The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About27 - PCA 899 - Pacific Drive Front Yard SetbacksrEWPOR, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearin¢ Date: June 13, 2000 o` )� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC Agenda Item No.: 27 U � DEVELOPMENT "oa PLANNINC DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Eugenia Garcia NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Phone number: (714) 644 -3208 (714) 644 -3200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive (Planning Commission Amendment No. 899) SUMMARY: Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a lot -by -lot front yard setback for 13 properties located on the southerly side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the westerly side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; amend Section 20.10.030 and Section 20.10.040 the Zoning Code to add clarifying language for determining the calculation of buildable area for the subject properties. SUGGESTED ACTION: Hold public hearing, introduce Ordinance No. 2000- approving Amendment No. 899, and pass to second reading on June 27, 2000. BACKGROUND On April 20, 2000 the Planning Commission initiated Amendment No. 899. On May 18, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. An excerpt of the draft minutes of the Planning Commission, and a copy of the staff report prepared for their consideration is attached for the information of the City Council. Concurrent with Amendment No. 899 is a resolution declaring the City's intention to vacate unused portions of the southerly side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue. The amendment to the Districting Maps and Resolution to vacate are proposed simultaneously because the property owners have requested the vacation to allow them increased buildable area through use of the vacated area. The vacation will abandon approximately 12 to 19 feet of public right -of -way, reserving approximately 10 feet for a public utility easement. The abandonment will allow property owners for 13 lots between Avocado Avenue and the westerly side of Begonia Avenue to gain approximately 12 to 19 feet of lot depth, 'resulting in additional buildable area. At the May 18" Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended changes to the proposed amendment in response to the neighbor's concerns over the location of future dwellings relative to the location of the new property line. Staffs original recommendation was to allow ' The 19 feet is reduced for some properties, due to the angle of the street relative to the subject properties. structures to be placed within the vacated area, while maintaining a 10 foot setback for a utility easement. The primary issues raised by the neighbors were the potential change to the current open streetscape on the southerly side of Pacific Drive if dwellings were allowed to be constructed within the area of abandonment, and the height of structures that could be placed closer to the street, resulting in a potential loss of view for some neighbors on the northerly side of the street. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended that if the vacation is approved by the City Council, all new or remodeled dwellings on the southerly side of the street should maintain in the present setback location, which is 5 feet from the existing property line. Due to the change in the angle of the street, a lot by lot setback from the new front property line must be established. The building setback location relative to the new property line is as depicted on the Districting Map included in the attached Ordinance. The vacated area will be included in the area used for the purpose of determining the buildable area for the affected lots, although no actual construction will occur within this area. However, there are several properties with existing encroachments in both the existing 5 foot setback and the public right -of -way that include dwellings, minor fences and planters. These encroachments will be allowed to remain. There is also the potential for the construction of minor fences and walls within the area of abandonment, which will be subject to the Modification Permit process. The map below indicates the affected lots on Pacific Drive. .+ 4' V °Q' 3 ° � F ¢ Ta op F p 4 �f� p 4 +•p p Subject Properties aQ +dwrooiNabtt ns '" ° °e W i 5 d} 2 A899, Pacific Drive City Council June 13, 2000 Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: Draft Ordinance Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA Associate Planner Draft excerpt of revised Chapter 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 Amended Districting Map No. 16 Planning Commission staff reports of April 20, 2000 and May 18, 2000 and for Amendment No. 899 Minutes of Planning Commission meetings of April 20, 2000 and May 18, 2000. A899, Pacific Drive City Council June 13, 2000 ORDINANCE - 2000 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 899, WHICH AMENDS DISTRICTING MAP NO. 16, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A LOT - BY -LOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR DWELLINGS ON PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE BETWEEN AVOCADO AVENUE AND THE WESTERLY SIDE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 20.10.030 AND 20.10.040 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Districting Map to establish a lot -by -lot front yard setback for the location of dwellings from the newly established front property line on properties located on the southerly side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the southerly side of the prolongation of the line of the westerly side of Begonia Avenue, due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; and to amend Sections 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (hereinafter "Code ") to establish a 10 foot front yard setback for the purpose of determining the buildable area for each lot; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment and found that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Districting Maps and Sections 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code are consistent with the goals of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations; W1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment No. 899 is approved, as follows: A. Districting Map No. 16 is amended to establish lot -by -lot front yard setbacks for certain parcels on Pacific Drive, as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. B. Section 20.10.030 of the Code is amended to add footnote "K" to "Additional Regulations" for front setbacks. C. The following subsection is added to Section 20.10.040.A of the Code: 3. Pacific Drive - Buildable Area' For purposes of determining the buildable area for structures located on the bluff (southerly) side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the southerly side of the prolongation of the line of the westerly side of Begonia Avenue, a front yard setback of 10 feet shall be used (the setback for the location of all structures as designated on the Districting Maps shall be used). D. The Following subsection is added to Section 20.10.040 of the Code: C. Pacific Drive — Front Yard Setback. Front - loaded garages and carports on the bluff southerly side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the southerly side of the prolongation of the line of the westerly side of Begonia Avenue shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of 19 feet from the front property line. Section 2. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. 3 This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. . This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on June 13, 2000, and adopted on the 27`h day of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST: CITY CLERK AYES, COUNCIL MEMEBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS 2 L � ,OP T �ti xy .ice o t- EXHIBIT "A" L /'ON C✓ /✓ J >S ry �/./ RSC I(IG AWAY nsc ' r. S, rt,•1' �Y Oryry 6 I n � Z N ci J I s O (� 4 T !t \ S, 4 CL 3 e' QO x:0 r �~ h °> 'r,, ro AGO • ��ti n� � � I I I- N ,. N o y � xv �d„ 4 \w/ „•• LLB. F- p - 6 0" p J• DO : ] � r'x 0•�y4! 1• dD• a Y i ¢ i •a Otio n a f .214E Al O ww mn \ � — (7 r s[e HI> A.b. 14 � / / � • taiRi ^ 4 9 $ i gg c o City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: 13 Properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive • Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established property lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. Associate Planner Genia Garcia noted that letters had been received late this afternoon and were distributed tonight. The letters note the primary concern of view obstruction and retaining the openness of the streetscape. Public comment was opened. Bill Edwards, architect of Planet Design, 503 Fernleaf stated that he had been working with the City of Newport Beach facilitating the abandonment of the unused southerly portion of Pacific Drive right -of -way. He noted his support of this application stating the following: • This 80 -foot wide right -of -way was originally dedicated to the Pacific Electric railway line. • This use was never realized and by default remained with the excess width. • Parcels were subsequently created on the flat somewhat elevated north side of what became Pacific Drive. • After Bayside Drive was later dedicated, the remaining steeply sloped area in between was divided to create the residential lots on the southerly side of Pacific Drive. • Typical right -of -way in Corona del Mar is 50 feet. • Significant excess width has become a significant disadvantage to most of the subject property owners on the southerly side of Pacific Drive. • Pacific Drive is only two blocks long and is virtually one way for half of its length due to the one way Avocado Avenue outlet to the west. • Similar unused portions of excess rights of way in other areas of the City have been vacated over the years. • Many of the southerly Pacific Drive property owners were not aware that they did not own part of the front yards and driveway approaches. • Most of the front yard improvements done in this area are in violation of the encroachment regulations. • What is being proposed is a reduction of 20 feet, which will meet the new Code standard of 60 feet minimum overall. That would be 10 feet wider 116 INDEX Item No. 4 A 899 C/ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX than the typical Corona del Mar sheet. • The setback restriction is more than ample with front yards at 10 feet and garages at 19 feet for all on -site guests parking without blocking the sidewalks. • Additional building opportunities are well deserved in light of the challenges of the steeply sloped lots. • Precedence has been set with a partial vacation of residences that use a portion of southerly side of Pacific Drive at the east end at Begonia. • On the west end of Pacific this past year, the unused portion of a block of Avocado was also abandoned. Smith Baken, 2315 Pacific Drive stated that improvements should be the aim of any municipality. The question is, are you trying to improve lovely Pacific Drive, if not, what is going on? Are there taxes that can be made from the extra land available for building on the south side of Pacific Drive? When we remodeled our home, we stayed within our boundaries. We have'd front yard that compliments the rest of the street. If you want to improve Pacific Drive, remove the utility poles and put those services under ground. Jack Poucher, 2204 Waterfront Drive stated he owns a lot on the east end and that his lot is not impacted by the proposed vacation. He is in support of the vacation for similar reasons stated by Mr. Edwards. John Davidson, 2320 Pacific Drive stated that he enjoys the openness of the street especially as he has no view of the ocean, which has been lost due to construction. 1 do not want to see an encroachment into the street. One of the great things about Pacific Drive is the width of the street. The portion of the street to the west that is a one -way street is because if is more like a dead end with an alley like extension of Avocado. We get all the traffic up Acacia, and they horse shoe back around the park by Begonia and then find the beach. I have no complaints about not having an ocean view. But I do enjoy the openness of that street. If these proposed changes are approved, there will be an encroachment into the right -of -way. (he presented and explained a drawn plan depicting some of the potential hazards of ingress and egress). At Commission inquiry, he stated that he understands that the curb to curb width will not change. Kitty Westover, 2301 Pacific Drive noted the charm of Pacific Drive and that it will be lost if it is made possible to build closer to the sheet. The street will be impacted and will be the some as all other narrow streets of Corona del Mar. Don Corbett, 2316 Pacific Drive noted that there was a house built recently that does not impose on the neighborhood. It was constructed with all the amenities under the existing conditions. There is another home towards Boyside a home that is being constructed west of Carnation; the house is within 5 feet of the street. Those people will back out of their garage and run over people. I am afraid that will happen here on Pacific Drive. The last three homes built within the last few years were able to build under the existing conditions. There are O City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX probably another ten houses that will not change, so I don't know wham this will benefit. The change can only passible benefit one or two people. I ask you to deny this. Suzie Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive stated that there is a majority of Pacific Drive homeowners here tonight that are in apposition to this. We don't know if the piece of property we are being offered, do we have to pay taxes? Is it free? Somebody needs to clarify what is to be achieved if this piece of property is granted. Most of the residents now there, have done their remodeling and are quite happy with what they have. Who is really benefiting from all of this? This could be a double whammy if these homes are put an the market and re -said, and the new people coming in have the right to bring these houses closer to the sidewalk and encroach and go higher because they are an a bigger building pad. It will create a lot of havoc. Mast of the garages are used far live -ins or maids or far storage, which leaves cars an the street because there is no place to park. Ken Jorski, 2228 Pacific Drive suggested that a passible solution would be that the land that is being given would not be buildable. Some type of restriction could be built into the gift of land saying that the addition space can not be calculated into the building allowance. I would be impacted by a couple of properties due to my house situation. Harry Jackwis, 419 Begonia stated he was alarmed by the setback change to 10 feet. One of the charms of Carona del Mar is the many gardens. I don't see haw this reduction will lend it self to that. There is only so much buildable space. I built within the restrictions and I am satisfied with that. I did not came up here to try and get some extra square footage. I am concerned with - the ambience of Pacific Drive and Carona del Mar in general. Doug lax, 2224 Pacific Drive read the fallowing letter into the record. My property is located an the north side of the street within the some black as the Bettingens. I am here tonight to express my extreme apposition to any such amendment. Although I have not had amply notice to investigate the full implications of said amendment. I am sure of one thing; It will not be beneficial to my and may be grossly unfair and injurious to the other homeowners an the inland side of Pacific Drive. When I purchased my property five years ago I had every reason to expect the City would uphold my rights as a property owner. Thus for the City has sorely disappointed me and I am not experiencing financial harm due the city's preferential treatment of the Bettingens and other abusers of the system. I do not expect the City to impose any harsh new restrictions an the bluffside residents, but I do expect and hereby request that you maintain the setbacks and easements, which were clearly in place at the time we all purchased our properties. Since my home is currently listed for sale. I am keenly aware of the value of a view and the buyers' perception of the degree of obstruction. The Bettingens' proposed remodel and the variances the city has granted them have already cast me dearly in the marketability of my home. This 21 In City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX proposal is injuring me further by its very existence. Should the Commission rule to approve this amendment we can all be assured of a protracted legal battle due to the resolve of the inland residents. I urge you all to take a stand against the type of pandering and preferential treatment, which infects so many levels of our government today. The privileges of a few should never interfere with the rights of others. It is my perception that the Bettingens and their architect Mr. Edwards have asked for for too many favors of the City and the other fine residents of Pacific Drive. I have a letter dated May 20, 1999 from Mr. Edwards where he initiated this entire transaction. This had nothing to do with Mr. Edwards helping the City; this is a selfish act. It has everything to do with the fact that he has a client who has requested that this be done. It is dishonest and deceitful of them to propose it in this manner. Michael Mann, 2304 Pacific Drive agreed with the previous comments about who is being represented here. I would like to know how many people on the ocean side of Pacific Drive have actually contacted Mr. Edwards and give him permission to represent them in this endeavor. I do not understand the initiative of this. Chairperson Selich stated that Mr. Edwards represents the Bettingens as for as he knows. The Planning Commission decided that because we do this in other areas of the city where there are street vacations, that we would initiate the zoning changes. We have done this in other areas of the City where there have been excess right -of -way. Ms. Wood noted that the abandonment of the right -of way is an action that will be considered by the City Council on June 13th. The Planning Commission action is with respect to the zoning amendment, which would change the front setback. Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive noted that the change of the setbacks would have varying affects on the homes. Some of the homes can be brought out to 10 feet from the street and some of the homes will be set back. We will end up with a zig zag of homes instead of just a straight open area that we have now. The original letter sent by Mr. Edwards to Don Webb stated that Mr. Edwards represented several homeowners who were in favor of this. This is the deceit that is going on, as I don't believe that Mr. Edwards ever represented multiple property owners on that street. Nancy Neen, 2220 Pacific Drive stated that she is opposed to these changes. Christy Bettingen, 2215 Pacific Drive noted that Pacific Drive is unique. Referencing an exhibit on the wall, explained the right -of -way to be abandoned and the homes that currently encroach into that right -of -way now. This abandonment would essentially put all of these homes in conformity. She then noted the height standards that could be built to and what the current heights are. The abandonment has no bearing on height. At Commission inquiry, she 22 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX noted that Mr. Edwards represents Jack Pouch, Bettingens, Al Ross, Chris Street and several others. There have been no letters of support from these people, but she will obtain them. Steven McNash, 2319 Pacific Drive stated his approval of this abandonment as he intends to remove his garage and enlarge his home. Barbara Feinberg, 2316 Pacific Drive stated that she has a small view of the bay and stated that she does not support any changes to the street, as it is a charming area. If Mr. McNash builds sideways into his lot, he will completely eliminate my ocean view, so I am completely opposed to this plan. Open space is one of the most important things we have. Having more rooms and things is not as wonderful as having open space. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich asked about: • Consideration of price for the relinquishment of right -of -way and whether taxes would need to be paid. - Ms. Clauson answered that the abandonment procedures the City has done in the past. I don't recall that we have ever charged a fee for an abandonment of a right -of -way. Once it is abandoned, the City no longer has an ownership interest, which in this case is an easement in the property, so it would revert to the underlying property owner. That would be an adjustment of the lot line and would pay property taxes on it. • What is the necessity for the Planning Commission to move on the zoning adjustment in advance of the City Council considering the abandonment? - Staff answered that the change to thasetback can not take place unless the abandonment takes place. The setback needs to be amended and is currently five feet from the existing property line. If the abandonment is approved, the setback would be changed to 10 feet from the existing property line. Staff added that the abandonment could go forward without the zoning amendment. Traditionally, this is the way it has been handled in the past. If there is an adjustment to the zoning boundaries, they may be done concurrently with the abandonment. Broad Street actually abandoned first. An abandonment without action would mean that the underlying property owner would own to the abandonment. However, there would not be any type of property line in the zoning regulations. The setback would still be from the property line as designed in the City's Districting Maps. Chairperson Selich asked staff it the reason that the setbacks are being adjusted is because it affects the calculation of buildable area. I tend to agree with a lot of the comments made about the setbacks, I think the sheet is nice the way it is. I would hate to see the setbacks be adjusted. I don't have a problem with the property going back to the adjacent property owners who would be able to 23 )A City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX continue to maintain and use the property as they have in the past. I would be in favor of maintaining the setbacks where they are. My understanding is that the reason for it is where the setback line affects the calculation of the buildable area. Is there a way to set the zoning on these properties that the building setbacks would remain where they are now. For example, it they are ten feet from the existing right -of -way and we change the right -of -way and now it becomes twenty feet away, that the existing setback line stays where it is. It would just be a different number that still provides a mechanism that the normal setback would be used for calculation of buildable area. Is there a way that could be done? Staff answered yes. Commissioner Kranzley noted that this solution would satisfy everyone. I would love to maintain the look of that street as much as possible. If we increase the bulk of that buildable area it would be down the slopes and would not be intrusive into the view planes of the residences, especially on the other side of the street. The Beffingens could build higher on the froht of the house. I wonder if we could maintain the nature and ambience of the street by allowing building down the slope so that it would not be impacfful. Maybe we could limit the height at street level. Chairperson Selich noted he was not in favor of that, this is only the abandonment of the street and if we keep the setbacks as exactly the way we are, we are not changing the status quo on the upper end of the lots. I would not be in favor of putting increased restrictions there. Commissioner Ashley asked staff: • The current pavement width on Pacific Drive -it is currently thirty feet. • Curb side parking width on each side - seven to eight feet. - - • Two lanes are seven feet wide each - yes Commissioner Ashley noted that this is the problem in Corona del Mar. Here, the City has the opportunity to increase the width of the street so that you wouldn't have the hazards of two -way traffic having to stop to let cars pass. Instead of making an opportunity to widen the street by eight feet, you are willing to vacate some forty feet of the street. I wouldn't go along with this at all. Why did the City want to abandon this? Mr. Edmonston answered that other than trying to work with the property owners, there is no other pro- active effort on the City's part that he is aware of. The one thing that makes this street a little different is at the westerly end of the street is Avocado Avenue, which is one -way away from Pacific Drive. The only two -way traffic on the street would be residents leaving their property and heading east towards Begonia. Commissioner Ashley noted his agreement with the comments made by the Chairperson regarding the houses on the south side extending towards to the street into the area being vacated by the City. I don't know why the City is 24 r'� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX vacating it, nor the people on the south side be willing to accept responsible of ownership of property that they could not build into. All they can do is pay additional taxes for it. Commissioner Gifford noted that she is not clear on the proposal to adjust setbacks, which is not possible if the City has all the interest in the land. We would be moving the setback into what the City owns now. The abandonment would have to come first. If the abandonment does not take place, instead of a five - foot setback people, most people will have a ten -foot setback from their some existing property line they have now. Ms. Wood noted that the Commission's action is a recommendation, not the adoption of the amendment. The two would be current with the City Council. Continuing, Commissioner Gifford stated that we have now from the curb on the south side, ten -feet of what would be maintained as public right -of -way. Additionally there is another ten feet that would have to be maintained for utilities. The lot line may be adjusted to within ten feet of the curb, but it would be subject to an easement for utilities. What is being proposed is the building setback would coincide with the width of that easement. Chairperson Selich stated the decision is to abandon the street or not. Mr. Edmonston is correct, that the City Council has traditionally been in favor of these kinds of abandonment if there is strong support for it. Quite frankly, I have not seen it here tonight. I think it is possible for us to make a recommendation because it is a recommendation on the zoning if the City Council does decide to go ahead with the abandonment, then the recommendation would be for their consideration. Even though the issue before the Council may be the abandonment, the setbacks are going to enter the issue as well. Since the abandonment is scheduled for the City Council, it would be in the City's best interest to make a recommendation on what we think the proper setback should be. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich that we recommend to City Council that if they go ahead and abandon the right -of -way then the zoning setbacks should be adjusted as follows: • The setbacks shall remain in place, as they are with the exception that there shall be ten -foot setback solely for the purpose of calculation of buildable area. Is there anything wrong with this? Ms. Wood answered that it appears that the setback varies from lot to lot. We might have to set each one individually on the Districting Map. Chairperson Selich stated that the idea is to maintain the status quo. If that is what is needed, then so be it. He clarified that the Commission has no recommending authority on the abandonment that is solely a Council decision. 25 i d, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 This way, the City Council will have something to consider in the way of setbacks on this issue. Commissioner Tucker clarified the motion. What the consequence would be is where the setbacks would fall today without the abandonment is where they would you could start to build with the abandonment. For purposes of floor area ratio it would be a ten -foot setback from the new property line. The consequences would be that the profile of the house for those who live across Pacific Drive would be the some because the height limitation would stay the some because where the building could start would be the same. They could be bigger as they go down the hill; you might end up with more square footage on the downside. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96 -31F • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement General Plan Amendment No. 96 -31', Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office /lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Commissioner Kiser recused himself from deliberation on this matter as one of his business associates recently purchased a home on this street. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to adopt a resolution of intent to initiate Amendment No. 899. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None M_ INDEX Item No. 5 Ir, FILE COPY RESOLUTION NO. -1516 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND DISTRICTING MAP NO. 16, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE BETWEEN AVOCADO AVENUE AND BEGONIA AVENUE DUE TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY WHEREAS, Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution initiating amendments to the Zoning Code or Districting Maps of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to initiate an amendment to Districting Map No. 16 to establish a 10 foot front yard setback from the newly established property line due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach to initiate an amendment to Districting Map No. 16. to establish a 10 foot front yard setback on properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue. AYES Kiser. Ashlev. Selich. Gifford. Kranzlev. and Tucker NOES _ ABSENT ry EDWARD SELICH CHAIRMAN BY LARRY TUCKER SECRETARY 12 ppRJ CITY OF NEWPORT REACH Hearing Date: May 18, 2000 ��EW p 9� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 4 r' n PLANNING DEPARTMENT uoo NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Eugenia Garcia NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Phone number: (714) 644 -3208 (714) 644-52 —; FAX (714) 644-525 Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive SUMMARY: Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established property lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. LOCATION: 13 Properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive. SUGGESTED ACTION: Hold hearing; adopt Resolution No.. recommending to the City Council approval or modification of Amendment No. 899; or deny the Amendment. Points and Authority • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that this project is categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the properties for "Single Family" residential use. The existing residential development is consistent with this designation. • Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter Section 20.94.020 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Background The City is proposing to abandon approximately 19 feet of public right -of -way for properties located on the southerly side of Pacific Drive and reserve approximately 10 feet for a public utility easement. The abandonment will allow property owners for 13 lots between Avocado Avenue and el the west side of Begonia Avenue to gain approximately 20 feet of lot depth.[ The proposed amendments, if approved, will be contingent on the approval of the vacation by the City Council, scheduled for public hearing on June 13, 2000. ♦ � W L t 1 4 < v' � f ~ t' • y ♦f T Y o L f 4.` 3 ky Subject Properties - "� � � ♦i x Y , . 1 ♦ Analvsis Pacific Drive has a public right -of -way width of approximately 80 feet, of which only the northerly side of the street is fully improved with 20 feet of curbs, sidewalk and street improvements. The right -of -way on the southerly side of Pacific Drive includes a 5 foot parkway and a 4 foot sidewalk with the remainder of the right -of -way comprised of a combination of level areas and steep slopes. The City is proposing to abandon right -of -way in excess of 60 feet. The new right -of -way on the south side will maintain the existing 5 foot parkway (from face of curb), a 4 foot wide sidewalk, and include an additional 1 foot behind the sidewalk. The abandoned right -of -way area will range from 17 to 24 feet. As most of the properties on this side of Pacific Drive are made up of sloping lots (down to Bayside Drive), the vacation will allow for additional flat buildable area at the front of the lots. Additionally, several of the dwellings on this side of Pacific Drive currently encroach into the public right -of -way, as well as the existing 5 foot front yard setback. The vacation and reestablishment of the front setback from the new property line will eliminate these encroachments. ' The 20 feet is reduced for some properties and increased for others, due to the angle of the street relative to the subiect properties. 3 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 roll The Public Works Department is requesting a minimum 10 foot front yard setback in order to be able to provide for the required 10 foot public utility easement behind the existing sidewalk. The 10 foot setback will result in an additional 12 to 19 feet of buildable lot depth for the subject properties, which includes the existing 5 foot front setback from the existing property line. This will increase the buildable area of each lot, thereby increasing the permitted floor area for each lot. All other development standards for the R -I Zone remain unchanged. Similar Vacations of Public Right- of -WaV In 1998, the City vacated portions of Broad Street for properties between Santa Ana Avenue and Redlands Avenue and established a new setback of 20 feet, resulting in additional buildable area for each lot. In this case, the right -of -way width was 80 feet with a street width of 36 feet with 22 foot parkways on both sides of the street. Ten feet of parkway was abandoned on both sides of the street resulting in a right -of -way width of 60 feet. Although the abandonment of a portion of the right -of -way of Pacific Drive is similar, it differs from the Broad Street vacation because the street developed within the Pacific Drive right -of -way is not on the centerline. Additionally, the site characteristics of the lots are different. The Pacific Drive properties have street access for parking while the Broad Street properties are designed with rear alley access. This creates potential problems when establishing a 10 foot front yard setback because, if the garages were built up to the setback line, only ten feet would be available for parking in front of the garage, resulting in vehicles that extend into the public right -of -way when parked on the driveway. In order to avoid parking in the right -of -way, staff has proposed a setback different from the dwelling for front facing garages. The City Traf is Engineer is of the opinion that a 19 foot setback area in front of the garage will provide adequate space for parking. Buildable Area The proposed dwelling setback is 10 feet and the garage setback is proposed at 19 feet. For purposes of calculating the buildable area for each lot, the 10 foot dwelling setback, as depicted on the Districting Maps, will be used. Because the lots are sloping on the south side of the street, the additional area from the abandonment will increase the amount of flat buildable area for the lots. In order to establish the setback to be used in determining the buildable area for the affected lots, amendments to Sections 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 are needed. Section 20.10.030 will add Additional Regulation `K" to the minimum front yard requirement as shown shaded on the Property Development Regulations chart. Section 20.10.040 will add `B -3" with language to clarify which setback is to be used for the calculation of the buildable area; and additional Special Development Regulation "D" will be added with specific language estalishing the two front yard setback requirements. If adopted, Sections 20.10.030 and Section 20.10.040 would be revised as follows: 20.10.030 Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations The following schedule prescribes development regulations for residential districts. The columns prescribe basic requirements for permitted and conditional uses. Letters in parentheses in the 4 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 1( "Additional Regulations" column reference regulations following the schedule or located elsewhere in this code. Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations R -A R -1 R -1.5 R -2 MFR Additional Regulations Minimum Site Area per - -- — 1.000 1.000 1.200 (A). (B) Unit (sq.ft.) Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) - Corner Lots (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Width (ft.) - Corner Lots (ft.) Minimum Yards: Front (ft.) Side (ft) Corner Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) - Abutting an alley (ft.) Distance Between Detached Buildines Maximum Height (ft.) Maximum Floor Area Limit Maximum Coverage Required Open Space Off - Street Parking and Loading 87.120 5.000 5.000 5.000 87.120 6.000 5.000 6.000 125 50 - -- 50 125 60 - -- 60 20 20 20 20 5 3:4 3:4 3:4 5 3:4 3:4 3:4 5:25 10 10 t0 - -- 2.00 1.50 40% 5.000 (A) 6.000 (A) 50 (A) 60 (A) 20 (C)• (D)• (E)• (F)• (H)5(K_ 3:4 (C). (D). (E). (G). (H) 3:4 (C). (D). (E). (G). (H) 10 (C)• (D)• (E)• (H)• (Q) (I) (J) (K). (L) 2.00 1.75 (K). (M) (N) (K).(0) (P) Residential Districts: Additional Property Development Regulations (K) R -1. R -2. and MFR Districts in Corona del Mar and R -I District in West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula. See Section 20.10.040: Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar. West Newport. and the Balboa Peninsula. 20.10.040 Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula 3 0 A899. Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 Dh Avocado Avenue and the south side of the prolongation of the line of -the west side of Begonia Avenue, the front.yard setback_ designated on the Districting Maps shall be:used; C. Open Space Option. In the R -1 and R -2 Districts as designated in this section, open space shall be provided in addition to the required front yard setback. This additional open space shall be a volume of space equal to the buildable width of the lot, times the basic height limit, times 6 feet and may be provided anywhere on the lot behind the required yard setback lines. This open space shall be open on at least 2 sides and shall have a minimum dimension in any direction of at least 6 feet, except as indicated in this section, and may be used for outdoor living area. Open space with a dimension of less than 6 feet in any direction may be included in the required volume of open space, provided that said space is contiguous to required open space that provides a minimum 6 foot dimension in any direction. Roofs, balconies, decks, patios, cornices, exterior stairways with open risers and open railings, and architectural features may project into this area. This additional open space may be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire structure or any poFtion thereof. D. Pacific Drive — Front Yard Setback. Front - loaded garages and carports on the bluff (south) side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the south side of the prolongation of the line of the west side of Begonia Avenue, shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of 19 feet: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION It is the opinion of staff that the proposed ordinance represents a reasonable and appropriate change to the front yard setbacks on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, in association with the abandonment of right -of -way. It will also allow for an increase in the amount of buildable area for each lot that is appropriate for this neighborhood due to the sloping characteristics of the lots that occurs only on the south side of the street. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Amendment No. 899 to the City Council with the findings contained in the draft resolution. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director /0�2(CilCa� il� ?.G� Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA Associate Planner Attachments: Draft Resolution Draft revised Chapter 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 Districting Map No. 16 Pacific Drive street section 0 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 V1 1 RESOLUTION NO. - 2000 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND DISTRICTING MAP NO. 16, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE DWELLINGS AND 19 FEET FOR THE GARAGES FROM THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE BETWEEN AVOCADO AVENUE AND THE WEST SIDE OF BEGONIA AVENUE DUE TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT - OF -WAY; AND AMEND SECTIONS 20.10.030 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND SECTION 20.10.040 (SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR CORONA DEL MAR, WEST NEWPORT, AND THE BALBOA PENINSULA). AMENDMENT NO. 899 WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations; and WHEREAS, Section 20.94.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to the Zoning Districting Maps and an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) must be approved by a Resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth full particulars of the amendment; and 7 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to initiate an amendment to Districting Map No. 16 to establish a 10 foot front yard setback for the dwellings and a 19 foot front yard setback for the garages from the newly established property lines due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the south side of the prolongation of the line of the west side of Begonia Avenue; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a setback for front facing garages on Pacific Drive, in addition to the ten foot front setback for the dwelling, Sections 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) require additional language; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Districting Maps and Sections 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 are consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Amendment No. 899 to amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a 10 foot front yard setback from the newly established property lines; amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to add letter "K" to "Additional Regulations" for front setbacks in Section 20.10.030; add language to Section 20.10.040 `B -3" entitled `Buildable Area," and letter "D" entitled "Front Setbacks," to establish criteria for the calculation of the buildable area and establish a 19 foot front yard setback for front facing garages on properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive 8 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 III between Avocado Avenue and south side of the prolongation of the line of the west side of Begonia Avenue; Im Im ADOPTED this 18"' day of May, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: EDWARD SELICH CHAIRMAN LARRY TUCKER SECRETARY AYES NOES ABSENT 9 A899, Pacific Drive May l8, 2000 EXHIBIT "A" 20.10.030 Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations The following schedule prescribes development regulations for residential districts. The columns prescribe basic requirements for permitted and conditional uses. Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Regulations" column reference regulations following the schedule or located elsewhere in this code. Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations R -A R -1 R -1.5 R -2 MFR Additional Regulations Minimum Site Area per - -- - -- 1,000 1,000 1,200 (A), (B) Unit (sq.ft.) Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 87,120 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 (A) - Corner Lots (sq. ft.) 87,120 6,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 (A) Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 125 50 - -- 50 50 (A) - Corner Lots (ft.) 125 60 - -- 60 60 (A) Minimum Yards: Front (ft.) 20 20 20 20 20 (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), (K) Side (ft.) 5 3;4 3;4 3:4 3;4 (C), (D), (E), (G), (H) Corner Side (ft.) 5 3:4 3;4 3;4 3;4 (C), (D), (E), (G), (H) Rear (ft.) 5;25 10 10 10 10 (C), (D), (E), (H), (Q) - Abutting an alley (ft.) (I) Distance Between Detached Buildings (J) Maximum Height (ft.) (K), (L) Maximum Floor Area Limit - -- 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.75 (K), (M) Maximum Coverage 40% (N) Required Open Space (K), (0) Off - Street Parking and Loading (P) Residential Districts: Additional Property Development Regulations (A) See Section 20.60.040: Development on Substandard Lots and Across Property Lines. (B) See Section 20.60.045: Slopes and Submerged Lands. 10 A899. Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 a �i (C) See Section 20.60.030: Extensions Into Yards. (D) See Section 20.60.020: Accessory Structures and Mechanical Equipment. (E) See Section 20.60.035: Changes in Yard Requirements. (F) R -1, R -1.5. R -2. and MFR Districts. The minimum depth required for front yards shall be 20 feet, except as may be otherwise indicated on the Districting Maps. Distances shown on the Districting Maps are to be measured from the front property line, unless a different line is shown on the Districting Map. (G) R -1, R -1.5, and R -2. Districts. Each side yard shall be not less than 3 feet wide on development sites 40 feet wide or less, or 4 feet on lots wider than 40 feet; provided, that the side yard on the rear 20 feet of the street side of a comer lot, where there is reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the adjacent reversed frontage. MFR District. Each side yard shall not bg less than 3 feet wide on sites 40 feet wide or less; 4 feet wide on lots wider than 40 feet and narrower than 50 feet; and shall be equal in width to 8 percent of the average lot width for lots 50 feet or greater in width; provided that in no event shall a side yard wider than 25 feet be required; and provided further that the side yard on the rear 20 feet of the street side of a comer lot, where there is reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the adjacent reversed i.orta�ze. Street I I �Normol Corner Side Yard Settock Front Vdrd Settaek Un CX' I itReversed Corner L otl CIO _ _ _ _ I I x r _ _ I m I I I Interior Lot I o I o 1 �..— .— .— . —...— I o I I Diagram 20.10.030 (G): Setbacks on Reversed Frontages (H) R -A District. All structures housing animals (i.e., corrals, stalls, pens, cages, doghouses) shall maintain the following setbacks: From Another From Properties in From Public R -A District Other Zoning Rights -of -Way Property Districts Front 50 - -- _ -- 11 A899, Pacific Drive May 18. 2000 �'I Side 20 5 25 ,tear 20 5 25 In addition to the setbacks established above, all structures housing animals shall be located a minimum of 35 feet from any building used as a dwelling on adjacent properties. All animal exercise areas and pasturing areas (i.e., paddocks, runs, racecourses, show grounds) may be located at the property line, however, shall maintain a 25 foot setback from the front property line abutting a public right -of -way and a 10 foot setback from any side property line abutting a public right -of -way. (I) In residential districts having alleys to the rear of lots or development sites shall maintain the following setbacks from rear property line, clear of all obstructions, except as provid- ed in Section 20.60.030 (A -6) and Section 20.60.030 (I): Alley Width Setback 15' or less 5' 15' -1" to 19' -11" 3' -9" 20' or more 0' Roll -up garage doors shall be required when garage door openings are located closer than 22 feet to alleys with widths of 20 feet or more. (J) R -1.5. R -2. and MFR Districts. 10 feet shall be maintained between buildings. This requirement shall not apply to buildings attached by a solid roof structure, a minimum of 4 feet wide. (K) R -1, R -2, and MFR Districts in Corona del Mar and R -I District in West Newport. and the Balboa Peninsula. See Section 20.10.040: Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula. 20.10.040 Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula A. Applicability. The residential development standards contained in this section shall apply to all dwellings located in the R -I and R -2 Districts in Corona del Mar, and in the R -1 District in West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula as those areas are more particularly described below. Dwellings in those areas shall also be subject to all other provisions of this code. Where there is a conflict between this chapter and another provision of this code, the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling. 1. The areas of Corona del Mar in which the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: 12 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 all That area commonly referred to as old Corona del Mar generally bounded by Avocado Avenue. Pacific Coast Highway. Fifth Avenue. the easterly boundary of the Corona del Mar tract. the Pacific Ocean and the Harbor entrance: and t more specifically described as that area included in Annexation #3 as described in Ordinance No. 252 of the City of Newport Beach. approved on February 27. 1924. 2. The areas of West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula in which the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: That area commonly referred to as West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula generally bounded by the Semeniuk Slough. Pacific Coast Highway. the West Lido Channel. the Newport Channel. the Main Channel. the Harbor Entrance. the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Ana River. and more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly boundary of the City of Newport Beach and the Mean High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean: thence proceeding northerly along said City Boundary to the intersection of said Boundary with the northerly right -of -way line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence due East a distance of I" foot to an intersection with the City Boundary on the easterly side of that certain I foot strip shown on Annex No. 21. Ordinance No. 630. 10/31/1950: thence proceeding easterly. northerly. easterly and southerly along said City Boundary to an intersection with the northerly right -of -way line of Pacific Coast Highway: thence proceeding southerly along a perpendicular to said right -of -way line to the center -line of Pacific Coast Highwav: thence easterly along said centerline to an intersection with the centcrline of Newport Boulevard; thence southerly along said centerline of Newport Boulevard to an intersection with the southerly Bulkhead of the Newport Island Channel. said point being westerly of U.S. Bulkhead Station #126 on the U.S. Bulkhead Line: thence easterly to said U.S. Bulkhead Station #126: thence continuing along the U.S. Bulkhead Line to U.S. Bulkhead Station #114; thence, northeasterly in a straight line to U.S. Bulkhead Station #162: thence southerly in a straight line to U.S. Bulkhead Station #113. and thence proceeding along the U.S. Bulkhead to U.S. Bulkhead Station #107: thence continuing southerly along the prolongation of the U.S. Bulkhead Line to an intersection with the Mean High Tide Line: thence westerly and northwesterly along said Mean High Tide Line to the point of Beg.inning. B. Floor Area Limit 1. In the R -1, R -2. and MFR Districts in the area designated as Old Corona del Mar. the total gross floor area (excluding those structures excepted under Section 20.10.030) shall not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. 2. Calculation. The gross floor area shall consist of the total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls. and including halls. stairways. service and mechanical equipment rooms, and basement or attic areas having a height of more than 7 feet. Internal shafts. such as elevator shafts. dumbwaiter shafts. ventilation shafts. and similar vertical shafts shall be counted as floor area on one floor level only. Non - habitable rooms and spaces of a building. with the exception of bath or toilet rooms. connecting corridors. 13 A899. Pacific Drive May 18. 2000 foyers, and stairwells, that measure more than 14 feet 6 inches from finished floor to the ceiling above finished floor shall be considered to occupy two floor levels and the floonarea of each level shall therefore be calculated towards the maximum floor area limit. 1. 3. Pacific Drive - Buildable Area. For 'purposes of determining the'buildable 1. area for structures located on the bluff _(south) side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the south side of the prolongation of the line of the west side of Begonia. Avenue, the front yard setback designated on the Districting Maps shall be-used: . C. Open Space Option. In the R -1 and R -2 Districts as designated in this section, open space shall be provided in addition to the required front yard setback. This additional open space shall be a volume of space equal to the buildable width of the lot, times the basic height limit, times 6 feet and may be provided anywhere on the lot behind the required yard setback lines. This open space shall be open on at least 2 sides and shall have a minimum dimension in any direction of at least 6 feet, except as indicated in this section, and may be used for out living area. Open space with a dimension of less than 6 feet in any direction may be included in the required volume of open space, provided that said space is contiguous to required open space that provides a minimum 6 foot dimension in any direction. Roofs, balconies, decks, patios, cornices, exterior stairways with open risers and open railings, and architectural features may project into this area. This additional open space may be provided on anv level or combination of le,.eLs and may extend across the entire structure or any portion thereof. D. Pacific Drive — Front Yard Setback. Front - loaded garages and carports 6n the bluff (south) side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the south side of the prolongation of the line of the west side of Begonia Avenue, shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of 19 feet. 14 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 WA1 "- .e~»r r ' °r. �J S 0 P '4" (may � r •or 'or or +I . • ry 'a ti s P Q C / r or ry or M1 .qr P e�6 •or. P 4 0.X y g P Cp�rr) (ySC s co ^Sf 6 /PS` 'o- S, P r',` P r'a�'•JP //` ylk Er ti dr' a+G q. F 0 �. �' ✓6�.a. r ti O F O P P r IF O P P •' • 'r. Q, � .r 9. GO' R'�o- 'r., P i� ofr P i •, P Y 0T S P w OO P Q,N r Pyr �'' 3:0v e `/ Q' zo § O ORNE la z n .. 1 e ^ r .. i a 6 J Q w IL 3 u Q O p y Z L Z 4 y —2 I— U r�ym L 59 LL o a °S3a F " W S N V 6 x zp u w4_ 8 1 i �I71I 0,41 > i JN 0° r ni i K O 13 4 a J n ° pp gg / E YY r XE MIP i I'oT z n .. 1 e ^ r .. i a 6 J Q w IL 3 u Q O p y Z L Z 4 y —2 I— U r�ym L 59 LL o a °S3a F " W S N V 6 x zp u w4_ 8 1 i �I71I 0,41 > i JN 0° r ni i K O 4. �Y 1 lESD CEO pTW A A gGARD N t... 1 REAS f ' O t (E.)PL.. !.L r y'. O� 1 ,, rnRf w! H; W� �! G� al w PACIFIC DRIVE r P. 4 N M •C, II 1� 4 O a pv.) PL YI I RDPOSED ON G 1 1t t>r' °. 1 C FST pAR t i t � 1 I. IN G!Gp A 1 ~' RESLD N E 1 vty - (E.) PL' �. . . p GE � ° 1 N� RESLDENCE City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 2000 SUBJECT Amendment to front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive 2205 to 2333 Pacific Drive A resolution of intent to amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet from the newly established property lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way. Ms. Temple noted that this is an act of initiation and does not constitute a final decision on this issue. The Planning Commission will make its final recommendation to the City Council when this item is brought back for a public hearing. Commissioner Kiser asked if this was adopted, would it change the buildable area of the homes at those addresses come closer to the existing Pacific Drive? He was answered yes. Commissioner Ashley stated his concern of reducing the size of Pacific Drive, as it is one of the few streets in this area where two -way travel is not impeded by cars parked at the curb. I would like to ask Mr. Edmonton to investigate the possibility of looking at a one way street system in Corona del Mar as it is difficult to negotiate those streets in a two -way configuration. A one way street system would be a lot more fluid and probably reduce a lot of accidents. I would like to see what this study would show. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to adopt a resolution of intent to initiate Amendment No. 899. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: Lido Diner 3461 Via Lido Use Permit No. 3671 A request to establish a change in an existing retail space to a full- service, high turnover eating and drinking establishment. The request includes an Alcoholic Beverage Outlet approval for the sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption (Type 41 License). Senior Planner Campbell passed out copies of revised findings and conditions of approval. As a follow up to the previous discussion on the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance, this operation is a diner and will take the place of a vacant retail space in the Griffith Building in the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center. This operation is a restaurant with no bar and they are seeking an to INDEX Item No. 3 Intent to Amend Districting Map No. 16 Initiated Item No. 4 Use Permit No. 3671 Approved 91 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: 41E`x'POgf O COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: g C 1� ,3 o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (7 4) 644-p oo; FAX (74) 644-5250 Phone number: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Amendment to front yard setbacks on Broad Street Apri120, 2000 Eugenia Garcia (714) 644 -3203 SUMMARY: A resolution of intent to amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet from the newly established property lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way. LOCATION: 14 properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive, 2205 through 2333 Pacific Drive. SUGGESTED ACTION: Adopt resolution of intent to amend Districting Map No. 399. The City is proposing to abandon approximately 20 feet of public right -of -way for properties located on the southerly side of Pacific Drive and reserve approximately 10 feet for a public utility easement. The abandonment will allow property owners for 14 lots between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue to gain approximately 20 feet for the purpose of increasing the buildable area of the lots. The amendment may involve changes to the Municipal Code. The resolution of intent to amend the Districting Map is predicated on the approval of the vacation. Section 20.94.020 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that an amendment to Districting Map may be initiated by resolution of the Planning Commission or the City Council. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA Associate Planner Planning Director Attachments: Plot Maps Showing Pacific Drive Properties Districting Map No. 16 RESOLUTION NO. - 2000 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND DISTRICTING MAP NO. 16, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE BETWEEN AVOCADO AVENUE AND BEGONIA AVENUE DUE TO THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY WHEREAS, Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution initiating amendments to the Zoning Code or Districting Maps of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to initiate an amendment to Districting Nlap No. 16 to establish a 10 foot front yard setback from the newly established property line due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Besoma Avenue, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach to initiate an amendment to Districting Map No. 16. to establish a 10 foot front yard setback on properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Begonia Avenue. Imo•/ m EDWARD SELICH CHAIRMAN LARRY TUCKER SECRETARY AYES NOES "M MINI 1 „� �RF. �•:-s rr {t ,r, h �^, +5 � E:C �( ct 4s �-r t�.yK FSc, \ i� ` � ��' 'fir �wk'�- s'>c�'t�k~�� ^�s•.rt S � '�'"''��, .`�,`�'.,,r �-�;�' \ � \ t � ter � �� x �,��” � �� ; � _ z�`s ��{ y.v..�a r "x''4�,e� .t �•�`^{ ,� h -" � �� `O Z.� 8 C# f e4 Y z r i cr n lj A Nit ez ✓ s iy qua � X. ♦'�s.+4fi 1 T`J k � �� // �; ! i4- t�:., a'a � ,,, s�^*yifxa+ {•e r s, \/I�V1 i -- �'7 t x V / % tEi�`�>fd m s q7r .Sx 1 � 1 ! c a Kv as a `4e a zp \9 J n o ✓s.. io �,� � 5 u �,CtIA A i s •n � has- �'-', � �1 =1" Z S a �7dd� ,• � y� �a � � app° 6 •a�i �,, Pa m °° - �_ ,aa �. � is - o G' r r ^ fTl f A r D n dp �' d ^• a,� t, yo 's 'o L n� .. .tea . ° o m _ T � O D .3 tia S O• -s a .sti 7y 4,y b 1 a SEE MAP .✓0. /7 J SUSAN S. VAUGHN Date 5 -3 \ -00 5/22/00 Copies Sent To: (� Mayor City of Newport Beach Council Member tff City Council Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. ❑ Attorney P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92659 Re: Amendment No. 899 ❑ Dear Sir or Madam: '00 mAY 31 P, 8 :58 s; .... H.A.r:{ Once again we all get to meet regarding "old" business, but to many it will be "new" business, regarding issues on Pacific Drive. I must say for only one sign to be posted down at the end of the street next to the park surely didn't help the homeowners living on the one way street leaving their homes from the other direction. Shouldn't more signs be posted so all neighbors have time to prepare for the meeting instead of just receiving their post cards and having only a few days to make or change plans to attend the meeting. I'm confused about this Notice of Public Hearing because it stated that the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899 is the applicant. If this were the case why wasn't someone introduced to the public hearing as being the spokesperson for the City. Instead, the Planning Commission opened the meeting with, no applicant was needed, "will all persons interested for or against this notice please state your name, address, etc. etc. etc. I hate to admit it, but I for one really did not understand what this amendment or this notice means to the residents residing on Pacific Drive. Once again, our meetings regarding dealings with Pacific Drive became fuzzy and no one was prepared to answer the questions that were raised by the concerned people of Corona del Mar. We came to the meeting to get answers! The people on the North side of the street (assuming that if this is granted) feel that they will now or maybe in the future once again lose valuable views if the South side is given a bigger building area. They also were concerned with the moving of the homes closer or forward to the street. Many felt it will ruin the look of their neighborhood. The people on the South side want to know if they are given this right -of -way, and are able to build out, up, behind or to the front of the street, do they get the land assessed, and what is this going to cost them in the way of taxes per foot? These are just some of the neighbors concerns that never were answered. How can the residents on Pacific Drive, let alone the Planning Commission, make a stand on this notice if all the facts have not been disclosed? I remember one year ago we the homeowners on Pacific Dr. all walked out of a meeting where neither side, (including the Planning Commission) knew what was going on. Somehow, that still didn't stop the Planning Commission from giving the variance even with the majority saying NO. We the majority feel we were never heard then, and we are getting the same sick feeling A over again, because our questions are always being ignored. The Planning Commission keeps giving away little by little our set of codes and regulations that we the majority have had to abide by in the past. 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE • CORONA DEL MAR. CA • 92625 PHONE: 949.]23.06]6 • PAX: 949 -675 -5606 -2— May 27, 2000 The Planning Commission as I said never introduced a representative from the City when Item # 4 came up for discussion. If the City of Newport Beach is in fact the real applicant doesn't the City or someone representing the City need to be present in order for this meeting to happen. Let us just use the Bettingen's and Mr. Edwards as an example, because they have been an applicant several times in the past. What if they did not show up for a meeting, would the meeting be canceled and everyone sent home, would it have been moved to a later date, or would it go on without them? The Planning Commission regardless of all the confusion opened the meeting with, "will all persons interested for or against this notice please state your name, address, and keep your time on the floor to 3 minutes etc. etc. etc. The Chairman then called .Mr. Edwards the architect for the Bettingen's that live oa Pacific .Dr. to please take the floor. Surprise! Was he the man that was going to be able to explain what this notice and meeting was all about? Was he the man appointed to represent the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899? Surely, after working over a year with the City of Newport and Public Works he would have all his ducks in a row Well, his speech was the longest one of all and as you all may have guessed by now he is for this wonderful Oft. Many questions from the homeowners never were answered and once again, the meeting went on held in a state of confusion. Please see the letter dated May 20, 1999 written by Mr. Edwards over a year ago requesting the City to vacate the southerly right -of- way easements along Pacific Drive. This request was in the makings long before our V meeting on June 24, 1999regarding their variances, and we believe all the meetings cancelled by the applicant was done because they were trying to get this right -of -way pushed through so all their plans would be approved. As you can see, from the dates on the letters, the Bettingen along with their architect Mr. Edwards decided to go back to their P/z times buildable space in hopes that if they could get their letter dated May 20, 1999 through the City they in fact could get backwhat they were so willing and ready to give up. The Planning Commission, by the way, were also aware of this letter before our first meeting (see the Vaughn's letter dated June 22, 1999) and they said it could not be brought up at the meetings, because it did not pertain to the business at hand. Or did it? Many of us felt just the opposite. We think all the cards should have been put on the table and-all should have been privy to wvhat was. going on and what would be coming up nest. So you tell me, did they put the cart before the horse last year and cause this piggyback affect we are all dealing with now? (What happened to -all that night was that we got to sit in a June 24,1999 meeting while the Commission and the Bettingen's traded off one variance for another and we the majority against the height elevation lost our views under insufficient information, along with confusion due to the Bettingen's lack of a real set of plans). The Bettingen's knew a real set of plans would once again have to be changed when they came in the back door at a later date. That is why no one could get a straight answer from Mr. Edwards during our meetings a year ago, because the outcome of City of Newport Beach Amendment # 899 would certainly change everything once again and he really didn't want to divulge his involvement at that time. Now, I guess it is time to talk about what we were told a year ago that we couldn't talk about. Somehow Mr. Edwards has gotten the City of Newport to become the applicant, surely he wouldn't want to look to instrumental or biased while pushing this through for his clients gain. (Did we all miss a meeting somewhere while all these tides changed hands ?) -3— May 27, 2000 Correct me if I'm wrong, on May 18, 2000 one year later, were we all not asked by post cards to attend a meeting that the Planning Commission called so those for or aaeainst this proposal could appear and be heard? WE ALL KNOW THE CITY JUST DIDN'T ONE DAY OUT OF THE CLEAR BLUE JUST POP UP AND SAY, "LETS STIR UP THE HOMEOWNERS ON PACIFIC DR. AND OFFER THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THE STREET THIS LAND WE NO LONGER WANT. I counted 18 homeowners against this notice, some of which came forward with questions and walked away in most cases without the answers. Ms. Bettingen and her architect Mr. Edwards said they had 7 for this notice, but failed to bring letters or the people along with them to the hearing. When the Planning Commission -,vas asked polity by one homeowner "who started this mess," everyone on the Planning Commission just stared at the man and gave no comment. The questions asked from both sides of the street should have easily been answered, after spending one year on this matter and especially if you the Planning Commission have done this many times before. Have these passed hearings pertaining to vacating right -of -ways always started with the Planning Commission first and then passed on to the City Council for the final judgment? I still am in shock over how the meeting took a turn, and somehow we were once again listening to the Bettingen's, and Mr. Edwards being granted 10 additional feet on the backside of their slope. Can you please tell me where that came from? We did not see anything on the May 18, 2000 agenda where the Bentingens or Mr. Edwards were even asking for a variance, or in this case, a 10 -ft. additional pad on their back slope. Why is it Mr. Chairman you always see to it that these people somehow be thrown a bone. I would have to assume this once again to be a special award directed to them because they were standing alone without all their neighbors that Mr. Edwards claim he represents. Even if they are able to round up their backers in this matter, do you have the right to grant them this (10 ft. whatever) and then pass it on to the City on June 13' for them to try and figure it out? You say all variances are different and no special treatment is given. Isn't it just amazing when the BettingerA gave up their 475 sq. ft. extra variance over a year ago and agreed to stay in their 1.5 building pad that you just handed it right back to them. Isn't it funny after what the two of you swapped and traded a year-ago, (if this amendment passes) that they hav-- won.both times. You know & we know why nothing has been built, because Mr. Chairman even after you gave them everything they wanted the first go around it just wasn't enough. This whole matter disgusts many of us, and we're sick of all the games. Hope this is passed on to the City Council, because it is really hard to look at all of you who are supposed to be there for each and "every one of us. You all have had blinders on ever since Pacific Drive has been put on your agenda. We the people want to be heard, please pass us on to the next level so we will hopefully be given that chance. Maybe the next group will have a little empathy and play by the rules they themselves have put into affect and that have governed most of all of us in the town of Corona del Mar. Think it is time for all to read and educate themselves on what has been going on for years on Pacific Drive. Thank you for all your time, Suzi & Jerry Vaughn THE 20 HOMEOWNERS THAT RESPONDED TO THEIR BLUffi� fi'� CARDS, THAT ALSO ATTENDB+D'TNE MEETING ON MAY 18TH 200.0a-A� fTHF� C'T r "F VP��T sCH PLANNING COMMISSION, WANTRT KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO WRITE ANOTHER LETTER TO THE CITY Date opiess t o: o� AND VOTE NO ONCE AGAIN? Mayor Council Member WE ARE SENDING YOU A COLOR— Manager Anon ey CODED MAP OF OUR STREET SHOWING YOU WHO IS FOR AND o AGAINST THIS ISSUE. MORE LETTERS, IF NEEDED, WILL BE DEFINITELY COMING YOUR WAY, IF YOU SAY WE NEED TO DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN. Please contact: Suzi or Jerry Vaughn at 949 - 723 -0876 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, THE CONCERNED HOMEOWNERS OF PACIFIC DRIVE. 5/23/00 Dear Neighbors, If the Bettingen's and the rest of the teardowns on the southerly side of Pacific Dr. are granted this right -of -way to vacate and are given a 10-ft. extra pad to build on, we all can figure out what this will mean. The homes granted this will be able to go out, go back, go up, etc. and they will not need to ask for a variance to do so. Things will be out of control. Once again please read the letters, petitions, minute's etc. regarding what has been going on for years on Pacific Dr. Please write your Councilman and the Mayor letting him or them know how you feel. The City is ready for this, so the next meeting scheduled for June 13, 2000 is really going to be a tough one. It is crucial that everyone opposing this must write your letters and please show up at the next meeting. A show of heads sure makes a statement and the majority does show power. Jerry & I have stayed glued to these issues ever sense we moved to this street 12 years ago. We have watched the Planning Commission and City Council in the past swing one way one time and a completely opposite direction the next time. Sometimes almost identical situations are granted to one and not the other. Jerry & I unfortunately will not be in town the day this meeting is scheduled. We hope by passing all this info on to you, it will help you gather your thoughts for the letters that need to be sent in before the June 13`h meeting. Please send to: City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 -8915 ATT: City Council for 6 -13 -00 agenda meeting. P.S. Please see the color -coded street map that shows who is for this and those against this Amendment to vacate right -of -way. If you could please check the box with ales or no so at one glance the Council can see who is for or against this issue it really will be helpful. Please hand deliver to: Phyllis Rodeffer's house, 2227 Pacific Drive Make sure she has your vote before June 10`h so she can take it down to the City before the meeting on June 13`h Good Luck! We are going to need all we can get! Jerry & Suzi Vaughn SUSAN S. VAUGHN 5/22/00 City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Re: Amendment No. 899 Dear Sir or Madam: Once again we all get to meet regarding `old" business, but to many it will be "new" business, regarding issues on Pacific Drive. I must say for only one sign to be posted down at the end of the street next to the park surely didn't help the homeowners living on the one way street leaving their homes from the other direction. Shouldn't more signs be posted so all neighbors have time to prepare for the meeting instead of just receiving their post cards and having only a few days to make or change plans to attend the meeting. I'm confused about this Notice of Public Hearing because it stated that the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899 is the applicant. If this were the case why wasn't someone introduced to the public hearing as being the spokesperson for the City. Instead, the Planning Commission opened the meeting with, no applicant was needed, "will all persons interested for or against this notice please state your name, address, etc. etc. etc. I hate to admit it, but I for one really did not understand what this amendment or this notice means to the residents residing on Pacific Drive. Once again, our meetings regarding dealings with Pacific Drive became fuzzy and no one was prepared to answer the questions that were raised by the concerned people of Corona del Mar. We came to the meeting to get answers! The people on the North side of the street (assuming that if this is granted) feel that they will now or maybe in the future once again lose valuable views if the South side is given a bigger building area. They also were concerned with the moving of the homes closer or forward to the street. Many felt it will ruin the look of their neighborhood. The people on the South side want to know if they are given this right -of -way, and are able to build out, up, behind or to the front of the street, do they get the land assessed, and what is this going to cost them in the way of taxes per foot? These are just some of the neighbors concerns that never were answered. How can the residents on Pacific Drive, let alone the Planning Commission, make a stand on this notice if all the facts have not been disclosed? I remember one year ago we the homeowners on Pacific Dr. all walked out of a meeting where neither side, (including the Planning Commission) knew what was going on. Somehow, that still didn't stop the Planning Commission from giving the variance even with the majority saying NO. We the majority feel we were never heard then, and we are getting the same sick feeling all over again, because our questions are always being ignored. The Planning Commission keeps giving away little by little our set of codes and regulations that we the majority have had to abide by in the past. 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE • CORONA DEL MAR, CA • 92625 PHONE: 949.723.0876 - FAX: 949.675.5606 -2— May 27, 2000 The Planning Commission as I said never introduced a representative from the City when Item # 4 came up for discussion. If the City of Newport Beach is in fact the real applicant doesn't the City or someone representing the City need to be present in order for this meeting to happen. Let us just use the Bettingen's and Mr. Edwards as an example, because they have been an applicant several times in the past. What if they did not show up for a meeting, would the meeting be canceled and everyone sent home, would it have been moved to a later date, or would it go on without them? The Planning Commission regardless of all the confusion opened the meeting with, "will all persons interested for or against this notice please state your name, address, and keep your time on the floor to 3 minutes etc. etc. etc. The Chairman then called Mr. Edwards the architect for the Bettingen's that live on Pacific Dr. to please take the floor. Surprise! Was he the man that was going to be able to explain what this notice and meeting was all about? Was he the man appointed to represent the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899? Surely, after working over a year with the City of Newport and Public Works he would have all his ducks in a row. Well, his speech was the longest one of all and as you all may have guessed by now he is for this wonderful gift. Many questions from the homeowners never were answered and once again, the meeting went on held in a state of confusion. Please see the letter dated May 20, 1999 written by Mr. Edwards over a year ago requesting the City to vacate the southerly right -of- way easements along Pacific Drive. This request was in the makings long before our 1" meeting on June 24, 1999regarding their variances, and we believe all the meetings cancelled by the applicant was done because they were trying to get this right -of -way pushed through so all their plans would be approved. As you can see, from the dates on the letters, the Bettingen along with their architect Mr. Edwards decided to go back to their 1' /2 times buildable space in hopes that if they could get their letter dated May 20, 1999 through the City they in fact could get back what they were so willing and ready to give up. The Planning Commission, by the way, were also aware of this letter before our first meeting (see the Vaughn's letter dated June 22, 1999) and they said it could not be brought up at the meetings, because it did not pertain to the business at hand. Or did it? Many of us felt just the opposite. We think all the cards should have been put on the table and all should have been privy to what was going on and what would be coming up next. So you tell me, did they put the cart before the horse last year and cause this piggyback affect we are all dealing with now? (What happened to all that night was that we got to sit in a June 24,1999 meeting while the Commission and the Bettingen's traded off one variance for another and we the majority against the height elevation lost our views under insufficient information, along with confusion due to the Bettingen's lack of a real set of plans). The Bettingen's knew a real set of plans would once again have to be changed when they came in the back door at a later date. That is why no one could get a straight answer from Mr. Edwards during our meetings a year ago, because the outcome of City of Newport Beach Amendment # 899 would certainly change everything once again and he really didn't want to divulge his involvement at that time. Now, I guess it is time to talk about what we were told a year ago that we couldn't talk about. Somehow Mr. Edwards has gotten the City of Newport to become the applicant, surely he wouldn't want to look to instrumental or biased while pushing this through for his clients gain. (Did we all miss a meeting somewhere while all these titles changed hands ?) -3— May 27, 2000 Correct me if I'm wrong, on May 18, 2000 one year later, were we all not asked by post cards to attend a meeting that the Planning Commission called so those for or against this proposal could appear and be heard? WE ALL KNOW THE CITY JUST DIDN'T ONE DAY OUT OF THE CLEAR BLUE JUST POP UP AND SAY, "LETS STIR UP THE HOMEOWNERS ON PACIFIC DR. AND OFFER THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THE STREET THIS LAND WE NO LONGER WANT. I counted 18 homeowners against this notice, some of which came forward with questions and walked away in most cases without the answers. Ms. Bettingen and her architect Mr. Edwards said they had 7 for this notice, but failed to bring letters or the people along with them to the hearing. When the Planning Commission was asked polity by one homeowner "who started this mess," everyone on the Planning Commission just stared at the man and gave no comment. The questions asked from both sides of the street should have easily been answered, after spending one year on this matter and especially if you the Planning Commission have done this many times before. Have these passed hearings pertaining to vacating right -of -ways always started with the Planning Commission first and then passed on to the City Council for the final judgment? I still am in shock over how the meeting took a turn, and somehow we were once again listening to the Bettingen's, and Mr. Edwards being granted 10 additional feet on the backside of their slope. Can you please tell me where that came from? We did not see anything on the May 18, 2000 agenda where the Bentingens or Mr. Edwards were even asking for a variance, or in this case, a 10 -ft. additional pad on their back slope. Why is it Mr. Chairman you always see to it that these people somehow be thrown a bone. I would have to assume this once again to be a special award directed to them because they were standing alone without all their neighbors that Mr. Edwards claim he represents. Even if they are able to round up their backers in this matter, do you have the right to grant them this (10 ft. whatever) and then pass it on to the City on June 13's for them to try and figure it out? You say all variances are different and no special treatment is given. Isn't it just amazing when the Bettingen's gave up their 475 sq. ft. extra variance over a year ago and agreed to stay in their 1.5 building pad that you just handed it right back to them. Isn't it funny after what the two of you swapped and traded a year ago, (if this amendment passes) that they have won both times. You know & we know why nothing has been built, because Mr. Chairman even after you gave them everything they wanted the first go around it just wasn't enough. This whole matter disgusts many of us, and we're sick of all the games. Hope this is passed on to the City Council, because it is really hard to look at all of you who are supposed to be there for each and every one of us. You all have had blinders on ever since Pacific Drive has been put on your agenda. We the people want to be heard, please pass us on to the next level so we will hopefully be given that chance. Maybe the next group will have a little empathy and play by the rules they themselves have put into affect and that have governed most of all of us in the town of Corona del Mar. Think it is time for all to read and educate themselves on what has been going on for years on Pacific Drive. Thank you for all your time, Suzi & Jerry Vaughn 5/25/00 City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Re: Vacation of Right -of -way on Pacific Drive Dear Sir or Madam: This is the way I understand the decision was given from the Planning Commission: The Commissioner gave 10 -ft. of the 26 -ft. right of way to be considered as part of the building area but kept the building set back where it is now. What this does is give the south side of the street a larger building area which is what the Bettingen's ask for in their first variance request during the June 24h Commission meeting. They also gave it up at that same meeting. This way they would not have to get a variance, which was denied to their neighbor next to them, and they knew the neighborhood was very much against enlarging the pad size. It also left the door open for a variance at a later date to build forward closer to the street. If at a later date, the Commissioner feels that he would like to give more of the setback away as buildable area, the way he did with the 10 feet at the last meeting, the homes could soon be within 5 feet of the sidewalk. There are a couple of homes that will be trying to get this added if the vacation of right - of -way is passed. Some of you may think this vacation of land as being not so bad, not much of the view, or openness is lost. Well a year ago the Bettingen's ask for a small height increase, it was granted, and at that time, Mr. Edwards said they could stay within the 1.5 building area at the June 24 1999 meeting. Now they are asking for a larger building area, by way of the vacation of right -of -way. This is what I am talking about, get a little now and a little later, and soon you have it all. If, the vacation of right -of -way, is stopped at the City Council meeting June 13, 2000 we can keep the neighborhood that we all enjoy, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. The only way to stop it is to write your letters to the City Council and appear at the June 13th meeting. We have to stop this now, or we will be at Planning Commission meetings for years to come. Thank You, Jerry Vaughn Z6 �� z" S y CY \\\ �% 1 ,� I `y y 1 4� �r I �,1 I' zoe.W4 NOTICE � OF 1 CATION Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the vacation of a portion of Pacific Drive. The vacation process will be conducted pursuant to the California Street and Highways Code Section 8300 – Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law. The street right of way proposed to be vacated is described be low. That certain portion of Pacific Drive, formerly Electric Way, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. State of California as shown on map of Corona Del Mar Tract filed in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying southwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the northwesterly line of Avocado Avenue, 27.00 feet wide, as established per City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 99 -34 recorded as Document No. 19990417369 of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of said County and the northwesterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of the northeasterly 60.00 feet of Pacific Drive, lying southwesterly of and adjoining Block 328 of said tract; thence along said southwesterly line S 40°l7'42" E 258.86 feet to line parallel with and 60.00 feet, measured at right angles, from the northwesterly line of Pacific Drive lying squthwesterly of and adjoining Block 329 of said tract: thence along said parallel line S 24 °23'25" E 343.32 feet to the northeasterly line of that certain portion of Pacific Drive vacated per City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 412 recorded in Book 11, Page 285 of said Official Records. �14�e 7-/ .f0'—NOt1t±1SkJRTHER GIVEN HEREBY that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has set Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at the hour of 7:00 P.M. as the time, and the Council Chambers as the place for the hearing of all persons interested in/or objecting to the proposed vacation, and said City Council at the same time and place will hear the evidence offered by any person interested in the proposed vacation heretofore desatbed- Lavonne M. Harkless r;tv nfvr R,a,h ["I NOTICE OF VACATION Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the vacation of a portion of Pacific Drive. The vacation process will be conducted pursuant to the California Street and Highways Code Section 8300 — Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law. The street right of way proposed to be vacated is described below. That certain portion of Pacific Drive, formerly Electric Way, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on map of Corona Del Mar Tract filed in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, lying southwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the northwesterly line of Avocado Avenue, 27.00 feet wide, as established per City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 99.34 recorded as Document No. 19990417369 of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of said County and the northwesterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of the northeasterly 60.00 feet of Pacific Drive, lying southwesterly of and adjoining Block 328 of said tract; thence along said southwesterly line S 40°17'42" E 258.86 feet to line parallel with and 60.00 feet, measured at right angles, from the northwesterly line of Pacific Drive lying squthwesterly of and adjoining Block 329 of said :raft: thence along said parallel line S 24 °23'25" E 343.32 feet to the northeasterly line of that certain portion of Pacific Drive vacated per City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 412 recorded in Book 11, Page 285 of said Official Records. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN HEREBY that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has set Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at the boor of 7:00 PM. as the time, and the Council Chambers as the place for the hearing of all persons interested in/or objecting to the proposed vacation, and said City Council at the same time and place will hear the evidence offered by any person interested in the proposed vacation heretofore described. '6 onne M. Harldess r;m or1,t� Arorh The City Council is the legislative body of the City and directly employs the Cijy Clerk the City Attorney, and the City Manager who serves as the chief executive officer of the City and who is responsible for the management and administration of all City functions and personnel. The City Council meets twice per month to review, direct, and legislate on matters of land use, finance, and general governance. Council members also serve on Committees, including some with community members, to review specialized areas and make recommendations to the full City Coucil. What Council District Do I Live In? Current Council Members by District Year term ends in parenthesis. Send an e-mail message by clicking on the mail icon. District 1 - Council Member Tod W. Ridgeway (2002) .................... = ' District 2 - Council Member Janice A. Debay (2000) .................... District 3 - Council Member Norma J. Glover (2002) .................... - "- District 4 - Mayor Pro Tern Gary Adams (2002) .................... =1 District 5 -Mayor John E. Noyes (2000) .................... District 6 - Council Member Dennis D. ONeil (2002) ......... J`r/ i✓' p4' �kyr District 7 - Council Member Tom Thomson (2000) .................... _ • ' I of 2 Council Polky Manual Boards. Commissions, & Committees Manual City Charter and Municipal Coda The City Council is the legislative body of the City and directly employs the Cijy Clerk the City Attorney, and the City Manager who serves as the chief executive officer of the City and who is responsible for the management and administration of all City functions and personnel. The City Council meets twice per month to review, direct, and legislate on matters of land use, finance, and general governance. Council members also serve on Committees, including some with community members, to review specialized areas and make recommendations to the full City Coucil. What Council District Do I Live In? Current Council Members by District Year term ends in parenthesis. Send an e-mail message by clicking on the mail icon. District 1 - Council Member Tod W. Ridgeway (2002) .................... = ' District 2 - Council Member Janice A. Debay (2000) .................... District 3 - Council Member Norma J. Glover (2002) .................... - "- District 4 - Mayor Pro Tern Gary Adams (2002) .................... =1 District 5 -Mayor John E. Noyes (2000) .................... District 6 - Council Member Dennis D. ONeil (2002) ......... J`r/ i✓' p4' �kyr District 7 - Council Member Tom Thomson (2000) .................... _ • ' I of 2 Thursday, May 20, 1999 Mr. Don Webb, Director Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Webb: a big PLANET DESIGN ina architecture planning interiors a an &WOW41.. ST %999 We represent multiple property owners on the southerly sloping `bluff' side of Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, CA in making the following request regarding the existing Inordinately wide right -oFway on Pacific Drive. The existing City street casement is 80' -0 ", with 26 feet of width beyond the sidewalk on the sloping, 'blufr side of Pacific Drive and about 1 foot on the opposite flat inland side. Most all the southerly lots have varied private improvements including what is currently offsite parking within the public right -of -way on the bluff side (There is also a typical existing sheet flow drainage situation from the Pacific Drive street surface southerly down the sloping bluff side of Pacific Drive across the yards and driveway approaches and on to private property at each lot.) This is to request of the City of Newport Beach by written instrument, to begin procedures to vacate the southerly twenty-six (26) feet of the existing eighty (80) feet wide right -of -way easement along Pacific Drive from Avocado Avenue to Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar. We have attached letters of support from property owners along the subject right -of -way, from approximately Avocado to Begonia Avenues, respectively. We have discussed the issues and priorities relative to this pre - existing inordinately wide right -of -way situation in some detail with Mr. Richard L. Hoffstadt, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer for the City of Newport Beach. Thank you in advance for your anticipated support of this request to vacate, on behalf of the private property owners on the bluff side of Pacific Drive. We appreciate your kind assistance and remain available at your convenience to assist in any way possible to expedite the on Pacific Drive Since /you / / R. Eddv� ' �� 4 W am arils, pria pal Architect PLANET DESIGN, Inc. a. Me, PftDrCDM.n"w 99.I t$ (IAOXL6_� OG!((QI J�i/!�R!!�/- U26ii6 26895 Altso Creck Rd. Ste. B -142 Alim VM3o. CA 92656 USA TeL 949.425.8938 Fax. 949.360.9929 Email: architect@bigplaneccam 0 NQnCE OF PU L1C$ HEABI Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899 for 13 properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive. Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front vard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established property lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right- of -wav; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar. Nest Newport. and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the requirements of the Cali fomia Environmental Quality Act. Notice is hereby further given that said public bearing will be held on the 18th day of May. 2000 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Lary Tucker, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. Vol a 1a"dwFieii.fe� Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899 for 13 properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the_prolonaation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive. Amend Disn ictine Map No. 16 to establish a front vard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the earaees from the newly established proverty lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right- of -wav; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, Nest Newport and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zonine Code. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Notice is hereby further given that said public heaoag will be held on the 18th day of Slay. 2000 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Larry Tucker, Secretary, Planning Commission City of Newport Beac)� Z NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from collected from the applicant. / X� / / pwr Vagtim of rigbtof - -wsy an PacMc Drive Subject: RE: Vacation of ri8bt -of-way on Pacific Drive Date. Wed, 24 May 2000 08:26:23 -0700 Prom! "Dennis ONeil' <doneil@hewittmcguire.com> To: "JERRY VAUGHN'" <Jenyvaughn@home.com> am getting information from the City on this matter and when I receive it will contact you. Dennis O'Neil NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E -MAIL IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL AND MEANT ONLY FOR THE REVIEW AND USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E -MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: JERRY VAUGHN (mailto:jerryvaughn @home.coml Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:31 PM To: doneil @hewittmcguire.com Subject: Vacation of right -of -way on Pacific Drive Mr. O'Neil, I would like to set a up meeting with you regarding the right -of -way issue on our street. The neighborhood is very concerned about this issue. Please contact me by phone at 949 - 723 -0876.O�j� //J Thank You, /�F� "�►'// /� / ,�, (! /ii 2200 6 Jerry Drive �Lt� /!� v Q 2200 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar i/ S?AKIO 1192 Al !4 /s 4 59 -10 v CjFIC PA 2! " 8 23 _` l0 I r 1444 v y: • r KD t BAYSI "° 012 COROIV4 Y 5 BG K. D 0 Ace / 0 1 ~ M r �0 of v Z t2 S. S. USAN S. A UGH 4 -25 -99 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Ike: Variance No. 1228 2215 Pacific Drive Corona del filar Dear Sir or Madam; 1 am once again speaking for myself and my neighbors regarding the remodel Variance No. 1228 at 2215 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar. I stand firm just as I did when Mr. Ross, at 2209 Pacific Drive tried to exceed his height limit and also wanted to build outside his envelope. I don't know if the city council members are the same people that sat on the board during January 25, 1990, but just to refresh everyone's memory please see attached article from Independent News Paper. It has always been my understanding that the non - conforming peaks with skylights that decorate the front of their roof line already exceeds the height limitations, blocking partial views of our bay and the peninsula. We would all like to preserve what views we have left. The other item that concerns us is the encroachment of the roof eaves within 1 foot of the side property lines. With the close proximity to the adjacent properties, possibility of fire and water drainage due to rain could greatly increase dangerous threats to us all. The undersigned want to preserve our town and oppose the building area Variance # 1228 as stated above. SIGNATURE ADDRESS - i r" i W 15 ■e ��I� Lll �IY��0��_ ��IF 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE . CORONA DEL MAR. CA • 92625 PHONE. 949.727.0676 • PAX 949.675.5606 ■ • � � i -01 II \§ MIE // \ �,& R/ o v 9 m9 \G @y ;. 22 ge W. Q Q) . o�ww z � a2- �!� 6= m&Q&� B £\\ 2 : 2 E , .a B a g.a �} \/ 3 \� / d. }/ �§ eQ R/g � {! \/} •- /\ \ 9 WIN, q! : j-f _ |! I ■ <�,• ��! oE22�2/ � ROSS DEVELOPMENT CORP. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN 2209 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 831 -2187 May 3, 1999 City of Newport Beach Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769 3' Re: Request to Approve a Variance to Permit Alterations and Additions, Variance No. 1228 Location: 2215 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Commission Members: After careful analysis and consideration of the request aforementioned above, this letter is to inform you that as trustee for 2209 Pacific Drive, I am in accord and agreement with the position taken by Mrs. Phyllis M. Rodeffer of 2227 Pacific Drive, James Collins and Russ Fluter of Pacific Drive, and several other neighbors that have petitioned before you as pertains to the abovementioned matter. It is essential that all property owners abide by the code regulations, which we were compelled to do, and we have been advised that the requested variance would negatively affect our property as well as other surrounding properties. Furthermore. a property that has an exisiting non - conforming condition should not be allowed to increase the non - conformity at a later date. To allow this to occur would not only affect all the neighbors values and views, which is the case before you, but it would open up a pandoras box for the city and the community. Very truly ours, '�J Ross, Trustee AR /sj ITY AN1 Pi:l 718 10 I t.1y 1 i j i5i$ Re: Request to Approve a Variance to Permit Alterations and Additions, Variance No. 1228 Location: 2215 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Commission Members: After careful analysis and consideration of the request aforementioned above, this letter is to inform you that as trustee for 2209 Pacific Drive, I am in accord and agreement with the position taken by Mrs. Phyllis M. Rodeffer of 2227 Pacific Drive, James Collins and Russ Fluter of Pacific Drive, and several other neighbors that have petitioned before you as pertains to the abovementioned matter. It is essential that all property owners abide by the code regulations, which we were compelled to do, and we have been advised that the requested variance would negatively affect our property as well as other surrounding properties. Furthermore. a property that has an exisiting non - conforming condition should not be allowed to increase the non - conformity at a later date. To allow this to occur would not only affect all the neighbors values and views, which is the case before you, but it would open up a pandoras box for the city and the community. Very truly ours, '�J Ross, Trustee AR /sj NOTIC OF PG'BLtC HEARI�iG Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Christi and Grant Bettingen (Bill Edwards. Architect) for Variance No. 1228 or property located at 2215 Pacific Drive. Request to approve a variance to hermit alterations and additions to an existing non - conforming, (due to hefvht and parking) single family dwelline that will exceed the height limit In the 24/28 foot Height NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the Class I (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 6th day of May, 1499• at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Richard Fuller, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The'expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant THE RRJ 0 �! 7hz�y G?r�;r T��i Ckrrjtl Ptotto!a PHCIIG Nu. : Play. 06 1999 02-55PP1 PS f- architecture planning interiors m ayae JiW' n a ssHO/L.vvrx/,d.. REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE May 6, 1999 RCvEIVCD BY City of Newport Beach PLANNING DE PA RTTIENT Community di Economic Development Department Planning Department 1'1lV 0 G IJ`.1g 3300 Newport Boulevard ANI Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8913 7181911 ul1! lial:lcicl'I;i16 RE- The BETTINCEN Family Residence Mr. & Mrs. Grant Bettingen 2215 Pacific Drive Corona Del filar, CA 92625 PUBLIC HEARING May 6, 1999 REP': Variance Application 41228 Modification 94908 Staff Planner: Mr. Marc Myers, Associate Planner ATTN: Ms. Patricia Temple Planting Director Dear Ms. Temple: Please be advised that we are hereby requesting a continuance regarding the above referenced project. We wish to have our vanance hearing postponed for two (2) weeks until the Thursday, May 20`" Planning Commission hearing date, so as to more effectively and completely address the issues regarding this project. We sincerely thank you and all the planntn.g staff for all of your valued and diligent efforts. We look forward iilclipwarn easure to seeing you in two weeks. ly your/ n — R. Edwards. Architect WRE/PDi. Bettngnites. Doc.7 Proj. #98 -113 Gfa z,v. f�C.�et�u aGe�,✓,,�.fo.,.n,, rrl.VV�� y meWN � %�,y{eYVllll�I- UICIIMI lreLifll�.IMdl�f 26891 Al1w Cre& Rd. Ste. B•142 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 USA Tel.: 949.42SAM Fix: 949.360.9929 Email: arcWrect@bigplanct.eom NOTIC)� OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Christi and Grant Bettingen Bill Edwards, Architect) for Variance No. 1228 on property located at 2215 Pacific Drive. Request to approve a variance to permit alterations and additions to an existing non - conforming (due to heleht and parldne) single family dwelling that will exceed the height limit In the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone and the maximum allowable floor area limit on property located in the R -1 District. The aypUcatton also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor bay window to NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the Class I (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Enviroamental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public bearing will be held on the 6th day of May, 1999, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public bearing. For information call (949) 6443200. Newport Richard Fuller, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of NOTE: tbe:expense of this notice is paid frorn a filing fee / i `, -`� �Eww,y, CITY OF NE +P/9"T BEACH IT li �' •ee COMMUNY and L jNOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ji= PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 PROJECT: PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: ACTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONE: A ►I Agenda Ite... No.: Staff Person: Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Bettingen Residence (Bill Edwards, Architect) 2215 Pacific Drive May 6, 1999 3 Marc Myers (949) 644 -3210 14 days Request to approve a variance to permit alterations and additions to an existing non - conforming single family dwelling (due to height and parking) that will exceed the height limit in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone by approximately 18 feet and exceed the maximum allowable floor area limit on property located in the R -1 District. The application also includes a modification' to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor bay window to encroach into the required side yard setback area and the roof eaves to encroach within 1 foot of the side property lines. Approve, modify or deny: • Variance No. 1228 • Modification No. 4908 .i; Parcel 14, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract R -1 (Single Family Residential) Christi and Grant Bettingen, Corona Del Mar Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single uses. A single family residence is a permitted use within this designation. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). • Variance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. • Modification procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.93 of the Municipal Code. a big PLANET DESIGN architecture planning interiors 16-a ~&.. _ ,7 _ Thursday, May 20, I' Mr. Don Webb, Dire Public Worm Depart City of Newport Bew 3300 Newport Boulez Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Webb: We represent multipi del Mar, CA in making the following request regarding the existing inordinately wide right -of-way on Pacific Drive. The existing City street casement is 80' -0 ", with 26 feet of width beyond the sidewalk on the sloping, 'bluff' side of Pacific Drive and about I foot on the opposite flat inland side. Most all the southerly lots have varied private improvements including what is currently off -site parking within the public right -of -way on the bluff side. (There is also a typical existing sheet flow drainage situation from the Pacific Drive street surface southerly down the sloping bluff side of Pacific Drive across the yards and driveway approaches and on to private property at each lot.) This is to request of the City of Newport Beach by written instrument, to begin procedures to vacate the southerly twenty -six (26) feet of the existing eighty (80) feet wide right -of -way easement along Pacific Drive from Avocado Avenue to Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar. We have attached letters of support from property owners along the subject right -of -way, from approximately Avocado to Begonia Avenues, respectively. We have discussed the issues and priorities relative to this pre - existing inordinately wide right -of -way situation in some detail with Mr. Richard L. Hoffstadt. P.E. Principal Civil Engineer for the City of Newport Beach. Thank you in advance for your anticipated support of this request to vacate, on behalf of the private property owners on the bluff side of Pacific Drive. We appreciate your kind assistant and remain available at your convenience to assist in any way possible to expedite the vacation /process on Pacific Drive. since ' /yyo,�uTO C � ' G NzR Edwards: pOpal Architect PLANET DESIGN, inc. c m Me. PmDrCDM.m+d" ". ON WK52 r � / N Please see attached letter that was never left out front on the table for all to see dated XdINKMr.. The Planning Commission told us that we could not discuss this easement at this time. Guess now is the time one -year later. June A I999 Mr. Dick Hoffstadt Public Works Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Hoffstadt: BERRY VAT.'! ?NN ( RECEIVED BY PLANNING D_PARTAIENT CITY 0;: r. EACH AM Pm 7181911011111wi11E�3i4131G This letter is regarding the vacating of the right -of -way easement along Pacific Drive, as purposed by Mr. Edwards of Planet Design in a letter dated May 20, 1999. Two of the things we Gke about our street is, the openness, by that I mean the distance between the front of homes from one side of the street to the other, which is not found on other streets in Corona del Mar. The second is the views of the bay and ocean, both of which could be taken away by the vacating of the easement. Before we purchased our home on Pacific Drive, we went down to the city planning dept., to be sure of what the setbacks and building heights were on the slope side of the street, because we would be paying a premium on our property because of the view from all 4 of our lots. We did purchase our home after being given the information by die city, because the felt safe that the setbacks and building heights in the building code would not change, and our property values would be protected by the heights & limitations that are in place. If this vacating of the easement were to pass, the possibility of a larger building area would occur on the lots, which could allow for homes to be larger than the 1 V2 times the buildable area they have now. Almost every neighbor in the past has voted against building outside the existing envelope, see attached sheets of signatures. With the slope as it is (relatively flat with driveways on them) could allow for taller homes being build, and closer to the street. All the homes on Pacific Dr. that have been built are set back evenly, and no one is extending out closer to the curb blocking the side view from their neighbors front entrance. The vacation may permit the properties along the ocean side of Pacific Drive to build taller structures restricting both the private views on the inland side of Pacific Drive as well as the public views from Pacific Drive. The street is a favorite street for our residents to walk, jog, and bike, and many stop on the sidewalk to enjoy the beautiful view. Other than going to Big Corona or a small portion of the park, this is the only "Public" view left for our residents to enjoy the bay, ocean, Catalina sunsets, and the Pavilion. 2!00 PACOPiC DRIVE . CORONA OFL MAR. CA • 12620 PNONR 110.'1]1.000{ • I'Al 0190'0.1000 -2— June 24, 1999 Both of the above examples would have a negative impact on my homes value, and the values of all our neighbors' homes on our side of the street. I spoke with the appraiser that appraised our property when purchased, he said the loss in value could be up to $100,000.00 per lot, which is a large impact to us as we are on four lots. I urge your department not to grant this request, and uphold the building code as it exists, as this is just another a way to get around the heights and size limitations, and bypass the variance approval process, that protect the property values on our street. Thank you, JERRY VAUGI -N City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 SUBJECT: BetHngen Residence (Bill Edwards, Architect) 2215 Pacific Drive �{' (Continued from May 6, and May 20, 1999) u 17" I� /' • Variance No. 1228 ��. Q/ /i/ Modification No. 4908 equ o approve a variance to permit alterations and additions to an �1 fie isti g non - conforming single family dwelling (due to height and parking) ,� Ly will exceed the height limit in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone by i� pproximately 18 feet and exceed the maximum allowable floor area limit on property located in the R -1 District. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor bay window to 1I q/ �/6ncroach into the required side yard setback area and the roof eaves to encroach within 1 foot of the side p , perty lineJ)s._ �Rubliccommentwasopened Bill Edwards. Architect, 26895 Viso Creek Road. Aliso Viejo spo a representing the applicants. He requested that the FAR to exceed the maximum 1 allowable square footage be deleted from this application and consideration at this time. He reserves the right to further study this issue for modification and re -apply in the future. t Chairperson Selich noted that if the applicant is withdrawing the request for the floor area. the structure design will change. do you have a revised plan for review as part of that? Mr. Edwards answered that they want to hold the family room level and retrofit to the two bedrooms that would otherwise remain. hold the upper level which is the entry level and the middle level to the proposed profile to address the sub - standard dimensions in the kitchen. living. dining in the upper level as well as the master bedroom and bedroom configurations on the mid level. This would maintain the height requests. The lowest level is the family room. At this time. he narrated a slide presentation showing the existing house in the context of existing and current development in the neighborhood. Mr. Edwards then presented and explained a colored graphic showing a side view of the revised proposed building profile. Chairperson Selich asked staff if they had reviewed the revised profile presented by Mr. Edwards and is it in conformance and not needing a floor area variance. Marc Myers answered that he had no opportunity to review the revised profile. 7 INDEX Item No. 3 V No. 1228 and Modification Permit No. 4908 f �Z City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1999 Mr. Lax then asked that the Planning Commission deny the modification. Chairperson Selich asked for and received a further clarification of the colored retouched photo. Mr. Lax noted that the "green" area represents the potential building envelope if the height limitation is maintained with building a flat roof and extending out. The 'orange' area actually represents the outline of the building as proposed by the applicant. In response to Commission inquiry, Associate Planner Marc Myers noted that without a closer look at the drawings and having the ability to scale and evaluate it under those terms, there is no ability to determine the accuracy of the photo. Commissioner Tucker asked if the excess building height has to do with the fact of the slope of the hill. Mr. Myers clarified the following at Commission inquiry: Anything that goes over the steeper portion of the hill is measured from the lower level; therefore the building height is greater. • Height has to be measured from the natural grade. • Existing structure is approximately 11 feet over the height limit and the line of the existing roof will continue outward and remain constant to the existing plane but, will be higher since the roof is extended and the grade is lower. • Houses on either side, because they were new construction, do conform to both the height limit and the maximum allowable floor area. Roger Pechuls, 2216 Pacific Drive spoke in opposition to this project. He stated that their proposed extension beyond what the code allows definitely affects his view. He bought his house with the view in mind. He projected on what the information he received from the city as to what the maximum height and slope of houses would be and how it would affect his home. Referring to the re- touched Lax photo, he noted the impairment of his view of the proposed project. Mr. Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive spoke in opposition to this project. He suggested that the roofline is problematic to his view. He stated that the flat part of the roof if extended out would impair his view. Prior to the purchase of his home, he went to the City to find out about the setbacks and height elevations, because he paid a premium for a view property. In speaking to an appraiser he was informed that the property values have the potential of losing from $40,000 to $100,000 per lot based on the re- touched Lax photo. In concluding, he asked that the height variance be rejected. INDEX 44SU6AN i City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Re: Variance No. 1228 Dear Sir or Madam: S. VAUGHN` Of I have to write this letter to everyone on the Planning Commission regarding last nights meeting 6 -24 -99 regarding Variance No. 1228 that finally took place after 3 attempts and a long stretched out waiting period for all concerned. I have never seen so much confusion regarding what each side was trying to relay and we the neighbors without seeing or given the real set of plans, and once again being denied the pole & string method (which is in our minds, still is the only way to prove to all what the finished product is actually going to look like.) How could this meeting come to an end with all the confusing and conflicting facts? at me get this straight. The Be*tingens decided to remodel their house. They decide it would be wise before they spend a lot of time and money to first get approval from all the neighbors. Surely, that would be most impressive having that in hand along with whatever plans and variances the Bentingens would be asking for. They then proceeded to invite each neighbor one by one over to their home for a cheese & vine party to share their ideas for a new remodeled home. Many will admit now everything looked O.K and the mention of a roof elevation was not really discussed. As Mr. Pechuls said last night, when he was invited over he did ask if the roofline was going to be raised & he was told NO! In fact, he was told the roofline would be lower than the existing roof they had now. 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE . CORONA DEL MAR, CA • 92625 PHONE: 919.123.0616 • PAX: 949.615.5606 -2— June 27, 1999 So now, the Belttingens have to wait for the Vaughn's to get back from their vacation. (We're the neighbors the BeATingens like to refer to as the ones that live in the "Big Mansion" across the street. We were called and written letters on how urgent it was that we all get together to review their plans. I remember telling Ms. Bentingen that many of us on our block do not know how to read plans and I admitted I was one of them. I told them spending time with me would be useless, but my husband would be happy to look at them because he does know more about building than most. It was my husband, after studying the plans that said, " It looks like your are planning on raising your existing roof line ?" It was then when their architect said, " well yes, it will come up a little." Then Jerry asked, "what's your idea of just a little." Then Mr. Edwards replayed, Oh, around 2 feet. After finding out from the majority neighbors that they were not aware of the fact that a height elevation would be taking place a community letter was sent out and as you can see all the names the Beittingsens collected at their cheese & wine parties are definitely feeling misled and are opposing the height elevation and asking for this variance not to be passed. Please see green highlighted lots all around the Befitingens Pink lot that are now saying NO to their plans. I believe the stakes and tape never went up for all concerned to see because they didn't want to alarm the neighbors they had spent so much time entertaining. It was then when Douglas Lax took the time to show all by using a real photo of the Belttingens home and overlapping it in color, which we feel will be their new roofline. In the meantime we are sent our blue post card from the city telling us if we have a problem regarding our neighbors remodel, please state your concerns, and come to our meeting. After months of delays due to more time needed by the Befttingens we finally have our day in court. It was obvious in last nights meeting (with all the "he said ", "they said ", "we can", "we can't's that if both sides could not convince each other what height elevations were going to be used and the panel repeatedly went around and around on what they were trying to understand it to be, how can a vote or a decision take place and be passed with all the doubt and confusion that was going on around the room? Is it not the Planning Commissions purpose to look into and weigh all facts before a quick decision is pasted? The majority has asked two times (once to our neighbors) "We want to see your roof elevation. "Please put up the poles." We ask the commission last night to help clear up the confusion by requesting the Bedttingens to put up the sticks. Isn't this the fairest way to handle such a crucial dispute? (Motion was denied). We showed you a concept of what we believe to be true regarding where this roof line on their property is going to end up and you some how are convinced because the other side says this is not accurate that it really doesn't matter where the roof line ends up we're going to give it to them anyway as long as they stay in their 1 1/2 building area, and bring in 10 days from now another set of plans. -3— June 27, 1999 We are all more confused than ever regarding last night's decision. We do not belong to an association, but we are a majority of concerned neighbors within a 300 -foot radius responding to our postcard OPPOSING the Bettfingens request for a higher roof elevation. Question? Does the Planning commission have the right to trade this for that, which is what we all felt, was going on last night? It looks to us like you were saying "you stay in your 1 '/a building envelope and change your side modifications and we'll let you have the height elevation. We all walked out feeling our point in this matter was missed entirely and definitely not heard. The majority DOES NOT WANT THE ROOF LINE TO BE RAISED and if there is going to be some trading done, (you give them this and we'll give you that) don't we the majority have a right to either say yea or nay to that call. We have all told the Belitingens to build what ever they want but don't raise your roofline which will take away most of all our views. We got nowhere last night after responding to your post card and as one of your members said on the board, " "you know this is all going to be appealed again anyway." We all think he Was the only one that night that was right on. /We also got wind of another tactic that maybe the Bettttingens architect later on will use in i order to get back what they were so willing and ready to trade off. Once again the neighbors were not suppose to see or hear about this until a later date (see attached letter from the architect, Mr. Edwards, to the city public works. We believe all the delays for this meeting were caused by the Beirtingens to move closer to the out come of their next pending plan. This letter might explain why we kept hearing the architect for the Bedtingens side keep saying when asked by the panel certain issues, "things might change a little later on down the line." Once again we're back to "you know ", "we know ", "they know" what their next move is going to be. For the record, we the neighbors did not feel it was our right to bring up new issues" that have been brought to our attention, and because it is not fact until it actually happens, it would have just made the meeting even messier. Correct? We feel this whole charade that was played out on 6-24 -99 was just a waste of everyone's time, because we all know things will be changed again by the Bedttingens if and when they play out the rest of their cards. We also feel with out all the facts at our meeting last night that the Planning Commission should maybe reconsider their snap decision on giving them their height elevation, or is it now out of your hands and we are to get ready to be passed to the next level? Please feel free to advise us on what everyones next step should be. Obviously responding to blue post cards and attending a meetings got us absolute no where. inc rely / THE CONCERNED NEIGHBORHOOD ON PACIFIC DRIVE, Suzi Vaughn ITEM NO. 2. SUBJECT: Bettl WeR . ence (8 i�verds, Arch test) 2215 Pacific Drive (Continued from May 6, May 20, and June 24, 1999) SUMMARY: Request to approve a variance to permit alterations and additions to an existing non - conforming single family dwelling (due to height and parking) that will exceed the height limit in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone and the maximum allowable floor area limit on property located in the R -1 District. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a second floor bay window to encroach into the required side yard setback area and the roof eaves to encroach within 1 foot of the side property lines. REQUIRED Hold public hearing; �^ ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Variance No. 1228 � • Modification No. 4908= fX�i"�._ ITEM NO. 3. ��G�� ✓�L SUBJE _ Jiffy Lube of Newport Beach (Ardeshir Bahar, Archie ' J� 1520 West Coast highway (Continued from June 24, 1999) SUMMARY: Request to permit an automobile maintenance facility that specializes in oil and filter changes and chassis lubrication only. The facility has three extended or tandem service bays capable of accommodating up to approximately 6 automobiles at one time and is located in the RSC District. The application also includes a request to waive sixteen of the required parking spaces. REQUIRED Hold public hearing; ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: ITEM NO. 4. • Use Permit No. 3647 Balboa Bay Club 1221 West Coast Highway (Continued from June 24, 1999) SUMMARY: An amendment to change the development limitations of the existing Planned Community District Regulations to correct an error in the original calculation of the building size associated with the previous approval, as well as to allow an increase in the size of the hotel facility to provide adequate. building support areas, athletic facilities, and meeting space. Also 7/15/99 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Re: Variance No. 1228 2215 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar Dear Sir or Madam: JERRY VAUGHN At the last meeting 7 -8 -99 one of the commissioners, ask if we could meet outside when the meeting was over to discuss a time and place to give the photos from our homes to Mr. Edwards. We waited outside, but when Mrs. Bettingen came out with Mr. Edwards, she grabbed his arm and, said "I do not want you talking with these people," and they left. We were never contacted by the Bettingen's, or Mr. Edwards so we delivered our photos to the city and gave them to Mr. Myers where they could be picked up. All photos were taken from the houses affected across the street and were delivered to the planning dept. on Monday 7- 12 -99. I am writing this letter because of a concern regarding two telephone calls we received from Mrs. Bettingen on 7- 14 -99. During the call, she stated the planning commission rejected our photos, and that the photos were not acceptable to the commission. She then stated that she and her entourage along with the commissioners would be the ones coming through our homes around 1:00 and they would be taking their own pictures. Can you please explain why her camera is going to take better pictures than ours? All this fuss is getting ridiculous and totally out of hand. It seems unusual to me that the commission would have a position on whether the photos were acceptable or not and that they would be coming out to take photos themselves. I spent 2 hours today at the planning dept. looking at the two photos submitted by the Bettingens and listening to the tape of the June 24 meeting. In regards to the photos, taken by the Bettingen's from a vacant house n the corner. Mr. Siegelman, the Bettingen's attorney noted, regarding Mr. Lax photo, that it could be misleading at best. Commissioner Hoglund noted that there is no way to scale a photo, Commissioner Gifford agreed that it is difficult to use as a basis a photograph were the angles and alterations are not clear as to what they were made on, as opposed to architectural drawing. Mr. Edwards pointed out that; a photo with superimposed graphics is not an accurate representation as it could be telephoto, and or, enlarged shot which is a 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE • CORONA DEL MAR, CA • 92625 PHONE: 949 -]21 -08]6 • PAX: 949.675.5606 -2— May 22, 2000 simulated telephoto. After all of the above statements, we were told our photo was not acceptable on 6- 24 -99. These points must also hold true with the, architect for the Bettingen's, Mr. Edwards photos, his photo is also superimposed with graphics, his photo is not scaleable, his photo could also be misleading and should not be used as fact. As I said, "the only way to get a clear picture from each individual home as to what the roofline is actually going to be, is by putting up story poles. This is a more cost - effective way to go about it, and a full proof way to prove to all what they are going to end up with. I noted while listening to the tape that it was said that story poles had already been erected, and in the last meeting, Mr. Edwards said his clients would not erect the story poles again, which implies they had been up before. I would hope that with all the confusion that they simply were mistaken, and not trying to be disingenuous with the committee. We would like to see proof that the poles went up, certainly one of the neighbors would have seen the display of poles if this truly did happen, and I'm positive as concerned as this neighborhood is photos would have been taken on both sides, and pens and highlighters would have been used as demonstrations at one of our meetings. Please call me on the committee's problems regarding the recent requested photos we sent in. I would also like to mention that we are once again going backwards instead of forward regarding this show and tell variance that the majority say they do not want passed. We didn't make the rules that all are suppose to follow, we were just asked to respond to your post card. Quite frankly the neighbors are getting really tired of the mud slinging, the demands, the having to be around for meetings, the delays, and everything else that has sprung up over this variance the Bettingen's feel they just have to have. We would like our neighborhood to go back to the way it was and the city to stay firm on the laws they put down and expect everyone else to follow. Isn't that really what this is all about anyway? We feel it is not our job (the neighbors) to prove to anyone why we want this variance dropped. We are not the ones that asked for it and certainly after 8 months have politely done what everyone has asked us to do. This picture issue is just another pony show for delays. Please just have them put up the poles! If there is nothing to hide let the whole world see it for themselves. Please lets move on! Sincerely, Jerry & Suzi Vaughn 1Q, lk I i RID:' iLl I &NI . 1. i�l NO r�CE OF PUBLIC H "INo Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach on Amendment No. 899 for 13 properties located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive. Amend Districting Map No. 16 to establish a front Yard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established pronerty lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right- of -wav; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Propertv Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, Nest Newport. and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the requirements of the Cali fomia Environmental Quality Act. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 18th day of May. 2000 at the hour of 7_00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be Limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. _ Larry Tucker, Secretary, Planning Commission, Ci ofNe ort Bea4 �? NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. � /j /L/ . _ - ILL ✓4. � e _ s I� 0 ITEM NO. 2. SUBJECT: Prudential California Realty 3301 East Coast Highway SUMMARY: REQUIRED ACTION: ITEM NO. 3. SUBJECT: SUMMARY: APPLICATION: ITEM NO. 4.' SUBJECT: SUMMARY: Review of Modification No. 5059, relative to the proposed sign program for a multi -tenant building. Hold public hearing; Approve, modify or deny: Modification Permit No. 5059 Sage Restaurant (Mead's Restaurant Company LLC, applicant) 2531 Eastbluff Drive A request to upgrade the existing Alcoholic Beverage Outlet approval to allow for the sale of general alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47 License). Use Permit No. 1640 Amended City of Newport Beach ((�� Thirteen properties located on the uff side of Pacific Drive, from 2205 Pacific Drive to the prolongation of the line west of Begonia Avenue at 2329 Pacific Drive Amend Districting Map'No. 16 to establish a front yard setback of 10 feet for the dwellings and 19 feet for the garages from the newly established property lines of properties located on the south side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and the west side of Begonia Avenue due to the vacation of a portion of the public right -of -way; amend Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) and Section 20.10.040 (Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula) of the Zoning Code. A � I � � S - 14112 SUSAN S 5/17/00 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: Amendment No. 899 Vacation of right-of-way on Pacific Drive Dear Sir or Madam: VAUgLIN RECEIVF-D By PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 0P Nr— 'MOre- A ; .) AM MAX 1 b 20W 78I I 9 I 10 1111 I 12 1I 2I 3I 4I 5I 6 Once again we come together regarding the "goings on" on Pacific Drive in Corona del Nlar. Almost a year ago, the neighbors up and down Pacific Drive came together responding to the post card type notices that were sent out, regarding one neighbors remodeling. Hands down the majority of homeowners said build what you want, but please don't go up and block our view. The Planning Commission literally came through our homes and with their own eyes determined in their minds what amount of water view, light, etc. would be lost if they granted the height elevation to our neighbor. Somehow, the imaginary height that no one could actually see because story poles were not allowed to go up was passed by the Planning Commission. I ask this next question because we have once again received another blue post card concerning set backs, etc. on Pacific Drive and the property owners up and down the street are wondering if we all gear up again are we (the majority) going to be ignored once again. By the way, just for the record this latest post card regarding vacating set backs was known by many during the time the Bettingen's were given their ok by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission said, (we can not discuss this issue because it did not pertain to the business at hand). Well, here we go again almost a year later, the neighbors house has not been built, and we are all asked once again to meet and now we can discuss the happenings on Pacific Dr.. I'm sure all kinds of building regulations, new property taxes, etc. will be discussed at this meeting and would someone on the committee please explain why we should response to the post cards you sent out, if a majority vote of the neighborhood, be it yes or no, means nothing. Thank You, Susan Vaughn 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE • CORONA DEL MAR, CA • 92625 PHONE: 949.721.0676 • PAS: 949. 671.1606 SLJSAN S. VAUGHN 5/22/00 City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Re: Amendment No. 899 Dear Sir or Madam: Please see the letter attached sent to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1999 regarding all the confusion the majority of homeowners had to go through. The m jori that responded to their post cards opposing this variances No. 1228 walked out stunned that the Planning Commission could give the height elevation to the Bentingens as long as they stay in their 1' /2 times building area especially because no one could ever say where that height might be. I know we should have appealed this because of the unfairness of it all, but with the majority of the street saying no and the majority on the Planning Commission say yes, we all just felt that the next level would most likely treat us the same way. I guess what has been done a year ago is "spilled milk", but we do want you to know that what the Bettingen's have planned next will not be walked away from. Please see letter dated May 22, 2000 after another confusing meeting with the Planning Commission. Thank You, Susan Vaughn 2200 PACIFIC DRIVE • CORONA DEL MAR, CA • 92625 PHONE: 949.725.0876 . FAX: 949.675.5606 • CITY O;z MAY 13 2000 AM PM *oo / .: S / /� 'lnlecouA� r6V�,i �167=49ee>L �4?, ex / �� / / / r A . I / I � �G I .4 Ar Z �4oc- 6a4LF 3123 12:22 .. ......... ... ...... ... f`,U.010 vZ'C SHEILA ROSS 2209 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 June 10, 2000 The Honorable Mayor and City Counsel Members 3300 Newport Blvd. Newoott Beach, CA 92658 Re: Pacific Drive Vacation Dear Honorable Mayor and City Counsel Members: "RECEIVED AF7FR AGENDA PRINTED: ".F� or to _ 13 -OQ As owner of 2209 Pacific Drive, I am in full support of the abandonment which would benefit all homeowners on our street as well as the city. If one listened to all the drivel being put cut by our controlling neighbor on the street, I can understand that it seems to be more of a minus than a plus but, those who are Knowledgable of the true facts, know that is not the case. 1 do not appreciate the heavy handed tactics of Susan and Jerry Vaughn in misinforming our good neighbors, as well as many non - concerned persons that ran through the streets last week in a 5K run. My husband and I cannot believe the ridiculous behavior of this over - bearing couple. Last year they tried to dictate what we should or could not plant in our own front lawn. These two ;ndivid�als want to control the happenings or. our street for their self - serving, selfish benefit and you should not be swayed ty the hundred or so signatures that they obtained on false information and pretenses. Do not oppose the abandonment. It is good for all concerned. Sheila Ross FROM : Christi Mottola PHONE NO. : Jun. 13 2000 11:19AM P2 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Re: I am In favor of the abandonment of Pacific Drive. June 14, 2000 My name is Chriss Street and our family owns the home at 2223 Pacific Drive. I am very much in favor of the abandonment passing and was part of the group that first approached the city to get this process into motion over a year ago. We met with representatives from the planning department, public works, and the city attorney, along with Bill Edwards, Christi Bettingen, and my father -in -law Max Cox, who knows more history about this area than any of us. My family has been trying to clean up the estate, and Max has been asking us for some time now when the City was going to go ahead and abandon this excess right -o£ -way. You see he puts things real simply. There never was a train and there is never is going to be a train here, so just give the land to the homeowners as was intended years ago. As a property owner and businessman, I feel strongly that this excess on Pacific should be vacated. Now, I've heard that some residents on the north are suggesting they should get part of the land and that disturbs me for practical reasons and moral reasons. The south side property owners have been disadvantaged unfairly for many years unlike any other street in Corona del Mar. Even putting the train situation apart, all the homes on the bluff side have serious hardships iN ith literally no flat pad on which to build, most have front garage entries and the lots are much less in depth than the ones across the street. So essentially the south side homeowners are significantly burdened with much less building area than their neighbors. Most of the north properties have building pads that are elevated above the street, some as much as a half story, and the lots are flat and deep. Their buildable is about 30% more efficient to develop than the south side, not to mention the nice, uninterrupted front yard areas due to their rear alley entrances for their garages. The northerly properties also enjoy a nice wide greenbelt parkway which buffers them from the street paving as opposed to the other side which is much narrower in width. The northerly lots have generous landscaped front yard areas, many with porches and patios, and all but one without interruption by a driveway. The most serious inequity however, is that the southerly properties have no front yards which they own, and literally walk out their fi•ont doors and step onto city property. Quite honestly, many of the south side homeowners thought they owned that land, and now that they have a chance to officially hold title you should give it to them. This abandonment hurts no one and corrects a situation that should have been corrected a long time ago. Sincerely, Chriss Street 2223 Pacific Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 06/i3iaa i2: l,3 h- rc3S�- 4 74�16443a3'3 N0.ea7 v32 AL ROSS 2209 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 June 10, 2000 The Honorable Mayor and City Counsel Members 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Pacific Drive Vacation Dear Honorable Mayor and City Counsel Members: As pertains to the matter that will be before you on June 13, 2000 regarding the vacation of property on Pacific Drive, this is to inform you that as homeowners of 2209 Pacific Drive, we support the vacation as explained in the informative document disseminated by Christi 6ettinger and Bill Edwards. My wife and I find it appalling that Susan and Jerry Vaughn have taken it upon themselves to misinform the community as to the facts of a favorable vacation ruling. They have opposed everyone that has applied for a variance or modification, and they have incited the entire neighborhood with petitions, hoopla, and their despicable conduct even though they are in violation of the height limitation with their fence and pillars, which the city is aware of. They own the largest property on the block as well. If you deny the vacation, then you might as well appoint the Vaughns as the governing body of the City Counsel, allowing you all to resign. Do the right and just thing for the city and the homeowners and approve the street vacation. Do not allow the number of signatures that have been obtained from false and misleading representations and from persons that are not remotely involved to sway you. Also, the Daily Pilot received the true facts after they went to press, as the article on June 10, 2000 does not explain the pending situation completely. The reference that there will be a lawsuit it the City allows the vacation is totally absurd. As an attorney, I believe that if anyone would have a just cause to institute a lawsuit, it would be the homeowners that would be deprived of the right from the vacation, which is in your power to approve. Very truly yours, ✓AL oss June 13, 2000 Mayor John E. Noyes Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Yes• to the Pacific Drive right -of -way vacation!!! Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Ann Stern and I live at 49 South Hampton Court in Newport Beach. I've lived in this community for over 20 years, and was married to Wolf Stem who was an attorney, and passed away earlier this year. I have seen him stand up for many injustices over the years, and that is why I have chosen to speak up today. I think there is something seriously wrong with our system when citizens are allowed to use a public forum to present false and misleading information that is harmful to others for their own personal gain. I have known the Bettingens for almost 20 years and what I have seen some of those neighbors put them through recently is appalling. Those who present information in a public forum even if it was not originated by them initially, should be held accountable for such statements. These allegations that have been circulated about the Bettingens and their home, should not be allowed to continue and has injured their goodwill amongst their neighbors and spurned their fine reputations in the community. I was present at their earlier hearings last year during their variance process and some of their neighbors were truly out of line then and have really crossed the line this time. If this were a court of law this type of behavior would not be allowed to occur without recourse. I believe that passing this abandonment is the right thing to do and I encourage you to do what is right and not be influenced by these other activities that have been meant to get everyone distracted and off the real issues here. Sincerely, Sw, S� Ann Stem June 12, 2000 Mr. John E. Noyes, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: I am in favor of the vacation of the southerly portion of the Pacific Drive right of way! Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Steve McNash and I live at 2319 Pacific Drive. My home is a candidate for a remodel and I am very much in favor of the abandonment. I attended the community meeting and I'm actually very surprised by the reaction I've seen with all the signs and petitions on the street. I remember at the planning commission meeting they were talking about changing the front setback fines forward from where they now are. But after all the commotion at the last planning hearing they changed that. So what is the concern now? With the approval of the abandonment as proposed, everything on the street stays the same. With all the campaigning that's been going on in the neighborhood and those signs that don't make any sense, they keep talking like things are going to change. It seems to me to be a pretty simple thing to understand. As I see it, the city is going to give us back what we thought was ours anyway. They are even giving it to us with a restriction where we can't build in it. This way people don't have to worry about changing the character of the street or building closer to the sidewalk, like the one fellow said in the newspaper article. Basically, we just get the square footage that lets us build on the other side of the house towards the slope? Why is this so hard for people to understand? I'd like to get past all this nonsense and have the City give us back the land we thought was ours to begin with by passing this abandonment. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve 2319 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA Mr. John E. Noyes, Mayor June 13, 2000 Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: I am in favor of the Pacific Drive abandonment. Dear Mayor and City Council Members, My name is Grant Bettingen. I have lived at 2215 Pacific Drive since 1983 and I have been an Orange County resident since 1970. I support the proposal because it allows my family to own a small piece of land extending from 5 feet in front of my house which in fact I thought I actually already owned. We learned that Pacific Drive was made extra wide in the early 1900's to accommodate the Pacific Electric Railway that was planned to go down our street. That project was abandoned, and then later the land was subdivided into the lots that now make up the south side of Pacific Drive. Somehow however, they left the right -of way disproportionately wider than any of the other streets in Corona del Mar at 80 feet verses 50 feet, but it doesn't look that way to the naked eye because that extra width is what makes up all of our front yards. When we discovered this oddity, we attempted to deal with it on an individual basis, but were told by several city representatives, that because this was true for all the south side homeowners, that the city would want to handle this as a summary abandonment. This was presented to us as a process that was rather standard with the City. Little did we know? Given that we later discovered that the City had already abandoned one lot and a portion of another on Pacific sometime ago, I believe that precedence has already been established for an abandonment on an individual basis as well. I believe if you do not abandon this street during this hearing as a group, you will be revisiting this issue on an individual basis over and over again for the years to come. I realize that the neighbors across the street have tried to initiate hysteria by stirring up other decent neighborly people by spreading misinformation, but that is another issue of which you are blatantly aware. We want to live in peace and not be driven out of the neighborhood. It has been pointed out to those who oppose this, that when the city's abandonment passes, that the net result will not effect their view or change their standard of living. What the abandonment process affords us is peace of mind by allowing us to own the strip of property outside our front door and grants us a few hundred square feet that puts us a little more on par with our neighbors. Our north side neighbors views will not be effected in the least since this would be added on the slope side, and an upgraded residence across from them will most certainly increase their property values and aesthetically enhance their viewing pleasure. It is normal to own the land directly in front of ones front door like any other property owner has the right to own, and I encourage you to pass this now. Sincerely yours, Grant i 2215 Pacific Drive ive June 12, 2000 Mr. John E. Noyes, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: I am in favor of vacating a portion of the Pacific Drive right -of -way! Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Nancy McNasb and I live at 2319 Pacific Drive and I am in favor of the abandonment. I see no reason why this abandonment shouldn't pass. The city isn't allowing anything to physically change on the street and most people unless you were to tell them, wouldn't even know that anything even happened. There are very few houses that would probably do anything with the square footage for some time and even if they did, they would still have to stay within all the current height restrictions and setbacks. So essentially they wouldn't look any different from anyone else and certainly no larger than the nearby houses. As I understand it, our lots are quite shorter in depth than the lots on the north side. I believe that even after we get the additional square footage, we still would not have homes that could be as large as the ones on the north side. Plus the homes on our side of the street usually build towards the ocean because most prefer to face the view, which means they typically build down the slope with much of the home hidden into the hillside. I know there are a lot of people who are afraid that things are going to change, but their fears are unfounded. Hopefully, you will see to it to that they understand. I think that it is only fair that we own that land since we have been treating it like our own all this time. However, now that I know it's not really ours I don't think you can continue to let things go on unsettled. I encourage you to grant us full ownership of the land. Sincerely, I Na IC McNaSh 2319 Pacific Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 June 10, 2000 Mr. Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF UNUSED RIGHT - OF -WAY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE IN CORONA DEL MAR Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: My name is Jack Pautsch. I live at 2204 Waterfront Drive, which is right around the corner from Pacific Drive, and I also own property on Pacific Drive; therefore, I am very interested in the council decision regarding this matter. I am familiar with the controversy surrounding the proposed abandonment, and as a neighborhood resident, local businessman, and property owner on Pacific Drive, I strongly believe that APPROVAL of this request is the sensible and right action to be taken by the Newport Beach City Council. This request is not about the landowners on the south side of Pacific Drive trying to get something for nothing. It is about the updating of land use actions taken for certain reasons over previous decades, and the implementation of contemporary land use practices. My understanding is that originally the north side of Pacific Drive was platted as a single loaded street, at which time the centerline of Pacific Drive was established where it exists today, in part, because of the special and unusual circumstance of adjacent railway property. The lots on the north side of the street were assigned setbacks by zoning regulation, and the properties have since been developed in compliance with those regulations. It also seems to me that in subsequent years the Newport Beach City Staff probably made decisions relating to the development of the south side of Pacific Avenue specifically relative to the centerline of Pacific Avenue in an attempt to deal with the complication of the railway property; thereby, attempting to achieve an end result as close as possible to standard land use practices typical to Corona Del Mar. The result is by and large a very typical street, except that at sometime over previous years, the City of Newport Beach became the owner of the railway property, and therefore, very un- customarily, owns the front yards of the homes on the south side of Pacific Avenue. The primary consequence of this impact to the owners of property on the south side of Pacific Avenue is that the square footage of the front yard areas do not allow them to enjoy the same ratio of buildable improvements on their lots as do the owners of lots on the north side of Pacific Avenue, as typical to Corona Del Mar. Page Two (2) Pacific Drive Abandonment June 10, 2000 In my opinion, there is no significant negative impact to the homeowners on the north side of Pacific Avenue. The additional buildable square footage allowed by virtue of APPROVAL of the subject action would necessarily remain in the currently existing "building envelope" and "setback requirements ". Any additional improvement space is likely to be designed on the downward sloped, view -side of the lots on the south side of Pacific Drive. The city's decision to abandon or to retain ownership of property should not be predicated on potential use of allowable building envelopes. The decision to retain ownership for such a purpose would be counter to standard city policy, which is to not protect view or sightlines on a limited or selective basis. Also in my opinion, the decision to abandon the subject property should be based on the fact that City of Newport Beach staff has recommended that the subject property is not needed by the city for any public purposes, and customarily such land is vacated to the adjacent property owners by this type of abandonment process, which can be initiated by either the city or the citizens. I am not aware of any other street in the city of Newport Beach, similar in nature to Pacific Drive, where front yard setbacks have been reduced to five feet or less, and the city retains ownership of the front yard areas of the adjacent residential homes. In summary I respectfully submit that city council action to APPROVE the subject request with the condition as stipulated by the Planning Commission that wherever the new northerly property line is located, a setback from the new property line would be stipulated to keep future development at the same distance from the centerline of Pacific Drive as presently exists would: a. Eliminate liability currently exposed to the City of Newport Beach; b. Place control and liability of the subject front yard land areas where it belongs, with the individual homeowners; C. Maintain existing character of the neighborhood, including streetscape, sightlines, setbacks and overall ambience of the street, without any negative impact to neighbors; d. Eliminate the inequitable impact of reduced buildable floor area imposed on the homes on the south side of Pacific Drive, and give the subject lots the same property rights enjoyed by the homeowners on the north side of Pacific Drive. Sincerely, 0.CK PAUTSCH orona Del Mar Mayor John E. Noyes Members of the Clty Councli City of Newport Baaeh 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92ee3 Re'. Yea. to the Pacific Drive right- ot•way vacation! I! Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members My name Is Jeannie Lawrenof+ and I live at 710 Ramona in Irvine Terrace, Newport Beach We own several businesses in the area including the Doryman's inn Bed and Breakfast and 21 Oceanfront Restaurant I've lived in this community for nearly 20 years. and own several properties. I have known Bill Edwards for almost 20 years and he has been the archlt6d on many of our projects over that period of time. We consider him to be a fine architect and good friend. We are familiar with Pacific Drive and almost bought a house there last year. I have to tell you, had we done Y,. i would be very upset right now to learn that the pries didn't include owning the front yard. First of all it is a very unusual situation,, with the train and all, but what I think is ever. more Incredible is how things have gotten so blown up and made into some public Issue. Who started all that with thu petitions and what right does the public have to get involved In determining what t,.appens to that land on that street? Did the of the Corona Del Mar 5K run endorse such s campaign? I'm surprised that the city even allows those sort of banners along the street, or do they'? 1 think that it's only right that the 017 oft}ciairy give the homeowners on the bPlff side Of the street the land. For a:! intents and purposes they already paid for it. I mean . when you think about 11, you buy a piece of pro;-+erty, you deride this is: SAM you're Wiling to pay for it only to find out later, oh by the way. It didn't include the front yard! That could have happened very easily to us. t know there has boon a lot of c*rn;plainin9 from the homeowners on the north side over there. Dut it is not they wro have been penalized. They have rice elevated front yards, and they oun them. I'm avre if they lived on the other side of the sheet they w ould ft---! just as strongly that they would went to itotd title to carat in rightfully theirs. I wholeheartedly feet :he City should pass the abandonment. Ong Christi Mottola June 11, 2000 PHONE NO. Mr. John E. Noyes, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jun. 13 2000 10:21AM P1 RE: VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF UNUSED RIGHT - OF -WAY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE IN CORONA DEL MAR Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Carolyn Pautsch and I live at 2204 Waterfront Drive, which is a street parallel with Pacific Drive, one block to the north. I've lived on Balboa Island or in Corona Del Mar since I was sixteen years old, and on Waterfront Drive for the last twenty years. My husband and I own property on Pacific Drive, and I am very interested in whatever happens on this street. I am strongly in favor of the proposed partial abandonment on Pacific Drive. The unused portion of the right of way hasn't been used or needed for a century. Our architect, Bill Edwards, as well as Genia Garcia, Newport Beach Planning, Dick Hoffstadt, CNB Public Works, and our neighbor Ms. Christi Bettingen were very helpful in our understanding of what the abandonment means and how it might affect us. My only concern at the time was that the front yard setbacks were to more forward for the houses, with the garages staying back. Now that the planning commission has deleted that from the application, I feel that this abandonment should be APPROVED, as it really changes nothing at all on the street. Sincerely, Q,aj,/, 0,as� Carolyn Pautsch, Corona del Mar, CA 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for hoteowners that live on a 3011 wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the plauted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, hill this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's In it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. V-11 YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way tows. you not want the vacation of rig f wev to p City kccps the land_ 4ddress: 170/ `tj�4�� _ Please fax back to 949 -7�6 -0981 or mail to: City of Newport Blvd -, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Ed WdTS:ea 000E £T -unf . 'ON dNOHd elolloW !75!J4D : WON 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for Elie south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will f have to bear any costs? No'. There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No. the openness of the streerseape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. Thus includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of bein med in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the ` irr y ke the land. 'e . b 11-11,0.3 Name: Signature: A'" , ate* t`I?'� t97S IevIPit- CA 92 (0 Z. f 1cme fax heck to 949- 75"981 or malt in: Clry of Newport Ed WNTS :60 000E ZT -unf each, 3300 Newpon Blvd., Newport Beach,' ON 9NOHd elolloW tls!J40 : WOId JUN -12 -00 15:25 From:AlERICAN TRAILER INDUSTRIES. INC. 9496448247 T -209 P.02/02 Job -636 6. After the proposed sbando. went is approved, can homes build Closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to uild in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will Irovide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figs -c into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's o% nership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. "R : proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of- -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will c dculate as Follows: Tea (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the Ci y, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot sctbzck, w uld allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 Fp l;. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additic lal 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased abilit i to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, acrd can not ' e used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, witl this iaerzase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assess, rs Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners ( o Pacific Drive as a resuh of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There w11 be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the s uth side homeowners =t no- Charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, wfll the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently tnjoyt i by the public. Tbis includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by th public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the st •eet? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the sleet improver ents or setback lines, this nbandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. wby does the City want to do this? What's In it for them? Tice benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which nears that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. A so, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential expo Lire of being named in it lawsuit because they no longer own the land. ,YES, meads you want the vacation of fright -of- -way to pass. NC, [hum you do not want the vacation of right-of wa to pass and 6c City keeps tthl land. 1?4AA4A-J CoX 1\'ame: Signature:_ // CJ'1if/� ate: Z ^/ Z .Q p Addr�s re Z 2 q 5 !'C.IJt t'", !_ 7) &",M — hICA.IC flex I1Adh In - or mail ro: Clty of Newport Dosch, Newport Blvd., Bcach, CA '2659 2 Td WUOS:60 OOOF ST -unr . 'ON 3NOHd ?tallow 11S1143 �0 i 01 JJid 1, ,'' 0 'C.5 L): p C C I I June 12, 2000 Mr. John E. Noyes, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: My support for Pacific Drive right of way abandonment Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, It is politics as usual on Pacific Drive. Apparently there are people with so much time on their hands that they use it to spread lies and create animosity among neighbors over the abandonment issue which should be positive for any and everyone concerned. What has happened is vicious. Unfortunately those opposing this abandonment have used untrues to scare the entire community. An example of this would be the bold print in their petition which reads "WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE IN SET BACKS, EASEMENTS, OR RIGHTS OF WAY WHICH MAY HAVE AN EFFECT, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, ON OUR RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY PACIFIC DRIVE ". The abandonment will have NO effect on the set backs, easements for rights of way, or anyone's enjoyment of Pacific Drive. The size and shape of legal building envelopes will not be changed. Any petitions that our governing bodies have received should be discounted because the petitioners signed with false information. Could someone with authority please tell the simple truth and set the record straight? Isn't that what is right? Shouldn't people be able to cast a vote on what is truth rather than vicious rumors meant to lead people to hysteria and fulfill some unspoken agenda. Please clarify to all: 1. The street width will remain the same. 2. The building envelope for future homes does not change heighth wise. 3. The set —backs do not change 4. The taxes will not increase. PLEASE HELP !!! SVer fLc I 1 acifi� Dr. OM PETITION To: Mayor and Members of the City Council of Newport Beach Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment We are Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City Council Meeting of June 13, 2000 We are residents of, or frequent visitors to, Corona del Mar. We feel Pacific Drive is one of the most pleasant and peaceful streets in the city. In fact, it is an important part of the route of The Corona del Mar Scenic 5k run which is now in its 19th year. Pacific is a wide, open street much like Ocean Ave. which is also on the route. We are apposed to any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the future, on our right to use and enjoy Pacific Drive. We are concerned about front yard setbacks, maximum buildable area and maximum building height. This issue should be denied or tabled until a more thorough study of its impact can be completed. This "gift" that the City proposes to give to the southerly property owners will have an adverse affect on the northerly property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive for its views. pr; edslame Address Phone DOWDaU Stgnaittrg 2) Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment �_- 3) I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) -- 4) on the agenda of City Council Meeting of June 13, 2000 5) I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. 6) 1 am apposed to the proposed resolution or any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the 7) future, on our right to use and enjoy Pacific Drive. I am concerned 8) about front yard setbacks, buidlable area and maximum building height. This vacation of right -of -way will have an adverse affect many property 9) owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. 10) Printed Name: 11) Address: 12) Phone (optional): I3) 14) Signature: 15) Date: . This Petition was circulated by: ,2 Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City CTu�tl MFejinfi of June 13, 2000 I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. I am apposed to the pro Toed- t0siJI'Midr8or any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the future, on our right to use,anttenjoy Pacific Drive. I am concerned about front yard setbac �, buidlable area;auil;"igximum building height. This vacation of right-of-way will have an adverse affect many property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. Printed Name: c Address: 010/ Lt%ej {r�ti 1�rr1�Z �d/i Phone (optional): Signature: f u>IV-Z� _ Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment _ = I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City Cqu#n `Meeting of June 13, 2000 I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. I am apposed to the pr8�osed'rasolutibn..dS any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the future, on our right, to use and enjoy Pacific Drive. I am concerned about front yard setbat;ks, buildable area.- arid, maximum building height. This vacation of right -of -way will have an adverse affect many property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. Printed Name: (' (G( �� i � or Address: Z Zd i '^' 17�ol--Ilv /' c`' Phone Signal June 12, 2000 Mr. John E. Noyes, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: My support for abandonment of Pacific Drive right of way Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, This letter is meant to explain my enthusiastic support for the abandonment of the old rail line property along Pacific Drive in Corona Del Mar. It is amazing to me that anyone would oppose this abandonment. The arguements I am hearing that oppose this action are both inaccurate or are out and out lies created to fulfill some agenda that I do not understand. This abandonment would not give me the right to build higher or wider (an action that could potentially hinder the views of my neighbors). It only would allow me to build additional square footage (approx. 250 -400) within my established legal envelope. My home is currently 950 sq.ft. (YES, nine hundred and fifty square feet) and this abandonment would allow my wife and I to have a small three bedroom home on our lot. This seems reasonable to me. I currently have have no garage at my residence and this abandonment would allow me to build a new small home with a garage and drive -way for off street parking. Given the nature of the streets in CDM, this should be a positive to all concerned. I cannot imagine that it is in the best interest of the City Of Newport Beach to own my front yard. City property comes all the way up to within 3 feet of my existing front door. Legally, the City has the right to take my front yard and do as they wish with it. On the other side of the coin, the City has the responsibility for any fallsicoming down the stairway to my home. I think the City and I are both better served if the abandonmeet is approved. It is amazing that his issue of abandonment has caused any controversy at all. This is one of the few issues for the local government to deal with that can be a win for the City and a win for the Homeowners. I trust you will see it that way. 0 Thank you or yop cog ider n. ndall P. Lush homeowner 2223 Pacific Drive - ; Corona Del Mar C FROM : MCM PHONE NO. % Jun. 08 2000 11:30AM P2 PFCEIVEi7 BY PI -ANNING D -PAA T h1ENT CITY OF Ant JuN i -LOGO PM 71819110111 110111213141516 I June 8, 2000 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Jim Sheppar &n J! jN 12 ° 3 :06 2300 Pacific Drive Corona Del llvlat, CA 42625. t, 11 Attn.: City Council for 6 -13 -00 agenda meeting Ref: Amendment #899 Dear Council Members, Since I have lived in Corona Del Mar for a number of years, I have had the opportunity to continue to try to keep Corona Del Mar a pleasant place to reside. However, The Planning Commission and The City Council have increased the traffic flow and increased the buildable square footage to change the atmosphere of the community. I am opposed to allowing this variance for the Bettingers. While living in Corona Del Mar, we have showed almost unanimous support of the neighbors not allowing specific variances. Unfortunately, the neighbors' voices have not been heard by The City Council or The Planning Commission. Because of these variances, my neighbors were able to overbuild their home on Pacific Drive. The other neighbors were almost unanimously opposed to those variances, however, The City Council and The Planning Commission allowed the variances. I live in Los Angeles County and would like to attend the council meeting. Please arrange a time and date so that the aforementioned agenda item will be first on your list. If you could arrange your schedule in that manner, I would be able to attend the meeting. if you make this an agenda item that appears at 10 p.m., unfortunately I cannot he driving back to Los Angeles at midnight. Please arrange your agenda item accordingly. Sincerely, Jim Sheppardson G. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street?. 1 ! No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in thy: abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the aba ,donmp; will OrQMe for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will u, used to figwe into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ow-per� i of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor eea calculation''; T�1e_ retKRosal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate a5 follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the strectscape lose any of its open nreas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. j � NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Name: � A IC�_MG �(-S V � ,Signature: Date: G 3 " Address: A31-1 fbx, -ce. fir, Corte d-ga2 Mar Og� • I �-�as' Pluise fax buck to 949 - 75(x0991 or mail to: City of Newport Boach, 3300 Ne.vport Blvd., Newport Bench, CA 92659 2 June 6, 2000 Mayor John E. Noyes, Jr. Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Noyes: RE: I am very much in favor of the city vacating the right -of -way on Pacific Drive I am Judy Hodges and I have lived at 2200 Bayside Drive for 40 years. My property extends from Bayside Drive to Pacific Drive. It is the last lot next to the Wheeler property. Without question, the view from my Pacific Drive property is very special. Transferring the title of this small piece of land from the city to me would have no detrimental effect monetarily or otherwise on property owners across the street or the public. It would not restrict the view of the bay and the ocean as there is a line -of -sight restriction and the view is preserved for everyone. The main advantage to me would be that I would have access to some additional buildable area which might be useful in the distant future. It would also give me a degree of control. Forty years ago I had great parking on Bayside Drive but a portion of that was on a right -of -way. Some years ago, the city realigned Bayside Drive and most of my parking vanished. Now the street comes so close to the house that there is very little privacy; it is extremely dangerous to exit and even hazardous to pick up the mail. So that is what can happen if you do not have control of property. There has been some discussion that the public would lose the access to the view of the bay and the ocean. Since there would only be a title change, I don't think the public cares who has the title. ( Some of this public show their appreciation of the view by throwing bottles, cans and other unwanted trash down the hillside and some dog owners also show disregard for property on Pacific Drive.) Since there would only be a title change and no building code change, I strongly recommend that the City Council approve the Pacific Drive abandonment. Sincerely, udith R. Hodges 2200 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, California a � „ , ti: I u �.�I,1 11 ....Y :.. ... ...F ... 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? Not The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way. (due to irregularity of meet width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 R wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the dowahili sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this Increase my taxes? Not Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. Asa result of the abandonment being approved, will! 1 have to bear any costs? Not There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? Not Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines. this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land. which means that the horeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of Ved in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, Mears you want the vacation of right- ot:way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of rightoy%*W past arA4e City keeps the N picase rr,z or mail to: � �1 06/09/2000 12:20 9496752503 21 OCEANFRONT PAGE Jun. 9. 2000 1:05PM IRVINE CA 949 756 0981 No. 8402 P. 3/3 6. After the roposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? Nol The exist' ig front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned are t or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional squ a footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property, What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten ( 0) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners t receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is res ricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abindoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several ' cetaed homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a resu�t of the abandonment being passed. S. As a resuld of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will! be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south aide homeowners a� no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the o ss of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This ' ludes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeown s will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outline in the code. 10. After,tbe i bandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, t , his abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street puldng. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's In It for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeo ers would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there. were to b any injuries to take, place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of beingpamed ' a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YSS, nit ass you want the vacation of right-of- -way to pass. O, you do nvywant the vacation of r way p s and the City keeps the land Signature: Dater A % „�i. Al ��CPas Please fax back 949 - 136-0981 or mml to: Cky of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Bach, CA 92669 03 0 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 R wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the strectscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of be' named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO,lmeans you do of want the vacati n of right -of� o pass and t� City keeps the land. 5,Q 06/06/00 21:17 AL ROSS i 949 756 0981 z■ .% ■c FROM CnrlSti Mottola PHONE NO. Jun. 05 2000 12:26PM P3 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and bones will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonmeru. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved far underground t nInies required by the City, and the retraining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increm my lases? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. Asa result of the abandon meat being approved, wig I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed nbandonment is approved, will the streetscape lofse any of Its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks. or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this Increase the parking congestion on the street? Not Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? Wbat's in It for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that lend, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being gamed in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, toeans you wam the vacation of right -0f - -way to pass. NO, means you do act want the vacation of rigtuof way to the City keeps the land. Pfmw fax back to 949- 756 -0991 or mail ew City of Newport Beack 3500 Newport Blvd, Newport MOM CA 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. --),(—YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Name:_LP & _ f� n ", L� s signature• / Dater /,� Address: 'Y 1 e C /' � ., ! t-U nn /'C,� 6t_ . ' 5 Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92659 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No'. Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right f way to pass and the City keeps the land. Name: ��/ Date:��%� i! ` wS4 r J0, Signature: � ) /% Address: 7. enc'' ZLZi l ,/� �! 'LC i /� % /tiL % i�� / /"fi , L'(� Q g Please fax back to 949-75"981 or mall to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? Nol There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. Z_YES, means you want the vacation of right- of-way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of Lw:o p ass and the City k7ps the land. Name: Signature: �1 Date:6 G Please fax back to 949-156-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 t 06/06/00 21:17 AL ROSS 4 949 756 0981 FROn : C-1 sti Mottola ■ s. Jun. OS 2000 12:26PM n.3 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The- existing front yard setback lice will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feat buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live oo a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No' Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the grange County Assessors office and were repeatedly told by then, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonmm being passed. 9. Asa result of the abandonment being approved, win. I have to bear coy costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetseape 10Ae anq of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the ptlttted parkways, sidewalks. or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. T1te homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment Is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring Atatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in It for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being gamed in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you warn the vacation of right-of-way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pas, acid the City keeps the Land, Name: i�Ss Signature:_ De Adartss: 7 <Z ct t �/� (ht—, t n�a doP�/T�cy� N 2�2� Mcaec f;l track to 949.756.0 t o'la r mad to: C'th• of Newaort Beier Newuvt Newnner wwr rt 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, -and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being amed in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. r YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. j j NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way/to n C eps the land. Name: I� L( 1 I ^ U S� Signature: / Dai kddrLss:� ei 5 1'rt G1 1 i 6 Please tax back to 949 - 756 -0981 or mail to: Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA f� i 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being�n med in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. V YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right-of way to pass and Ci Seeps the land. Name: [�h ] �• Lys' Signature: `' / Dai 91. Please fax back to 949 - 756 -0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 6. After the proposed abaudoumeut Is approved, can bones build closer to the street? No! n1e existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the a andored area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide Nr the so to side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this proper-y. lb hat the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposai abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as fa ?ows: 'Ten (1 G) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would altov., homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable tines the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their bcme by a total of 504 square feet. This increased abili *v to build however is restricted to be applied only to the dowvhill sloped side of the lot, fwd can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer w the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, Hill this increase mv taxes? No! Several concerned hots eovmers have called and spoken with the Orange Calnty Assessors Office and were repeatedly told b;;' them, that tbey do rot plan to raise the taxes of the he rseowners on Pacific; Drive as a result of th-- zbatrdontnent being passed. g. A, a result of the abandontueut being approved, will i have to bear any costs" No! Tnere will be. no cost whatsoever to an-,, hc:meo- ,Nver. The taffy :s VI'viu� the hjpd to the south stdt homeowners al 110-&arge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is :approved, svill the strcetscape lose any of its open areas:, No, the openness of tFe streetscape %vtil not char, e 'n any wt:v from weal Is chlrre:htly enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways. sidewalks, or any �Ae: arnen:ti.es enjoyed by the public. Tice hotneo-wners will not be able to build any close.^.• to the street ;h _n they are ai!eady allowed to build so:v as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, wili this increase the pzrlinf; congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occ,xring whatsoever to any or the street improvemerl s or setback lines, this abandonment wilt not negatively impact the status of the street pari:ing. 11. Why does the City scant to do this? What's In It for them? The benefits to the City include not baving the liability associated with owning tbat land. which means that the bomeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and rut intenance -:)fthe land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no ',cnger has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the L.nd. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO. means y ,u do not want the• vacation of right -of ,vay to pass and the City keeps the land. name.: \ �t3 r.�L_J�IA?�Gl -d —Signs c: •✓ fate.. : - - -- -- ._ —.__.— - -- . — Auur.ss: GZ� 1 �172:/ ��}L1✓� Picric htz hacl: to 9.19 - lilt: -09F.1 or rnai! to: City of Nc,vport Dench, 3300 Nevvporl tih�d., \ctivtxtrt iica(h, CA 9?6$9 Questions and Answers Regarding the June 13th Proposed Partial Abandonment of Pacific Drive (To be voted upon June 1P, 7:00p.m. at the Newport Beach City Council Meeting, 3300 Newport Beach Blvd., N.B.) 1. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the homeowners on the south side of Pacific Drive be able to build any higher and block my view? NO!!! The abandonment does not provide any change whatsoever to the 24/28 -foot allowable height limit or the existing front yard setback lines. It will not allow anyone to build up, forward or out anymore than they already are permitted to do so by code. 2. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this change the actual physical width of the asphalt or concrete paved portion of the street? No! Nothing will physically change regarding the current width of the street curb line to curb line, from what you currently visually see. The street paving, curbing, gutters, parkway areas and public sidewalk will not change in any way whatsoever as a result of this abandonment. 3. After the proposed abandonment is approved, then what will change? The way the Pacific Drive street currently reads on a map shows it as being 80 feet wide. Once the excess and unused right -of way is abandoned, when you look at a map of this area, it will show it as 60 feet wide. It is solely a `paper change'. With the approval of the abandonment, deed of ownership and titles to property will also be made to reflect the change accordingly. The portion that is being vacated is what we currently see as all the south side Pacific Drive homeowners front yards, landscaping and driveways and is what most homeowners already thought belonged to them to begin with. 4. If I live on the south side of Pacific Drive and I really do not own what I thought was "my" front yard area, does that mean that if the abandonment is not passed, then the city can do whatever they want with the land at a later date? YES! Legally, because the city owns the land, they can do whatever they want with it at anytime. Lately, there have been a lot of people complaining about the streets in Corona Del Mar being too narrow, and as recently as the May 18, 2000, public hearing, it was suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners that instead of reducing the size of the street on Pacific Drive, here is a perfect opportunity for the City to use the land to widen the actual physical paving of the street. This suggestion received overwhelming applause from advocates of "Save the View on Pacific Drive." To not pass this abandonment means that the south side homeowners cannot control the use of the land. 5. If I five on the south side of Pacific Drive and I really do not own what I thought was "my" front yard area, does that mean that if the abandonment is not passed, then people can stand, loiter, or even park in that area without my permission? YES! Given that the homeowners on the south side of Pacific Drive do not legally own the public right -of -way, that area is considered public property, therefore the public would not legally be trespassing and homeowners do not have the right to tell them to leave. Given the recent push from advocates of "Save the View on Pacific Drive" to treat this area as their "public view," this could cause serious problems for homeowners on Pacific Drive because they cannot not legally stop the public from parking in front yard driveways, loitering, or for that matter having picnics while enjoying the view. (OVER) 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership o-` this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Wby does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Signature: Address: Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side bomeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. ]_YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. —7 NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Address: ^0I Please fax hack to 6 raLZ a6k (vM me- C# - S a-'5' of Newport Roach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 2 .tune 10, 2000 (I know this is long, but please bear with us. These things neegdto bSjbroughpfgtah -for Fyteybne's benefit and should never have had to be taken this far. Thank you for your consideration, Christi Bettingen). CLERK. RE: Pacific Drive Abandonment f' 1C11 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am very disheartened by the neighbors who have chosen to lie to you and mislead others to be a party to such a false and misleading campaign targeted to manipulate votes against the abandonment. The information that the opposition has presented in petitions; on signs; in letters; in hearings; and in conversations to the public is filled with lies! Photos from previous hearings that were already pointed out by Commissioners to be false representations have been re- circulated, and city documents have been altered and disseminated to the public. The allegations that have been circulated both publicly and in writing about ourselves, our architect Bill Edwards and our ]ionic are harmful to us personally and have been presented intentionally to fraudulently manipulate others. We have lived in this neighborhood for the last 16 years and have never had any problems with any of the neighbors until we first declined to sign a petition circulated by Suzy and Jerry Vaughn opposing the Al Ross project next door to us at 2209 Pacific Drive. Over the years we have lived through numerous remodels, encroachments, modifications, variances and "other" building activities from neighbors up and down the street without ever opposing even a one. Last year when we decided to remodel, we went out of our way to show the neighbors our plans. We invited them into our home, and made ourselves available for any questions, both to be good neighbors and because we were all to aware of the massive negativity that was perpetuated by the Vaughns against Al Ross's building and quite frankly, were concerned about being their next target. The petition that you have received recently was created and circulated by Susan and Jerry Vaughn, residents at 2200 Pacific Drive. Included in this petition are numerous lies and false representations that are contained within written materials, and or stated to numerous individuals within the community, in public forums (planning commission meetings) and to city officials. These lies created by the Vaughns and Doug Lax, (2224 Pacific Drive) are listed as follows: • The Vaughns have stated orally and in their letter dated April 25, 1999, that our existing skylight exceeds the height limit. Our skylight is located at a level approximately 14 feet high and we are allowed to build up to 24 to 29 feet in that location. The Commissioners corrected the Vaughns during our hearings the first time. and yet they still continue to re- circulate those same letters with false representations contained in their most recent petition regarding the abandonment. • In it letter dated .June 27, 1999 and at our variance hearings, the Vaughns lied about our story poles. After Jerry Vaughn spent thvo hours at our home looking at our detailed plans and asking questions, he finally said he wasn't sure of what we were building and asked us to put up story poles. We agreed to do so as a courtesy to him. This was not required of us, no one had ever done it in our neighborhood previously with their building and all the other nearby neighbors had already seen our plans and either approved them or did not object. However, we agreed to do so just for the Vats, with the understanding that when they went up, we could all view them together from their home so we could address any concerns, right there and then. We hired a contractor who built the poles, and set a specific meeting time with the Vaughns who never showed, nor did they bother to call or answer our phone calls while we all stood on our driveway facing their house and waiting. (see attached letters December I & 2, 1998) • The Vaughns have re- circulated photos in your packets that falsely represent what we the Bettingen's intend to build when we remodel. These same photos were pointed out as being distorted during the Planning Commission hearing and yet they continue to promote the said false and misleading representations again contained in their recent petition in order to deceive our good neighbors. • There have been lies spread by both the Vaughns and Mr. Lax regarding losses to property values due to our variance application. In a letter dated June 22, 1999, and during our hearing, the Vaughns falsely claim they will lose $400,000 due to our height variance. In a May G, 1999 letter, Mr. Lax falsely states, "property value losses could easily figure in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per home" and further lies in his letter dated May 18, 2000, "I am now experiencing financial losses due to the city's preferential treatment of the Bettingen's and other abusers of the system." He continues, "The variances the City has granted them have already cost me dearly in the marketability of my home." Mr. Lax's inability to sell his house has absolutely nothing to do With us. His house has been for sale for almost 1 1/2 years and we haven't even broken ground yet. When these representations were first made during our variance hearings, the Commissioners told them to authenticate such losses by providing true and accurate photo representations and by hiring a professional who could collaborate such claims, they could not do so as it was. Yet, these distorted materials re- circulated in their recent petitions, and said allegations were repeated by Mr. Lax in our May 18, 2000 hearing after already being told by City officials they were misleading. • During our variance hearing, the Vaughns together with Mr. Lax co- conspired to present false photographic representations in a poster size graphic of what our roofline would look like "before" and "after" the remodel, which was a retouched alteration of the truth. The Commissioners saw through this, let them know that this graphic was unacceptable and that they should hire a professional who can produce true and accurate graphics that are reliable. The damage however was already done and neighbors who had been presented with such photos were led to believe they were accurate • In a letter December 2, 1998 Ms. Vaughn sent to us, and included in their petition packets, she states that "the whole street objected to Al Ross's plans." This was clearly a lie because we supported A] Ross's project and refused to sign either two of her petitions when she fought him on the building of his home and then circulated a second multi -page petition opposing his landscaping. • On .June 27, 1999, during our variance process, Ms. Vaughn signs her letter of opposition as "THE CONCERNED NEIGHBORHOOD ON PACIFIC DRIVE, falsely implying that she is speaking on behalf of the entire neighborhood. Who gave her the authority to make such a claim? Most of the neighbors on the second hall' of the street beyond Mr. Lax on the north side and beyond Phyllis 2 Rodeffer on the south, were not concerned with what was going on during our variance application and many have told us this on numerous occasions. • In the Vaughn letter dated May 22, 2000 she falsely states that the majority of the street said no to the Bettingen variance. The majority of the neighborhood wasn't involved. The entire neighborhood consists of 26 homes. The map graphic from the variance hearing that the Vaughns have included in their petition packets doesn't even show the entire second half of the block on the north side. The Vaughns and Mr. Lax were the only two on the street that showed any apprehension with our plans initially. By the time the Vaughs and Mr. Lax had finished their propaganda, they managed under false pretense to turn some of our yes votes and neutral votes into opposition. There were seven signatures of opposition, of which only four spoke out at the hearings. Throughout most of Ms.Vaughn's hand written notes on staff reports, city notices and other documents included in their packets concerning the variance, she repeatedly infers that she is speaking on behalf of the majority. The majority never authorized her to make such claims. Nor did they allow her to claim that the Bettingen's are "taking away most of all our views" as falsely stated in her packet letter dated .June 27, 1999. • Contrary to the lies that have been spread about both me and the Commissioners, the reason that we received a unanimous "ycs" vote on our height variance is because they took the extra time to visit each concerned homeowner's location and investigate if the representations made by certain neighbors had any merit. Until that point, some of the Commissioners were not in favor of our variance. Once they saw for themselves that the neighbors concerns were not only unfounded, but in some cases the concessions the Bettingen's were making actually increased views, did they then vote unanimously to approve the variance. • Again, the Vaughns have lied in their most recent petition which falsely claims who is in favor of the abandonment and who is not, and have circulated it as such without the permission of certain neighbors. These representations have had the "bandwagon" effect and influenced certain neighbors to oppose, particularly with the newer neighbors who have stated they are uncomfortable with going against the many. • We have been accused of deceptive tactics and coercion with the City because we withdrew our request, for additional square footage from our variance application at our first hearing last year. To set the record straight, we did this after we learned about the excessive right -of -way that starts just 5 feet in front of our house. We were told by several City Representatives that the appropriate procedure was for the City to pursue abandonment of the entire street, as the City does not want a one property at a time approach. Public Works instructed that this was to be handled through a summary abandonment, after signatures of more than one neighbor on the street. This was the same procedure used on the Broad Street abandonment. The attached May 20, 1999 letters to Public Works shows application by more than just the Bettingen's as homeowners on the street. Contrary to the Vaughns representations, more than one neighbor made the request. • When the Vaughns leaned of this, they lied and attempted to sabotage the process by claiming that approval for the height variance was a tradeoff for withdrawing our request to go beyond the 1.5 FAR. (.June 22, 1999 included in their petition packets). This was never the case. Our home is pre - existing. non- conforming and the concessions we made during our hearings were reduction of height tlTwai'd the sweet side, and the pulling back of roof caves at the sides and rear (see staff 3 report). Our architect stated specifically at the onset of our first planning meeting that the Bettingens wish to withdraw their request for the additional square footage that exceeds the 1.5 FAR from this variance application, and reserve the right to address this at a later time without prejudice. We did this based upon the new information we had received concerning the right -of way and what we were told by the City regarding the abandonment procedures. We were approved for our variance strictly based on the required findings that is part of our rights as property owners and is stated and protected by the code. (paul notes) • In Ms. Vaughn's letter dated June 27, 1999 and referenced in conversations with both neighbors and city officials as part of the "conspiracy theory," Ms.Vaughn falsely represents that we intentionally delayed our variance hearings as a tactic to try and move the abandonment through prior to our hearing. If the abandonment were to be approved prior to our hearing, then there could be nothing to trade -off with, as previously alleged by the Vaughns. Which is it Ms.Vaughn? • In Ms. Vaughns hand written notes placed over the letter from Bill Edwards dated May 20, 1999 included in their petition packets, Ms.Vaughn continues to infer deception and states "why was this letter request never discussed with the homeowners against the Bettingens variance and those thereafter ?" According to Public Works procedures, signatures of more than one neighbor is all that's required. The City then held an open Community Meeting which was noticed throughout the surrounding area, as a means to provide an open forum for the neighborhood to study the proposal, ask questions and address concerns. Suzi & Jerry Vaughn and Doug Lax jointly failed to attend. • At the May 18, 2000 Planning Commission hearing regarding the abandonment, the Vaughns and Doug Lax made numerous claims stating that the Bettingens were deceitful and then presented only a portion of the documents sent to Public Works stating Mr. Edwards did not represent multiple homeowners. Mr. Edwards has indeed worked on behalf of ourselves and several homeowners that desire passage of the abandonment and done so on his own time. • Ms. Vaughn has made false statements about increased taxes to homeowners. When asked by us on Saturday, .tune 3, 2000 where she got her information, Ms. Vaughn revealed that she had not even called the County Assessors office. • Finally" on Saturday June 3, 2000, the Vaughns and Mr. Lax put on a professional propaganda campaign during the Corona Del Mar run. Signage reading "Save the View on Pacific Drive" and red, white and blue flags were spread throughout the street as a means of misleading the public. Tables were set up with food and water with the Vaughns soliciting signatures at one end and Doug Lax at the other. Lies and misrepresentations were told and contained in written materials, and large 3ft. x 5ft posters papered along the fronts of neighbors homes from Pacific Drive down to Avocado. These representations are documented through video recordings (to be presented at a latter date) (See attached photos). Stories told to the public that day would change, dependent upon whether the Vaughns or Mr. Lax were aware of being caught on camera. At one point, Mr. Vaughn called me a `Bitch" in public, which is also documented on camera. Most of these posters have remained in place accompanied with petitions on clip boards and convenient mailers in holders strategically presented in front of homes for passerby's to sign thoughout the days leading up to the hearing. Also included in front of Mr. Lax's house, are City documents and graphics that he has personally altered to misrepresent the truth. (see attached). 4 I have been asked repeatedly why the Vaughn's have been treating us like this and I am not able to respond with certainty. Are they angry because we didn't side with them in opposing the Al Ross project? Are they angry because we were approved for our variance? Are they angry because I have young children that might annoy them? Are they angry because I have stood up for my family and my rights as a homeowner, and they didn't get their way with us? Or is itjust who they are? I don't know. I only know that there is a pattern of lying, misleading neighbors, and the now the public at large, by attempting to create confusion and subterfuge in order to sway public opinion. The Vaughns, who own the largest property on the street with four consecutive lots, also literally own the air rights above Judy Hodges house who is hidden into the slope and they have managed to keep the Al Ross property sequestered close to the curb line level. (See the reference of 100 -name petition in the Independent Newspaper in their packets). Both homes are located directly across from the Vaughn estate, which allows them nearly a 180- degree panoramic view of the ocean, bays and Catalina Island. However, they do not own the view rights to the entire street and most certainly do not have the right to lie to all of us to further their own personal gain. The Vaughns are very angry that we received a height variance (modest as it is). We are just trying to build a home that accommodates our two children and family. We now have an approximate 2,300 square foot house and we are second to the smallest lot and property on the street (30 ft. wide). Our new neighbor Randy Lush only owns a half lot. The plans for our home do not impact views and were confirmed as such by the Commissioners after three hearings and thorough evaluation. I believe it is the intention of the Vaughns to try and force us to move in hopes that some developer will come in and just not want to spend the time or money dealing with them and perhaps build a ]ionic as low as A] Ross's. We'll we arc non - conforming in height just like many of the others down the block, and we or anyone else with this home, can build up to 29 ft high on the bluff side. Currently, we stand at 14 feet high in front and are designed to lower the height by about 1 -'/ feet. Our intention is and always has been, to talc the additional square footage down the slope; and add a room on the lowest floor down the hillside where it impacts no one. We do not live in an association that is headed by Suzi and Jerry Vaughn, nor do they have the right to instil] fear, negativity, and confusion in homeowners along the street. I feel particularly bad for our new neighbors who have been exposed to such activities and have lost some of the joy associated with new beginnings and wanting to get to know the neighbors. It's just not right for any of us. If the Vaughns and Mr. Lax are so concerned about diminishing property values, just think what is happening to our property values now. No one wants to live in a neighborhood with this kind of negativity. We have chosen to be peaceful and cooperative for all these years and intend to do so in the future. We have the right to improve our homes just as the rest of the neighbors have done. Our plans do not impact anyone's view and have been thoroughly analyzed and determined by the City to meet all the findings for a height variance (see staff report). There is an even bigger issue happening here and it goes beyond a "neighborhood feud" and that is, the preservation of all of our property rights, which in this case, have been threatened by someone who repeatedly claims she is confused. If she is so confused all the time concerning these issues, then she should not appoint herself as the head of as she calls it, "THE CONCERNED NEIGHBORHOOD ON PACIFIC DRIVE" (last year's slogan), or the "SAVE THE VIEW ON PACIFIC DRIVE." Whether all these lies and misleading representations arc intentional or mixed with confusion, I cannot say. I-lowcvcr. one thing is f'or sure, it is injurious to all concerned. I'd like to know how my neighbors on the south side would feel if they lost total use of the land and the City decided to widen the road as was suggested by one of the Commissioners several weeks ago. Or how would my north side neighbors feel, if they knew they were responsible for their neighbors loosing rights to what they always thought was their land or their right to protect their homes from loiterers right outside their front doors. What about the parking everyone is so concerned about on the street. If south side homeowners can't legally keep others from parking on what they thought was their driveways, guess there's going to be more parking on the street. Anyone has the right to oppose the abandonment that is contained in the reports put out from the City. This proposal however is not about the Bettingen's house or the variance that was approved last year. The issue being presented is about vacating a portion of the excess right -of -way on the southerly side of Pacific Drive. This is your last chance to protect the right to fair play and substantial justice rather than giving ear to those who have attempted to mislead other city agencies such as these named individuals had tried and failed to do with the Planning Commission. Attached please find a Q &A regarding clarification of what is being proposed in this upcoming hearing as we understand it and has been distributed to educate others. Thank you for your time and patience in reviewing this rather lengthy letter. Christi Bettingen and Family 2215 Pacific Drive, Corona Del Mar 6 Questions and Answers Regarding the June 131h Proposed Partial Abandonment of Pacific Drive (To be voted upon June 13'", 7:00p m. at the Newpon Beach City Cotuicil Meeting, 3300 Newport Butch Blvd., N.B.) 1. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the homeowners on the south side of Pacific Drive be able to build any higher and block my view? NO!!! The abandonment does not provide any change whatsoever to the 24/28 -foot allowable height limit or the existing front yard setback lines. It will not allow anyone to build up, forward or out anymore than they already are permitted to do so by code. 2. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this change the actual physical width of the asphalt or concrete paved portion of the street? No! Nothing will physically change regarding the current width of the street curb line to curb line, from what you currently visually see. The street paving, curbing, gutters, parkway areas and public sidewalk will not change in any way whatsoever as a result of this abandonment. 3. After the proposed abandonment is approved, then what will change? The way the Pacific Drive street currently reads on a map shows it as being 80 feet wide. Once the excess and unused right -of way is abandoned, when you look at a map of this area, it will show it as 60 feet wide. It is solely a `paper change'. With the approval of the abandonment, deed of ownership and titles to property will also be made to reflect the change accordingly. The portion that is being vacated is what we currently see as all the south side Pacific Drive homeowners front yards, landscaping and driveways and is what most homeowners already thought belonged to them to begin with. 4. If I live on the south side of Pacific Drive and I really do not own what I thought was "my" front yard area, does that mean that if the abandonment is not passed, then the city can do whatever they want with the land at a later date? YES! Legally, because the city owns the land, they can do whatever they want with it at anytime. Lately, there have been a lot of people complaining about the streets in Corona Del Mar being too narrow, and as recently as the May 18, 2000, public hearing, it was suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners that instead of reducing the size of the street on Pacific Drive, here is a perfect opportunity for the City to use the land to widen the actual physical paving of the street. This suggestion received overwhelming applause from advocates of "Save the View on Pacific Drive." To not pass this abandonment means that the south side homeowners cannot control the use of the land. 5. If I live on the south side of Pacific Drive and I really do not own what I thought was "my" front yard area, does that mean that if the abandonment is not passed, then people can stand, loiter, or even park in that area without my permission? YES! Given that the homeowners on the south side of Pacific Drive do not legally own the public right -of -way, that area is considered public property, therefore the public would not legally be trespassing and homeowners do not have the right to tell them to leave. Given the recent push from advocates of "Save the View on Pacific Drive" to treat this area as their "public view," this could cause serious problems for homeowners on Pacific Drive because they cannot not legally stop the public from parking in front yard driveways, loitering, or for that matter having picnics while enjoying the view. (OVER) 1 G. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. Asa result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetseape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Name: Please fax hacic to 949 - 756 -0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 2 /.. December 1, 1998 Jerry Vaughn and Suzy Baker - Vaughn Dear Jerry and Suzy, Thank you for your call this morning. We're sorry you were unable to make our meeting yesterday and hope that your housekeeper recovers soon. As you know, over the last several weeks we have done our best to coordinate schedules where we can all meet together and give both of you an opportunity to view and discuss our remodeling plans with us and our architect. We appreciate the generous amount of time Jerry spent at our home last weekend viewing our plans and are sensitive to any concerns or questions the two of you may have. As Jerry expressed having difficulty visualizing the changes, we agreed to hire someone to measure and place stakes and strings from our roof to indicate the changes and a second meeting where we would view this together from your home. As 1 had discussed with Jerry two weeks ago, we are ready to present our plans to the city and have essentially held off until the two of you have had an opportunity to view our plans. As Suzy was unable to make our first meeting, we feel it is very important that this next meeting be done at a time when we are all together so that the communication is open and that there is no potential for any misunderstandings, delays or additional time and expenses. We all have very busy and too often, stressful lives. After living here for 15 years, even the thought of going through another remodel, even if this time it is our own, has created significant unrest in our family's life. This is our home and now with two young ones, it is only do to necessity and the timing of the other building going on next door, that we have even chosen to go in this direction. We feel we have had a good relationship with you over the last ten years and it is with this spirit we have extended this courtesy to make ourselves available to meet with you. We are well aware of the friction and problems you and our immediate neighbor have been experiencing over his building for some time now, and it has been our intention to try and avoid any unnecessary negativity, with you or any of ow.- neighbors during this process. We are open to working with you as good neighbors and hope that the feeling is mutual. As discussed, please let us know of a time when we can reschedule a meeting at your home and we will hire the worker to come back out and place the stakes where we can all view them together and openly address any concerns you may have. Please get back with me at your earliest convenience. It appears from the conversation I had with Jerry today that sometime in the morning before Suzy leaves for work between seven and nine would work best on a day wher you are both available. As Jerry indicated he would be out of town on Wednesday;. let us know if Thursday or Friday would work for you or give us another time if not then. Thank you and again we really appreciate your support and understanding during this very difficult time for us, Please feel free to call one at eery home 949 -675 -8456 or office 949- 851 -5830 to set up a time to meet: over the next few days. r-. Kind regards, Your Neighbors, The Bettingen Family December 2, 1998 Dear Christi & Grant, Sorry you feel that we are causing delays by not being around to attend meetings regarding your new plans for your new home but, we have been extremely busy, and during the holidays, it will most likely get even busier. From Jerry's last meeting with you, along with your phone calls and latest letter, I am now getting the impression that we are the only ones that might have a problem with what you have decided to build. If I recall from the past (regarding Mr. Ross our neighbors property) it was the whole street and %z the town that objected to his plans regarding his house and it was the city that sent him back to the drawing board not his neighbors. I think your putting the cart before the horse in regards to how your neighbors are going to except your new plans. I was under the impression after talking to Jerry that while we were heading out for our Thanksgiving vacation some one was going to build a frame on top of your house with 2x4's & with yellow tape showing us and the neighbors exactly what elevations and extensions would be taking place. I know I can't read plaits and visual is always clear in everyone's minds, I'm sure everyone would like to see and evaluate exactly how your new home would impact the environment. I'm sorry if I'm missing all the urgency regarding Jerry's and my immediate attention regarding your plans. I really don't know why we have to be present today, Friday, or next month while you build out your roofline. I agree with you, save everyone the time and money and build out the props on your roof only once. I don't have a clue what kind of drum you all are going to march to once you submit your plans to the city. I've never been on that side of the fence. If you are going for variances regarding your plans, all the neighbors will be notified once again and then we all get to go over all this one more time. We are also open to working &I,", y ju and all oar r:cighbors and by no means are we in your way or causing any delays. Good luck on your new home, and hope everything works out for all. Sincerely, Suzi & Jerry Vaughn a (:ly �. PLANET DESIGN inc architecture /planning interiors farttl�ad 4V. �p![t�i61fO�Mr a lmaK "'&1 ri. .. Thursday, May 20, 1999 Mr. Don Webb, Director Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Webb: We represent multiple property owners on the southerly sloping 'blufr side of Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, CA in making the following request regarding the existing inordinately wide right -of -way on Pacific Drive. The existing City street casement is 80' -0", with 26 fLvt of width bcyood the sidewalk on the sloping, 'bluff side of Pacific Drive and about I foot on the opposite flat inland side. Most all the southerly lots have varied private improvements including what is currently off -site parking within the public right -of -way on the bluff side. (There is also a typical existing sheet flow drainage situation from the Pacific Drive street surface southerly down the sloping bluff side of Pacific Drive across the yards and driveway approaches and on to private property at each lot.) This is to request of the City of Newport Beach by written instrument, to begin procedures to vacate the southerly twenty-six (26) feet of the existing eighty (so) feet wide right -or-way easement along; Pacific Drive from Avocado :avenue to Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar. We have artacbed letters of support from property owners along the subject right- or-way, from approximately Avocado to Begonia Avenues, respectively. We have discussesd the issues and priorities relative to this pre - existing inordinately wide right -of- -way situation in some detail with Mr. Richard L. Hoffstadt, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer for the City of Newport Beach. Thank you in advance for your anticipated support of this rLNucst to vacate, on behalf of the private property owners on the bluff side of Pacific Drive. We appreciate your kind assistance and remain available at your convenience to assist in any way possible to expedite the vacation,process on Pacific Drive. Si/am / your C '1 W R. Ed .ards, principal Architect PLA.:'r'ET DESIGN, inc. et. nie. PxcDrCDKrcq.dO 99.1 tS (�o ,ns��nr,,(in. �igamt �eu'ma3, ,r.�,.ld -oG:,, eslola, �/'.11:.kralGy -oFema dvwfi�i,raart, 26855 Atiso Cteck Rd. Ste. 11-142 Aliso Vigo. CA 92656 USA Tel.: 949.425.8938 Fax: 949.360.9929 Email: architect @bigplanet.com PLANE' DE_IoN INC PAGE 04 ATTACHMENT to Letter of Request for Abandonment of Southerly 26 feet of Pacific Drive, CDM, CA ******4 Statement Of Support ► ► ► ►►►► Thursday, May 20,1999 Mr. Don Webb, Dateceor Public Worts Department City of Newport Bach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Proposed Abandonment of 26 ft. of Rkol -of -Way Bluff Side Padfie Drive, Corona del Mar, CA REF: PLANET DESIGN Letter of May 20,1999 by Will}am R. Edwards, Architect, representing Soutberty Side Pacific Drive Property Owners Dear Mr. Webb. I (We) the undersigned, as property owaet(s) on Pacific Drive on Corona dd Mar, CA hereby request that the City of Newport Beach begin procedures to vacate the above - referenced southerly 26 feet (along the sloping or'bluM side) of the esisting eighty (80) foot rigbt- of-way along Pacific Drive from Avocado Avenue to Begonia Avenue In Corona del Mar, CA. This would create a fifty -four (53) it. wide public rigbt -0f-way, more in keeping with the Corona del Mar standard R/W width.+ averaging approximately fitly (50) het. We understand that the oversined street casement was originally designed many decades ago to provide fbr the Pacific Electric Railway system tracks slated to ran along Pacific Drive, which obviously never occurred. Thank you very much for your support and cooperation in this regard. Respec duly yours, Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar Property Owners: 1-7-'r Pad e Drive X, >-a Ad rem Data X6/25/1999 21:16 9493609929 PLANET CFSIGN INC A'ITACIENT to Letter of Request for Abandonment of Soutber#y 26 feet of Pacific Drive, CDM, CA *s**e**Stateme0t of Support * * * * * ** Tbwsdayr X" 30,1999 Mr. Don Webb, Dirscttrr Public Works Depw cart City of Newport Basch 33M Newport Boslavard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RR: Proposed AbwWonmcst of 26 it. of Right -aWay Bluff Side Pacific Dtim Corona del :afar, CA REF: PLANET DESIGN Letter of May 20, 1994 by VMH= IL Edwards, Arddtwk representing Soudw y Side PnctIIc Drive Property Owners War Mr. Webb: PAGE 05 I (We) the undersigned, as property aevner(s) on Pacific Drive an Coross dd Mar, CA hereby regeamt that the City of Newport Reach begin procednres to vacate the obovo-rc&renced southerly 26 feet (al)ng the sloping or'blaW side) of the e>deting eighty (90) 5rot right-of-way along Paddle Drive from Avoaado Avenge to Begonia Avenue in Corona del Afar, CA. This would creato a Oft -four (64) ft. wide public righ"r-way, more to keeping wtth the Comas dd Mar standard R/W widths averaging approximately Aft (SO) foal. we understand that the overdad street easoment wan originally designed many doeaales ago to provide for the Pacific Electric Railway system treks fisted to tun along Pacific Drive, which obviously ocver occurred. Thank you very mach lbr your support and cooperation is" regard. Respectfully yours, pwfic U Corona del Mar Property Ownsrar �? 3 3_ 3pndfic Dive 1 tvt.. Address Dam A, i1 %J �A ••k 1�4 "RECEIYED WER AGEND I SMlED I IN c 0 is t:�o 6mA - PoA "' ND �TA� hei\e-�A-s- -i eq,\eo CLvatl)�- Ck\ 61 P%V- '�S R�r-eff&(A NV6 im" RCA , k(- C\t R NOTICE OF VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has been in the makings for over a year. IT IS NOT A VIRUS AS YET! The City of Newport Beach did not instigate this. However, as of the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has now become the applicant. A few selfish individuals, who just cannot stop pushing the envelope, and will stop at nothing in order to get their way, drummed up this whole idea in order to increase their buildable footage by vacation of the right -of -way, and to bypass the variance process. If this Vacation of right -of -way is passed, only a few will benefit from the gain, and again the majority opposing this issue will lose. The people that started this proposal do not want you to know that it opens the door for variances at a later date, so they will be able to build closer to the street, free to go up, or behind, or down the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. T Please look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 13'" meeting to save _ our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of Newp6'..Beach, before June 6, 2000. City of Newport Beach ` 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 —� Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Atc City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting =s a YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street. NO vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty1nd integrity of the street. Date Address I NOTICE OF VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has been in the makings for over a year. IT IS NOT A VIRUS AS YET! The City of Newport Beach did not instigate this. However, as of the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has now become the applicant. A few selfish individuals, who just cannot stop pushing the envelope, and will stop at nothing in order to get their way, drummed up this whole idea in order to increase their buildable footage by vacation of the right -of -way, and to bypass the variance process. If this Vacation of right -of -way is passed, only a few will benefit from the gain, and again the majority opposing this issue will lose. The people that started this proposal do not want you to know that it opens the door for variances at a later date, so they will be able to build closer to the street, free to go up, or behind, or down the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. Please look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 13th me0ing, to gve our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of Newport Beach, before June 6, 2000. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. _ .. P.O. Box 1768 a Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 D Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting a YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the o enness of the street. O vot means you do not want th vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to ep the beau y nd integri o the street. Signature /,fG '� ✓C/ Date Address .S67 C WN 4- 7/)1l NOTICE OF VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has been in the makings for over a year. IT IS NOT A VIRUS AS YET! The City of Newport Beach did not instigate this. However, as of the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has now become the applicant. A few selfish individuals, who just cannot stop pushing the envelope, and will stop at nothing in order to get their way, drummed up this whole idea in order to increase their buildable footage by vacation of the right -of -way, and to bypass the variance process. If this Vacation of right -of -way is passed, only a few will benefit from the gain, and again the majority opposing this issue will lose. The people that started this proposal do not want you to know that it opens the door for variances at a later date, so they will be able to build closer to the street, free to go up, or behind, or down the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. Please look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 13w meetjng, to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of New part Beh, before June 6, 2000. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. z P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 All: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting U3 YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk lo3ing the a openness of the street. O: NO to means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to eep the beauty . dintegrity of th t. Signature 7-- Date C7 - 7— U 6 Address 'GC IJt1 12.. ;', ^ '4 2 00, cRF, Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City Council Meeting of June 13, 2000 I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. I am apposed to the proposed resolution or any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the future, on our right to use and enjoy Pacific Drive. I am concerned about front yard setbacks, buildable area and maximum building height. This vacation of right -of -way will have an adverse affect many property owners and the hundreds of citizens that. visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. Printed Name: %/ L Address: -;;l6n Phone (optional): Signature: 7,000 COUNCIL AGENDA SMi rH BA con/ N0, a a 3 is'PAC 0 F« DR CdRCKA DOI -MARS 92LZ.S NEG✓AuRT,B,E,gcH Crt%CO1fKc+L XJC.F.' AMF- NDMF_/vrNm• 3'77 Vac/4r /on/ uF Rl�l(r -oP -WAY vK PACr fore. DR, t tzF3ucsr yo(/ s,-or rH)s Foe r'Hb /,F PRoPtE Kr /FS ov T/{E SouT1{CBLUPDS/D,E cr. PgclPCC- DR 47-7/Y.6 10(ef3U e HF0911vG oN 6//319,100. TH/z- k.EASOnr Fog 7/4 /5 w) a£ RJ6- Hr-R- ivgYC/- 4CcrrQ[L SrRr- E cAR� IJAS G-oArr 6q 41Ay% Bu r w/F 4y 4 /v /cr 4 Acy / {AS .9 ry Z.AFT ro 4 For¢ 17% YFgKS % / {rs W1c.1- C 14F1ev6:F_ rHA Fur"Kq GvvKS OF TH/ srREEr. Inl.E 611/-/0 G v,E H/rA, /r Now L wry � «sr �N ris6 r" /nrF, vrsu. i4 � ei�rF cr f14/ =,qS,E vv F 0 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting RECEIVED YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street.. '00 JUN -8 A 8 :21 NO ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of- -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty and integrity of the street. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF hEW ORT BEACII Signature L-� Date 0(o oS /a v Address NOTICE OF VACATION OF S In RIGHT- OF-WAy � m ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has been ;;, tae makings 'Cr over a year. IT IS NOT A VIRUS AS YET! The City of Newport Beach did not instigate this. However, as of the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has now become the applicant. A few selfish individuals, who just cannot stop pushing the envelope, and will stop at nothing in order to get their way, drummed up this whole idea in order to increase their buildable footage by vacation of the right -of -way, and to bypass the variance process. If this Vacation of right -of -way is passed, only a few will benefit from the gain, and again the majority opposing this issue will lose. The people that started this proposal do not want you to know that it opens the door for variances at a later date, so they will be able to build closer to the street, free to go up, or behind, or down the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. 1. . , Please look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 13 1 to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES-or NO-and send it to the City of Newport Beach, before June 6, 2000. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street. NO vote means y do not want t va ation of right- -way to pass, and you want to keep the b ty and in grit f the s t. Signature Date C� b Address -51 PO /hdlI.W /H 44— M 11 0 9 NOTICE OF �vL;, R L VACAT "ION OFum - A8:21 R �t �� ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has been in the makings for over a year. IT IS NOT A VIRUS' AS YET! The City of Newport IS did not instigate this. However, as of the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has now become the applicant. A few selfish individuals, who just cannot stop pushing the envelope, and will stop at nothing in order to get their way, drummed up this whole idea in order to increase their buildable footage by vacation of the right -of -way, and to bypass the variance process. If this Vacation of right -of -way is passed, only a few will benefit from the gain, and again the majority opposing this issue will lose. The people that started this proposal do not want you to know that it opens the door for variances at a later date, so they will be able to build closer to the street, free to go up, or behind, or down the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. Please look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 131, meeting, to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES or -NO and send it to the City of Newport Beach, before June 6, 2000. , City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street. NO vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty and integr' ML Signature ` Q Date bt Address 5\4! \ n L City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER 2227 Pacific_ Drive 92658 -8915 'GO JUN -7 :19 '05 OF r CL'tRr. C1- :'. . . '?i 3 7- ACII Re: Abandonment of Street Right -Of -Way Amendment No. 899 Dear Council Members: On first hearing of this proposed abandonment, I could see the benefit of the prospect of increasing my lot size substantially since I have a 60' lot and my house sets low enough on the street that it would enable me to build upward. However, after weighing the consequences of the resulting increase in square footage it would be devastating to my neighbors across the street as it would seriously limit their established view and decrease the value of their real property. The present setback and allowable square footage was known at the time each of us purchased our property and was one of the deciding factors on why we did purchase. Also the people who bought across the street from us could not foresee the future abandonment of this street and the impact this could potentially have on their view and the value of their property. This, I feel, would be unfair. In further thinking this through, I feel that this increased allowable square footage would be built into living spaces and not garage spaces which would allow for more occupancy per structure and consequently have the potential of further impact on the existing severe parking problem. The only way I could support this amendment is if it did not modify in any way the existing setback requirements or allowable square footage per lot. In restating my objection to this, I don't feel that the city should take any action which would benefit the few at the expense of the many. Re ully, PH LIS M. RODEFF PMR:wll E C 0 q by O � � q q U o O a v a °A vO ai ro o polu ODC 'OE Ed R d .^Oi co V V 13 t; E�( N q O Q cd O � V V E > •" 0.0 Z IcLM m C•> 3 0 > °� ° A w d A aCi o; e723� as 0 C V 4r 0 -�"' N o= gy=p thr NO w .0 N d p T p J v y C O .q G N n C O O V 00 O C L « > N cE0 a0+ C N C .. a0i m o >' C: N m 0 C'I c N 80 co z a E •zy Y 5- N Lei v 2i �yyy 0 G 0 0 N O a N11: r O C O r O C ou m v C OA po Al ^ 8 SAN � d � 1 v:. o � V q ago O a a a03 w cn 0 Y 'C ^ q � C b O O :7 O ►� S � V q q .� OG o a Y N 04 N N s o 0= > w V �y pp 0.1..1 �i O p G a O q it _v •OVD C � � � W •r T V V cc > R Q N V cc y G g Q O c0 '0 O N N iZ W a N d c0 z °eoe�� B �_ N d T C V cd O '1 7 tii w N p U .0 o m a o w C L. ., .. u Age GF-� o CD 0 ' T Y = CCCC w 2 C E O 0-.2 2 y- O � O •L. U QO C. Q TJ r- y N O O q >� vC=,s w V a �d�E aYT r1 U V > E C O v c1z— VCIY d V W .; N C .0 N 'N V A R C i �a col co .0 d C > 'T I S 0 aLN. 0 cc E G:N_ 4w C. c>j O S d l 9 r .p'_ '•3 P3 o Ud a O p0 y N O o� �o3�ywN .o o x O 'o A OGU N Viy' Goon v ° o °vws c3 a O V �4co>�OrJ m° a° e a 92. o o a y U 0 >' C: N m 0 C'I c N 80 co z a E •zy Y 5- N Lei v 2i �yyy 0 G 0 0 N O a N11: r O C O r O C ou m v C OA po Al ^ 8 SAN � d � 1 v:. o � V q ago O a a a03 w cn 0 Y 'C ^ q � C b O O :7 O ►� S � V q q .� OG o a Y N 04 N N s o 0= > w V �y pp 0.1..1 �i O p G a O q it _v •OVD C � � � W •r T V V cc > R Q N V cc y G g Q O c0 '0 O N N iZ W a N d c0 z °eoe�� B �_ N d T C V cd O '1 7 tii w N p U .0 o m a o w C L. ., .. u Age GF-� o CD 0 v d � o � N � C b p N .Q Q t� •o Ow O V O r� C< 7 c0 C Op LIP" I �1 V 4A Qi > ,C .!7 V 4A �d�E aYT U V > E C O E j d V C .0 N 'N �� C i �a col .0 d CU V � C y .Lr :". N S 'D ° ;C•° 3'a y T C' T V y Ud O p0 y N O wC, r+ •`' y -0 O V b N q w o co z� �° c3 C C3 CCC v d � o � N � C b p N .Q Q t� •o Ow O V O r� C< 7 c0 C Op LIP" C� T PC CL U ''CO^ C W p C c u 0o d p E..E E _"m PC �, cp u ••. u M OdQ y y •� � � >>`� � '� ' C o f cc w +' ^� :. W a cd O y" p a 3 COG 'O y � >> 00 cc o A. o ° ° Aar U00 •jrT.�iy O O y •� L.0 O N QM Q N' O O T w E CL y O e C tCd E E aE� ? o , a d c Q L; h b 9i a c° O C C N •o y °' Q G. fi Q CO &E a PC IA p y N o W 6i O ti jm o ft cc p a a a V .0 04 U u PC p a 6 � Vi i..i O z c C O E ei p U U R .6 U 00 a A 0 °0 p as u E > C W .y p = W cC0 C '> 3 e = 3 '� >1 p A'U cpa $ 3 3 ° � N Ijq N ou .. p r o U �steny c a o L 10 O ai WO d p T CO 'J a C O O N lyC V .0 r E .0 a p ++ L U pq d A 0 et •� Qi .r r .. QO p p E G. w w su dE E El p Ovoti is q u ii QO y N cC W E 8 S p �`;uE> coo 0, 0 c°g o 0 O c eE o .o A A Q. 0 l au¢ a '> cc z = E o � �•� 3 z =E>"'> � o ca O yk C L O T cc Obi?cj N 0 °i 003 g CL O U E L° a o ° u ° •L'' *a - L. .O e.Oi u'"�r o q� p c L. L T O O� O'� fl PC Ow a ec o OOD N r6�7 v aS 0 '� C •�•; .. 0 o o ca a u .: cud N �� EEEo�.Ne F.M O ICI FBI d 4r N � O C� T PC CL U ''CO^ C W p C c u 0o d p E..E E _"m PC �, cp u ••. u M OdQ y y •� � � >>`� � '� ' C o f cc w +' ^� :. W a cd O y" p a 3 COG 'O y � >> 00 cc o A. o ° ° Aar U00 •jrT.�iy O O y •� L.0 O N QM Q N' O O T w E CL y O e C tCd E E aE� ? o , a d c Q L; h b 9i a c° O C C N •o y °' Q G. fi Q CO &E a PC IA p y N o W 6i O ti jm o ft cc p a a a V .0 04 U u PC p a 6 � Vi i..i O z c C O E ei p U U R .6 U 00 a A 0 °0 p as u E > C W .y p = W cC0 C '> 3 e = 3 '� >1 p A'U cpa $ 3 3 ° � N Ijq N ou .. p r o U �steny c a o L 10 O ai WO d p T CO 'J a C O O N lyC z C li E z e Li .D M. a I y' G G. G U V .0 a p p 3Q�o�w •� et •� PC r .. w w w su dE E El cud 0 •�, U d aA o ti cC W E 8 S p O u u > 0�0 OA 0 ° o• p u m c > A 3 o c a��= cc � z = E o � �•� 3 O T cc N 0 °i g CL O U w a *a - L. .O q� p c L. L T O O� O'� fl Ow a ec o z C li E z e Li .D M. a I y' G G. G U a � ° o a s a o ao .. U •�CGU � S O a�O 0 a cc O„ cc /� E COD r Y C pp d •pp a � L E W " a g;cc ffi Y PL ^ N rA w a v U w_ �y`r 7 a e o o >� N C r.l H W fln lV � 0 V a •$ Q � � o � d u o �1 Aar o •b d N � T C E s v cd0�0� �L EGL 'o c a D v u u E >> ° = V Tw��> z o L' IN 0-6 J c °w O � .� •L..Q w Z y C C 'O cc w W E it > „ o y W o e 0 W z y ° C 'O Q 0 0 Z y o c c o pp JUN _g !l8 :21 CtYiG =r',r ryrLER�, c,, car eES cii • T Y � �a E�a•' d� 0°iO C t2 B E b0 O C •p fu � � .N \ ESQ � Cc a N c0 \ 1 z_E °��. W y.0 e0w N O p C .7' d ." p� GGGLLL *4 .o v g0.1 ° cl �^i � � •� 1� � 4n > 1.• y �� y Q Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abando=* '00 .;U,'%' -) 19 :r4 I am Opposed to Resolution # ' (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City Council Meeting of June 13, 2000 a^nd �'-' ,. Cstu, ' c a-2 Q'T ' ' Qn, 0 F F i EI L". ^F r, I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. C! T + T i' !1 I am apposed to the proposed resolution or any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the future, on our right to use and enjoy Pacific Drive. I am concerned about front yard setbacks, buildable area and maximum building height. This vacation of right -of -way will have an adverse affect many property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. Printed Name: PL I H E p -t. L A nl G ( 90-HEC9 Address: 370 Id 3t i<zy _ Phone (optional): (L, -"q6 l� 4- 4 - 235 0 (PLO- du Signature: Q4'c� l� LQn w • Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment. I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City Council Meeting of June 13, 2000 I am a resident of Corona del Mar or.Newpon Beach. I am apposed to the proposed resolution or any change in setbacks, easements or rights -of -way which may have an affect now or in the future, on our right to use and enjoy Pacific Drive. I am concerned about front yard setbacks, buildable area and maximum building height. This vacation of right -of -way will have an adverse r;ffect many property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. Printed Name: 1 ''" Ckh % � M ' -Do Address: G)" M KGw a VV''e.e- Phone Signatl • NOTICE OF 'on " "I" VACATIOl� CAFo RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and Ias been in the makings for over a year. IT IS NOT A VIRUS AS YET! The City of Newport Beach did not instigate this. However, as of the May 18, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission, the City has now become the applicant. A few selfish individuals, who just cannot stop pushing the envelope, and will stop at nothing in order to get their way, drummed up this whole idea in order to increase their buildable footage by vacation of the right -of -way, and to bypass the variance process. If this Vacation of right -of -way is passed, only a few will benefit from the gain, and again the majority opposing this issue will lose. The people that started this proposal do not want you to know that it opens the door for variances at a later date, so they will be able to build closer to the street, free to go up, or behind, or down the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we can keep the integrity of the neighborhood, and it will remain one of the best streets in Corona del Mar. Please look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 13'h meeting, to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of Newport Beach, before June 6, 2000. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street. (ENO ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature jaa-L1a. rZ , 49.0., Date 6 - -7 - a-,o 0 o Address OL� C��- --•-A- >", �'.4• Mrs. James N. De Lamater 2312 pacific Driv0 i' i :`d' i Corona del Mar, Colifoenia 92626 June 8, 2000 •()o ,JUN —9 Pill :57 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 KE: amendment No. 899 June 13, 2000 Pacific Drive -COmar Gentlemen: Unfortunately I will be out of town Tuesday, June 13th and not able to attend the Public Hearing con- cerning Amendment No. 899 scheduled that evening. Pacific Drive is the most charming street in all of Corona del mar. I came to Pacific Drive as a bride twenty -five years ago and have loved the uniqueness and rare feeling of open space not found in other parts of Corona del mar. my Pacific Drive neighbors share pride for our beautiful street. I wish to go on record that I definitely DO NOT approve of the vacation of right -of -way on the south side of Pacific Drive. Sincerely yours, Elizabeth C. DpLamater 0 0 .tune 10, 2000 (I know this is long, but please bear with us. These things necojto %broughtfuajh -for gVeYyane's benefit and should never have had to be taken this far. Thank you for your consideration, Christi Bettingen). RE: Pacific Drive Abandonment Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am very disheartened by the neighbors who have chosen to lie to you and mislead others to be a party to such a false and misleading campaign targeted to manipulate votes against the abandonment. The information that the opposition has presented in petitions; on signs; in letters; in hearings; and in conversations to the public is filled with lies! Photos from previous hearings that were already pointed out by Commissioners to be false representations have been re- circulated, and city documents have been altered and disseminated to the public. The allegations that have been circulated both publicly and in writing about ourselves, our architect Bill Edwards and our home are harmful to us personally and have been presented intentionally to fraudulently manipulate others. We have lived in this neighborhood for the last 16 years and have never had any problems with any of the neighbors until we first declined to sign a petition circulated by Suzy and Jerry Vaughn opposing the AI Ross project next door to us at 2209 Pacific Drive. Over the years we have lived through numerous remodels, encroachments, modifications, variances and "other" building activities from neighbors up and down the street without ever opposing even a one. Last year when we decided to remodel, we went out of our way to show the neighbors our plans. We invited them into our home, and made ourselves available for any questions, both to be good neighbors and because we were all to aware of the massive negativity that was perpetuated by the Vaughns against Al Ross's building and quite frankly, were concerned about being their next target. The petition that you have received recently was created and circulated by Susan and Jerry Vaughn, residents at 2200 Pacific Drive. Included in this petition are numerous lies and false representations that are contained within written materials, and or stated to numerous individuals within the community, in public forums (planning commission meetings) and to city officials. These lies created by the Vauglins and Doug Lax, (2224 Pacific Drive) are listed as follows: • The Vaughns have stated orally and in their letter dated April 25, 1999, that our existing skylight exceeds the height limit. Our skylight is located at a level approximately 14 feet high and we are allowed to build up to 24 to 29 feet in that location. The Commissioners corrected the Vaughns during our hearings the first time, and yet they still continue to re- circulate those same letters with false representations contained in their most recent petition regarding the abandonment. �• In a letter dated June 27, 1999 and at our variance hearings, the Vaughns lied about our story poles. After .ferry Vaughn spent two hours at our ]ionic looking at our detailed plans and asking questions, he finally said he wasn't sure of what we were building and asked us to put up stor/ poles. We agreed to do so as a courtesy to him. This was not required of us, no one had ever done it • in our neighborhood previously with their building and all the other nearby neighbors had already seen our plans and either approved them or did not object. However, we agreed to do so lust for thf: Vau hns, with the understanding that when they went up, we could all view them together from their home so we could address any concerns, right there and then. We hired a contractor who built the poles, and set a specific meeting time with the Vaughns who never showed, nor did they bother' to call or answer our phone calls while we all stood on our driveway facing their house and waiting. (see attached letters December I & 2, 1998) • The Vaughns have re- circulated photos in your packets that falsely represent what we the Bettingen's intend to build when we remodel. These same photos were pointed out as being distorted during the Planning Commission hearing and yet they continue to promote the said false and misleading representations again contained in their recent petition in order to deceive our good neighbors. • There have been lies spread by both the Vaughns and Mr. Lax regarding losses to property values due to our variance application. In a letter dated June 22, 1999, and during our hearing, the Vaughns falsely claim they will lose $400,000 due to our height variance. In a May 6, 1999 letter, Mr. Lax falsely states, "property value losses could easily figure in the hundreds of thousands o1' dollars per home" and further lies in his letter dated May 18, 2000, "I am now experiencin& financial losses due to the city's preferential treatment of the Bettingen's and other abusers of the system." Iie continues, "The variances the City has granted them have already cost me dearly in the marketability of my home." Mr. Lax's inability to sell his house has absolutely nothing to dc, • with us. His house has been for sale for almost 1 1/2 years and we haven't even broken ground yet. When these representations were first made during our variance hearings, the Commissioners told them to authenticate such losses by providing true and accurate photo representations and by hiring a professional who could collaborate such claims, they could not do so as it was. Yet, these distorted materials re- circulated in their recent petitions, and said allegations were repeated by Mr. Lax in our May 18, 2000 hearing after already being told by City officials they were misleading. • During our variance hearing, the Vaughns together with Mr. Lax co- conspired to present false photographic representations in a poster size graphic of what our roofline would look like "before" and "after" the remodel, which was a retouched alteration of the truth. The Commissioners saw through this, let them know that this graphic was unacceptable and that they should hire a professional who can produce true and accurate graphics that are reliable. The damage however was already done and neighbors who had been presented with such photos were led to believe they were accurate • In a letter December 2, 1998 Ms. Vaughn sent to us, and included in their petition packets, she states that "the whole street objected to Al Ross's plans." This was clearly a lie because we supported Al Ross's project and refused to sign either two of her petitions when she fought him on the building of his home and then circulated a second multi -page petition opposing his landscaping. • On June 27, 1999, during our variance process, Ms. Vaughn signs her letter of opposition as "THE CONCERNED NEIGHBORHOOD ON PACIFIC DRIVE, falsely implying that she is speaking on behalf of the entire neighborhood. Who gave her the authority to make such a claim? Most of the neighbors on the second half of the street beyond Mr. Lax on the north side and beyond Phyllis 2 Rodeffer on the south, were not concerned with what was going on during our variance application and many have told us this on numerous occasions. • In the Vaughn letter dated May 22, 2000 she falsely states that the majority of the street said no to the Bettingen variance. The majority of the neighborhood wasn't involved. The entire neighborhood consists of 26 homes. The map graphic from the variance hearing that the Vaughns have included in their petition packets doesn't even show the entire second half of the block on the north side. The Vaughns and Mr. Lax were the only two on the street that showed any apprehension with our plans initially. By the time the Vaughs and Mr. Lax had finished their propaganda, they managed under false pretense to turn some of our yes votes and neutral votes into opposition. There were seven signatures of opposition, of which only four spoke out at the hearings. Throughout most of Ms.Vaughn's hand written notes on staff reports, city notices and other documents included in their packets concerning the variance, she repeatedly infers that she is speaking on behalf of the majority. The majority never authorized her to make such claims. Nor did they allow her to claim that the Bettingen's are "taking away most of all our views" as falsely stated in her packet letter dated June 27, 1999. • Contrary to the lies that have been spread about both me and the Commissioners, the reason that we received a unanimous "yes" vote on our height variance is because they took the extra time to visit each concerned homeowner's location and investigate if the representations made by certain neighbors had any merit. Until that point, some of the Commissioners were not in favor of our variance. Once they saw for themselves that the neighbors concerns were not only unfounded, but in some cases the concessions the Bettingen's were making actually increased views, did they then vote unanimously to approve the variance. • Again, the Vaughns have lied in their most recent petition which falsely claims who is in favor of the abandonment and who is not, and have circulated it as such without the permission of certain neighbors. These representations have had the "bandwagon" effect and influenced certain neighbors to oppose, particularly with the newer neighbors who have stated they are uncomfortable with going against the many. • We have been accused of deceptive tactics and coercion with the City because we withdrew our request for additional square footage from our variance application at our first hearing last year. To set the record straight, we did this after we learned about the excessive right -of -way that starts just 5 feet in front of our house. We were told by several City Representatives that the appropriate procedure was for the City to pursue abandonment of the entire street, as the City does not want a one property at a time approach. Public Works instructed that this was to be handled through a summary abandonment, after signatures of more than one neighbor on the street. This was the same procedure used on the Broad Street abandonment. The attached May 20, 1999 letters to Public Works shows application by more than just the Bettingen's as homeowners on the street. Contrary to the Vaughns representations, more than one neighbor made the request. • When the Vaughns learned of this, they lied and attempted to sabotage the process by claiming that approval for the height variance was a tradeoff for withdrawing our request to go beyond the 1.5 PAR. (.tune 22, 1999 included in their petition packets). This was never the case. Our home is prc- existing, non - conforming and the concessions we made during our hearings were reduction of height toward the street side, and the pulling back of roof eaves at the sides and rear (sec staff 3 report). Our architect stated specifically at the onset of our first planning meeting that thz Bettingens wish to withdraw their request for the additional square footage that exceeds the 13 FAR from this variance application, and reserve the right to address this at a later time withoc.t prejudice. We did this based upon the new information we had received concerning the right -of way and what we were told by the City regarding the abandonment procedures. We were approved for our variance strictly based on the required findings that is part of our rights as property owners and is stated and protected by the code. (paul notes) • In Ms. Vaughn's letter dated June 27, 1999 and referenced in conversations with both neighbors and city officials as part of the "conspiracy theory," Ms.Vaughn falsely represents that we intentionally delayed our variance hearings as a tactic to try and move the abandonment through prior to our hearing. If the abandonment were to be approved prior to our hearing, then there could be nothing to trade -off with, as previously alleged by the Vaughns. Which is it Ms.Vaughn? • In Ms. Vaughns hand written notes placed over the letter from Bill Edwards dated May 20, 1999 included in their petition packets, Ms.Vaughn continues to infer deception and states "why was this letter request never discussed with the homeowners against the Bettingens variance and those thereafter ?" According to Public Works procedures, signatures of more than one neighbor is all that's required. The City then held an open Community Meeting which was noticed throughout the surrounding area, as a means to provide an open forum for the neighborhood to study the proposal, ask questions and address concerns. Suzi & Jerry Vaughn and Doug Lax jointly failed to attend. • At the May 18, 2000 Planning Commission hearing regarding the abandonment, the Vaughns and Doug Lax made numerous claims stating that the Bettingens were deceitful and then presented only a portion of the documents sent to Public Works stating Mr. Edwards did not represent multiple homeowners. Mr. Edwards has indeed worked on behalf of ourselves and several homeowners than desire passage of the abandonment and done so on his own time. • Ms. Vaughn has made false statements about increased taxes to homeowners. When asked by us or Saturday, June 3, 2000 where she got her information, Ms. Vaughn revealed that she had not even called the County Assessors office. • Finally on Saturday June 3, 2000, the Vaughns and Mr. Lax put on a professional propaganda campaign during the Corona Del Mar run. Signage reading "Save the View on Pacific Drive" and red, white and blue flags were spread throughout the street as a means of misleading the public. Tables were set up with food and water with the Vaughns soliciting signatures at one end and Doug Lax at the other. Lies and misrepresentations were told and contained in written materials, and large aft. x 5ft posters papered along the fronts of neighbors homes from Pacific Drive down to Avocado. These representations are documented through video recordings (to be presented at a latter date) (See attached photos). Stories told to the public that day would change, dependent upon whether the Vaughns or Mr. Lax were aware of being caught on camera. At one point, Mr. Vaughn called me a "Bitch" in public, which is also documented on camera. Most of these posters have remained in place accompanied with petitions on clip boards and convenient mailers in holders strategically presented in front of homes for passerby's to sign thoughout the days leading up to the hearing. Also included in front of Mr. Lax's house, are City documents and graphics that he has personally altered to misrepresent the truth. (see attached). n I have been asked repeatedly why the Vaughn's have been treating us like this and 1 am not able to respond with certainty. Are they angry because we didn't side with them in opposing the Al Ross project? Are they angry because we were approved for our variance? Are they angry because I have young children that might annoy them? Are they angry because I have stood up for my family and my rights as a homeowner, and they didn't get their way with us? Or is it just who they are? I don't know. I only know that there is a pattern of lying, misleading neighbors, and the now the public at large, by attempting to create confusion and subterfuge in order to sway public opinion. The Vaughns, who own the largest property on the street with four consecutive lots, also literally own the air rights above Judy Hodges house who is hidden into the slope and they have managed to keep the Al Ross property sequestered close to the curb line level. (See the reference of 100 -name petition in the Independent Newspaper in their packets). Both homes are located directly across from the Vaughn estate, which allows them nearly a 180- degree panoramic view of the ocean, bays and Catalina Island. However, they do not own the view rights to the entire street and most certainly do not have the right to lie to all of us to further their own personal gain. The Vaughns arc very angry that we received a height variance (modest as it is). We are just trying to build a home that accommodates our two children and family. We now have an approximate 2,300 square foot house and we are second to the smallest lot and property on the street (30 ft. wide). Our new neighbor Randy Lush only owns a half lot. The plans for our home do not impact views and were confirmed as such by the Commissioners after three hearings and thorough evaluation. I believe it is the intention of the Vaughns to try and force us to move in hopes that some developer will come in and just not want to spend the time or money dealing with them and perhaps build a home as low as A] Ross's. We'll we are non - conforming in height just like many of the others down the block, and we or anyone else with this home, can build up to 29 ft high on the bluff side. Currently, we stand at 14 feet high in front and are designed to lower the height by about I-' /2 feet. Our intention is and always has been, to take the additional square footage down the slope, and add a room on the lowest floor down the hillside where it impacts no one. We do not live in an association that is headed by Suzi and Jerry Vaughn, nor do they have the right to instill fear, negativity, and confusion in homeowners along the street. 1 feel particularly bad for our new neighbors who have been exposed to such activities and have lost some of the joy associated with new beginnings and wanting to get to know the neighbors. It's just not right for any of us. If the Vaughns and Mr. Lax are so concerned about diminishing property values, just think what is happening to our property values now. No one wants to live in a neighborhood with this kind of negativity. We have chosen to be peaceful and cooperative for all these years and intend to do so in the future. We have the right to improve our homes just as the rest of the neighbors have done. Our plans do not impact anyone's view and have been thoroughly analyzed and determined by the City to meet all the findings for a height variance (see staff report). There is an even bigger issue happening here and it goes beyond a "neighborhood feud" and that is, the preservation of all of our property rights, which in this case, have been threatened by someone who repeatedly claims she is confused. If she is so confused all the time concerning these issues, then she should not appoint herself as the head of as she calls it, "THE CONCERNED NEIGHBORHOOD ON PACIFIC DRIVE" (last year's slogan), or the "SAVE THE VIEW ON PACIFIC DRIVE." Whether all these tics and misleading representations are intentional or mixed with confusion, 1 cannot say. I lowever, one thing is for sure, it is injurious to all concerned. 1'd like to know how my neighbors on 5 the south side would feel if they lost total use of the land and the City decided to widen the road as was suggested by one of the Commissioners several weeks ago. Or how would my north side neighbors feel, if they knew they were responsible for their neighbors loosing rights to what they always thought was their land or their right to protect their homes from loiterers right outside their front doors. What about the parking everyone is so concerned about on the street. If south side homeowners can't legally keep others from parking on what they thought was their driveways, guess there's going to be more parking on the street. Anyone has the right to oppose the abandonment that is contained in the reports put out from the City. This proposal however is not about the Bettingen's house or the variance that was approved last year. The issue being presented is about vacating a portion of the excess right -of -way on the southerly side of Pacific Drive. This is your last chance to protect the right to fair play and substantial justice rather than giving ear to those who have attempted to mislead other city agencies such as these named individuals had tried and failed to do with the Planning Commission. Attached please find a Q &A regarding clarification of what is being proposed in this upcoming hearing as we understand it and has been distributed to educate others. Thank you for your time and patience in reviewing this rather lengthy letter. Christi Bettingen and Family 2215 Pacific Drive, Corona Del Mar 9 0 Questions and Answers Regarding the June 13'h Proposed Partial Abandonment of Pacific Drive (To be voted upon June I Th, 7:00pxL at the Newport Beach City Council Meeting, 3300 Newport Beach Blvd., N.B.) 1. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the homeowners on the south side of Pacific Drive be able to build any higher and block my view? NOH! The abandonment does not provide any change whatsoever to the 24/28 -foot allowable height limit or the existing front yard setback lines. It will not allow anyone to build up, forward or out anymore than they already are permitted to do so by code. 2. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this change the actual physical width of the asphalt or concrete paved portion of the street? No! Nothing will physically change regarding the current width of the street curb line to curb line, from what you currently visually see. The street paving, curbing, gutters, parkway areas and public sidewalk will not change in any way whatsoever as a result of this abandonment. 3. After the proposed abandonment is approved, then what will change? The way the Pacific Drive street currently reads on a map shows it as being 80 feet wide. Once the excess and unused right -of way is abandoned, when you look at a map of this area, it will show it as 60 feet wide. It is solely a `paper change'. With the approval of the abandonment, deed of ownership and titles to property will also be made to reflect the change accordingly. The portion that is being vacated is what we currently see as all the south side Pacific Drive homeowners front yards, landscaping and driveways and is what most homeowners already thought belonged to them to begin with. 4. N I five on the south side of Pacific Drive and I really do not own what I thought was "my" front yard area, does that mean that if the abandonment is not passed, then the city can do whatever they want with the land at a later date? YES! Legally, because the city owns the land, they can do whatever they want with it at anytime. Lately, there have been a lot of people complaining about the streets in Corona Del Mar being too narrow, and as recently as the May 18, 2000, public hearing, it was suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners that instead of reducing the size of the street on Pacific Drive, here is a perfect opportunity for the City to use the land to widen the actual physical paving of the street. This suggestion received overwhelming applause from advocates of "Save the View on Pacific Drive." To not pass this abandonment means that the south side homeowners cannot control the use of the land. 5. If I five on the south side of Pacific Drive and I really do not own what I thought was "my" front yard area, does that mean that if the abandonment is not passed, then people can stand, loiter, or even park in that area without my permission? YES! Given that the homeowners on the south side of Pacific Drive do not legally own the public right -of -way, that area is considered public property, therefore the public would not legally be trespassing and homeowners do not have the right to tell them to leave. Given the recent push from advocates of "Save the View on Pacific Drive" to treat this area as their "public view," this could cause serious problems for homeowners on Pacific Drive because they cannot not legally stop the public from parking in front yard driveways, loitering, or for that matter having picnics while enjoying the view. (OVER) I 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feel:, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to) build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side • homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements o:- setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a,lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Name: Signature. Date: • Address: Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92659 0 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No'. The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of ei named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. 4YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right- of�v�y�o pass and "City keeps the land. kddress:�� Please fax back to 949 - 756 -09810 \mail to: wport Blvd., Newport Date: C-) —i CA 92659 06/06/00 21:17 AL ROSS 4 949 756 0981 NO.001 D02 FROM : Christi nottola PHONE NO. : Jun. es 2000 12 :26PM F3 6. After the proposed abandonment is Bpptoved, ceo homes build closer to the street? No! The existing boat yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandotimerty what that will beoused to figure into the the south side bomeowws is solely to Create a new property additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side bomeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 fact of the right -of -way, and will calculatet as follows: �� 00 9f t f vetly be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet bwldable times the 1.5 FAR So for example, would be abl�se expand is homeowners that live on a 30 R wide lot that gain an additional 9ofW' bey weer is restricted to be bLWd their home by a total of 504 square feet. This kt'r, Y applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area of closer to the 'street. 7. After the proposed abaadonment is approved, ruin this increase my tales? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific: Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. g. Asa nwalt of the abaadooment being approved. win I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side, . homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandoomeat is approved, will the streetscape 190e any of its open areas! No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the. public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public.. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. lo. After the abandonment is approved, will this Increase the parldug congesdon on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in at for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. o,, a.f there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you warn the vacation of rigs tof -+way to pass. NO, means you do twt want the vacation of tight -0f way to Pass -and the City keeps the tend / Al // f � i✓N Date: 6 6 C10 Pleasc fat pack to 949 - 75"751 or 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? •No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. CI 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's In it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. AYES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. ::f NO, means you do not want the vacation of right-of way to Address: Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: and the City keeps the land. Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet., they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to buikl however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldug congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. fL YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means /you do not want the vacation of right f way to ass and the City keeps lthe land. Name:' /KL' /' ws '1� I% 4 Signature: Cir�L Date:�e/) Address: 2.�oc �� %l �/ll /�[� ; �Clr' L�, I /t %/l t',% /� /C /i :•.`/ (�( / �(• 1 �' Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? Nol There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefns to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right-ofyn,46 pass and the City k MIP s the land 0 Name: ,,rr�� Signature: %Cw�! Date: Address: _� �j' — / /9 C /!� /G 0,. 0. Q. /%1 Please fax Yack to 949456 -0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 06/06/00 21:17 AL ROSS 4 949 756 0981 NO.001 002 FROM Christi Mottola PHONE NO. Jun. es 2000 12:26PM P3 ti After the proposed abandonment is approved, can bomes build closer to the street? Not The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved far underground utilities requited by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 foot buildable times the 1.5 FAR. go for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 R wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, win this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. A. Aga result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! Tlzcre will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandoomeat is approved, will the streetscape IoAe any of ils open arras.! No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this Increase the psridng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abatldonmeat will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in It for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the ho meowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintzttance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being gamed in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, roues you warn the vaearion of right-of-way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of rigbtof way to passand the City keeps the land. WAM Please fns Witt to 969 - 756002 or mail 0 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the isabandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being med in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. , NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to n CJ , cps the land. Name: l / I L(t% Sl��Signature: /lam` i Da Address: Please fax back to or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feel:, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public:. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of beXtried in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. V YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right-of wy to pass and O� Cityfteepsithe land. Name: jc L. Lys(„ Signature: L_4eAbt: t. 7 \. du y Date: 109,C0* Address: %% A 3 pnai,c OP. �00Y Z:e Dd MOV, Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 926511 0 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? Nol The existing front yard setback he will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property lime that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way: (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback.. would allow homeowners to receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 R wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is restricted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this Increase my tales? Not Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. 8. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? Nol 'There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this Increase the parldng congestion on the street? Nol Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's In it for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if then were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of beingippKied in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation orright- of-way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of righaof'wgJ/jo pass arldo*e City keeps the Please faa baert—o 1'49 - 756.0981' or Td �nwH 'INT Kn TCMR I'nK"nJ 2 CvLC note h[ *n •1'v rrrT /�+ � 06/09/2000 12:20 9496752503 2I OCEANFRONT PAGE Jun. 9. 2000 : 05PM IRVINE CA 949 756 0981 No. 8402 P. 3/3 6. After the ll reposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? Nol The exist' $oat yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property line that will be used to figure into the additional squi ire footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area ealcttlatiom The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of - -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (0) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 r 9 feet respectively, plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback, would allow homeowners t receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, what that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they would be able to expand their home by a total of 504 square feet. This increased ability to build however is res iiaed to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the loi, and can not be used to build in the abi adoned area or closer to the stroll. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several cocetned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repe edly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners on Pacific Drive as a reso of the abandonment being passed. 9. As a resO of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners ai no- charge. 9. After the 1 roposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the opane is of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This in hides the plamed parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlina i in the code. 10. After the i bbndonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since thee is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, t iis abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street panting. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's in It for them? The benefits to the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeo xners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being�amed ' a lawsuit because they no longer own the land_ J Yrs, me ans you want the vacation of rlpj i-of -way to pass. __ENO, mealas you do apgwant the vacation of rigiit-q wayK 'pAss and the City keeps the lend. Mase fax or mud to: a- S NewponRach, CA M✓ M •