff
time to prepare, in that there are well over 600 property owners, the majority
of whom are absentee landlords. The mailing list was completed just after the
second Committee meeting, which was held on November S. 1984. Our records
indicate that Marilyn Hendrickson, .representing the Lido Isle Community
Association Hoard, Judith Longyear, Frances Bury, and Judy Rosener, all
residents of Lido Isle, attended this meeting. Notices for the third meeting
on December 6, 1984, were mailed to approximately 630 persons, including the
Lido Isle Community Association. Attendance at these first three meetings
averaged 35 persons, including the Citizens' Committee, the Consultant and the
City Staff. At the fourth public meeting on January 10, 1985, the Consultant
presented the Preliminary Land Use Plan, We note that of the 28 persons who
signed the attendance sheet for this meeting, there was no indication that
either a resident of Lido Isle or a member of its Community Association was
;••_ present, with the exception of Ms. Betsy Dougherty, Committee member and
resident of Lido Isle.
The Committee held three more meetings at which the preliminary concepts were
refined into a Draft Specific Area Plan. For reference, the dates of these
meetings were February 7, 19851 March 21, 19851 and August 15, 1985. An
additional meeting was held on March 7, 1985, to discuss Redevelopment Agencies
in general. At this meeting, Councilman Strauss, who is also a member of Lido
Isle Community Association board, personally appeared and addressed the
Committee. At the end of each of the public meetings, time was allocated for
public comment. Each public notice encouraged the submittal of written
,comments to the Planning Department. A Planning Staff person's name and phone
number was provided on each notice, encouraging any person with questions to
call at any time. Despite our efforts to solicit input and open the planning
process to the community, neither input nor comment was received from the Lido
Isle Community Association. The only contact with Staff or the Consultant was
a brief telephone conversation with Ms. Hendrickson prior to receiving the
September 17, 1985 letter. Inasmuch as your Association has limited its
involvement in the planning process, for whatever reason, we will try to
clarify each of the points raised in your letter.
��C}. .�.p'^ti. •. .., SY^
r7...�., .!: .� I•.1 1.TY� • .' ," tea. y„ _ ,.'r
•• ��•L+"�'«i j'i -i -; ,,, '..r .�• ,»�.tl, i.=•. , - •a' .ls �y,y,, .. .y,^ � a, •.-.w , •<` 'k lt.,
1 ;;4ttpj�y�y. �3,l j.d'.. '.f ., .}... .� .�•�.. .. sly .'"%'^;.:':>. ��•i ��. :Y' R1ry •.',�,%
- c c
Lido Isle Community Association ,
September 30, 1985
Page 3
In paragraph two, page one, you state that the two areas should be separated
for planning purposes. These two areas are separate entities within the Draft
Plan. If necessary, although highly undesirable, the Plan can be adopted for
one area without the other. Your unanimous opposition to the Cannery Village
portion of the plan and support for the McFadden Square portion simplifies our
response to your concerns.
Paragraph three starts off by stating that the plan for Cannery Village is
totally contradictory in concept and that traffic is identified as the Number
One problem. You indicate that the main thrust of the plan is to create a
traffic generator without solving the problems that will accompany the
increased traffic. It is also stated that ". , only a gesture is offered to
address the off-street parking by the inclusion'of a totally inadequate parking
structure." Next you reference the Lido Village parking structure and conclude
by stating that if the area were to become a successful tourist attraction,
that the traffic would be difficult to imagine.
It is true that traffic and circulation are identified as the major problems
facing the study area. As you are aware, the existing zoning standards
applicable to the Cannery Village area permit development at two times the
buildable area of a parcel on the majority of lots in the area, with some areas
permitted to develop at three times the buildable area of a site. For example,
on a standard 301 x 931 lot in Cannery Vil]iage, current zoning provisions would
permit 5,580 sq.ft. [2 x (30' x 93')] of development. The 28th Street Marina
property, which contains approximately 86,000 sq.ft. of land, could be
developed at three times the buildable area of the site or approximately
258,000 sq.ft. of building area. It is essential that the Lido Isle Community
Association recognize that the existing zoning would permit in excess of
2,000,000 sq.ft. of development in Cannery Village alone. One of the major
elements of the Draft Specific Area Plan is the establishment of a maximum
floor area ratio on any site designated for commercial development of one times
the buildable area of a site (land size to net floor area of a building). The
one exception to this standard is for mixed use developments where a commercial
or retail use is established on the first floor with a residential use on the
second floor. In these cases, a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 is suggested,
with a ratio of .75 on the first floor for commercial use and .75 for the
second floor residential use. These uses are encouraged for a variety of
reasons, one being that residential uses generate less traffic than commercial
uses, and that residents in the area are expected to be actively involved in
the on -going improvement and maintenance of the area.
It is unclear as to what you mead by It... the main thrust of the plan is to
create a traffic generator." However, in paragraph one, page two, you refer to
hotels and motels being in direct contradiction of the stated priority of the
plan. It should be noted that hotels and motels have been permitted in the
Cannery Village area since 1936 (City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance No.
440, adopted January 6, 1936). Perhaps your concerns can be mitigated by
recognizing that the previously discussed floor area ratio of one times the
buildable area applies to hotels and motels as well as any other type of use,
and that the height limit of 26/35 feet (261 permitted, with a maximum height
of 35' by use permit), which has been in effect since 1972, will continue to
apply to all development in the area. Further, given the floor area ratio and
Lido Isle Community Association
September 30, 1985
Page 9
height limitations set forth in the proposed plan, it is safe to assume that a
hotel or motel would generate no more traffic than a commercial use of equal
size, based upon standard traffic generation rates published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (hotels/motels = 12 trips per room per day; office
- 13 trips per 1000 sq.ft. of floor area). In addition, hotels and motels do
not have the same peak hour traffic characteristics as do other commercial or
residential uses.
Regarding the "gesture" to address the off-street parking problems by the " .
Inclusion of a totally inadequate parking structure," please note that all of
the on -site parking requirements in effect City-wide are also retained in the
Draft Specific Plan and will be applicable to all new development. All new
development in the study area will be required to provide parking for
automobiles on the development site unless an off -site parking agreement is
approved by the City Council, or the developer pays a fee to the City in lieu
of providing on -site parking. The City is considering raising the cost of in
lieu fees to a level where the funds can actually be used to acquire land and
construct additional parking spaces. The proposed Cannery Village parking
structure would then supplement the required amount of on -site parking, not
substitute for the required on -site parking. Concluding this discussion of the
third paragraph, we would like to point out that the intent of this Specific
Area Plan is not to create a "... successful tourist attraction," but to
improve and revitalize an older area of the City by encouraging a variety of
land uses that will serve the local residents as well as future residents and
visitors.
Paragraph four, page one, pertains to your concerns about access to the one
entrance to Lido Isle resulting from conflicts between Lido Isle residents and
the residents and employees of Lido Marina Village. You have also noted that
"giant tour busses" take up limited parking space for Lido Isle residents when
they cross the bridge, and they give off fumes and noise. I am afraid that the
Specific Area Plan cannot address the issue of busses from Lido Marina Village
using public parking spaces on Lido Isle. While the Draft Specific Area Plan
does not respond to the problems resulting from the operation of Lido Marina
Village, we are trying to insure that similar impacts resulting from adoption
of this Plan will not occur. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the
signal controlling the two left -turn lanes on southbound Newport Boulevard onto
Via Lido maximize access by effectively stopping all traffic leaving the
Peninsula so that vehicles going to Lido Village, the Via Lido Plaza, or Lido
Isle, already have priority over all other residents and visitors on the
Peninsula.
in the first paragraph on page two, you indicate you are deeply concerned about
Lido Isle's future and that you also have broader concerns. The Draft Plan
calls for preparation of an analysis of the circulation system in the study
area and, if feasible, to recommend changes that will improve the system. This
may result in a modification to the "mixmaster," but until those studies are
complete (at the end of October), we don't know the nature and extent of any
Potential changes. However, it must be recognized that no matter what changes
occur to the circulation system on the Peninsula, the Via Lido/Newport
Boulevard intersection is still the primary impediment to an efficient
transportation network on the Peninsula. The priority granted to the
Lido Isle Community Association
September 30, 1985
Page 5
commercial and residential traffic on Via Lido and Lido Isle may also be
altered, if necessary, to, as you state, .. improve traffic movement for
homeowners on the peninsula." As previously indicated, hotels and motels have
been permitted in the area since at least 1936; all required parking would have
to be provided in a manner consistent with existing City policy either on site
or in close proximity; and that a hotel would generate no more traffic than any.
other commercial use.
Paragraph two, page two, discusses the costs of the proposed improvements which
will be discussed with the Redevelopment Agency in subsequent paragraphs.
However, we question the statement that "... the basic thrust of the Cannery
Village Plan is negative to the surrounding areas." The Presidents of the
Central Newport Beach -Community Association; the West Newport Homeowners
Association, and the Peninsula Point Homeowners Association sit on the Citizens
Committee providing input and comment on the 'Draft Plan. All three of these
gentlemen have enthusiastically participated in the planning process and have
endorsed the Draft Plan and all of its provisions. Two of these associations
either border on or include portions of Cannery Village or McFadden Square, and
they have been adversely impacted by the decline which has been allowed to
occur within the area. Perhaps it was your intent to indicate some elements
that may be seen as having the potential to effect Lido Isle, but it is
inaccurate and unfair to characterize the Draft Plan as being "...negative to
the surrounding residential areas." f�
Paragraph three indicates to us that you have some concerns regarding
redevelopment agencies. Perhaps your concerns result from newspaper accounts
of the "horror stories" from other cities where these agencies were improperly
established and/or operated. Councilman Strauss raised some of these concerns
at the redevelopment meeting held on March 7, 1985. The free enterprise system
can be an essential element of a redevelopment agency in that opportunities for
new business are created where none previously may have existed. The scope of
redevelopment agencies is very broad and the various ways•they can be estab-
lished are so numerous that to categorically rule this option out.at this time
would be premature. Redevelopment agencies can be established solely for the
purpose of acquiring the incremental increase in the tax 'base of an area for
public improvements within the redevelopment agency boundaries. Redevelopment
agencies are not, nor have they ever been, solely for "cleaning up disaster
areas."
The fourth paragraph pertaining to the streetscope and charm of the Cannery
Village Area came as a surprise. "Wider streets" are proposed on Newport
Boulevard and Villa Way only. The.purpose for widening Villa Way is to improve
access and provide additional on -street public paring. The widening of Newport
Boulevard between 30th and 32nd Streets has been a part of the City's Master
Plan of Streets and Highways for many years. Sidewalks, curbs, and gutters are
proposed in those areas where • they have never been installed or where those
that exist are deteriorated. It is the position of the Citizens Committee that
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be installed in Cannery Village to ensure
public safety as well as efficient drainage of the streets. In fact, at the
direction of the City Council, plans have been completed for the repair of the
deteriorated curbs, gutters and sidewalks, the installation of these
Lido Isle Community Association
September 30, 1985
Page 6
facilities where they presently don't exist, and the improvement of the streets
for better drainage. Front yard setbacks are a necessary element of any design
guidelines in order to provide some distance and relief between the sidewalks
and structures. We do believe, as you describe them, that "...paving patterns
and landscaping" will enhance the charm and aesthetics of the area.
In your concluding paragraph you indicate that many serious flaws exist in the
proposed plan and that you would like to meet with the appropriate persons so
that you "... may rethink or revise this plan from its present unacceptable
form." The beginning of this response contains a rather detailed account of
the public meetings and planning process through which the Draft Plan evolved.
We have made every effort to address the concerns raised by all of the
attendees at these meetings. In addition, the City Council went so far as to
appoint, from Lido Isle, an additional (thirteenth) member to the Committee,
who did not attend the meeting where the Draft Plan was presented. Now we have
a Draft Plan that has been endorsed by the Citizens Committee. The Citizens
Committee's work is essentially complete. Work is progressing 7n the
Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Analyses. These reports should be
completed by the end of October and are based on the Draft Plan. With the
completion of these reports, we intend to take the Draft Specific Area Plan to
the Planning Commission for public hearings in November. Your Association will
be notified of the date and time of the public hearings. After the Planning
Commission concludes its public hearings and forwards its recommendation to the
City Council, a City Council Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific
Area Plan Committee will review the P1'an and the Planning Commission's
recommendation. This City Council Ad Hoc Committee is comprised of the Mayor,
the Councilman representing the District in which the study area is located,
and one additional Councilperson. The Council Ad Hoc Committee will review the
Planning Commission's recommendations for compatibility with the Local Coastal
Plan and the appropriate Elements of the General Plan, and transmit its report
and recommendations and the Planning Commission recommendations to the City
Council for final hearings and adoption of a Specific Area Plan.
In the interim, should you wish to discuss any of the elements of this Draft
Plan with Staff, we will continue to be available at any time either to make a
Presentation to your Board or any representatives of the Board or any concerned
resident. Should you wish to set up a specific time to meet, please feel free
to call Chris Gustin at 644-3225.
very truly yours,
(aANES b. HEWICKER
Planh ng Director
JDH/CG/kk
STAFF
Attachment
Lido Isle Community Association
September 30, 1985
Page 7
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square
Specific Area Plan Committee
The Arroyo Grqup
City Manager
City Engineer
-• i
'
..'
-•._t'-
4i'.
.., .gyp _
.v e'.-.; :a L•. .. .' .:
_ ..
0
do Dllz
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID. LIDO ISLE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIh \ \y
TELEPHONE: 673.6170 92663
September 17, 1985
Mr. James H%dcker
Planning Director
City Of Newport Beach ..
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
> Eh_tY^•:
n.. ;"a•T�If
�s4W
� CALIF,
The Lido Isle Community Association has serious concerns and reservations
about the recently circulated Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area
Plan. -
While we can
is designed
that the two
Of Directors
unanimously
support much of the McFadden Square portion of the plan which
0 improve traffic circulation for the City, we strongly believe
areas should be separated for planning purposes. The Lim Board
is deeply concerned and at its September llth meeting voted
o oppose the Cannery Village portion of the -clan-
The plan for the Cannery Village is totally contradictory in concept. The
plan says that traffic is the #1 problem, yet the main thrust of the plan
is to create a traffic generator without solving the problems that will
acccmpany the increased traffic. Only a gesture is offered to address the'
offstreet parking by the inclusion of a totally inadequate parking structure.
The structure at Lido Village contains approximately 400 parking stalls to
serve an area only one block long. If this area were to become a successful
tourist attraction, the traffic caused by just searching for parking places
would be difficult to imagine.
The proposed plan takes passing note (page 5) of the existing "conflict
between Lido Isle residents and employees and visitors of Lido Marina Village".
It is bad now and the proposed plan would make conditions intolerable. Traf- --
fic and pedestrian crossings already make it difficult for Lido Isle residents
to get to the one entrance to the Isle. Giant tour busses are nag regularly
visiting the area, giving off fumes and noise. These giant busses are alrea&r
crossing the bridge into residential Lido Isle parking areas and taking up
limited parking space for residents.
,11
A Non -Profit Cooperative Organization of All Lido ialo Proporty Owners
Mr. James Hewicker -2- September 17, 1985
P4uiie ww*are deeply concerned and upset for Lido Isle 's future if this plan were
to be accepted, our concerns are broader, we do want to imarove traffic nmement
for homeowners on the Peninsula. We think getting rid of the "mi-Owter" near the
Newport Pier is a good idea for improved circulation and safety. But we simply
cannot understand the part of the plan which would allow (with a use permit),
hotels and motels in the Cannery Village area. Incrediblel And in direct contra-
diction to the stated #1 priority of the plan, since these clearly would add to
traffic and parking problems:
The LICA Board is shocked at the huge costs involved. The plan envisions many
millions of dollars, 15 to 20 millions and maybe more. Sore part of these costs,
the plan suggests, my be covered by businesses in the district, but since the
basic thrust of the Cannery Village plan is negative to the surrounding residential
areas, we could not support taxpayer's money being spent this way.
Further, we strongly oppose the notion of a Redevelopment District. We think the
free enterprise system can and should work in Newport Beach and is working in the
Cannery Village. Note the recent opening of a top drawer restaurant and some new
buildings in the past two or three years. Redevelopment Districts are for cleaning
up disaster areas. Cannery Village is not 'a disaster area.
The plan proclaims that it wants to retain the charm of the Cannery area. Yet
design proposals for wider streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, front yard setbacks,
"cutesy" paving patterns and landscaping, etc{, will destroy that very charm.
In summary, then, we see many serious flaws in the proposed plan. We have listed
some of these flaws in this letter. Please notify us at your earliest convenience
when we can meet with planners, consultants and any other appropriate persons so
that we may rethink, revise, this plan from its present unacceptable form.
sincerely,
V
Jo b'Donnell, President
by George Bissell, AIA, LICA Board Member
cc: Planning Carmissioners
Newport Beach City Council Members
City Manager Robert Wynn
LICA Board of Directors
Q - I U.C.A.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'(714) 644-3225
October 1, 1985
TO: Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square
Specific Area Plan Committee
FROM: Chris Gustin
SUBJECT: Lido Isle Community Association's Concerns
Pertaining to the Draft Specific Area Plan
Enclosed is staff's response to a letter from the Lido Isle Community
Association Board of Directors, dated September 17, 1985 (also at-
tached), wherein they identify several concTrns related to the Draft
Specific Area Plan. Copies of the letter and staff's response have
also been forwarded to the City Council, City Manager, Planning
Commission, and The Arroyo Group. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me at anytime.
CG:jm
CG3
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
C. -)i d J,('_ C
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID, LIDO ISLE
TELEPHONE: 673-6170
October 22, 1985
Mr. James HeAcker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
92663
we have received Ms. Gustin's 5-page single space letter of September 30,
1985 over your signature concerning the draft Cannery VillageAtFadden
Square plan. we appreciate your response. We won't discuss the plan it-
self, which we are on record as unanimously opposing, but feel obligated
to respond to your conrents concerning LICA's participation (or non -
participation) in the planning process.
You state that, at the suggestion of the consultant, "a Citizen's Advisory
Connittee of 12 members was to be appointed by the Aiayor, of equal repre-
sentation of residents and merchants within or directly affected by the
Study". what you did not say is that on the caa:ri.ttee there was no
representation from- � LICA - the homeaAmer's group mast affected.
Your letter states that at the November 8th Meting of;the City staff,
the Arroyo Group and the Citizen's Calmi.ttee, "narilyn Hendrickson attenPed
representing the Lido Isle Commmit_y Association Board". She did not
represent LICA. No one,did.
The fact is that the person proposed by Council.^ar_ Strauss (in whose
district the project is located) was rejected by the then Mayor. Further,
LICA was never consulted or asked to be represented, nor did the City,
after rejecting Mr. Strauss' nominee, request an alternate nordnee. 4b
say that "LICA listed its involvement in the planning process" is inaccu-
rate. Lido Isle was, as we see it, systematically excluded from the planning
process.
Your letter refers to Ms. Betsy Dougherty "cCn"ittee member and resident cf
Lido Isle", implying that she represented LICA. Ms. Dougherty, an architect
with offices at that time in the Cannery Villace/1-McFadden Square area, would
properly be an architect/merchant representative, but has at no tine repre-
sented Cannery Villace/McFadden Square for LIC.7. She did, on August l9th,
send the LICA Board a copy of the finished drat plan.
A Non -Profit Cooperative Organization of All Lido Isle Property Owner
Page 2 1
James Hewicker
October 22, 1985
Your letter refers to a March 7th meeting about redevelognent agencies.
You did not state that Councilman Strauss objected to this meeting (which
he learned about only through a property owner) because not all of the Citi-
zen's Ccnmittee were invited to attend it. As a last minute gesture, all
members were imrited. Further, we are told that after public testimony,
Mr. Hewicker stated that the City bad no interest in the establishment of
a redevelopment agency. A meeting on this subject to which only selected
camittee members were originally invited raises serious questions about
the fairness and objectivity of the City's planning process.
Finally, you mention that the City Council "went so far as to appoint a
matber (Marilyn Hendrick o n) from Lido Isle." This was in May 1985, at
which time the main. planning meetings had already been oaTleted. But
the appointment does acknowledge that a major ha:emmer group affected
had not been represented or consulted during the project.
We do appreciate your offer to make a presentation of the plan to Lido
Isle Board rwnbers and residents.
John
Planning Ccamissioners
Newport Beach City Council Matters
City Manager Robert Wynn
LICA Board of Directors
U.C.A.
Dougherty & Dougherty
Architecture • Planning • Interior Design
3 Civic Plaza. Suite 230
Newoorl Beach, CA 92660
(7141720 0720
September 23, '1985
Marilyn Hendrickson
LIDO ISLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
701 Via Lido Sound
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: McFadden Square/Cannery Village
Specific Area Plan
Dear Marilyn:
As the work of the Specific Area Plan Committee continued, I became aware of the
concern by LICA that there was no board representative on the Committee.
At our last meeting, 1 discovered that you had successfully been appointed to
the Committee, but were unable to attend the meeting.
I have recently discussed with Chris Gustin at the City of Newport Beach, the
potential for him and me to meet with you and the Lido Isle Board to report
on the progress of the Specific Area Plan Study to date. We would be happy
to attend a LICA Board Meeting at your convenience, at which time we could
share not only documentation, but some personal insights into the committee
process and subsequent draft plan.
As a resident of Lido Isle and member of the Committee, I look forward to the
opportunity to meet with you.
- k Do
BOD/dd
cc: Chris Gustin, City of Newport Beach
File
P,ECE;vE;? .<
P!anni:m; +
Depd4tmrylt
S E- 2 =1985
CI-Y !- _
NRY'PC3T SUAC, ,
DAUi. zN
C
P do jr, L"
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID LIDO ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE. 673.6170 92663
November 25, 1985
Robert L. Wynn
City Manager,
City of Newport Beach
1617 Port Abbey Place
Newport Beach, CA 92e60
Dear Mr. Wynn;
This letter of thanks is long overdue in letting
you know how much the Lido Isle Community Association
appreciated the time and 'effort of Mr. Chris Gustin,
of your Community Development staff, in making an
excellent presentation to the Association on the
Cannery Village Plan.
The presentation was most informative and cleared
up many misunderstandings and answered many questions
about the proposed plan.
We are grateful to you and to Mr. Gustin for your
time and consideration to us.
sincerely yours,
Barrie Egan -Auld
Administrator
cc: Mr. Chris Gustin\
Community Development Staff
RECEI1rm Y,
p+ann:: y
Cis;st la nt
DEC, 1985 me.
cl ' O;
HEW �Lt8 E►,CH, /�
A Non -Profit Cooperative organisation of All Lido Isle Property Owners
Zi do J�IF,
COMMUNITY
701 VIA LIDO SOLID, LIDO ISLE
TELEPHONE: 673-6170
October 22, 1985
Mr. James Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
ASSOCIATION
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
92463
RECEIVED
rtn�
�rtrrlh*p
NOV
198IR as.
ofi
CUF. *1 H,
We have received Mr. Gustin's 5-page single space letter of September 30,
1985 over your signature concerning the draft Cannery Village/McFadden
Square plan. We appreciate your response. We won't discuss the plan it-
self, which we are on record as unanimmusly opposing, but feel obligated
to respond to your comirnnts concerning LICA's participation (or non -
participation) in the planning process.
You state that, at the suggestion of the consultant, "a Citizen's Advisory
Committee of 12 members was to be appointed by the Mayor, of equal repre-
sentation of residents and merchants within or directly affected by the
Study". What you did not say is that on the comnittee'there was no
representation from LICA - the homeowner's group most affected.
Your letter states that at the November 8th meeting of the City staff,
the Arroyo Group and the Citizen's Committee, "Marilyn Hendrickson attended
representing the Lido isle Community Association Board". She did not
represent LICA. No one.did.
The fact is that the person proposed by CouncilTMDn Strauss (in whose
district the project is located) was rejected by the then Mayor. Further,
LICA was never consulted or asked to be represented, nor did the City,
after rejecting Mr. Strauss' nominee, request an alternate nominee. To
say that LICA lirited its involvement in the planning process" is inaccu-
rate. Lido Isle was, as we see it, systematically excluded from the planning
process.
Your. letter refers to'Ms. Betsy Dougherty "conmi.ttee member- and resident of
Lido Isle", implying that she represented LICP.. Ms. Dougherty, an architect
with offices at that time in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area, 'would
properly be an architect/merchant representative, but has at no time repre-
sented Cannery Village/McFadden Square for LICA. She did, on August 19th,
send the LICA Board a copy of the finished draft plan.
A Mon -Profit Cooperative Organization of Alf Lido Isle Properly owners
Page 2
James Hewicker
October 22, 1985
Your letter refers to a March 7th meeting about redevelopment agencies.
You did not state that Councihnan Strauss objected to this meeting (which
he'learned about only through a property owner) because not all of the Citi-
zen's Committee were invited to attend it. As a last minute gesture, all
members were invited. Further, we are told that after, public testimony,
Mr. Hewicker stated that the City had no interest in the establishment of
a redevelopment agency. A meeting on this subject to which only selected
committee members were originally invited raises serious questions about
the fairness and objectivity of the City's planning process.
Finally, you mention that the City Council "went so far as to appoint a
irember (Marilyn Hendrickson) from Lido Isle."This was in May 1985, at
which time the main planning meetings had already been completed. But
the appointment does acknowledge that a major homeowner group affected
had not been represented or consulted during the project.
We do appreciate your offer to rake a presentation of the plan to Lido
Isle Board members and residents.
John
Planning Commissioners
Newport Beach City Council Members
City Manager Robert Wynn
LICA Board of Directors
L.IX.A.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
C s\%P\�
ti ti q
�-f qont i rei � y�P June 9, 1986
MINUTES
ladaKI
2 RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION:
(a) Resolution No. 86-45 increasing the
Res 86-45
fund known as a flash roll from
Flash Roll
$25,000 to $75,000. (Report from
(70)
the Police Chief)
(b) Resolution No.•86746 amending
Res 86-46
esolution No. 9782 pertaining to
Bus Lic Fee
b siness license fees pursuant to
(27)
Ti Is 5 of the Newport Beach
Mon cipal Code. (Report from the
Lice se Supervisor)
(c) Resolu ion No. 86-47 expressing
Res 86-47
supporttfor the proposed expansion
Library
J/
of the N wport Harbor Art Museum
(50)
and conditnally supporting the
relocation of the Newport Center
Branch Lib4xy to accommodate the
expansion.
3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENT$+•
None.
4. COMMUNICATIONS - For re rral as
indicated:
(a) To Police Department f r response,
PD
letter from Alvin J. an Marilyn R.
(70)
Wickland, concerning inc eased
foot/bicycle/roller skati traffic
violations on beachfront s dewalks
at the Newport and Balboa P rs.
(b) To Business Licensing for tea nse,
Bus Lic
et�er from Richard F. Leeds,
(27)
I rotLsting license penalty.
(c) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
(d) To Marine Department/City Attorney
Marine
for inclusion in the records,
(51)
letter from Kim Abeyta, regarding
•
moorin tra fe
.
5. COMMUNICATIONS - For refea] to the
City Clerk for inclusion in the records:
(a) Copy of letter from Randolph J.
Kroenert to Ro e'Tervande lift
Treasurer, Newport 2000.
range County Local Agency
ormation Commission Preliminary
�Fgenndda
of June 4, 1986.
Volume 40 - Page 207
S(DUNEIL AUKIIA
NO - 7 -
�I RANDOLPH J. KROENERT
119 Via Zurich
Lido Isle
Newport Beach, Ca., 92e63
(714)675=6731
27 May 1986
Mr. Roger Vandergrift, Treasurer
NEWPORT 2000
P. O. Box 5783
Balboa Island, Ca., 92662
Dear Mr. Vandergrift,
I received your letter of May 1986 together with the
petition. While we have signed the petition, I must express
a deep concern, and.some frustration.
Your third paragraph refers t'01 the "massive rezoning of
C the Cannery Village -McFadden Square area,"
and the subsequent
problems it will bring. Unfortunately, Imust ask: Where
were the Balboa Island Community people when the Planning and
City Council meetings were held?
_Balboa Penninsula Association (of.which I am also a member)
felt the rezoning was wonderful and backed it, although several
individual residents did speak against the proposal. It was
left to -the residents of Lido to carry the full burden in
attending the numerous meetings and in speaking before the
respective commissions and council. The Council appeared to
be particularily unimpressed with our appearance, due laregly
to a myth that all persons on Lido are wealthy .and' have a
parochial view of Newport's needs.
If, in this letter, I appear to be chastising your group,
you are correct. Your efforts are analogous to the race horse
that finally leaves the starting gate while the rest of the
horses are almost around the track to the finish line.
Very truly yours,
RjK: sd
enclosure
cc/President, LICA.
President, BPPA.
May, 1986
i
Dear Newport Beach Neighbdr:
We have a very serious problem in our City.
TRAFFIC !!
On Pacific Coast Highway. Jamboree. Bristol. Newport Blvd. The
Bridge at the Arches. Balboa Peninsula. More and more cars are
clogging our streets, intersections and parking areas.
And it is going to get worse. Much worse. Unless we do something
to stop it, we will have an additional 150,000 cars per day using
our roadway system in the next few years!.
Our City Council has just approved a massive rezoning of the Cannery
Village -McFadden Square area. This will attract thousands of
additional visitors and cars. The road improvements proposed for
the development fall far short of handling the additional traffic,
let alone taking care, of the near -gridlock situation currently
existing on the peninsull. 1 11 !
Other large-scale developments are under construction or pending
before our City Council. Have you seen the massive steel beams
going up in the Mariner's mile area? And the biggest development of
all - the expansion of Newport Center - is being rammed through the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Consider this: The expansion of Newport Center will generate an
additional 60,000 car trips per day ... an additional 22 milli, on car
trips per year! And this is on top of the 33 million car trips
already generated by Newport Center and clogging -Pacific Coast
Highway, Jamboree and MacArthur.
Our City Council seems unable to say "no" to large - scale
development requests. They have approved project after project
which has violated the traffic standards established by the City's
General Plan and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
It is time that we do something to stop this wholesale conversion of
our lovely city into a major commercial center with gridlock traffic
conditions.
The enclosed petition will put a Traffic Management Ordinance on our
ballot for voter approval in the November general election. The
ordinance will make new minimum acceptable traffic standards a part
of the General Plan, and put a lid on new large-scale development
which would cause traffic to exceed those standards. It will permit
development that will not aggravate existing traffic problems.
P.O. BOX5783 • BALBOA ISLAND. CALIFORNIA 92662 • (714)675-1050
C�ry��fy�"986v
104 Via Koron
Newport Beach
Ca.92663
May 61 1986
Mayor Philip Maurer
City Council Members
Newport Beach City Hall.
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Ca.92663 -
Dear Mayor Maurer and City Council:
The attached letter to Chief of Police Arb Campbell
was sent by the President of the Lido Isle Community
Association.
Would you be so kind as to direct the Traffic Affairs
Committee to investigate this matter and report back
to you.
It is an annoying matter now but could become a
serious concern. -
Your attention to this problem will be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Beryl Melinkoff
P.S. This letter is presented to you as a private citizen
of Lido Island and represents the feeling of many of the
residents.
Ar
IL
lido isle
community
association
701 VIA LIDO SOLID, LIDO ISLE • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
TELEPHONE (7141 673-6170
April 28, 1986
Mr. Arb Campbell
Chief of Police
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Chief Campbell;
The Board of Directors of Lido Isle Community Association would
like to make you aware of a continuing problem on Lido Isle
that directly involves the City of Newport Beach :
Tour buses park on the right
(just over the bridge) and on
City of Newport -Beach Parking
parked in these locations but
the buses.
I know that you are probably
adequate parking on Lido Isle
having these tour buses, here
situation. .
side of the bridge to Lido Isle
both sides of Antibes. The
Officers regularly ticket vehicles
to our knowledge, do not ticket
aware, Chief Campbell, that finding
is a continuing problem and
compounds an already difficult
In closing, on behalf of the Board of Directors and the residents
of Lido Isle, we would like to welcome you to your new post
as Chief of Police and thank you in advance for your assistance
in assist' us in this matter.
Very ru y o rs,
L
Willianfi. Palmer,
President
WIP:ry
cc: Board of Directors
Beryl Melinkoff
a non-profit cooperative organization of all lido isle propertv owners
STATE OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goh r
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
245 WEST RROADWAY, SUITE 330
LONG REACH, CA 9M
(213) SW3071
April 24, 1986
Mr. Barrie Egan -Auld
Administrator for the LICA Board of Directors
Lido Isle Community Association
701 Via Lido Soud
Lido Isle
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Barrie Egan -Auld:
In your April 22nd letter, you asked if under the Coastal Act
visitor -serving uses are "...higher priority than coastal -dependent
or marine -related uses ...?" In general, the answer to this
question would be no, since there is a bias in the Coastal Act for
preserving shoreline sites for those uses which are dependent for
their functioning upon direct access to the water.
It is certainly possible to zone shoreline areas for
coastal -dependent uses through the Commission's LCP process.
However, the final decision on the appropriateness of any proposed
use of the Cannery Village site will be determined by the Coastal
Commission based upon its interpretation of consistency of the LUP
amendment with the applicable policies of the Coastal Act.
Hopefully, the above information responds adequately to the
questions contained in your April 22nd letter. If not, please
don't hesitate to contact me again.
Sincer��
Tom Crandall
District Director
TC/sws /V
R Ps nrV ep.
cc: Wayne•Woodroof hlt
✓'James Hewicker, Planning Director'n+nelTt
City of Newport Beach APR2$1986 �•
OF
0650A :�� eEACJI,�
A
r , STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Gowmor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
245 WEST !ROADWAY, SUITE 3B0
LONG BEACH, CA P0802
(213) 5M3071
April 14, 1986
Board of Directors
Lido Isle Community Association
701 Via Lido Saud
Lido Isle Newport Beach, CA 92663
Attention: Barrie Egan -Auld, Administrator
Ref: Letter dated March 5, 1986, raising the issue of deletion
of the "hotel" designation.
Dear Mr. Egan -Auld:
Particularly applicable to the issue raised in your recent letter,
are sections 30222 and 30223 of the Coastal Act which state:
Section 30222
The use of private lands suitable for visitor -serving
commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over
private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development, but not over agriculture. or coastal -dependent
industry.
Section 30223
Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational
uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible.
As indicated by these sections, as well as by many previous
Commission actions, the Commission does give high priority to
visitor -serving uses which includes "hotels." And it may well be
that the exclusion of hotels as an option for the Cannery Village
area could have been a problem under the Coastal Act.
Nevertheless, the fact that the City's .Land Use Plan (LUP) was
approved by the Commission with a "hotel" designation for the
Cannery Village site does not prevent a LUP amendment being sought
to modify such a designation. However, visitor -serving
accommodation, such as hotels, are a high priority use so any
alternative uses would probably have .to be of equal or higher
priority under the Coastal Act.
Board of Directors
Lido Isle Community Association
April 14, 1986
Page 2
I hope this clarifies the issue and helps your Board of Directors.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us. Thank you very much for your interest in the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Ton
Dis
TC/
058
r
/ / f i. / _
_LLLt?
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA IIUU SCUD LIDO ISLE ta.a'UKI REACH CALIFURNIA
T ELEP gCNE 6.11 -1:?3 9: St1
March 5, 1986�
Mr. Tom Crandall
District Director
California Coastal Commission
1333 Camino del Rio South #125
San Diego, CA 92108-3520
Dear Mr. Crandall:
The Newport Beach Planning Department has proposed a Specific Area Plan
for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area which is in the Coastal
Zone.
The Cannery Village is;adjacent to o4r residential area, and development
planned for that area will impact us directly.
It is an area with narrow streets and retains a charm due to those streets.
Historically, it has served the boaters in Newport Bay. While the area
needs curbs and gutters, there is debate over whether or not it needs
a massive infusion of funds to create an infrastructure that will encourage
intensified development including possible hotels and motels.
The Cannery Village area is adjacent to a narrow part of the bay that
has been, and could still be used to service boats. In fact, it is one
of the few places left where this kind of development is feasible. -There
is no beach, and unlike the McFadden Square area with its pier and wide
expanse of public oceanfront, it is not.a natural end destination for
visitors.
The reason for this background is to tell you that our community association
is on record asking for deletion of the "hotel" designation in the proposed
Plan. We feel this is an inappropriate use for land in this area. Although
the area is presently zoned for hotel use, none have been built due to
inadequate infrastructure. It is our understanding that hotels for this
area are low priority given the provisions of the Coastal Act. However,
if they can be built, having a low priority doesn't mean much.
We were told by City officials that the LCP could not have approved
it the word "hotel" had nct been included as a visitor ser .e.
The implication is that the area has to be visitor servino, and therefore
.5 Noa?r.t.: C".er aII,e O•; c:..za 1. e°d U.-':Zn a.a Proce::y ow...e
Mr. Tom Crandall
C California Coastal iSS1Gn
Page 2
March 5, 1986
it is noL
f c;:• rn \....c vrvuvir+. is,�tit:-��
Village Specific aa Plan.
We would appreciate your clarifying this for us. What were the orlmary
issues in the LCP work program in this area? Does the Dresent proposed
Specific Area Plan address these issues? Could the word "hotel" be deleted
(with or without a use permit) in the Specific Area Plan and still allow
other visitor serving uses such as restaurants, shops, etc.? In other
words, are the uses in the Specific Area Plan consistent with the high
priority uses called for in the Coastal Act? Would it be possible to have
other designations for the Cannery,yillage area that would not impact our
residential area so adversely?
We would live• to see this area developed in a way that will maxirsze its
use for marine -oriented development along with commercial, retail and residential,
but in a way that will not necessitate massive redevelopment and public
infrastructure investments that will turn the natural village charm into
a "Ports of Call"!
We need to know from you how we can get (the hotel use deleted from the
proposed plan and still meet the mandates of the Coastal Act and the Newport
LCP.
Sincerely,
`Barrie Egan -Auld, Administrator
For the Lido rile Community Association Board of Directors
BEA:jry
cc: LICA Board of Directors
Newport Beach Planning Commission
A
,' L.LC.A
r
February 18, 1986
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT:
Area Plan -
At the City Council Study Session of February 10, 1966, Councilman Strauss
requested that I redistribute to the Planning Commission a letter from the Lido
Isle Community Association dated September 17, 1985. Councilman Strauss was
concerned that there may have been members of the Planning Commission who
either had not received or read the letter as it reflects the position of the
Lido Isle Community Association at that time.
In response to Councilman Strauss' request, I have attached a copy of the Lido
Isle Community Association letter of September 17th and our response to that
letter on September 30, 1985. In addition, I am also forwarding to you other
correspondence related to the September 17th letter. The additional corres-
pondence is as follows:
1) Memo dated October 1, 1985, to the Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/
McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Committee.
2) Letter from the Lido Isle Community Association dated October 22,
1985.
3) Letter from Betsey Dougherty to Marilyn Hendrickson dated September
23, 1985.
4) Letter from the Lido Isle Community Association dated November 25,
1985, in response to a staff presentation to the Lido Isle Community
Association in mid -October of 1985.
JDH/kk
JDHVI
Attachments
cc: Councilman Strauss
GAME TO THE 0
LIDO IA'MMWLE
Tow w M iErnoo
Ohl GlTY I'LANS FOR.
CANNERY VILLA6E
Meter Ar rHF um uvaHcvsE
TMl3 GOM/N6 WeDNE.SDAy EVWIAi6
IrEB;eUARY 19 AT 7:3o PM
rblf t*WMAr SAM# 1 "WOUTAM ropMMjsSjaAI
MfiaT1 me Nexr Alla#r m zwclDc
THE pV rV 2f G F MoOVERL% ✓luA6F,
Mir WIN YeVA NE OOeS 4)D1J4TPA k
70 Aiwa ov r
Is
M4) JW PIAA i CIU 0ACrlONS AFF6.PT
._._.
Gov D40 A&W r- �T
do Jr1e,
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID, LIDO ISLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE: 673.6170 92663
February 31 1986
Chris Gustin, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beacht CA 92663
Dear Chris:
As the Lido Isle representative to the Citizens' Ad Hoc Cannery
Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Commitee, I must protest the lack
of time allowed me to study the current draft of the Specific Area
Plan. I received my copy on Saturday, February 1. Because this plan
will be presented at the February 61 1986 meeting of the Planning
Commission, there is not enough time to adequately study these complex
proposals and discuss them with Lido Board members and concerned Lido
residents.
Since Lido residents will be very much affected by your proposals for
developments in Cannery Village/McFadden Square, we need time to
analyze the proposed changes and to formulate our position. With only
five days to study the proposals, I feel it is grossly unfair to expect
a cohesive response from Lido residents.
We urge you to give us adequate time to respond to future proposals.
With concern,
Marilyn Hen n
Member, Citizens Ad Hoc
Cannery Village Specific Plan Committee
cc; LICA Board of Directors
MH:ry
A Non -Profit Cooperative Organization of All Lido Isle Property Owners
0 -ZL' do J-,C!
•
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID. LIDO ISLE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA
92663
TELEPHONE: 673.6170
+
r Ut
November 25, 1985
Robert L. Wynn
City Manager,
City of Newport Beach
1617 Port Abbey Place
Newport Beach, CA 926*60
Dear Mr. Wynn;
This letter of thanks is long overdue in letting
you know how much the Lido Isle Community Association
appreciated the time and "effort of Mr. Chris Gustin,
•
of your Community Development staff, in making an
excellent presentation to the Association on the
Cannery Village Plan.
The presentation was most informative and cleared
up many misunderstandings and answered many questions
about the proposed plan.
We are grateful to you and to Mr. Gustin for your
time and consideration to us.
SGSiinn}ceeyre�l�yy�you�rss�,---��%���
Barrie Egan -Auld
Administrator
cc: Mr. Chris Gustin�CD
Community Development Staff
.
RECEIVED
PManr_:2
Cepat>Anent
�,
DEC 3 1985'-
CITY OF
i7 NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIF.
N 11
A Non•Profit Cooperative Organization of All Lido Isle Properly Owners
0 -'cdo J,&£ 0
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID. LIDO ISLE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE: 673.6170 92663
ot
October 22, 1985
Mr. James Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
we have received Mr. Gustin's 5-page single space letter of September 30,
1985 over your signature concerning the draft Cannery Village/K-Yadden
Square plan. We appreciate your response. We wont discuss the plan it-
self, which we are on record as unanimously opposing, but feel obligated
to respond to your cmrrents concerning LICA's participation (or non -
participation) in the planning process.
You state that, at the suggestion of the consultant, "a Citizen's Advisory
Committee of 12 members was to be appointed by the Mayor, of equal repre-
sentation of residents and merchants within or directly affected by the
Study". What you did not say is that on the committee there was no
representation frorn LICA - the homeowner's group most affected. _
Your letter states that at the November 8th reeting of the City staff,
the Arroyo Group and the Citizen's Committee, "Marilyn Hendrickson attended
representing the Lido Isle Community Association Board". She did not
represent LICA. No one..did.
The fact is that the person proposed by Councilman Strauss (in whose
district the project is located) was rejected by the then Mayor. Further,
LICA was never consulted or asked to be represented, nor did the City,
after rejecting Mr. Strauss' nominee, request an alternate nominee. To
say that "LICA limited its involvement in the planning process" is inaccu-
rate. Lido Isle was, as we see it, systematically excluded from the planning
process.
Your letter refers to Ms. Betsy Dougherty "ca-tittee mwber and resident of
Lido Isle", implying that she represented LICA. Ms. Dougherty, an architect
with offices at that time in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area, would
properly be an architect/merchant representative, but has at no time repre-
sented Cannery Village/McFadden Square for LICn. She did, on August 19th,
send the LICA Board a copy of the finished draft plan.
A Non -Profit Cooperative Organisation of All Lido rile Property Owners
Page 2
James Hewicker
October 22, 1985
Your letter refers to a March 7th meeting about redevelopment agencies.
You did not state that Councilman Strauss objected to this neeting (which
he learned about only through a property owner) because not all of the Citi-
zen's Comni.ttee were invited to attend it. As a last minute gesture, all
members were invited. Further, we are told that after public testinnr_y,
Mr. Hewi.cker stated that the City had no interest in the establishment of
a redevelopment agency. P_ meeting on this subject to which only selected
committee members were originally invited raises serious questions about
the fairness and objectivity of the City's planning process.
Finally, you mention that the City Council "went so far as to appoint a
member (Marilyn Hendrickson) from. Lido Isle." This was in May 1985, at
which time the main planning meetings had already been completed. But
the appointment does acknowledge that a major haremmer group affected
had not been represented or consulted during the project.
We do appreciate your offer to make a presentation of the plan to Lido
Isle Board members and residents.
John
Planning Commissioners
Newport Beach City Council Members
City Manager Robert Wynn
LICA Board of Directors
L.LC.A.
lJ
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'(714) 644-3225
October 1, 1985
TO: Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square
Specific Area Plan Committee '
FROM: Chris Gustin
SUBJECT: Lido Isle Community Association's Concerns
Pertaining to the Draft Specific Area Plan
Enclosed is staff's response to a letter from the Lido Isle Community
Association Board of Directors, dated September 17, 1985 (also at-
tached), wherein they identify several concrns related to the Draft
Specific Area Plan. Copies of the letter Ind staff's response have
also been forwarded to the City Council, City Manager, Planning
Commission, and The Arroyo Group. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me at anytime.
CG:jm
CG3
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Z
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3225
September 30, 1985
Lido Isle Community Association
701 Via Lido Soud
Lido Isle
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: John O'Donnell, President
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated September 17, 1985, concerning the Draft
Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Perhaps the information
presented herein will alleviate some of your concerns.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan,tj which the City adopted in May of
1973, designates the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area for a mix of
"Recreational and Marine Commercial," "General Industrial," and "Medium Density
Residential" uses. As stated in the Land Use Element, "... this area is to be
preserved and enhanced by: 1) prohibiting the encroachment of separate
residential uses; 2) developing a Specific Area Plan to resolve existing
orientation, access, and parking problems, and improving the visual environ-
ment; and 3) development of a plan and program to preserve the marine repair
and service uses in the Cannery Village Area." (Page 10)
The City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, which was certified by the
State Coastal Commission in May of 1982, designates the area for "Recreational
and Marine Commercial," "Retail and Service Commercial," and "Two -Family
Residential" uses. Both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use
Plan, permit a wide range of coastal dependent, coastal related, visitor -
serving and marine oriented businesses in the study area.
The land in the study area is zoned for C-1, C-2, C-0, M-1, and residential
uses. In general, these zoning designations permit a variety of commercial and
professional office uses, retail and visitor -serving uses such as hotels,
restaurants, marinas, yacht clubs, and industrial uses. In addition, resi-
dential uses are permitted within those areas designated as such.
As a planning tool, a Specific Area Plan allows more flexibility in resolving
the problems of larger areas than standard zoning mechanisms. Specific area
plans may establish permitted or desired land uses, set forth criteria for the
orderly and cohesive development of the land, and provide for the involvement
and participation of the local government agency implementing the specific area
plan. State law also requires that specific area plans conform with the stated
goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Lido Isle Community esociation •_
September 30, 1985
Page 2
Use Plan. Upon the motion of Councilman Strauss, the City Council, at its
meeting of August 27, 1984, retained the services of The Arroyo Group, a
Pasadena based consulting firm, to prepare a'Specific Area Plan for the Cannery
Village/McFadden Square area, implementing the appropriate 'provisions of the
General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. A contract was executed
and work on the plan began in September of 1984. At the suggestion of the
Consultant, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 84-121, establishing the
Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Committee,
consisting of twelve members, appointed by the Mayor, with equal representation
from residents and merchants within or generally affected by the study area.
During the preparation of the Draft Specific Area Plan, this Citizens Ad Hoc
Committee was to meet with City Staff and the Consultant to identify issues and
provide comment on the proposed plan.
The first meeting between City Staff, The Arroyo Group, and the Citizens Ad Hoc
Committee was held on October 18, 1984. Notice of this meeting was sent to all
persons who, up to that point, had expressed an interest in the Cannery Village
or McFadden Square areas. During this time, Staff was preparing a list of all
property owners within the area and within a 300 foot radius of its boundaries.
Unfortunately, this property owners' list took a tremendous amount of Staff
time to prepare, in that there are well over 600 property owners, the majority
of whom are absentee landlords. The mailing list was completed just after the
second Committee meeting, which was held;:on November 8, 1984. Our records
indicate that Marilyn Hendrickson,.;repAsenting the Lido Isle Community
Association Board, Judith Longyear, Frances Bury, and Judy Rosener, all
residents of Lido Isle, attended this meeting. Notices for the third meeting
on December 6, 1984, were mailed to approximately 630 persons, including the
'Lido Isle Community Association. Attendance at these first three meetings
averaged 35 persons, including the Citizens' Committee, the Consultant and the
City Staff. At the fourth public meeting on January 10, 1985, the Consultant
presented the Preliminary Land Use Plan. We note that of the 28 persons who
signed the attendance sheet for this meeting, there was no indication that
either a resident of Lido Isle or a member of its Community Association was
present, with the exception of Ms. Betsy Dougherty, Committee member and
resident of Lido Isle.
The Committee held three more meetings at which the preliminary concepts were
refined into a Draft Specific Area Plan. For reference, the dates of these
'meetings were February 7, 1985; March 21, 1985; and August 15, 1985. An
additional meeting was held on March 7, 1985, to discuss Redevelopment Agencies
in general. At this meeting, Councilman Strauss, who is also a member of Lido
Isle Community Association board, personally appeared and addressed the
Committee. At the end of each of the public meetings, time was allocated for
public comment. Each public notice encouraged the submittal of written
,comments to the Planning Department. A Planning Staff person's name and phone
number was provided on each notice, encouraging any person with questions to
call at any time. Despite our efforts to solicit input and open the planning
process to the community, neither input nor comment was received from the Lido
Isle Community Association. The only contact with Staff or the Consultant was
a brief telephone conversation with Ms. Hendrickson prior to receiving the
September 17, 1985 letter. Inasmuch as your Association has limited its
involvement in the planning process, for whatever reason, we will try to
clarify each of the points raised in your letter. ,; "
PX• •'ir �. 'w. .. .'' w d.; .WY :w !+: p'nti ..` L«.`ny. fL .,.. •. ,:� .i '^ •. L'iL 1. +ij rA^" •
w.' .r,,.j:u',;,i .F.�r�'- tr.+•_.'i.p �..:, ..,,.y,i:'.J::.ds'.;;' :.3': ..- ;3 e+f +.:;'�
~ �''' �i} '1: T,y.�.P:_ §J �, �"Y y`•',.,y }.. :•yT�x �`i L :�. t,. ��i..�.. 'a-;.+ rY,:-'.'i7� L J:'. ': `t.r�.
�`•5s :u`'Fl t.—�F,f. : s .id =�15: ,w':A'_ur;F.. Y K' ...-:'-y.. t•�.r . . \!r.'., r
�f T LINM; .:.': YAI: '�•F ♦n,. •�:s ti *: "rf: Yr ��s. ..�.. 4�71 ~r 'S �r2:M z�'�.
�t_.Y�r�,u��%�: :i�t.t'�;".r�r;,. ,r -_, �kr_a:. Y«;u;.4;'Y,T [-?':f, ,tfi-:e.:: �isD "i.r.:� 'S�::12�1'tt "_14�i'tCy^:{.i'.�.e:• .;J1r21'�C.('i4`2�'!.iY ai`��t� ��.p.. �;3':�':
, i•;�1 .� 1 e.• • .i8° - :. ^ J ';. �. �.:,:,. .+ .re •„ rs'.'.� c l':>. ,.�..' •j..%L•r".. ' • ' %.
v r.•..awv. ., vH.s .-....+•,N•.W.a.h.,....a•.'..�...+a•-..tta-'ar..+-.�.-..ca•N:..�-,.i+ �.. v4J.r�.,.i' .�-. •,r.. ., .w
Lido Isle Community • _.
September 30, 1985
Page 3
In paragraph two, page one, you state that the two areas should be separated
for planning purposes. These two areas are separate entities within the Draft
Plan. I£ necessary, although highly undesirable, the Plan can be adopted for
one area without the other. Your unanimous opposition to the Cannery Village
portion of the plan and support for the McFadden Square portion simplifies our
response to your concerns.
Paragraph three starts off by stating that the plan for Cannery Village is
totally contradictory in concept and that traffic is identified as the Number
One problem. You indicate that the main thrust of the plan is to create a
Y traffic generator, without solving the problems that will accompany the
increased traffic. It is also stated that ". , only a gesture is offered to
address the off-street parking by the inclusion'of a totally inadequate parking
structure." Next you reference the Lido Village parking structure and conclude
by stating that if the area were to become a successful tourist attraction,
that the traffic would be difficult to imagine.
It is true that traffic and circulation are identified as the major problems
facing the study area. As you are aware, the existing zoning standards
applicable to the Cannery Village area permit development at two times the
buildable area of a parcel on the majority of lots in the area, with some areas
permitted to develop at three times the buildable area of a site. For example,
on a standard 30' x 93' lot in Cannery Village, current zoning provisions would
permit 5,580 sq.ft. (2 x (30' x 93'),)•_of 8�velopment. The 28th Street Marina
property, which contains approximately 86,000 sq.ft. of land, could be
developed at three times the buildable area of the site or approximately
258,000 sq.ft. of building area. It is essential that the Lido Isle Community
Association recognize that the existing zoning would permit in excess of
2,000,000 sq.ft, of development in Cannery Village alone. One of the major
elements of the Draft Specific Area Plan is the establishment of a maximum
floor area ratio on any site designated for commercial development of one times
the buildable area of a site (land size to net floor area of a building). The
one exception to this standard is for mixed use developments where a commercial
!••'• %Wv"''or retail use is established on the first floor with a residential use on the
second floor. In these cases, a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 is suggested,
with a ratio of .75 on the first floor for commercial use and .75 for the
second floor residential use. These uses are encouraged for a variety of
reasons, one being that residential uses generate less traffic than commercial
uses, and that residents in the area are expected to be actively involved in
the on -going improvement and maintenance of the area.
It is unclear as to what you mean by "... the main thrust of the plan is to
create a traffic generator." However, in paragraph one, page two, you refer to
hotels and motels being in direct contradiction of the stated priority of the
plan. It should be noted that hotels and motels have been permitted in the
Cannery Village area since 1936 (City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance No.
440, adopted January 6, 1936). Perhaps your concerns can be mitigated by
recognizing that the previously discussed floor area ratio of one times the
buildable area applies to hotels and motels as well as any other type of use,
and that the height limit of 26/35 feet (26' permitted, with a maximum height
of 35' by use permit), which has been in effect since 1972, will continue to
apply to all development in the area. Further, given the floor area ratio and
- is r4 •Q'74. ,`•z',r. .S ""...- ` .vri J. �.; • { i n.•ai�{3^rf.'
.ii >`' t l Bpi r,,.' - r J•`.: . �:.,; '� _ tH ,:, % '• D:f."s`•+
}, lJt - --: t'Si.' .1`.�... tS'r:,-..t.'`-^.',It• F' rr: �"r;✓ .:.+ ��'- ,. � ,T •
_.)^,{, tr�ilP -r: .. R+'• y,- .> ."4- `3 �»{`..u':1:. S ' S,j _4 • i. fir,.. `s`,-�`-ry.,.: t;'fs.':'['iti - - - .:
• > . n � "gyp -{ - ,-: :.0. `..: L1;nyn i.: •. a!%,<;tir S f1)' •. w.- 'i. y `^ r. .. •... `
.'I i11r •.'�:Ai'•,F�l ?k , y:.; u5 r: :��",; .; s,' i!3a CM 't F p,r+q�?%::::'jnx �l': _'sr :4 .YrV ri ;�'i t't'4z14:�•%;:.. :,x ..: T _ �'.
.........,. .. - _ _ ... _ .Iw.-.,.—. ..,.,.........-..i,..a_ ._....-c..,.l.,.:...+•.iw4.n.....r.....+tivus......,.,+..w•++w=-.:ic•+•-b.+..o..•..,•w:T........s.,.
Lido Isle Community tociation • _,
September 30, 1985
Page 4
height limitations set forth in the proposed plan, it is safe to assume that a
hotel or motel would generate no more traffic than a commercial use of equal
size, based upon standard traffic generation rates published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (hotels/motels = 12 trips per room per day; office
= 13 trips per 1000 sq.ft. of floor area). In addition, hotels and motels do
not have the same peak hour traffic characteristics as do other commercial or
residential uses.
Regarding the "gesture" to address the off-street parking problems by the "...
inclusion of a totally inadequate parking structure," please note that all of
the on -site parking requirements in effect City-wide are also retained in the
Draft Specific Plan and will be applicable to all new development. All new
development in the study area will be required to provide parking for
automobiles on the development site unless an off -site parking agreement is
approved by the City Council, or the developer pays a fee to the City in lieu
of providing on -site parking. The City is considering raising the cost of in
lieu fees to a level where the funds can actually be used to acquire land and
construct additional parking spaces. The proposed Cannery Village parking
structure would then supplement the required amount of on -site parking, not
substitute for the required on -site parking. Concluding this discussion of the
third paragraph, we would like to point out that the intent of this Specific
Area Plan is not to create a "... successful tourist attraction," but to
improve and revitalize an older area of the City by encouraging a variety of
land uses that will serve the local residents as well as future residents and
visitors.
Paragraph four, page one, pertains to your concerns about access to the one
entrance to Lido Isle resulting from conflicts between Lido Isle residents and
the residents and employees of Lido Marina Village. -You have also noted that
"giant tour busses" take up limited parking space for Lido Isle residents when
they cross the bridge, and they give off fumes and noise. I am afraid that the
Specific Area Plan cannot address the issue of busses from Lido Marina Village
using public parking spaces on Lido Isle. While the Draft Specific Area Plan
does not respond to the problems resulting from the operation of Lido Marina
Village, we are trying to insure that similar impacts resulting from adoption
of this Plan will not occur. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the
signal controlling the two left -turn lanes on southbound Newport Boulevard onto
Via Lido maximize access by effectively stopping all traffic leaving the
Peninsula so 'that vehicles going to Lido Village, the Via'Lido Plaza, or Lido
Isle, already have priority over all other residents and visitors on the
Peninsula.
In the first paragraph on page two, you indicate you are deeply concerned about
Lido Isle's future and that you also have broader concerns. The Draft Plan
calls for preparation of an analysis of the circulation system in the study
area and, if feasible, to recommend changes that will improve the system. This
may result in a modification to the "mixmaster," but until those studies are
complete (at the end of October), we don't know the nature and extent of any
potential changes. However, it must be recognized that no matter what changes
occur to the circulation system on the Peninsula, the Via Lido/Newport
Boulevard intersection is still the primary impediment to an efficient
transportation network on the Peninsula. The priority granted to the
I. •]I``
' .:
r
' ._
4,
I','.
j'�I i
�X',y,• .,
r:;�,
'�y�.
.'ail
, r
':i:'
n�.? 'V ..1::>>/K..:�,,' ,i
.••,
...
"�
•:'S,i,•� •'
9_ =�
'i'
• '':%•
�'� i^,r
• 1. }. ,. 'it. ,.
Lido Isle Community A• ciation •
September 30, 1985
Page 5
commercial and residential traffic on Via Lido and Lido Isle may also be
altered, if necessary, to, as you state, "... improve traffic movement for
homeowners on the peninsula." As previously indicated, hotels and motels have
been permitted in the area since at least 1936; all required parking would have
to be provided in a manner consistent with existing City policy either on site
or in close proximity; and that a hotel would generate no more traffic than any
other commercial use.
Paragraph two, page two, discusses the costs of the proposed improvements which
will be discussed with the Redevelopment Agency in subsequent paragraphs.
However, we question the statement that " . the basic thrust of the Cannery
Village Plan is negative to the surrounding areas." The Presidents of the
Central Newport Beach Community Association; the West Newport Homeowners
Association, and the Peninsula Point Homeowners Association sit on the Citizens
Committee providing input and comment on the -Draft Plan. All three of these
gentlemen have enthusiastically participated in the planning process and have
endorsed the Draft Plan and all of its provisions. Two of these associations
either border on or include portions of Cannery Village or McFadden Square, and
they have been adversely impacted by the decline which has been allowed to
occur within the area. Perhaps it was your intent to indicate some elements
that may be seen as having the potential to effect Lido Isle, but it is
inaccurate and unfair to characterize the Draft Plan as being "...negative to
the surrounding residential areas." i
Paragraph three indicates to us that you have some concerns regarding
redevelopment agencies. Perhaps your concerns result from newspaper accounts
of the "horror stories" from other cities where these agencies were improperly
established and/or operated. Councilman Strauss raised some of these concerns
at the redevelopment meeting held on March 7, 1985. The free enterprise system
can be an essential element of a redevelopment agency in that opportunities for
new business are created where none previously may have existed. The scope of
redevelopment agencies is very broad and the various ways they can be estab-
lished are so numerous that to categorically rule this option out at this time
would be premature. Redevelopment agencies can be established solely for the
purpose of acquiring the incremental increase in the tax'base of an area for
public improvements within the redevelopment agency boundaries. Redevelopment
agencies are not, nor have they ever been, solely for "cleaning up disaster
areas."
The fourth paragraph pertaining to the streetscope and charm of the Cannery
Village Area came as a surprise. "Wider streets" are proposed on Newport
Boulevard and Villa Way only. The purpose for widening Villa Way is to improve
access and provide additional on -street public paring. The widening of Newport
Boulevard between 30th and 32nd Streets has been a part of the City's Master
Plan of Streets and Highways for many years. Sidewalks, curbs, and gutters are
proposed in those areas where they have never been installed or where those
that exist are deteriorated. It is the position of the Citizens Committee that
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be installed in Cannery Village to ensure
public safety as well as efficient drainage of the streets. In fact, at the
direction of the City Council, plans have been completed for the repair of the
deteriorated curbs, gutters and sidewalks, the installation of these
Lido Isle Community •ociation •_
September 30, 1985
Page 6
facilities where they presently don't exist, and the improvement of the streets
for better drainage. Front yard setbacks are a necessary element of any design
guidelines in order to provide some distance and relief between the sidewalks
and structures. We do believe, as you describe them, that "...paving patterns
and landscaping" will enhance the charm and aesthetics of the area.
In your concluding paragraph you indicate that many serious flaws exist in the
proposed plan and that you would like to meet with the appropriate persons so
that you "... may rethink or revise this plan from its present unacceptable
form." The beginning of this response contains a rather detailed account of
the public meetings and planning process through which the Draft Plan evolved.
We have made every effort to address the concerns raised by all of the
attendees at these meetings. In addition, the City Council went so far as to
appoint, from Lido Isle, an additional (thirteenth) member, to the Committee,
who did not attend the meeting where the Draft Plan was presented. Now we have
a Draft Plan that has been endorsed by the Citizens Committee. The Citizens
Committee's work is essentially complete. Work is progressing on the
Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Analyses. These reports should be
completed by the end of October and are based on the Draft Plan. With the
completion of these reports, we intend to take the Draft Specific Area Plan to
the Planning Commission for public hearings in November. Your Association will
be notified of the date and time of the public hearings. After the Planning
Commission concludes its public hearings and forwards its recommendation to the
City Council, a City Council Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific
Area Plan Committee will review the Phan and the Planning Commission's
recommendation. This City Council Ad Hoc Committee is comprised of the Mayor,
the Councilman representing the District in which the study area is located,
and one additional Councilperson. The Council Ad Hoc Committee will review the
Planning Commission's recommendations for compatibility with the Local Coastal
Plan and the appropriate Elements of the General Plan, and transmit its report
and recommendations and the Planning Commission recommendations to the City
Council for final hearings and adoption of a Specific Area Plan.
In the interim, should you wish to discuss any of the elements of this Draft
Plan with Staff, we will continue to be available at any time. either to make a
presentation to your Board or any representatives of the Board or any concerned
resident. Should you wish to set up a specific time to meet, please feel free
to call Chris Gustin at 644-3225.
Very truly yours,
JAMES D. HEWICKER
Plann ng Director
JDH/CG/kk
STAFF
Attachment
^,M .'�" ^rk'• �:e%;-_ .'^�r�.-',�:y:_::;:K•vki:{':.Fn•^4:.EY;'�'i?:.o")e ..A'-;:s� _ .�i, yhf•i �'�• ;�
._. .-. •�, � .... a.. .sna+•+• wYe�.:�.�r-M1Lef.. ......M - +»r-r= �s'4M1iie•.r -•n • +u % w�si�.-w .
Lido Isle Community IOssociation
September 30, 1985
Page 7
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square
Specific Area Plan Committee
The Arroyo Group
City Manager
City Engineer
5 w r: :i' ),,w i. r Y�.•:.f ,.� .. zti: r: ...� r U �',' 'i .wr'• •.i:
' )'� 4r,!�: a. ''�. ^' 4. yi'.ytiS) +...a r.; ��i%",:, f3:'rt*;•�: a'. �`:'E)^.' yii'• :.. w„•f'` t;..} 3. 1 ?��+.4i..b rx `2;:r •12 rf,�, .:{�
i lii^ ' � „,. '� .r�f, :'�Y.'4..' .+ jr � �yM,. ri �.e •. •ii e�si` ej. *"-n� . ��"f .,.. ;7
}:r:.;:1vr . > _ _'•' iA; n<"F :':. t tp•,- w ,?' «' a.:'fi ' x�.r..,, . i-r', {. n'..� :'
f wu ' � !� `I. '- V i '.. . 11LA+ •', .+�M' {` ' .1'' :�� ' �' '. $. P4'!�r r t� ..:,.l 1i.�..�w� • �j/.• •�'.n' � .l 1
•.4. +'}�.'Iyy��__ fa : %_: i° 'I/i ..4.sw:. i °'.n:Ys�r, � HN•,+,}� .!r.1
- .7Tf '. r ,.'::ci-�. �`^ 'I-.�.y ,�f'1 ..3__ .+.ir: ,�,.V'•:1E:+7.., i:. "{.�6 °'..�_ ;a +.
+:.a...-..:,ir'm+` .a.r e..=••w.. +w. .._.�.. .- ..r.. �> w...,..wie�e.-�-..u,...rti.•e-:�:„.,..w-wl_5'...w..rL.w,v.M.•+.-.-..��.nf'�.s+:.%«a+rsMr._y':+4,-.... .r _ -
I
t do -01 F- -.
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
701 VIA LIDO SOLID, LIDO ISLE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNI�,'
TELEPHONE: 673.6170 92663 ,per
m
September 17, 1985
'Mr. James Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
:.Newport Beach, CA 92663
r
r °�E�EIVFL�
CALIF,
Dear Mr.,Hewicker:
The Lido Isle Coniznunity Association has serious concerns and reservations
about the recently circulated Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area
Plan.
While we can support much of the McFadden Square portion of the plan which
is designed to improve traffic circulation for the City, we strongly believe
that the two areas should be separated for planning purposes. The LICA Board
of Directors is deeply concerned and at its September llth meeting voted
unanimously to oppose the Cannery Village portion of the plan.
The plan for the Cannery Village is totally contradictory in concept. The
plan says that traffic is the #1 problem, yet the main thrust of the plan
is to create a traffic generator without solving the problems that will
accompany the increased traffic. Only a gesture is offered to address the
'offstreet parking by the inclusion of a totally inadequate parking structure.
The structure at Lido Village contains approximately 400 parking stalls to
serve an area only one block long. If this area were to became a successful
tourist attraction, the traffic caused by just searching for parking places
would be difficult to imagine.
The proposed plan takes passing note (page 5) of the existing "conflict
between Lido Isle residents and employees and visitors of Lido Marina Village".
It is bad now and the proposed plan would make conditions intolerable. Traf-
fic and pedestrian crossings already make it difficult for Lido Isle residents
to get to the one entrance to the Isle. Giant tour busses are now regularly
visiting the area, giving off fumes and noise. These giant busses are already
crossing the bridge into residential Lido Isle parking areas and taking up
limited parking space for residents.
• A Non•Profit Cooperelive Organization of All Lido life Properly Owners'' , ,
Mr. James Hewicker
-2-
September 17, 1985
While we7.are deeply concerned and upset for Lido Isle's future if this plan were
to be accepted, our concerns are broader. We do want to improve traffic movement
for homeowners on the Peninsula. We think getting rid of the "mixrraster" near the
Newport Pier is a good idea for improved circulation and safety. But we simply
cannot understand the part of the plan which would allow (with a use permit),
hotels and motels in the Cannery Village area. Incredible! And in direct contra-
diction to the stated #1 priority of the plan, since these clearly would add to
traffic and parking problemsa
The LICA Board is shocked at the huge costs invorved. The plan envisions many
millions of dollars, 15 to 20 millions and maybe more. Some part of these costs,
the plan suggests, may be covered by businesses in the district, but since the •
basic thrust of the Cannery Village plan is negative to the surrounding residential
areas, we could not support taxpayer's money being spent this way.
Further, we strongly oppose the notion of a Redevelom-ent District. We think the
free enterprise system can and should work in Newport Beach and is working in the
Cannery Village. Note the recent openjAgg-of a top drawer restaurant and some new
buildings in the past two or three years, Redevelognent Districts are for cleaning
up disaster areas. Cannery Village is not 'a disaster area.
The plan proclaims that it wants to retain the charm of the Cannery area. Yet
design proposals for wider streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, front yard setbacks,
"cutesy" paving patterns and landscaping, etc„ will destroy that very charm.
In summary, then, we see many serious flaws in the proposed plan. We have listed
--sane of these flaws in this letter. Please notify us at your earliest convenience
when we can meet with planners, consultants and any other appropriate persons so
that we may rethink, revise, this plan from its present unacceptable form.
Sincerely,
Jo O'Donnell, President
by George Bissell, AIA, LICA Board Member
cc: planning Commissioners
Newport Beach City Council Mad)ers
City Manager Robert Wynn
LICA Board of Directors
JUDY B. ROSENER
.,y 129 VIA VENEZIA
NEWPORT BEACH,�01O �1f�92663
v �
' n F%aq-,- �r 1`
e��ertE .
Newport Beach City Council SEp3 07985
Newport Beach
Hall
ity
Newport Beach,CCalifornia 92663 NPo rk1V8 q
` CH,
Dear Council Members:
September
I would like to add my voice to those who are distressed to see the City ha�—
not (for whatever reason) protected what few shipyards we have left in Newport
Harbor. With over 7,000 boats, it would seem that boatowners (I am not one)
would be an important constituency for the Council. Unfortunately, because
many of them don't live here, but only spend money here, and because as a group
they are not organized to moniter Council actions, it is often too late for
them to have any impact when they lose services.
The Local Coastal Planning process was created explicitly to give local officials
such as yourselves an opportunity to innovate and come up with ways to protect
primary coastal dependent uses of land. Instead of doing that, we see increasing
office buildings (most of which remain vacantifor years) along the coast,.something
contrary to the Coastal Act. But we see the.name of the Coastal Act invoked to
justify shops and hotels and restaurants which bring busloads of people from out
of the area to increase traffic, trash, crime, etc.
The City could use the LCP process to justify zoning, or transfer of development
rights or other ways to make sure that boats in the harbor have places where they
can be repaired, etc. It is ironic that it was not the Shipyard owner who was
saying he could not make, a living. And the landowner is not one who has put his
life savings into this one plot of land and now wants to cash in. Rather it was
the expectations of the city that anyone can now put up office buildings, block
views, etc. as long as somehow they make a token effort to do what they are required
to do anyway, i.e. have some little noli toward a coastal dependent use. How sad!
The City has allowed the Pacific Coast Highway to be turned into office buildings
and now some high buildings, with sliver views that were used as a carrot to get
higher than zoned uses. Unlike Laguna and other cities that retain views and
the beach essence of their cities, we seem to be pouring more and'more concrete
with less and less beach ambiance.
Some of us feel we elect council members to have a vision of the future that
protects the interests of those of us who live here and feel the impact of changing
a beautiful resort city into botiques and self service food marts. The charm is
going fast, and the offices in the Bay Lido Building and the PCH off ices
till
vacant. And what will happen when the new PCH buildings get built? More beauty?
Hardly:But then, I know how hard it is to say no to landowners. It doesn't'make
one popular. Even though that is what publicpolicy making is all about.
y B. Rosener
0C,
oo
bU E�-�.�>��u�
G7'^'a7c7CG-=�mO
a) ci C7 U) - U u
1kj
O i 0 r Z
cSC5 0_7II,10 U,C7J
0
Dougherty & Dougherty
Architecture • Planning • Interior Design
3 Civic Plaza. Suite 230
Newporl Beach. CA 92660
(714) 720 0720
September 23, 1985
Marilyn Hendrickson
LIDO ISLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
701 Via Lido Sound
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: McFadden Square/Cannery Village
Specific Area Plan
Dear Marilyn:
As the work of the Specific Area Plan Committee continued, I became aware of the
concern by LICA that there was no board representative on the Committee.
At our last meeting, I discovered that you had successfully been appointed to
the Committee, but were unable to attend the meeting.
I have recently discussed with Chris Gustin at the City of Newport Beach, the
potential for him and me to meet with you and the Lido Isle Board to report
on the progress of the Specific Area Plan Study to date. We would be happy
to attend a LICA Board Meeting at your convenience, at which time we could
share not only documentation, but some personal insights into the committee
process and subsequent draft plan.
As a resident of Lido Isle and member of the Committee, I look forward to the
opportunity to meet with you.
ce el �.
Be t say 0 - k Dougher AIA
BOD/dd
((qNEV1JPGRT
ECEIVED
cc: Chris Gustin, City of Newport Beach Planning t
File Depa+tment
P241985
CITY OF
13EAC!-0
CALIF.
• Zi do Dle, 'P.
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION �--
701 VIA LIDO SOLID, LIDO ISLE NEWPORT .BEACH•, CALIFORNI
TELEPHONE: 673.6170 92663 N�E_
f71 6,c8r
I "a part rlt�z
p� Po rA;c4cH,
CAf.1F.
September 17, 1985��
Mr. James Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Hewicker:_
The Lido Isle cwmunity Association has serious concerns and reservations
about the recently circulated Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area
Plan.
While we can support much of the McFadden Square portion of the plan which
is designed to improve traffic circulation for the City, we strongly believe
that the two areas should be separated for planning purposes. The LICA Board
of Directors is deeply concerned and at its September llth meeting voted
unanimously to oppose the Cannery Village portion of the plan.
The plan for the Cannery Village is totally contradictory in concept. The
plan says that traffic is the #1 problem, yet the main thrust of the plan
is to create a traffic generator without solving the problems that will
acccnpany the increased traffic. Only a gesture is offered to address the
offstreet parking by the inclusion of a totally inadequate parking structure.
The structure at Lido Village contains approximately 400 parking stalls to
serve an area only one block long. If this area were to become a successful
tourist attraction, the traffic caused by just searching for parking places
would be difficult to imagine.
The proposed plan takes passing note (page 5) of the existing 'conflict
between Lido Isle residents and employees and visitors of Lido Marina Village".
it is bad now and the proposed plan would make conditions intolerable. Traf-
fic and pedestrian crossings already make it difficult for Lido Isle residents
to get to the one entrance to the Isle. Giant tour busses are now regularly
visiting the area, giving off fames and noise. These giant busses are already
crossing the bridge into residential Lido Isle parking areas and taking up
limited parking space for residents.
8 A Non -Profit Cooperative Organization of All Lido Isle Property Owners
n
►�J
r�
u
Mr. James Hewicker -2- September 17, 1985
While we -.are deeply concerned and upset for Lido IsleI's future if this plan were
to be accepted, our concerns are broader. We do want to improve traffic movement
for homeowners on the Peninsula. We think getting rid of the "mixmaster" near the
Newport Pier is a good idea for improved circulation and safety. But we simply
cannot understand the part of the plan which would allow (with a use permit),
hotels and motels in the Cannery Village Brea. Incredible! And in direct contra-
diction to the stated #1 priority of the plan, since these clearly would add to
traffic and parking problems
The LICA Board is shocked at the huge costs involved. The plan envisions many
millions of dollars, 15 to 20 millions and maybe more. Some part of these costs,
the plan suggests, may be covered by businesses in tht district, but since the
basic thrust of the Cannery Village plan is negative to the surrounding residential
areas, we could not support taxpayer's money being spent this way.
Further, we strongly oppose the notion of a Redevelopment District. We think the
free enterprise system can and should work in Newport Beach and is working in the
Cannery Village. Note the recent opensng�of a top, drawer restaurant and sane new
buildings in the past two or three years-. Redevelopment Districts are for cleaning
up disaster areas. Cannery Village is not a disaster area.
The plan proclaims that it wants to retain the charm of the Cannery area. Yet
design proposals for wider streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, front yard setbacks,
"cutesy" paving patterns and landscaping, etc., will destroy that very charm.
In summary, then, we see many serious flaws in the proposed plan. We have listed
some of these flaws in this letter. Please notify us at your earliest convenience
when we canmeet with planners, consultants and any other appropriate persons so
that we may rethink, revise, this plan from its present unacceptable form.
Sincerely,,
Jo O'Donnpl1, President
by George Bissell, AIA, LICA Board Member
cc: Planning Commissioners
Newport Beach City Council Members
City Manager Robert Wynn
LICA Board of Directors
E
U.C.A.
0 I
JUOY S. ROSENER
125 VIA VFNEZIA
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
92663 A
November 9, 1984
Letters to the Editor
The Register
P.O. Box 11626
Santa Ana, California 92711
Dear Editors:
Although I appreciate the coverage that the Register gave to the planning
going on in the McFadden Square and Cannery Village areas in Newport Beach,
I feel the characterization of my remarks were somewhat overdrawn.
The fact that many of us attended the planning session attests to the fact
C that the City is now informing citizens and has hired a consultant who is
anxious to have citizen input.
My remarks were directed at the fact that long time residents who own,land
in the planning area had not been informed although informal planning has
been going on for some time. As the city's owd planner noted, the last
planning effort in this area was a "public relations disaster" because the -
citizen involvement was minimal. I merely asked that the process be made
clear to those who will be directly impacted as well as to those who wish
to develop. ,
I feel that the 'November 8th:session was extremely valuable. I commend the
City and the consultant for the manner in which it was conducted and for the
opportunity for citizens to participate. I hope this kind of planning will
become the norm rather than the exception.
Sincerely,
r
�%r xr'/.l. ✓"61 cif...' :_ �"".. i`' ,..
N
Judy B. Rosener Ji9
IVE
cc: Newport City Council r'� R Ep nnng n
Newport Planning Commission Department
Arroyo Planning Group , Nov 1 3.1984 ¢'
' Cl Y OF
CJ Nkf.NVPORT HEA,V
:CALIF-