Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - Pacific Drive Vacation & AbandonmentJune 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 26 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF UNUSED RIGHT - OF -WAY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE IN CORONA DEL MAR LOCATION: Pacific Drive between Begonia Avenue and Avocado Avenue RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Hold public hearing, close public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. ordering the vacation and abandonment of the street right -of way in excess of 60 feet in width along the southerly side of Pacific Drive (varying from approximately 12.4 to 19 feet) subject to approval of Zoning Amendment No. 899 on June 27, 2000, to modify property setbacks. 3. Direct the City Clerk to have the resolution recorded by the Orange County Recorder subject to the approval of Zoning Amendment No. 899 on June 27, 2000. DISCUSSION: Pacific Drive has a right -of -way width of approximately 80 feet. Only the northerly 60 feet is improved with curbs and sidewalk. The southerly 12.4 to 19+ feet of the right -of -way is a combination of level areas and steep slopes. The owner at 2219 Pacific Drive requests the right -of -way in excess of 60 feet be abandoned since it is not improved for public use and private entry improvements (such as driveways stairs, retaining walls, and landscaping) exist in this area. The right -of -way proposed for abandonment is not needed for any present or future public use except for designated utility easements. A 10 -foot public utility easement will be retained for Edison, Pacific Bell, and Southern California Gas Company facilities located in the area proposed abandonment of Pacific Drive. On May 1, 2000, the City Clerk set the Public Hearing for June 13, 2000, to consider the vacation of the excess right -of -way. Subject: Vacation and Abandonment of Portions of Unused Right -Of -Way Along the Southerly Side of Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar Date: June 13, 2000 Page 2 Zoning Amendment No. 899 will provide modification of the existing setbacks when the vacation of Pacific Drive occurs. The intent of the revised setbacks is to maintain the same distance from the curb line to the structures that existed before the vacation so no structures can be constructed any closer to Pacific Drive after the vacation than they were prior to the vacation. This will retain the existing streetscape. The vacation will permit the property owners to increase their buildable area by the land area gained, but will not allow structures closer to the street. Adoption of the recommended Council resolution will complete the statutory proceedings to vacate and abandon the street easement. An exhibit is attached for reference. Don Webb Publics Works Director by: Richard L. Hoffstadt, P.E. Development Engineer Attachment: Exhibit Resolution Supplemental Correspondence F: \Users\PBW \Shared \COUNCIL \Fy99- ooVune -13 \V- Pacific Dr..doc EXHIBIT AREA VACATED 15 �- Proposed Property Line i ,i B(isfingtProposedSeback / / \ / a Sting PropertyLinel / � V N AREA VACATED 12 + '*A' A> W -�° _`yam= E jl pl 0 50 100150200250300350400 Feet BA�pE s Existng/Proposed Setback Line 0 Vacated Area G 4 0 4 F O 1 W i Q M A' I DEN" ' RES 1 R 1D N PACIFIC DRIVE _ q 9I N PL �o a rill OI 4mt '` R EpRLC f i CL..CAR �.• <' < r O 6 LINE F I ;, .. F > .--— (E-)PL �r i �IDENCE RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768 Space above this line for Recorder's use only RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF PACIFIC DRIVE RIGHT -OF -WAY BETWEEN BEGONIA AVENUE AND AVOCADO AVENUE (CORONA DEL MAR AREA); AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAME WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to the provisions of the Street Vacation Act (Section 8300 et sec. of the Streets & Highways Code) is authorized to vacate portions of public rights -of -way ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed and considered the various elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach prior to declaring its intent to vacate a portion of this public right -of -way and has determined that the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan which shows no future use of right -of -way on any plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach desires to vacate the portion of Pacific Drive, legally described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "B ", the vacation to be processed pursuant to the provisions of the Street Vacation Act; and and WHEREAS, the right -of -way is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes; WHEREAS, that at least two (2) weeks before the day set for hearing, notices of the proposed vacation were conspicuously posted along Pacific Drive, with the notices posted not more than three hundred feet (300') apart and a minimum of three (3) notices posted on each street. The notices stated the day, hour, and place of the hearing. \\mis_llsys\ users \pbwlsharedtresolutions \v - pacific dr.doc NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the portion of street rights -of -way legally described in Exhibit "A ", and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "B" is hereby ordered vacated and abandoned. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to have this resolution recorded by the Orange County Recorder. Adopted this _day of 2000 ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 MA . •: EXHIBIT "A" 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 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 40 017'42" E 258.86 feet to line parallel with and 60.00 feet, measured at right angles, from the northwesterly line of Pacific Drive lying southwesterly 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. EXHIBIT "B" 41 �41 yDo Na NO P RTION OF PACIFIC DRIVE VACATED ER RESOLUTION NO. 412 STREET RIGHT OF WAY HEREBY VACATED REICE- W WOTICE OF rim OFFI C;? TION OF -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 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 rrNOvot of the street. means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to I the beauty and integrity of the streej. Address J RECE 1W E D NOTICE OF " -, CATION OF OFFICE OF ?NE CITY E CITY CF ` 1'iPCP,I BEACii 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 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 integrity of the street. Signature rS3 �r�m Date 3 -1000 Address ` ECE :IVEDNOTICE OF .00 JUN -5 P1.2 .57 oFF,CE0r f yACATION OF C•-,,f :jF rT:1 PERT BEACH 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 13a' 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. 0 NO vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty and int rity the street. Signature Date 1�ew6 Address 100 CG o 1 E C E 'V NOTICE OF '00 Al 5 712.57 ,FF,.1E,FVAtATION OF - C11, f OF ':_t' +'FCPT BEACIi 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 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. (Nr�)Okeep ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature (,C/(�Xe c', o(kjjli� Date n A - ° " "�iOTICE OF '00 JUN -5 ?I :57 OFFICE �FV 'CATION OF CI ; e; EWFOP,T 137- ACH 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 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 enness of the street. NO vot means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to ep the bgauty and int it of the street. Signature Address Date ( --3 -UJ . "LE'V`�TOTICE OF .W JUN -5 P12 �57 7: 4''!Yrhn�CATION 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 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 vot mean do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to eep t beau y and integrity of the street. Date Address 391gYzC.hannr.l el Ak4u) ncl 3 rl& C.A QZ,C -t'3 RECEIVED NOTICE OF 'OC JUN -5 Pl2 557 OFFt_E� --..VACATION OF CITY r,� ! _WFORT BEACH 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 131i 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. O vot means you do not want the, vacation of right -of- -way to pass, and you want to eep the beauty and integrity of the street. Date Z -- y 00 iV�� 926 RECE i- NOTICE OF '00 JUN -5 P12 :57 , F, -.-,F -11Vr - CATION OF C!TY Gr h= IT 6cACli 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 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. O vo means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want tc p the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature Date K/16-0 Address D$ L./, ij. RECEIVED NOTICE OF -00 JUN -5 P12:57 ACATION OFFICE OF 1f CITY��LER. OF CITY OF !` ),PGRT o ACH 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 13° 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. means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature—r--2' z ` Q L Date v Address �1 6 � q a /Le Lu ? Zs at `n C . A % �n 4, ? RECE1V�cs NOTICE OF 00 JUN -5 °I 56 OFFICE C. THE CITY CL Kr, CATION OF CITY Cs i+t WPORT BEACH 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 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. H meanNO vot s you do not want the, vacation of right -of- -way to pass, and you want to ep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature 11. 1A, [ !y— Date Oa Address U `-I oo 5 M ar C LS Ave- Ajb 9 .� 663 ^E °E' °E` NOTICE OF JUN -5 VER ACATION OF OFF!CE OF THE L CW,i Cr t; rlPeftT SEACt{ 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 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 ep the beauty an 'ute rity of e street. Signature Date Address RECEIVED NOTICE OF TO JUN _5 p12 :56 OFFISH GF r,"_ C�TT�Cl �;�CATION OF CITY OF W- -WP6t: rt 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 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. �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 S' C� Date Address RECE(VEZ NOTICE OF 00, ,�N 5, VF�ACATION OF OFFIC" .-F F ,IT CLE CITY C!F i:= ivFCRT TEACH 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 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 y do n t want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the b ty ntegrity of the street. Signature /�'� Date J�4� 3 Address Z J 5 RECEWEn NOTICE OF '00 JUN -5 P12 :56 OFFICE 0i P. = y11'BC n; CATION OF CITY G, I�-'1iP I 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 ofNewport 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 131h 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. vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep tlKbeauty apd integrityf0f the street. ; Signature A' �,—. G �� y\ E Address c � ;� 1,i;',�7 (5-D RECE`V - -, NOTICE OF '00 JUN -5 PI2 :56 ,L� ,L� OFFICE OF T �C1 �kL CIT1' CLEP . 1 TION OF CITY OF !4- 51'PPft i ciEACN 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 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 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 ,[�� ��' Date - '- Address S /S— S % %tt�iz 4 4IC 4 C 4 �.L be 3 RECEIVE- ENOTICE OF '00 JUN —5 PI2 :56 oFFIC- r.F F", V.: CATION OF CITY C•F N' =NSF;: T 6c Ci 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 13a' 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. 0 vote 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 � � Date " r 0 Address �� 0(a C f"o— �� ` 9k L.. los ��y RECEW- NOTICE OF '00 JUN -5 P12 :56 OF'f!' "c Cf VACATION OF C!T i Of ,.`,IVPCR' BEACI1 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 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. vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep th eauty and integ ity the street. Signature Date �1/`//d$ Address M- NOTICE OF 'o0 im —5 P12 :56 UFlCi:5 ;Tl; �IT•, I L ACATI O N OF CITY of: - H- WPI'F1 CEACIi 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 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. ONO vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty an integrity of the str Signature Date / 1 " Address J • 1 - aECEI W NOTICE OF .00 sN P1,2 :`VACATION OF OFFICE OF TbE CITY CLERK CIT OF i ,sFT BRIGHT —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. Piease look into this issue and we urge you to Vote NO at the June 13th 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. C NOvo means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to i eep the beauty and integrity of the sheet. Signature Address Date 6,'3 ,Cz -ar) a RECk- � NOTICE OF '00 JUN x'12:56 OFFICE fF THE ri T Y GLVACATION OF CITY OF „L iv; CRT BEACH 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 131i 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. Ovo NOvo a means you do not want the, vacation of right -of- -way to pass, and you want to ep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature l /�(� Date (a Go Address _S Z o /z 11 �. =� i� i�'� • �� G L .5 RECEli/`E-D' NOTICE OF 'p0 IN —5 P12:56 OFFICE OFT E.I i' CL ACATION OF : T i 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 131i 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. to means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to ' e NO ep p the b auty and integrity of the street. 0 Signaturel Date 3 6 e n Address " " °' NOTICE OF JUN _5 7? :'-,6 ACATION OF OFFICE OF THE CiTY u V CITY OF !,`)V'PCRT h3E„ CH 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 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 ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to Q�> keep the beauty and int i y of the set. Signature Address Yc-) �/ 1- yoc(0 dQ &e- DatdJ ne -32Udd RECEN -D NOTICE OF '00 JUN -5 P12 :56 OFFICE OF Tt'E CITY CL C 1 ACATION OF CITY OF I V' PCftT BEA 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 13a' 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. )e means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to eep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature T r 0-). &4cv Date 3 Dc Address (p 1 % �� ✓ p c�B c A C qcn, (a X17 b� j �'Ecc►'� NOTICE OF *00 JUN —5 ViR?,�, ACAT OFFICE C- TY,E j;. ION OF CITYCFF' CCL ACF1 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 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. 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. n Signature Address Date ,/ — 3 0 rig , e5� , Don & Barbara Corbett 2316 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92663 June 3, 2000 U JUN i3- :36 OFri: COUNCIL MEMBER DENIMS D. O'NEiL NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL Re. Vacation of Right of Way on Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar To Whom It May Concern: It is unusually difficult to remain succinct about a subject when it becomes emotional. It is also difficult when legal terms and uncertainties blur the facts, as such that surround the subject at hand. My wife and I leave that to you, the City Council, to straighten out. What is abundantly clear as witness by the attendance at the latest planning commission meeting is that the majority of the residents of the street do not wish a change in the status quo regarding height limitations and set back from the existing lines — for present or future construction. Secondly, we reject the notion of vacating the right of way on the following basis: 1. The request for the vacation of right of way was made by one individual to circumvent the existing height and setback limitations. It is true that one or two others have now joined at this late date in supporting the measure but their motives are also for personal gain. 2. I refer you to the planning department's "Conclusions and Recommendations" that appear in a report to the planning commission dated May 18, 2000. This conclusion is so flawed that it should be reviewed for its obvious bias (see Appendix A). The facts are that several houses have been built on the south side of Pacific Drive in the last two to three years under the existing requirements and have maintained the aesthetics of the street. The latter represents about 23% of the building sites available. There are at least seven other residences, which are permanent and unlikely candidates for teardown. That makes over 75% of the sites satisfactorily built on the south side of the street. Our Position: 1. Pacific Drive is unique in Corona del Mar in that it is not like the overbuilt, overcrowded congestion that typifies such streets as Begonia, Carnation, etc. We would like it to stay the way it is. 2. It is about time that the City clamp down on the variances allowed to single petitioners, especially those represented by professionals and attorneys and those who build solely for speculation with unpleasant results. 3. We respectfully ask the Council to review the cost to the City for the planning department's action in this case. We believe that there should be some safeguard instituted so that the will of the majority can be determined and considered long before large sums are spent on the behest of one or two asking for more and more. 4. Finally, it appears that there is no gain to the City by vacating the right of way on Pacific Drive. Street maintenance remains the same and no new tax base occurs. However should the Council determine that there is some benefit to the City it is hidden from the rest of us. We hope that you will abide by the recommendation of the planning commission and retain the status quo regarding set back and existing height limitations. Thank you for your consideration. Cc: Mayor Pro Tern Gary Adams Mayor John E. Noyes 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 portion thereof. D. Pacific:Dnve =- 'Front Yazd Setback>.= Front4oaded'-garages? and carports on,.the bluff (south) side of Pacific Drive between.Avocado'Avenue.andlthe south side of the prolongatton 'of the line: of the wrest side of Begonia Avenue„ Shall maintain a uunlmum front yard setback 6f-.19 feed 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 _} Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA Associate Planner s Attachments: Draft Resolution Draft revised Chapter 20.10.030 and 20.10.040 Districting Map No. 16 Pacific Drive street section 6 A899, Pacific Drive May 18, 2000 DOUGLAS D. LAX June 6, 2000 City of Newport Beach City Clerk - LaVonne Harkless 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Re: Proposed Amendment 899 - Pacific Drive - Vacation of right -of -way Dear LaVonne, I own the property at 2224 Pacific Drive winch is located on the north side of the street between Avocado and Acacia. I and the majority of my neighbors vigorously oppose the passage of Amendment 899. I have attached petitions signed by individuals in opposition to the proposed amendment. There are over one hundred signatures on these petitions in opposition to the amendment. In addition, I have included 28 opinion cards completed by other individuals also expressing their opposition. The total excluding duplicates is certainly well over 100. These were all obtained legally and without coercion or misinformation. I personally vouch for their legitimacy. The vast majority were participants or spectators in the Corona del Mar 5k run or citizens that stroll down Pacific Drive to enjoy the ambiance of the street. I have also attached a copy of the current headcount of all residents of Pack Drive. It was surveyed and created by Suzi Vaughn at 2200 Pacific Drive and was accurate as of today. Please enter their receipt into the record and notify all City Council members of these items existence. cc: Mayor and all City Council members 2224 Paclflc nrhte - Corona del Mar, CA 92625 . phone 949128 -1264 -tax 125 -0659 - doa9lax @home.com a big PLANET DESIGN inc. architecture planning interiors wui " e.,w"na/oz a aInwd Cora.. 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 `bluff' 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 feet of width beyond the sidewalk on the sloping, ' blufr 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 Mod assistanC and remain available at your convenience to assist in any way possible to expedite the vacation process on Pacific Drive. Si2anR. Edward your C s, prinNpal Architect PLANET DESIGN, inc. cc. ak. PuDrCDM.nq.dot 99.115 die +Ae71�nmev. 06 eamr "P4, rocwa O>aw r 4z& WOW44mexG 26895 Aliso Creek Rd: Ste. B -142 Aliso Viejo. CA 926% USA Tel.: 949.425.8938 Fax: 949.360.9929 Email: architedQbigplanet.com 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 -1 Zone remain unchanged. Similar Vacations of Public Right- of -Way 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 Traffic 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 A -L:d QN 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. Printed Na e 1) 2), 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)- 81 9) 10 11 12 I3 14 15 Address Phone (ontional) Sinnnture This Petition was circulated by: Date: I M i� ink V YY) 135(OA)iA Ax%. li•-- - � T, 6 3,1,1-161,9 Ilue • odic (✓ cry �a • (� �-- % �-- Tan 4 �ob11L Tfi5 k1sp, CDr` ci4 rF >-,5.- ?a ev-6�t- ytk Ik i tL is 222& WV Jt 710, -� ) 1 This Petition was circulated by: Date: I M i� 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. Printed Name 2) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10 11 12 I3 14 15 Address Phone (nntinnal) RionatnrP This Petition was circulated by: Date: I M �2O J �–ici 2 ISIS FJ—LU DX This Petition was circulated by: Date: I M 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. This Petition was circulated by: Date: I 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. ��' 1)- 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) la 11 12 I3 14 I5 Addrecc Phone (notional) Signature This Petition was circulated by: Date:t 1 cecf JIVE$% I` cif ( I —7!;-)_S 33 s , , _ 94 aj4fe, M - d `t C< � 3 � Ct� J� I A C° ✓n �`(`' ��315dv Xi /92 rb -lrii< C� �I�LG�cI del), u�6Gd �. ) This Petition was circulated by: Date:t 1 cecf 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 14th year. Pacific is a wide, open street much like Ocean Ave. which is also on the route. We are opposed 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. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 4) 10 11 12 I3 14 15 0 Address Phone (nntinnal) Sinnahire This Petition was circulated by: Date: I 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. Printed Name 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10 11 12 13 14 15 Address Phone (ontional) RIAn AfnTP ,�;1•f' Wit\ _. ��'f'l Y�1 1�Ju • VTPt,— � `tl c 1 This Petition was circulated by: Date: E,naa_ Nag fg41171q QLIZ4 -i/» /?o1)dii 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. Printed Na -e 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10 11 12 13 14 15 Addrecc Phone (notional) Sinnntnre ., � c�-A \ (1 0 5 / {vim This Petition was circulated by: Date: I 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. ' I I ►:n; t 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10 11 12 I3 14 15 r•TO r Phone (optional) Signature This Petition was circulated by: Date: l I 5�- � 2/ OTC /���� .�.c/- -����f L'✓ / t�1_. �112/a� ilw r �i-G'3 ice-; G � L�Fri2� 44A,ZCdC7 -,Z?c 1� 2- 1 -lY3 pJ��� �RIT`� G� ., 3 \31 • i�. MPRi�1 'lli��ioc ; This Petition was circulated by: Date: l I 5�- � A J 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 16 northerly property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive for its views. Printed Name Address Phone (ontionah Signature Z T� 2) 3) op RA'PG(i J Da dN r c{6o 76,� 4 \e dl- / 6) Cd�((ve. 5 cct c ti1onc(t -" 0-r� A "v 7) �i E 0-v 15 1110'1 9Dpj tl� k v 8) l- HyT " , G'75 -77 ' 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) This Petition was circulated by: '' Date: f Z 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, nr 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. Printed Name Address Phone (opt 1) 5) 6J 7) 8) 9) 1C 11 12 13 14 15 This Petition was circulated by: Date- f C 11 2 G1 S 1Lc ftL C L'(� m*/3 I .75-7 7cf3 het ✓' vi L ti ww. This Petition was circulated by: Date- f PETITION 0 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. Printed Name 1) 2) 3) 4) 5� 6) 7) sj 9) 1( 1' 1� Addrrcc Phnna lnntinnah Rianahira <. —rte - �- ---- °_ .l ' v ,Kw` �l/VC�L W ,;' . „ _.. n Lv 6_ Flo W,. v 71 Z _._. ,����✓ ..� 2CK d_c 6-7ecrn Lri) �. This Petition was circulated by: I 1 l-ft A L z__� Date: v i r y ,'\,1 4 PETITION Tac�Glayor 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. Prin ed Na a ress Phonelon 'on Sip-nature 1 3 4 5 ,E E c This Petition was circulated by: Date: K iJ W �J i I I- - i e -N ... a WIM M�Mfflv MAP Ilr� This Petition was circulated by: Date: K iJ W �J i 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. W-UNTIA=1 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) s) 9) IC 11 K I: 14 if AAAr..c phnna lnnfinnall Riano4nra (/ J Thi' etition was circulated by: 2; ay, 6 J. lSE LC o - cbm ' & 'iw 0A 0 SO )h //0 (/ J Thi' etition was circulated by: cn ro vo aT 5 r,,• F � � o J a � SN��'ge�3� R� � � � 9 �'• E�d •a es .. .. O r.�Uj S �? �.. o C• ° G o TSJ� O ii Z m a o° .,Op y m .0 L� a _S � o `r��� N A ^ O ni Op ~ �' S �_a� S coo CO at O N O �� O �`� m G O iJ t 'nCO `oo'�c A �m � � R o I � � � �• m � � ° �e ° R. n CO CO coo coo co to tz 0 co co cs � ton. cc a E 4 m e A .w .. O P" CY1 a o 5^ <^ A 3 m d 0 Nn a N y 'nom 0 R r1�9� �Lv ^•f aQf a� ° ° r. two 1 G R O < m n n to to o < Qm � m �^�p O i a N 5 a d O G A~ .-. O H N 1< R S . m O 0 yO eo .0 "O 'n•. N a ° y CL cR S A 4 OV O 1 b e.0 fn W E ° C Q4 CS tOii N A M �T OR F� aro ..0 d on to tz 0 3. J. ell fS ro^cd D .. N a E-4 -ft eD m q m Ci�ff p a r•i r•i p R � pq � `�/. P�D � �• � M�•� ..R p m G•SQR �l�O n � O v y � A. o A ^2 n e� es m C Y� o d NO �•� ., A m rT "r na �'C QO fl 7 R • "a� ST� a 6' cn ro y ro o m -ry es "" O P" v� a �• geAg� qme co O N 0 a 0 O O N no C P5 o Q pp� d o ,k p r�y to a C O C a Q• s Cn � � A LA * � d04mRz co .O �• G� .J = M a c<s m to tz a C C R O (p q M 'E q " C C p O La a O `! 8N O f�pp c m A O C7 ° cmS O�+ nl 7 n cm L" ? a d � r N O r o n y z O z °• o• ^ c a edOO b q _m � R m nql n. i 'q y �. � Vn C O y C ray 4 C m �! C O dn C �� �•y P'j• n Sq.fl dq0 C fD CD CO z CD . a p• a e ; p O^ m < y n es q ►'+ q d M d O at � C R O CD fpD� ID `<�•Gfi�.,R1=0 WI a A. cm cs C eQOS N Q O e. CD m CD fD to R a b a �• N a o jm +es •, y <,,es3md a S coo A o ' R o v A C m 0 < o mR�p3z 8 o•a<.°� fD o tv c C E� C ^•� S �i R o e. a - p q ~ C � Q R b m d Myj p � � q ? � C C R O eqo ego q 1� R n. e e9 R T a 1-' 0 S 0 'v o• v m o m C a 7. E g R an d A m C a a y e B 3 c6wl. o °a ° ((�Dp ti c o ee 3 S vCDi d y y "'1 "�' m CO fD Q! 'L7 0 O. 3 m d �i ti m co 3 0 o b y m b o z co d o 0 o b m .� 7Q -0 co we co fD cs o n �_ pip o to o. �T �' p f9 o a pip R to CC�� n. �S° Y eSD o C�iepTpJ a �5° R A oy C �pA�p 7. y. M y C •'0 O d 0 tD y .n y 0 ih '7 .7 O fD co n C Q� n .Oy � S tO' m � a O 'C•. 04<0 G. to d d N ei eb sr'� f�rypeCa. cr. ^f9�eco m } < a w d O F A p• (P �! i y y f) CO m y 0 E �• DCD tz Cc, tv co . 2, `< co CD e' Co " eD eD Do o g< m n 0 eD A CO r� c eD G• o eD v CO ri 0 OO f7 M R ... F. C' -0 oO � -9 o Fr d o SCD S. to f`D 09 U=Q gCD "�` b° CD a a ro a ^. z d E j� 3 °' • o f.. O•�QO S R 7 tl0 G.SCRFSi A d � X• C CO S ti yT f � • S E? 4 S F y. co no. S o co :cc 7 y d _ `! O• � i�1,1 Er A d d a �l O d O z 0 °a m aro a m A � d n O � O R C O QS C 'O•. O � � a N � � � a R Cn g a ro d O. 00 o a 0 O R R , O d - eD d O O 7 3 -°e o• � 7. o 0 f.. ^ QO S R ^ ((((gypO. a SCR�+ eD Ob, d O n tiny , as °� �.� -mom a CCO fD o to m S b y y 7 to aC fD CO b7 e �Se�OT ne R CO eD ty 'U UO (may �'I R m eD A m C 93e.? m ° », o cm d no � a Q�Q' � O 7 Poo p 'O•. O w a q C R � a 5 a ti O N b (fn f�e-,� .. m 5gco � N `9 3 m � d d 5 G. C � N UO d S Q? Y A G O X. O �� o• S ? Y+ A � d ti S� dcl,Sd O 'O! C to !� n ^.� CO Sd S0 Q e9 !� n yN�• S CD G. .T a S 7 Cp], .Q� ay �e•dp� bc to a m n 00 S CIO fD d A ° m e to 2 o co g e = c A aS�?Y 5 n O fWD C7p°0 ° d _' (r to A N •Q p,0 E a� (9 N � A (fn f�e-,� .. m O N N m � d d 5 G. C � N UO d S Q? Y A G O X. O O d � dcl,Sd O p es n N Sco L.. S0 ea o ra m ra 5 'aw�•ae a S 7 Cp], .Q� ay �e•dp� �.� A fD m n 00 (fn f�e-,� .. m O N N m 5 `` C 07 rS s .°, G. C C QO 70' UO d S Q? Y A G O X. O O egyD � dcl,Sd O p es n N Sco L.. S0 ea o ra m ra 5 'aw�•ae a S 7 Cp], .Q� ay �e•dp� �.� A fD m n 00 A UPC oa "a`��A� aS�?Y I. d ra d O O 5 d d O z W N eT d d °+ O 5 d z b A W CD rT A W C fe9 O cm A to fD l9 O Q �CQ C O S Irl , --pm cm •O9 '� to C R O A A to cm w R a F eo ao fD fD R A m C `9 O m .d b o m m � Q• O Q C = O O R .cw, I c •O•b `1 � p R O R es C1 v p R sp 5 O ra ° N d z �_ ro � O � g � o .. b a �d y a z I E m m N o A Q 0 m.0 `� 1f' • 5 C � O O, `�' GY Cp], w 00 aS�?Y e�ebi�ix%7. tv d •Q p,0 E a� � p •0 5 S�� S Q ° 7 1_yAV�T•cC•r �• �. d ea d '0 •me � c S A �i. �• �•<�n ems' � o tv d � aR'., co co co d 5 mi, 7 c a d00 . y 2. 'ri a� �•dp.� � C A O R E H O ^ N o A m C o a _ aS�?Y e�ebi�ix%7. tv d •0 �• �. d p S A �i. �• d � co co co d 5 mi, 7 'O a d00 y a� �•dp.� � C R O cm d 7. E S' ^ pymp r, ., °O rpq-i C �p� 0 a N<^ C f9 .R1 p y N N N r r- 0 G O' .-. Nn C. ii. ^ -0 d f9 O T C .-. y a v7i y ^ OD d L.• fs c °Z' a d °° ° o Oro "° R 0 cZ+ (C-0) '0 n k< o • O ac ° ° 0 3 �� 1 0O 0 + ►G�3 y c ac?Sn fD y' M y CO r fb d -°n y 0 N �•� ate° G. ° E_.d ate° ° Palo o c`< E O m � 'E << 0 3 y b d0 t+ C ° C� C O O t°o � m j r y C ' ° o Q r °�° C o Q :Yi 7 d A° Ot 'O •v cl c°+ C N ro a a o N a z E o' a d y y 7 V? ro a '0 O a C o-r o-. O •r V] o N° C O m O f° ��^ E two Wo O ^� O° .0 y m rV. � •� O �: d A O O°� C9 07 O R o• � o ryo a fD bpy b o�f �,o r- ay pO to as ff �?' y C 0 ? E O y nO C yO° CM �r 'e y fo s C��' ti ° oi- /C� o �Clf . N C O O a Gd a N d Q • C3 co S O •� ` N fy C9 4n• S O• ° I+I N• d a d O m r n d p Sat! 0Q N. • aC•c9 C °a! G R O C ay m Cm ° C R O �. m e m n o ° o• G Scs c rA QO' O d O 0 �v v d � 0 v i i O. N i d fS N f c, '+. 0 0 C a ee 3 Z Op co c.° =Go CFO O. . nGo`� O O O Oa -1ao a 0 to co o ryo pp �' A '! G .c.Sa to e<,�°e3eZ to ° O 'e �\ =° 0s °v a0 m Cl cv ° �' '°+ x .°e p m to tz 0 0. ° s .d° e 0 d i' �5a G Op. cm pr v oo R 'C ? A N R K N N a y d O;; z m y o o= .a m .p :• N C CJ. 0 'C7 ; D. ^ m Ro ° O 0 R m 8. r�. cm V = M o pro o 1 M °. p d e9 "' y C G N G Ci R� O`Q (l J o 'gA a..csa == co H' m too ° E co m O' CD -.3. _ `< ceDi D oo eD r. m 1— �e g K co rD S N Co ~ WWR p A 9 �Qj ? m v vQ a -; QO O O N O b o' a a � d � z V p m -, ee - " O n,y vn c p R m ° C N y^ A 3 m^ M a C• ^ _ � 0 00 �oti- °'o'cti am �� � Q�_p S R � � p �• n o f N N f °v m n e ttr�yy 0. to fo O N CO on. S CD C V ee N `• S OJ CD 10 9 �e o Z C I'd a o m „m„ ° co -1 i CD ore °o co � e Q a p. a'fl tlQ n 9 R p S 2. a O;; all to ° O 0 R m r�. cm V = CD y' 0" y CC o E d �y O`Q A .d asap a..csa �� C,� m�z H' m too ° E co m co a-d Co co S two ~ WWR p A 9 �Qj ? m v vQ a (ljp� R `e7 ^ A r' R RECE}VE- ED OF F ":E 0 t'E C(T'; CLERr,, June 2, 2000 cif) OF 'C If P-ORT BEACIi City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attn.: City Council for 6 -13 -00 agenda meeting Ref: Amendment #899 Dear Council Members, Michael C. Mann 2304 Pacific Dr. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 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. Si rely, Michael C. Mann RECEIVED NOTICE OF 00 JUN -6 AVACATION OF OFFICE nr T F CITY IGHT 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 instigdte 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 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. vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to NO keep the beauty integrity o street. Signature Date G� Address // «��,® NO'T'ICE OF p0 JUN -6 - VACATION OF OCF'r . r_ J .1. ,F q', HT -OF -WAY 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 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 d6wn the slope. By stopping the "vacation of right -of -way" at the City Council meeting on June 13, 2000, we car, 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. CNOote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to I eep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature Address Date 6 -a -" Sa (,a(� - 1\t -- ,�- NOTICE OF / OFFICF.O! ATION OF T -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. THIS tS a real -F- rpl pa ^.l - "d has been 1n t: a :zt3lct ^b5 for bNer a Yo-ar. 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's 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 ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the bea ty and integrity of the street. Signature Date i� -Q� /l Address a ECD'l E'NOTICE OF OFFS OFI.CATION OF L CITY 0= Nv' -WPGPT BEACH 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 13a' meeting, to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of Newport Beacb, 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. 1ote eans you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to ke the beate integrity of th_e4treet. i Signat4e Date 6'2 —a© Address (006 1"Suto R k q C , o2nn A�t� } lq2 RECE!NIED NOTICE OF 00 JUN - 6YACATION OF OFFIC� 0E- l� -RIGHT-OF-WAY CITY OF ac' 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 13a' meeting, to save our street! You can sign this..nyer YES or 3,10 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 integrity of the street. Signature Address -� -� 2 Date bl— D D RECE1VL--'-D NOTICE OF -00 IN -6 A 8 34 OFFICE O ' CI ACATION OF CITY 7r F T BEACH 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 slop:. 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'x' 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 v to means you do not want the, vacation of right-of-way to pass, and you want to V/ keep the beauty and integrity of the street, Signature G � Q� K Imo( x Q l a tl A c Date �lwe-:� 00 Address l H C A C.l A k>f E LOE RECEIVED NOTICE OF '00 JUN -6 A 8 :33 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERVACATION OF CITY OF li,-W ?CRT BEACH 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 13 °i 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. r NO to 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. Signaturee���d�t�� �(',(�� Date Address RECEIVED NOTICE OF '00 JUN -F A 8 ' ACATION OF OFFICE Of TN'. CITY Ct_E .�. CITY OF F; V CRT BEAU 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 13 ", 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 want the, acation oA$ht -okay to p ss, Ad risk Ibsiag- he NO vote means you do not keep the beAty and) Signature the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you of—the street. _ Date 3 00 RECEIV ECD NOTICE OF •00 JL14 -6 AS :33 OFFICE O k !�`f�T BEd li ACATION 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 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. /CVO/ vote means you d •not qua t the,J�acation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to w/ keep the d *f 8fe-street. Signature ° ► Date °D Address R«<,NOTICE OF •� U.EICATION 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 13'' meeting, to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of INewport 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 integrity of the street. Signature C Date Address R`CEiVE NOTICE OF •po JUN -6 A 8 33 OFFICE ICOCFJ'14,i O ,YB A CATION 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 13a 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 ,oflenness of the street. NO vo a means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to g ure a beauty and me 'ty( �et.l Ca� - Si nature Date Address gECEJvED NOTICE OF JIIN _6 p8.33 VACATION OF OFFICOFn oll EOF 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 13 ' 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. N0 vote 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 Date (G' C C Address y :`W l C/ (c, r` ; l �� RECEIVED NOTICE OF .00 J`N ; ; �? ,CATION OF OFFICE O) :h: Y CI? 0= ;,`wFORT BEACH MIGHT -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a reai 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 ivv at the June 13'b 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 integrity of the street. Signature Date '? o-r9 Address zzi 6 , , zg . NOTICE OF *00 JVACATION OF UGHT -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 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 arc YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the % 1 openness of the street. / NO ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you keep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature Address ;r City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER 2227 Pacific Drive 92658 -8915 '00 JL11N -6 P 2 '39 OFFICE OF rur ,- "':PORT BEACH 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 ull`y PH LIS M. RODEFF oe PMR:wll NOTICE OF' 'p0 JUN VACATION,,0F:.r , :,' 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 13`" 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 vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street. Gl0 t e means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to eep the beauty and integrity of the street. Date 4 1q-11z 1040 :j NOTICE OF VACATION OJIF `8:156 0F; - I.,F ! i Y i;LFi P. l' P 'f BE ACH RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PACIFIC DRIVE. Tilts .s a rea: proposall and has be:;n in the ma sings for over a yi..ar. . 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 meeting, to save our sweet! 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. KO�NOote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want tc ep th tut d ' to ri f the street. Signature 5 L.%X Date 6 -(`00 Address M% 2k 'PA6� 'b� C-4 M 9 2 L U)7 5 NOTICE OFEWPD A s6 :,E � V C T o . 't,T BEACH 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 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 nness of the street. NO v to 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 `....._I Date (. /2 /o0 Address 409 t �Z 6L� ( � �' M 2 (r 2 NO1-tCE OVEIV-D VACATION OF A8 :56 Or FIG-- OF T lii . ;i f *( XERP.. RIGHT -OF -VGA 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 13 "' 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�vot means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to p the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature Address NOTICE GF " �-- - °' :9- VACATION"'O, Cr ii,i ?'r;T sE-aC1i 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 no 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. NO vote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep thhe'b aut"nd integrity of the street. Signature ` — % Date 66 Address P ?1 /Ser G �? t �30�' 4I;Sff -�(�� NOTICE OF =- VACATION O ns :56 0 *F'C: t;^ 7 T '.R QTY a �; iyFACli 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 1,10 at the June 13`F 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 integrity of the street. Address Date % O 1-76 NOTICE OPEC E I V- D VACATION "F A8:56 ( CLERA T PEACH 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 neighbor',iood, 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`" 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. N vote means you do not want the, keep the h6auty an4 integrity of the street. vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to Signature Address NOTICE OF R IE C ,_D VACATION OY -I .'18.56 OF FILE '.', G_ iiiE C! i Y ERr CITI" F ! r ypq•:- c h 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 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 ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty and inte rity t street. Signature ��p z 5 � Date T� Address 1'30/ A J-.-ro ffj�- Co-,y, , dJ) lar 014- 9:Z � z 5� NOTICE OF,-,,.,: -C E_,Vt:D VACATION GFuN fi RIGHT-OF-WAY' ' rE`ERi ON PACIFIC DRIVE. -• r iiliS IS ii iCfli p:6j�OSfll $ilii-"ilaS 17c^.�:i iii iuV %fiiniilgS .Oi v' ✓w :A }:.33'. 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 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 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 Date Address ✓�� ` -uff NOTICE OF ' "'' "° VACATION OV = ' i i7 :55 . clT .- -V ?0RT BEACH 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. J 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,i' 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. O v to 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 \• 6a� �n�(�- Date��� Address t�3� �yncA Df) LJ E j ijlS i S I w0 `D NOTICE OFr -Elt� r C- d VACATION°"" nar15 Rr< OF FILE CITY . _ CtT't 0- .�,;'ORi B'taCH SIGHT -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 hr, nefit 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"`• 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 v to means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to ass, and you want to keep the beauty and integrity of the street. Signature s �rlJ/� 41 U-/ Date WV Address 605 13c"60n/I,4 f1 1 C%/h, y 2lr�S r VA V r, VN NOTICE OF 'VED VACATION Off' -7 48 '56 OFFI E JF C. i Y CLERK TY ('F "`'r l "T BE CH RIGHT-OF-M/A 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 wiii 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° 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 u want the, vacs ' ht -o - and risk loss openness of the st t. NO � to 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 Address NOTICE OF C El. ED VACATIONo� V '18:56' _LEfih. 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 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 integrity of the street. b Signature - -,Q - _r Date Addressa��1 NOTICE Gvr` V. VACATION,,,,,,,OFY�! A , 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 IP 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 beams and integrity of the street. Signature Address Date �/� / NOTICE OF- VACATION Of-7 A8 :56 CI'7 Cr :} YN;IAT (3 .Wi 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 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 ote means you do not want 0eva tion of right -of -way to pass, and you want to keep the beauty and integrity treet. Date `1 -/a`) Address G Na 792 - —S O "O i u e NOTICE OF,.-.. VACATION Of, $:56, OF'Fi':-' OF `17 '; T" iacM ,iT 4 n, .0 ,'ii r!1 RIGHT.OFMWAV ON PACIFIC D 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 13 °i 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 thWbea7uy and integrity oft street. Signature I A /Date Address &L NOTICE OFD EC�,h>> =� VACATION OFN ^ °° -LEM RIGHT-OF-WAV�'�'y rBE��" ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real nrot)osal 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 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 Ati: 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. vote 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. r Signature � 2=Lz= � Cf.T�tyl.�>�!��Z Date (p- n bd Address ►-_��\ Y ¢� a �s ® � � �M� Nil i� . L .�,��`� 6vf NOTICE 0,,y VACATION QF e:, RIGHT—OF— W-.` ly P, '- EACli EACH ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has. been in' he 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 1P 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 of the street. ,openness 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 Address WO =00 NOTICE OFECEIVED VACATION OF-7 A8 :56 Of FILE OF z �F (i'; 'LFRi( CIT'r OF I:-. IV 3FACH 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 13`i 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. 0 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. r� Lev Signature // Date Address ,2 8 .4Vo c /, Ay-e— 6-110-14 ode NOTICE OF- VACATION °' OV Ai; :56 0 FF— F ii:E -ITYCLER C1 r_. " 00RT 6E 1CIi 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 1301 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 keel Signature Address WM7 NOTICE OF" " "° VACATION of , "8:56 B;_ACil 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 13`11 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 to means you do not want the, vacation of right -of- to pass, and you want to keep the be uty nd integrity f the street. Signature l �b Dat U/le Address ✓ lD��ClDf9�ef ( �r o.�� ICJ iLY NOTICE OF VACATION OFAS :56 RIGHT- OF-WAYACli vL 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 13°i 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. YES City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting 0 NO ote means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want tc keep the b au and int rity of the street. Signature Date 1 =Al Address 4 11 C, A✓F COH., ^,- 1 �'. : 1 .V ='. •00 JUN -7 A9 :03 OfFI!CE OF iF'- CIl'Y CLE °(% CITY OF'i_'''iP'.RT BE,1CIi c c •ve Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment I Opposed olution # (not yet assigned) on a 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. i9 vn -13)- iiV Address: Phone (optional): '00 JUN -7 AID :03 OF F10E OF HE CITY C[ �N CITY 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, buildablearea 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:: Address: � I q a ,a Phone (optional): // .. Signature: LL::) . r kr. , I s '' i'3 '00 JUN -7 A 4 :03 OrFICE ,:r - CirY cl.ERn Cirr OF : ,;- r;r HAC i 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 Addres Phone Signatt F:: r'°• of •�' '00 JUN -7 P,9 :03 0� f �c, , i- ? ��c CITY r-LERf U I , C; !r OR T o=AC'I c Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment I al" .J aci6 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 cities that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. Printed Name: �15a PLC h P� 6� Addre: Phone Signati '00 ,JUN -7 A9 :03 0FFICE CF ': HE C1 . Y CLERf, Cii'r 0 ,i.�iFC' 1 0Li1Cii 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 VYam 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 t-rtiture, 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 ITUIHaa W I Z L 1 ✓CMS Address: 6 /4, Q� A C' a i4-UC —i G17/I Phone (optional): Signature: �� 00 !UN -7 A 9 :03 OFFICE C. '';:r Ci T Y CLL`Rr, CiT'l i1* =..'.Fii'ui ?T HACH 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 resident of Corona del Mar or.Newport Beach. I amppposed 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: ki W4a, Address: ay;4yb CA do l iYJ Phone (optional): C1 ?_ ` Z Signature: .00 JUN -7 19 :03 OFFICE OF I CI ry C_R6 CIT OF ` I !rPOR1 BEL, 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: Anne r W e si7 (mac 1 e Address: (ooiF< /4t/-o Phone (optional): Signature: a 'u� 2• L) V 0 '00 JUIN -7 A 9 :03 OFFICE Er i''E C!.TY C L E R t Subject: Pacific Drive Rigbt- 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: /�i///��° O L i' 'E / di /o� Address: 60 411Z. L: ZV4 Phone (optional): �I Signature: , D '00 JUN -7 A9 :06 OFFICE (!F -,HE C! FY CLEFT; CITEiF ":vW' I`TBEACIi YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk losing the openness of the street. 0 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. Date G -S- o o Address 5�� Gtca rte- Q�ve.� Cd9 • June 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 26 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning and Public Works Departments SUBJECT: VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF UNUSED RIGHT -OF -WAY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE IN CORONA DEL MAR LOCATION: Pacific Drive between Begonia Avenue and Avocado Avenue On June 16, 2000 Council Member O'Neil requested the staff to prepare answers to the following questions. The Planning and Public Works Departments jointly prepared this response. Attached are pictures showing Pacific Drive. 1. What is the history behind the original Bettingen's request for a variance? I understand the application involved a request for a height variance and an increase in the buildable area on the Bettingen lot. Variance No. 1228 was approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1999. The request included additions and alterations to an exiting single family dwelling that was already exceeding the height limit, as it was built during a time when the height limit was permitted to be 35 feet. The Variance for height was approved. Also included in the request was the addition of 972 square feet, which put them over their permitted 1.5 buildable area square footage by 474 sq. feet. That portion of the Variance was denied. 2. What role, if any, did the Bettingen architect, Wm. Edwards, play in developing the street vacation scenario as a way to increase the size of the buildable lots on the South side of Pacific Dr.? At its meeting, the Planning Commission suggested that it might be possible to gain additional buildable area by having a portion of the street right of way vacated. On May 20, 1999, Mr. Edwards, on behalf of "multiple property owners on the southerly sloping 'bluff side of Pacific Drive ", sent a letter to the Public Works Department requesting the vacation of Pacific Drive right -of -way on the bay side of the street. Attached is a copy of that letter along with requests from two property owners for the vacation. He • researched the history of the street, made several exhibits showing the proposed vacation and had a number of meetings with the City Staff. I: \Usm"W\ Shared \COUNCIL\Fy99 -00Uune -I 3\Pacific Dr Questions.doc • 3. Why does the vacation occur only on the south side of Pacific Drive? Because the existing public street improvements are all constructed on the northerly 55 to 60 feet of right -of -way. The Pacific Drive street improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks and paving) are not constructed in the center of the 80' right -of -way. The centerline of the street paving is 30' from the inland property line and back of sidewalk. The City Subdivision Code requires a minimum 60 feet of right -of -way for public streets and this minimum would be maintained. The area requested to be vacated is outside this 60 foot area and has driveways, walls, planters and other private improvements constructed by the adjoining property owners. Most of the newer private improvements in this area have been allowed with non- standard encroachment agreements. 4. What public purpose, if any, does the street abandonment serve? There would be less right -of -way area for the City to control and this may slightly reduce some liability issues. 5. What findings, if any, must be made in order to vacate a public street? . Section 8324 of the Streets and Highway Code in part states as follows: "If the legislative body finds, from all evidence submitted, that the street, highway, or public service easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, the legislative body may adopt a resolution vacating the street, highway or public service easement. The resolution of vacation may provide that the vacation occurs only after conditions required by the legislative body have been satisfied and may instruct the clerk that the resolution of vacation not be recorded until the conditions have been satisfied." 6. Who initiated the request for abandonment? See the answer to question number 2. Is this a City staff request? No. 7. What private encroachments, if any, exist in the public right of way sought to be abandoned? The private encroachments include driveways, walls, planters, landscaping, patios, fences, concrete flat work and at least one roof over hang. Without a formal property line survey it is not possible to determine . if any buildings are actually in the right -of -way. It appears that several I:\Usem\PB Wt Shared\COUNCIL\Fy99 -0OUune- 13MWucific Dr Questions.doc • buildings are constructed on the property line and some may encroach less than a foot into the public right -of way. 9. Are there similar private encroachments on the north side of Pacific Dr.? M 10. If Pacific Dr. is abandoned, how much buildable area does that add to the residential lots? The Pacific Drive right -of -way width from Acacia Avenue to Begonia Avenue is approximately six feet less than from Acacia Avenue to Avocado Avenue. Seven properties on the south side of the street, from Avocado Avenue to Acacia Avenue will gain approximately 19 feet of additional property. Six properties on the south side of the street, from Acacia Avenue to Begonia Avenue will gain approximately 12 feet of additional property. The amount of buildable area is based on the width of each lot, which varies, minus the required side yard setbacks. An exhibit is attached, which shows the approximate additional buildable area, by lot, and the approximate additional square footage that would be gained if the amendment and abandonment were approved. is 11. Does the amendment to the front yard setbacks have anything to do with the height of structures? No, the height limit has not changed and is still 24 feet. The set back change proposed to be enacted with the street vacation will not allow buildings to move forward toward the street any more than is allowed today. 12. What is the height limit of the homes on both sides of Pacific Dr? The height limit on both sides of the street is 24 feet from existing natural grade. 13. Does Planning Commission Amendment No. 899 and /or the street abandonment proceeding change the height of structures or the front yard setbacks along the south side of Pacific Dr.? The amendment does not result in any changes to the height limit. The area of abandonment will not be used for the construction of any dwellings. However, on a case -by -case basis, and only through the Modification Permit process can fences, walls and planters above 3 feet be permitted in the area of abandonment. There are existing hardscape encroachments • within this area. 1: \Users\PB W% Shared \COUNCIL\Fy99 -0OVune- I3\Pacific Dr QuestionsAm 0 n U • 14. How would a property owner on the south side of Pacific Dr. be able to move their home closer to Pacific Dr. after the abandonment? What findings would have to be made to allow this? In order to construct a dwelling or garage within the abandoned area, a Modification permit would be required for an encroachment into the front yard setback. Approval of a Modification requires finding that there will not be detrimental impacts on the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons in the neighborhood. A modification must also be consistent with the legislative intent of the zoning code. 15. What are the property tax consequences for the residents resulting from the abandonment once the street is removed from the City's tax exempt ownership? Their property area would be increased and the assessor could increase their land value if they felt the property value had gone up. 16. Could the City require the property owners to record a deed restriction preventing any building in the setback area added to their lots by the abandonment? The city has reserved a 10' utility easement that could be modified to state that no structures be allowed within that easement. Respectfully Submitted Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: Pacific Drive Edward Letter Buildable Area Increase Sketch I:\Usem\PBW\ Shared \COUNCIL\Fy99 -OOUune- 13\Pacific Dr Questions.doc Q94Z Don Webb Public Works Director i �b i s. p. a A� 1 i i .4 %,.. _ 1. til. otr �/5 r yYlSf� v� • • PACIFIC DRIVE Corona del Mar "401`111 side of the Street Looking WP.f --i.. . "Norm side of the Street Looking Westerly from Begonia Avenue 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 inc. architecture planning interiors w,gseAm ..aolaQ'ow Iwaamadw,,41.. 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 -of -way on Pacific Drive. The existing City street easement is 80' -0", with 26 feet of width beyond the sidewalk on the sloping, `bluff 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 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. Hofistadt, 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 ldad assistii and remain available at your convenience to assist in any way possible to expedite the vacation recess on Pacific Drive. Since y you C W am R arils, prin�'Ipal Archvltect PLANET DESIGN, inc. to fde, PscDrCDM.mq.dx 99 -1 IS • die te7/moeto 400M /comes, uOW4406 a apt & '4' oear�a develyhsne 26895 Aliso Creek Rd. Ste. 13 -142 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 USA TeL: 949.425.8938 Fax: 949.360.9929 Email: architect@bigplanet.com bJ/ !1/1 J ?J VJ1J J`. JJVVJJ�J ATTAC EWENT to Letter of Request for Abandonment of Southerly 26 feet of Pacific Drive, CDM, CA *"""Statement of Support * * * * * ** Thwrsday, May 20,1999 Mr. Don Webb, Director Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: . Proposed Abandonment of 2611. of Right -0f - -Way Bluff Side Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, CA REF: PLANET DESIGN Letter of May 20,1999 by :William R. Edwards, Architect, representing Southerly Side Pacific Drive Property Owners Dear W. Webb: I (We) the undersigned, as property owner(s) on Pacific Drive on Corona del Mar, CA hereby r that the City of Newport Beach begin procedures to vacate the above - referenced soutberly 26 feet the sloping or'biutl side) of the existing eighty (90) foot right -0f-way along Pacific Drive from M Avenue to Begonia Avenue in Corona del 1142r, CA. Thb would create a fifty -four (34) R wide right-of-way, mom in keeping with the Corona del Mar standard R/W widths averaging approxi fifty (SO) feet. We understand that the oversized street easement was originally designed many d ago to provide for the Pacific Electric Railway system tracks slated to run along Pacific Drive, obviously never occurred. Thank you very much for your support and cooperation In this regard. RespeMfolly yowl, Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar Property Owners: Be -Y(a5eti Pacific Drive y'O Addles Date I ATTACEINMNT to Letter of Request for Abandonment of Southerly 26 foot of Pacific Drive, CDM, CA ** * *** *Statement of Support * * * * * ** T *way, May 20,1999 Mr. Don Webb, Director Fabric Works Depataseat City of Newport Heacb 13M Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Proposed Abandonment of 26 ft. of Right -of-Way Bluff Side Pacific Drives Corona del Mar, CA REF: PLANET DESIGN Lotter of May 20,1999 by WM= R. Edwards, Architect, representing Southerly Side Fadae Drive Property Owners Dar W. Webb: I (We) the wdertigned, as property owner(s) on Pacific Drive on Corona del Mar, CA bereby r that the City of Newport Bach begin procedures to vacate the above- rebreneed southerly 26 feet the sloping or'bluW side) of the obtleg eighty (80) foot right -0t way along Pacific Drive from A, Avenue to Begoole Avenue In Corona del Mar, CA. This would create a fifty -four (54) R wide right•oPway, mars lu kwpft wkb the Corona del Mar standard R/W widths avetnging appro:d fifty (50) het. We moderstaad that the oversized shot easement was originally dealped no" d ago to provide ibr the Pacific Electric RaLLwarq system trucks; slated to run along Pacific Drive, obviously never occvrrod Thank you very much for your support and cooperation In this tvprd. RapecdWty yoara, f'atlfk D Coro* del Mar Property Owners: Pacific Drive ILAL / Ms Address Data ��H �. Qa,w� • I M f; f� f i. i I (We) the wdertigned, as property owner(s) on Pacific Drive on Corona del Mar, CA bereby r that the City of Newport Bach begin procedures to vacate the above- rebreneed southerly 26 feet the sloping or'bluW side) of the obtleg eighty (80) foot right -0t way along Pacific Drive from A, Avenue to Begoole Avenue In Corona del Mar, CA. This would create a fifty -four (54) R wide right•oPway, mars lu kwpft wkb the Corona del Mar standard R/W widths avetnging appro:d fifty (50) het. We moderstaad that the oversized shot easement was originally dealped no" d ago to provide ibr the Pacific Electric RaLLwarq system trucks; slated to run along Pacific Drive, obviously never occvrrod Thank you very much for your support and cooperation In this tvprd. RapecdWty yoara, f'atlfk D Coro* del Mar Property Owners: Pacific Drive ILAL / Ms Address Data ��H �. Qa,w� • I M f; f� f I/r 2301 \ 2319 7373 --- --- 2305 --- ------ 23iS --- ql* 4 Ar BAy,qDE DR n� oz%4 0 s DEAR NEIGHBORS, -13_ ®0 ab SO FAR OUR MAP LOOKS LIKE THIS! IN ORDER TO HELP THE CITY THE NIGHT OF OUR MEETING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL VOTES ARE IN AND THAT THE SIGNATURES BE ATTACHED TO OUR MAP. THAT WAY THEY CAN LOOK AT A GLANCE AND DETERMINED WHO'S WHO WHEN YOU SPEAK AT THE PODIUM. � z/ THANK YOU, 1pAntnd Name Addracc Vnte Phnne lnnt�nnall Sinnafure \7 i N �N, V. MIA WE M ..., . ,: min.`' _�.AO! WLfOMENAfi E , \7 i N DEAR NEIGHBORS, SO FAR OUR MAP LOOKS LIKE THIS! IN ORDER TO HELP THE CITY THE NIGHT OF OUR MEETING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL VOTES ARE IN AND THAT THE SIGNATURES BE ATTACHED TO OUR MAP. THAT WAY THEY CAN LOOK AT A GLANCE AND DETERMINED WHO'S WHO WHEN YOU SPEAK AT THE PODIUM. THANK YOU, Printed 2. �Ce 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Vote 5WVF3 DEAR NEIGHBORS, SO FAR OUR MAP LOOKS LIKE THIS! IN ORDER TO HELP THE CITY THE NIGHT OF OUR MEETING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL VOTES ARE IN AND THAT THE SIGNATURES BE ATTACHED TO OUR MAP. THAT WAY THEY CAN LOOK AT A GLANCE AND DETERMINED WHO'S WHO WHEN YOU SPEAK AT THE PODIUM. THANK YOU, ,.,__ Add.nee Vate Phnnetantionall Signature r nuacu,.aiiie 1. - -- - - -- - 2. J�! ae2 3,�73A Fir- fit?_ NO 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. M '�7rA DEAR NEIGHBORS, SO FAR OUR MAP LOOKS LIKE THIS! IN ORDER TO HELP THE CITY THE NIGHT OF OUR MEETING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL VOTES ARE IN AND THAT THE SIGNATURES BE ATTACHED TO OUR MAP. THAT WAY THEY CAN LOOK AT A GLANCE AND DETERMINED WHO'S WHO WHEN YOU SPEAK AT THE PODIUM. THANK YOU, Printed Name Address Vote Phone (optional) Signature I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. �� � :L•LG nL K:-iJJ � 74'�p44.JCij� SHEILA 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: NO. 0,i Lo vole PRINTED." j�-a "RECEIVED (4 ., E- b- 13- 0° 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 out by our controlling neighbor on the street, 1 can understand that it seems to be more of a minus than a plus but, those who are knowledgable of the true facts, know t:a*_ is not the case. I 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 5R 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 individuals want to control the happenings on our street for their self - serving selfish benefit and you should not be swayed by the hundred or so signatures that they obtained on false information and pretenses. Do not oppose the abandonment. It is good for all concerned. S-,- Sheila Ross FROM : Christ, Mctto!a PHONE NO. : Jun. 13 2000 11:19RM P2 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Re: 1 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 writh 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 Ca /ijlaa ie:i7 h- RuS` 4 7476443a tiu.E29 Fdz 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 Bettinger 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 ,,.-n— -, 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 Stem 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, Ste, 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 lines 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 Appash 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 Bettingen 2215 Pacific Drive 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 McNash 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, ,j �1 a"" �n �ti I c 2A� N y h 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, am very interested in the council decision regarding this matter. 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, PAUTSCH a Del Mar Mayor John E. Noyes Members of the Clty Council City of Newport Bauch 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach. CA 928133 Re: Yes. to the Pacific Drive right- of•way vacation! 11 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members My name Is Jeannie Lawrencrt and I lire at 710 Ramona in lrvineTerrsce. Newport Beach. We own several businesses in the area including the Doryman's !nn 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 architeC: on many of our projects over that period of time. We consider him to be a fin-, architect and good friend. We are familiar with Pacific Drive and slmcst bought a house there last year. I have to tell you, had we done sn. 1 would be very upset right now to !earn that the price dldr,'t include owning the front yard. First of all it is a very unusua! situation, vrth the train and all. but what! think is ever. more Incredible is how things have gottcn so blown up and made into some public Issue. Who started all that with thu petitions and what right does the public rave to get involved In determining NOmt happens to that 'and on that street? Did the of the Corona Del Mar 5K run endorse such A campaign? I'm surprised that the city even allows thoso sort of banners along the street. or do thty? 1 think that it's only right that the Crrr ofiiciail'y give the ho neownem on the bluff side of tha street the land. For a3 intents and purposes they already paid for it. 1 ineart . vrhen you think about It, you buy a r<iece of pro,rty. you decide this is. .that 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. I know there has been a lot ct -:,omplaining from iheq homeowners on the north side over triers. but it is not they w i-O have been penalized. They have nice elevated front yards. and they oven then. I'm s%re if they lived cn the other side of. the street they vtoutd fee! just as strongly thai they would went to i:o!CY title to wrat ie: rtghtfuliv theirs. I wholeheartedly feel the City should pass the aWndonnent. `.` Sin sly, I _ J 4renoe N rt Beach, CA M : Christi Mottola PHONE NO. i June 11, 2000 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 l own property on Pacific Drive, and I am very interested in whatever happens on this street. 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,ayua V:) 0_,J�sc� 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 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. �< XES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to-;a m you not want the vacation of righ f way to p ECity keeps the land. Name: •7� ignature• Address: 17 l Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mall to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd -, Newport Beach, CA 92659 2d WtitS:60 OOOZ £T •tent' . 'ON 3NOHd eio}}oW TISTJ40 : Wpbd 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. 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 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 allo%ved 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 f ity ke the land. l� \J Name: SSA'., �y�r(�r.It+rJ —_ -- Signature: !' ^ Darr. b JtZ�<r, Address: lclbW MXQPeT�0_ (�wb" PIC11sc faz back to 949 - 7511 -09N1 or rnAlt to: City of Newt Ed WHTS:60 000E 2T 'Unf I2vtjC CA 92612. each, 3300 Newport Dlvd., Newport Dcach, 'ON 3NOHd elolloW t1s!J4D : WOad Jim-12 -00 15:25 Fratn:ANfCRIf.AN TRAILER INDUSTRIES,INC. 9496446247 T -209 P.02 /02 Job -635 6. After the proposed nbaadomwent is approved, can homes build closer to the street? No! The existing front yard setback line will not change, and bomcs will not be allowed to uild in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will. 1rovide for the south side homeowners is solely to create a Aew'property lice that will be aped to figs -c into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ox nership of this property. Wbat the abandonment will allow for is a largo floor area calculation. 72 : proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will c dculate as follows: Ten (I0) feet of that would be reserved for uudcrground 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 F? K. So for example, what that meant is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft wide lot that gain an additic ial 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, and can not ' e 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 Assess( rs Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do not plan to raise the taxes of the homeowners t n 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 v411 be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the s tuth side bomeo.vners =t no- charge. 9. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the openness of toe streetscape will not Change in any way from what is currently cnjoyE 1 by the public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by th public. The bomeowners will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as out in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the $I •eet? No! Since there is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improver ents or setback tines, this abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street parking. li, 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 that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. A there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential expo being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. �ES, means you want the vacation ofright- nf-way to pass. N0, meats you do not want the vacation of right -of /tun toopass and the City keeps ttth 4 land. Name: Signature:'�rt %i- Address: 1. r PICAac A% I>ACIC to s peZA�F, or mail ro: Wti05:60 000? 2T 'unr Roach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport neans so, if rue of CA 11659 ,� .., ...... t..,.. : 0` 0Wool 'ON -2NOHd e10110W 11STU4D : W02S -0 - a 1 M JUN 1 ' ; "% 'C-5 t t;r 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 !!! Sher /L /�Js /ham 2223 Pacific Dr. CUM 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. WittedEame, Address Phone Wi0aw Signature 1 - l 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) 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 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): 13) 14) Signature: 15) 1 t Date: This Petition was circulated by: _ Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City CTug it MfeXing of June 13, 2000 I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. I am apposed to the profWed;t0sdl'6ti6&0'r -tiny 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 Paci c Drive. I am concerned about front yard setbaCl�s, buidlable area an��iigximum 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: Address: Phone (optional): Signature:��,�, Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abandonment I am Opposed to Resolution # (not yet assigned) on the agenda of City Co2yq� 1'.Meeiing of June 13, 2000 I am a resident of Corona del Mar or Newport Beach. I am apposed to the pi4o4&rds6luti6n. -0 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: (G(t i 6 P5-,P- Address: 2 Z 0 A�c� t �'' `gyp Jr . C,4 ` 19171MW Signan 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 fAUsi,coming down the stairway to my home. I think the City and I are both better served if the abandommnet 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 you co ider n. d 0 Randall P. Lush homeowner 2223 Pacific Drive Corona Del Mar FROM : MCM PHONE No. Jun. 08 2000 11:30RM P2 RECEIVED BY PLANNING D!:PARTKIENT CITY OF \L- IglDng r: ^,4. F'I AM JUJUN 'I 26GO PM 71819 110 il' . 11211121314 is 16 I June 8, 2000 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Jim Sheppar &n JUl"I 1 ? ° 3 :06 2300 Pacific Drive Corona CA 92625. . LEACH 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. 1 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 be 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 the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the aba cdonmpn yrill'jSf 4?kle 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 owner of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor at&' "6iicu atiop `:1 tg,PreRosal 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. 3. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear an}, 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. 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,/ ,q-tje,l MC- 1jI+5J+ Signature: j% 0 Date: b y ty'f3 Address: 2131,7 >r, Gors.itP-0 -2 Mar (24- 9a-io -- fleast fax back to 949 - 75(4991 or mnil to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport blvd., Newport [leach, 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, cud A cxl&-ZZt� udith R. Hodges 2200 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, California 'A. .'lti 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 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 meet width) and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities 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 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 built 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? Not Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by theta, 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 T 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 aoy 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 it furies to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being ed 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-o pass a Ci keeps the Name a tote: Plcase fwx bailito fe9- 756d9af or rerito 'C6 of Ncv1port Beach, J300 Nevrport Blv7,'_NewporttBB ach. CM12659 2 a% Ii '.a': 06/09/2000 12:20 9496752563 2I OCEANFRONT PAGE Jun. 9, 2000 IRVINE CA 949 755 0981 No, 8402 P, 3/3 6. After the 11:05PM reposed abandonment is approved, can homes buRd closer to the street? Nol The exisi g from yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned are or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side tomeowners is solely to create a new property be 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. Mat 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 ofthat would be reserved for 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 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 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 res Acted to be applied only to the downhill sloped side of the lot, and can not be used to build in the abi ndoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several cc �' cerned homeowners have called and spoken with the Orange County Assessors Office and were repo 4edly 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 S. As a resuld of the abandonment being approved, will T have to bear any costs? No! There willl' be no cost whatsoever to any homeowner. The City is giving the land to the south aide homeowners aC no- charge. 9. Alter the proposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the opem ss of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This it ludes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by the public. The homeowa s will not be able to build any closer to the street than they are already allowed to build now as outlin in the code. 10. After.tbe s bandonment is approved, will this increase the parking congestion on the street? No! Since theie is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, t2is abandonment will not negatively impact the status of the street patidng. 11. Why does "te City want to do this? What's In It for them? The benefits tFany the City include not having the liability associated with owning that land, which means that the homeas would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of being named a lawsuit because they no longer own the tar& YES, m ans you want the vacation orright -of -way to pass. _,ENO, means you do nAwant the vacation of riot-a( ways and the City keeps the lnnd Please fax or 1owl to: City of Newport heath, as Newport Bach, CA 97.65Y M jo 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 rggbt -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 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. X , / YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of w` o pass and the City keeps the land. '06/06/00 21:17 PL ROSS 4 949 756 0981 N0.001 D02 FROM : Christi Mottola PHONE No Jun. BS 2066 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 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 he 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 fact of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved fvr underground utilities 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 exatnple, 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 squarr feet. lids 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 Assessor 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. 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 streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the opermess of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the public. This includes 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 outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this increase the panting 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 steno 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 mad in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, roeam you ware the vacation of dghtof- -way to pass. NO, tuean you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass -and the City keeps the tend D Please fu back to 949- 756.OMI or merit to) Newport Reach, 3Jb0Nrwprk NeWpartRncb. 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 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 Name: L ..f / , ,, C 4 ignatureA Address: 'Y 1- e < / . �_. ': Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport and the City keeps the land. 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 L— 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 named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. /Nn/O, means you /do not ]want t /hey vacation of right f wa/(y t/o pass and thJee Ciity keeps the land. Name• \1��� /Y/ .1� 1N. /:%l� /�L./� CiOn'JIr.TP• N14n -� idl i,.,P• /n /a /4 l' kddreSs: 2.200* AYf/,2�z ,� /ill1C (�� if % /tit.(/ � /r�. / /';•�/ • L�� YakC t) Please faz back to 949 -75 981 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 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. y�/ YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -0f w o pass and the City k�P s the land NIcA%A5� �liu -nom Name: Signature: d�Date: Address: 41 / fi C /!= /C 'o ,! Please fax back to 949 - 156-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 06i06/00 21:17 AL ROSS a 949 756 0991 FROM : Cn,i Sti nottola ( Jun. 05 2000 12:265pM v3 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, can homes bad 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 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 feet of the right -of -way, and will calculate as follows: Ten (10) feet of that would be reserved for underground utilities requited by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or 9 feat 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. R. Asa result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be so 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 IDAe 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 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 outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will this Increase the parking cangestfon 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 sum parking. 1I. 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, weans you wam the vacation of right -0f - -way to pass. NO, means you do Dot want the vacation of rigtuof way to passand the City keeps the Land Name:_AZ_41, Signature:_ r4CR C FAX— bbaekc to 909 -756-0 1 ar E 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 gamed 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 C' cps the land / Name: I —LfY �/ l I �� ^%U sly! Signature: / Date: O9 Address: �rt G\ do 0, 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 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 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. YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do ii not want the vacation of right -of w to passe aand Ci eeps the land Name: �.i1��J`..i 1 L. L USL Sivnature• �AUW' Da Please fax back to 949 -756 -0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport 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 hornes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide f)r 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 proper.y. 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 fe,lows: Ten (IQ 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 tines the 1.5 PAR. So far example, vvbat that means is for homeowners that live on a 30 ft .vide lot that gait 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 dow -nhiil sloped side of the lot, ;md can rot be used to build it the abandoned area or closer to the street. 7. Alter the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No' Several concerned hot_,eovmers have called and spoken with the Orange Coanty Assessors Office and were repeatedly told by them, that they do rot plan to raise the taxes of the he rteowners on Pacific Drive as a resuh of the abandonment being passed. 3. Asa result of the abandonment being approved, will l have to bear any costs? No'. There will be no cost whatsoever to any holmeowner. The City is giving the land to the s:-)uth side homeowners at no- charge. 9. After the proposed abaudonment is spprovcd, will the strcetscape lose any of its open areas' No, the openness of the strectscape will not change 'in any way frurn Waal is currently enioyed by the public. This includes the planted parkways. sidewalks, or ar y :;the, arreniti.es enjoyed by the public. Ile bomeowners will not be able to build any c't =oscr to the street tf:,_e they are already allowed to build no,.v as outlined in the code. 10. After the abandonment is approved, will (his increase the p:,.HdnG congestion on the street? No! Since there is no physical change occarring whatsoever to a:iy of the street improvements or setback lines, this abandonment wiJl not negati� -Cly impact the status of the street pa- rkiLg. 11. Why does the City want to do this? What's lit 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 tuaintenance Of Elie land. Also, if there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no 'o:iger has the potential exposure of being named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. ,Y YES, means you want the vacation of right -of 1vay tv pass. — __ivO, means you do not wart the vacation of right -of :nay to, pals and the City keeps the land. Namc_L /G T1e�'7�DG� / - -Signa urc' Address:._�!Z_� _�? G Z I t L_ fJ� _C_�D_ " PICAsc fax t)aett to 949 -756 -0981 or rnai; to: City of Nc%vpnrt Beach. _ 3300 Ncsvport Ncwtx>rt fleacb, CA 92659 Questions and Answers Regarding the June 13th Proposed Partial Abandonment of Pacific Drive (To be voted upon June 13", 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 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) 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 paricing 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: Sienature: Date: Address: Please fax back in 949 - 75"981 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 rigbt -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: Arj AAA- IJ451+ Signature: 491&� Date: G 2� " Addrexs: �31� QO�i�rf�. fir, 00rtv4 A- M oar Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 33011 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 2 June 10, 2000 (I know this is long, but please bear with us. These things nee0,Jto bcejbrqugh�fggjlr -for gvetyane's benefit and should never have had to be taken this far. Thank you for your consideration, Christi Bettingen). RE: Pacific Drive Abandonment C' i :;EACH 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 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 Vauglins against A] 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 a letter dated June 27, 1999 and at our variance hearings, the Vaughns lied about our story Poles. After Jerry Vaughn spent two 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 Vaughns, 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 1 & 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 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 .tune 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 "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 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 toward the street 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. Vaugltns 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). a 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 AI 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 are very angry that we received a height variance (modest as it is). We are just trying to build a ]ionic 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 ]ionic 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 -Y2 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. I feel particularly bad for our new neighbors who have been exposed to such ac(ivitics 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, I cannot say. However. one thing is for sure, it is injurious t.o all concerned. I'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 G Questions and Answers Regarding the June 13th Proposed Partial Abandonment of Pacific Drive (To be voted upon Jute 13'", 7:00ptu. at the Newport Beach City Cowicil 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 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 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 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: Address: Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 2 I /" 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 o.r questions the two of you may have. As Jerry expressed having difficulty visualizing the changes, we agreed to mire 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 I had discussed with Jerry two weeks ago, we are wady 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 coimnunication 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 aid avoid any unnecessary negativity, with you or any of our 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 when 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 me at rrny home 949 -675 -8456 or office 949 - 851 -5830 to set up a time to meet over the next few days. 0► , Kind regards, Your Neighbors, The Bettingen Family i- 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 % 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 plans and visual is always clear in everyone's minds. I'm stir- 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 roolline. I agree with you, save everyone the time and money and build out the props on your roof only ogee. 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 ;or variances regarding your plans, all the neighbors will be notified once again and then we ail get to go over all this one more time. We are also open to working w:;h ; .)u and all our 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 o1g PLANET DESIGN iac architceturc planning interiors " -t71-0 d6Vn °Xa�ox a smaaw&u ail.. 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 oil the southerly sloping `blufr side of Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, CA in making the following request regarding the existing inordinately wide right-or-way on Pacific Drive. The existing City street eascmcnt is 80' -0 ", with 26 feet of width beyond the sidewalk on the sloping, 'blufr Side of Pacific Drive and about I foot on the opposite flat inland side. ;Host 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 or 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 discu&wd 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 Cig1 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 blufT 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. Since your/ C (7 W am 9. Ed ards, principal Architect PLAXET DESIGN, inc. te. file. PseDrCDM.rcq.dot 99415 v Il�fi/ca -04'..1. vales ✓lPU/ Jl J�+1dwX4tl -GiCma �fltu�[�LXCBXid 26895 Ahso Cmck Rd. SW B -142 Aliso Viejo. CA 91656 USA Tel.: 949.425.8938 Fax: 949.360.9929 Email: architect @bigplanct.com »d3609� S T D -: N INC PAGE 04 ATTACHMENT to Letter of Request for Abandonment of Southerly 26 feet of Pacific Drive, CDM, CA * * * * ** *Statement of Support ******* Thursday, May 20,1999 Mr. Don Webb, Director Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Bach, CA 92663 RE: Proposed Abandonment of 26 it. of Rip ht-of -Way Blafl! Side Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, CA REF: PLANET DESIGN Letter of May 20,1999 by William R. Edwards, Architect, representing Southerly Side Pacific Drive Property Owners Dear Mr. Webb: I (We) the undersigned, as property owner(s) on Pacific Drive on Corona del Mar, CA hereby request that the City of Newport Beach begin procedures to vacate the above-referenced southerty 26 feet (along the sloping or 'bluW side) of the existing eighty (80) foot right- of-way along Pacific Drive from Avocado Avenue to Begonia Avenue in Corona del afar, CA. This would create a Arty -font (Sd) ft. wide publk right-of-way, more in keeping with the Corona del Mar standard RM widths averaging approximately filly (30) feet. We understand that the oversized street asemcut was originally designed many decades ago to provide Ibr the Padfic Electric Railway system tracks slated to run along Pacific Drive, which obviously never occurred. Thank you very much for your support and cooperation In this regard. �=-mg .'T'iiiii � Podfic Drive, Corona del Mar Property Owners: 1-2-1 S' Pacific Drive 57/— Mr. / Ms. Address Date @S/25/1999 21:16 9493609929 FLANET DESIGN INC ATTACIMEW to Letter of Request for Abandonment of Southerly 26 feet of Pacifle Drive, CD1f, CA *** *e* *Stat0ment of Support * * * * * ** Tkaredsy, May 20,1999 Mr. Don Webb, Director Public Woris Department Ctw ow"port Hach 3300 Nswport Boulevard Nwport Benno CA 42663 RE: Proposed Aboadonmcat of 26 & of Right -aWay Maff Side Pudic Drove, Corona del Afar, CA REF: PLANET DESIGN Letter of May 20,1999 by William EL Edwards, Ardriteti, rrpteaenft Soutber?y Side Pardue Drive Property Owners Dear Mr, Webb: PAGE 05 1 (We) the undersigned, as property owners) on Pad& Drive on Cormts dal Mar, Cam! hereby request that the Chy of Newport Beach begin procedures to vacate the above- re*reneed soutberly 26 feet (slang the sloping or 'Muff side) of the existing eighty (90) toot rigbtof wsy along Padlilc Drive from Avocado Avenue to Begonia Avenue in Corona dd Mar, CA. This would create a Illy -four (54) fl. wide public right-of-way, more to keeping with the Comas del Mar standard R/W widths ave qft oppnoatmautty any (so) feet. We understand that the ove tbvd stnoat easement wts origlually dosi{!md many deesiles ago to provide for the Pacific Electric RxUway rystem trae4s slated to run along Pacific Drive, wWch obvioutly never ooeerred. Tbank you very much for your support and cooperation is this regard- RespecdWly � yours. 1 jj {' Yi1 ;'� .G 'a �7. �Y 1 "RECEIVED AFTER AGEND f�y[4 TED:° a •pan to i ao &-NO6�s vas`` c �v�.a �s 1b�6 �LShiNCi �s -2-x) l�ar�� aNC� ;��NZ �T %AA I�er \e�As j P) �,r.►.��o��t�� A�3a. h��iZ �l(�NN�Nq - N� MOet. c�,���► a��c, icce�v�ac,C��s . J In 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 131' meeting; ea o Sava _ our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of Newporf;Bcl 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 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 be,4uty-4nd integrity of the street. Signature,/ � _, - Date � t l Address �rl� zf va Ky 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 meet ng, 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 Att: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting -r- 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 ep the beauty end integriy Signature vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to the street. Address -56 7 '— Date `o— /-4e) 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 13's meeting, to save our street! You can sign this flyer YES or NO and send it to the City of New__ port Beh, before June 6, 2000. City of Newport Beach = c 3300 Newport Blvd. z P.O. Box 1768 v Newport Beach, Ca. 92659 All: City Council for June 13, 2000 meeting �2 r YES vote means you want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and risk loging the openness of the street. NO to means you do not want the, vacation of right -of -way to pass, and you want to NO the beauty . d-integrity of th t. Signature /1� �`— Date 6 —7e,- Address -7e,- 'GO JU:1 12 9 '42 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: ;-- Address: Phone (optional): Signature: S'rT-11A16 aoc�o COUNCIL AGENDA SMrrN BA Gc)^1 N0, 02 ?' . 023is'PACjPrc Dre Co Ro KQ AO I- MA /1) 9 .i 6 Z-6- NE4VP097- ,B.EAcH City CouNc, t� X15F" AMrNDM/,NrNo• 89Y V17c/4r/on/ aF RIcKr- or' -6uAY oiv 'PACr F oc- Da_ IRF9udsr yov STor 7'Nj5 rgmFnNDMEnrr foQt'HE /9 J0R0 P1EKr1ES onr 71NE -rourN CB /u '-�)Sr D.E Cr P4c ,-Ft� DR AT TNT F(OZLI e. HF/aRiKG oA" 6113 / ea. U. %/« K,EASonr FOR 714 F_ W) U£ R16- Hr— /? -u/A Y C/- «crj L sr,rrE r cqR� f/AS �onrl6 aF c�aY_ tau r w /4Ay ,4 N /cr L,Ee- Acy /4A.5 $E,5r r To ALL /cOR 76 YSgRS. %- / {rs W/�< C14r- 7jVaF_ 77H/c �=,x-r"MF_ LovKS OF Tf/r SrREEr, InlE !i1 / /i0 L /YE fi/rRE %C Now C> W /LL L�srLN TNT /nrF YrStt .�L O{FF F_C,T' C% 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 NEW ORT BEACII SignatureC- /% f Date / Flo OS�v Address NOTICE OF VACATION OF 3 RIGHT=iOF�WM i ' ` m ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal attd has beer. iia the makings fer 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 NOand 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 anon of right- -way to pass, and you want to keep the b ty and in gri f the s t. / / Signature Date C� .b Address 5 -lq f O //idiFW4i /X try N- 0 0 0 NOTICE OF rvLl,,i, ! R� VACAT "ION OFjuN -R A6:21 R FLERn ORT E_?.Cll ON PACIFIC DRIVE. This is a real proposal and has been in the makings for over a year. IT IS NOT A V11 STS 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 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 integrK*y of the street. Signature _ VjQ..Q� Ai: DL tOt Address S\ 4! \ c ., , L City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER 2227 Pacific_ Drive 92658 -8915 OF '60 JUN -7 19 :05 Re: Abandonment of Street Right -Of -Way Amendment No. 899 Pear 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 0 PMR:wll 0 PI y 00 cc W O C3 >+ a �I 3 w o ft M a =° rU A o a in aw O W Y W d /1 °c° N W v ry. � � b 3 � a a O O �a a «o Q �o n N t iT' �« ,E,r o'c a+ L U pp d A N O U •p T U c W L t = =� N •o o W u p c w e ° 3 son Y 43 `u' o U s oo c •� v ti d y O O v ccd ca as .. ai F as o <�m TC�N N'O N m C C N 00) to E z h C � a ¢ l0 O O d O a 9 Q C ao m s � U cd ~ e s W 8 c V S± L oA dA W cc a+c� oE�e Crt�y c=i cc � E u � d �I N v A 7 1 Ca u ads > E C A `0 aci h °Q ace E L' > o u u o o c O C Z A C> z=so� WQ' d W as >4 U «t reb d o0 O L O W d N Lp� " OA c 'O aN7 qcc d C O U W y W A U W E m W 9 A N C � m;a � 3 W W �.' d y cc ° 3 a L v E ... C O O O to O d y yy w 4.n > W a W N n N t iT' �« ,E,r o'c a+ L U pp d A N O U •p T U c W L t = =� N •o o W u p c w e ° 3 son Y 43 `u' o U s oo c •� v ti d y O O v ccd ca as .. ai F as o <�m TC�N N'O N m C C N 00) to E z h C � a ¢ l0 O O d O a 9 Q C ao m PC � v � C ti 31 w o � a a r U A « O W 'Coo a� d cc O d C/] �1 O d r\ pe C � N � a R v W a r � u a � U Aar V rl pO 0U g' r1 ~ > •G `� V O 1 W a+c� oE�e Crt�y c=i cc � E u � d do E Z '> c ca z 'b y N ¢ O o O ZE h PC � v � C ti 31 w o � a a r U A « O W 'Coo a� d cc O d C/] �1 O d r\ pe C � N � a R v W a r � u a � U Aar V rl pO 0U g' v L W Z y O d a ¢ ici I r1 ~ > •G `� may' L U" 'dA'IV 1 O C_ C a U -0 !: a+c� oE�e Crt�y c=i cc � E u � d do E Z '> c c • °- a W W z W 0 a 5 � = 4) w 0 2 u B d 0 W y� � W •7 T U it a 3 0 cc c O a%« o0 O W w w Z O U «t reb d o0 O L O W d L O L 7 W C J Lp� " OA c 'O qcc d C O U W W ca W E e w> E m W 9 A N C � m;a � 3 W W �.' d y 7> N W c c+ - - v v L W Z y O d a ¢ ici I ~ > •G `� may' L U" 'dA'IV 1 O C_ C a U -0 !: a+c� oE�e V W d �O �Sau •o d c SS 3 p= c •N ..J W W c > Cc 0 � 0 W m` N Vi ;0b Od 0° N � Lp� " OA c a�yooca z� W W �.' d y 7> N W c y L. h .ly 'O 9i O �Oi O W h O 1.4 C ft -A Z a u CS r U Aar S O aW rA O d � o ti a 3 � 'eb •� o a � U Aar SO b�uyy ° o flr ,g O e, z N Fri b •O ci d � Ci C, 9 d PC L l PC •ya°a o ti �1 ao •� a U A •IO+ O O Q c . T 4�-s1�> .Sasoe�o d 7 u a c> z:r 5 WE V d ti d ° 3 a ° 3'� cc 'a >,,G 30 I y W y c_1r+`� y�LOna C 'O Y p ca C y a C O y U a+ w �o FOi vy1 �.I O ,7 o-r r.i YOi 4i t�V li^- O G a Ow O' O d O a cc C > U CO 2 m WE c ,1 u oa •° 3 0= a R C & e ci C's c> N E o, ° > .�i , 3 �i z Q° E o 9 > ° di u y wo ;> �� Rw eb a o a ;,% mw c o 9 1 y 3 ° a a U 3' 3 0 I w y o o a,r? a OG U o u ��t o LLI ad °° `° z y o P3 a A �' av s IF E E y O �. El y u id Q E ca ° :° 0 :° 40 Ir= 0 z r o U C u i E 0 O � •C U � C=J C ° a 0 y y Z d 5 V t O U 'O N C' C O O v N l7 m W V es W o-r I.•I 0 ld O z N Fri b •O ci d � Ci C, 9 d PC L l PC •ya°a o ti �1 ao •� a U A •IO+ O O Q c . T 4�-s1�> .Sasoe�o d 7 u a c> z:r 5 WE V d ti d ° 3 a ° 3'� cc 'a >,,G 30 I y W y c_1r+`� y�LOna C 'O Y p ca C y a C O y U a+ w �o FOi vy1 �.I O ,7 o-r r.i YOi 4i t�V li^- O G a Ow O' O d O a cc C > U CO 2 m WE c ,1 u oa •° 3 0= a R C & e ci C's c> N E o, ° > .�i , 3 �i z Q° E o 9 > ° di u y wo ;> �� Rw eb a o a ;,% mw c o 9 1 y 3 ° a a U 3' 3 0 I w y o o a,r? a OG U o u ��t o LLI ad °° `° z y o P3 a A �' av s IF E E y O �. El y u id Q E ca ° :° 0 :° 40 Ir= 0 R 4.1 V. W r cu .E. e �� «y. v oo a 0 R PO • a $ N O p Q U "C"' O U p £� E �a avid cc w E P. ae a y >. y a L W c >, c 4) O ti W m A '� p ��'.�4EC cr3 ° °C ee OA $ v N' ° .0 A N N 4: O O O m Wy ° oo c p p a•c' N-c L � 'L 'b r :a ro c0 PC a r. d ' O N PC L. 9° a. S C d Si p o E acc a aeoo�� W> N z •b y N l0roL'i ` 7 1.. r- .�.r N v VJ f� I�1 F.I cV O W V aai ^ QQ cc � N a >+ A ti cc o cc a co '� a jG d O .0 CL. & Cq rr O V r E) OO N ° E E r 0 c c 3 v w ewe °E'EE� F u c d 41QwuE> W p M .N �« 4w 0 zi 7 E C cCa > 'J .. O '° 3 '-N'- � $3 a. a •a �'u ca p 3 v'wvN O O .pi C O G wrsr'aeoy•C � y � C q •� C a ° E 1« > w _ 7 N O p L O v v N � 0 � a v� m a z Eyyi r q ca q Cp O c '00 JL' d -9 1\8'21 CFF;. i'ifY,LERP. C,1.; •' i:;; _ii' ?CRT BEACH u p : u r E� EJ N E) O a m e 3 U °o^ c 00 cD R E) s O a y cp\ r�1 LS0 ca ate Q a, A ku gym �A •t+ 63 .AP ACLU tj 70- C 4. E7 O p Gam. O G v 0 O G O cc Z 70 c Subject: Pacific Drive Right -of -Way Vacation and Abando� 9 'S4 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: t9Li H E !1 - , L R r! G ( ecrtiEfii 'PEASL-) Address: '570% 1&L%-a. Key Phone (optional): �� 4 �Ll, 4 135 U (n��•'y �° h°r nl s^°) Signature: 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 r;ffect many property owners and the hundreds of citizens that visit and enjoy Pacific Drive. -- Printed Name: y Ck V1 i -r_ l - ` ) , 7 0 0 r',_ Address: 0\`i` KeL,-'t CL V-1 -e- e— Phone Signal � NOTICE OF,-'y' 'CO 'o "`11 0 uv VACATION F 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 13`" 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 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 ;e -4- z;z. rZ, X9, Date 6- 7- ago0o Address a3-1 Mrs. James N. De Lamofee 2312 pacific Driv� C t : i li Carona Jel Mar, California 92626 June 8, 2000 •()o ,JUN —9 All :57 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Gentlemen: �F7 _ CITY L = ^n 9E: Amendment No. 899 June 13, 2000 Pacific Drive -COMar 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. DeLamater 0 0 0 June 10, 2000 (I know this is long, but please bear with us. These things neetbto !Mibroughtf tWfor gVe00nc's benefit and should never have had to be taken this far. Thank you for your consideration, Christi Bettingen). ;TTY 'L 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 isthe 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 a leper dated June 27, 1999 and at our variance hearings, the Vaughns lied about our story poles. After .Terry Vaughn spent two 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 Vaughns, 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 buil� 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 1 & 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 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 ir, 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 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 .Tune 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 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 toward the street 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 tha. 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, June 3, 2000 where she got her information, Ms. Vaughn revealed that she had not ever 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). 9 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 A] 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 A] 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 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 1 -' /z 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 instil] fear, negativity, and confusion in homeowners along the street. I fee] 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 are intentional or mixed with confusion, I cannot say. However, one thing is for sure, it is injurious to all concerned. I'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 6 I] `J Questions and Answers Regarding the June 13`h Proposed Partial Abandonment of Pacific Drive (To be voted upon June 13th, 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 trap 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) 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. 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 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. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of way to pass and the City keeps the land. Name: Signature: Date: 9 Address: Please fax hack 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, 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 Is 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 }named in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. 1 YES, means you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacatoon of right- of�v�y�o pass and the City keeps the land ^ A .N _ � i1 ., e c� u 06/06/00 21:17 AL ROSS a 949 756 0981 NO.001 D02 FROM : Christi Mottola PMOWS 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 abandon and b What the abandonment t will provvide for abandoned area or closer to the street due to this abandonment. line that will be used to figure into the the south side homeowners is solely to create a new property additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish $outh side bomeowmer's ownership of this property. What the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calculation- 0 feet of that proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right-of- -way, and will calculate as fonows: Ten 10 9 feet respectively. be reserved far underground utilities required by the City, and the remaining 2.4 or plus the area that is considered the 5 foot setback would allow homeownesweo� ato uffor additional 7.4 or 14 foet buildable tithes the I.5 FAX So for example, would be able to expand homeowners that live on a 30 R wide lot that gain an additional 9 feet, they their home by a total of 504 square feet. This incceased 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 abandonmem being passed• 9. Asa result of the abandonment being approved. win 1 have to bear any costs? No: Thee 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 abaudoomeat is approved. will the stmetseape lofse anY or its open areas' No, the openness of the stteetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed p public.. public. This includes the planted parkways, sidewalks, or any other amenities enjoyed by 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 ia,pact the stator 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 cuwd{thgtt� of th land- Also, g that the homeowners would solely be responsible for the upkeep exposure of there were to be any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer bas the potential xpo being meta m a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you warn am vacation of right *fway to pass. 1!IO, means you do not want the vacation of right -of waY to pawl die City keys the land I / .._ --. Al Ai(' Signature: pate: 6 6 t?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, (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. ZES, 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 ]and Name: - r.__ _ jo� 6n� ignatureA /� Dater Address: y'Y? ! < /' Aye � 1 . C, - G`-- ' Please fax back to 949 - 756-0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 M � 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. 0 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. NO, means you do not want the vacation of right f way to pass and the City keeps the land i 1/ // 0 Signature: Name: n � l Date: 4 C_ Address: Please fax back to 949 - 756 -0981 or mail to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92655, 40 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? 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? 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 w o pass�nd the City lops the }and 3r���FN /vlcNAS� %y%� /ie kddress:_� Please faa > to 949-756-0991 or mail to: Citv of Nev Newport 92659 06i06i00 �� 21:17 AL ROSS a 949 756 0981 NO.001 P02 FROM (;nri Sti Mattola PHONE � Jun. 05 2000 12:26aM R3 6. After the proposed abandonment is approved, cao 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 be that will be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side bomeowaer'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 (bat 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, wiU this increase my taxes? No! Several concerned homeowners have called and spoken with the grange 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 ofthe abandonment being passed. R. Asa result of the abandonment being approved, WM 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 l%a�gy o /its open 1kM$:1 No, the opemtess of the streetscape will not change in any way from what is currently enjoyed by the Public- This includes the pleated 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 sterns 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 laud, which means that the ho tnoowoers would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, id' 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, maim you want the vacation of right -of -way to pass. NO, o>earu you do not want the vacation of riglu,of way to pass and the City keeps the land WAN u Please 121 baek to 949.7960 1 or mac ter: d Newport Bach, Newpm't Newport Beacb. 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 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 gamed 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 righto''f waayItt000 C' - eps the land Name: 1�-e pAm"' lI . U S� Signature: `L� ' i Date: Address: A� 3 1�0 L\ Cb 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 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. 0 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 bIrmed 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 wff to pass and City eeps the land Name: j��y y) L. LvsL Signature: v Date: Address: sCAA3 Pci6y"c- 7r• (,OJ'Vila Dc) MOV' Please fax back to 949 - 756 -0981 or mall to: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92659 0 # I .. "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 lime that "I be used to figure into the additional square footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property. What the abandottmew 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 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 bomeowners on Pacific Drive as a result of the abandonment being passed. R. As s result of the abandonment being approved, will T 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 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 meats 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 loogcr has the potential exposure of Ved in a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation or right-of-way to pass. NO, means you do not want the vacation of rightoY'ivjo pass &104e City keeps the Mcasc TO E9Hd or nNT KnTCMR I MKI"nJ f"1L LIAOCG hG TO *17 T i..7 .Tn 06/09/2000 12:20 9496752503 2I OCEANFRONT PAGE 03 Jun. 9. 2000 11:05PM IRVINE CA 949 756 0981 No. 8402 P. 3/3 6. After the liwposed abandonment is approved, can homes build closer to the street? Nol The existi S front yard setback line will not change, and homes will not be allowed to build in the abandoned are or closer to the street due to this abandonment. What the abandonment will provide for the south side tomeowners is solely to create a new property be that will be used to figaae into the additional squ a footage buildable calculation and to establish south side homeowner's ownership of this property Vhat the abandonment will allow for is a larger floor area calmlanon. The proposal abandons 12.4 to 19 feet of the right -of -way, (due to irregularity of street width) and will calculate as follows: Tea (0) feet of that would be reserved for 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 t receive a total of an additional 7.4 or 14 feet buildable times the 1.5 FAR. So for example, wbat 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 ad. i adoned area or closer to the street. 7. After the proposed abandonment is approved, will this increase my taxes? No! Several ' cerned 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 r t of the abandonment being passed. S. As a result of the abandonment being approved, will I have to bear any costs? No! There will be no cost whatsoever to any homeowna. The City is giving the land to the south side homeowners a no- charge. 9. After the roposed abandonment is approved, will the streetscape lose any of its open areas? No, the o s .ft 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 the i bandonment is approved, will this increase the parldng congestion on the street? No! Since the e is no physical change occurring whatsoever to any of the street improvements or setback lines, i ais 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 bomeo vners would solely be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the land. Also, if there were to ba any injuries to take place on that land, the City no longer has the potential exposure of beiagpamed ' In a lawsuit because they no longer own the land. YES, means you want the vacation of right of way to pass 0,0f" you do n want the vacation of riot -a( ways and the City keeps the ]and IRease(" or maa tot 61_x_ .: /, M + ✓ 3300 Newport lnvd., Newport