Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPENINSULA_REVITALIZATION_CORRESPONDENCE111111111 llll 11111111111111111111111111 lill III III *NEW FILE* PENINSULA REVITALIZATION CORRESPONDENCE e POLICY STATEMENT 1996-1997 Adopted by the General Membership September 21, 1996 Preamble: This Association's purposes are educational, social, and recreational, with its goals being to promote the improvement and civic betterment of Newport Beach in general, and of the central portion of the Newport -Balboa Peninsula in particular. This Association encourages and supports the improvement of a quality of life on the Peninsula, characterized by its residential nature and implemented by sound land use planning, aesthetic and high quality professional architecture, and quality Police, Fire, Harbor Patrol, and Lifeguard services. This Association seeks the continual upgrading and improvement of all public or private facilities and services, including, but not limited to streets, highways, utilities, sanitation, parks, libraries, and marinas. Whereas it is the desire of the majority of the membership in attendance and voting at its Annual General Meeting that such issues of concern which may arise from time to time and require the expression of the interests of the membership before various public bodies, the Association hereby authorizes its Officers and Directors to represent its membership and promulgate the following general policies on its behalf. It is the policy of this Association that it: 1. ..opposes the construction of any road, path or bicycle trails or motor vehicle parking facility along the Ocean Front on the Peninsula, or in West Newport. 2. ..supports the preservation of the Ocean Front Walk, and the Edgewater to Buena Vista Walk as pedestrian promenades, and the increase of law enforcement there as necessary for improved safety of its secondary use by bicyclists, and other wheeled vehicles to include rollerskates, rollerblades, and skateboards. 3. ..supports the banning of chain driven buggies from use of the Ocean Front walkway. 4. ..opposes installation of flood lights on the beach in front of residences, except in areas where the affected residences have signed consent for the specific installation. 5. ..opposes the construction of additional public restrooms on the Ocean Front, and encourages the City to improve the care and maintenance of the existing facilities. 6. ..opposes the practice that a private restaurant may encroach on a public beach with tables servicing that restaurant. 7. ..supports retention of the park at 15th Street and Bay Avenue as a grassy, passive recreation area, without further encroachment of permanent structures or paving, and supports the use of parking on the grass at the 15th Street park with the stipulation that it is limited to 12 times per year and that parking be supervised. 8. ..supports maintaining the size, scale, and use restrictions which now apply to the Newport Pier Marine Dept, and Lifeguard Headquarters, and opposes any expansion or the addition of any functions or services not related directly to Li£eguarding, such as vehicle maintenance, tower construction, etc. 9. ..is opposed to further relocation of sand along Ocean Front beaches, and encourages the City to continue monitoring the feasibility of potentially permanent methods of erosion control such as the highly successful groin program. 10. .,supports prohibition of glass bottles and containers on the beaches and sidewalks of this City. 11. ..opposes drilling of Offshore Oilwells, and supports efforts to prevent such drilling for exploration or production. 01laugmented favors a shuttle -tram system with off -Peninsula parking, by appropriate traffic control and parking re ulations on the Peninsula. / 13. ..supports off -peninsula, or off-street parking requirements f f vehicles requiring more than one parking space. 14. ..opposes the construction of public parking structures on the Peninsula except as part of the Cannery Village Plan as approved. 15. ..supports private parking -lot agreements and opposes use of City parking lots to satisfy code required on -site parking requirements. 16, ..supports the use of decorative landscaping in the median of Balboa Blvd. between 20th Street and Alvarado Street. 17. ..desires the City to reestablish periodic sweeping of alleys within the boundaries of this Association. 18. ..supports the synchronization of traffic signals, the use of Police officers, the .establishment of special -use traffic lanes i.e., the "Residents' Lane", and resident permits, and other extraordinary means, such as the "turnaround lane", to facilitate the egress and preclude the ingress of traffic on the Peninsula during peak usage periods. 19. ..opposes the extension of the Costa Mesa Freeway to a termination at Newport Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway. 20. ..opposes the operation of pedicabs on the Peninsula. J G V 21. ..opposes the expansion of commercial air services at John Wayne Airport, and advocates the promotion of use of alternate facilities immediately, to take the demand pressure off of JWA, and advocates the early development of a regional airport site capable of meeting the future demand for air travel, and gives the Board of Directors discretion to consider giving annual contributions to the Airport Working Group. 22. ..supports the City of Newport Beach taking a leadership role for E1 Toro becoming a commercial airport. 23. ..supports the retention of residential zoning codes as were in effect in 1986 within the boundaries of the Association, endorses the efforts of City Commissions to revise the land use elements of the General Plan in order to reduce density and plan for orderly growth. 24. ..opposes the increase of hotel capacities and the licensing of additional take-out food service establishments within the boundaries of this Association, or near the beach or recreational areas of the Peninsula. 25. ..supports the retention of the Balboa Public Library at full strength, and opposes the removal of reference or other material therefrom to stock other library branches in the City. The Association sees a need for an increase and expansion in reference material at the Balboa Branch. 26. ..supports 30 minute library parking zones on the west side of Island Ave., between Bay Avenue and Balboa Boulevard. 27. ..requests the City to install tidal gates to prevent the reverse flow of water during the extremely high tides, and to continue raising bulkheads and seawalls. 28. ..finds siltation and all sources of pollution, including discharge of reclaimed waste water, unacceptable and abhorant in our beaches and harbor, and supports any morally persuasive or legal action whose purpose is to maintain cleanli- ness and purity of these areas. 29. ..approves dredging of the lower bay as necessary, bayward of the pierhead lines, in areas affected by siltation, and pumping the dredged sand to the Ocean Front as needed to augment sand in lower elevation areas subject to tidal pooling. 30. ..opposes the construction of public launching ramps for trailerable boats on the Peninsula. 31. ..supports the experimental installation of four-way boulevard stops at Balboa Blvd. intersections at Island, 8th, and 18th Streets. 32. ..supports the efforts of the Marinapark Residents for the extension of the lease of Marinapark from the City of Newport Beach. 33. ..supports the efforts of the American Legion for the extension of the lease of the American Legion from the City of Newport Beach. 34. ..authorizes the Board of Directors, at their discretion, to provide moderate financial support for the Balboa and new Central Libraries, the Nautical Museum and the public schools supporting our residential area, i.e., Newport Elementary, Ensign Middle and Harbor High Schools. 35 ..opposes the institution of fees in lieu of taxes. 36 ..supports redesign of parking allocation at the Balboa Main Beach Parking Lot for increase of shorter term parking which favors beach and business users, without added paving or loss of landscaping. 37 ..supports reduction of the commercial zone of Central Balboa t the area between A Street and Adams Street. 38. ..supports Saturday and Monday trash collection in Central Newport during the summer months, and opposes any amendment to the City Charter which would permit separate billing for residential trash collection. 39. ..supports privatization of trash collection if it is less expensive than the full cost of City provided service. 40. .,supports closure of both Ocean Piers to fishing, if necess- ary, as an extraordinary measure to eliminate the unresolvable problem of filth, the resultant unhealthy environment, and to correct the incompatible and unsafe situation created by such conditions on the pier -end food service businesses. 41. ..supports the use of public docks at 15th and 19th Streets exclusively for loading and unloading, and for short term docking of pleasure boats, and encourages relocation of sport fishing activities to adjacent beaches, as a safety measure. 42. ..objects to the public display of obscene and scatological slogans and graphics in retail establishments and encourages the retail community to clean up its act! CA96PLCY 11/31/96 teh DONA COLOMBERO REAL ESTATE BROKER 1003 EAST BALBOA BLVD. PHONE (714) 673-6372 BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 SHARON WOOD ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 DEAR SHARON: RE: 8-11-97 ORD 97-30 AS I HAVE LISTENED TO YOU EXPLAIN SO MANY ITEMS OVER THIS PAST YEAR I CAM TO REALIZE THAT YOU ARE TRULY A WHIZ AT FINANCING. THE "NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT AREA" SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN EQUITABLE WAY OF IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF DOWNTOWN... AND CERTAINLY A WAY FOR THE AREA PROPERTY OWNERS AND MERCHANTS TO RECEIVE SOME VALUE FOR THEIR MANY EXPENSES,, INCLUDING THE IN LIEU PARKING FEES... PERHAPS THIS WILL ALSO PRESENT AN INCENTIVE TO THOSE WHO MAY BE LESS SENSITIVE TO PRESENT CONDITIONS. AS YOU MAY KNOW OUR OWN "NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT AREA" FROM A TO H STREETS IS NOW IN THE PROCESS OF UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES, PAID FOR MOSTLY BY THE AREA RESIDENTS. SINCE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT I KNOW WHAT A TOUGH JOB IT IS TO SELL THE IDEA OF SPENDING A LITTLE MONEY TO RECEIVE A BIG BENEFIT ... SO IF I CAN BE OF ANY HELP, JUST GIVE ME A CALL. BE WISHES, DONA COLOMBERO RECEIVED'BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN ' "'' 0 1997 pM 71919,$IUIU111 3141516 skax,ow CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 10, 1997 Ms. Clarice W. Costello 514 Brightwaters Drive Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Ms Clarice W. Costello: Recently I received a copy of your letter to the City Council regarding the City's efforts to revitalize and improve the Balboa Peninsula. I'm not sure from your letter if you've actually had a chance to read the reports related to the revitalization program or the City Council's actions upon receipt of the report from the advisory committee that undertook the project culminating in their report entitled Project 2000. To that end, I've attached a copy of the newsletter that was forwarded to all City residents regarding this matter which- provided an overview of what aspects of the study will be going forward and what will not. In terms of the questions, raised about drainage, I've forwarded your request for information to our Public Works Director for further response, but I am sure you're aware that the Balboa Peninsula was built many years ago at a grade established in the early 1900's. With the exceptionally flat topography, periodic high tides which force the, City to close our tidal valves or face sea water in our streets, all mixed with rainstorms, it is nearly impossible to eliminate all periodic flooding of the streets and in exceptional circumstances of private property. There are several blocks which the City has improved on Balboa Boulevard in recent years, including drainage systems, at a cost of over $1 million per two block stretch, which have corrected the flooding problems near Newport Elementary School. There are additional projects planned in the future which the Public Works Director can comment on further. Thanks for your letter and further questions on drainage should be directed to Mr. Don Webb, Public Works Director, and on the Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Project to Ms. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager. Sincerely, el by City Mana er City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard 9 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 CLARICE W. COSTELLO 514 Brightwaters Drive Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 October 28, 1997 city -Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen and Ladies of the Council RECEIVED -97 NOV -5 MI 935 OCITtY Of NEWPORT BEACH We own property on Newport Blvd. (2833, 2901-2905). My family has owned property in Newport since the 19301s. I am very concerned about the "Project 2000" and hope that you abandon the ideas that have been presented. These planswould completely take away from the charm that has always been Newport Beach. I am also concerned for the condition of Newport Blvd. in front of the stores we own. In the past, the stores have been flooded due to the fact that the drainage is so poor. I would like to request that you send someone out to look at the situation as when E1 Nino comes, so do the rains. If the drainage were better on Newport Blvd., we would appreciate it. Alsq; the condition of the street and the sidewalks is very poor. Repaving would go a long way in improving the appearance of the.city. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, GRACE WEDEKIND INTERVIVOS TRUST Clarice Wedekind Costello Date «' 7 Copies Sent To. g�ayar �uncil Member er /❑ Attorney oN�#ae CHRIST CHURCH BYTHE' $EA 1.400,, West Balboa Boulevard Newport%Beach, Qa1ifornia.92661-1011 (714) 673-3805 1 FAX (714) 673-2957 Rev. George•R. 064,p;'Pastor September 24, 1997' To Whom It May Concern:, I am ,writing to you today as the'-Charman,of the Board'of Trustees of Christ_ Church by the Sea'Un±tdd Methodist: We are located at` 1400 W. Balboa Boulevard; and encompass nine ('9'),contiguous lots, our church is comprised of 250.,members'and -our Sunday services draw about 150 persons'. "We also run, a children's pre-school and day- care center, iicen'sed by the, State of Caiifornia., which ,has an average attendance of 75 children 'each, weekday,:; We are particularly -interested in three of the priorities contained within Project 2000..- A.s you •can 'well imagine,, 'the ,parkingmanageinent .plan' will ,have a positive ;or negati've, impact on us on a daily basis... Sign regulations ,oh the. ,peninsula'-,wili'tend-- to •enhance,: or detract from,, ,our ability to tel'1 "folk's'.' about out church an •it's. programs. Finally, we.have a doctrinal 'interest in -the strict.regulation.ot businesses which engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages. We intend to be articulate and persuasive"when the above issues come before any planning body, or the City Council- This -letter is just to inform you as to our future involvement in,'the direction of Project 2000. ,,Thank you.for your attention.. 'Sincerely,, • �/tea • _ ' Chuck Remiey Chairman•„'Board,of'Tfustees FOURTH AMENDMENT TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT THIS Amendment is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter "City" and RICK HEIL, hereinafter "Permittee" to amend that certain Encroachment Agreement between the parties dated May 17, 1996. RECITALS A. Section 5 of the Encroachment Agreement allows for the extension of the Agreement for two (2) additional one (1) year terms. B. The Encroachment Agreement was amended on May 10, 1999, to extend the Agreement for up to twelve (12) additional one (1) year terms. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE the parties wish to amend the Encroachment Agreement as follows: 1. The Encroachment Agreement is hereby extended for one (1) additional one (1) year term, through and including May 16, 2001. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Encroachment Agreement and all amendments remain in full force and effect. The parties have executed and approved this amendment to Agreement effective as of the date written below. Dated: 4—IL, 2000 Permittee Dated: —All, 2000 F:\Users\PLN\Shared\FRMRSMMCDM\FOURTHAMENDCDM.doe ' I 1 City of Newport Beach o • I �1 Ap to form: ROBIN L. CLAUSON Assistant City Attorney + .t Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - C. E. PARKER Attorney at Law 18101 Charter Road Villa Park, CA 92861-2638 Telephone: (714) 637 8146 Fax (714) 637 9173 July 28,1997 Mayor Janice DeBay City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor DeBay: RECEIVED 097 JLL 29 A 9.52 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Before the city council takes up consideration of the question of the rehabilitation of the Balboa Peninsula it should be fully aware that all the private titles in Newport Bay, as are shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County California are void as a matter of law for the reasons cited in the following letter to a former student. We contemplate advising any and all future lenders as to these lands that they risk exposure to future governmental regulation if they extend loans with the intent of having the private claimant promisors secure the affected property for the lack of a legally marketable title. We urge you and the city council not to ignore the consequences of this matter as we have filed a complaint with the State Bar of California already as to any attorneys who have previously ignored our admonition that these titles are void. July 5,1997 Ms. Ann Avery Andres, Esq. Attorney at Law 322 West Third Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Ann: As one of my former students you are one of the few attorneys in Orange County today that can remember the George A. Parker foundation. I enclose a biographical sketch about my father, and myself, noting that my mother, Dorothy Parker, passed Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 2 O - away this last June 15th at the age of 99 years and 2 months. She was the last surviving member of the first class to graduate from Santa Ana College in 1917. The college was established on the high school campus in 1915, the year my mother and father finished high school at Santa Ana. You are also aware that my father was a recipient of the Franklin G. West award, the highest award the Orange County Bar Association can bestow on an attorney or a judge. Judge West was also a graduate of Santa Ana High School, Class of 1913. My wife's mother, Esther Segerstrom, was in that same class. Both my father and Franklin West were fully aware of the implications involved in the series of lawsuits that they were involved in in the 1920s regarding supposed boundary lines in Newport Bay. Judge Emerson Marks, later of the 4th District Court, presided over all of these cases. He also knew full well the implications of what was transpiring in these series of cases. I have attempted to gain the attention of the Orange County Bar as to the problem without success - though I believe Michelle Reinglass and the other county bar presidents fully knew the implications of the issues we were raising. We sought to gain the attention of the State Bar, particularly through one of its former vice presidents, Joseph McGucken, General Counsel of the Bank of California in San Francisco - again, without success. We have submitted the entire question to the State Bar's Disciplinary System, and, it has undertaken an investigation of the allegations we have raised. My father, on Easter Sunday, 1978, admitted to me all the information I had then ,procured regarding the titles in Newport Bay. This can be fully summarized in the legal conclusion that all the titles are void - and were void ab initio. At the time I still had a Tidelands Task Force at Western State University. Members of that task force included, among others, ,Jeremy Plust and Tom Frederick. My grandfather, C. E. Parker, founder of Orange County Title Company, in 1889, later to become First American Title Company, was a close friend of both James Irvine, Jr., and James McFadden, the founder of Newport Beach. I believe my grandfather was financed by Irvine in founding the Orange County Title Company. Irvine never admitted to doing such things and the Parkers who could confirm that are no longer around. What I do know, and my father admitted, was that C. E. Parker was the personal notary for James Irvine Jr., in respect to all documents that had to be signed by him and recorded in Orange County up to the time of my grandfather's death in 1930. Irvine and McFadden always used one surveying firm for all their work through the years. That was the surveying team of Colonel S. H. Finley. Finley had an office that joined the Orange County Title Company office at 4th and Main streets through the years - the two firms had connecting doors. The Finley maps were utilized by the title company, and after Finley's death became part of the title company archives. Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 3 Back in 1869 S. S. Dunnells of San Diego established what was later to be called. the McFadden Landing, and/or Port Orange, In Newport Bay. He sold the landing in 1873 to James McFadden and his two brothers. The landing was located just north of the present upper Newport Bay Bridge on the Pacific Coast Highway. In 1879 Irvine sued McFadden over the titles as to both the Irvine Ranch lands and the tidelands adjoining - and received a judgment in his favor in 1880. As a consequence, a few years later McFadden sought out the possibilities of gaining lands on the Newport peninsula. In 1880 he was well aware that a new constitution had been adopted, and that it included Article XV (now Article X), relating to tidelands. So, he arranged for Finley to be bonded as a deputy United States Surveyor and survey Township 6 South, Range 10 West, SBB&M. To the extent that Finley surveyed uplands within the Township he had to violate federal law at the time as public surveys were and are not permitted across privately owned lands. James Irvine, Sr., had died in 1886, leaving his estate in trust for his then minor son, James Irvine, Jr. In 1889 when Finley surveyed Township 6 South no one was occupying or managing the lands of the Irvine Ranch, or at least were not aware of Finley's survey. To the extent that Finley was surveying lands seaward of the littoral boundaries of the ranch (which was there a part of the Ranchos Santiago de Santa Ana and San Joaquin) he was without authority, since it is a matter of federal law that there can be no public domain seaward of the boundaries of ranchos confirmed under United States law. Borax Consolidated Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 1 Finley called them tidelands in his field notes but someone later altered the field. notes to call them swamp lands subject to tidal overflow. In 1892 McFadden applied for a portion of the lands Finley had surveyed in 1889 to the State of California, calling them swamp and overflowed lands in his application. He received a patent from the state in 1892, labelling them swamp and overflowed lands. The lands Finley and McFadden knew were tidelands, subject to the ebb and flow of ,' the tides - not swamp and overflowed lands. Being legally classified as tidelands they were subject to Civil Code 1 830, adopted in 1872, that required for any tidelands to be conveyed under a state patent they had to be labeled as such in a state patent. Since they were not the lands patented to McFadden in 1892 were void on this ground alone. A little known statute has been on the books since 1872 in the state of California. It is the Statutes of 1869-70, Chapter 575, pp 875-878, which declared that the state had no power to convey any tidelands, swamp and overflowed lands, or salt marsh to a private party that was within two miles of any village or town in the State of 1 296 U.S. 10, 56 S. Q. 23, 80 L. Ed. 9. Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 4 California. After McFadden built the Newport Pier in 1888, and started operation of his railroad from the pier to Santa Ana in 1891, the town or village of Newport was in existence. Had these lands been swamp and overflowed lands they would not have been conveyed by the -state under its patent for this reason, and the titles are void ab initio. The patents in Newport Bay were issued under the supposed authority of the Statutes of 1867-68, Chapter 415, page 507. The purpose of this statute was to implement the Arkansas Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of September 28, 1850. 2 There are no swamp and overflowed lands in Township 6 South, nor could there be, as a matter of law, according to Borax Consolidated, Also, the statute limited any grant by the state to a maximum of 320 acres. The McFadden patent called for 420.85 acres of land - The McFadden patent is void on that ground alone. All the parties were well aware that they were seeking to pull off a fraud upon the State of California in this matter. 3 Continuing to aid and assist in carrying out such a fraud is also a breach of ethics under the California Business and Professions Code 4 Any lawyer who assists and/or aids the procurement of a title policy as to such lands in also aiding and abetting the violation of the insurance code - all violations of .any code section being in of itself a violation of the code of ethics. 5 The denial by any lawyer, including public lawyers, that there has been violations of the law, also constitute a breach of ethics. Lawyers for both the State Lands Commission and the Orange County County Counsel's office have denied such wrong doing in the past in the context considered here. Thus, I have filed my complaint with the State Bar of California, and await their investigation of the matter. Since I believe that both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have both been parties to breaches in this area of the law - I am not hopeful that the State Bar will do anything. The United States Supreme Court committed serious error in Banning Co. v. People 6 when it held that the state could validly patent tidelands within or near the city of Wilmington in 1888, during a period of time that Wilmington, incorporated as a city in the 1870s, was disincorporated, beginning in 1886. It was reincorporated in 1889, and became later a part of the City of Los Angeles. This, according to the court, 2 9 U.S. Statutes at Large 517, 43 U.S.C. II 981-984. 3 1 deem lawyers to be lawyers are bound to know the law,and knowing he law they would have to find the titles above void ab initio, and knowing the law, they are bound by their failure to recognize a void title, or recognizing that it is void, treating it as valid, in either case, constitutes a fraud. Dealey v. East San Mateo land Co. (1913) 21 Cal. App. 39, 130 P. 1066; Kreamer v. Earl, 91 Cal. 112,27 P. 735 (1891); Mosely v. Torrence, 71 Cal. 318,12 P. 430 (1886). 4 Business and Professions Code II6068 et seq. 5 Insurance Code II 12660 and 12661. 6 240 U.S. 142.60 L. Ed. 569,36 S. Ct. 338. -, Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 5 was because Article XV (now Article X) Section 3 of the 1879 California Constitution barred the grant or sale of tidelands within two miles of any incorporated city in the State of California, and Wilmington was not incorporated at the time. Yet, the court failed to note in the briefs to the court that California had a law on the books at the time of the state patent that itself barred the conveyance of any swamp and overflowed lands, salt marsh, or tidelands, within two miles of any town or village in the state. 7 While Wilmington was admittedly not incorporated at the time, it was still a town or village within the meaning of the 1870 statute. The California Supreme Court has sanctioned the apparent rule of law in recent years that if tidelands have made dry by reason of reliction or being dredged and filled in they are no longer useful for purposes of commerce, navigation and fisheries. In at least two cases this error of law has been committed directly by the court itself. 8 The opinions were in both cases written by very able judges, without question. Yet, knowingly or unknowingly they were, by these opinions, directly violating the constitution of the State of California. In Mansell, written by Justice Marshall McComb, the court held that since the lands in dispute were no longer useful for purposes of commerce, navigation and fisheries, they fell within a class that was an exception to Article X, Section 3 of the California Constitution, that small parcels of tidelands could be conveyed by the State of California free of the public trust, for that reason, adopting the so-called American exception of the common law, considered in Illinois Central R Co. v. Illinois 9 as the so-called California exception to Article X, Section 3. No such exception could exist after adoption of the 1879 California Constitution, since the Constitution itself declares, in Article I, Section 26, that all sections of it are mandatory and prohibitory unless expressly declared otherwise in the Constitution itself. There is no express exception in the California Constitution as was supposedly found in Mansell. The exception is no exception at all as a matter of constitutional law, and the titles which were the subject of the Mansell case remain suspect to this day. Prior to 1879, and since 1850, when California was admitted to the Union, the so- called common law exception of Illinois might have some application if it was found that there was a grant or patent of state tidelands or submerged lands in the interest of commerce, navigation and fisheries, and, simultaneously, the state grant represented a relatively small parcel in any given harbor, bay or estuary of the state. Statutes of 1869.70, Chapter 573, pp 875-878. Klauher v. Higgins,117 Cal. 451. a Berkeley v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. 3d 515,606 P. 2d 362 (1980), and Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal. 3d462,91 CA 23, 476 P. 2d 423 (1970). 9 146 U.S. 387, 36 L. Ed. 1018,13 S. Ct. 110 (1892). Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 6 If either factor is missing the American exception does not apply. Examples of where the American exception fails are the supposed state grants of tidelands on the waterfront of the City and County of San Francisco, considered in Berkeley, cited above, and, in the grants made under the apparent authorization of the Stautes of 1857, Chapter 82, in Humboldt Bay. In the Humboldt Bay statute the statute itself declares on its face that it is for the benefit of the waterfront owners of lands adjoining Humboldt Bay within then newly created federal townsite of Eureka. In the San Francisco waterfront case the grants of waterlots to the City and County of San Francisco was for the fiscal affairs of that city and county,and not in aid of commerce, navigation and fisheries. There could be no so-called common law exception in California after 1879, by reason of the adoption of the new constitution that year. This is because Article XV, Section 2 (now Article X, Section 4) became part of that organic law. This article and section, in effect, imposes a constitutional servitude for any public purpose, not purposes limited to commerce, navigation and fisheries, the latter being merely one of those public purposes after 1850. The section makes clear that a liberal construction should be given to it to carry out its intended purpose - and no liberal construction is needed to recognize that at no time after 1879 can the state give away any portion of its public trust lands except as they remain subject to the public trust. When the People of the United States declared their independence from the King of England on July 4, 1776, there was a merger of the then existing jus privatum or naked fee title held by the King in trust for his subjects with the sovereign title, or jus publicum, held by his subjects. The colonists, by this declaration, became the new sovereign over their respective states, and, a merger took place in the context of the Statute of Uses, placing the entire fee simple absolute title in the former public trust lands in the People. Only as the respective constitutions of the individual states, after 1776, gave to the state legislatures both the jus publicum and jus privatum, only the jus privatum would pass to the legislatures, and the People would retain the jus publicum, or sovereign title. That is, the legislatures would hold only the naked fee title in public trust lands for the benefit of the People of the particular state. When each succeeding state entered the Union under the United States Constitution a similar merger would take place - and did in California. All of the fee simple absolute title in public trust lands passed to the People of the State of California on September 9,1850, on the date of the admission of that state to,the Union. The 1850 constitution made no mention of the public trust lands - and, thus, only the naked fee title in these lands passed to the legislature. The legislature could only convey such naked fee title, except as the so-called American exception, noted above, might have application. The People of the State of California did not part with their jus publicum. Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 7 The 1879 California Constitution did mention public trust lands, particularly in Article XV (now Article X), and, in various other articles, such as Article XV, Section 25, adopted in 1910. But, it was not to pass the sovereign title or jus publicum in these lands but to make the future use of them more restrictive than had been the case at the common law. That is, the legislature was empowered to use these lands for any public use or purpose, and not uses and purposes limited to commerce, navigation and fisheries, now merely one of those public uses or purposes. If the legislature determined to use certain public trust lands for hotels and/or convention centers, for a limited period of time, this was the legislative prerogative. 10 If the legislature wanted to leave such lands available for bathing and fishing, etc., not activities recognized within the use for commerce, navigation and fisheries, this was their prerogative. 11 If the legislature wanted to utilize these lands for residential subdivision purposes for a limited period of time, this is also their prerogative, notwithstanding the decision in Arques v. Sausalito 12 to the contrary. The choice of uses is that of the legislature and has never been the prerogative of the courts. The erroneous assumption by one appellate court 13 that the Supreme Court was determining that all public trust lands must be kept in their natural state is an example of where the judiciary can go astray. What the courts were never permitted to do at any time, since this was never a prerogative of the legislature, was to convey the entire fee simple absolute title, or recognize that the legislature had conveyed the entire fee simple absolute title in trust lands. Yet, the California Supreme Court in Mansell and Berkeley suggested that the power was there. It is not! Any use of these lands inconsistent with the needs of the public have always constituted a public nuisance per se if they interfered with navigation, and a purpresture if they did not. In either event, such uses are abatable at any time at the prerogative of the legislature, and/or its co -trustees 14 or seizable and arrentable is by the state at any time. 10 Martin v. Smith, 184 Cal. 2d 571, 7 CR 725. tt Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251m 98 CR 79% 491 P. 3d 374 (1971) California v. Superior Court (Lyon), 29 Cal. 3d 210, 172 CR 696, 625 P. 2d 239 (1991); California (Fogarty) v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 3d 240,625 P. 2d 256, 172 CR 713. 12 126 Cal. App. 2d 403,272 P. 2d 58 (1954) is Lyon v. Western Title Insurance Co.,178 Cal. App. 3d 1191, 224 Cal. Rptr385 (1986) 14 The legislature can make other state entities co -trustees and did under such laws as the Statutes of 1919, Chapter 494, and the Statutes of 1919, Chapter 526, where the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange were delegated administration over tidelands in Newport Bay. "But always subject to the public trust. People v. Davidson, 30 Cal. 379. Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - 8 Even with a valid conveyance of the naked legal fee to a private party, which can be done if Article X, Section 3 is not applicable to the particular tidelands, the interest of the private person in such lands does not reach beyond a standing of being a licensee of the state - such license being revocable at any time. Any improvements made on such lands by private parties, beiing either public nuisances or purprestures, may be taken without compensation, just or otherwise, as with the public trust lands themselves, since this is done under the police power of the state, not the power of eminent domain, where a licensee's standing is nill. 16 Another serious error by the Caifornia Supreme Court arose out of the case of Teschemacher v. Thompson. 17 in which the eminent Chief Justice Stephen J. Field adopted as the common law test the "neap tide" line for the boundaries between tidelands and uplands in California. What was not recognized is that the littoral boundaries between tidelands and uplands in California were determined under federal, never state law. Any private titles confirmed as existed prior to 1850 were confirmed under the United States Lands Claims Act of March 3, 1851. Any public domain littoral to the Pacific Ocean was ceded to the United States by the State of California under the Act of Admission of the State of California, on September 9, 1850. California had no role in determining the mean high tide line in this state. California law considers that each citizen is part of the class referred to as the People and consequently have a standing to sue where there has been an encroachment by any member of the class wrongfully on tidelands. Where the state has validly granted the naked fee title to a private party this standing does not exist. But when the adverse interest has been asserted by one not having any title each member of the class is entitled to act for the entire class, the People. 17 as a private attorney general. In doing so, they can seek attorneys fees and costs within the scope of CCP 9 1021.5. If you think that this problem will just go away you should review the relatively recent case of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. State of Mississippi. 18 I am circulating this letter to as many of my former students as possible since the press will not publish my comments on this subject. I find that the press is like the present governor of the state, who prefers to - Hear no evil - speak no evil - see no evil - when they should be like Pogo who said _ I have met the enemy, and he is us. 16 Coronado v. Son Diego Unified Port Dist. 227 Cal. App.; 2d455,38 CR 834 (1964), Oakland v. E. K. Wood Lumber Co., 211 Cal. 16, 292 P. 1076, 80 A.L.R. 379 (1930); Yokohama Species Bank v. Unosuke Higashi, 56 Cal. App. 2d 709, 133 P. 2d 487 (1943). 17 18 Cal. 11 79 Am. Dec. 151 (1859). " 484 U.S. 469 108 S. Ct. 791, 98 L. Ed. 2d 877 (1988) 4 Letter - Roy V. Shafer, Orange County Title Co. - to W. W. Clary, O'Melveny & Myers I Roy V. Shafer to William W. Clary - Dec. 5, 1941 APPENDIX 5 Taken from File of Roy V. Shafer Orange County Title Company File No. 20-18 December 5, 1941 O'Melveny & Myers, Attorneys at Law 433 South Spring Street Los Angeles, California. Gentlemen: Attention Mr. William W. Clary In re your S-3221. We have your letter of the 3d instant in regard to the property of California Institute of Technology involved in Orange County Superior Court Action No. 40024. For a great numbers of years, an unsatisfactory condition existed as to the title to properties bordering upon Newport Bay in that the line between the uplands owned by the individual owners and the tidelands and submerged lands owned by the State was uncertain. In order to correct this situation, an extensive program was planned and ultimately carried out. First, the City of Newport Beach obtained a legislative grant to tidelands bordering in, upon and under Newport Bay not theretofore granted to the County of Orange (Statutes of 4927, page 125, chapter 70). Subsequently an association was formed, attorneys retained by the association, and the firm of Leeds and Barnard, consulting engineers, retained to survey the line of ordinary high tide. Thereafter, actions were filed by the City of Newport Beach against the respective upland owners and in each of these actions judgments were rendered in 1928 fixing the line of ordinary high tide, quieting title to the upland owners to the lands lying above and submerged lands lying below the said line. In order that the matter might not be too cumbersome, the line was broken up into parts and separate actions filed as to each part of the line. On July 30th, 1928, by Superior -Court Action 07/27/97 Letter - Roy V. Shafer, Orange County Title Co. - to W. W. Clary, O'Melveny & Myers - 2 No. 26388, the line of ordinary high tide was determined in and to that portion of Newport Bay commencing at what is now approximately the foot of the East jetty of the entrance channel and running North-westerly to a point approximately off the East end of Balboa Island. These judgments were confirmed and the lines so determined were declared to be the lines of ordinary high tide by the act of the Legislature (Statutes of 1929, page 274, chapter 142). Thereafter, this Company issued several guaranties and policies of title insurance covering lands adjacent to the line so fixed, one of which is our guaranty of title No. 118217 showing title in California Institute of Technology, and prior thereto had issued our Guaranty Nos. 90347 showing title in Arthur A. Noyes. The property described in our guaranty for Dr. Noyes has since passed to the California Institute of Technology by reason of decree of distribution in the matter of the state of Dr. Noyes. We have also issued policies covering properties of other owners in the immediate neighborhood. In 1919 the State of California granted to the County of Orange all tidelands submerged lands bordering upon, in and under Newport Bay, outside the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach (Statutes of 1919, page 1138, chapter 526.) About three years ago, the writer discovered that the North- easterly one-half of the entrance channel to Newport Bay, running from the point where the jetty begins back to the point approximately off Balboa Island, was outside the corporate limits of the City at the date of the County Grant of 1919, and that therefore the tidelands and submerged lands in the said North- easterly one-half of the entrance channel are owned by the County of Orange and not by the City of Newport Beach. The property, however, was annexed to the City in 1924., Consequently, the City of Newport Beach is not the owner of the tidelands submerged lands adjacent to the line fixed in Action No. 26388, which lands includes those owned by the California Institute of Technology, and the party plaintiff in said Action No. 26388 should have been the County of Orange. This matter has been discussed at length with the City Attorney and City Engineer of Newport Beach, Mr. Andrews of the firms of Cosgrove & O'Neil, representing the Citizens National Trust & Savings of Los Angeles, Mr. R. C. Mize, who was one of the attorneys for the defendants in the original actions, and Mr. James G. Scarborough, attorney for The Irvine Company. The writer took it upon himself to attempt to correct this situation and has been working on it for three years. He presented the matter to the Supervisors, who authorized the County Counsel to proceeds. In the Complaint you will notice that an attempt is being made to fix the same line as was heretofore fixed in Action No. 26388. The majority of the defendants in the action, other than the City of Newport Beach, hold our policies or guaranties. The writer is now preparing drafts of an Answer to be submitted to our insured. The answer to the first question in your letter is "yes", that the line does constitute one of the boundaries of lands owned by the Institute. The answer to 07/27/97 • . Letter- Roy V. Shafer, Orange County Title Co. - to W. W. Clary, O'Melveny & Myers - the second question is that this same line was purported to have been fixed in the former suit and the description in our guaranty Nos. 118217 ties to this line. The Noyes guaranty was issued in 1926 and consequently the description therein does not tie to this line. The answer to the third question in your letter is that the line fixed by the former judgment was determined by the Leeds and Bernard survey which is on file as an exhibit in the former action and the new County Suit, Action No. 40024, seeks to establish the same line. The following are the Legislative enactments affecting lands at Newport Bay: (a) The City Grant of 1919 (Statutes of 1919, page 1011, Chapter 494). This grant has no application in the instant case, because it is limited to a grant of lands in front of uplands then owned by the City or thereafter acquired by the City. This grant was rather limited in its effect as it only passed title to two or three parcels in Newport Beach, none of which is in the vicinity of the land of the Institute. (b) The County Grant of 1919 (Statutes of 1919, page 1138, Chapter 526). This is the grant which passed the tidelands adjacent to the lands of the Institute. (c) The City Grant of 1927 (Statutes of 1927, page 125, Chapter 70). (d) The Act of 1929 confirming the Court Decrees (Statutes of 1929, page 274, Chapter 142). K (e) The City Grant of 1929 (Statutes of 1929, page 1704, Chapter 813). The effect of this grant was to pass the ocean frontage to the City. (f) The Act of 1929 amending the County Grant of 1919 (Statutes of 1929, page 974, Chapter 575). This changed the terms of leasing in the original grant from 25 to 50 years. As we stated before, the only Legislative Grants affecting the property in question are the County Grant of 1919 as amended in 1929, and the act of 1929 confirming the Court Decrees. I am enclosing herewith a little sales map used by real estate brokers at Corona del Mar. The line in red is the line fixed by the Decree in Action No. 26388, and is the same line which it is being attempted to fix in the new action. The parcel colored in blue is the former Noyes property and the parcel colored in yellow is the other property of the Institute. The other lines in the bay are the bulkhead line, pierhead line and dredging project line, respectively. I have prepared, as I have stated, several forms of Answer and today have appointments with Mr. Mize and Mr. Scarborough, and you will probably hear from me further. If there is any information with which I can furnish you, I will be glad to do so. Yours truly, 07/27/97 Letter - Roy V. Shafer, Orange County Title Co. - to W. W. Clary, O'Melveny & Myers - Vice President ORANGE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY RVS:Im 07/27/97 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 1 C. E. Parker Attorney at Law 18101 Charter Road Villa Park, CA 92667 Telephone: (714) 637 8146 Fax (714) 637 9173 November 7, 1993 Mr. Oscar Beasley Vice President and General Counsel First American Title Company 114 East Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 File 8-7 Dear Oscar: We have not, yet apparently, gotten across to various parties the issue of the defective titles as relate to tidelands in various parts of California. We are now preparing to file in the United District Court two cases, as considered as follows. Before doing so we are giving you here an opportunity to comment on our action. We would stress that any title insurance issued on any parcel of land since 1939 where the title is void as a matter of law is a void title policy by reason of the violation of Insurance Code 9S 12660 and 12661. While some of the titles can be resolved favorably to private parties, in a court of law, most of these titles will require an enactment of a federal marketable title statute, ' in which Congress is presently totally disinterested. As to south San Francisco Bay, the issues relate to more than 50,000 acres of so-called swamp and overflowed lands. If Phillips Petroleum Co. v. State of Mississippi s Borax Consolidated Ltd. v. Los Angeles 3 are authority for the current and'valid law in the United States, including California, then under Evidence Code 13 452 (California) the finding that swamp and overflowed lands existed seaward of the rancho lines in south San Francisco Bay, and in Newport Bay, 4. must be found t I believe you have access to the draft that was prepared by the Land Record Improvement Committee of the ABA back in the early 1980s. _ (1988) 484 U.S. 469, 98 L. Ed. 2d 877, 108 S. Ct. 791 a 296 U.S. 10, 56 S. Ct. 23, 80 L. Ed. 9. 4 Listed as swamp and overflowed lands Location Nos. 106 and 139 in the records of the State of California, and other Beasley 7/27/97 2:35 pM page: 1 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 2 void as a matter of both federal and state law. This is because by law the littoral boundaries of all ranchos, confirmed under the United States Lands Claims Act of March 3, 1851. 5 are the ordinary or mean high tide line, as considered in Borax, supra, and a leading English case, Attorney General v. Chambers.' Swamp and overflowed lands, by lawful definition, had to be lands which were above the ordinary or mean high tide line, and thereby, public domain, on September 9, 1850, and thereby ceded to the United States of America under the Act of Admission of the State of California 7 on September 28, 1850, under the authority of the Arkansas Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of September 28, 1850. a . If said lands had been above the ordinary or mean high tide line as of September 9, 1850, they would have been a part of the littoral boundaries of the prospective ranchos, adjoining these bays. There could be no swamp and parcels, as shown on a map thereof recorded in Book 3, Page 7, Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County California. 9 9 U.S. Statutes at Large 631. 0 (1854) 4 De G.M. & G. 206,43 Eng. Rep. 486. See copy of same in Shalowitz, Shore and Sea Boundaries, Dept. of Commerce. 0 9 U.S. Statutes at Large 456. 9 U.S. Statutes at Large 519. See 43 USC IS 981-984. It should also be noted that Congress imposed a requirement under Section 3 of this statute (43 USC 1984), that required as a pre -condition that all swamp and overflowed lands be surveyed by quarter quarter section, to determine whether the great part of such parecl was we swamp and overflowed lands, to permit all of said quarter quarter section to pass to the state. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co. v. Smith, 76 U.S. (9 Wail.) 95, 19 L. Ed. 599. As to Newport Bay, if not also applicable to south San Francisco Bay, there was a failure to meet this federal requirement. Bates v. Halstead, 130 Cal. 44,62 P. 305,80 Am. St. Rep. 70 (1900). overflowed lands, by federal definition, seaward of those rancho lines. 9 Only as the so-called swamp and overflowed lands of south San Francisco Bay naturally accreted to the upland rancho lines, as considered in Hughes v. Washington. 10 and California ex rel State Lands Commission 11 would the public trust over these lands be terminated. But the title would have vested in the littoral rancho uplands to which they adjoined - and not to any claimants under any swamp and overflowed lands patents from the State of California. As to the tidelands of Newport Bay those tidelands that attached to the littoral boundaries of the ranchos, whether accreted or relicted naturally or artificially, under the authority of the above cases, the public trust would be terminated, if there was no intervening title interest by the State of California, after 1879, and subsequent to such accretions or relictions having resulted. An example of said lands is Bay Shores, developed by the Irvine Company, that are free of the public trust under the Hughes and the Lands Commission cases, supra. Another example is the lands of the Balboa Yacht Club, granted by the Irvine Company under a Special Warranty Deed, in the 1970s, and the 9 Had these rancho titles remained unperfected under the United States Lands Claims Act of March 2, 1851,. there might have been a better case of considering these lands to be legally swamp and overflowed lands, as it would then have been within the authority of the United States to determine and classify said lands as such, but this classificaton would have encroached on the authority of state as to its sovereign rights in tidelands, or lands below the ordinary or mean high tide line as of September 9, 1850. 10 389 U.S. 290, 88 S. Ct. 438, 39 L. Ed. 2d 530. 11 457 U.S. 273, 102 S. Ct. 2432, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1. Beasley 7/27/97 2:35 PM page: 2 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 3 lands of the Bahia de Corinthia Yacht Club. Examples of lands in which there has been an intervening state title or interest are the Balboa Bay Club, Beacon Bay, and the property of the County Beaches and Parks Department on Bayside Drive, by reason of deeds from the Irvine Company to the City of Newport Beach. Another parcel of this class is the Newport Dunes, in upper Newport Bay, though this land was outside the scope of the independent federal question as considered in Hughes and the Lands Commission cases. Also, Dover Shores, in upper Newport Bay, would not enjoy the benefits of the independent federal question and would remain subject to the inherent state public trust, similar to the lands in south San Francisco Bay. Where lands remain subject to the state public trust they also remain subject to the federal navigational servitude. Under the federal navigational servitude these lands can be condemned by the federal government without the need of paying any compensation, let alone just compensation.. 12 Being part of the public trust of the state the state also can reassert its interest at any time, not only by reason of the common law public trust which has encumbered said lands since September 9, 1850, but the constitutional servitude of Article X, 9 4 of the 1879 California Constitution. Under the common law trust, which became one of the several 11 United States v. Willow River Power Company, 324 U.S. 499, 65 S. Ct. 761, 89 L. Ed. 1101. servitudes of Article X, d 4 in 1879, any improvements on tidelands, whether done by public entities or private parties, constitute a public nuisance per se if they interfere with navigation, or a purpresture, if they do not. This is the reason that the state's authority over these lands is under its sovereign police power, and not the power of eminent domain. 13 . However, by reason of Article X, d 4 the state is not limited to asserting title to said property only by reason of the common law servitude, i.e., for commerce, navigation and fisheries. The federal government has always had the power to assert the power of eminent domain without compensation as considered in Willow River Power for any federal purpose, as authorized under the United States Constitution. 14 . Like California, the United States has never been limited to exercise of the federal navigational servitude only as it relates to commerce, navigation and fisheries, though Gibbons v. Ogden 15 . left that impression. The State of California has never had the power to convey the fee simple absolute title to tidelands to any private party. This is because the sovereign title, on September 9, 1850, vested in the People of the State of California, as it did with the People of each of the thirteen original states, when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. On that date the naked Ir People v. Davidson, 30 Cal. 379, Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 98 CR 790, 491 P. 2d 374. 14 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S. Ct. 98, 99 L. Ed. 27; Natural Resources Council v. Calloway, 392 Pad. Supp. 682. 1s (1824) 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. Beasley 727/97 2:35 PM page: 3 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 4 legal fee, or jus privatum, which vested in the subjects of the King, and the sovereign title, or jus publicum, vested in the King, as sovereign, prior to 1776, merged as of that date in the People of each state which became holders, henceforth, of the fee simple absolute title in said lands. Only as the People adopted a Constitution after 1776, giving their legislative power over the full jus publicum would the legislature have had the power to convey the full fee simple absolute in said lands. No such power was granted by the People of the State of California under either the 1849 or the 1879 California Constitutions. tb The greatest title that the legislature can convey, either to a public or private entity is the naked fee title which it has held since the state was admitted to the Union in 1850. The most appropriate vehicle for the state in a conveyances to private parties would be to convey a leasehold estate. 17 . In fact, since the state is required under the 1879 California Constitution to receive a full quid pro quo for all property, whether from a public or private entity to . the state can meet this requirement more appropriately under a leasehold in a manner more economically amenable to 11 It is for this same reason, if there has not been a similar constitutional grant of such power by the People of the State of Massachusetts since 1776 to their legislature, would the legislature have had any power over the entire fee simple absolute title in any tidelands of that state below the ordinary or mean high tide line - contrary to the current view that the legislature had the power over such fee, by reason of the Ordinance of 1641, down to the low water mark, which also relates to other states holding to this view. 11 San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake IL Co. v. Hamilton, 161 Cal. 610, 119 P. 2d 1072, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 686. 11 Article XVI, S 6, Mallon v. Long Beach, 44 Cal. 2d 199, 202 P. 2d 481. private lessees, validly protected by other federal and state constitutional considerations, though the anti -gift provision has long been loosely applied, if not entirely ignored by the courts. " Had the lands of Newport Bay and south San Francisco Bay been under state leaseholds greater management and control over the use of these lands could have been asserted by the state which would have been more compatible with the common law and constitutional trusts that were and are imposed on these lands. This would not have been as beneficial to private interests but that is exactly why the public trusts have been imposed. In the case of both south San Francisco Bay and Newport Bay the patents that were issued as to lands labeled swamp and overflowed lands, and, there could be no swamp and overflowed lands adjacent to and seaward from the ranchos, as noted above, there could have been no swamp and overflowed lands as to these particular parcels granted by the United States of America to the State of California for this reason. 20 If the patents were issued by the state after 1873, and they clearly were in the case of Newport Bay, no titles were conveyed by the state by reason of the Statutes of 1873-74, Chapter 612, which is now Civil Code 1 830. The patents, under this circumstance, are void, and thus, 19 See letter to judges respecting the law in California on this subject. S9 Because of this any patents of swamp and overflowed lands in either south San Francisco Bay or Newport Bay must be treated as void as a matter of both federal and state law. Also, for this reason the purported ratification under the Statutes of 1871-72, (Chapter 425, Page 622, to these lands, must also be treated as void. Beasley 727/97 2:35 PM page: 4 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 5 may be challenged by any one, public or private. 21 For this reason we are going to challenge the titles in both Newport Bay and south San Francisco Bay, as to any patents issued, whether before or after 1873, describing said lands as swamp and overflowed lands. We will also seek to validate those titles in both bays to the extent that the independent federal question applies under Hughes v. Washington, supra. For this reason, and the possible presence of the federal navigational servitude to these lands we will file our actions respectively in the United States District Court for Northern California and the United States District Court for Central California. It is our contention, in which we would ask the court to consider, is that the lands of both south San Francisco Bay and Newport Bay, that the patents were issued under the Statutes of 1867- 68, Chapter 415, Page 507. This statute was enacted to fulfill the purpose of the Arkansas Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of September 28, 1850. 22 Since, as a matter of law and fact, there were no swamp and overflowed lands in either bay, we will assert and contend that only as true swamp and overflowed lands are found in a state patent no tidelands included within the parcels of said patents would be conveyed under said patents under the 1867 act and by reason of Civil Code 1830. 11 St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co. v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636, 96 L. Ed. 875, and related cases. See also Edwards Y. Rolley, 96 Cal. 408, 31 P. 267. u 9 U.S. Statutes at Large 519,43 U.S.C. 55 981-984. Where there are true swamp and overflowed lands 23 within a state patent all tidelands which were an integral part 24 would be released from both the federal navigational servitude and the state public trust would be terminated as to said lands by reason of the Arkansas act, which duly enacted by Congress, is the Supreme Law of the Land under the United States Constitution. We would bring to the court's attention that the state was empowered under the Arkansas Act to impose its own limitations on the grant of true swamp and overflowed lands, and that the 1879 California Constitution imposed a maximum limit to any one patentee to 320 acres, and that the patent in Newport Bay in 1892 to James McFadden as to 420.85 acres of such lands would be a direct and patent violation of Article XVII, 9 3, adopted in 1879, and repealed only in 1972, as to this particular article. We would also bring to the court's attention the fact that all swamp and overflowed lands, tidelands, or salt marsh issued after 1870, within two miles of any town or village in the state of California would be in direct violation of the Statutes of 1869-70, 25 and all said titles would be void as a matter of state law for this reason alone. We would note that lands such as Coney Island in upper Newport Bay u And, we believe this to be limited to lands of the public domain which are littoral and adjacent to the navigable waters and/or non -navigable waters of the State of California, duly selected as properly determined by both federal and state law. " Upham v. Hoskins, 62 Cal. 250, 2 CU 134. u Klauber v. Higgins, 117 Cal. 451, 49 P. 466 (1897). Beasley 7/27/97 2:35 PM page: 5 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 6 were above the ordinary or mean high tide line as of September 9, 1850, and, thus, public domain. Coney Island is public domain since it was not included within the rancho boundary that meandered upper Newport Bay. Being public domain it was ceded to the United States of America on September 9, 1850, but, not regranted to the State of California under the swamp and overflowed lands law, since it was not legally public domain of this class. 26 Coney Island is still vested in the United States of America today. ' As to all the islands in both bays, if existing before September 9, 1850, they are similarly situated to Coney Island and the doctrine of Mission Bay and the Lattig case. 2s Any islands formed after September 9, 1850, are tidelands, and being tidelands remain so whether formed by artificial or natural accretions or relictions, and whether the independent federal question applies or not. This is because they are considered w Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229, 57 L. Ed. 490,33 S. Ct. 242 (1913), and United States v. Mission Rock Co., 189 U.S. 391, 47 L. Ed. 865, 23 S. Ct. 606. 21 It has also been asserted that Bay Island in lower Newport Bay was above the ordinary or mean high tide line as of September 9, 1850. We would ask the court to determine whether it as nor not, noting only that if found to be public domain, like Coney Island, it is vested in the United States of America today. All additional accretions or relictions to this island would also remain vested in the United States of America today, and not the private claimants of this parcel of land. Is We will note that the United States Supreme Court committed error in Stewart v. United States, 316 U.S. 354, 62 S. Ct. 1154, 86 L. Ed. 1537, (1942) , as the so-called swamp and overflowed lands in that case would have been, f In fact they were above the ordinary or mean high tide line on September 28, 1850, part of the rancho on which the later Mare Island was located, or tidelands if the federal littoral boundary line was determined to be landward of that. to accrete or relict to the bottom of the bay, itself subject to the state public trust. 29 . By the fact that they were formed after September 9, 1850, they could not be, as a matter of federal law, swamp and overflowed lands for -the reasons noted above. 30 While Berkeley v. Superior Court 31 related to tidelands grants not under'the Statutes of 1867-68, we will contend that it was not within the constitutional power of the California Supreme Court, ever, to terminate the public trust to any tidelands in California, except as the independent federal question would apply, and that this case, as well as Long Beach v. Mansell. 32 are in constitutional error, and remain so today. In any event, all relevant issues of law should be considered, whether or not raised in the pleadings. " Otherwise, Evidence Code 9 452, and Article I, 9 26 of the California Constitution, as applied to the matters raised here, could not be properly applied as a matter of law. Sincerely, s/ Ted C. E. Parker 11 Balboa Island, Lido isle, Harbor Island, and Linda Island, all fall within this classification. 3' Packer v. Bird, 137 U.S. 819, 34 L. Ed. 819, 11 S. Ct. 210 (1886), (affirming 71 Cal. 134, 11 P. 873), Glassell v. Hansen, (1906) 135 Cal. 548, 87 P. 200. 11 26 Cal. 3d 515, 606 P. 2d 362 (1980). 11 3 Cal. 3d 462,91 CR 23, 476 P. 2d 423 (1970). 71 Goldberg v. Thompson, 96 Cal.117, 30 P. 1019. Beasley 7/27/97 235 PM page: 6 Letter to Oscar Beasley - November 7, 1993 - 7 onclosums The, f6llowing. cartoon it the only reply that re(*19ed inponso it*- 116 th6 Iftv, lwd it vasItorn Donald Parker Kennedy, the -of First Amen' -can Title - Cbmpafty. Beasley 7/27/97 2:35 PM page: 7 stabar.tif THE STATE • BAR OF CALIFORNIA 1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, May 16, 1997 C. E. Parker 18101 Charter Rd. Villa Park, CA 92667 Re: Inquiry No.: 97 18096 B,espondent : Harry Miller Dear Mr. Parker: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL INTAKE (213)765.1000 FAX: (218) 765-1168 TDD 1: (213) 786.1666 This will acknowledge receipt of your additional information received on April 18, 1997. In your letter you state that Mr. Miller is not the respondent, but all legal writers on the law of real property in California including every city attorney and county counsel and district attorney. The authority of the State Bar is limited by law. We can discipline an attorney, or recommend that he be disciplined, only for a wilful violation of the State Bar Act or the Rules of Professional Conduct. In order to review the conduct of an attorney for discipline we need a signed written statement from you detailing what the ,attorney did or did not do. With this information, we shall be in a better position to evaluate your complaint. Please provide this information to us within three weeks of the date of this letter. Respectfully, I����,��1 sabel Naetzel �. Special Investigator The Newport Beach Story - 1 E)GHBITS AND MAPS The following are exhibits and maps that support the foregoing report, and aid in explanation of points of fact and law in respect to the titles of the lands in Newport Bay, as recognized under Harbor and Navigations Code 1104. 526 Westminster Ave. Newport .Beach, Calif. Jan. 201 1982 C.E.. Parker Inc. 17291 Irvine Blvd.. Tustia, Calif. 92680 Dear Mr. Parker: Statements attributed to me in year title review of Newp Bay, I find correct. I could never testify that my row boat was floating over Strada Gaut= and Via Firenze, aide Isle, with a small island nearby, covered with salt grass instead of tales, back in the early 1920s. T was in the general area, is all I could say. Incidentally, i have deg razor clams on the mud flat that Later became Harbor Island. The way bay curpents and floods built-up, tors away and relocated islands, mud flats and channels over the years is amazing and the process is still going on. recall hearing stories of early -day harbor area realtors selling lots to people desiring to build belch homes who Sound they were under water. 1 wish I had bought a ,`.aw of thoso underwater lots. Thank you very much for the copy of "The Status of Pitic of Lands in Upper and Lower Newport Bay". I find it extremely interesting. Your tr 1 , .ke/. ' Hugh McMillan wrote a brief historical tract, Beach Rat Days, about his experiences growing up in Newport Beach and living around Newport Bay. He, along with many others, fished for clams and other marine life in the middle of what is today Lido Isle in the 1920's. The Newport Beach Story - 2 \I 0 y�c U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey of New uo- IT • +.mow:. ..�1�:,� y o ao 93, d surrounding area, The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration kept a library of old maps at their map rooms in Silver Spring, Maryland for a period of years. Several of these maps show Point Fermin as being the headlands of San Pedro Bay as it overlooks San Pedro day, and that the southerly headlands of The Newport Beach Story - 3 that bay is shown as a sanddune near the present-day site of the Newport Pier. These points were named by the British explorer, George Vancouver, who sailed along this coast in 1794. He.named them after the then President of the California Missions, Fr. Fermin de Lasuen, the successor to Fr. Junipero Serra. While Point Fermin as remained on current maps as a geographical point, the name Point Lasuen has disappeared from the current maps prepared by the NOAA. View of Linda Island in recent years, composed of dredged and fill material from the surrounding baylands View of Newport Beach, old town, about 1910, showing the Santa Ana and Newport Railroad line leading to Newport Pier, which later became Newport Avenue, turning into Bay Avenue on the The Newport Beach Story - 4 This Spence photo was taken in the early 1920's after the dredging and filling program had beem completed over the old route of the Santa Ana River from the new mouth of the river to Bayshores, upper center of the photo, which bordered the entrance to upper Newport Bay. The old railroad line and bridge still exists at the Arches. The marshland where Harbor Island and Beacon Bay were later developed, and the recently dredged and filled Balboa Island is shown in this picture, taken about 1910. The Newport Beach Story - 5 This picture labels geographic points of significance in Newport Bay, including Coney Island, in the foreground. Thi over the tide], The Newport Beach Story - 6 Y 1� uAlf - Chace's tents located between the B alboa Pavilion in 1910, and the present site of the Balboa Pier reflect the pioneer conditions of the village of Balboa, which at the time was a part of the incorporated city of Newport Beach. Behind the tents stands the Balboa Hotel, built in a record ten days for the arrival of the first Pacific Electric Red Car to Balboa in 1910. The Santa Ana River at the time it turned near the present day mouth and passed landward of the forming Newport peninsula to pass into Newport Bay - forming the sand platforms that later became the islands of that bay. The Newport Beach Story - 7 Alcedes B. Rousselle, Harry Welch of the Chamber of Commerce, and Philip A. Stanton, former Assembly Speaker, who were instrumental in the development of Newport Harbor and obtaining the federal legislation resulting in 43 USC 424 and 424a. l,lcGadden9' wlurf lra9 a quarks �Q atritlelmtg, eSat j f ect wi dot at the ao W r end, and nineteen feet abWe the whet at high tide. Reactmill and cfad tc raiitotd." acytt{m.ito"nayslt The( instrumental h "swamp and o The Newport Beach Story - 8 This aerial view shows the surveyed area designated Township 7 South, Range 10 West, SBB&M, adjoining the west jetty of Newport Bay - and reflects the development that occurred throughout the bay, particularly after World War II. And, the intensity of development on Balboa Island in later years, which is part of the tidal prism referred to by Army Engineer David E. Hughes in 1909, as to reflecting how these prisms after development will make the navigable channels narrower still - contrary to the use and purposes of navigable waters under both California and federal law. The Newport Beach Story - 9 Dover Shores, inside upper Newport Bay, was developed by the Irvine Company in the early 1960s, without permit from the Army Engineers, and on tidelands belonging to the State of California, and is not protected by the independent federal question, as is Irvine lands in lower Newport Bay. Corona del Mar was not annexed until the 1920's and the tidelands, filled and unfilled in Newport Bay of that area was subject to the Statutes of 1919, Chapter 526, if the independent federal question does not apply, yet, Newport Beach was the named defendant in the boundary dispute case of that area, according to the letter of Roy V. Shafer, dated December 5, 1941 to W. W. Clary, as noted in title report. -.' .^ � __Yi� �'r'Y (_'ti-i�„.��''\� �'. � �-4"_ti,, ..4 f=. �.' is . C �— ^]• � ' � •� y ...t 1 �''YC . IJ /J t tl) `;1 Y nit ��.1 /r �J ^/ ��• er as it once flowed into N.. yb r �� Jf ZiF�'L Tyj � rOil t The Newport Beach Story - I I The Upper Newport Bay at it appeared early in the 20th Century, showing the marsh grass surrounding the main channel of that bay and the west bluff area And, the marshy conditions of the upper Newport Bay at high tide periods, which it existed at the time of the hydrographic survey of Newport Bay in 1913 conducted by the Army Engineers The Newport Beach Story - 12 ConeyIsland, in upper Newport Bay, clearly stands out with the tides, surrounding it in a photograph taken in 1950 as part -of a study conducted by the Hancock Foundation of the University of Southern California conducted by Kenneth O. Emery and Robert Stephenson. Another view of Coney Island from near the present day site of Dover Shores in upper Newport Bay The Newport Beach Story - 13 Bons CmwlidaW W. et at. v. La Angela - 296 Us.'1e, 56, $. a, g9.; ae,L." 9114. Fad. 2d90i,It SYpp. 261'(1935) ' between upland and ttdetand' in 4880 and the consertue determinatiomis coriclu;lve:aj 'land imcontroversy'hesrbeen to be tideland and that the' i Pethioners thus tnvdke then surveys'belong to the politti Ihat, whilst the lands, are,su 586; Knight v.Unl, Stonerbad; 158 U:S Co., 168 ]MS. 269, U;6.-472, 487, 48&. ermine it through the'survey to Bannlho, and that this oral attack;'ln short;•that the bw co mbotent.adthdiity . not .the •supeniision• of',the :General eu. Gi'aI1, ttUCili0a9ea;rlilfe'thet:c'f tthlrtthetr azclGsjva;joiteilk Ilan, by a;dWecf;dYocoddi`ng1JR:�'., g', h5AL753,'12b`i�.�Cragin v. iatfi-v.Vlte�laca, 138 U:S:'S73; Asin_r supra; SConaibad v: Russallxv. Yigaxwell,Untl+'Giant s V. Coronedo;8eacho,Go.; 365• The above extract is from Borax Consolidated Ltd. v. Los Angeles, cited, which defines the key issue as to whether the lands seaward of littoral boundaries of the ranchos could be a class of the public domain, or not. The Newport Beach Story - 14 Th salt marsh s, r The Newport Beach Story - 15 1 I 4Vd K- ' :'''' :IT!"'';, aih? 11q;ju The above extract is from a rancho map of Rancho Santiago de Santa Ma, showing, as does the field notes, that the station lines of the rancho exclude the lands ofNewpor t and upper Newport Hay. The Newport Beach Story - 16 LOT. NQ37. l'r,:A5.r.R10A t A similar map made of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana shows similar or Went Newport Bay ///M/ •HI/I/ N _ of YpIb.T M. S.� e r / 1883 Geodetic Survey identifies the lands as tidelands Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - C. E. PARKER Attorney at Law 18101 Charter Road Villa Park, CA 92861-2638 Telephone: (714) 637 8146 Fax (714) 637 9173 Most of the lands patented in south San Francisco Bay were patented as presumptively swamp and overflowed lands - but this could not be according to Borax Consolidated Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10.. Coast and Geodetic Survey of Newport Bay at low tide, 1901 Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - Fj This map shows ranchos with station lines from surveyor's field notes - none are shown seaward of the ranchos - also, peninsula, in 1857 extended only to point opposite entrance of upper Newport Bay i i H 1875 map of Newport Bay - shown in Ellen Lees Book History of Newport Bay - all salt marsh and tidelands J Federal Marketable Title Statute - A Draft - 1 File No. 8.6 File 26-17 FEDERAL MARKETABLE TITLE STATUTE A draft The following is a draft of a Federal Marketable Title Statute which would clear all defective titles of lands in private hands from any federal or state claims comparable to the status such titles would have against private adverse possessors. BE IT ENACTED, that in the interest of foreign and interstate commerce no land titles in the United States, or any of its territories, should be clogged with dormant - and unasserted claims for prolonged periods of time, and it is therefore, provided as follows: Section 1. That any right, title and interest of anyone not in actual occupancy or possession of any land wherever located, is null and void after sixty years from either the date of the creation of the interest, if said interest is not on the public record, or sixty years from the date of the recording of any interest. Section 2. Upon due and fair notice by a party in occupancy or possession to known claimants of interests and/or publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation which fairly gives notice to unknown claimants, any state, notwithstanding provisions in their constitutions to the contrary, may provide by legislation duly enacted a shorter period of time than sixty years by which said interests can be null and void, unless said interests have been placed upon the public record prior to the expiration of the shorter period of time as set out in said statute. Section 3. No interest which is invalid under either state or federal law shall be made valid by reason of this act, except as provided in Section 2 hereof, and except that said apparent titles arising from invalid interests shall, if held or asserted by the parties in possession or occupancy, be entitled to the benefits of The writer of this memorandum served as sub -committee chairman to develop this draft while a member of the Land Records Improvement Committee, starting in 1983 under the then chairman, Kenehn Shirk of Lancaster, PA. Martab 728/97 4:53 AM page: 1 Federal Marketable Title Statute - A Draft - 2 this act when the sixty year period has expired. Commentary Title industry lawyers have no difficulty with the premise that Congress can absolutely terminate any federal interest in lands immediately under the plenary powers of the public lands clause in the United States Constitution. Thus, a federal statute can clearly and unambiguously terminate such interests. More difficult questions are raised as to the federal governments divestment of private interests and interests of the individual states in land. As to private interests a divestment may amount to a taking for a public use - under the exercise of the commerce, or other plenary powers, but subject to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, requiring the payment of just compensation. A federal statute could be limited to apply only where a priority interest remained in either the state or federal governments, or both, at the end of a sixty year period, or can be drafted to apply to all possessory rights of persons not in possession or non - possessory private interests not of record within sixty years on the theory that an interest that has not been asserted for a sixty year period, as a matter of federal law, is entitled to little or no just compensation, by reason of the value of the interest being infinitismal. It can also be asserted that it is not a taking at all but a police power right by the federal government that has existed since 1789 - in the same manner that a state's zoning power, asserted through a duly enacted statute or ordinance, restricted a previously existing property right. 2 As to the federal government's divestment of the states property rights concern was raised as to whether the decision in National League of Cities v. Usery 3 barred the federal government from enforcing federal laws "in areas of traditional governmental functions." However, by the decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 4 the Usery decision was overturned and the traditional recognition of the Congress's plenary powers as the supreme law of the land was again recognized, even as applied to functions of the state. Congress can divest the states of their interests now, whether or not asserted in the record in the last sixty years, since the interest of the state in such lands is public property - property of the state - and not private property. The federal government inherently has the power of eminent domain as one of the "necessary and proper" powers under the United States Constitution. This power is limited by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution - requiring a taking for a public purpose - and this is now recognized as fairly broad based in scope, 5 and that the just compensation requirement is only 1 HPH Ltd. v. Superior Coutt,15 C 3d 508,542 P. 2d 25, 157 Ca 372. 426 U.S. 833,96 S. CL 2465,49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976) 105 S. C.1005 (1985) s Hawaii Housing Authority et al. v. Midkitr, et W.104S. C.2321(1984) Ma0b 728/97 4:58 AM page: 2 Federal Marketable Title Statute - A Draft - 4 government, unless it in fact occupied the land of the federal government, for the running period of the statute, unless the federal government protected itself by reflecting its interest in the record. It would affect the constitutional servitudes of the state in any land by reason of the fact that the federal statute would be the supreme law of the land, and prevail over any state law which is in conflict therewith. It would effect any sovereign interest, such as Indian land title interests, under the same premise. Off record interests of private parties are now voided as a matter of state law under race, notice, and race - notice statutes as bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers for value. The federal statute's primary impact is upon state prior interests that are not eliminated by reason of the recording laws (property taxes, public servitudes, etc.) and perfecting the interests of grantees, heirs, and devisees of the occupier against such prior servitudes after the sixty year period lapse of time. By making the titles more marketable the statute removes the possible impediment that such titles are not legally marketable as to an encumbrancer or purchaser who has not been given all the facts of the status of the particular land title as a prudent lender or purchaser having all the facts would require before making a loan or a purchase. Since the public records have existed in every state since they were admitted to the Union the recording system is being strengthened in the sense that the statute is made applicable to present valid off -record interests of both the federal and state governments - which constantly exist as a matter of law to many millions of acres in the United. States. Both the federal and state governments have been very cavalier in relating to these off -record interests, raising unfair advantage where private parties have otherwise assumed such interests would not be asserted, or were unaware in actual fact of their existence All such interests which are judicially noticed, such as under Evidence Code S 451 impose the legal burden that they are considered to have notice, even though they are not actually in fact aware of such burdens. which the law reflects, is not necessarily the case when applied to the sovereign entities of the state and federal governments. The statute would compel affirmative action against private occupiers of particular parcels of federal or state lands by said governments having to protect their valid and legitimate interests on the record - and only those interests arising in the last sixty years would be protectable. With states which have entered the Union since 1931 there might have to be special provisions in the statute cutting off such sovereign rights which would have existed, had they been states, prior to that time as to lands now occupied by private parties for such a long period of time. Examples are abundant of this problem in both Alaska and Hawaii. Where the lands have remained unoccupied by private parties and the state (as applied to the federal Martab 7/28/97 4:53 AM page: 4 Federal Marketable Title Statute - A Draft - 3 applicable to the taking of private property, not public property. 6 That is, the federal government is entitled to take state public property in exercise of any valid federal power as established by the United States Constitution. The court has noted that due process requires a "just compensation equivalent" that requires the payment of replacement value where there is a taking of the state's public property which is at the time being used as an essential public service to the public. Public property occupied by private parties for many years involves no concern of such a due process issue. Thus, the federal government, in the valid exercise of one or more of its plenary powers can terminate the property rights of the state immediately in any land without compensation to the state by reason of the Fifth Amendment. The advantage to both the federal and state governments of a federal "60 year" statute is that the chain of title and record as to any particular property has to be searched back in the public record only sixty years - for any earlier record or off record, title will have become null and void. Presently, all searches must go back to some title in the government, regardless of the length of time since the title was apparently granted by the government. If title is still found to be in the government, for whatever reason, the title is absolutely void in the hands of the private occupants of such government lands, regardless of the amount of time 6 United States v. Willow River Power Company, 324 U.S. 499, 65 S. Ct. 761, 89 L. Ed. I101, see 101 Ct. C1.222. that such occupants, and their successors in interest have occupied these lands.' The statutory draft applies to only legal non -possessory interests, or rights of possession of a party not in possession, not of record, and thereby has no impact upon the actual possession or occupancy of the land, insofar as he has to take independent steps to protect his apparent interest in said land other than the occupancy and use he is making of it. At the end of sixty years, the party in possession, and/or his successors in interest, are entitled to an fee simple absolute title, regardless of the nature of the pre-existing defect, if there was a defect. The interests of a lessor whose lease exceeds sixty years would be affected, but the recording the lease or a memorandum thereof would protect such interest. The statute would effect prescriptive rights in land if such interests are not found in the record within sixty years. It would not effect the adverse possessory interest of any occupier, since he, or his successors in interest, are in actual possession of the property affected. It would affect the adverse possessory interests of the state, the federal government, or anyone else, not in actual occupancy, or possession unless such interests were reflected in the public record in the last sixty years. It would not affect the interests of the federal or state governments where there has been no actual occupancy by private parties, or the state adverse to the federal 7 There are Instances where adverse possession may be effective as a remedy by a private citizen against the government which has legal 00e, where the lands have been held in a proprietary, and not a tout capacity. Martab V28f97 5:08 AM page: 3 Federal Marketable Title Statute - A Draft - D patent was issued by the state in a period between the time Wilmington became disincorporated in 1886 ' and re- incorporated as part of the City of Los Angeles in 1889. The U.S. Supreme Court noted had the city still been incorporated the above prohibition of Article X t5 would clearly have applied and the title in the private party would be void for that reason. But the court went on to note that during the period of dis- incorporation, when the patent was issued, permitted the state to make the grant it did. The state was not empowered to make such grant as during the period 1886 to 1889 a statute was in force that was clearly applicable." This statute barred the grant or sale by the state of any swamp and overflowed lands, tide lands, or salt marsh within two miles of any town or village. Even though Wilmington was disincorporated, it was still a town or village within the scope of this statute. 17 . It was beyond the power of the United States Supreme Court to validate a title that the state had expressly withheld by reason of this statute. An example of a parcel of land which would not come within the protection of the sixty years, but could be asserted through a state statutory 11 Until renumbered it was Article XV of the California Constitution. in the 1970s; by the California Constitutional Revision Commission. 16 Statutes of 1869.70, Chapter 573, pp. 875.878. 17 Klauber v. Higgins, 117 C. 451; Upham v. Husking, 62 C 250,2 CU 134; Dillon v. San Diego Unified Port District, 27 CA 3d 296,103 CR 763. enactment shortening the time, as considered in Section 2, is that of Dover Shores in Newport Bay. Dover Shores was wrongfully occupied by The Irvine Company in the early 1960s when it filled the upper Newport Bay lands now comprising Dover Shores, and built homes thereon. The occupancy by The Irvine Company, and its successors in interest, has not yet been thirty years over these lands. Without this Federal Marketable Title Statute, any statute of limitations by the state would be void by reason of Article X, 4 3 of the California Constitution. An example where titles were conveyed purportedly in fee simple absolute, but still subject to the public trust, are those lands granted by the state under the Statutes of 1857, Chapter 82, in Humboldt Bay. That is, under the 1849 California Constitution there was no mention made of tidelands or submerged lands. Yet, these lands inherently passed to the State of California when it entered the Union on September 9, 1850. is California had adopted the common law as of 1850. 19 Under the common law no public trust lands could be conveyed free of the public trust since the Magna Charta. Any grants of such lands could be considered void ab initio. 20 18 Under the Act of Admission of the Sta to of California, 9 U.S. Statutes at Large 631, Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1. 19 Statutes of 1850, Chapter 95, now Civil Code $122.2 21 Martin v. Waddell (1842) 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367, 10 L. Ed. 367, 10 L. Ed. 997, Borax Consolidated Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 56 S. Ct. 23, 80 L. Ed. 9. Martab 7/28/97 5:09 AM page: 6 Federal Marketable Title Statute -A Draft - 5 government) the titles of the federal government and the state would remain as before - that is, public domain remains public domain, valid swamp lands still remain swamp lands, tide and submerged lands still remain tide and submerged lands. If the state conveys titles it was not constitutionally a or statutorily 9 authorized to make this will set in motion the sixty year period of the statute if any interest of the state is inherently, impliedly, or expressly withheld. The state still has sixty years to recall such titles, and its patentees take them subject to the risk that it will. The same applies to valid titles where the servitudes remain in the state as considered in several California cases.10. In the Berkeley case, as in the Banning case, infra, the supposedly validity of the grant of the land on the Berkeley waterfront was void by reason of the violation of the Statutes of 1869-70, Chapter 573, Pages 875-878, notwithstanding the position taken by the Berkeley court. An example of a case where none of the branches of the government, including the courts, could convey such titles by reason of a constitutional restraint, is Long Beach v. Mansell. 11 In that case Article X, Section 3 of the California Constitution barred the grant Article x,13 of the California Constitution. 9 Such as under the Statutes of 1869.70, Chapter 578, pp 875.878, 1e Berkeley v. Superior Court, 26 C.3d 515, and People v. California Fish Co., 166 C. $76. " 3 C. 3d 462. or sale by the State of California of any quantity of tide lands within two miles of the incorporated city of Long Beach. The grant in that case was made after the incorporation of the city, and since 1879, and the enactment of this constitutional provision. The court purportedly adopted the "exception" enunciated in Atwood v. Hammond, t2 that permitted the state to make grants of small quantities of such lands contrary to this constitutional provision. The "exception" was considered by obiter dicta in the Atwood case. It was part of the ratio decidendi in the Mansell case. Yet, the California Constitution t3 makes it very clear that all sections of the constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless expressly set forth therein. The "exception" considered in Atwood and Mansell is not expressly set forth in the Constitution - and the title in Mansell is still constitutionally void in private hands today. If, however, the title from the state, though admittedly constitutionally defective pre -dates 1931, or sixty years, under the above statute, it would not be clear and the private parties and their successors in interest would hold such titles in fee simple absolute. An example of a conveyance by the state where it was not statutorily authorized was in Banning Co., v. California 14 before the United States Supreme Court. In that case the tidelands " 4C.3d31 Article 1, $ 26 " 240 U.S. 142 Martab 7n8N7 4:53 AM page: 5 Federal Marketable Title Statute - A Draft - 7 However, after Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, a so-called American exception came to be recognized. 2t It would appear, from a reading of Illinois Central, that a state grant that is void ab initio, for any reason, would not benefit from the application of this so-called American exception. This exception held that within the American common law small grants of public trust lands could be conveyed free of the public trust, if done so in the interests of commerce, navigation and fisheries. The grant had to be made in conjunction with such public purpose. If it wasn't it was void - and if either element (1) small grant or (2) public purpose - was missing - the grant failed. 22 The Chicago case considered a grant of a four acre plus parcel for a railroad switch station - but found the grant wanting, even though a small quantity of land, since it was not made in aid of commerce, navigation and fisheries, but solely for the private benefit of the Illinois Central R. Co. Similarly, People ex rel Scott v. Chicago Park Dist,' held that a grant by the legislature was void, even with a declaration in the statutory g ant that it was for a public purpose, in light of the fact that while the 149 acre plus parcel of land there might have been a small grant, the grant was, again, solely for the benefit of the United States Steel Corporation, not a public purpose. 21 146 U.S. 387. 22 Illinois Central R, Co. v. Chicago, 50 N.E. 1104. 2' 360 N.E.2d 773. After 1879, in California, no such grant could be made because all such grants became subject to the constitutional servitude, absolutely, noted in Article X of the California Constitution. . The draft of the above statute would not eliminate the possibility of litigation but substantially reduce the probability that holders of long dormant, off -record, possessory or non -possessory interests, will litigate such titles when the expectation of success in such actions is extremely remote or limited. In a high percentage of such cases such parties will aid in the perfection of the record by providing quitclaims of their interests. No quitclaim of the state or federal governments will be needed once the sixty year period has expired - and section 3 allows that notwithstanding any state constitutional limitations to the contrary statutory quitclaims of a shorter period could be constitutionally made - thus, failure to obtain a quitclaim short of the full period of the federal statute should be clearly be made known to any prudent lender or buyer or the seller would risk the challenge, otherwise, that said titles were legally unmarketable. 24 24 See 12 Western State University LR 571, 576, 13 WSU LR 562, 4 WSU LR 149, 8 WSU LR 183; Vol. 13, Southwestern University LR 1, volume 14, Hastings Li, symposium dealing with water rights generally. Martab 7/28/97 4:53 AM page: 7 ' %y�%i Jam. r� :y :, '� ltva • .�-r. w. 00 ! 1�'r'• J', •. - ay.. K } y r.� /�''}��, lam' it, +� r .. :Y ✓,vA. >J7 y�,�iljL'•• ,YL+I'+..t'�R.1�. .-',�'~ ti .lief q �`! �. .J1 /1 � 1 �'.�,r[�j /a/IPy. � `'A'Far"'J�ri r � � jli~ V L / '• 11" )S / F'••• M1 .'.' 7.«i����+''/,� :. .• •fi)� 9.l'v�. •'yYr)� �/rr J. ,+,.y �, 1, Y �¢.� :,, ., t� a ♦*• � �, .. !.• M r +art w:� � .� r �9 s'r_,,`tl{ / .'� � ...... ���' a+'�- 7G•,Y r„\ f r : j� .', fi! _'/ ! I f' Y. � 1 • � \ I JY�,.- R r_J�(.4�� •rr yyy�yX' �/ }, r •. �`1y� �1 -.J. J AI�v VjY,w� /•.i .r r`\�, �,,•, � y 1.1 it w'a Ir�l..{'.Y.]. i�? �r�y ps"' J' y q{h.LI'��r( l,-'�^"•.:1 s .,*. �[T•,'^nJ .!��-.,.n��,,yr,',,1�^1 .1"'J, r.F/ •-fir / t 51l' � r�i, .'� f '/� ' .71, •s� ,� - A�! �+���-�'I,..MI�+�I Kw r. Z .J 4• � <l Yl,. � � `• � of "5yy/•� 1. �, w?••.. .+' •� .Err ,;I ,.�' �-_.:. _ r � .,, ,. ' ti"'fa ,.# .11 � $r-ISfL •� 1 .r, �T i G,. .r � I r ,M1;r �'• 4 t;'yY�-15,, '_t�����'•�r 't M��`��:�'jT} 4 �I fr :iy� r �,pw �wf , 'i�,. �r'ts .' sx•Il�q ,y,. 1, .� ,�5•,4. i' "gyp rf, n 14, ,•Ar fr IF nI 4� J G 1 y .N Yll ",` r 1'( \• TT;fvwl Lit Y r 1 • � )�yn. $ "+r� •'V ._�,fi�,,�r._� • !•" f! tiP 'rl a�•�..�a/x' �R%'?/ `'"t%�J; I" •._a�,�yy t'i�X}tjtf�'�5,1 r �% CL r -. �•.� � �,.if r� P.N'+,� 5+„�✓.,•„.w r• L5 •rR++ , }� 311',3 t-1 �pJ) i/ '-,JJ .� �'• r 'LT sr/,. (`.�� r'vri 6. f �P�+ r ,y F• *+ F"r,.. h� �y� •�/' 4 r � :1 " r �1 J�7 r:.J7r,G"[ '/ r'Idy r u!f �'. � ��r' y. �% i7,j•M^`+t•• �;±� r ��! . h y; .' h r :t��'C,ti'^rw(� �'Y. A�..• J���S � ��a� � •":�'� 056041.tif Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - C. E. PARKER Attorney at Law 18101 Charter Road Villa Park, CA 92861-2638 Telephone: (714) 637 8146 Fax (714) 637 9173 Most of the lands patented in south San Francisco Bay were patented as presumptively swamp and overflowed lands - but this could not be according to Borax Consolidated Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10.., Coast and Geodetic Survey of Newport Bay at low tide, 1901 Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - z I 1:6S..7 .IU.X e f ' i _ I t �j }}1 t r.t-77 D This map shows ranchos with station lines from surveyor's field notes - none are shown seaward of the ranchos - also, peninsula, in 1857 extended only to point opposite entrance of upper Newport Bay i- 1875 map of Newport Bay - shown in Ellen Lee;s Book History of Newport Bay - all salt marsh and sldelands Map of San Francisco Waterfront 5 disclosure of defects of title is necessary to avoid violation of Civil Code 11711 and Business and Professions Code dd 17530. Unlike the title liens in Hawaii the claims of the state, the county and the city in the case of Newport Beach are valid, and under Article I, Section 26 of the California Constitution are required to be enforced. Please -give heed to what we are saying... Above shows San Francisco waterfront in 1850 - gray areas shown where tidelands flowed - but are now dredged and filled land - Transamerica Tower is on edge of waterfront - Niantic Hotel, a sunken ship's hull, used as a hotel, was located in lot next to Transamerica Tower. SFBAMAP.TIF 5/21/97 8:55 AM page: 5 Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - ulz:hed/,6XWj+ bbjojr�owotCAtisMcirtNli y1D asi.�k&d.i bax eixvriorror:aain!bzeaze 1.9 CoriBituilon Mdr;d6fory... , T" pkVisinas Of ttir'CensCltutiati are mikaator¢ "il probibitoiy, West by`oxprcM4O6da'they i* deytairWto be otUerwise. Riphla'Hatarved � - .' , uf Ic?3.,.2'his,enumerntFou,•:rkbts etiatL...uot,pe,;eopJ;taraed.,tn into. or,derrs ath a sot ined,by tlia pcyplo..' •, . (Co�ot(tulton: ol,18444dcy,I,rl�ec..£1�}: ,., _ . _ •,,..: , Nape- ,..,..., .:.: ,... ,aw...�::-..• ,; ;�••- - o�{er(y!Qyarlft�ul(ch;a�Ete�"on,;-�: ', <..,�, .b<.,_crr•. �r:- _ ... • Sno:� 2�-r'o'proi��,F�4nuliticatian�ahall��sirerYfie�required�.for�ang person #o•tt�toror-hoid oIllea �: ;", .., � .• ., � � -, � �,:•-ir t, d� ;,.: Rly(M lo•Hsh r � �; r .. ..'i:. .. .. vnr , , 1 : \. tauds,sez i,attte for ustt usteneries� anquo Iann•m aea-Dy. La9ir�"4llLesnau aver be sold or transferee'tl vciftiovt,.cesecdiug an tU'e e6p16 the iilia0lute right to fish thereupon; and no lain sliau over be passed' m")g it a crime for the people to enter upon the publie lands NyiJbin t1tis State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish tiiuf, Lave been planted- theiihi bylhe State; provided, that tho lbgialatuko IuaP by statute, prcvid'e fer'the seAson, Schorr• and tbc• conditions under.Rhiitb tbediiteiieuti�peeic�af.fiah••mr4u°1s0taken..-. °,, ;,�, Mow *ethos a'woto NO►OMUZ $1, •iaio:j = ... - . ;,s pnb000.tif NAL WIN77ER 1994 AETTEC Commentaries 977 formation of a corporation or partnership if:the lawyer:obtains,•1he..... infoinied• Wnsent sof -all ,parties. If the' common representation -is terminated, the. lawyer:May not continue to ,represent any of the parties with respect to the "subject matter dt the`curieut Me rtt'dbta- tion. ` Amides Johti'S. lAucnlcoayslti; Lawytirs as littermedidries. The i2epresenta- fion,of MU� Clients in•tlre•1bYoiterri Lego1 Prdfessioi1,1992 L7: It i'L R-m 741. MODEL RULE 3.3 t aadorlowaid the Tiiburrat (a) A lawyer shall not ioiowiugly: (1) make a false statca ifit of material fact or law to a . triburialp • -, (2) %tdltto�discluse•a tnatertal`fsctta a t'i3hiti►iil wliea�disr'.losnre . . 555 is necessary 'to avoid assisting a•,ciimlnat or iraudfulerit act by the ciien4 (3) tail; to disclose to the tribunal' legal authority lu the cantinllizig jiirisdlctioti kndwa to+the lawyer io:be-dlrectly'Advetse'to Abe positiow df'tlie,tilient and iiot�disclt►sed'6y,oppasing counsel; oc t (4) ,offer evidence4bat the lawyer knows to be false. If' a t lawyer has oiteered mateial evidence and comes to•know of lis falsityt the lawyer "shall take reasonable remedial measures. (b),The duties•stated in paragrapLu�a) :cuntiiiueta,the coi0.cipstop, ., of the proc&diiii, arid• i►ppl , even!if coinjiiance requires disclosure of'it fbiwatmi ofheiivise protected •iixc,I�iile.];6....':. ' : „ . • , ... • . t9ttb- i the , rtia Tidelands Titles - Exhibits - tsat:°x'v"'T2Wb .�bktbiflo"i:masrnnar� 71.Y�rl :9 -,tf .1� uttiQiy„F q4 3 In the enclosed material is a letter from James Irvine, Jr., to Joseph Beek. Irvine was at the time President of the Irvine Company, owner of the Irvine Ranch in Orange County. Joe Beek was Secretary of the State Senate and an early resident of Newport Beach. Beek had developed Beacon Bay, operating it under a master lease from the City of Newport Beach. Irvine acknowledged his frustration in getting clear titles to tidelands properties he claimed. He had good reason to be frustrated. I am convinced, but cannot prove it, that Irvine put the financing behind my grandfather, C. E. Parker, to found the Orange County Title Company in 1889 - this company is now the largest title company in the United States under the name First American Title Company. w 50 0 6)- - 501 L� 93/ _ yoy � 9d 9 t(,4 S(rT �taP 317 Due 5aaP- BA�BOA VILLAGE BID BALBOA PENN. PNT ASSOC. GARY MALAZIAN, PRESIDENT ROBERT W. YANT, JR. 4827 CORTLAND DR. 2113 SEVILLE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625-2700 BALBOA, CA 92661 CNTRL NWPRT BCH COMM ASSN TOM HYANS, PRESIDENT 217 19T" ST. E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TONY MELUM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CNFRNC & VSTRS BUREAU FIRE/MARINE 1470 JAMBOREE RD 3300 W. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOROTHY BEEK MR. ANDREW'DOSSETT MEL MANN 620 W. OCEAN FRONT 1305 EAST BALBOA BLVD. 1219 W. BAY AVE. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JAMES W. KERN M. SHEA JOHN KELLY 110 ADAMS ST. 204 #B ADAMS ST. 206 #A ADAMS ST. BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 JACKT. PERRAULT BALBOA ANGLING CLUB RESIDENT 210 ADAMS ST. 200 A STREET 403 #3 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 RESIDENT WOOD DENNIS & ASSOCIATES BALBOA BEACH RENTALS 406 #B BALBOA BL E 407 BALBOA BL E 408 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA BEACH LINEN RENTALS ITS TIME TO EAT BRYAN PRESBY 408 BALBOA BL E 408 BALBOA BL E 408 % BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 MICHAEL EUBANKS S. HENRY RESIDENT 409 BALBOA BL E 411 BALBOA BL E 412 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 RESIDENT RON WHITE VICKIE WEIMERS 412 BALBOA BL E 415 #B BALBOA BL E 417 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 RESIDENT PIZZA HUT S. A. RIGGS 423 #B BALBOA BL E 500 BALBOA BL E 501 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 ANDREA PATE SINA TAVALLAI CRPRT TECHNOLOGY DIRECT 505 BALBOA BL E 507 #1 BALBOA BLD E 509 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA HARBOR LIQUOR & DELI 510 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 SURFSIDE SILVER 603 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA MARKET 608 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 JUNGLE JUICES 613 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 WILSON'S BEACH COTTAGE 701 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 CHOCOLATE EXPRESS 705 A BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 SCOTTBROTZMANN 705 D BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 ORANGE JULIUS 711 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA BIKES N BEACH STUFF 601 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA TRAVEL SERVICE 607 #B BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 RYL CIGAR SCTY OF BALBOA 609 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 TEA TIME MEMORIES 615 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 CHI CHI'S POLLO MEXICAN FOOD 703 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 PC DOCTOR 705 B BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 MITHRUSH 707 A BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 SOUTH SWELL 712 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 MEGA MEDIA ASSOCIATES, INC. 603 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BEADS TO YOU 607 #B BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA THREADWORKS, INC. 611 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 MEL FUCHS PAVILION REALTORS 700 BALBOA BLD E BALBOA, CA 92661 AMANDA'S BON APPETITE BKRY 704 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 GROUP TRAVEL SEARCH 705 C BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA EYEWEAR 710 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA PHARMACY 716 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 DILLMAN'S RESTAURANT KITES, ETC. MANDARIN HOUSE 801 BALBOA BL E 806 BALBOA BL E 810 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BERNARD'S JEWELRY THE HANDMAIDEN KEITH CAROSELLI 813 BALBOA BL E 8131/z.BALBOA BL E 900 A BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 LEE CAROSELLI 900 B BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 J,SCHUSTER 915 A BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 RALPH C. BAILEY 8131% BAY AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 FRANK W. LLOYD 921 BAY AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 ALBATROSS WEST 104 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 MITHRUSH BOUTIQUE 105 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BXS PIZZA GRILL BREWERY 106 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 CHRISTOPHER L. CHESTER 111 #4 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BRIAN FLYNN 907 B BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 J. R. GRAY 926 #3 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 HILLS BOAT SERVICE, INC. 814 BAY AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA ANGLING CLUB 200 A STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 MAIN ST. EMPORIUM 105 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 OCEANFRONT WHEELWORKS 105 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 JJ'S HAIR CUTTING 107 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 WILLIE WILLIAMS 111 #6 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 DIRK EASTMAN 910 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 KEENEJACOBY 926 #4 BALBOA BL E BALBOA, CA 92661 RICHARD C. MILLER 815 BAY AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 STUDIO CAFE 100 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA INN 105 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 GREENLEAF MEXICAN BAR & GRILL 105 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BJKERLEY 111 #3 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 MITHRUSH FASHIONS 200 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BRITTA'S CAFE DESIGNER LIQUIDATION 204 MAIN STREET 205 MAIN STREET 300 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA BKRY, DELI & DONUTS BRIAN QUICK YOUNG & RESTLESS 301 MAIN STREET 301 '% MAIN STREET 302 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BAUBLES BANGLES & ART SUN & FUN GIFT STORE BALBOA TOYS 303 #B MAIN STREET 304 MAIN STREET 305 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 VINCENT MCKENDRY MARTIN ZOFCHAK NOUVELLE ARMOIRE 305'/2 MAIN STREET 305'/2 MAIN STREET 306 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 FUN AND SUN DAVEY'S LOCKER PAVILION GENERAL STORE 307 MAIN STREET 400 MAIN STREET 400 MAIN STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 MIFFLIN'S SALTWATER TAFFY ISLANDER SKATE RENTAL CRAB TRAP 100 PALM STREET 101 PALM STREET 103 PALM STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 ALFI'S CAFE RENDEZVOUS BALBOA COLLECTIBLES 105 PALM STREET 107 PALM STREET 107 PALM STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 GRINGA'S GRILL JOE KLURE CLASS OF 47 111 PALM STREET 207 PALM STREET 209 PALM STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA THAI CAFE JO & MAGOO KELLY'S COFFEE & FUDGE 209'/ PALM STREET 309 #A PALM STREET FACTORY BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 309 #B PALM STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 KATHRYN AILEEN GINA'S PIZZA NWPRT LNDNG SPRTFSHNG 309#C PALM STREET 309 #D PALM STREET 309 #F PALM STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 EMERALD FOREST HURRICANE COVE ARCADE THE NOIZE 309 #G PALM STREET 309 #1 PALM STREET 309 #J PALM STREET BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BRADFORD GALLERY A SCRT GRDN BK & GIFT SHOP ALLEN CINTRON 309 #L PALM STREET 204 WASHINGTON ST. 6001 H OCEAN FRONT E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 JOHN INGLIS GRAHAM COBURN L. B. NOEKEL 600 2B OCEAN FRONT E 600 2C OCEAN FRONT E 600 2E OCEAN FRONT E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 HAZEL L. JONES JAMES W. READ, JR. GEORGE A. RANDALL 600 3G OCEAN FRONT E 702 OCEAN FRONT E 702 OCEAN FRONT E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 SCOTT MIZEN MATTHEW M. FAHEY MICHAEL S. BRIGANDI 806A OCEAN FRONT E 806A OCEAN FRONT E 814 OCEAN FRONT E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 RICHARD L. PESSLER RICK PESSLER RICHARD PESSLER 900 A OCEAN FRONT E. 900 B OCEAN FRONT E 900 C OCEAN FRONT E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 RICHARD PESSLER RICK PESSLER EDWARD J. O'NEILL 900 D OCEAN FRONT E 900 E OCEAN FRONT E 910- B OCEAN FRONT E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 S. YOCOM RICHARD F. KELLER NEWPORT LANDING FUEL DOCK 924 E OCEAN FRONT E 926 OCEAN FRONT E 503 EDGEWATER AVE.. E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 NEWPORT LANDING RESTAURANT WALK ON WATER INC. NATURALLY NEWPORT 503 EDGEWATER AVE.. E 503 EDGEWATER AVE.. E 503 EDGEWATER AVE.. E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 ELECTRIC BOAT RENTALS FUN ZONE BOAT CO FUN ZONE WATER BIKES 510 EDGEWATER AVE. E 600 EDGEWATER AVE. E 600 EDGEWATER AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 PARASAIL BALBOA CHAMPAGNE CRUISES PIZZA PETE 700 EDGEWATER AVE. E 700 EDGEWATER AVE. E 701 EDGEWATER AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA, CA 92661 ODDS & ENDS 703B EDGEWATER AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 PSYCHIC ADVICE BY KRYSTAL 709 EDGEWATER AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 BALBOA BEACH TREATS 705 Y: EDGEWATER AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 SUN N FUN OF NWPRT BCH 707 EDGEWATER AVE. E BALBOA, CA 92661 ,MAYS FARR MAX SINGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RICHARD & CECILE KRUS- E-r PO BOX 213 3032 CAMINITO NIQUEL 34329 STARBOARD LANTERN UPLAND, CA 91785 SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 DANA POINT, CA 92629 LYLE H & CHARLOTTE J FAITH NINA F IRA ROLLOVER A & C BRIAN BROOKS 134 W LIME AVE DUDENHOEFFER PO BOX 66034 MONROVIA, CA 91016 4859 OAKWOOD AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90066 LA CANADA, CA 91011 EILEEN M SIKORA DENNIS C WOOD PIER PROPERTIES INC 34572 CAMINO CAPISTRANO #C 407 E BALBOA BLVD 408 E BALBOA BLVD CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MICHAEL EUBANKS FRANK IOFFRIDA SPENCER JACKSON HENRY 409 E BALBOA BLVD 6520 E LONNA LINDA DR 2744 E ROBERTA DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LONG BEACH, CA 90815 ORANGE, CA 92869 CARROLL LEE HAROLD C HARRIMAN HAROLD C HARRIMAN 412 E BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 3605 PO BOX 3605 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 DENIS W KIDD HOA CHRISTIANSEN ALLEN WAH 22874 PICO ST 9794 WINTHROP CIR 19826 DINA PL GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 JANE XENOS SEAZONA PROPERTIES LTD DAVID MURPHY 423 E BALBOA BLVD 600 E BALBOA BLVD 501 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 SHIRLEY SUTTON JEANNINE GAHRING JEANNINE GAHRING 1477 BEAR CREEK DR 505 E BALBOA BLVD 507 E BALBOA BLVD BISHOP, CA 93514 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 RONALD W ROSE LEWIS FAMILY .PARTNERSHIP JAY M GOLDNER 40833 CALLE BANDIDO 984 N RIDGELINE RD 1227 N HIGHLAND AVE MURRIETA, CA 92562 ORANGE, CA 92869 HOLLYWOOD, CA 90038 4 SAILS M B MARTIN LANCO 1000 W OCEAN FRONT 3420 3RD AVE 603 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 RUTH M KOVER BALBOA ASSOCIATES PO BOX 990-TRUST DEP 607 E BALBOA BLVD LAS VEGAS, NV 89125 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 DOUGLAS MILES GEORGE B & MARGOT ROBERTS 609 E BALBOA BLVD 1500 W BALBOA BLVD #200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MELLVINE FUCHS VIRGINIA DEE BARNETT PO BOX 686 105 7TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 C J W INC CHARLES J WILLIAMS 104 VIA YELLA PO'BOX 4155 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOANNA TOOKER VOGEL LAM C kWONG 564 S SUNKIST ST 810 E BALBOA BLVD ANAHEIM, CA 92806 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MYRTLE & ROBERT NELSON WALLACE H SIEGEL 3222 FRANCES AVE PO BOX 10284 LA CRESCENT& CA 91214 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90213 NORMAN E MOYER CURDAL INVESTMENT LIMITED 2157 MIRAMAR DR PART NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 129 W YALE LOOP IRVINE, CA 92604 GARY E COOK CHARLES W & SHARON R PARSONS 907 E BALBOA BLVD 10092 OLD RANCH CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 VILLA PARK, CA 92861 DIRK & BRENDA EASTMAN KENNETH R TOLMAN 910 E BALBOA BLVD 8072 ARTESIA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BUENA PARK, CA 90621 EDWARD & MARION R DEEB MATTHEW A SARACINO 10120 RIVERSIDE DR PO BOX 940 TOLUCA LAKE, CA 91602 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 WILLIAM ROCKLOFF 1960 OAK KNOLL DR BELMONT, CA 94002 LE ROY G WILSON 913 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 GARY E MALAZIAN 4827 CORTLAND DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NAK K KIM 801 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 FREDERICK J WALLACE 910 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CURDAL INVESTMENT LIMITED PART 901 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CHARLES WILLIAM CLARK 1611 MILAN AVE SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 EMILE F SKAFF 4540 CHARMION LN ENCINO, CA 91316 GINO DISANO 912 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BALBOA PARTNERS 915 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 WU.L Ac tc -7 �SORBORG ENTERPRISES FREDRICK R & PHYLLIS A TIFFANY WARD & DENNIS BRESS 916 E BALBOA BLVD KOEPENICK 918 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 17200 SEPTO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91325 RENDEL L LEVONIAN L JOHN WESTREM ROGER ROUSSET SR. 14607 MILLOU LN 1006 E BALBOA BLVD 1330 N HACIENDA BLVD WHITTIER, CA 90602 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LA PUENTE, CA 91744 MARY FRANCES ESPENSCHIED NILE BLOOM ROBERT RUPER PO BOX 592 927 E BALBOA BLVD 928 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 WILBURN L CASEY MARION G PERRAULT GEORGE & RACHEL STEVENS 1910 SAINT JOHN RD #30F 520 HAWTHORNE ST 503 E BAY AVE SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 FAMILY TRUST MARSHALL SIBLING ASSOCIATES I LORNE LAUDER PO BOX 540 2699 WHITE RD #150 517 E BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 IRVINE, CA 92614 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JACK GOING FUN ZONE BALBOA CURTIS A HERBERTS JR. PO BOX 4249 600 E BAY AVE 2290 CHANNEL RD EL MONTE, CA 91734 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOHN L WESTREM JOHN L WESTREM KENT MADDY 1006 E BALBOA BLVD 1006 E BALBOA BLVD 706 E BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LEOPOLD AVALLONE DARRELL H SLUDER HELEN B NORTON 1367 AVENIDA DE CORTEZ 71-231 COUNTRY CLUB DR 300 E COAST HWY #17 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RICHARD & CAROL HOEFT III SUSAN M WHIPPLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 811 E BAY AVE 12531 EL ROY DR PO BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 CHARLES R MILLER SUSAN M WHIPPLE JOHN & BARBARA D'AMORE 815 E BAY AVE 20445 VIA BURGOS 3310 APPLEGATE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 BROOKFIELD, WI 53005 hub AAA. y ,SUSAN M WHIPPLE SIBLING ASSOCIATES I SIBLING ASSOCIATES 1 20445 VIA BURGOS 2699 WHITE RD #150 2699 WHITE RD #150 YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 IRVINE, CA 92614 IRVINE, CA 92614 JOHN L WESTREM JAMES GUCCIARDO MARK & CINDY LUCAS 1006 E BALBOA BLVD 400 E OCEANFRONT 1123 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ROBERT A FOSTER CORA LEE TUCKER JOHN & PATTI MESSERSCHMITT 404 E OCEANFRONT PO BOX 3509 25621 RAPID FALLS RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 JOHN & PATTI MESSERSCHMITT LEONARD P JONES MILDRED S CAROTHERS 25621 RAPID FALLS RD 10445 STRONG AVE 412 E OCEAN FRONT LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 WHITTIER, CA 90601 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 WALTER J SUCKIEL RICHARD J & LINDA E WEHRT ANNETTE F BOYDSTON 3750 DAFFODIL AVE 27 MARIPOSA 114 VIA PALERMO CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 IRVINE, CA 92604 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WILLIAM A LAMBETH MARI KOSGER WARD BRIEN 63 ACACIA TREE LN 2829 WAVERLY DR 17616 MAYALL ST IRVINE, CA 92612 LOS ANGELES, CA 90039 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91325 HENRY TAI ALICIA LUPERGALLONT DEBORAH M IRISH PO BOX 335 1338 E MOUNTAIN ST 610 E OCEANFRONT PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 GLENDALE, CA 91207 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JERILYN GREEN ROBERT YOUNG JAMES & TIFFANY ROSEN 600 E OCEAN FRONT #2D 600 E OCEAN FRONT #2G 600 E OCEAN FRONT #3E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ALFRED & MOLLY FISHMAN DONALD DUNKLEMAN GREGORY & JILL LEAN 3965 E MAPLE TREE DR 940 E CHAPMAN AVE 2311 FAIRHILL DR ANAHEIM, CA 92807 ORANGE, CA 92866 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ALEXANDER VILLICANA CHRISTINE F DYER HAROLD G & CAROL ANNIE PO BOX 90577 600 E OCEANFRONT #1 E MONTGOMERY PASADENA, CA 91109 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 24821 CAMINO VILLA LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 IAA S NAMES DEAN LEWIS ROBERT W DUFF JANET & JOHN KARL ELLIOTT 6021 SUMMERDALE DR PO BOX 1242 25432 CAJON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH,'CA 92647 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 PATRICK THOMPSON ADEL NASHED LYLE B NOEKEL 600 E OCEANFRONT #26 548 GLORIA RD 600 E OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ARCADIA, CA 91006 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JAMES W & MARGARET A THOMAS BUCKINGHAM ERNEST A NEUFELD WHITEHEAD 600 E OCEANFRONT #2H 761 REDWOOD AVE 2040 BEL AIRE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 WASCO, CA 93280 GLENDALE, CA 91201 LEE & CAROLYN BLEVINS CHARLES G TUNSTALL JACK C PREBICIN 600 E OCEANFRONT #36 PO BOX 546 600 E OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 WILDOMAR, CA 92595 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BETTY & JAMES H WHITE HAZEL LOREE & STEVEN COST JAMES H WHITE 22786 ISLAMARE LN JONES 22786 ISLAMARE LN LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 600 E OCEANFRONT #3G LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 KEITH ANDERSON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JAMES R & FARIMA DAMAVANDI 2570 DAKOTA TRL NW PO BOX 1768 3420 BRISTOL ST PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 MONICA LINGARD JOYCE L DOHERTY WILLIAM & TERI SHAPIRO 200 MARINERS VIEW LN 6 LUCERNE 810 E OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 B-N112 CALIFORNIA LIMTED PARTN PAMELA M BRIGAND[ JAMES WILLIAM & SUZANNE DALL 774 W CALIFORNIA AVE 814 E OCEAN FRONT GERIAK GLENDALE, CA 91203 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 18212 HILLCREST AVE VILLA PARK, CA 92861 JOHN EDENS HARRY ALEXON TIMOTHY N MEAD 922 E OCEANFRONT #2 207 ROSCOE BLVD N 308 HOLMWOOD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL 32082 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JAMES R & FARIMA DAMAVANDI 4 SAILS HOME DEVELOPERS ROY E COLLINS 3420 BRISTOL ST 1000 W OCEAN FRONT 421 KINGS RD COSTA MESA, CA 92626 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Iw+A&*� b rIOLLEY SOUTHWESTERN PROP 1441 FULBRIGHT AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373 CHARLES J WILLIAMS 104 MAIN ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 VALLELY INVESTMENTS LP %EDGEWA 3101 W COAST HWY #400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MELLVINE FUCHS PO BOX 686 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 KATHLEEN WALLEN 300 MAIN ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CHARLES J WILLIAMS PO BOX 4155 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MINER PROPERTIES 365 VIA LIDO SOLD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MELLVINE FUCHS PO BOX 686 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NADA HANNAFORD 456 SERRA DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 JAMES G WEST PO BOX 16025 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 SUE SWOFFER WARD 220 23RD PL MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PO BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 COUNCIL AGENDA N0. February 4, 1997 ; Hon. Mayor City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Dear Mayor: D: Austin rr�9 j P.O. Box 3382 NEWPORT BEACH, CA Please consider the following suggestions for discussion at your next meeting, which I understand is to be this week or next. 1. Washrooms - Signs are required to show where the restrooms are for visitors. Also, the beach could use more washroom facilities. 2. By all means close off the pier to fishing after 10:00 P.M. Why penalize everyone. Visitors as well as local people like to take a stroll in the evenings and the pier is one of the most desired places for a stroll. 3. Take the congestion off the boardwalk by putting in a new wide concrete lane in the center of the sand for bikes and roller bladers. This has been done in Long Beach and Santa Monica. There is insufficient room at present on the boardwalk with people walking, sometimes two and three astride to allow for bikes and xollerbladers, skateboarding, etc. Too many accidents are occurring. 4. Parking - create more by digging down another 4 feet, build a retaining wail, pave the area for parking on what is presently the sand at the end of each street, i.e., 9th Street, 8th Street, Island and Coronado each have sand dunes - leave the sand dunes with the ice plants growing, by digging down four feet, the vehicles would be hidden and the homeowners would still retain the unobstructed view, with additional parking created for vehicles, be it 5 cars or 10 cars on each side, creating the much needed parking spaces. 5. Realizing that there are many aabsentee homeowners in this city, some of the properties bushes so overgrown that the sidewalk has disappeared. Some of these bushes such as the Bougainvillea which has long thorns, one day, some child riding on a bike may get hurt in the eyes, and then the City would be sued as it is on the City's sidewalk property. I With so many young men looking for work, you could hire one or two to go and cut these bushes back after, of course, warning the homeowners of your intentions to have these bushes trimmed back and charged to the homeowner is they do not do it. Very much as the Fire Department does where brush is concerned. 6. Finally, the car alarms. They are a nuisance. Give this item to the newspapers to make a big splash about it, that if the alarms goes off 3 times within the certain space of time, they will risk having their vehicle towed away. It is doubtful that many persons know this. Sometimes the vehicles are left and the alarm goes on all day, while the owners are enjoying themselves, the rest of us have to endure the din. I know that you.are going to have the streets and sidewalks re -paved, so will not go into that. Should you desire to speak to me on any of the above matters, please feel free to contact me either in person at my small restaurant located at 408 E. Balboa Boulevard, or call me at (714) 723-9621. S erely, driana Austin �4L By the Sea 01/22/97 Kevin Murphy Balboa Merchants [owners Association City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Dear Mr. Murphy, The Board of Directors of the Balboa Merchants/Owners Association met January 21,1997 to discuss priorities and to budget items for our 1996/97 BID renewal coming before the City Council in February of this year. In addition, the Board reviewed and discussed the long awaited BPPAC Recommendations presented to the City Council on January 20,1997 at a special meeting. With regard to priorities and budget for the 1996/97 BID year, the Board identified three areas of importance that will be of major concern to our group in the coming year. First and foremost will be a strong effort to market the Balboa area. Our budget for marketing will be $10,000.00 and will include: I. MARKETING $10,000.00 1. Development and distribution of brochure. ( Brochure almost completed) 2. Continue with events that have been successful. 3. Form committee to communicate and work with area residents 4. Join the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau, working together to promote the Balboa area. 5. Work closely with large area hotel concierge II. PHYSICAL CHANGESIIMPROVEMENTS $5,000.00 1. Seasonal decorations 2, Benches 3. Banners 4. Village entrance sign 5. Trash cans III. TENANT RECRUITMENT $3,000.00 1. Coordinate efforts with the EDC, city staff, BPPAC and other BID's 2. Provide Incentives Tenant recruitment is an important factor in revitalizing our area and will be the most difficult to accomplish given the fact that much needs to be done prior to securing quality businesses for Balboa Village. The BPPAC Recommendations are an important step in making this happen. Those recommendations for the 7-4?0 S P.O. Box 840 Balboa, CA., 92661 Page 2 most part have the support of the Balboa Merchants/Owners Association Board of Director as was declared at our meeting on February 20, 1997, and would hope that the City Council would move forward in implementing those recommendations when prioritized. Many of the recommendations for the Balboa Village area identified in the BPPAC report are the same items,our association identified and put on hold two years ago while waiting for the final BPPAC report. Now, two years behind and eager to move forward, the Balboa Merchants Association would like to strongly request that the Central Balboa (Balboa Village) items identified in the "Report to the Mayor and City Council" dated January 20,1997 prepared by Sharon Wood, be included in upcoming fiscal year budget 96/97. Those recommendation include Balboa Boulevard, the Balboa Pier parking lot, Main Street, Bay Avenue and the Bayfront Please remember that the Balboa Merchants Association was the first group to form a BID two years ago. We were organized and ready to move forward two years ago and were unfortunately sidetracked by the formation of the BPPAC Committee. We respectfully submit that the recommendations listed above for Balboa Village would be first in line for consideration by the Council. The BPPAC committee did a superb job of identifying the needs of both residential and commercial properties along the Balboa Peninsula. Our association had doubts in the beginning because of the fact that most of the appointed committee members were peninsula residents without business ties to the peninsula. We commend the long hours and hard work put forth by all those involved in the BPPAC Report, especially the work of John Douglas and his staff from the city planning department Thank you in advance for considering our request We look forward to a new beginning for the Balboa Peninsula and especially Balboa by the Sea, a wonderful place to be! Sincerely, Voe Th pson President, BMOA Bob Black Secretary/Treasurer, BMOA Balboa Sub -committee to BPPAC cc: Mayor and City Council Members Sharon Wood Stephen N. Barnard 1100 West Bay Avenue Balboa, Calaifornia 92661 February 9, 1997 Jan Debay, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Madam Mayor and City Council Members; "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" l 4 FEB10 1991 CNP CLERK CR OFEACH NEWPORT B Due to a calendar conflict I cannot attend this afternoon's meeting regarding the BPPAC Report and Project 2000. The following comments are those I would deliver were I in attendance. Your Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee has done an outstanding job of focusing on the central issues necessary to resolving Peninsula problems. It is absolutely necessary that BPPAC's recommendations to the City Council be adopted and the pursuit of those suggestions be given top priority by the City Council, the staff and the appointed consultants and committees. If there are portions of the report and recommendations that are sufficently contentious to undermine the overall effort, might I suggest they be stricken for now in order to lend support for the whole. I am thinking here specifically of the recommendation to build a major hotel on the Marina Trailer Park property. There may be others. I would respectfully recommend that the whole of Project 2000 be broken down to more managable parts thus allowing those with expertise in a given area to concentrate on their area of expertise and not get bogged down elsewhere. Specifically, 1. HARBOR STUDY GROUP I support the recommendation to gain control of the bay from Orange County and put it into the hands of a Harbor Commissioon reporting to the City Council. The initial study group may or may not be the same folks that sit on the Commisssion later. 2. TRAFFIC AND PARKING I support the absolute necessity of commissioning a professional study and recommended solutions to the Mix Master situation as well as the concept of single deck parking as necessary to eliminate center median Balboa Blvd. parking. 3. VILLAGE PLANS AND ALTERNATE LAND USES I suggest considering separate groups to study each village utiliizing people close to the situation and to w facilitate consensus among those most concerned. If the concept, as stated, is to improve the Peninsula for the existing residents then the solutions need to address that point rather than concerning itself with creating new hotels, etc. The Peninsula residents do not want or need hotels that would exacerbate the traffic problem. If there is a real need for that and the City feels the need for a solution, consider utilizing the Curci family's Lido Peninsula for that purpose. Traffic in and out is significantly easier, there is a great deal of water frontage in relation to the size and one has only one property owner with whom to deal - and a very sophisticated one at that. Pro -actively pursuing single family property owner desires will motivate those folks to remodel and improve their homes and attract new families to purchase property on the Peninsula. I suppport the BPPAC's recommendation to significantly reduce the vessel size and frequency of the Bay Tour boats. They are a rude intrusion into the lives of those living adjacent to the bay. The tour companies should be required to provide their own parking or, alternatively, be required to lease, concurrent with their business license, parking space in the newly created parking strutures. The tour boats should not be allowed to utilize the loud music systems presently used. Their hours should terminate at 10:00 P. M. Single family residences on the bay should not be allowed to rent their docks to others. That only creates an R-2 area from an R-1 zoning. It adversely impacts parking, trash and traffic. Live-aboards in the harbor should be thoroughly checked for head pumping into the bay. That is a grossly unenforced ordinance. Note the method in which Avalon handles the problem. I support the Committee's recomendation to provide small boat (dinghy) access to various parts of the bay. For instance, I believe the Lido business district would benefit from that as well as other areas. Kindly consider a No Parking ordinance on the Peninsula between the hours of 3:00 A. M. to 6:00 A. M. once alternative parking is provided. Then those homes or apartments that provide no parking could either park in the structures or clear out the garages they have converted to boot -leg apartment units to park in them. Utility undergrounding districts should be coupled with lighting districts to solve both the asthetics and the increased safety need. The Bed and Breakfast concept is an excellent one to offer new alternate land uses for commmercial property owners. Any hotel ideas should utilize presently unattractive land uses rather than destroy property presently used to the satisifaction of the residents. I am unfamiliar with what control the City has regarding alcohol licenses versus the ABC .but surely we can restrict the issuance of licenses and enforce parking ordnances, etc. to further restrict bars, etc. Let us focus on the big picture, the three primary items recommended by your committee. Build a concensus around the portion on which we can agree and then address those areas that have angst involved with them. The problem has to get resolved this time around. Specific support and action by the City Council will prompt more citizens to get involved rather than sit on the side lines suppposing the Council will only give the Project 2000 lip service as it has done in the past with the RUDATs, etc. Very truly yours, KomveD V PLANNING DEPARTMENT TJLE C;, -'OF NEWppRT BEACH 0 41997 _ COPY 7A911 011141A81415 Let the city know how YOU feel about project 2000 statedYour city council has community regarding therecommendations of the BPPAC report. If you would like to let them know how you feel, pro or con here is how you may do so. One letter sent in the following manner will reach the mayor and all of the city council members. If you would like to express your opinion to an individual member in writing, or by personal phone call please refer to the following page. Date Mayor Jan Debay and City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Debay and Council Members, We have been reviewing the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee's report and recommendations and the Council action on same. This is how I feel ------------- - — /1 w, rru_ ed--f 40 eQ:4� 13 P PA-G Thank you for your consideration of my concerns, we need to be notified of all meetings pertaining to actions to be taken on the BPPAC report. Please copy the city clerk. Sincerely, (� � Name �/ Address Phone Z�V� (I - 6� Q &,4) April 28, 1997 Kevin Murphy, City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Attention:Newport Beach City Council Subject: TrafficCirculation/Street Parking/Cannery Village Dear Jan, Parking is much more important to the economic vitality of Cannery Village than improved automobile access. Please leave all street parking in place and add more if feasible. If we can provide parking for their cars the customers will come, even if the drive is slower or more difficult. Very Truly Yours, William R. Hamilton President, The Cannery Restaurant 3010 LA FAYETTE AVE. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 675-5777 FAX 675-2510 HISTORIC LANDMARK (06 IN CANNERY VILLAGE Central Newport Beach P.O. Box 884 • NewporrBeach, California 92661 Fag: (714) 673-0377 Distribution: Mayor Janice Debay Mayor Pro Tern Thomas Edwards Councilperson Norma Glover Councilperson John Hedges Councilperson John Noyes, Jr. Councilperson Dennis O'Neil Councilperson Tom Thomson Copies to: City Manager Kevin Murphy Assistant City Mgr. Sharon Wood Selected Community Associations Clive Towndrow, Mooring Ass'n CNBCA Members and Friends Association April 17, 1997 Planning Comm. Chairman Garold Adams Planning Comm. V. Chairman Michael Kranzley Planning Comm. Secretary Edward Selich Planning Commissioner Thomas Ashley Planning Commissioner Richard Fuller Planning Commissioner Anne Gifford Planning Commissioner Tod Ridgeway Mr. Tim Collins, Co -Chairman BPPAC Senior Planner John Douglas Marinapark Association American Legion Post #291 Re: The Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee, and "Project 2000, A Planning Vision for the Balboa Peninsula" dated January 20, 1997 Honorable Mayor, Councilpersons, Commissioners, Ladies and Genilemen; The Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA) is a community advocacy organization whose members are residents, and resident or non-resident property owners living or owning property or businesses on that part of the Peninsula between McFadden Square in Old Newport and Main Street in Balboa Village. Year to year, our membership is composed of approximately 450 family or owner groups. Our members have been active on behalf of our community for more than 45 years. Background: We have participated in recent years on many community and civic panels and study groups which have defined a course for the maintenance and improvement of our Peninsula neighborhoods. These include the 1972 site plan study for Marinapark, numerous General Plan recreational and open space element planning hearings, two separate Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team studies conducted by the A.I.A., the two year Cannery Village & McFadden Square Specific Plan development, and the two year Central Balboa Specific Area Plan development. Moreover, we have had the opportunity to comment and contribute to area planning on uncounted special occasions. As you know, we prepare an annual request for funds to be budgeted for capital improvements to our neighborhoods, by location and project, and residents have participated in two major utilities undergrounding projects. We are a proactive group, and do not take kindly to criticism that we sit on our hands. We take umbrage at the fact that there was no invited representative from CNBCA on either the BPPAC or in its Workshop Groups. Consistent with our advocacy role, our Board of Directors and a number of volunteer members undertook the task of dissecting the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee's Project 2000 Report for the purpose of identifying specific issues for further discussion and comment from this association. We believe the BPPAC report contains many recommendations for change which purport to be beneficial to residents as well as Commerce, but which are actually biased against the resident and' small property owner, Many of the recommendations result in the expansion of the Balboa Peninsula as an economic resource and revenue generator, at the expense of its residents. We have not commented on any suggestions in the predecessor report, the Urban Design Camp Balboa Peninsula Planning Study, if they were not a recommendation by the BPPAC. The significant errors contained in quantitative data in Project 2000 are of great concern, but were not addressed for the purpose of our meeting. Position: This document isolates each of the issues we identified within the report. Our comments are based primarily on long-standing CNBCA policy. Where CNBCA policy does not directly address an issue, we expressed our opinions based upon experience with, and understanding of the community. We also discussed concerns which were raised by many in the community following release of the Project 2000 report, Redevelopment: • We oppose the use of Redevelopment Agencies. No Redevelopment Agency is appropriate for alleged "current blighted and under -performing commercial uses", nor will such eliminate those "current blighted and under -performing commercial uses" which will remain outside the Redeveloped "four quality commercial villages." We support encouraging private property and business owners to improve their property. Parking: • We support enforcement of the intent for time -limited parking. • We support resident preferential parking. • We agree that revenue from parking meters (as well as meter violation fines) must remain in the local parking district. • We oppose parking structures on the Peninsula, except at the one location previously approved in the McFadden -Cannery Specific Area Plan. • We oppose paving over of the beaches, or removal of landscaping for vehicle parking, or for roadways or bike paths. • We oppose removal of Balboa Blvd, median parking, 21st Street to Medina Way. The 450 median parking spaces are essential to the residents. A truly resident -friendly proposal would have recommended that some curbside spaces be removed instead, but only at intersections in order to provide a reasonable sight path for observation of oncoming traffic by motorists attempting to turn onto, or off of Balboa Blvd. 2 Circulation: • We support shuttle buses with off -Peninsula visitor parking. • We support water taxi service to the Peninsula from off -Peninsula parking lots. • We oppose the traffic "improvements" proposed at McFadden Square. The reconstruction and consolidation of the juncture of Newport and Balboa Boulevards can only benefit commerce and non-residents at high cost to residents. The recent redesign, paid for by assessments of private property owners is working. • We oppose the four traffic circles, or "roundabouts". They will only produce chaos. Commercial Uses: • We support opening Lido Town Center Marina and commercial bayfront for boater access, public promenade. • We support creation of no more than two monuments at the entrances to the Peninsula. • We oppose increasing hotel capacity on the Peninsula, based on long-standing CNBCA policy. • We oppose the imposition of inspection, licensing and explicit "government approval" for short term residential rentals. The current system can work. • We support BPPAC on the issues related to excesses in the sale and consumption of alcohol, limiting on- and off -sale licenses, increasing Police and security (with incremental cost allocated to third parties). • We oppose a local, fixed Police substation facility, particularly, one to be shared with a library. • We support the policy that Conditional Use Permits should be regularly monitored, and whenever appropriate, revoked with the same "zero -tolerance" applied to errant school children. • We support the use of temporary banners in commercial areas. Marine Element: • We oppose creation of a City Harbor Commission and staff. • We support encouraging marine services in Cannery Village. • We oppose creating additional anchorages for "visiting yachtsmen". While visiting yachtsmen are certainly welcome, as are visiting yachtswomen, we understand they are not contributors to our economic well-being, and furthermore, doubt they would come in significant numbers, were we to provide anchorages. • We oppose Harbor promotion by the City. This is a function of the Chamber of Commerce. Government has enough to•do, now. • We oppose expansion of the duties of the Harbor Patrol beyond those already provided. The visitor serving and hospitality role of the (County) Harbor Department staff is not broken, needs no fixing. • Charter Boat concerns expressed by the BPPAC are generally valid where volume of traffic, size of vessels, noise, flotsam, numbers of clients are the concern. • We oppose relocation or removal of moorings. Circulation, visitor anchorages, and location considered, nothing is broken. Marinapark and the American Legion Facility should not be sacrificed for the benefit of an unquantified, tight-fisted lot of itinerant yachtspersons. • We oppose transient access and moorings for such, and dinghy docks for them, except in Lido Village. • We support the removal of derelict boats through enforcement of existing or new regulation by existing staff. Cannery Village: • We support the BPPAC recommendations for mixed use, preservation of yachting service businesses, compatibility of industrial uses, and nightlife restrictions. • We oppose the BPPAC recommendations for parking and circulation at 32nd Street. • The CNBCA opposes capital expenditure, bonds, assessments, or leveraging the 30th Street parking lot for the benefit of additional City Hall parking, expanded Fire and Marine Facilities, parking structures on 32nd Street. Lido Village: • We oppose the creation of Redevelopment Districts. There is no "blight", therefore no need for Redevelopment Districts in this area • We oppose the concept of Bed and Breakfast Inns in Lido Village. • We support location of dinghy docks at the Lido Marina Walk. • We support relocation of the visual clutter created by the display of yachts for sale. • The CNBCA opposes the suggested circulation changes and diagonal parking at Via Lido, and the redirection onto 32nd Street of traffic bound for Lido Isle, the Lido/Civic area, and Cannery Village. • We oppose the concept that Via Oporto should be abandoned as a public street, and revert to ownership by adjacent property owners, including the BPPAC Chairperson. Rather, the City might issue a lease or an encroachment permit for parking, or install metered parking. Balboa Village: • We support elimination of vehicular traffic on Main Street, south of Balboa Blvd. • We support redesign of the Main Beach Parking lot, only if it can be accomplished without more asphalt, beach roadways, or net loss of existing landscaping. • We oppose construction of Parking structures, here, as well as in McFadden Square • We support upgrading the Fun Zone. • We support improving the bayward view by removing kiosks, structures, north of Edgewater Walk. • We support consolidation of the commercial/retail areas. • We support redesign of Main Beach Parking Lot circulation, but only if it can be accomplished without a third signal at Washington. • We oppose the closure of Bay Ave., Main to Palm Street, for parking. McFadden Square: • We oppose relocation of the public and private bus storage problems experienced at the Balboa Main Beach parking lot by establishing a Transportation Center in or near McFadden Square. Infrastructure: • We oppose any disruption of the Balboa Blvd. storm drain replacement and street resurfacing project, (which has too many years to completion at its current rate). Any superficial, cosmetic treatment intended to `beautify Balboa Blvd." will essentially shut down progress, and simply apply more lipstick to Mr. Hedges' "pig". 4 • We support higher priorities for capital improvements for less `visitor visible" alleys, and mitigation of side street flooding. • We oppose establishing architectural design standards and review boards in the four villages, or anywhere else on the Peninsula. We have enough bureaucracy. • We support undergrounding of Peninsula utilities through the already established voluntary assessment process and successful application of Rule 8209 funds with the same emphasis and concentration applied to Pacific Coast Highway since 1971. • We support effective, attractive, unobtrusive, area -wide public signage, thematically compatible or not. • We support Project Green, voluntary seasonal planting and weeding of public areas. • We support the BPPAC's (too -often expressed) "quest for quality", particularly in all public areas, and recommend more frequent attention to rubbish removal and restroom maintenance, with costs allocated to users. Buildine Standards: • We support incentives, such as modified parking requirements and building floor area ratios, not just "to accommodate desired high quality uses and tenants" but to encourage conversion of excess commercial uses to residential uses. • We decline to comment on painting of structures and design limits on window signs. • We support the BPPAC on prohibition or limitation of free standing signs, rooftop signs, and window display signs. Hospitality and Land Use: • We support Bed and Breakfast Inns in transition areas between public or commercial uses, and adjacent residential areas (regardless of Zone), so long as there is no relaxation of conditions such as on -site parking, density, on -site management, etc. • We support Peninsula resort lodging development, not Peninsula -wide, and not by means of Redevelopment Agencies. • We oppose coercion to "displace blighted and low quality commercial establishments." • We support identification of costs and expenses associated with non-resident and visitor burdens, and the transfer of these financial burdens from local taxpayers to third parry users. • We support "respect for Permanent Residential Uses". We expand that support to include respect for owners and occupants of multifamily residential uses, as well as for single family residential uses. • We oppose separate zones and regulations for "transient occupancy areas". • We support the enforcement of the so-called "West Newport Ordinances" for control of anti -social activities attributed to residents or transient tenants. • We oppose the proposed new "hospitality" ordinance, hospitality zones, annual inspections for "hospitality standards", and the requirement for enforcement of standards or prohibitions (party houserentals)by rental agents. These are unnecessary and negatively expand governance. Marinapark and American Legion: • We support continuation of existing uses and long term extension of leases. • We oppose development of Marinapark, the American Legion facilities, and Las Arenas and Veterans Parks as a hospitality site. Local Coastal Plan: o More resident input must be considered prior to submission of the basic Plan, regardless of how preliminary the concepts proposed for Coastal Commission approval might be. P We request that City Staff, as the BPPAC proposes they do, hasten to screen and modify those already adopted Specific Plans with the same concern for resident input given during their creation, and not simply "to conform with planning objectives of this (BPPAQ report". Conclusion: Central Newport Beach, i.e., the Peninsula, is the foundation of the City of Newport Beach. It is eclectic in its character, it is aged, and it is a wonderful place to live. We have chosen to live here rather than in a "planned community". We resent our neighborhoods being labeled as "high crime", blighted and deteriorating. Anyone who has lived here for any length of time can tell you that crimes, with rare exception, are minor and are due to the influx of visitors who are exercising their right to be at the public beach. Residents can tell you that, in a free market, there will always be the odd property owner whose property is under -maintained, and, "This, too, will pass." They will tell you the economic cycles that resulted in commercial vacancies that have produced a net increase in "quality", especially in residential uses, over time. In keeping with the laissez-faire nature of our neighborhoods in Central Newport Beach, the following from Project 2000 are of particular concern among many issues we oppose. • The use of Redevelopment Agencies. • Removal of existing parking in the center of Balboa Boulevard. • Removal and/or relocation of moorings. • Additional regulation of short term rentals. • Subordination of the interests of the residents. We encourage: • Public and private investment in upgrading the infrastructure. • Serious enforcement of codes, regulations and ordinances. • Public participation in development and implementation of recommendations. • Inclusion of the representatives of CNBCA on future Peninsula planning committees. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to working with the City staff in the continuing improvement of Central Newport Beach. iSincerely , Pre ' ent for the Board of Directors and Members The Central Newport Beach Community Association 6 ''Central Newport Beach Community association P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, California 92661 Mr. Kevin Murphy, City Manager City of Newport Beach (Hand Delivered) March 21, 1997 Kevin: This follows on our brief hallway conversation yesterday. You told me funds were available to do many things, over time, which are recommended by the BPPAC. You asked, "If there was one recommendation in Project 2000 which the community (CNBCA, I assume) would most like to see accomplished, which would that be? Last night, as I told you, our Directors went over Project 2000 in detail, to complete a commentary on the many inter -related, sometimes complex incremental issues and proposals. I do not have the summary yet, and will not have it for a while. My Staff is busy, too. I can answer the basic question. Pay close attention to the scope of the reply. Our number one priority, identified by the BPPAC as their highest priority, as well, is Balboa Boulevard beautification. However, our interpretation of that goal is not cluttered with the complex baggage of removal of median parking, Redevelopment, consolidation of City signage, mind -boggling and traffic impeding roundabouts, elimination of "garish, tasteless commercial signage and building colors", removal of marginal commercial uses, adding bike trails, widening walkways, and so on, ad museum. We recently delivered our annual supplication to Public Works for Capital Budget consideration. Therein lies a detailed description of the beautification which needs to proceed. It began four years ago, after 20 or more years of requests. There are now (almost) four blocks of beautified and drained Balboa Blvd. If you follow our recommendation to cooperate with the undergrounding district between A and H Streets, there will be seven more blocks beautified, perhaps not needing to be drained. Continuing the same scale of project as that now underway, and from 21st Street to A Street, with storm drains where our letter indicates they are needed, is one important element of BPPAC's vision, there might be a few more in that kaleidoscope of visions. You can be sure that we will share our vision of the BPPAC's vision as soon as our staff has transcribed the discussion notes from last night. Thanks for the oppo ty to comment. Centrat Newport BeacfC P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, Califomia 92661 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Project 2000 Report .association February 5, 1997 References: 1.) PROJECT 2000. A Planning Vision for the Balboa Peninsula. Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee. January 20, 1977 2.) BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING STUDY Urban Design Camp January, 1997 Copy to: Planning Commission I3onorable Mayor and Members of the Council; The PROJECT 2000 Report is an impressive and well -prepared document which summarizes the "vision" of 9 residents of the community for "improving the quality of life on the Peninsula". Their vision addresses a great number of social and economic ills, and poor land use or public development issues which were identified during the Urban Design Camp workshops held in the summer of 1996, and which were documented along with remedial recommendations in the UDC report of January, 1997.. The CNBCA is one of the two resident and homeowner groups on the Peninsula. Neither was asked to participate by the BPPAC, but both were welcome to attend, and CNBCA did comment during the many summary sessions following the workshops. By BPPAC definition, the "Peninsula" study area has its origin at PCH and Balboa Blvd., with boundaries south along PCH to the Arches, then follows the shoreline easterly along the west Lido channel, incorporates the Lido Peninsula, Bay Island, wraps around the Point, then comes back westerly past the Newport Pier to 23rd Street, inland along 23rd to West Balboa Blvd., then westerly again along Balboa Blvd. to the starting point at PCH. Most residential areas in west Newport are excluded; Newport Island and Balboa Coves are included. Statistics provided by the BPPAC claim 13,000 population (19% of the City total), in 6142 residences (only 43% owner occupied). Residential property tax share to the City is $485,000 and commercial property tax share to the City is $254,000. Another important number to remember is $1,200,000, the amount of "other City revenue" contributed by �b Peninsula Commerce for sales tax, licenses, bed tax (which probably includes bed tax from widespread residential short term seasonal rentals) and misc. We acknowledge the many hours of participation by Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood and by John Douglas, Principal Planner, the City Council for providing these staff in support of this project, and the leadership of then Mayor, now Councilman John Hedges. We agree with many of the philosophical goals of BPPAC, and thank the members and workshop participants for their interest and hard work. On the other hand, many goals are "resident unfrienrIIy" and contrary to CNBCA residents' preferences, as expressed by them over the years in the Association's Policies Statement. There are additional issues which should be the subject of early discussion and further comment; Furthermore, there are challenges to the residents' priorities in the many and diverse recommendations in P2000. While we are sensitive to keeping our collective noses out of areas other than the residential area "between the two ocean piers", we must speak up on the relative value of some Peninsula projects and the cost to implement others, since we compete each year for budgetary capital funds on a City-wide basis. To follow on his metaphor, we need to be carefiil we don't waste our meager allocation to buy more lipstick for Mr. Hedges' pig. Those of us residing on the Peninsula would like to hear the definition of, and the amount of revenue potential to be derived from the frequently cited "visiting yachtsman" or "visiting boaters", as they are the beneficiaries of our losses, and the source of our presumed (sales tax revenue?) gain. What is the "tenant mix" that is to be improved? We will assume that to refer to the commercial tenant mix, and not to class of resident. As a diverse group of residents, owners as well as tenants, our attention is sharpened by references to the benefits to be derived from "positive and negative social and economic contributors", to be solicited and rejected by unnamed beneficiaries and according to standards yet to be defined. BPPAC now recommends "establishing" (previously "considering") Redevelopment Project Areas in key areas. Explain "Redevelopment Project" as that relates to public improvements. Jack Camp speaks poorly of Redevelopment as a tool. (Ref. 2, p. 105). Staff says there will be none. Que pasa? We are concerned by, and would lice to hear more about (). 56, point 7., under "Reversing the Trend"); "Form Special Assessment Districts to finance resident serving infrastructure and public improve-ments that maintain or increase property values and enhance general ambiance.....:'. Staff assures us there are none to be considered, that founds from such as Community Development Block Grants, and other sources of "free money" will be considered. Our comments which follow are on Comprehensive Planning Recommendations which begin in Ref. 1, on page 34, and continue from there. Elimination of one-way only lanes of Nnt.Blvd. from 26th to 30th Streets is an agreeable proposal. However, this project should only proceed after a.) condemnation of the of the commercial islands and the conversion of the thereby recovered and relocated land for use as ground level parking, residential, or as -bed and breakfast hospitality to buffer residential uses from commercial uses, b.) after site planning for the recommended 2 ..t so-called "Blurock Resort Hotel", or "Peninsula Hyatt" at South Coast Shipyards on McFadden Square, and c.) after determining where the additional ground level (emphasis added) parking will -be located to offset the potential loss of up to 240 of the displaced median Balboa Blvd. parking spaces. Merger of Newport and Balboa Boulevards. Design of this traffic circle "turnaround" logically follows the above. "Teeing" into Newport Boulevard at 26th Street would be absolute insanity, a conclusion agreed to be Jack Camp, during high traffic days. Reducing Balboa Blvd. median parking from McFadden Square to Alvarado flies in the face of the interests of residents. Along Balboa Blvd. from 21st Street to Alvarado Blvd., there are about 480 parking meters. Most of these are unoccupied during off-season daytime hours, except for the two blocks in front of Newport Elementary School. Contrary to the claim of the BPPAC chairman, they are about 25% occupied at midnight, in midweek, in midwinter, while curbside spaces are full. Daytime revenue from these meters is cited at $128,174 in coin, and if the revenue from fines is proportionate to City-wide experience, there is another $256,348 in fines, for a total of $384,522. The 480 metered spots are essential to residents at anytime, but are particularly indispensable in -season, and provide de facto resident preferential parking in -season at low cost under the present recreational meter parking permit policy. Locations of the offsetting parking places, should any of these be removed, BPPAC recommends to be in McFadden Square or in Balboa where only multi -level parking structures or additional asphalt on the beach are feasible. This is not desirable, nor is concentrating more public use in these over -used areas consistent with BPPAC philosophy. Construction of public parking structures, other than as part of the long -ago approved Cannery Village plan, even with remedial design features based on the negative Balboa Village experiences, is not in concert with residents interests. Undergrounding of overhead utility lines. Planning for undergrounding of utilities must proceed with equal consideration for residential streets, boulevards and alleys on an equal basis between commercial and residential areas. Presently, undergrounding proceeds only at the expense of the (majority of) property owners, with strong support from City staff. If alternate or City funding is found available, it must be applied, as well, for the benefit of adjacent residential owners in less conspicuous, but just as ugly alleys, for instance. Undergrounding of electrical and communications services, Peninsula -wide, must proceed with high priority wherever possible. Widening sidewalks and bicycle lanes on Balboa Blvd. An excellent suggestion, space permitting. However, suggesting that some significant number of pedestrians and bicyclists will opt for using Balboa Blvd. in lieu of the scenic Oceanfront Walk, 200 feet away, is ludicrous. The better suggestion is to construct a safe bike path on Balboa Blvd., and prohibit all manner of wheeled traffic on Oceanfront Walk. How can BPPAC address beautification of Balboa Blvd. when storm drains are notin place? Until recently, no improvements had been made to Balboa Blvd. due to the absence of storm drains. For more than twenty five years, we have heard from Directors of Public Works that nothing will improve on Balboa Blvd. until the storm drains are in place cinder it. Four years ago, money began to be budgeted, two years ago construction started on the first two block section. Today, two more blocks are under renovation. The cost is averaging $500,000 per block, and is proceeding at a snail's pace of one block per year.. There are about 26 blocks remaining to be renovated. Any disruption of the process with 3 %a superficial, cosmetic embellishments (Lipstick on the pigl) will only set real progress back another generation. Installation, of real storm drains and renewal of utilities under Balboa Blvd. are the overriding priority to any expenditures for the benefit of Commerce and positive social contributors. Shuttle buses, with off -peninsula parking is in concert with CNBCA policy, even though past experience has not shown such to be popular. Off -peninsula parking should be mandatory for all buses, whether associated with a shuttle service, or not. The Balboa Parking lot problems with bus fumes and engine noise cannot be resolved by transferring them to a McFadden Square Transportation Center. Recasting regulations and realigning parking districts and use of parking meter (and concomittant narking fine) derived funds is acceptable, and should include assurances against present and future City Managers raiding this resource for the benefit of the General Fund, as was recently attempted. The use of public parking lots, through in -lieu arrangements, to satisfy code required on -site parking is unacceptable. Las Arenas Park, Marinapnrk is a resident friendly, quiet, problem free, revenue generating asset which is proposed to be converted for the benefit of the nebulous, but certainly "socially positive" "visiting yachtsmen" or other public use which, presumably, will reward us in some yet to be defined way. CNBCA policy supports the continuation of the existing uses at Marinapark and the American Legion sites. Marinapark currently returns $109,278 per acre per year to the General Fund, and has a potential of $164,000 per acre at new, resident -agreeable market lease rates. Compare that to the Balboa Bay Club at $59,000 to the Tidelands Fund, or Beacon Bay at $110,000 split 50150 between Tidelands and General Funds. A facile disregard of continued residential use of Marinapark, because "the State won't allow it", is premature considering the history of the "socially", but not as "economically positive" Beacon Bay and Balboa Bay Club. Revenue to the City from Marinapark residents is cunently$530,000 and from the American Legion lease, $90,000. With lease renewals due shortly on both City owned properties, the potential annual revenue is nearly $1,000,000. Commerce on the entire Peninsula contributes only $1,200,000 through sales tax, licensing, etc. If we scrap these uses, what will the "visiting yachtsmen" or other public beneficiaries contribute, other than a demand for costly service such as restrooms, showers, parking, trash removal? CNBCA residents at fast supported public use proposals contained in the report entitled MARINAPARK PLANNING STUDY "A Unique Opportunity for Public Shoreline", presented to the P,B&R Commission on June 20, 1972. Later, the Association rejected the concepts, preferring the less intense, low traffic, park -like, revenue producing residential use. Marinapark and its beachfront are accessible to the public via public walkways. Intensification of commercial use of this land contradicts the BPPAC. Their premise is that such concentration of commercial'uses should be reserved for "commercial core areas", reduced in expanse, even to the extent that they should be mandated through "Redevelop- ment" if necessary. 4 %+� McFadden Square as a site opportunity for a 100 to 150 room resort hotel is contrary to the interests of the residents. Variously referred to as the Peninsula Hilton, The.Blurock Resort, a hotel and marina complex at the `mixmaster" begs for a sanity check. Establishing visitor hospitality measures is not in the best interests of individual property owners in the format proposed by the BPPAC. The recommendation is for establishing "acceptable" quality standards and annual inspections in conjunction with licensing and other regulation of short term (less than 30 days) residential rentals in all residential areas, and the display of signage confirming conformance to minimum standards. (p. 37, N.D.) Is it BPPAC's recommendation to probibit seasonal, short term rentals in some residential zones on the Peninsula? (p. 40, V.A.6.) Bed and Breakfast zones should be limited to use permits in buffer locations, beneficially to separate residential from intense public and commercial uses, and not necessarily based on zoning such as "equal to or greater than R-1.5". City Harbor Commission could be acceptable if constituted by incorporating Harbor Water Quality, and perhaps some other related Committees. Justifying the staffing such a department with more City employees (by negotiating the turning over of jurisdiction of Harbor operations from current County management to City management) should be considered only within the concept of downsizing government. How about trading the Fire and EMS functions of our Fire and Marine Department to the County in exchange for the Harbor functions? Expansion, rather than contraction of the bureaucracy by creating a municipal Harbor Commission (and Stall) with full responsibility for policy, entitlement, permitting, management and maintenance of the harbor and control of its users, and having to deal with another municipal employees union is too painfirl to ponder. Hospitality for "visiting Yachtsmen" must be a rewarding concept, considering what BPPAC proposes to do, to draw them here. How many are there who would come if called? How much would they spend, and where? Would they, for instance, spend $100,000,000 in McFadden Square annually so we could cam back the $1,000,000 Marinapark and American Legion lease revenue we would lose annually to give them a landing place? Security and Alcohol control and abatement are important issues to CNBCA, also. Balboa Village has been the subject of Specific Area Plan development, an effort for which this Association provided two Committee members. We supported redesign of circulation, and allocation of spaces at the Balboa Main Beach Parking Lot for increase of shorter term parking, provided it could be done without added more beach paving or loss of existing landscaped area, and supported reduction of the Balboa Village commercial zone to the area between A Street and Adams Street. Cannery Village has also been subject of a Specific Area Plan development in which CNBCA participated. It seems a bit extraordinary to go to the ends proposed in this document for the benefit of Commerce. Do Lido Isle residents and Cannery Village residents support the proposal to make 32nd Street the only major route to Lido Isle, to the Lido/Civic Plaza parking facilities, and to the Cannery Village? BPPAC assurances aside, we think not. Why suggest to relocate Fire and Marine Headquarters in new facilities across 32nd Street? Why spend money for municipal employee fitness facilities, excercise AA suits, etc., then more money so they needn't walk across.the street to get to work? We support reducing operating hours for -service and sale of alcoholic beverages, and BPPAC goals for active code enforcement and Use Permit conformance. We will continue to support increasing police presence in areas where nocturnal carousing and vandalism are prevalent, beyond the present 60% of patrol budget utilized on the Peninsula, with costs appropriately allocated. If we are going to be the cash cow, we expect to need a few cowboys, Chief McDonelll In conclusion, we need to understand priorities such as how BPPAC can address beautification of Balboa Blvd. as its No. 1 project, without addressing the costly storm drain prerequisite? Or how they address realignment of the "mixmaster" prior to removal of the commercial lots between the Newport Blvds. How can they consider relocating commercial and public uses to Las Arenas and Marinapark when the major problems now are widespread decentralization of commercial uses, and shortage of revenue. With a concentration of effort on high visibility public and commercial areas, when will East and West Bay Avenue get the attention it needs for drainage and resurfacing? How will alleys and cross streets fare in the competition for capital? This program needs to go forward, no doubt, but only the easy part has been done. These documents need to be rendered and deflatulated, and the meat and bones laid out on the table. The Planning Staff has made a start in that direction with their four -page "BPPAC Implementation Schedule" of 12/17/96. There needs to be project identification, prioritization, cost analysis, reprioritization, and sources of funds cormnitted, and scheduling. Anything else, and we can put the Peninsula's future back there on the shelf with the rest- of the RUDAT's, the Who-dat's and other monuments to time wasted. We will look forward to working with Staff in whatever. way will be helpful, on the implementation of the next phase. Sincerely-^ � Thomas E. Hyans President, for the Board of Directors M A M e t NEWPORT HARBOR AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE December 2, 1996 Kevin Murphy, City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Murphy: The Marine Division of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce has formed the new Charter Operators Alliance uniting all the charter operations in Newport Harbor. The Alliance has had an excellent response from the charter companies and the meetings held at the chamber were very constructive. During the quarterly meeting of the Marine Division, Mr. Tim Collins gave a presentation concerning the issues of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study as relating to the marine industry. The marine industry primarily the charter operators want to have input into those issues that will effect their businesses. As President of the Marine Division and overseeing the Charter Operators Alliance, I prepared this report to inform you as to the new Alliance and the steps the charter industry is taking. Thank you, and do not hesitate to contact the Chamber or myself (645-8445) for further information. Best Regards, Michael Whitehead President Marine Division enc. Study Recommendations Charter Operators Alliance cc: Tim Collins Barbara deBoom Bill Hamilton Ray Handy Seymour Beek 14701AMBOREE RD. • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 • (714) 729-4400 • FAX (714) 729-4417 I 4000maj=000 NEWPORT HARBOR AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Marine Division 18, 1996 TO: BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPPAC) Michael Whitehead, President NHACC Marine 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 729-4400 Fax (714) 729-4417 Marine Division Contact: Mike Whitehead, President (714) 645-8445 Fax (714) 631-7223 BoathouseTV@msn.com Balboa Peninsula Planning Study Recommendations The Marine Division of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce held a special meeting on November 7 from the interest generated by the presentation of Tim Collins during the Marine Division's quarterly breakfast meeting in October. At this special meeting the charter operators in Newport Harbor were made aware of the two reports being submitted to Newport Beach City Council (BPPAC and Camp) and the effects to the marine industry. Thus, prompt action followed with the formation of the Charter Operators Alliance. Under the auspices of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce Marine Division, the Charter Operators Alliance is establishing goals and objectives to bring together those who are in Marine Charter Industry. The Marine Division Steering Committee is actively working with the Alliance to address several issues that are of interest to BPPAC. Therefore, it is prudent to advise BPPAC, Camp, and the City Council of the items being addressed by the new Alliance. Summary of Draft Statement 1. A Charter Operators Alliance has been created as a sub -committee of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce's Marine Division. Comprising of Charter Operators, Fishing Operators, Rental Operators, and Others in the Marine Related Community to have an active voice in the present and future plans of Newport Harbor leading the marine industry into the 21" Century. Important to Newport Beach and local businesses, the charter fleet alone attracts over '/4 million annual visitors making this a destination stop generating valuable revenue for local businesses and the City. The Alliance will be working closely with the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange Harbor Department, California Department of Boating & Waterways, United States Coast Guard, Local Charter Operators, and others to enhance Newport Harbor. Page 1 Recommendations Continued The charter industry is the most regulated business in Newport and up to this time there has not been a united voice representing the Charter Operators. In addition to the regulations already established, the Alliance is drafting internal protocols for the charter operators to follow while operating in Newport Harbor. This is an excellent plan to have operators oversee their industry and respond immediately to concerns and/or recommendations. Presently, the Marine Division President is acting as the Alliance's Chairperson and accepting all communications. 2. The Alliance is addressing the Noise Issue concerning charter boats: a. Horns/Whistles Signals: Required by the United States Coast Guard, yet most boaters do not know the signals. b. Music/Bands: Starting January 1997, the Alliance will be reviewing and making recommends to the existing ordinances. c. Exhaust Noise of Charter Boats 3. The Alliance is addressing the Cruising Speed Issue concerning charter boats and a noticeable awareness of charter vessel's speed can be observed already. For Information; the harbor's speed limit is 5 mph; no wake; or steerage of the vessel. 4. The Alliance addressed the overall size and number of charter boats operating in Newport. The unanimous consensus was to not draft any regulations to the charter fleet as constraint of business. The harbor's natural limitations and the business in general will dictate this factor. 5. The Alliance is addressing the Parking Issue concerning charter boats. This is an item that needs complete review as no one is satisfied with the present permit/fee system in place. 6. One of the Alliance's primary goals is the education of the Charter Fleet and the Community to become good neighbors. Through the media, seminars, discussion groups, etc. a strategy can be adopted for everyone to share the beautiful waterways and avoid conflicts of special interests. 7. Address the issue of Public Docks, expansion and modification of public docks as mentioned in the Camp's Report. The Marine Division will be the primary group involved in this item. The public docking system in Newport needs revamping and there is an excellent pool of knowledge available in our group and with other Federal & State agencies. The Marine Division is exploring possible solutions to this complex proposal. -End- Page 2 NEWPORTHARBOR AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NEWRT HARBOR AREA Marine Division CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Charter Operators Alliance Mike Preface Newport Harbor is one of the World's foremost small craft harbors, yet there is not an active alliance for the charter related industry. However, the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce has the means and the Chamber's mission statement says it all: The mission of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce is to bring together those who do business in Newport Beach to achieve a robust local economic climate, personal development and a quality social environment for the community. The marine business community needs to have a united voice in planning the future of the Harbor which directly effects the marine related businesses. The Charter fleet is one of the most regulated businesses and must unite to have a say in the Federal, State & Local regulations. Important to Newport Beach and local businesses, the charter fleet alone attracts over '/a million annual visitors making this a destination stop generating valuable revenue for local businesses and the City. Description Under the auspices of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce Marine Division, this committee would establish goals and objectives to bring together those who are in Marine Industry. Comprising of Charter Operators, Fishing Operators, Rental Operators, and Others in the Marine Related Community to have an active voice in the present and future plans of Newport Harbor leading the marine industry into the 21 st Century. Chairperson This position will entail the oversight of the "Alliance" reporting to the Marine Division Committee and Marine Division President. Responsible for coordinating and directing meetings for the mutual benefit of the Charter Operators Members. Authorization to assign members for assignments and activities to achieve the overall goals and objectives. 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714) 644-3000 April 16, 1997 Nancy A. Remley Christ Church By The Sea 1400 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661-1011 Dear Ms. Remley: Thank you for your recent letter to Mayor Debay and Members of the City Council regarding your concerns over parking on the Peninsula. It appears that your concerns were raised by the recently completed study by the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC). 1 would like to assure you that no decisions regarding the recommendations in this report have been made by the City Council and I am personally aware that the City Council has concerns related to recommendations on the possible change in on -street parking regulations and availability. Over the course of the next few months the City will be conducting numerous meetings to provide you an opportunity to present input on this issue and I would hope that you would take advantage of that opportunity. If you need further information on the BPPAC study or recommendations, please feel free to contact Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, at 644-3222. Sincerely, cc: J. Debay, Mayor J. Hedges, Council Member [S-Wood;'Assistaht"City=Maria e[�, City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard 9 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 CHRIST CHURCH BY THE SEA=I- 1400 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92661-1011 (714)673-3805 - 9 09 21 1991 March 18, 1997 Mayor Jan Debay and Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members: Date I . CO -� C111PfrJFK rsent T« vervunr eEncH CB found Member ©'Manager ' ❑ F Greetings. My name'is Nancy Remley. I am the office Manager for Christ Church by the Sea. We .are the United Methodist Church located at 1400 West Balboa Boulevard. I am also 'a peninsula resident, living at 101 E. Balboa Boulevard. I an writing in the hopes of bringing to your attention the daily use and need for parking in front of our church - as well as in front of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and the Newport Elementary School. All of us use street parking -- the elementary school teachers and parents on a daily basis, and the churches whenever there are large gatherings - such as -community meetings, day care drop-offs ,and pick-ups, day care programs, concerts, funerals weddings, religious holiday celebrations and every Sunday. The loss of any parking at this location'would create major problems. It is hard enough having our parking restricted for the current five -month period while street improvements are being completed. As I mentioned I am also a peninsula resident. In the last few yearn the homes around mine have nearly all become year round owner occupied. While my neighbors and I are in favor of the cleaning -up and the beautification of the peninsula, parking is precious to us. I would hope that the council could do some 'creative thinking`and come up with a plan to re -landscape and beautify the existing median parking without having to remove any parking spaces. Something similar perhaps to the work done between 12th and 16th Streets. Median ends could look much better if -planted with something other than natal plum. I will appreciate any time you take to consider our parking needs. Sincerely, . Nancy A. Remley David F. Lehmberg, Pastor 17 17:10 'a214 9915184 R al Fsoce tnvemnenc Builders • L7eve)opm 133s5 N«I RrAd, LB 3 Su)m 1315 A➢u. •rX 75Z40•6603 (972)934.2244 FAX (972) 991.5164 3471 Va Lido Suite 207 e4e Beoci4 CA 92667.3929 (714 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 FRITZ DUDA Q 002 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" � MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Murphy Sharon Wood City Cotmcii Members FROM: Fritz Duda i REF: BPPAC STUDY - PALBOA PENINSULA I COMMUNI'1'V EVUCATION DATE: February 10, 1997 i As the council moves forward in connection with the Balboa Peninsula initiatives, I believe it is important to understand several elements with regard to inevitable conflicts and different points of view as the results of the published study are more widely disseminated, especially among special interest groups and stakeholders (both residentially and commercially) on the Balboa peninsula. Collectively, I'll refer to them as the " BALPALS". As I am sure both council and staff recognize, we are bound to hear any number of public comments (both pro and con) with }espect to the recommendations. Having been involved in a number of similar studies in other communities, I would like to share a few observations with you: 1 ve.,j=Wa Self Di=psis -Typically, stakeholders in an area that has been in negative transition for many years are not capable of solving their own problems. Many BALPALS have achieved a high tolerance level and simply do not want change. Others have vested interests and commercial businesses that are inconsistent with any meaningful redevelopment plan. Finally, there is always a constituency that finds "character" or •lion" in areas that have experienced substantial decline. Historically, we�I - seen efforts by the City of Saa Francisco thwarted in their attempt to clean up tenderloin district; efforts o redevelop faced a very difficuce were lt m tedly opposed and (as man of you may recall) g Beach eliminating the pike amusement area many years ago. 02/,10/97 17:10 12214 9915184 FRITZ DUDA Qooa Memo re: BPPAC Study - Balboa Peninsula Community Education February 10, 1997 Page Two i believe the lesson here is that community input from the BALPALS is important, however, this area has been unable to reverse the negative declines over several decades and it is unlikely any meaningful change can take place without the initiatives recommended in the BPPAC Report. 2. 'Me Workshop Pracess - BPPAC spent over a year in meetings and dialogue with respect to the various BALPAL Clements on the peninsula In order to obtain responsible re —presentation, the council ;.ssisied us in appointing members of the four key area study groups. Thus, a well designed effort has already been conducted in order to gain responsible input from the community. Accordingly, we should all understand that this report is not the product of a unilateral or detached process. Indeed, the council itself designated workshop participants who openly discussed problems, solutions and priorities. These representatives formulated the key recommendations. F.opefully, the lesson here is that while public comment is important and constructive, the BPPAC report is already the product of an extended public participation process. 3. Broader CommlWily u o - Tnterestingly, since the report has been published, we have received 4 of calls from members of the broader (off peninsula) community. Many do not believe the report goes far enough in addressing (for example) the Balboa faun zone, arcades and similar issues. Incredibly, many members of the broader comnuJuity believe the peninsula needs more drastic solutions and, as une person suggpstedl we should have considered deannexation to Huntington Beach. While those comments are not taken seriously, I believe we need to spend more time educating the broader community about the economics of the peninsula and initiatives recommended. Indeed, the City's commitrneat to the broader community should include a community outreach and education program. City wide priorities go hand in hand with revitalizing the Balboa Peninsula. I believe the lesson here is that there is a large (but mostly silent) constituency that applaud action finally being taken to resolve the long standing issues on the peninsula. They have a more objective view than the BALPALS and we need to listen to them as well. Perhaps now is the time to consider more at large members on BPPAC in order to address these and related issues. FLD:tb to6 Coo, o*. e!I c t` FATCy COTS A FISH +7w0 February 51 1997 Michael Kranzley, vice President Paine Weber Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Project 2000' Dear Mr. Kranzley: Itisyg1YCv a 1 t.gNNING DEPARTMENT ,ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '..� 0 5 iog? 4M 78191JIU112111213141M VIA HAND DELIVERY I was one of the members of the community who addressed the BPPAC at the February 3, 1997 meeting held at the American Legion Hall in Newport Beach, regarding comments to the plan presented by the Committee. I do not know if the comments made by the various interested citizens were recorded but I wanted to be certain that my message to you and to the Committee was received and understood and that I expect an answer to the questions I posed. As I advised during my presentation, I am very pleased to explore any proposal that would have the effect of improving the quality of life in our community. I commend all of you who have worked on this project to bring it to its present state and I will support any project that will benefit my family and myself, our neighbors and the other members of our community. However, before I can endorse the project with the vigor and enthusiasm that I believe it should enjoy, I ask that you provide me with the answers to the following questions: 1. How many street parking places serving The Crab Cooker and surrounding retail businesses will be eliminated under the current plan? 2. How many new parking spaces will be added and where will they be located? 3. What specific changes are being endorsed by the Committee with regard to the flow of vehicular traffic in the vicinity of The Crab Cooker? \b O" of5p, Michael Kranzley, Vice President ' �, Re: Project 2000 4` EAT y February 5, 1997 LOTS A FISH Page -2- etvaw�°� 4. What specific changes are being recommended by the Committee with regard to the flow of pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of The Crab Cooker? 5. What is the total budget for the project? Has it been approved? If so, when was it approved? If not, what is the anticipated protocol for obtaining budget approval? 6. What sources of financing are being considered by the Committee and what sources will be recommended to the City Council? (For example, municipal bonds, sales tax increases, property tax increases, etc.) 7. Has the City Planning Commission's• staff provided any opinion or recommendation with regard to the project, and, if so, may I have a copy of the opinion or recommendation? S. Has a definitive starting date been established for commencement of construction work on the project? 9. Has there been a completion date established? 10. Has there been any organized opposition voiced to the project? If so, by what organization and what is the basis of such opposition? 11. Has an environmental impact report been prepared? If so, may I have a copy of it and if not, is it anticipated that an EIR will be prepared? I would appreciate your responses to the foregoing questions at your earliest convenience. very truly yours, Robert Roubian Owner, The Crab Cooker RR:vav wr5JU)m& M-52W-nZkr.ur �q January 11, 1997 Joseph W. DeCarlo Susan M. DeCarlo 510 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, California 92661 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AY V `� (7 1397 PM 71g191101ll112111213141516 John Douglas, Principal Planner 6 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA- 92658 Re: Comments on the Balboa Peninsula Planning Report and Recommendations Dear John: I can't attend the February 3'a meeting, but wanted to make some comments for the record. 1. A Major Hotel is a foolish idea considering the characteristics of the area, parking, environmental factors and the Coastal Commission. The shipyard area should be considered for bed and breakfast uses. 2. Parking and Circulation should be a priority, but not by eliminating metered parking along Balboa Blvd. We have freeloaders that come every week to surf or sunbathe and maybe purchase a six-pack of beer. At least make them pay for parking. Permanent residents should be able to buy an annual parking sticker for a maximum of $50.00. More parking spaces may be available at Fashion Island and Newport Center if the City would subsidize a motor trolley (Balboa Red Car) to run in the summer and during boat parades. Maximum fare could be 250, if not free. Use of the 10 sales tax from the new Bloomingdales should easily handle the cost. Those same visitors would also shop at Fashion Island so we can have multi -uses and off -time (office) parking. 3. The Addition of Bike Lanes on Balboa Blvd. is ludicrous when there is a boardwalk, one of the most beautiful areas to travel in the world, only yards away. The same can be said for the misguided suggestion of expanding the sidewalk on Balboa Blvd. 4. Commercial Use Elimination on Balboa Blvd, especially around 6" St. and Island, is an ill conceived idea. We have a small town community feeling with our own barber shop, restaurant, convenience mart, laundry and library. This eliminates driving and loosing your parking space in the summer and is convenient, not to mention quaint, in the winter, (my favorite time). 14 5. Upgrade the Quality of Life by maintaining Balboa Peninsula, (and making even more), as a quaint place to live and visit. Allow special variances for lot combinations to consolidate small, run down, older houses into more desirable larger lots. Give incentives and subsidies to businesses, such as the old movie theater on Main and Balboa to get started. Additional T- shirt stores, tattoo parlors and arcades should be banned as they do not add anything. In fact, these kind of businesses attract the wrong people. In conclusion, make life on Balboa Peninsula more fun and convenient for the residents by giving them reduced annual parking fees, keeping the parking meters and bringing in more businesses that would attract tourists. Subsidize a free shuttle from Newport Center to alleviate parking and traffic congestion. Forget the ideas about a new hotel, adding wider sidewalks and bike lanes, tearing down our essential businesses like barber shops, hair salons, mini -mart and laundry. Sincerely, oseph W. DeCarlo, CPM, CCIM JD:jls cc: John Hedges \S ANDREW DOSSLTT PYttl4ft, br' 1305 East Balboa Blvd./Balboa, California 92661/fax (714)675-2453/P/ �Af�I�i 9��B"tMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 8August96 Am 1996 7A900A121112i3415i6 Re: Community Meeting August 7 Balboa Central District A Ladies and Gentlemen, After last night's meeting, I would like to make some comments: 1. Although beautification and traffic flow was emphasized what seems to be uppermost in the City's and the Residents minds is Parking. 2. Today at 0945 the Pier parking lot was completely full from the pier to Palm Avenue. It is an overcast cool morning, very very few of the cars in the lot are beach goers. 3. It was stated last night that Avalon bound holidaymakers and Davy's Locker fisherman do not contribute as much to the commercial establishments as the beach goers. 4. Rather than asphalt more beach consider moving the Catalina Flyer and fishing boats to the northshore and thus make parking space for beachers. 5. We agree B Street parking and deadend is a congestion and would suggest enlarging and joining A Street parking to the Pier parking lot via pier underpass. End A and B Streets at the boardwalk. I appreciated the friendly way that Mr Jim Camp made his presentation and fear that his style could woo many heads. Y;464� To: Ms Sharon Wood, Asst City Manager of Newport Beach Mrs Dona Colombero Mr Malcolm Dunn Mr Chan Lefebvre Mr Jim Camp, Urban Design Camp 3 Date Copies Seat TO: 4 ,a ayor RE41",E$VEE: ,Qreouncii Member SEP 8 1996 Manager CITY CLERK ❑ Attorney q cmra NEWPORT eFEACH ❑ 117 15th Street Newport Beach, California 92663 August 29, 1996 The Honorable John Hedges Mayor - City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Hedges: It has come to my attention that the street reconstruction project for Balboa Boulevard between 14th and 16th Streets may be delayed in order to the need for time to analyze the "Balboa Peninsula Planning Study." I take serious objection to this delay. I have been working with engineering staff of the City for over ten years in order to implement the street reconstruction project. During that time, problems concerning the physical structure of Balboa Boulevard have only become worse. I have had a large commercial window crack due to the rumblings caused by a bus and I have seen TV cameras broadcasting live from outside my living room window during heavy rains. The problems were so severe at one spot in the road, that an emergency project, that provided temporary relief, was undertaken by the City and for which I thank you and the City staff. The August 13, 1996, draft of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study has some recommendations that are not feasible and do not warrant additional consideration. I fear that these are the items causing delay in the street reconstruction. one recommendation is to remove some public parking along the Peninsula. I assure you that the Coastal Commission would never find enough justification to approve this concept. It is the Commission's legal mandate to improve public access and only the State legislature can change that, regardless of the change in.the makeup of the Coastal Commission itself. Also, there is discussion of widening sidewalks. This discussion already took place during the design process for the four block street reconstruction, two blocks of which have been implemented. People do not stroll down Balboa Boulevard, that is what the Boardwalk is for. People walk to the nearest corner and cross to the bay or ocean, both of which are infinitely more attractive -2- than the traffic on Balboa Boulevard ever could be. Only skateboarders would enjoy the width, to the detriment of the adjacent residents. The extra width of the boulevard allows people to exit their cars safely, on a heavily traveled street, while carrying beach gear, groceries, watching excited children, etc. Extra protection, afforded by the street width, is also given to bicyclists who use the boulevard. Balboa Boulevard is a designated bike trail on the Master Plan of Regional Bikeways, and users of the Boardwalk are grateful for every bike that chooses the boulevard. Please have the two block street reconstruction project on Balboa Boulevard implemented this fiscal year as budgeted. There finally is money to construct it, the engineering has been done and many consultants and staff members have been paid to advance the project to this point. If you really want the Peninsula to look better, enjoy the reconstructed two blocks on your way to and from your home. You will notice a street that is not a patchwork of repairs that jar your car, an attractive median and street trees that will grow to become a credit to the City. Very tr ly yourst Grace E. Dove (h) 675-1573; (w) 834-6793 cc: K. Murphy, City Manager T. Hyans, Central Newport Beach Asso. October 8, 1996 Ms. Grace Dove 117 15th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Dove: The Mayor has asked me to respond to your letter regarding improvements to Balboa Boulevard. I believe you received a copy of his letter to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee at their meeting of October 2, indicating that the City needs to continue with the improvements in order to meet the Coastal Commission requirement that work be completed before Summer. This project will be on the City Council agenda for October 28, for authority to advertise for bids. If that authority is given, the project can be completed in this fiscal year. Sincerely, Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager cc: City Council Kevin Murphy, City Manager Tom Hyans, Central Newport Association 57" °� �' Seat RECEIVED 3303 Via Lido, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tel (714) 673-1340 Fax (714) 673-0843 097 MAY 30 A 9 :15 May 281997 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK y,CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor Debay Honorable City Council: We are writing in reference to the Council meeting of April 28, 1997. The proposal for Balboa Peninsula Renovation is not without merit and we want to support your efforts wherever possible. Your ,patience in providing time for so many residents, business and organization representatives and others to express their concerns and approvals is appreciated. Our church congregation welcomed the Council's immediate decision to eliminate the proposed rerouting of Via Lido traffic onto 32nd Street, and the possible condemning and redeveloping of some properties. Your proposals for a Financial Plan, Outreach Program and Alcohol regulation on the peninsula are very appropriate. We appreciate your serving the residents of Newport Beach and being responsive to them. Cordially, EXECUTIVE BOARD Leslie Martindale Clerk Des �� 30 JL Copies WTx A0"1r"W �10' nlpt O O — i`5� 4-//a9/9� 3303 Via Lido, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tel (714) 673-1340 Fax (714) 673-0843 April 28,1997 Mayor De Bay Honorable City Council: My name is Brook Severance and I am a member of the Executive Board of First Church of Christ, Scientist, located at 3303 Via Lido here in Newport Beach. Recently, by word of mouth, the "BPPAC" study and "Project 2000" have come to our attention. To date, we have received no communication from the City. After perusing these documents we agree there are some valuable components of the plan especially some of the Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Program. We are pleased with the planned mini parks on each side of Newport Boulevard at Via Lido. In fact we know of several of our members who sent contributions toward that worthwhile goal. Attention to Alcohol policies and combating alcohol abuse, as well as improved "Signage" are certainly viewed favorably. However, we do have serious concerns about the area designated "Lido Town Center." We believe the ambiance of this area is already that of a neighborhood village with strolling paths, dining areas on the Bay, and a sailing club. With two major churches on Via Lido any additional noise and congestion would be detrimental. We are especially apprehensive about the removal of Via Opporto which would become part of a super/mega parking lot or structure. This would be completely counter to a village atmosphere and aesthetically undesirable. The current parking lot off Via Opporto is where most of our church members and attendees park. It is the main entry into our church We wonder how you would provide for our church parking? How would the new parking areas be controlled? What parking priority would be given to merchants, Pavilions, city cars, office and retail, as well as church and week -end visitors? What kind of parking fees would the church be subject to? What traffic impact will the new Arches Bridge have with some changed access and interchanges? And lastly, what results are you getting from talking with merchants and Lido residents? Is there support for such a costly development plan for Lido? We request that you delay appropriating any Feasibility Study Funds for Lido until it is determined there is support for Lido Town Center and thereby initially save $20,000. EXECUTIVE BOARD Leslie Martindale Clerk PRESENTED BY� -- 6e w—aw Le Brook Severance Executive Board member RECEIVED SEP 3 1996 Y• CITY fLERK HEWPORf UGH FU4't/ Zo-vt-e/ a o•a t C&M is 1 y, r vt,c. 600 Edgewater Place Balboa, California 92661 tel: (714) 673-0240 fax:(714) 673-8413 30 August, 1996 To: Honorable Mayor, John Hedges Date Major Pro Tem, Jan DeBay Copies Sent To: ,L31ayor From: Ray Handy .1-ECouncil Member Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. Z-Vanager tto ney Subject: lJ 1. Bus parking, reworking current,parking lot & directional signs. i 0P 0 2. Balboa Peninsula Planning Study — Draft 13August, 1996 0 I would like to share my thoughts and feelings on the above two subjects. 1. Bus Parking, reworking current parking lot and directional signing. The Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. began this project informally in 1992. On 28June, 1994 we began our formal bid to move our ticket booth to 600 Edgewater Place from 700 Edgewater Place, as we were able to obtain a long term lease, (twenty years and two ten year extensions ), with Fun Zone Rides, Inc. for the entire marina in front of The Fun Zone. 600 Edgewater Place is the original location where The Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. began operations in 1948. In our letters to Mayor Turner, we outlined the parking problems, including bus parking, which he and the city council were aware of and believed that a solution would be worked out. We finished building our marina and ticket booth during the first half of 1995 and moved into 600 Edgewater Place in July 1995. In the meantime the Balboa Merchant/Owner Association was formed and Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. was one of the first to join. This organizations then became the Central Balboa BID. We have worked closely with the BID in supporting its efforts to improve Central Balboa for all Merchants and Owners. Parking has been one of the main issues on our agenda from the very beginning. I know how strongly the City Council feels about parking, as the City purchased the old bank building and converted it into a parking lot. This is a great beginning and we are thankful for this sincere effort. In September and October, 1995, I began working with Ken Delano, Assistant City Manager, on all parking and signing needed for Central Balboa. I was finally invited to a Traffic Affair committee meeting on 10January, 1996. This meeting was not successful. I was misquoted in the minutes of that meeting; as if they had not heard a word I said. I began all over again and on 12March, 1996 I wrote a letter to the Mayor and Members of the City Council about the parking and signage problems of Central Balboa. This letter was written after discussions with the City Council Members, Staff, Economic Development Committee, Traffic Engineering, and Merchants in Central Balboa. Almost all agreed that bus parking is necessary to obtain the "headcount" needed to support the local businesses. The afore mentioned letter stirred up some interest as I received several phone calls requesting additional information, which was sent to the Mayor and City Council Members on 15March, 1996. In the meantime a new advisory board was forming and became the Balboa Peninsula Advisory Committee (B.P.P.A.C.). Further, the City Council funded another outside consultant, Jack Camp (Urban Design Camp), to make a complete study from Coast Highway to the end of the Peninsula. The committee, B.P.P.A.C., then formed four sub -committees (Central Balboa, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Lido Village), to receive input from residents, landlords, and businesses within each area to obtain the needs of the local people within the area. I do not feel the last draft of Balboa Peninsula Planning Study (13Aug,1996) has addressed these needs. As to parking and signage: the progress we were making in Central Balboa has come to a stop. The only answer to come out of City Hall is wait for the final B.P.P.A.C. report to be presented to the City Council. Once received by the City Council it will take probably several months to draw any conclusions. This of course means no action on parking and signage and another summer will pass without bus parking. 2. Balboa Peninsula Planning Study — Draft 13 August, 1996. The announcement made by Jack Camp that Mayor John Hedges, Mayor Pro Tem Jan DeBay and Councilman Dennis O'Neil have been added to the B.P.P.A.C. Committee for the final stage, is well received. The overall scope of this project is tremendous. If it can be financed and completed within a reasonable time (since both time and money are in short supply), it would be a God -send. I believe that we must look to accomplishing the things that are possible now, giving a boost to the local economy, while the City and the Merchants continue working together towards the completion of the final plan. One more item that concerns me is that last item on "Central Balboa Objectives and Recommendations". It states "create more water view opportunities". My office window overlooks the Fun Zone Boardwalk where I spend ten plus hours a day, either at my desk or on the docks. Viewing the bay from the Fun Zone is not the number one priority of visitors. Rather, families and visitors are here to enjoy the many activities available, such as the Fun Zone 2 Arcades and Rides, renting boats, harbor cruises, water sports, restaurants, shopping, bike riding, etc. In closing I would like to say that in real estate there is one rule — Location, Location, Location! In recreational areas there is one rule — Parking, Parking, Parking! Ple: �. ^",^ mn a a.11 fn ^newar nnv nnae40nne vnn nr etaff may have_ Sincerely, J.R. Hand; CC: All Membe Kevin Mul Sharron V� Rich Edme John Doug Balboa Merchants [Owners Association August 30,1996 Mayor John Hedges and City Council Members City manager Kevin Murphy City of Newport Beach Dear Mayor hedges, City Council and Mr. Murphy: The Balboa Merchants/Owners Association is very anxious to move forward with the Parking Management Study for Central Balboa started by Linda Congelton and turned over to Richard Edmonston for completion. The Association would also like to have input into the study prior to City Council action. We also support those merchants in Central Balboa in their efforts to promote our area through the use of tour buses, but a very critical part of the plan is to find parking for the buses. We believe this can be accomplished by working with Mr. Edmonston on the total plan. We appreciate that you are willing to help us move forward in our efforts to make Balboa a better place to be! Sincerely, b / Joe Thompson, President Balboa Merchants/Owners Association P.O. Box 840 Balboa, CA., 92661 Balboa By toe Sea - A Wonderful Place to Be! Balboa Merchants(Owners Association March 27, 1996 Mayor John Hedges and City Council Members City Manager Kevin Murphy City of Newport Beach Dear Mayor Hedges, City Council Members and Mr. Murphy: The Balboa Merchants Owners Association is very anxious to move forward with the Linda Congleton Parking Study that was turned over to Richard Edmonston for fine tuning. We support Ray Handy and the Fun Zone Boat Company in its efforts to promote our area through the use of tour buses, but a very critical part of the plan is to find parking for the buses. This has been an ongoing problem for many years and we believe the time for resolve has come. We appreciate that you are willing to help us move forward in our efforts to be successful. T;inc,ere�ly�y Dayna Pettit, President The Balboa Merchants/Owners Assn. P.O. Box 840 Batboa, CA., 92661 Batboa BU the Sea -A wonderf Ll Ptace to Be! Champagne Cruises® Fua Zone Boat Company 6W Edgewater Edina, CA. Attru Rap Handy Re: Tour Group Packing Dear Ray; 177 Rivcmdc IXive 92663 • (714) 2S2.1727 19 March, 1996 .:.., . , , ,,, ti • , . .:... ,:. t,.. ,. .:, ,,. , , ..� �f:llr .. 1 q • , w ,:1 I u • 1 • • • • it •• r • .. V • u • , -. . • •. . Ray, pkase allowme to hake tbvprvblempi fectkyckff As you are probably awmm- it is not at aR easy to find parking spaces for extremely large vebkeks, in this case Wssea. Although normally possible to accotmulodate them almost anywhere for a fee tint wst must be passed on to the tour groups themselves, thereby increasing the Price fnt ear:h M&AdaaL It is essential for us provide patting at no cost so that we may reataia cmpeutive with any other attraction in the Southern California area . I would think that .the raerchanu and: city of Balboawould amdously welcome aninereasato their towist traft on a contimml basis. To refteMe, almost daily wc receive calls -from operators attempting to file a thek plans. Unawe have an acceptable answer to their mking queswns we can not seheduk the fast, or any mbsegi>ent, tour group acdvhies for the Bair am Most Sia ccrely, ::,. TOTAL P.02 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (714)644-3311 March 15, 1996 Joe Tunstall, President Balboa Fun Zone Rides Inc. 600 E. Bay #R Balboa CA 92661 RE: BALBOA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TOURIST GUIDE SIGNS Dear Mr. Tunstall: Your recent letter to the City Manager concerning signage for Balboa was referred to me for consideration and action. We will be reviewing the existing signage and existing rules concerning the type of signage you have requested. Sign changes on City streets are relatively easy to implement, as long as they are consistent with existing regulations and policies. Additional signage on State highways, such as Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway, require the approval of Caltrans and conformance with their policies, which are generally more restrictive. anticipate that we will be able to install some additional signage in a matter of a few weeks. Additional sign opportunities may be identified in the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study approved by the City Council on March 11, 1996. Many of the concerns you have are undoubtedly shared by the other commercial districts on the Peninsula and the purpose for this study is to identify those common concerns and develop short and long term action plans to address them. If you have any questions or wish an update on the progress of our program to improve the signage, please call me at 644-3344. Sincerely, �t�a�%%l�c'Lrnvna� Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Transportation and Development Services Manager RME:bb WORD:C:TUNSTALL.DOC xc: Kevin Murphy, City Manager Don Webb, Public Works Director/city Engineer Patricia Temple, Planning Manager 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newoorr 8envh Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. 600 Edgewater Place Balboa; California 92661 TO: Honorable Mayor John Hedges Mayor Pro Tern Jan DeBay FROM: Ray Handy Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. DATE: March 15, 1996 Pursuant to your request, after our discussions, I am providing this memorandum to you. The purpose of this memorandum is to seek that bus parking be provided for Central Balboa. Summer is fast approaching! The needed issues to be addressed are basically involved in three areas: 1. Bus parking; 2. Reworking current parking lot; and, 3. -Directional signing. 1. Bus Parkins. Everyone on this City Council and most of the past City Councils have recommended that bus parking be provided, but no action has occurred. There are solutions. I would be pleased to work with staff and attend any meeting on this problem. 2. Reworking Current Parking lot. In order to provide parking for buses, it will likely require reworking of the main parking lot. It seems to me that it would be most economical to combine the efforts to solve the bus parking and the parking lot and create a solution to both of these problems, simultaneously. 3. Directional Signing. Non- locals have difficulty in locating Central Balboa. This was the first problem we presented to Mr. Ken Delino when we were forming our BID. Mr. Delino told us that the City would indeed correct this matter. This is by far the simplest problem to solve. Joe Tunstall and myself would be delighted to meet and work with the City Council and staff on this matter as soon as practicable. HISTORY -- REASONS HISTORY The Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. was fonned in 1948 and has operated without interruption to the present at two locations. The first location was where the Ferris Wheel is now located. After 23 years at that location, the Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. moved to a location next to the Pavilion for 23 years and; of course, in June last year, we returned to the original location next to the Ferris Wheel. We now have long term leases on the entire water front from the Balboa Ferry to the Pavilion. The Fun Zone Boat Company,. Inc. operates daily four charter narrated harbor cruise boats. They are the "Belle" (65 passengers), "Queen" (98 passengers), "Showboat" (80 passengers), and the "Tiki" (150 passengers). in April, 1995, we formed a new corporation `Balboa Phoenix Corp." and purchased the "M.S. Phoenix", the glass bottom boat built by the Wrigley family for its operation in Catalina. We remodeled this vessel for operation in Newport Harbor as a charter boat. We have attempted to retain her as near her original design as possible as she is a historical vessel that sits well in our harbor. REASONS In order to compete with the large charter vessels in the harbor we decided to purchase a boat carrying at least two hundred passengers. Our vessel now will carry two hundred passengers, but our naval Architect, Ray Richards, discovered that the MS. Phoenix is so stable that it will accommodate up to three hundred eighteen passengers without hither modifications. He has submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard his findings along with a request for this passenger count. When this 2 request is granted, we will be able to accommodate the major hotels, conventions, and tour groups which regularly visit our city of Newport Beach. The Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. and the Balboa Phoenix Corp. applied to the ABC for liquor licenses in 1995 and were granted licenses on the "Tiki", "Queen", and "M.S. Phoenix" in October, 1995. With the above completed, we are ready, willing and able to handle most any of the needs for harbor activities. Benefits for City of Newport Beach Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. Pier Tax Parking Sales tax Balboa Phoenix Corp. Sales Tax Tour Activity Passengers Number per cruise Cruises per day 250 2 % of Revenue $7,264.00 $8,500.00 minimum estimated $16,600.00 Four hour tours in Central Balboa Harbor Cruises - two hours Total Average Average Passengers Number Number Passengers per year Guests days per week per day per week 00 4 2000 JQAAU1 3 Champagne Crises 175 2 350 6 2100 109.000 Based on the above projections on Tour Activity Central Balboa would have 104,000 guests in addition to its current activity. The tour groups will have in our shopping and dining stores a total of 208,000 hours in which to enjoy themselves. These tour activities should provide the needed shot it the arm that will assist Central Balboa and the city of Newport Beach in returning to normal business activities. Very truly yours, J � 44�— J. R. Handy President u660155268116N8011. W PDI Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. 600 Edgewater Place Balboa, California 92661 To: Honorable Mayor John Hedges and Members of the City Council From: Ray Handy Subject: Parking -Central Balboa Date: 12 March 1996 The city of Newport Beach has had several studies completed regarding Central Balboa which all note the traffic and parking problems. I have had discussions with Council Members, Staff, Economic Development Committee, Traffic Engineering and, of course, Merchants in the area regarding the bussing into our area. Almost all agree that bus parking is necessary to obtain "head count" to support the local businesses. First, establish the vision: The vision is to establish parking that is more effective and is fair to all. Second, identify our goal: The goal is to rework the existing parking areas including bus parking. Third, define our strategy: The strategy is to meet with all council persons on this matter and request their guidance on whom to see, what must be accomplished and how to bring this plan into a reality. The city of Newport Beach approximately 10-12 years ago redesigned the main parking lot and lost over 100 parking places. So I believe this is an excellent place to start. When you enter the area and turn right on Palm to enter the main parking lot, if the lot is fiill of cars, there is a by pass street where OCTD busses operate. This street is very wide and could be reworked so as to be utilized for loading and unloading tour busses. There is a possibility of using some other areas that are near the existing parking lots. The green areas on the east end of the parking lot east of the pier, also, the sandy area past the parking lot same area. The management of the parking policies could and should be corrected. I would like to note the "Linda S. Congleton and Associates" report of 28 June 95. This report was paid for by the city of Newport Beach to assist the central Balboa area. Please note the report on parking on page 9-10 of the this report. This report clearly identifies the flaws in our current system. The increased revenue to the city from the solving of this problem will benefit all involved. This parking problem has existed way too long -it needs a long term solution, one that everyone will find acceptable. I hope we can work together to create a win -win solution. I look forward to your cooperation and assistance. Very truly yours, 4� Aj�- J.R. Handy President IJ6601532221152801 f. WPDI ENCLOSURES Linda S. Congleton & Associates - Report "Control Balboa Retail Consultation" Dated June 28, 1995; 2. Letter - Champagne Cruises dated 19 Mar 96; Letter - Balboa Fun Zone Rides Inc. dated 16 Feb 96; and 4. Letter - Edgewal LINDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Marketing Analysis 6 Research 18011 Sky Park Clrcle. Suite P Irvine, Califomia 92714 (714)474.7910 FAX (714) 474.9047 DRAFT EXHIBITS CENTRAL BALBOA RETAIL CONSULTATION JUNE 28, 1995 UNDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Marketing Analysis & Research 18011 Sky Park Circle. Suite P Irvine, California 92714 (714) 474.7910 FAX (714)474.9047 July 17, 1995 Mr. Ken Delino P-298 Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 SUBJECT: Summary Of First Phase Newport Beach Retail Consultation Dear Mr. Delino: The purpose of this executive summary letter report is to summarize the key conclusions and recommendations of our recently -completed first stage retail consultation pursuant to our contract dated April 12, 1995. Linda S. Congleton & Associates was retained by the City of Newport Beach to provide a general assessment of on -street retail conditions within various shopping districts of the City; to participate in on -site retail evaluations, meetings and presentations at your request; and to provide preliminary, more detailed research, conclusions and recommendations for the Central Balboa area. We would be pleased to continue this work with follow-up research for Corona Del Mar, Balboa Island and Mariners Mile, as well as second phase detailed implementation action plan programs for Central Balboa. NEWPORT BEACH'S ON -STREET RETAILING DYNAMICS City's Aging Demographics Result In Diminishina Retail Needs A number of Newport Beach's structural demographic conditions constrain the amount of future retail spending the City can expect to capture from local residents. As shown on EXHIBITS 1-2, the median age of Newport Beach citizens is over 40 years, with over a quarter of its population (26.2%) in the pre -retiree and retiree age categories (over age 55). Our national research in retirement communities has shown that pre -retirees and retirees are very weak retail spenders, even when the households are very affluent, as in they are in Newport Beach. Retirement households are not generous shopping center spenders primarily because most of their home furnishings needs have long ago been met and because apparel needs are significantly less pressing in a casual, non -working lifestyle. In addition, their family apparel needs are diminished because their children are now typically adults living outside the community. Many retirees are highly concerned about their health and on restricted diets and they are therefore not big spenders -1- Linda S. Congleton & Associates at take-out and quick food establishments. Moreover, in contrast to dual working couples, such as those that abound in Irvine, retirees are poor consumers of time -saving foods such as gourmet cookies and pre-cooked deli items, because they have more time to cook. And finally, many retirees --even very affluent ones --are simply poor consumers in general because they tend to view their retirement savings as fixed in a very uncertain world with health concerns looming large on the horizon. Discretionary funds tend to be allocated for travel, retirement hobbies, grand -children gifts and perhaps children finishing their college education. Prime retail consumers are growing families, such as those found in the City of Irvine (see EXHIBITS 3-4.) In contrast to Newport Beach's aging population, the City of Irvine's median age is ten years younger (31.6 years), with only 11.2% of its population over the age of 55 years. A quarter of Irvine's population is under the age of 18, and an additional 13.7% between the ages of 18 to 24 years, for a total of nearly 40% (38.7%) under the age of 24 years. In contrast, the City of Newport Beach contains 14.3% under the age of 18 years and 9% between the ages 18 and 24 years, for a total of only 23% under the age of 24 years. Moreover, Irvine's retail centers benefit from expected continued residential growth rates of nearly 6% a year, with recent average annual rates ranging from 6% to 7%. In contrast, most of the City of Newport Beach is built out, with virtually no growth in households experienced in recent years. To the extent growth is occurring, it is contained within the Newport Coast area, located some distance from most of the residentially -oriented neighborhood shopping within the City; moreover, new neighborhood -oriented facilities are planned to meet these new residents' weekly shopping needs. While Newport Beach's median household income is only 12% higher than Irvine's ($64,400 versus $57,500), the lifestyle composition of Irvine households is more favorable for long-term for retail purchases. Whereas Irvine is expected to continue to attract growing families to its City, the higher pricing of Newport Beach housing will limit households to existing, aging couples and older, well -established families and retirees; the luxury and water -oriented housing of Newport Beach will be outside the financial means of most young, growing families,. Therefore, as Newport Beach's residents continue to age in their existing homes, immediate retail demand will tend to diminish. Importance Of Non -Resident Spending Newport Beach's on -street shopping districts are not supportable without patronage from those living outside the City limits. If the City were to adopt a policy that discouraged visitation from out-of-towners, and encouraged only retail uses supported by immediate residents, most of the City's existing retail and dining businesses would require demolition because the resident spending potential is insufficient to support all the square footage that currently exists. Cities popular with visitors, such as beach communities, typically contain large amounts of retail/dining space dependent upon out-of-town spending. -2- Linda S Congieton & Associates Our retail research of other Southern California coastal retail projects has shown that the dominant shopping/dining groups consist of a combination of immediate residents and regional residents, with most frequent visitation coming from those who live closest to the shopping districts. Most of the "tourists" or visitors, therefore, are not those staying in overnight accommodations, but rather regional Southern California residents making a day visit to the beach, with those living closest, within perhaps a twenty minute drive time, coming more frequently than those who live farther away. The greater the popularity of the beach community, the more it draws visitors from outside its immediate residential base and the greater the amount of retail space it can support. Hotel visitors certainly play a critical role in a popular beach area such as Newport Beach, because overnight visitors, particularly vacationers, tend to spend more per shopping trip. However, the absolute annual numbers of visitor trips by overnight hotel guests are typically not as great as the trips generated by regional visitors due to the relatively greater ease of travel for Southern Californians. Newport Beach has historically been a popular dining and beach visit trip for Orange County residents --not just those living within Newport Beach. Frequently, regional residents also bring out-of-town friends and relatives for a special day or evening visit. For many years, businesses within the water -oriented areas of Newport Beach have promoted their operations to area -wide office workers, hotel guests and regional Orange County residents, as well as local residents. In fact, because of the premier, upscale image of the City, Newport Beach restaurants have long served a wide Orange County dining market. In order to highlight the importance of visitor patronage to Newport Beach businesses, we performed an expenditure potential demand analysis for Balboa Peninsula households to determine the amount of supportable resident -serving neighborhood center space (see EXHIBIT 9.) Because of the physical and psychological barrier created by the Peninsula, resident -serving neighborhood' -type (such as grocery/drug store -anchored) retail uses are primarily supported by those living on the Peninsula and not those in other parts of Newport Beach because: (1) Other neighborhood centers located on the mainland side of Newport Beach serve off -Peninsula residents; and (2) Traffic congestion along the Peninsula during beach -going periods makes travel to these centers inconvenient. When mainland Newport Beach residents make day trips to the beach, they are indeed likely to shop and dine at grocery, food and retail establishments; during these trips, however, they are functioning as beach "visitors," whose visitation is less frequent than a resident who patronizes a neighborhood shopping center on a weekly basis. Our supportable square footage methodology has proven effective for a myriad of master -planned and community settings and has been validated by operating shopping center sales and resident trade area figures. The capture rates used for convenience goods (50%-60%), restaurants/cafes (10%-15%) and shoppers goods (apparel, gifts, home furnishings and other general merchandise, 5%-6%) are based on analogous trade area captures of residents' total spending for neighborhood center types of goods and services. Neighborhood type retail uses do not capture 100% of the -3- Unca S Congieton & Associates spending potential because other types of centers, such as regional malls, power centers, discount value centers and specialty centers, as well as other shopping centers located outside the immediate resident trade area, capture portions of the residents' spending potential. Whereas our research has shown that a single neighborhood center requires at least 4,000 to 7,000 occupied households for viable, thriving support, the Balboa Peninsula contains only 6,142 occupied households (see EXHIBITS 5-6) supporting a maximum of 94,400 square feet of resident -serving neighborhood center uses pursuant to our expenditure potential model (see EXHIBIT 9), equivalent to about one sizable center or two small shopping centers. This figure of 94,406 supportable square feet is based on strong sales -per -square -foot productivities for successful shopping centers. Indeed, the Peninsula contains two small shopping centers, one anchored by Lucky and one anchored by Vons Pavilion (currently undergoing renovation), as well as several small convenience markets. Resident -serving neighborhood retail is adequately supplied by these two centers and convenience markets, and the remaining amounts of retail space are primarily serving off -Peninsula visitors. Included in the 94,400-square-foot figure is a maximum of 71500 square feet of restaurant space supportable, based on strong sales productivities, from Peninsula resident patronage. Therefore, Peninsula residents support a portion of the restaurant/cafe sales within numerous locations along the Peninsula, with selected restaurants catering more to residents and others catering more to off -Peninsula visitors. Because Peninsula residents' neighborhood center type needs are primarily met by the Lucky and Vons Pavilion -anchored grocery store centers, a high percentage of the remaining retail space is dependent upon off -Peninsula resident patronage. Not surprisingly, many of the restaurants, in particular, as well as beach -oriented apparel and merchandise, are directly targeting visitors from outside the immediate area. For example, most of Central Balboa's retail is supported by off -Peninsula residents. According to City data and our estimates, Central Balboa contains about 154,000 square feet of retail space (see EXHIBIT 10), most of which is supported by those living off the Peninsula. One of the primary reasons Peninsula residents have a diminished need to shop many of Central Balboa's retail shops is the lure of high -name -recognition local, regional and national chain specialty stores located within Newport Beach's upscale, department -store -anchored 1.2 million -square -foot Fashion Island regional mall. The mall serves many of the Peninsula and other Newport Beach residents' fashion, gift, home furnishings and other general merchandise needs. Unlike other affluent beach city residents without a close regional shopping center (such as Laguna Beach), Newport Beach city residents enjoy an extremely wide choice of general merchandise (i.e., shoppers goods) offerings in a convenient, one -stop shopping location at Fashion Island. -4- Unoa S Congieton & Associates Impacts Of New Regional Competition Because Newport Beach's on -street shopping districts are highly dependent upon patronage from regional Orange County resident visitors, fierce competition from new and re -merchandised regional shopping/dining destinations in Orange County is the single most important factor affecting their vibrancy. Newly -introduced specialty retail and dining offerings located closer to regional Orange County residents' homes have negatively impacted Newport Beach's on -street shopping districts. This phenomenon is not unique to Newport Beach. Many Southern California coastline communities and waterfront specialty projects are currently impacted by two broad retailing and dining competition trends: (1) During the middle 1980s, traditional regional malls experienced an explosion of new specialty retail offerings as owners expanded, renovated and revitalized their centers with new design elements and added square footage. These increased specialty offerings within department -store -anchored malls lessened the consumers' perceived need to seek all types of unanchored specialty shopping areas for unique gifts, apparel and home furnishings purchases. (2) During this same period, many new, highly successful themed restaurant concepts were introduced, frequently in non -waterfront locations within easy drive times of upper -middle income neighborhoods. As traditional regional -serving retail centers experienced rapid growth in specialty retail and dining opportunities, most Southern California waterfront specialty center owners/managers and on -street shopping district landlords did little to improve their physical appearance significantly and generally did not upgrade key tenants by aggressively providing tenant improvement allowances to attract the best operators. In fact, most locations tended to do nothing, under the assumption that the strength of the water -oriented site would continually bring the needed customers. This inappropriate assumption did not recognize the power of competition. While most water -oriented locations were difficult to access, particularly those located some distance from a major freeway (as in Newport Beach), and offered only limited, paid parking, traditional retail settings frequently provided safe, convenient, often freeway -accessible, fun shopping environments with free parking. Our national research reveals that most consumers coming to water -oriented specialty shopping/dining destinations view the visit as a recreational trip to the waterfront, similar to the trip motivations of visitors to festival marketplaces such as Harborplace in Baltimore and Faneuil Hall in Boston. In other words, visitors' primary reason for coming is not to shop or eat, but rather simply to go for an outing to the waterfront. Because waterfront visits serve as an inexpensive leisure -time activity for modest income households and individuals (such as teenagers), in recent years many Southern California water -oriented -5- Linda S Congteton & Associates projects have experienced disproportionately higher percentages of visitation from modest or low-income visitors who spend little or nothing and relatively lower proportions of local, middle or upper -middle income regional residents, the customer segment with the greatest propensity to spend. Although modest income individuals have frequented Southern California's waterfront specialty retail/dining areas for many years, this phenomenon did not become a problem for coastline businesses as long as high numbers of households with greater spending power also visited and spent shopping and dining monies at water --oriented restaurants, quick foods and shops. But not only did traditional shopping and dining competition destinations located closer to affluent, regional Orange County residents reduce the perceived desire to travel farther to water -oriented destinations for a unique dining or shopping experience, new recreational/entertainment choices also became available to compete for the leisure -time dollars of upscale regional residents. Affluent Orange County families enjoy a higher number of recreational, cultural and educational activities competing for their time than lower -income households with constrained spending power. For example, the Irvine Recreational Center, the introduction of. virtual reality entertainment venues and new cinema/retail/dining entertainment projects, such as Triangle Square, all compete for the regional residents' share of recreational spending. These competing activities are often more complex, entertaining and compelling than a loosely structured day at the shoreline. As competitive recreational choices have proliferated for affluent Orange County baby boomer families, the families' entertainment expectations have increased, diminishing the overall appeal of older water -oriented specialty venues, such as those found along the Balboa Peninsula, that have not kept up with contemporary retailing, dining and entertainment merchandising. CENTRAL BALBOA'S MAJOR RETAIL ISSUES Central Balboa Contains Excellent Demographics --But Too Few Of Them The resident trade area for Central Balboa retailing is contained within an area bounded by census tract 628, which includes all households living from Peninsula Point in the south to 19th Street. The effective trade area is actually somewhat smaller, because residents living from about 15th to 19th Streets are more likely to be drawn to competitive neighborhood -serving facilities farther north along the Peninsula. However, for ease of quantification analysis, we cut off the resident trade area at the census tract boundary. Central Balboa's resident trade area contained only 2,430 households, as of the 1990 census, and a population of 4,959 persons. Although median and average household incomes are high ($53,900 and $121,500 respectively), and 100% of the households are categorized by the highest expenditure potential lifestyle clusters (see EXHIBITS 7-8), there are too few households to support even a single resident -serving neighborhood shopping center. As discussed above, a minimum of 4,,000 to 71000 households are required to support even the smallest ME Linda S. Congleton & Associates neighborhood -oriented shopping center, and Central Balboa has about half the households needed to support a thriving retail node. A common phenomenon that occurs in very affluent communities is the vocal outcry for services and shops to meet their upscale needs. Frequently, we are retained by cities with pockets of small, but very wealthy residents, who want to see the "best" retail and dining venues within a short distance of their homes. This phenomenon frequently occurs in low density, semi -rural estate home areas or other physically separated pockets of affluence, such as the Balboa Peninsula. What these residents fail to understand is that retail businesses require high quantities of homes --not just affluence of individual homes --to be successful. For example, a single household spends a relatively fixed amount on grocery, drug, services (such as cleaners) and dining; although wealthy households will spend more on luxury goods, even their households have a rigid limit to the amount that is spent weekly on neighborhood, resident -serving uses. Typically, the more affluent a family, the more that is spent on non -neighborhood -serving goods and services, such as private schools, cars, travel, homes, furniture, etc. Even for discretionary apparel, jewelry and gifts purchases, at a certain point this amount of spending is also fixed, and to the extent these households do spend more, they tend to do so at department -store -anchored regional malls and other big -box -anchored centers. Not surprisingly, therefore, the 154,200 square feet of Central Balboa retail and dining square footage is highly dependent upon non-resident support. Because only about half the number of households exists to support even the smallest center (say, 60,000 square feet), and because we believe much of the resident spending is being siphoned off to the two grocery -store -anchored centers to the north, dominant support for Central Balboa businesses must be coming from those living outside the immediate Central Balboa area. Because of Central Balboa businesses' dependence on non -Peninsula patronage, the City must make the following, critical policy decision: Either the Central Balboa area must be enhanced and improved to encourage visitation by non-resident spenders or the area will continue to suffer and lose retail sales, thereby resulting in vacant, non -vital retail space, and eventually demolition of space that can not be sustained with thriving businesses. Estimated Sales Indicate Many Central Balboa Businesses Are Suffering Based on our confidential analysis of retail sales tax data and our estimated square footage allocations, we determined that a number of businesses are performing at weak, unhealthy sales productivity levels. Moreover, our estimated average sales productivities by retail categories indicated that restaurant/cafes and take-out/specialty foods are the two strongest retail categories, whereas shoppers goods (i.e., apparel, gifts, jewelry, hobby, etc.) represents the weakest category. Given the leisure -time nature of the Central Balboa visitor's trip motivation, the strength of food uses over shoppers goods purchases is not surprising. In fact, our research at other Southern California coastline projects indicates similar results: dining venues tend to outdo shoppers goods or specialty shop performances. One of the primary -7- Linda S Congieton & Associates reasons for the differential in performance is the outstanding competition specialty retail shops face from small shops within the best department -store -anchored regional malls, such as South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island. In contrast, waterfront restaurants, particularly view -oriented venues, can frequently offer environments superiot to regional mall restaurants --particularly those without entertainment -oriented or unique interiors. Of the estimated total of 154,200 square feet of Central Balboa space, 22.5%, or about 34,650 square feet, consists of personal and financial services and recreation/entertainment space. An estimated 4% or nearly 6,000 square feet is estimated to be vacant. Excluding the service, recreational/entertainment uses and vacant spaces, most of Central Balboa's remaining 113,600 square feet of retail space consists of food and drinking space either in the form of grocery, take-out, specialty, cafes, restaurants and bars/lounges (see EXHIBIT 10). About 75,600 square feet, or two-thirds (66.5%) of the 113,600 square feet, consists of food/drinking uses, with only about 38,000 square feet (or one-third) dedicated to shoppers goods businesses. Although shoppers goods businesses account for only about 38,000 square feet of the total area, these businesses are clearly suffering the most. Whereas strong shoppers goods retailers will typically perform at a minimum level of $200 to $250 per square foot, our estimated sales productivity level for this category is only about $130 per square foot, based on 1993-1994 data and estimates for non -reporting uses. Based on existing patronage drawing conditions, there is a significant over -supply of shoppers goods space. If the area is unable to improve its ability to draw spenders to its shops, the health of shoppers goods space is likely to continue to deteriorate. Under current conditions, only about 25,000 square feet of shoppers goods is supportable based on a minimum of $200 per -square -foot sales productivity; the area therefore contains an excess of about 13,000 square feet. Although restaurants/cafes are performing well above shoppers goods tenants at an estimated average of about $270 per square foot, it should be recognized that $300 to $350 per square foot productivities represent minimum acceptable productivities at strong on -street shopping districts, and that although several individual restaurants are performing at exceptionally high sales productivities, a number of others are showing very weak figures. Moreover, fast-food enterprises are truly suffering, with figures estimated at below $180 per square foot; excellent fast food outlets average $350 to $600 per square foot and higher. These mediocre figures are the clearest indicator of weak traffic from customers who spend, because small fast-food outlets are the most dependent upon high shopper traffic volumes. Quick and specialty foods are also experiencing unimpressive figures, estimated at $260 per square foot; excellent operations should exceed an average of $300 to $350 per square foot. Again, under current conditions, an over -supply of fast and quick foods exists based on under -performing revenue figures. ZL Linda S Congieton & Associates Parking Policy Encourages Non -Spenders The City's parking policies for Central Balboa do not reward shoppers and diners who spend money within shops and restaurants, and the metered spaces most convenient to the retail businesses are not managed in a manner that would discourage their use by non -spender beach -goers. The pricing structure of most Central Balboa parking sites are organized to accommodate all day beach -goers, not short-term (two -to -three-hour) shoppers or diners. The largest lot, the city -owned Balboa Pier Lot, charges $1.00 per twenty minutes or $3.00 per hour up to a maximum of $7.00 per day (see EXHIBITS 11-12') Therefore, a shopper or diner wishing to stay only two to three hours must pay $6.00 to $7.00--the same price a beach -goer pays for staying all day. Spending patrons in Central Balboa are not rewarded in any manner for shopping in Central Balboa; in fact, the current pricing structure discourages shoppers and diners from coming for a short-term stay because numerous, competitive locations can be found throughout Orange County that offer free, valet ($1.00 tip) or favorable, validated parking. Metered parking spaces at "A" and "B" Streets and about half the spaces in the lot at Washington Street charge $.25 for 15 minutes or $1.00 per hour, or only one-third the cost of the Balboa Pier Lot. Parking in the remaining Washington Street lot spaces and at the on -street meters in front of businesses is even less expensive, at only $.25 per hour. Meters are limited to either two hours, one hour or thirty minutes. However, the time limits simply mean that a user must go back and feed the meters at the prescribed time period; nothing prevents the same user from staying in the same spot all day as long as the meters are fed. Therefore, very favorable pricing of the meters encourages some use of meters by all -day beach -goers and takes away valuable spots for those intending to spend at shops and restaurants. And because many beach -goers bring their own food and drinks and do not spend at shops, a high percentage of non -spenders are potentially absorbing valuable parking spaces for shoppers and diners. In contrast, the City of Laguna Beach has instituted a parking management policy that ensures rotation of the short-term parking spaces in the business district by utilizing a parking patrol system that marks vehicles and distributes parking violations to those that stay in the same space longer than the limit stated. This management mechanism ensures a constant rotation of the parking in the business area. Laguna Beach also issues parking stickers to local residents allowing them to park at meters without paying. This has allowed the city to extend the meters into adjacent residential areas without complaint from the residents. Other cities, such as the City of Pasadena's Old Town and Downtown Long Beach, have instituted a parking validation system that rewards those who spend in shops and restaurants by providing them with favorably priced parking over those who spend nothing. Newport Beach's parking policies provide none of the systems described above, and the City's businesses are sorely lacking any management program that encourages visitation by spending patrons. By implementing a comprehensive parking management plan, the City of Newport Beach can Unca S Congleton & Associates increase its mix of spenders and decrease the number of non -spenders who absorb parking spaces near the on -street shopping districts. Central Balboa's Need For Re -Merchandising & Physical Ungrading On -street shopping districts that have been successful in the 1980s and 1990s are those that have distinguished themselves from the traditional retail settings in terms of physical environment and tenant composition. A successful on -street shopping district requires two key components: (1) The structural demographics of those living within about a twenty minute drive time must include a significant quantity of middle, upper -middle and affluent households; and (2) A distinguishing retail concept must be developed that is highly differentiated from a traditional regional mall setting. Central Balboa clearly has strong demographics living within a twenty drive time --although the best demographics are those living just outside the immediate city limits. However, the on -street building stock and tenant mix have not been refurbished and revitalized, respectively. In contrast to strong on -street dining/shopping districts, such as Old Town Pasadena and Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, building renovations and re -tenanting efforts have been minimal. Although Central Balboa may not have as much historic building stock as Old Town Pasadena, buildings such as the historic Pavilion structure and the history behind the Red Car lines that used to travel to the site are colorful, nostalgic set -pieces that distinguish the area from traditional retail settings. We encourage the City of Newport Beach and Central Balboa businesses to consider a second stage of research and marketing implementation action plan work aimed at realistically revitalizing the Central Balboa area. We would be pleased to continue our efforts in implementing the second stage of work. Please give us a call if we can be of assistance. Very truly yours, L. L. P: FEBRUARY 16, 1996 BALBOA FUN ZONE RIDES INC. 600 E. BAY "R" BALBOA, CA. 92661 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH KEVIN MURPHY, CITY MANAGER 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92658-8915 DEAR KEVIN: OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS THE BALBOA MERCHANTS HAVE FORMED THE BALBOA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. WE ARE NOW TAXING OURSELVES TO MAKE CHANGES IN THIS DISTRICT. A PART OF THIS PLAN WAS FOR THE CITY TO HELP MORE PEOPLE FIND BALBOA. WE NEED BETTER SIGN'S FROM COAST HIGHWAY TO BOTH BALBOA BLVD. & NEWPORT BLVD. DIRECTING TRAFFIC TO BALBOA. ALSO BETTER DIRECTIONS AND A LIST OF ATTRACTIONS AT THE SPLIT NEAR THE NEWPORT PIER IS NEEDED. WE ARE TRYING TO ATTRACT TOUR BUSES TO BALBOA, ONE BUS EQUALS 35 OR MORE PEOPLE. PARKING IN OUR AREA FOR BUSES IS NEEDED. PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR OUTSTANDING EFFORTS IN HELPING US BETTER BALBOA. SINCERELY, TOE TUNSTALL PRESIDENT, BALBOA FUN ZONE cc Dayna Pettit Bob Black Ray Handy Edgewater Place, Inc. 309 Palm St., Suite 300 • Newport Beach, CA 92661 • (714) 675-5885 • FAX (714) 675-7303 February 23, 1996 Mr. Kevin Murphy City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Kevin: I want to express my feelings about what has happened since I have owned the Edgewater Place retail structure with Emerald Forest as the major anchor tenant therein. We have had the pleasure of experience a continuous growth and are most pleased with our situation. As you may know, recently, we have joined forces with the Fun Zone Boat Company to transform one of their boats into the same motif that exists in our tenant's restaurant, the Emerald Forest. This has proven to be a terrific expansion of the tenant's business as well as that of our entire Edgewater Place project. The growth of Champagne cruises has contributed to this growth as well. However, one problem which has always existed in Central Balboa has been the managed parking. We need to address this problem to provide our patrons and visitors to the City of Newport Beach with managed parking. We would like to be involved in seeking solutions to this problem. I have had several discussions with Ray Handy and would be encouraged to join with him in presenting parking solutions. Please provide me whatever opportunities you feel necessary to assist in the continued orderly expansion of our area. All of us at the Edgewater Place project as well as the Emerald Forest and all of our other tenants want to thank you for what you have done and we look forward to working with you in the future. Again, I want to thank you for permitting us to participate in the parking solution for our guests to the City of Newport Beach in this managed parking problem, which we face constantly in our own parking structure on Bay Street. Personal and professional regards, Michael F. Harrah President, Edgewater Place, Inc. Page 1 Champagne Cruises® 177 Riverside Drive • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • (714) 252-1727 July 1, 1994 Ray Handy Fun Zone Company Dear Ray, This letter is to follow up our previous discussions and correspondence on the guided tours through Newport Beach, requested by the hotel tour operators. In recent negotiations and prior to a long term contract being signed and this program placed in effect, the following general conditions must be met, to insure that all tours run smooth, on time and safely. 1) All passengers must arrive via bus from their respective hotels 2) A ticket booth must be at the location containing the following: 3) Overview of boarding and docking area from ticket booth (supervisor on duty during arrivals and departures) 4) A multi -line telephone (minimum 4 lines) 5) A computer on-line with Cruise America and Champagne Cruises headquarters 6) Active modem 7) Fax machine 8) Greeter/Ticket Attendants and 2 dock ushers (may double as deckhand) 9) Lost and found facilities 10) Schedule of activities 11) Business licenses/permits displavpA 12) Insurance 13) An on/off ramp with anti-skid material (wheelchair accessible) Ray, with 120 passengers arriving on the hour starting at 10:00am and running to 8:00pm, you can see that the above requirements meet minimums and it is.necessary to work with a responsible fixed based operator like yourself. Sincerely, Brad Bradford / President BB/da The Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. 700 Edgewater Balboa, California 92661 July 13, 1994 The Honorable Mayor Clarence Turner City of Newport Beach 33000 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: The Fun Zone Boat Company Dear Mayor Turner: First, I want to express my thanks for your continued assistance in the above - captioned matter. As you know, we have been and are still enthusiastically pursuing our endeavors in the new Fun Zone. As you know, our family has operated a Harbor Cruise business in Newport Harbor since 1948. The Fun Zone has operated for 23 years in its present location and now, due to the stable new ownership of the Fun Zone, will be returning, with your assistance, to its original location 46 years ago. Unfortunately, we are now in a position where we are going from committee to committee and our momentum is being lost. Your personal assistance is desperately needed in revising the existing marina for the benefit of the visitors, merchants and City. As you know, these existing difficult economic times for the City and us could be helped a great deal by the revising of the marina. Again, your personal attention is sorely needed, as you have a way of 'butting to the bone" when there is a problem. Our business area is unique in Newport Beach with its own identity, design and serving the public as well as the businesses in the area. It needs special consideration. We need to make the dock revisions of the ticket booth such that it will insure a safe environment for our visitors. This reconfiguration of the dock and ramp will assist the handicapped and operation of the harbor cruise for visitors. We will, of course, do these revisions to code standards to create a safe environment. The Honorable Clarence Turner July 13. 1994 Page 2 We have reviewed present codes, ordinances, policies, and our needs are incorporated in these requirements for improving the dock and ticket area, our request is consistent with the needs for this unique area. By approving our needs, we develop a "win win" situation for the City and the merchants; additionally, we create an additional benefit and safety to the visitors who will be able to utilize the facilities without a problem. Mayor Turner, we sincerely request you assist us in making all efforts to see that our plan is adopted. It is essential to us that we build this area to be successful as an operator and such that it will benefit all concerned. We are here for the long term and it is basic to our establishment of long-term objectives that this plan be adopted. If at all possible, your attendance at a meeting tomorrow in City Attorney Bob Burnham's office at 9:45 A.M. would be greatly appreciated. We are hitting road blocks which are making it difficult for us to continue. I strongly believe that your personal involvement would remove these road blocks. All of us concerned thank you for your cooperation and continued assistance. Very truly yours, J.KANDY President JRH:WBV:mjz I A01711I69418ud01!.wpdI Champagne Cruises® 177 Riverside Drive • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • (714) 252-1727 June 1, 1994 Ray Handy Fun Zone Boat Company Dear Ray, This letter is to follow up on our conversation, in regards to guided tours arriving in Newport Beach via the hotel tour operators that we work with. Ray, the profile of the passengers is 35-55 years of age, income of $50-60,000 U.S. dollars or the equivalent and they will be visiting Southern California on a 3-5 day guided tours and will be coming from cities throughout the United States and countries around the world. We would have 30-90 days advance reservations with these groups. We could develop 3 tours, Tour A - Tour B - Tour C, to facilitate their needs. The following is what we see as a days agenda for a tour group of 120 passengers arriving in 3 luxury coaches, let's call it Tour A: 8:00am Breakfast at the Balboa Pavilion 9:00am Tour of the Fun Zone and Amusement Park (Passengers will be supplied with a map of the Fun Zone and surrounding community) Consumer will receive a free Merry -Go -Round ride and has 2 hours to visit and shop in the community. 11.00am 2 hour narrated Champagne Cruise, departing from the Fun 'Lone 1:00pm Lunch at Newport Landing 2:00pm Stop at the Newport Pier Go over the historical aspect of the pier and the Dorry Fishing Fleet 3:00pm A guided tour of the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum 4:00pm Guided tour of Lido Village Shopping and inspect the yacht brokerage fleet 5:30pm Dinner at Canos Restaurant 6:30pm Guided tour and shopping at Newport Fashion island 8:3Upm Depart Fashion Island, to return to their respective hotels I Each aspect of this Champagne 'Pour is designed to pamper the consumer and show them the charm and beauty that is uniquely Newport Beach. As you know, it has been requested of us to put this in a format of substance (i.e. agreement and video of the tour) prior to the commencement of these activities. This is a program that could be implemented relatively quick, assuming all of the above mentioned parties and the city were in agreement on the tour program of this type. Hay, if this is something that you feel is viable and makes sense to you, please give me a call at your earliest convenience and we can take steps to implement this program on a timely basis. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (BUU)909-1234 or my private line ('714)851-8191. Sincerely, Brad Bradford'. President BB/da FUN ZONE BOAT COMPANYr INC. 700 Edgewater Balboa, California 92661 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Relocation of Fun Zone Boat Company To the Honorable Members of the City Council: As we all know and are now enthusiastically pursuing endeavors in the new Fun Zone, this letter is to address our application for a new location for the Fun Zone Boat Company, Inc. The Fun Zone Boat Company has operated for 46 years in Newport Harbor under the same owner, this in itself is a remarkable feat. Now, due to the leasing of the entire area of the marina, 212 feet, the Fun Zone is desirous of providing better access to its operation to further the good will of the Fun Zone and develop greater value for the visitors to the City of Newport Beach. The access to the Marina is presently one gate with two small ramps from the pier to the docks. We feel to create another access to the marina would make it more practical, functional, and, of course, safer for the operation. There is also a need to have a new ticket office which has been planned and proposed for our operation. All of these proposals plus the reconfiguration of the dock for the handicapped, are essential and necessary under the new laws. The Fun Zone Boat Company requests consideration under the code based upon special circumstances, undue hardship and" detriment to the City. Regarding special circumstances, this is a family owned business which has existed for 46 years in the Harbor, as stated earlier, under the same ownership. Mr. Dal Grettenberg has been before the City Counsel and was even given a special award. We are well known in this area. Now, we wish to return to the original location of the Fun Zone Boat Company, 46 years ago. As to undue hardship, the financial problems of the Fun Zone have been documented for some time. The assistance of access to this area would greatly help the new location. To not have easy access to this area would be a penalty on those who wish to use the harbor and ocean for the enjoyment of cruising the harbor. City Council June 28, 1994 Page 2 It would also be detrimental to the City to not approve the application as it will undoubtedly increase revenue to the City and to the merchants in the area. This is typically a "win -win" for the City and the merchants, but even creates an additional benefit to the visitors who would be able to utilize the facilities without a problem. The Fun Zone Boat Company has a long term lease with the new ownership and management of the Fun Zone and is looking forward to continuing its good neighbor status with all concerned. We hope you will assist us in this application. We request the City to make all effort to assist us in this plan being adopted. It is essential to us that we build this area to be successful as an operator, which will benefit all concerned. We are here for the long term and it is basic to our establishment of long term objectives that this plan be adopted. We need your support in finalizing our proposal and request, you please assist us. We greatly appreciate and anticipate your cooperation and assistance. Lastly, thanks in advance for assisting us in creating a viable business climate for the City and a better location for our visitors. We appreciate your review of our situation and we look forward to the increased benefits to the City, merchants and visitors to Newport Beach. 292382.1 Verily truly yours, J 4 J.R. HANDY President 4 _8 April 26,1997 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA RECEIVED PRINTED:' _ 15' Jan Debay Mayor of Newport Beach '97 APR 28 A S :40 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Madam Mayor: It is appalling to see that you and the rest of the City Council are willing to go against the will of the people and continue to work for the expenditure of S8,642,500 of public monies without the promised Public Outreach Program on Project 2000. On February 10, 1997,at the City Council Special (4:00pm) Meeting, Thomas C. Edwards asked me specifically If the citizenry knew about Project 2000 and the Balboa Peninsula Plan. I told the Council at that time that the citizens in my area (East Newport) had never heard of them. Residents of that area are still unaware. I have talked to several citizens of Newport Beach who live off the Balboa Peninsula and they have no knowledge that you even have a Project 2000. I question how a person who is not a registered voter in Orange County, California can even be made the Chairman of Project 2000. I also question, upon reading his memorandum dated February 10, 1997 (see copy attached), why we are being controlled by his self -Interests. His profession is that of a real estate investment builder and developer. He considers that the "stakeholders" and "special interest groups" are unable to think for themselves, and I quote: "Typically, stakeholders in an area that has been in negative transition for many years are not capable of solving their own problems." How can a developer who resides outside Newport Beach and operates a development company in Dallas, Texas be qualified to make such a value judgment that the BalbonPeninsula is in "NEGATIVE TRANISITIONT' The Balboa Peninsula is already a "QUALITI"' community and has been for over 100 years. Why should government Redevelopment funds even be considered for this area. We are NOT blighted! We are a residential beach community to which inland visitors come to play in the sand and surf and not to buy Gucci handbags at some smart shop on Main Street Balboa. The beach community is the charm of the Balboa Peninsula. It needs to be kept that way. The developer also says he has "been involved in a number of similar studies in other communities." It appears from his memorandum, that he has tried this on other communities. He does not seem to have Newport Beach's best interest at heart. In his article in today's (April 26, 1997) Metro section of the Register, reporter John Westcott quotes Councilman Tom Edwards as saying: "You've got to take the first step, and this is the first step." NO!! Madam Mayor, allocating more monies for more feasibility studies is NOT the first step! The FIRST step is to inform ALL of the electorate. This project was put together by a handful of hand-picked people. According to the Project 2000 document "The committee accepted both public and written comments and suggestions from a total of 48 citizens." This is not public outreach! This city has over 70,000 in population. Why has this study been so secret unless there is something to hide? I charge the City Council to be fair -minded and fair -dealing with the citizens they represent and stop looking like thieves in the night. On the City Council Agenda for April 28, 1997, under Agenda Item Number 15, - The Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Financing Program,- I urge the Newport Beach City Council to vote "YES" only on Number 9, - " Direct staff to initiate an aggressive public outreach program as identified in the staff report to keep all residents and businesses fully Informed on BPPAC issues and status." I would expect the staff to give equal attention to ALL sides of the issues. At this time, I urge the Council to vote "NO" on all the other Items listed under Agenda Item Number 15. Sincerely Louise Fundenberg Concerned Citizen and property holder 808 W. Balboa Blvd, Balboa, CA 92661 714-673-5981 t f 17.10 0214 9915164 Aev Emu lnvesmwnc nutWels • DewelWm Ono 091" Tb. 13353 Nod Rkud, La 3 sula 1315 Ddlu, TX 752404603 (972) YAx44 FAX OM 9Y1.3164 3471 Via L1p SNv ala 107bt;cF4 GA 92663 3Y2Y (714 723.7100 FAX (714) 723.1141 FRITZ DUDA 1@002 PRIN"RFCE D A R A DA D." MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Murphy Sharon wood City Council Members FROM: Fritz Duda BPPAC STUDY - PAL130A PENINSULA . COMMUNITX gUCATION 7 TE: February 10, 1997 Jr As the council moves forward in connection with the Balboa Peninsula initiatives, i believe it is important to understand several elements with regard to inevitable conflicts and different points of view as the results of the ?ublished study are more widely disseminated, especially among special interest groups and stakeholders (both residentially and commercially) on the Balboa Peninsula Collectively, I'll refer to them as the "BALPALS". As I am sure both Council ands recognize, we are bound to hear any number of public comments (both pro and Con) with kespect to the recommendations. Having been involved in a number of similar studies in other communities, I would like to share a few observations with you: 1. Peninstyla Self Diagnosis-'ljOcally, stakeholders in an area that has been in negative transition for many years are not capable of solving their own problems. Many BALPALS have achieved a high tolerance level and simply do not want change. .Others have vested interests and commercial businesses that are inconsistent with any * meaningful redevelopment plan, kinally; there•'is always a constituedcy that finds "character" or � tion" in areas that have experienced substantial decline. Historically, weiha seen efforts by the City off San Francisco thwarted in their ..z attempt to dean nP tenderloin district;,efisrt9 to redevelop Venice were repeatedly r opposed and -'(as mar of you may recall) Long Beach faced a very difficult task in eliminating the pike amusement area many years ago. -02j10/97 17:10 V214 9915184 FRITZ DUDA 0003 Memo re: BPPAC Study - Balboa Peninsula Community Education February 10, 1997 Page Two i believe the lesson here is that community input from the BALPALS is important, however, this area has been unable to reverse the negative declines over several decades and it is unlikely any meaningful cbaage can take place without the initiatives recommended in the BPPAC Report. 2. The Workshop Process - BPPAC spent over a year in meetings and dialogue with respect to the various BALPAL elements on the peninsula In order to obtain responsible representation, the council assisted us in appointing members of the four key area study groups_ Thus, a well designed effort has already been conducted in order to gain responsible input from the community. Accordingly, we should all understand that this report is not the product of a unilateral or detached process. Indeed, the council itself designated workshop participants who openly discussed problems, solutions and priorities. These representatives formulated the key recommendations. Hopefully, the lesson here is that while public comment is important and constructive, the BPPAC report is already the product of an extended public participation process. 3. Broader Commi4ity SuMgrt - interestingly, since the report has been published, we have received 4 number of calls from members of the broader (off peninsula) community. Many do not believe the report goes far enough in addressing (for example) the Balboa "zone, arcades and similar issues. Incredibly, many members of the broader Comm ty believe the peninsula needs more drastic solutions and, as one person sugg�sted�we should have considered deannexatioa to Hu aVugton Beach. While those comments are not taken seriously, I believe we need to spend more time educating the broader community about the economics of the peninsula and initiatives recommended. Indeed, the City's commitment to the broader community should include a community outreach and education program. City wide priorities go hand in hand with revitalizing the Balboa Peninsula. I believe the lesson here is that there is a large (but mostly silent) constituency that applaud action finally being taken to resolve the long standing issues on the peninsula. They have a more objective view than the BALPALS and we need to listen to them as well. Perhaps now is the time to consider more at large members on BPPAC in order to address these and related issues. FM.W I kA William E. Garrett Jr., CPM 209 30U STREET . NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 926M RECEIVED May 2, 1997 Mayor Jan Debay CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Peninsula Improvements Dear Madam Mayor: '97 MAY -5 A 9 :57 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I want to comment on your and fellow council members' plan for the renovation of the peninsula. As usual, you have "missed the boat" again. Many people in the community are still stinging from your position on the blackball issue. Also, the bike licensing idea was another really bad idea. The peninsula could use some fixing up. However, before you start beautifying with simply window dressing, the council should first consider the existing infrastructure problems before erecting signs, planting trees, and taking people's private property away. The street paving on the peninsula as a whole is very poor. Drainage in the rainy season is also very bad. The utility poles need to be placed underground. These things in themselves would make a tremendous difference. I believe the council is more interested in creating a Marina del Rey in Newport Beach, thus allowing the current city council members to erect brass plaques with their names emblazoned on them and taking credit for all the beautiful improvements and allowing them to go down in Newport Beach history. This whole plan is about you and your "quality people", and not about what's good for the peninsula or its taxpayers and residents. Date LS_9j Copies Sent TO: 'ZIAW , CONncA Member (Manager R�11�.,-s�.lul9-�Q n---.. .. . _ wI William E. Garrett Jr., CPM 209 301h STREET . NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 Mayor Jan Debay May 2, 1997 Page Two This time you have not only managed to anger the poor surfer kid who has trouble finding a place to park, but you have also upset the ultra -wealthy on Lido, boat owners, business owners, and the general populace of the area. Your supporters are rapidly dwindling. Please stop wasting our money on something that no one wants except you. I would also like to comment on an unrelated issue. You and two other council members interviewed me a couple of years ago concerning a position on the City Planning Commission for which I had applied. The other two members of the committee asked fair, pointed and pertinent questions about my extensive experience with planning, development and land use issues. Your questions centered on my lack of servitude on other city committees or homeowner's associations. I was offended by your total disregard for my background and experience. I did not know that committee or homeowner membership was a prerequisite to being selected for the Planning Commission. Apparently, it is for you. This simply showed me that it was politics, as usual, and cronyism pervades the selection process. I hope you seriously consider my comments on the peninsula improvements. Sincerely, William E. F:BGMSCI.LTR Ga ett, Jr., CPM ME I _- d�tj M; y April 28, 1997 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I regret that I can not be in attendance at this evenings meeting. I do however want to add my name to those objecting to Project 2000. This is not a plan I hope to see realized for the Balboa Peninsula. I feel that it is does not benefit the residents at all. Perhaps some developer may profit, but certainly not the people who live here on a daily, year- round basis. We need our center section parking available to us. We do not need more trees and flowers there instead. What an additional waste of money that would be, in those areas just recently re -worked on Bal- boa Blvd. We need traffic signal synchronization, not a confusing round -about. We are not Miami Beach. We enjoy our local atmosphere and neither desire nor aspire to dwell amid more bed -and -breakfast inns or resort hotels. We do not need to hire more consultants to study this issue. We do not need to spend $8.6 million on this project. We need, rather, to continue with the renovation of Balboa Blvd. itself, and with projects now neglected, such as alley resurfacing. Please listen to the numbers of residents speaking to you on be- half of the place we actually live, and in abhorrance of this new plan's negative effects. Don't let your feelings be swayed by the catchy buzz- words and slick package of a `Balboa Village" ready only for a travel brochure, but not for reality! Sincerely, 6 )k4 dLL Kathleen M. Hall 620 West Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA Harry and Margaret Heime PRINTED:" /� 17AVia Havre hECEIVED Newport Bead4 CA 92663 (714) 675-5082 997 APR 23 P4 :22 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The Mayor and city Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Friends: Re. Project 2000 We strongly object to the possibility that Via Lido may be changed with only one lane in each direction. This is a most undesirable plan, for the following reasons: 1. It will greatly add to congestion on Via Lido which will hurt rather than help the merchants on this street. 2. Via Lido is and always has been the entrance to Lido Isle. 3. Via Lido is even named after Lido Isle and business activity there is the result of the growth of Lido Isle. 4. This plan would result in 32nd street becoming the entrance to Lido Isle. This would be very unattractive. It would also be difficult to direct pep1ble to come on the island that way. we urge you to oppose this plan. Sincerely, Margaret and Harr#yHeimer r- City of Newport Beach The Mayor and City Council 3300'Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92658 Subject: Project 2000 �AFece _0' February 28, 1997 Why go to the expense to plunder two blocks of private property and realign a street (Newport Blvd.) that is very servicable and providing parking ..... by userping one property (which just happens to be a bar!) the new trb.ffic circle can be implemented. The pro- posed south lanes and the existing south lanes terminate at the same place on the new traffic circle. Are you absolutely sure the traffic circle is the answer to what you perceive as a problem at present..... seems it could create new problems of its own: While we're at it why not put your hotel (if ,you really want it) on the Southcoast Shipyard property .... it has much better access to the pier, shops and'rbstaurant areas.... please leave Marina Park and the American Legion alone: Lets really boil for our money: Enclosure (l) this planning proposal down and get the most L= Member M. E. Kofford 105 Via Orvieto Newport Beach, Ca 714 673-0844 REuratu 0 --,LANNING DEPARTMENT -%'ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MiAR 0 51997 7i8i9�>0�11112�1�2�3i4i5i6 Itofford (Feb 28, 97) r" Enclosure (1) 1 99" EIVED It RPa 30 A 9 S7 DCITIY OFF P THE CITY BEACH /1,YW,cr4olge--�.,� Date 3o q7 Copies Sent To: Member ,p"Ma ager ❑ Att rn y 0 T- ` u O ��� Co�,A� Iq lido isle community 701 VI UDC, LID S O CNE lOO EA RCH, CA 92663 TELEPHONE (714) 673-6170 M E M O RECHIVED By ,'LANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN APR 0 41997 46 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, DATE: April 1, 1997 Mayor and City Council Members City Manager, Mr. Kevin Murphy Director of Public Works, Mr. Don Webb Assistant City Manager, Ms. Sharon Z. Wood Lido Village/Civic Center, District Representatives Lido Isle/BPAC/PROJECT 2000 Committee members Lido Isle Community Association Board of Directors FROM: Helen Japenga, LICA Director RE: PROJECT 2000 The Lido Isle Community Association commends our City and all those who have worked hard to beautify and improve our City. To contribute to these ambitious plans for the future, the Association has formed a committee to represent Lido Isle to the BPAC/PROJECT 2000. This Committee is vitally concerned with all considerations and decisions regarding the entire project, most especially relating to the Lido Civic Center. This Committee intends to: Keep the City informed of the wishes of Lido Isle residents, and to inform Lido residents of any issues which might impact Lido. Be kept informed in advance of all Project 2000 meetings as well as meetings of the Lido Village/Civic Center Group, and to attend such meetings. Have input in any discussion or decisions affecting the Lido Civic Center and Lido Village. Be notified of the results of parking and traffic studies. a non-profit cooperative organization of all lido isle property owners Project 2000 April 1, 1997 Page 2 Please be advised that, at this point, the Lido Isle Community Association and many residents stand opposed to the proposed 32nd Street access to Lido Isle, as well as diagonal parking on Via Lido. We would very much appreciate confirmation of this communication as soon as possible so that the committee can become immediately involved. Thank you. cc: LIDO PROJECT 2000 COMMITTEE: CHAIRMAN Ga-41 Rosenstein, 933 Via Lido Soud, NB 92663, 723-5768 Joyce Boghosian, 141 Via Waziers, NB 92663, 675-4265 Virgil Galey, 211 Via Ravenna, NB 92663, 675-7554 LICA Director Helen Japenga, 211 Via Koron, NB 92663, 723-4650 LICA Director Kit Rutter, 941 Via Lido Soud, NB 92663, 673-9515 counc,i I member xr.Jg '.. . p •" . - ...' ,,n ,,Da7 14 646 126 1 ow. . . . . . . . . . . . M, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . .......... rt 0 ,SE.'ItESpQND 1. RE _S EN ID. S.,..D0.,%yOU WANT TO. ENTtR--� ISLE FROM 32ND STREET? 2. P0 YQV, W-A. t ,--UDO BLVD. TO -BE RF-IjUa, tf,lG* ONE LANE WITH DIAGONAL RING? 3. YOU WILT. ASo(* RECEIVE A PETITION -jATNr THIS PRPOSED ':"d" ACTIQN zBY PROJECT ECT 20-00 -- pLEA-St SjGt-.4 , �WID RETURN TO THE .LIDO CLMjJQUSE. 4.•-'ATT EN D: 1 Rt - -�U T--Y.COUNCIL 'RIL 28TH AND 0 .SHOW yo U. OpPOSITION TO THIS -PROPQ�A-'• C. 6* itte to Preserve Lido APR-23-1997 15;57 E. P. 01 P. 01 Counailmember Jan Debav 7146461261 P.02 P.01 -_-_ Agri-23-97 02:18 lido isle F-'--'J community association 701 VIA LIDO SOUP, LIDO ISLE - NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 TELEPHONE (7141673.6170 ATTENTION ALL LIDO ISLE RESIDENTS URGENT! DID YOU KNOW THAT YOUR NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL -IS CONSIDERING BPPAC'S PROPOSAL TO MAKE 32nd STREET BECOME THE N) W ENTRANCE TO LIDO ISLE? THAT'S TWO MORE STOP SIGNALS, ADDITIONAL COMMUTING.'I'TME AND INCREASED TRAFFIC. IF YOU OBJECT, PLEASE SIGN THE ENCLOSED PROXY/PETITION Crt•*D AND MAIL IT IMMEDIATELY. WE WOULD LIFE TO SUBMIT THE CARDS TU THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR APRIL 28th MEETING. (PLEASE RETURN THE CARD TO US REGARDLESS OF THE DATE, HOWEVER.) THANK YOU!! LIDO ISLE/PROJ_ECT V09.QOMMITTEE Gail Rosenstein, Chairman - 723.5768 Joyce Boghosian - 675-4265 Fran Bury - 673-4466 Virgil Galey - 675-7554 Helen Japenga - 723.4650 Will Longyear - 675-1180 Kit Rutter - 673-9515 F v-r — °!� A��'u.�-. a •non-profit cooperative orgpnization of all fido isle property owners ••'` '. APR-23-1994 15:59 93% P.62 v 1219 W. ;day [eve. N.B.92661 April 10,1997 REC,avao dr PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN APR 14 1997 s19110i14L911,2i8i415 6 To: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager CNB Subj.: Wood Undated Memo "Summary Findings / Recommendations BPPAC Dear Ms. Wood: I would like to confirni our April 10 phone conversation regarding subject memo, a copy of which I obtained from Tom Hyans,President, Central N.B. Community Association. City Council Priorities Quoting your memo --"Revitalization will not be implemented until financing is identified and the feasibility and community acceptability of the projects is demonstrated.". I suggested that before the City goes to the expense of meaningful finance and feasibility studies, that each project must be discussed with the Community, so as to judge whether citizens wish or do not wish to proceed with further studies. Doesn't this make sense? Outreach Program City Council properly directed staff to design an outreach program so that citizen feedback would be generated. I suggested that the staff design a program that would incorporate the following: 1) Advertise the "when -where -what" of each meeting in several newspapers and other local periodicals. 2) Post notices of each meeting in public places such as libraries, City Hall, markets. 3) Place notices of each meeting on channel 3. 4) Announce upcoming meetings at the Monday Council meetings. Thank you for taking note of our conversation. N•' 4-� Mel Mann 675-3563 cc: Tom Hyans Council Members--Debay-Edwards-Glover-Hedges-Noyes-O Neil -Thomson BPPACV=. WPS i!•tat i�`i�!�"i:�� �i6i1'.irlSS"' t ' 4;IJ 1l10Zt"e"sal iC} 't Tt." rd t ! ryt Iy eeA Feb. 5, 1997 To: Newport Beach City Council Members From: Mel Mann 1219 W. Bay N.B. 92661 675-3563 COUNCIL AGENDA NO, / Subject: Feedback on Town Hall BPPAC meeting -Feb. 3, 1997-,American Legion ERIC FEB 5 1997 C1fY C;i�K N, ',Clc! DF A)n(EFACH You may find the following report informative on subject meeting, attended by approximately 250-300 people, and chaired by ivfichael Kranzley, a resident on the peninsula and a member of BPPAC. 1. Residents offered views on numerous aspects of BPPAC, asked questions, and answers came from Kranzley, Tim Collins (representing BPPAC) and Sharon Wood, Assistant City X•fanager. 2. Judging by volume and length of applause in response to some 30-40 resident evaluations and questions, it appeared that 80% to 90% of resident views were negative and highly critical of various aspects of the BPPAC recommendations. 3. Some specific subjects covered and a brief summary follows: a) No answer by BPPAC to the question of what is meant by BPPAC on " the need to attract quality visitors and social contributors". (What is the hidden meaning behind these words?) b) Many residents were critical of using redevelopment as a means to generate funds. Residents who spoke about this type of funding had actual experience and were extremely negative. BPPAC said costs and financing to implement the plan will come at a later date. c) A resident pointed out that elimination of 400-500 median parking spots on Balboa Blvd. would create a parking hardship on residents (especially in the summer) and would also be a serious problem to the Elementary School and the two Churches on 15th Street. This median parking is used on a daily basis. by the school and churches In response to what mitigation could be offered to the Coastal Commission for reduced public access to the beaches, BPPAC said that a proposed new garage in the Lido area plus expanded parking in the Balboa Pier parking lot would replace the lost parking. Resident �u response was that it would not be practical for a "beach -goer" family with kids, chairs, cold box, towels etc. to unload, get on tram and repeat this when going home. Note: The privately owned garage on Via Lido is half empty most of the year. Why does the City need a new garage in the same area. d) Numerous Lido Island residents were extremely critical of the proposed diagonal parking on Via Lido and the proposed conversion of 32nd Street as the main entrance & exit to Lido Isle. Diagonal parking was considered to be unsafe when adjacent to thru traffic.. e) Marina Park Association representative pointed out the outstanding revenue stream to the City (could be increased) He pointed out that Marina Park is a quiet, peaceful environment plus pleasing esthetic look from Balboa Blvd. BPPAC stated there is a legal tideland problem relating to lease renewal. f) Several people with bay moorings just North of Marina Park expressed concern and. dismay that they might be adversely affected by conversion of Marina Park to a Marina, to be used by visiting Yachtsmen. g) On more than one occasion, reference by residents to "developers are behind this" drew enthusiastic applause. BPPAC pointed out that they had been commissioned by the City Council (resolution 95-32) to look for a wav to improved numerous problems on the peninsula. In summary, I hope the City Council will proceed very slowly in adopting this plan and involve the residents who live in the area. �1 RECEIVED '97 MAY 21 P 1 '09 `; � r9 /997 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK //2,111 CITY OF r�l�: �YPORT BEACH tt/� F r Copan Sb tTtmow ter° µ`MS- �73- C C - e. FEB 28 1997 CITY CLERK RT B 1'EWEACH -28-97 Mayor Janet Debay and City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Dear Mayor Debay and Council Members, I have been reviewing the proposed BPPAC report and recomendations. I feel we do not need the major changes proposed by this plan. The proposed change to Via Lido and the change to the miimaster is not needed. I am opposed to any establishment of a redevelopement agency. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns, we need to be notified of all meetings pertaining to actions taken on the BPPAC report. Please copy the city clerl:. Sincerely, � Cul �4 Jiffies Mc.1 och 2807 Villa Way Newport Beach, Ca. 926631 Date Ce Sent To: ;. fwunaN MIMber Qj Manama ,A 01 BARRY MC KINLEY 1310 W. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92887 Mailing: 5850 Via Del Bisonte Yorba Linda, CA 92887 (714) 692-8393 Office January 2, 1997 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. NewportBeach, CA 92887 REt; IVE0 dI PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN JAN 61997 PM 7i81911DIllI12111218141518 . s1 I owe the triplex located at the above address. One of the units (#A) we reside in 50% of our time. In traveling to many different beaches I noticed that most Cities provide an abundance of benches for people to relax on. Balboa Island seems to have a bench set-up at every other street around the island. Newport Beach is lacking any consistency of placing benches, particularly on the peninsula. It would be very nice for the guests and residence of Newport Beach to have benches every block or two up and down the peninsula. Not only would the guests of Newport Beach appreciate this very inexpensive addition but the residence would because it would help to keep people off their walls along the boardwalk. In the summer time this would help to cut down on congestion on the board walk allowing skaters, runners, walkers and others a place to sit and readjust their equipment. Benches are particularly needed at the basketball courts, and skating area located behind the school between 12'h and 13'h Street. I hope you will consider these small additions to make Newport that much more attractive to guests, travelers and residences. Thank you for your consideration. MS ACQUISITION CORP. 121 MCFADDEN PL., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663, 714/673-4470 City Council City of Newport Beach RECEIVED 300 Newport Boulevard FEB 18 1997 Newport Beach,CA 92663 citv18 NEVIPITY OORT BEACH Subject: Alcohol Related Businesses/ Amendment to the Zoning Code `Q S VV Copy to: Planning Commission Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council; I own a building in McFadden Square which houses several businesses, one of them being the STAG BAR of which I am the owner. With the help of a Small Business Loan and my home equity, I was able to buy the building as well as spending $300,000.00 to bring the building up to code. I am sixty one years of age, and this business represents my retirement. It is not a hobby. Based on my investment, I feel that I have the right to express my concerns over Project 2000 and especially the newly proposed amendment to the zoning code regarding Alcohol Related Businesses. It is obvious that this amendment is the "tool" which will be used in reducing the number of bars on the peninsula, as is stated a number of times in the Project 2000 write-up. Even though this report was developed by volunteers, it is apparent that these people are successful real esate people, developers and their associates. Who is going to benefit by all of this development? Who will get the projects? Who will be the owners of the new hotels and fancy restaurants? It has been said that this project has the blessings of the merchants at McFadden Square. The majority of the merchants that I have talked to are not even aware of the plan. I have had no contact from the Newport Pier Association, even though I am a member. 1 have gotten the same story from the merchants in Balboa Village. Rush Hill was quoted in the papers as referring to the bars as "less than honorable". The Project 2000 report calls for attracting "high quality people". I ask, who are these people that make these determinations? Has Mr. Hill ever talked to me? Has he ever visited my bar? Has he ever talked with any of my customers? The STAG BAR has been in existence since the 1920's. Our customers are second and third generation families. They are blue collar, educators and very successful business people. Their ages range from the 20's to the 70's. Over the years we have been visited by peoples from all over the country as well as foreign countries. If you wear a STAG tee shirt as you travel the U.S.A., people will come up to you to tell you of visiting The Stag, and how much they enjoyed it. I am proud that we have been a tourist attraction to so many. The majority of my customers do not wear coats and ties, but they are good people. The majority of them are honest and hard working and do not cause trouble. The majority of the bar owners will tell you that most of their customers are well behaved. Their is always a small number of people who are "bad apples". When we are able to identify these people, we ban them from our businesses. We bar owners are honest, ethical and hard working people who obey the law. We do not want to serve drunks. We do not want to over serve customers. We only want customers -1- who are well behaved. I know that opponents of bars will disagree, but as owners, we have too much at stake not to act responsible. To get a liquor license,we have to be fingerprinted and investigated as to our character and background. You do not get a license if you have a criminal record or have had bad dealings in the liquor industry. The laws that govern us are very strict. The ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL DEPARTMENT (ABC) is constantly looking at us. The issues that the amendment addresses are already in place under ABC law. Some of the issues that I object to are : 1. Liquor Transfers: If I have to sell my business, the Planning Commission can change the Use Permit as to hours of operation. If this happened the business would be unsalable. As I said earlier, the business is my retirement. If I became sick, it would be necessary to sell it. My savings are invested in it as well as the notes on it are secured by my home. This is a very common practice today, and it is no problem unless someone does not let you pursue your right to making a living. If I were to die, my wife could not operate this business, but yet this is her saving and retirement as well. We have worked honestly all of our lives only to be put in a perilous situation. We should have the right to enable our children to have an inheritance. How can you allow a situation to exist, where individual rights are taken away from them. 2. As a landlord, one of my tenants is a sucessful Italian restaurant. If he were to sell or move his business to another location, what would happen to the new tenant? This location has been a restaurant for years. The Small Business Administration gave me a loan based on the tenant mix in the building. If a restaurant was not allowed to succeed at this location, it would cause a default of the loan. Again, taking away my retirement. 3. The amendment states that the Planning Commission or the Planning Director will make all decisions at their discretion. The amendment is very general and at the same time it is all inclusive. The Planning Commission is the sponsor of Project 2000. It states it wants to reduce the number of bars on the peninsula. This gives the Commission or the Director the ability to arbitrarily change our Use Permits. The first step in "getting rid" of us. This is not the democratic way. This "smells" of influence by special interest groups. The Council in good faith and conscience should not allow this. 4.Project 2000 states several times that bars should be replaced with "quality restaurants. It refers to the fine restaurant, AUBERGINE. Yes this is an excellent restaurant. however a couple is going to spend $100.00 to $150.00 for dinner. Is Project 2000 designed for the rich only? In and around Fashion Island there are approximately 30 liquor licenses. I guarantee you that at a number of the fine bars in hotels and restaurants, are jammed with people who have consumed as much , if not more. alcohol than the customers who frequent the PENINSULA. These people are at the "high quality restaurants". 5. The amendment is very inclusive as to how a bar can have its Use Permit changed and possibly revoked. Again the purpose of the amendment is to eliminate bars. As you read the amendment you see that it is one big "catch 22". An example of this is that "there is to be no loitering around the premises. If you cannot get rid of the loiterers, you are to call the police." Later on, one of the reasons you can have your permit revoked is based on the number of calls to your business. Over the last several weeks, I have had to call the police for people that I refused to allow to enter my bar, because they were intoxicated. They became threatening, and it was necessary to call -2- i The police. I obeyed the law, however my record with the police department would show that I had three incidents at my bar. This would be used against me as to having a reason to change or revoke my permit. 6. A great number of the customers on the Peninsula are "locals". They walk to the bars. If you were to change hours, these people would get in their cars and drive to Costa Mesa or Huntington Beach. I assure you that you are going to have a lot of people out there in cars at late hours who have been drinking. I feel an amendment to the zoning code is not necessary due to the fact that the bar owners are already governed by the ABC laws. The ABC can revoke our licenses if we do not act responsibly. I ask that you give the same consideration to the small business man that you would give to big business. It is recognized that the future of this country is affected greatly by small business. I ask that you represent all of the people who pay property taxes as well as generating sales tax revenue in Newport Beach. I would also like to mention that Project 2000 wants to encourage high quality businesses in the various districts on the Peninsula. At the same time it refers to "parking revenues". Our parking is limited and our rates are already, the highest in the county. Why would someone want to spend $10.00 to $15.00 on parking when they can park free at Fashion Island, Corona del Mar, South Coast Plaza or Triangle Square. I ask that you be fair and represent all of us. We have all paid our dues for the right to earn an honest living. I do not see how you can legally enact legislation which would result in someone losing his business. Sincer ly yours, Howard Norris Mayor Jan Debay City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 John W. Nelson 110 Via Lorca Newport Beach, CA 92663 717 675-4598 Date S Copies Sent To: Mayor 01/uncil Member manager /QA ne J n RECEIVED '97 MAY -5 A 9 '58 OOftE CITY CHCITY�tyM1l9TA Dear Mayor Debay: ❑ — My wife and I are residents of Lido Isle. We havgteen follmigAhe events regarding the Councils' attempt to implement Project 2000. First of all let me say that I have read the information about Project 2000 in its entirety. I believe this is a great plan, and would constitute a major asset to the City if it is implemented. Something of this nature has been long overdue. However, I must confess I am very dismayed over the unfounded opposition the Council is getting from a small number of residents and business owners with their self serving interest. They would lead you to believe their position is.that of the majority. I don't believe this to be true. On Monday night I watched the Council meeting on television. I was amazed at the number of individuals who would place their own interest above that of the City. Let me just cite some of the ridiculous positions I heard these people state. One so called concerned citizen stated, "We don't need people from the outside telling us what is best for us, we know better what is best for us, we live here, they don't." All I can say in response to this statement is that this is what has been happening over the past decades. The local residents and business owners have been doing what they feel is best for themselves. That is exactly the reason why we have the "toilet" we have on the peninsula. Outsiders are being paid for their expertise in these areas. They carry a more unbiased and more professional understanding of what is needed to clean up this mess. They have no self serving interest in this issue. Their advice and recommendations should be taken very seriously. They are the experts, not the local self serving complainers that are so vocal at these council meetings. Another person addressing the council was representing the Crab Cooker Restaurant. He spoke against having the City extend parking meter times to midnight. Here is just another self serving special interest. Is it any great mystery why he is opposed to this policy? He has a business with no on site parking facilities for his customers. Why should the rest of us living in Newport Beach have to subsidize the Crab Cooker's parking? The residents tax dollars should not be used in lieu of what the City could collect by extending parking fees up through midnight. I for one would rather see the City charging meter fees up to midnight, and using these revenues for much needed public works improvements, as opposed to giving the Crab Cooker a free ride at the expense of the rest of us. Several concerned citizens made fallacious statements expressing their belief that "Newport Beach doesn't have a parking problem. That it is only a bad during a few summer months." I don't know what planet they're coming from, but they are so misguided it's pathetic. Parking is a major problem in Newport, and because parking is a major problem, it makes driving and traffic a major problem. It also creates problems for businesses with this area, which in turn reduces revenues to the City. Only a fool could say Newport doesn't have a parking problem. I have heard many of the concerned local residents state that they "don't believe that the Balboa peninsula is a blighted area." Of course these self serving people would have to maintain this position. To say otherwise would be opening the door for the council to try to implement positive changes to the subject area. Again, only a blind person or someone with a self serving interest could maintain that the Balboa peninsula is not a blighted area. It is blighted by almost anyone else's standards, with the possible exception of the operators of tattoo parlors, vulgar tee shirt shops, sleazy businesses, and the people with vested interest in these establishments. Have you ever seen a neighborhood where one of the homes is not maintained? Where it has accumulated junk around it, and has been allowed to detract from the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. In almost every instance that same property owner would maintain that there is nothing wrong with the way his home looks. If they felt otherwise, they couldn't justify leaving it in the condition it is in. Again, I heard others speak of the area between 30th street and 26th street on Balboa Blvd. telling of how the businesses located between the east and west bound lanes are just fine. I am sure that these are the same self serving citizens who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Unfortunately, for the rest of the population who has to try to get around this area, it is a nightmare. It is a traffic hazard, it is "motorist unfriendly", and confusing at best. This status quo fosters more traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution. All run contrary to the lifestyle most of the rest of us living in Newport are looking for. Surely you can see the wisdom in implementing the recommendations of the BPPAC. I heard comments such as "the residents of Newport don't want this Project 2000." This is simply not true. The few local residents and business owners on the peninsula don't represent the majority viewpoint of most of the residents of Newport Beach. The same people keep showing up at these meetings lamenting about the same things. They would like you to believe they are the majority opinion. In reality they don't represent the majority opinion of the citizens of Newport Beach. Although they would like you to believe they do. I counted about twenty-seven people that spoke at the Council meeting. The last time I checked the population of Newport Beach was about 66,500. These twenty-seven people represent the voice of only .04% (four hundredths of a percent) on the population of City. Look at where these people who speak out against Project 2000 reside. They all live on the section of the peninsula that needs to be upgraded and improved. They expect the rest of us to live with the mess we have on the peninsula. These people do not speak for the majority. 1 .* I saw a couple of people present petitions to the Council all in opposition to some aspect of Project 2000. It is important to understand that most petitions are obtained by arousing the emotions of the petitioners, often times with false statements of facts and opinions. The petition may say one thing, yet the people obtaining these signatures too often distort the truths and misrepresent the facts, in order to arouse emotions so they can get a signature on the petition. For example, the petition might state something like we the undersigned are opposed to any changes to the parking on Balboa Blvd. What the petition doesn't state is the misstatement of facts that the ones involved in getting signatures have told everyone. Maybe these petitioners were told that "the City wants to eliminate all parking along Balboa Blvd. and as a result you may have to park in the Balboa pier parking lot in order to park your car. Therefore you should sign this petition." My point is to be aware of petitions. They are only as reliable as the information that has been disseminated to the petitioners. I believe that the City and BPPAC has come up with a terrific plan in Project 2000. The City has expended a lot of time and effort in coming up with a plan that will truly make remarkably more positive addition to our community. The recommendations of BPPAC should be taken very seriously. They will greatly improve the quality of life in Newport Beach, increase revenues coming into the City treasury, cleanup the "toilet" we are all subjected to, and make the peninsula and surrounding area a place we can all be proud of. Everyone who resides or comes to Newport will benefit greatly. I commend the efforts of the City Manager and the Planning Director, and all the people who are trying to make Newport Beach a community we can all be proud of. Politicians too often base their positions on what they perceive as being popular. What they need to do is what is best for the community as a whole. I strongly urge you as a council person, to support and implement the recommendations of BPPAC. It will allow Newport Beach to be the city we all want it to be. Sincerely, John W. Nelson •JAN-28-97 TLJE 1 S : 12 P - 02 ORANGE COAST ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSet INC. 401 North Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663.4210 Telephone (714) 722-2300 FAX (714) 642-4105 MLS FAX (714) 631-4276 110117 OFFICERS January 28, 1997 PRESIDENT OILFOERSTER Mayor Jan Debay PRESIDENT-ELECT JACKIEHANDLEMAN City of Newport Beach 3330 Newport Blvd SECRETARY DONNIE TURNER Newport Beach, CA 92663 TREASURER BERNARD TOWERS Dear Mayor Debay: DIRECTORS TOM BRUNSON DOUG HOCKM.. CCIM We have recently been advised of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory TOM IOVE Committee Report and Recommendations. We understand that meetings have CIAUDETTE MANAN N M JULIE SCHMIESINO been scheduled for February 3rd and 10" to discuss and possibly act on STEDSUTHBR A aG BPPAC's recommendations. EXErUTE VICE RESI EN P A We would like to postpone any preliminary approvals of these recommendations pending review of our Government and Political Affairs Committee, as there appear to be several private property issues addressed. Also, we would voice strong opposition to placing a rental agent in the capacity of an enforcing agent regarding any city ordinance or provision as is addressed on page 33 of the report. We would also like to be included in the mailing list of BPPAC meetings or material distributions. Thank you for your consideration of the above, a more detailed analysis will follow pending review and discussions with the parties involved. Sincerel Ia pore, R , C E Executive Vice President TM:kf cc: Bing Girling GPA Committee REALTOR• ° p" �� ' v� 2395 Santa Ana Avenue DECEIVED Costa Mesa 92627 MAR 19 1997' :S CnY CLERK March 17, 1997 �•, HEWPORT BEACH �? date 9 9 �� Copies Sent It L �aYa I<auncil Member Mayor Jan Debay and City Council City of Newport Beach A YneY 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 77 Dear Mayor Debay and Council Members: 13 a I have been reviewing the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee's. "Project 2000". . It is quite comprehensive and includes many recommendations, some innocuous, and some quite controversial. Hidden from view in the recommendations is the out-of-town developer who is trying to get his hands on some valuable property.... the state owned land that the American Legion leases and that the mobile home park Marina Village leases, as well as the bay waters directly off the beaches of these two peninsula properties. The vague proposal in the Committee's report is to convert this property into a marina for visiting yachts. In order to do this the following existing uses of the properties would have to be evacuated: • The American Legion meeting hall • The American Legion private marina • Approximately 80 families from Marina Village mobile home park • The "Mom and Baby" public beach north of Marina Village • As many as 140 offshore moorings for private and commercial vessels Much of the recommended justification of this land grab is based on flawed and misleading economics either mistakenly or deliberately included in the report. If the Committee's report is so wrong about the economics, why should you believe any of the rest of it? The City has made it a point to insure it receives fair market value for the tidelands used for the moorings in the permit fees it charges mooring holders every year. The Marina Village residents, whose lease with the City expires in the year 2000, propose a lease fee increase to provide the City with "fair market value" for the city administered "tidelands" on which the mobile homes are situated. Yet the report does not disclose the true revenue to the City on these assets which would be eliminated. Much of the report also recommends beautification of the peninsula with plantings, et cetera, to hide the developer's short term profit enhancing ploy. Local residents, mooring permitees and Marina Village lease holders have met with City officials to protest the proposed ill conceived "visiting yachts marina" concept. The actual revenues to the city from such a facility would be nil, while the existing revenues of well over one million dollars per year would be lost. Moreover, the ambiance of the peninsula would be devastated by wiping out the beautiful public beach between 15th and 18th streets on the bay. There is obvious intrinsic value to the permit for a mooring and to the leasehold of a mobile home space in Marina Village (similar to a New York Taxicab medallion); the market value of these moorings (or mobile homes) is ten to twenty times the value of the actual equipment. Thus, seizure of these moorings and removal of the mobile homes without fair market value compensation is essentially stealing private property by the City. Stealing the mooring holders rights to the use of the bay for permanent moorage is an act that very well could be actionable. I urge you to check carefully with the City Attorney as to the City's potential liability and any liability that might rub off on you as individuals if criminal statutes are violated by this action. Sincerely, E. F. Osier Mooring J513 mail-kox:/C%7C/Pro9...link.net&number=37 mailbox:/C°s7C/Prog...link.net&number=37 Subject: Concerns Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 20:12:39 -0700 From: Bob Pone <bpone@earthlink.net> To: ptemple@newport Dear Mayor Janice A. Debay Hi my name is Bob Pone and I attended the council meeting with the Mooring Association. I am writing this letter for two reasons. The first reason is that I have a boat on a mooring that is part of the proposed change. I just hope that we're given enough time to react to any new plans or changes. The proposed change states that some moorings will be removed for the new marina. Will the removed moorings be relocated to new moorings or will we lose our moorings? I am totally in favor of the city's proposal to revitalize Balboa peninsula. It's long over due. It definately needs a face lift to show the people of Orange County that this is where families and their friends can get together and have a great time at the beach. During the summer I sail every weekend with family and friends. It's an incredible break from my job which takes up a considerable amount of my time. I come here to relax. And what a great place it is! The point I want to make is, that I feel more people should be able to come here and enjoy it as I do. Maybe not for sailing but other types of water sports or just fun in the sun relaxing. The peninsula needs to offer more facilities that will cater to the public. Picnic areas where people can spend a sunny afternoon cooking food and playing games, more trees to provide shade, park benches, bathroom facilities and most importantly, parking. Maybe an aquatic center where boating enthusiasts can learn sailing, wind -surfing, kayaking. A place where people can learn about the sea and it's inhabitants. Maybe A maritime museum where people can learn about the history of Newport Beach. New hotels that will provide for their guest not only comfort but tours of the area, fishing charters and during the whale season, whale watching trips. The Second reason I am writing you is the article that I read in the Register newspaper a while back concerning the comments that some of the members of the American Legion Hall made about the revitalization of Balboa. There were several statements that the legion members said that made me quite angry, I could not believe how selfish their comments were about the proposed revitalization. I would like to quote some of the things that they said and make comments on them. The interview took place in the legion bar. One member said "It's a thick report with all sorts of ideas to bring in more parking, more upscale hotels and shops and more benches, flowers and trees. " He went on to say , "We got enough trees and people. " It's the people thing that bothered me the most. My comment to them is, you chose to live here and by choosing to live here, people come with the package. This is not your private beach facility. Another member says "I am dead set against it, I want them to leave the peninsula just the way it is. She also goes on to say, "The part I like is the parking. " 1 of 2 04/02/97 08:13:10 mailbox:/C%7C/Prog...link.net&number=37 mailbox:/C17C/Prog...link.net&number=37 Sure they do, the legion has free gated parking for its members. They don't have to search for a parking spot. And the shame about it is, their parking lot is empty during most of the year. Every weekend in the off months their parking lot is empty. The American Legion hall boast that it offers its members a Yacht Club. The problem is, the legions rules and regulations prohibit any member including Yacht Club members from using the parking and their marina facilities. out of the 2000 members only 35 have exclusive rights to the parking lot and marine facilities. This is extremely out of proportion and outrageous. The legions rules pertaining to the use of the docks, parking and marina only benefits a few legion members. I love the harbor and the boating that goes with it. I feel if the legion doesn't change its rules and regulations and allow more people to enjoy the harbor, then they should move to a new location and let the people use the facilities in the way it should be, for boating, water sports, swimming, sunning, etc. We need facilities that caters more towards the harbor instead of serving food and alcohol. I also read that Balboa wants to reduce the number of bars. The legion hall is a good place to start. We need to remember that Balboa peninsula is a public beach and it's the public that we should be concerned with, not private interest. Sincerely, Bob Pone cc: Patricia Temple 2 of 2 04/02/97 08:13:10 t SAffNT JAMES CHURCH + EPISCOPAL + 3209 Via Lido + Newport Beach, CA + 92663-3973 + O: [714] 675-0210 + FAX: [7141675-1230 The Reverend David Craig Anderson, Sr., Rector April 8, 1997 Mayor and City Council of Newport Beach: Janice A. Debay, Mayor Thomas C. Edwards Norma J. Glover John W. Hedges John Noyes Dennis D. O'Neil Thomas Thompson Dear Mayor and City Council members: REOEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 141997 7 I am writing this letter for Saint James Episcopal Church, 3209 Via Lido, Newport Beach, in concern about the possible impact that could result from the proposed changes in the Lido/Via Oporto area and in the 32nd Street Cannery area. I have read the lengthy report, and although from a traffic engineering standpoint the proposals might optimize parking and traffic flow, they offer no benefits to our church that I can see, and in fact will be detrimental to the quiet use and enjoyment of our property. Let me touch on several areas of our concern. We are alarmed at the prospect of redirected and increased vehicular andpedestrian traffic. Increased vehicular traffic on 32nd Street will cause even more noise and vibration, and raises the question of safety for children and senior adults when trying to cross from our parking lot across 32nd Street to our church's worship and Sunday School areas. Any redesign of the vehicular intersection of 32nd Street/Via Lido/Lafayette Street that increases either the volume of traffic or the speed of traffic, or both, would impact our actual worship area which nestles in that angle. We are concerned about any new traffic -redirection -land -acquisition needs that might impinge on our property. We need every square foot we presently have. Any redesign of pedestrian flow will impact us, because the sidewalks wrap around our premises. We are concerned about losing use of existing parking spaces due to the consolidation of parking lots, and the proposed street widening and closures. Many, many metered spaces would disappear entirely, such as on Via Malaga and Via Oporto, and perhaps elsewhere. In a consolidation of parking lots on either side of Via Oporto, would these be gated and restricted or open to the general public? We are concerned about the creation of special districts that would have the power to tax or assess our property. Such revenues would pay for improvements which, while + a community dedicated to loving and serving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior + they might benefit others, would be detrimental to our church. We don't need them, and don't want the bill for them either. We are alarmed about the possibility of a public parking structure being constructed on our property across 32nd Street from the church. Over and beyond the parking efficiency imagined in a multilevel parking structure, there are urban problems that attend such structures, and they are antithetical to both the character of the neighborhood and the uses of our property which has been blessed for church use, and on which worship, church ministry and other religious purposes now take place. The city has already recognized this special status in the recentre-zoning of our property from "commercial" to "educational -and religious." A commercial enterprise might be able to move to another location, but we believe God planted this church on this site. Our ministry is launched from this site, locally, nationally and globally, sending members of Saint James Church into many corners of the world, doing many types of ministry. Any taking by the city or any other entity of our property on either side of 32nd Street would be an unwarranted intrusion into the ministry of Saint James Church. Additionally our church is busy serving the spiritual needs of this community in Newport Beach seven days a week, and any traffic or parking changes will impact us every day, all weeklong. We're puzzled by the fact that these plans have caught most of the Via Lido merchants, the Lido Isle Community Association and ourselves largely unaware. We do wonder, therefore, what is really driving this agenda, and is there another agenda which has not yet made it's appearance? For whom is this a live or die issue anyway? By the way, our reading of the minutes of your February 10, 1997 meeting is that the Via Lido/32nd Street issue was removed from the main motion dealing with implementation of certain steps in the plan, and that the Via Lido/32nd Street issues will be dealt with separately at a later time. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. Sincerely, The Reverend David Craig Anderson, Sr. ccFeasibility Committee cc BPAC I April 21, 1997 The Reverend David Craig Anderson Saint James Episcopal Church 3209 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA 92663-3973 Dear Reverend Anderson: Thank you for your letter expressing the church's concerns with the recommendations to change access and parking in the Via Lido/32nd Street area made by the Balboa Peninsula Planning advisory Committee (BPPAC). I hope you are aware that they are just recommendations from a committee at this point, and that the City Council has not made any decisions on implementation yet. We have received comments from several people who are concerned about possible changes in this area, at and since the Council meeting of February 10, 1997. We are making note of them, and will consider them and future input very seriously before deciding on any changes. At the meeting of February 10, the City Council directed staff to prepare a financing plan to assess the City's ability to consider implementation of the BPPAC recommendations, and a community outreach program to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to hear what has been recommended and provide input before the Council makes decisions. These items will be considered by the City Council at our meeting of April 28, 1997. I think it also will help you to know that the BPPAC recommendations are only conceptual at this time. We need to determine whether projects are feasible from an engineering point of view before any decisions can be made. A feasibility study of the Via Lido/32nd Street recommendations may be authorized by the City Council to provide more information, but that action alone will not represent any commitment to make changes. The final decision will be based on feasibility as well as public comment taken at numerous meetings over the next few months. Your comments on the particular needs of St. James Church will be very helpful as we consider these recommendations further. If you would like further information on the BPPAC study or recommendations, please feel free to contact Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager, at 644-3222. Sincerely, Jan Debay Mayor cc: City Council Kevin Murphy, City Manager Kathy Forde, Executive Assistant Douglas M. Wood 1214 East Balboa Blvd., Balboa, California 92661 (714) 673-5824 March 8, 1997 Council Members Glover, Noyes and Thomson Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Council Members: I would like to express my personal appreciation for your attendance at the "Moorings Assn." meeting held in the Council Chamber today. At the same time I would like to express my personal view that the "moorings issues," the Marina Park Study and the BPPAC issues need to be analyzed together, not separately, and against a common yardstick. The yardstick which should be used for all such issues is: Is it resident friendly? That should be the first priority. Taken as a group and measured against businesses, visitors or any other interested parties, the residents have by far the greatest concern for and interest in the city's well being. Mrs. Glover, during today's hearing you asked if any good recommendations were made in the BPPAC study. I suggest the following items: 1. Balboa Blvd. beautification by rgpm1ug it 2. Proposing a smaller, quality commercial retail element (page 18, BPPAC) 3. Proposal that liquor licenses be reduced because of current excess numbers. 4. Signage improvements and reduction of window displays signs. 5. Prohibition of commercial structure painting that is constructive signage 6. Ordinances which would control and reduce party rentals 7. Annual inspections and hospitality permits for short term residential rentals You will note that all these would measure well against the resident -friendly yardstick. Also, none of these is expensive or disruptive compared to rerouting 32nd Street, creation of a mixmaster turnaround; elimination of Balboa Blvd. center divider parking from McFadden Square to Alvarado; establishment of a new parking management plan. The seven items suggested would improve the quality of life on the Balboa Peninsula. They would make a good beginning for a realistic Project 2000. Sincerely, cc: Ms. Sharon Wood Ba1PPAC1 IV Douglas M. Wood »�d Act Balboa Blvd altioa, California 92661 (714) 673-5824 February 4, 1997 Mr. Michael Kranzley Planning Commisioner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Kranzley: Before commenting on the meeting at the American Legion on February 3, 1997 I would like to qualify myself. My family moved to Balboa 50' years ago. My wife's family moved to Balboa 55 years ago. I have read the Project 2000; Balboa Peninsual Planning Policy Recommendations of 10/11/96; and the Camp Balboa Peninsula Planning Study of January 1997 several times. I attended the February 3 meeting and heard the many comments. First, based on the number of attendees, I'd like to mention that the volunteer hours spent at the February 3rd meeting must have exceeded the 535 volunteer hours spent by the committee. The attendees' views deserve more than cursory consideration. There could have been notes taken• for later review and action items established. Second, the good things in the study are: 1. Recognition of the poor road conditions 2. Proposing a smaller, quality commercial retail element, page 18 3. Proposal that liquor licenses be reduced because of current excess numbers. 4. Signage improvements and reduction of window display signs. 5. Prohibition of commercial structure painting that is constructive signage. 6. Ordinances which would "control" and reduce party rentals. 7. Annual inspections and hospitality permits for short-term residential rentals. Third, the unsound and/or impractical things in the study are: 1. The inaccurate economic profile on page 17. 2. The inaccurate statement of Bay management fees on page 24. 3. The proposal for alternative use of the Marina Park site. 4. The plan to reduce center divider parking between McFadden Square and Alvarado Street. This will reduce available parking by hundreds of spaces. It will concentrate beach usage to areas adjacent to "unnamed" parking lots instead of spreading it over the broad beach area available. 5. Recommendations of trolley shuttles. They've been tried before and failed. \q Project 2000 comments, page 2 6. Replacement of the County Harbor Department with a city department. 7. The plan to extend the large commercial boat slips into the bay. 8. Relocate the Fire and Marine Departments and replace with parking. 9. Remove on -street parking near stores and replace with wider sidewalks. This is not resident friendly. 10. Creation of four turnarounds between the McFadden area and downtown Balboa (a distance of no more than 2 miles). None has ever been to Washington, DC, Rome, Paris or London they would know that turnarounds guarantee gridlock and accidents in crowded condtions. 11. Plan to make Balboa's Main Street into a pedestrian mall. 12. Restrict visitor parking in residential areas. What about residents'_ visitors? 13. The plan to eliminate one entry lane from Newport Blvd. and one lane on Via Lido and provide dangerous diagonal parking. 14. The related plan to move traffic from Via Lido to 32nd Street. 15. The possible relocation of the City Hall. 16. Special Study 2-B which proposes extending docks 150' into the Bay. Fourth, what's lacking in the study: 1. Plans to improve the very unsatisfactory road conditions, especially on Balboa Blvd.. 2. Any explanation how and where deleted parking spaces would be replaced. 3 Consideration of close -to -stores parking for residents. 4. Detailed comment from City staff. See page 56. 5. Funding considerations are needed td establish a realistic plan. There is a lot to be done before these Project 2000 dreams can become a reality. I believe in-depth study is required from people without special or conflicts of interest. Thoughtfully submitted, Dougl' ood� cc: Ms. Sharon Wood Mr. Tim Collins Newport Beach City Council \0. I P.O. BOX 626 April 11, 1997 Mayor Jan Debay City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Mayor Debay: IA 92661 RECEIVED '97 APR 14 A10 :04 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF PJEWPORT BEACH During your visit to the Balboa Peninsula Point Association (BPPA) Board of Directors meeting on March 13, 1997, you mentioned that the BPPA and other interested parties would be notified in writing by the city of Newport Beach about events and meetings of concern to Peninsula Point residents. In particular you mentioned that advance notice would be given to the BPPA relating to the plans to redevelop and beautify the Balboa peninsula. The BPPA Board has asked me to send you a written reminder to add the BPPA to any mailing or notification on issues of interest to Peninsula Point residents. Thank you for meeting with the BPPA Board and for keeping our neighborhood aware of all issues which might impact the residents of the Peninsula Point area. Sincerely, Bob Yant cc: City Council City Manager Date % Copies Sent To: ayor �'Eouncil Member /anager ❑ A ey t d6.eQ O - ❑ — M RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM t�"AR 281997 viol8 1 i 516 March 25, 1997 Mayor Jan Debay City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Jan: Robert W. Yant Jr. 2113 SevilleAvenue Balboa, CA 92661 714.673-8474 714.723-4818 Fax MAR 27 1997 CITY CLERK NEWPCO�Rt OF Date -ate Copies Sent Ta 0 Mjyor ®.,'Cmouncil Member tf� manager [] Attomey (� 0 13 Thank you for coming to speak and listen to Peninsula Point residents at the March Board of Directors meeting for the Balboa Peninsula Point Association. Predictably, the majority of discussion at our meeting centered around the plan and efforts to enhance and beautify the Balboa peninsula. Although there was some hostility directed at you as a result of the plan, I'm sure that you have become somewhat accustomed to people becoming emotional about issues that directly impact them. The night of the meeting, a resident of our neighborhood handed you a survey of Peninsula Point residents and Balboa Village merchants regarding the BPPAC plan. Enclosed please find an analysis I have attempted to do of the survey. Most of the attendees at public forum meetings on the plan are people who oppose one small part of the plan. People who favor the plan and come to the public meetings are intimidated by the highly charged, emotional negativity of the speakers and therefore council members and city staff see little public support for the plan. I believe that there is a much larger silent majority of Balboa peninsula residents who favor enhancing the peninsula. Although not comprehensive or scientifically conducted, the enclosed survey and analysis partly bear this out. I encourage you to support the efforts to revitalize and enhance the Balboa Peninsula. As you know, this is the third major effort to revitalize the part of our city which was first developed. If the current effort fails, it will be a long time before the initiative to improve our physical structure can be regained. In the M N.. meantime the commercial districts on the Balboa peninsula will continue their gradual decline. It won't be easy to overcome the vocal outcry and targeted opposition to enhancement and beautification efforts. However, if beautification and enhancement efforts are successful, residents of the city of Newport Beach and visitors to the Balboa peninsula will thank us for decades to come. Sincerely, K)Ji r� Bob Yant Robert W. Yant Jr. 2113 SevilleAvenue Balboa, CA 92661 714.673-8474 714.723-4818 Fax TO: Malcolm Dunn, Geoff Davis, Larry Phoenix FROM: Bob Yant DATE: March 17, 1997 RE: Project 2000 Public Opinion Survey You are to be commended for your initiative and efforts to randomly survey residents of the Peninsula Point and downtown merchants regarding the Project 2000 report. Reading the returned surveys spurred several thoughts I would like to share with you. Conducting and interpreting the survey responses are a healthy process in continuing the open dialogue and exchange of ideas regarding the important decisions we will make about the future of our community. When you spoke about the survey at the March BPPA meeting, you indicated the respondents were chosen at random. I have no reason to doubt your statement, however, it seems that most of the names are from a small part of the alphabet. For example, of the 28 survey respondents, the distribution of last names is as follows: Letter Number L 11 M 4 K 3 H 3 D 2 R 2 A 1 W 1 Twenty of the 28 respondents have last names of three consecutive letters from the middle of the alphabet and 23 of 28 respondents came from four last letter names in the middle of the alphabet. Was it just coincidence that the alphabetic distribution fell out this way? Two of the 28 surveyed had not heard of the plan and eleven of the 28 had not read the plan. In other words, nearly everyone had heard of the plan but less than one-half of the respondents had bothered to read it. This result seems to be in accordance with a conversation Malcolm and I had in which we agreed there was a fair amount of apathy and/or ignorance about the plan. Only four people answered the question "What single feature of these studies did you find most favorable? The next question asks "How do you feel about plans being studied to increase the size of existing and/or creating new parking lots?" The plan calls for reducing center parking along Balboa Boulevard and replacing it with proposed and expanded parking centers at McFadden Square and Lido -Cannery Village. The drawings in the plan do not call for expanding existing lots in Balboa Village, it calls for a redesign of the Balboa Village city parking facility to replace spaces lost by widening sidewalks throughout the Village. The redesign would not take one grain of sand from the beach; the increased parking would be achieved mostly by restriping the parking lot to make spaces slightly smaller. With these thoughts in mind, it might have been better to phrase the question so that respondents knew that expanded parking was not intended for Balboa Village. This suggestion relies on the assumption that Peninsula Point residents and Balboa Village merchants are not especially concerned with increased parking in McFadden Square and Lido -Cannery Village. Notice below how Peninsula Point residents and Balboa Village mercharts were generally indifferent about the mixmaster, which is of course some distance from our neighborhood and nearby commercial district. When Peninsula Point residents and Balboa Village merchants read "increase the size of existing and/or creating new parking lots", they probably think of expanding city parking lots in Balboa Village, which is not being proposed. Eleven respondents disapproved of increasing the size of existing and/or creating new parking lots; seven respondents approved of the concept, the remained people did not respond or had no opinion. From my limited knowledge of the respondents, it seems that residents generally disapproved of expansion while Balboa Village merchants favored expansion. Nine respondents favored reducing parking along Balboa Boulevard to plant trees and shrubs, twelve respondents disapproved of the concept, the remainder did not answer or had no opinion. A majority of the respondents I could identify as merchants disapproved of the idea. Three respondents favored creating a traffic circle at McFadden Square, eight disapproved of the concept, three felt the issue needed more study, two felt the issue was confusing and the remaining 14 respondents had no opinion or did not answer. Perhaps a proposed change some distance from Peninsula Point and Balboa Village evokes an indifferent response. The last question asked "Do you feel that we need more visitors to Balboa?" While this is a legitimate question in and of itself, the Project 2000 plan does not call for more visitors to Balboa but attracting a higher quality visitor. Councilwoman Norma Glover had an astute observation on the topic of parking and the number of visitors on the Balboa peninsula. At the public hearing on Project 2000 sponsored by the Mooring Association, she stated that we could never build enough parking spaces to accommodate all the people who would like to visit Balboa on a beautiful summer weekend day. The more parking spaces we build, the more people will come. Mrs. Glover called it a "zero sum game." At some point we decide how much parking we want to provide and assume it will be taken by the first visitors who arrive. Twelve respondents felt we needed more visitors to Balboa, ten disapproved, the remainder had no opinion or did not respond. Once again, the merchants tended to want more visitors. In summary, we can probably assume the following from your survey: -Most respondents have heard of the plan, but only half have read it. At least half of the respondents don't feel that the plan impacts them enough to learn more about the specifics. -Peninsula Point residents generally do not favor expansion of parking lots, merchants tend to favor parking lot expansion. -Peninsula Point residents generally favor reducing median parking along Balboa Boulevard to plant trees and shurbs, merchants oppose the idea. -Peninsula Point residents and ,mercharts are largely indifferent about installing a traffic circle at the intersection of Balboa and Newport Boulevards. -Peninsula Point residents do not want more visiors to Balboa, merchants want more visitors to Balboa. Thank you again for your concern and effort in conducting the survey. -) tvL --g' -JK 0 14.E G.W. McClellan Jr., D.D.S. Inc. James F. Flores, D.D.S. "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" /5 April 26,1997 Mayor Janice Debay Mayor Pro Tem Thomas Edwards Councilpersons Norma Glover, John Hedges, John Noyes, Jr. Dennis ONeill, Tom Thomson C/O The City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Comments on the BPPAC's report on "project 2000" concerning preliminary proposals for improvements in the Newport Peninsula to be discussed at the Council Meeting 4/28/97 Dear Madam Mayor and Councilpersons: This is the first time I've been motivated to write you concerning an issue before the Council. I've been a resident of Newport since 1966 and have lived on the Peninsula for the last 9 years. I'm very moderate in most of my opinions and hopefully constructive. Before I venture a direct opinion on most of the various proposals presented in the initial report I'll need to do more in depth study. However one issue surfaced that I do have some knowledge and about fifteen years experience. Redevelopment Agencies. I think we, in Newport, can take pride in the fact that we're one of the very few and maybe only City Governments in Orange County which has not opted to institute a Community Redevelopment Agency in order to "solve its problems" of "urban blight". The City's position has been to let private initiative and the free market solve problems and its worked quite well. On the other hand an Agency is probably the most powerful single entity a municipal government can create. It has the power, and almost always does, take private land from unwilling owners and transfer it to the hands of a secondary private entity (usually a developer) who hopes to make a profit from it. The City can float all the bonds it needs to finance the taking and can discount (down to zero) the amount of money charged the developer as well as provide such enhancements as new sidewalks, driveways, access roads, etc. The City's financial position is in no jeopardy here as'it gets to keep the tax increments (increases in property taxes and sales taxes) until bonds are retired and all costs and salaries and fees incurred in the "takings" are repaid. Council people can later drive down the street and point out with pride the "project I was instrumental in creating". Not so easy here. Got to have a Redevelopment Office. Got to have an expert in redevelopment to be Director. He or she needs a secretary, desks, partitions, computers. Going to get into legal 1801 Newport Blvd. Suite A • Costa Mesa, CA 92627 • (714) 645-6631 • FAX (714) 645-2051 k I % problems so at last one attorney from the City Attorney's office has to go to the Redevelopment Agency Staff. Going to be litigation so we need the services of an outside legal firm with a strong background in Redevelopment Law to represent the Agency in court. That's the bare bones minimum. With the power of eminent domain the agency will be the most powerful entity at City Hall. Never mind that the Council which created the Agency vowed never to use condemnation as a tool in the redevelopment process subsequent Council Members aren't bound by the promises of a predecessor. Few parcels are assembled without some use of eminent domain and few, if any are accomplished without substantial painful and expensive litigation infrequently won by government entities. The intent of redevelopment law is to make the "takees" whole financially but seldom does. Few redevelopment projects, if any, ever turn out to be the panacea promised. The Huntington Beach Hilton has been in and out of receivership since the day it opened and lack of rent and other payments has cost that city dearly. The Courtyards in Costa Mesa has never lived up to its billing as a sales tax generator and Triangle Square protested their property tax evaluation and had it cut about 50%. In this instance it is just simply not worth W. After all the targeted area is not a mattresses out the windows blighted area envisioned when the law -was first passed. In general I see two types of areas in this plan. The area extending from Canary Village to the junction of Superior and Balboa Boulevard I would characterize as mixed use commercial and residential. The balance of the area covered I would characterize as residential. A development plan should enhance the basic characteristics of these areas and in no way impact on them. COUNCIL AGENDA NO. I M. A. RiCHLEY, JR. la Yj • ATTORNEY AT LAW 609 VIA LIDO SOLID ,py NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92Q03 RECEIVED TELEPHONE (714) 673-7767 - FEB ? 1997 'I CITYCURK C)rn,F "cy'Prr;I BEACH February 5, 1997 -41a City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Year 2000 Project Gentlemen: This week I have read the report re the project borrowed from the City's Planning Department. What a fine example of putting the wolf in the chicken coop. Fritz Duda, the head man, owns the Bank of America building and Pavilions Market building. He wants additional street parking so he tells the 850 families who live on Lido they can use 32nd Street instead of Via • Lido because he wants Via Lido for diagonal parking. Every time I come home in the traffic on Newport Boulevard, I really look forward to getting to that double left turn pocket at Via Lido as my escape from that traffic. This plan has us people from Lido Isle and Lido Peninsula going two signals further in that traffic. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! If that ridiculous proposal is not amended out of the plan now, you will cause us people on Lido to fight the project and collect signatures on a petition. We have collected over 85 percent signatures on other issues in the past. I am quite sure 95 percent participation can be obtained on this issue. Please amend the plan to include the welfare of the residents, not just the members of the Chamber of Commerce. Do not inspire us to shop elsewhere. Very truly yours, M.A. Richley, Jr. MARA 0 Copy: Lido Isle Community Association d T 4.���!'••M�'�^'"` < �'' .ate •+ �� - A •. a �� * y..+ d�G9y _ J (y etn I LJ L C�ic.•rtt��[ yr� IM4 -ea-fh , <fl TV _AN•6E�►ARTI�EI 141997 601 Lido Park Dr 05B Newport Beach, li�l_Q� ❑ ❑ y.I[J �'li'��*l ��J'4v 9266}4403 1� Museum of Revolution of China and Museum of History of China Agenda Item #15 April 28, 1997 RE: Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Financing Program Petition submitted by Martha Durkee (195 signatures). Testified that she was submitting 1595 signatures. 3f;(73 a y^ y a ., •iWFMmk CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 / J\ March 31, 1997 v t.ti TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd, or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is • used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized_'parking are unnecessary. NAME �. ISIU0�0 e s•� .. 101 ADDRESS �.r"' a ,l� ., ,— n: �yR•.RI �N'/u�^P+"t"y+fR�•, 51 .A• :..ry r S .rIM �Y�A &J i CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized'parking are unnecessary. .r• fh1��„r'i4 ADDRESS U3. 173 fi ,4-9 rDSiR Ne:s,4 yr r,• a.•.. fp.v �.'N'N•�+ib �J� got AOL . .. rtyYril•• OR I CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS /1uerF�cx�EGx..,49aZ77 y8o8 &3"""s Ab& . 3a- 04 9Z�i5 99305 Rud �1�¢u.((ei�-cAa.;na J.I,'�'„A) cal 9a(c-r7 GU,6AG/� 7� &X.1 w4hw. �ya� P4N j a CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS 4.31 wainut N'_h - c!b gzL, k:- ,2 . c / , Ora. 4K Ai 15, c 94p 4 ; 1qf* �-o . i2 N q21k '=t 266- Id.Ive CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If'beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS C� rs ?'iOL{ WSLy IL4 tit. 14, irSAJe," (A g1J0 C�«7 I II� CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS /75'T /%/%C A/N Ai s�-3 c-J &9 ac,- Lod, . &Uc-c- i I CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees i-s necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS oS V A ) (t4 MQh DP- �f3E1� CoL wO- c�? U, Sr:V I ME bt= :�41994 CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS ( Tz66/ ski Z0 3 3 s6v�lcc v9„� �9tkc,1 9266� 0 rA CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS `dal A4 � o� l3 flG q,1 1-/ S£J, ct E Av4- 13,4w,4, G4 . CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. if beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid• for, and produces revenue for the City. 'Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS 1 G. 0 CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF -1 THE BALBOA PENINSULA U Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS )2A CA-92-61Z fti55 V1�4��!//-^^UP� ��16 CiQS�., �fi-4Zla7k sro& j fpiF21,� �irNry.� GryL� CG Air ye�l ems:, (l 7 , C6 `%z&rq CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks kidened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS ,_,�? prpo�YrJ T�RPSHI ' ��eernt Gwrt �— ,�t�%`%sue, 4 (736o _PV c'a zo�a H! �gzst Tcrc. Ca- -//©c) a 11 Low koe L4 eA Z635� U,K�4� /aa s wj Cc&�t-e54 ch I (, /,lo /4 C&I'VO�GS�L toazrb� �ys�' Sf,cA- �]Hti� m CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If'beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. AI. NAME V( (I' �, ADDRESS 1�3 3 �h Sfi. �� 13 �B W? Soo 070..E ,d,�..�t , NB 9alolA3 17 CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS 72 CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS Reg/�y dcl /VQ 9z663 3G64 13 • y'Z4. v� iIhL�l —WZM i;f o/ Digs, 11 i, 4 1 , t_ Ga6�6 V,[li�ILI�l1l'� ..�b7.T!�Q�s��► .if�,bL�r� CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places remot+ed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME ADDRESS /06 &-rl - de j ,ShO S2G6� �L�bt7�.Al -l-4LIc CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. FkFTu'f3 9 ADDRESS W . 64r- FbA 3L- CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid. for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS Pit i G t. 5CA 0 CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS oa ,7-61 X&eert' CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS 6l �> W �a f �dg G A; w mil& 1/o JZk qf o gkk--� 20 1 5- �,r. ��3dA- CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST ST EET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY "f���'"' V° This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS ! J'+1bCau C`P Lfa bmG., L gZbbI `i .� 6r CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. ADDRESS S6 45r&9 GtJ✓a/,mac, _ ACzs tv, , aG Y G &t"' M6 I` CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. 'N//AME IIOK ADDRESS g f a 3er�c 3 3S s wrec y c4 7zG s? 40� �. L3�ts��,, ('NA, �Q Q6(01 CITIZENS CONCERNRD FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks widened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If beautification with trees is necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. �. _ 2 I � ► mil. 10 CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BALBOA PENINSULA Telephone: (714) 673-5981 March 31, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER, KEVIN MURPHY RE: THE AREA OF BALBOA BOULEVARD 21ST STREET TO ADAMS, FROM OCEAN FRONT TO BAY AVENUE This petition states the feelings of the undersigned citizens of Newport Beach regarding parking on the peninsula: We do not wish to have the sidewalks kidened along Balboa Blvd. or have any encroachment to any property along Balboa Blvd. or its adjacent side streets. We do not wish to have any parking places removed from Balboa Blvd. or from its central median. If }�8 tif]C1ti^n Wit.`. treez iS necessary, this can be accomplished in the same manner as the City has already done in front of Newport Elementary School. Do not change, hamper or interfere with the access to homes or local residential services, such as schools, churches, library, fire department, shops, eateries, grocery stores, convenience stores, and laundromats, etc. The parking that now exists in this area is needed, is used, and is convenient. This parking is in place and is paid for, and produces revenue for the City. Future expenditures to provide centralized parking are unnecessary. NAME cr\ Agenda Item #15 April 28, 1997 RE: Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Financing Program Petition submitted by Tony Giangregorio (654 signatures). Testified that he was submitting 615 signatures. Y eaV� aA Ckck:, VN s�t�de..wa�\ka ar�1b �pfo�eck�es �s �_s1.�L o no� h�n,�e-r 0.cccss �-`o 1Ht_cf��CCSi�`ef�``��4\ SC[�j�CGS ��-�nvfc��51 S�%mo`� SiefGS� ���pfau� 1� p�'t'�fC S�rR"C�oP�. t 1 • Am e- �ic�dC�3S w/�:'!�, . l o��� 1�1.AMirim It Wz5 Tc-,2-J L. r Aug., CqR i Sco7r 923- Fi7gn4j iaF paug C,OKn 22626- // / x ► 73j Cam, J3Q 9ar� �� i UP i�ek,g �G,PIy call (67 3 Y 'S,t�de.wcL\ks onb frofec tes os noV ha,. Vex 0.cccss •%o ��nLr+ceS�b``en%(�a, Srtv�ct5 eq c�uccY�es r 56� , �lt�i T;fG Ss0.�:o?1. p n� m e— aacSC ' VI44L. /= z/ 41 f d i Gd'l..tLi Ii..� .vim i f�W r rrlr �i✓/J-�OG ([,j a S%. 6� ocg BLa6� 4 - *zy-11 f G �r &w4oa 4w. B9c8oA CA. 92661 GI 2 SR t/u2C= dr A A 1s. C'A. 9?lG q^.Rq -77 0?3 i I ti�v . 'S�de wa\ks o-nb Ica f*Ates o s �s. 17� noV ho rAyes 4ccc ss }o �Cin� ces\b11et�k�4� sr�u�ces MvI v CCJAcs I 1A o.rn� �co'rv� \ q �o �� ms o n 84�\000, Web, \ ease a•�\ fcck� I mn� fca feNtes � ;a.17o rnok hom,�e r c c.ce,ss �o �v�c� c25ibe�%(�cti� Srs��CGS eq c�vcc�eS 1 Sc1,056�, l`1 Amy Ac3re-SS 4 . ; - TirnsJ�N L. ivCNNJe'y� _ „ _ 171lij0O i ./ 4 -1Z-9 /"g7 n.✓1 D '6u ""'rewST See / naele o4✓t Al,,, t q/ /i Z/ q -7 y� 0A f OA-; 5yt�de wow\ks QL b fco fcktes o,3 m. 17o nov harATO-c accc,ss �-oQ L cc5i�enk�4\ Sec��CCS es� �vice�eS scl�mo\� Siacas! ��ioro� o� rr:cC sau�;on. O e 1\1 O.rn C- Ac�dCasS L'PAL 1.4-33 SuP�ri.roR- AVE�'33j SLi 2 �.t-i✓�� 1piD 4.9. 'i3dL,S3a� QLaci% 13 a.4 c !733 �cslT��cC,dl 73 4 ` �fo,rv� ��� �a Y'mm.+Ms1, oft Bel\b�. �•v1b'. \eovG..�•\\ �0.<k.�hq � �n� ces;au.�(14l srsSlcGS eq c V.vice��s i sc�o1 �, s�scas, I;�ro� rt ��c�..,x�\ka a�nb pcoeec��es os �s.'1�� no;! harv,�er 4cccss �cQ '(ire ce5ibenk, 4l srsv�ces e q a lnv ce��S s�L�,\, s\ocas, lnw") o.me— i�c��faSS A oCA— 0 ti \it'" �m.n\s o n B��\000. \d\,b. \edo,C- CLA f+�o� , \1am+�e,c cLcccss �00 elCA�C c�1G$ 1 0.t� T�fG STR0.C.ol�. 1\I p,fy%e— `Add«ss 200 z E . bd Q l ww� �Socv� \`�� �0 1�1m.,Ms oft 8���000, �U�. \eovC �•�\ �v,<k.�+� � 5;a�.,�\k� �b pcoE+c<TIES � ;s.�a not �am�e.r orcccss �o '1v�L ce5i�ec���a, SrsV�cPP� �q ��cc�n�.5 � S�i�mo`� Sioc�s�,i�raw� osc� �:cc sia�:on. Q 1 aQ«ss HIM Will W ONSm"Al s_ I •, — lo u a -AV NO W-22 Q �oloo" !� f/ r MEEM �Ecrv� \g�" �o j�dmms oA Wvb. \eo`ve. GA f4ck:V�, Si3e wa\ks o�r�b Fcoe«ktes o..% ;s.7o noV \-\a,-mVe-c acccss �-o �L ce5i�en�(�a� SCtVKfS �q ��cclnc5 � S��mo�� S�oce_s� 1i�co.aM 3 / .2 e'HOi1/ TGryco 707 tj. r-% . . /car I Le ot� G?9-f6 l , Alf- 1j.11 -1v�t.. ceSibe-n%(�a\ 5rs��CGS e1j �v.cc�eg � S��mo\� SioccS� �i�or� 1 Arn Q•adCaSS ' - DeeA.k I �(/'/m IsZ c 6(L�� Ote 5�ac.••_�\�C.s o.r�b �ca�ck�eS o� �s.�o no� ha,.+�e.c acccss �-o �z.. ces;�a�k,al sccv,ces ��\nkce�cs � sc.1�,o\, skocas, �;ior..,.1 o���cc sha�C;on. �1 a � Add«ss `1IL Ko,,n S 9 u o ot9Z��1 11 ,t ( c 2 , Zy & e 2GGJ 8v P biz f�-• &I.bX� (do E or".l pop- ?,a4 It D Pokoo l •W 5�,t�c�c�-�\'f•� o.n� �cePeck�eS �S �s.�o nr.M� hamper 4ccc�sS �c L ces��ec�k�a0.l Srs��cPS er{ AAMSC�nCS i sJ�o� Sioces� `��orr..M CGss A LIC 7 f ;5=�2 coo3 2oH� h'► � 427E,��. 5 66 0 i 0 alF �co rv� \ l� �o A"Am ms o n WVO. \ eo vc. 0& f4ck; ana fco fextes o s nov ho M?4LC 4ccc ss -vo �C�nt ces�d�k,4t secv,ces .'—' O 4nv.ceNNcs, s�\�mo�, sioces� I:lcco� 1`I Am � Aa� fas5 Y M- t Ell I i 12�� c - � �corv� q -NO NA10, S on Bq\\Oo U\S1 . \eovcaA fask:" 0 , fccf+rAES 4S \9.Do nOs \rNampcs 0.CtG,SS A'o �C�.< «s,��k,41 sr�sv,ces �clnvcc�nes, s��, siecas, 1;b�� 1�1 o.rr, Aa�«ss N��orv� \q �o I�dm.ms o n s�y�rc�,c.,�\k� «rib pco�eck�es 0.s �s. 1�o noL' hann�ec access �00 �v�e.. ceSibenk��tl SrsV�ceS e,q �ucc�cS i Sc�^mo\� S�oce_S� ���n('� arr5 �:cc s1a�c;on. O i �1 o.mss /%ies, (3oo.C� �z z Ott h 4-r A u= I' S Ca �' u r 0. t rSa! (� , C-.,,4-- 1/-d2L1�1 6-5igS r3 126,_T3,&U�>oA IsL. ► 4w,g7 -t OGWZ 4s-? R 4p F pr-;s & D i s �r�vn Lw �'nm�s' C•n �(a z. v L& 6 �2�+a,r1 S•i�nw.•-^'J" .SiL OQaa�.o- RvGc✓ /�a�ti�,.r-� 9�G/_ i / % L' ' Miit M a L + ', olm 70 ( E Isar; yy Le \dvb. \ka a.r,a �cope<k,eS �s.�o no� tiv,n�er access e N o,me-- Ada«ss /oW' �A'•t �' cErvv �Ji'% 31 a Ge.is�'� �3.06 84t�$d( co �( oG� t 3a( cv �l Mw,mwzD I/ MAIVA MLLA su �Corv� \`lam Ito �dm ms on 8���ocx �dvb, \eo.,}c aA sy��3e..w�a\ko o,.s�b �coeeck�es o� �s.7� no� hvr.�es 4cccss �`o 1\` of QcSdCaSS Ram IMP, RPM :;v .,_.; Z/a Co /rZ6 a& s�cSc..•+�\ks o�.nb pcopeck�es as �s.'o no�' ha,��er 4.cccJss �-a �\n+G� crs��enk�al Srs��cPS ��hvc�e-S � SL�nmo\� S�scaS� ���co..M 'rc:Cc Sauuc,of�. 1 l\, 0,m� Aa��Gss r.51 WE `yam (D S;aG.,,�a�%S �b �co�et�C�eS 43 ;s.7o noi' ha.rv,+�ec cti,cccss �o o•m t A,a�C�ss 'zri IZ �v -�- Am" tia( A 4o- OA RoSTAG to 0_ _ _1 -, 1� "XV-�_ _ IOQ-75_:5� <:NA'4 Cr , FvVNi?kiK) 3 ��� �� ���.5- ��oM \ ��" � �d�s o � Ba��. \dvb. \cave.. �.�� �o,�k: �, arch �;c� s��;an. A . C P; etc "fS � i GS"Ply C Jl 03-�Z4� ' �S'oty� � �� �o �myv�5 0 � �4��000. �dvb• �ao.V� a�� �4s�� � � . 'SLt�c�ewa\ka a�ntb �co�xck�es os �s.�o nov haAfec 4ccess �-o t. crS�bet��� a\ Ser��CCS ��v ccY�o.S ; 56^ k 1 Siocesj \,,,Ora 1 1 p,m � Ac��CaSS 4 e Lv * CI— ql&Z fLeX H06 ver goo off a f •Cq?46- QGr.L C4&-2 �/ 3% GG • i n /�Gv` ,cia���/'aye CA I ' Z6G1 70 67 E 6 VA, 36 , -ed-d .-/ i 3033v4 of N6 �2b6�-26-9" s�n'� \' '{" 3ca �„�,�5 o n �4:'aco. `�r�.v�• \ eavc. �.� aqc �. � . fcoPe<ktes r k r\m-�e.r C-CC;.ss —o � m Ir) N f'll i 577��7i� ! %Y /Ll bvl d�19 /JGL�,I/YI t-A- p;CK vtsfi G7 3 - i�z'Pt pQS 5�d�v�\ko a�nb �co�esk�e5 �s �s.7o no�' ho.m�e.r 4cccss �-oQ �\nt crs�bonk��l srs��ces e�c�n�.c�nes s�1�o� 56cas, Iran ou�c, �;cc sau�;cn. c 1`1 of Ac�dce.SS / AelvUr Cpy ,1 �Sorv� vk� -to ems o n B���000. �dU�. �eaVL 4��l<�:wj I S�cSc..tiv��k5 ax�b pcopeck�es 4s �s.7o no�' hO-Mfec O-CCCAS �o N� u u �con� Vkt '� j�adm,nns on B4\�oo0. �clvb, \aovc.a\\ �a�ck�w�, '(�� crs;bec k� 4l sr�v,CCS e- C-kMce)ncs Salmok, 56cas, \110m s�3e wc�\ka o�.,b pcopeck�eS w� �s.7a noV ha,mTe.r acccss }o ry° �Ctne crsi�Cl\ ,4� s�S,ces e�c-k�.cc�as i S8-'Ook, slocas, \,brain u sz I.iew'erf- 17WSZr i iS .Jr-y4tmo N $.AcxaL&on 810 ..� c, T 5td�.,xL\k� ar�b {+coPcck,as c.:*,' ces;acn%(�al sexV\,cts e�q cltivcJ��S i scl�mo\, s\o�as, I;iorau� \47 Q 1 C., i�c�c�Ce.SS l YVT .A Y 11 _ `.%-. 9)"A W,bekOiz,t _ .\k. CAgVA \n f COIA 5�d�.�\ko oan� �cope<k�e5 0.s NS.�-o ,r. ccs;�enk,a\ scAv,ces �c�fc)&Cs, s \, s�ces, l;�faun1 1\1 O.m e. Ac��Ce 3S WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN rP'ROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: \� 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues.in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly F to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS GNA E DATE i Ill / I L,�-r rv. 1% F�Vt,-A� 3l3 E • RAgbA kVD 2 �� _M --^[ C �- �---�-% "S 13 l' _Lai I �6orv� \q �o NsexAs on 8a-\000.umv . \e.ovc.a.\ f4tk: s�dc •tea\`�.� o.r\b ?ropeck,ies os nok vvkm�e-r a.cce-ss �-o S=V\ceS e.q �v cc�ne.5 i S8-mo j 56re-sI )i;lofmn �1 C.l AAdre-ss (�Arcle � � e� 313 L i3 f1ko g te l�Dri n AAC Of &U �c/ ► 1 K-+� �� 2.'7 (� �(� " " ''ram l T��T _ �ozq ' etc . ! � �� � e�E �`�-- u •� - `it` C- f4ck:w�, S;cSG��kS ax�� �coPec%e5 05 ;g,'o �1oc �1am�e.c 4CGGSS �a e. ces;benk.4l srsv�ces O eg Clnv cc)ne5 n ark �:cc s�a'�c:on • n C 1\, Amy Hc�di�SS ?J'> r«o dx` 5,&04 -liL'bill -�, , - V61riL o i R r�1� 1 n1c E �52. 1 �14 I-�4V C--►�1 1 A4� -- �S A . Cell . °f�-�D3 w A Agenda Item #15 April 282 1997 RE: Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Financing Program Petition submitted by Frances Bury (758 signatures). �s= �flisl1-7 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN C� PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON$:ru n ,/s 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property�u - tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private'owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS, SIGNATURE DATE v?�FIL G. — —ZZ77 SAI �. . i1a � 611E217F .�!• ,gfrrso ti� /1� �� .3yi •,u `�� �� - "-fi--- e t WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELGPbtENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenLes in designat•ad project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of minent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to -ve public tax money directly to developers or other pri ate owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS Mi. A P. I / Ai. 1 �aw�s. �:` �• ����1lIlV /,1.vD.3t-0Y ..... May � ��___-__�.-.9 • � � zwPint 71 L` WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN P t ROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS 3- LL- �PW7' DATE / /g7 Ito NO 60001l_.l.--...115 VIA co Rpogk NE4/, � X WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN ti P90JECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS _,.__... -.4,PV SIGNATURE DATE - , `7`-7-7 1. .S B 13E�T )(4U�tM �'� 0 _7----- tv AAq, �• 10.ita�Pe-1/VI 1.• l-�e�I,�PY�3 b�4- E' — ' = =97 L1- V KA� ILO�,1t�LY).. Ne era e�,kw 2c� fir.? 1.5 //J ✓i a �(���n�, J/.8. c�j�66 �"O",.t�`"�'3�w- H'-z1-9; lS �A WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: s ` 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power• to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAI ND DDRESS 1 . _" %Q �f4AAlt SIGNATURE DATE `V7 rt,,- __W.W - eAQ / WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN v PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE 17lrb l-Arr41•/_ 12 K R�0-!��r G_ J1" LL ��Df7i(.GS r 7- 8 7-P2 iy1. � �Lf%2t�L RQQS-..M -b9. - ee Cit.2c/�2 /�l T_ici2%l.Y O, •, 6- 2Zot LY,.. f �•._ .0 — q!GcPvo� WE bPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN P40JECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 4 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGN E DATE h� c {- rA A. Z� d�� �c� ,)i . l Gtyvw`U3�c, _. +N�arcus A+e =N_Qsl!Quc_�- (3ec>CA- CAz..g.vb(e�-_. _4,�fZ•C�ti..c tietooA_rr� la r c c�:trw c5'co 50 a. � o I Q Cl- 9�66 3 Vencfv I ro,. �► ,crN�L_.-Q_Yi�l WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN 'PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.- This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS DATE WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN L 'PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT J-/ DATE n - WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: L 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn . private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNA DATE SUS v r Cvv v el/9'�yl IL i m re z.5 AleturoYT 4. DAVID JENBINS cU33 NEWPORT /1l VO 6ut ylql5 LA. WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRLNM NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE 0 �` / �•• � -`� j �.�'�� rl ,11:,00/f fit'' _ �',",, L+�.6 _.. K. ��! �•1� ' " s t'l e,"/e�1- r ,./_ _ A_Ir _ k n• ivls i-�'c1 `V u/G / 5 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agenc?,y has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS 4.7 DATE WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN t ,PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners nAmF PRINT NAME WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PJZOJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PR NAME AND AD R SS SIGNATURE DATE �"J, /Jq- " vim �� ` k cam• 1. t oe t1cArdle t..9 �610P1.CLU. rsa 111s� �<6o I WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS � Ail ..=lFll l�. �. � • � �yl. J 1. ■ YOU WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases' in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners • WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases'in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval ,• 3- This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT.NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE v wN NO 1 1 MIX00-0P NOR WRIPAW"I 11 •--- WN a iu J8_ 7 A WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners __,---PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS 17 DATE WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas ' 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURfi !f D. E - I �I i,f _ - Ini II,..1_�„I..A.IA0A �rz.ki ..... - lfo C) I t7 uvo Cc-. . �_ _.. _.--_�- - -- c_ 11e L :t-t ...V..... 1 _S t)'i/w PaLEQt-�-z) 9. 52 G-C23 �.100W i!!!licx En. !! (/i.�i �it GcR r 2 � C WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners NAME AND ADDRESS � \In ► o.viP� M �v�i n.e9, t t ► �'�2 kJe.�_ � ��oY-�G� `�' Q�iL��� y�'`��� J .I w 0 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly tdevelopers or othe private owners nuI 'ro �G6-1111 AND A S TE S (- I I S') 0 `3.- 1 (?—C)t-k.4 3C.OU f AR a�5 JC CA. 721-4 --� � 3 a 3 E, R-kl 6cf C ct is 27 0 4/p WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money -directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS %•1wSod— _ SIGNATURE • DATE r MM L. 112w t`- (9 r P !1 i ct 4 t e. fiO r,Sa / ). t . L//?, Li /C/!q 1LD 01- dfo -Y7 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas �. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.- This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS Lq. C74 wry `0wK A!1 per/ t8. QTnWnmrruF DATE. WE OPPOSE•ThE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT'2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of'all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas. 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval.. 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to'condemn private property. 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners. WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATUR� DATE G _ p 'q jZ . � � NIC� ) LI I Vliq /-I 6 VA r' ILA � Y z. 6 G 4 _ /330 , �5,tva.�c�. .�it,. %�IP•✓,/otf �i+ r Ca. / c �! T WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues -in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE �f d !/. n�rm I n LG1ticc. titill ilik y�d'�; It � rk S o-ter - WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues .in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners NAME AND ADDRESS off SIGNATURE DATE 1 . 4r6aI N1 �1710.1 ,�.�a0o Ll �n►� 4 M -11-4h 1 1. WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues .in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly A to developers or other private owners 0 AND ADDRESS !06 g¢tlf�erif /�plSZFfi/ IGNX URE DATE Zt1�( hojnln e /<OV4c-evr c -k I M i WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN ,PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT. NAME AND ADDRESS e� ^ /// -31s-r 9r, SIGNATURE DATE �i i v b 3/ sT . WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues -in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.- This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS n SIGNATU DATE V L l N 21 7A - U e WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners •,PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS DATE WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax -money directly . to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS ao a GNAT R DATE �, A h � SI1 . /os v.A ` WE APPOSE THE POR14ATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1• This agency has tax revenues in 2• This agency can 3. approval This agency has private property 4. This agency has to,developers or exclusive use of all increases'in property designated project areas incur bonded indebtedness without voter power of eminent domain to condemn power to give public tax money directly other private owners PRINT -NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURE � DATE 15 .IB. ti WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS /• SIGNATURE DATE 17i d WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur,bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners ,PRINT NAME -AND ADDRESS SIG ATURE DATE �4��� 0 IL Z I WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS 1 tid WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly• to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS 1.7 if AP,d SIGNATURE DATE P;c� upst tes�Qp�'(ca�\ ZWE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners NAME AND ADDRESS DATE $iGG SHd&!h� LL•�42 u/�LG y�EGv� "(:?WVA / 1166 �Gr %% / 4t19Jq 7 A" A A/3 . - --- C-tjQGE 13-le,04A�-*r=13 1 a/a� 47 4V WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGE. AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners NAME AND ADDRESS TURE DATE W in n ttdiEtha// /RSfE Oceans/v! �✓�/U�a 9.ZGG/ S�-/u" �7 tt_ i�r2,1. 5/3 i,J RJdlf �`R 17cxae.4 9ZU1 y_-/9-q'? Y WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCf AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners RRINT E AND ADDRESS • /' SIGNAATTURE� DATE t rYwA.A-?�1.[ :thg X undo /4,e•/VCt✓po . cv CA 9 lz At. 3c N ...a _m M ,ram p�6� I y WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private.owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS:T0 L i Y1 A.c, GIAhlIIAle i-eAv,Pv►�Ph dl-ll DATE 00 C- 2 S71 &Ar'%M,«., s03 E.. EAc.ewoiecn.fiz ylta'l�i� fir =s7 nJQvr-W-Lf rrwrK 27 . 11,,r . �AIL`GI Y-� 4-/s Y-7 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS DATE o N ry , WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IAS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE W- S a Lu 31,9, Ax e, o �u �y� . 9 2.4 E_ 11Y t) A I// i /o r '�i'71'?_l T'iAA� f o r /iffaLal `11/ol9 7 O M • 0 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can -incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.- This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS E eA4 U LL zz _y 'Ne v � _ °_13___. d • Ucfze 6!_L!.6v. U.- --�:hl�QA 0 WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN /VPROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues.in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS SI NA E DATE S/?�( y- '— - +' "2�N NAr _.� . • i �A R M _/ JC-RQ tAM$ AkEt1CVn $la W vo.a[loew 4+r. ., tt, &S. a MWEVINFRISM y WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS I Ea q/r/'f7------_ WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN ,PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS ,y SIGNATURE DATE A'1. . /..f. r— .. 6. . 'lam -6A 1_y I 2© f E AI . �121 1J%cJ���� 7 y /S/. Ih Blvd. WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.- This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners NAME AND ADDRESS LA- SIGNATURE DATE P>,eq zele f fib, 0/.92-Gc.( WE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues.in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3.• This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT ,DNAME r IAND ADDRESS SIGNATURE / '/DATE _ Imi.L (I /P DI �Vl( ZLIZ�}4v�ht°Sf1`��2 I'�ari Lti �fl�.. nl � Tr l NDe&,,J Sv2 w, AA-L8 WWb A1&3)?ktQ9CR i 1 � tm a 0 Pic �Ps+ ees"WP �Q �73r AWE OPPOSE THE FORMATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS PROPOSED IN , " PROJECT 2000 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. This agency has exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues in designated project areas 2. This agency can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval 3. This agency has power of eminent domain to condemn private property 4. This agency has power to give public tax money directly to developers or other private owners PRINT NE SAND pA�D SS SIGNATURE DATE yCt� &r1rAid)sl{ID2 l3kL13 A, gILi-I 4-aq-117 9�6d2 41•-19 1 �A`/ 11!rJ►.� 5)�i w UAtP�op ¢s ) �� � -*.@9IF__CA-- —q266L. yI zg-gLXJ /f1/�+n�-GGu� ����2 c�/3 %Z �r/•.3a.C�o� /3��. / _/�r.�.,l �3.c.��.�i �t Z ��/ fit ��-• ��Z�.��os �,; �'orr� 1�7s%fI ��L-6z� ._ _ f�'?s"9' 3a-17 ;01