HomeMy WebLinkAbout3b_Additional Materials_Non-Agenda Items_VariousFrom:Andy
To:Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Subject:Please Honor the Newport Beach Sight Plane Ordinance (#1596)
Date:Friday, March 12, 2021 3:34:11 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Committee Members:
In 1985, I purchased my home in Harbor View Hills, rather than in another less expensive
location, because of the views it afforded AND because of the protections embodied in the City of Newport Beach Sight Plane Ordinance (#1596), the building height and landscaping
limits of which assured me that our views would be protected.
We realize that that your committee and the City have a difficult task to accommodate thedemands of the state in the RHNA numbers. However, we ask that your planning
and recommendations to the City Council respect the long established height limits reflectedin the city’s Sight Plane Ordinance.
ANDREW CAMPBELL
ANN CAMPBELL
1133 White Sails Way
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
gregvercap@msn.com
M: 714-325-6659
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items
From:Chris Kalivas
To:Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Subject:RHNA Development in Corporate Plaza, Newport Center
Date:Sunday, March 14, 2021 5:04:08 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Chair Tucker and Members of the Committee:
I am a concerned citizen residing on Harbor View Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA. My
wife and I have been homeowners here since 2004 and we love our residence and its
view.
Our Harbor View Hills Community Association is made up of 146 homes, who alongwith residents of 100 homes in Harbor View Broadmoor, have for over 60 years
enjoyed the height limit protection of the City’s Sight Plane Ordinance (#1596). The
ordinance limits the height of all buildings and landscaping to a maximum height of 32
feet and never to invade the Sight Plane.
It is important to remember the historical basis for this ordinance. In 1960, The Irvine
Company began selling homes in Harbor View Hills with views of the Bay, Ocean and
City. The Company also owned most of the vacant land in Newport Center. Agreeingthey could not sell the same view twice, The Irvine Company agreed to the Sight
Plane Ordinance to protect the views from Harbor View Hills across the land that is
now Corporate Plaza, Corporate Plaza West, Corona del Mar Plaza and the Library
and City Hall sites. For over 60 years, hundreds of residents of Harbor View Hillshave purchased their homes and paid a very substantial premium for this protected
view.
We understand that your committee and the City have a difficult task to accommodatethe demands of the state in the RHNA numbers. However, we respectfully ask that
your planning and recommendations to the City Council, respect the long established
height limits reflected in the Sight Plane Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Chris and Pamela Kalivas
cjkalivas@cox.net
(949) 701-6344
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items
From:Carroll Hochschild
To:Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Subject:sightlines
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 10:36:51 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Our Harbor View Hills Community Association is made up of 146 homes, who along
with residents of 100 homes in Harbor View Broadmoor, have for over 60 years
enjoyed the height limit protection of the City’s Sight Plane Ordinance (#1596). The
ordinance limits the height of all buildings and landscaping to a maximum height of 32
feet and never to invade the Sight Plane.
It is important to remember the historical basis for this ordinance. In 1960, The Irvine
Company began selling homes in Harbor View Hills with views of the Bay, Ocean andCity. The Company also owned most of the vacant land in Newport Center. Agreeing
they could not sell the same view twice, The Irvine Company agreed to the Sight
Plane Ordinance to protect the views from Harbor View Hills across the land that is
now Corporate Plaza, Corporate Plaza West, CdM Plaza and the Library and CityHall sites. For over 60 years, hundreds of residents of Harbor View Hills have
purchased their homes and paid a very substantial premium for this protected view.
We understand that your committee and the City have a difficult task to accommodatethe demands of the state in the RHNA numbers. However, we ask that your planning
and recommendations to the City Council respect the long established height limits
reflected in the Sight Plane Ordinance.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items
From:Jim Tucker
To:Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Cc:Brenner, Joy
Subject:RHNA Development in Corporate Plaza, Newport Center
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:10:42 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Our Harbor View Hills Community Association consists of 146 homes, in addition with residents of 100 homes inHarbor View Broadmoor, have for over 60 years enjoyed the height limit protection of the City’s Sight PlaneOrdinance (#1596). The ordinance limits the height of all buildings and landscape to a maximum of 32 feet andnever invade the Sight Plane.
The Irvine Company agreed to the Sight Plane Ordinance to protect the views from Harbor View Hills across theland that is Corport Plaza, the Library and City Hall. We understand that your committee and the City have adifficult task to accommodate the demands of the state in the RHNA numbers. However, we ask that your planningand recommendations to the City Council respect the long established height limits reflected in the Sight PlaneOrdinance.
Jim Tucker2821 Pebble DriveCorona del Mar
Sent from my iPad
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items
From:Debra Allen
To:Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Subject:Fwd: San Diego case dealing with voter approval of housing development and RHNA
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 11:01:21 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Subject: Re: San Diego case dealing with voter approval of housingdevelopment and RHNA
Dear Chair Tucker and members of the Committee'
Several times in the HEUAC meetings, staff and some members of the committee have referred to a
case from North San Diego County where apparently the court held that a voter initiative similar to
our Greenlight ((City Charter Sec. 423) could not be used to avoid the mandates of the state in the
RHNA housing numbers. I have now discovered that case is not a published opinion.
I don't think you meant any harm, but I think you should stop referring to that case. First of all
because it is against the law in California to cite or rely on any case that is not a published opinion.
[CRC 8.1115(a)] Therefore your reference to that case could be misleading to the public. I know I
was led to believe that case had some application to Newport Beach. Since it is not a published
opinion, nothing in that case would prevent the citizens of Newport Beach from voting down this
outrageous state RHNA demand to add over 4,800 new housing units and tens of thousands of new
residents to our City's already congested roads and overtaxed infrastructure.
Thanks you for your consideration.
Debra Allen
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items
From:Debra Allen
To:O"Neill, William; Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Cc:Tucker, Larry; Harp, Aaron
Subject:Re: San Diego case dealing with voter approval of housing development and RHNA
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 1:03:49 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
To Attorneys for the HEUAC,
In response to Councilmember Will O'Neill's e-mail, I said in my e-mail the reference to an unpublished decision
from some other city in an official public hearing of a Newport Beach official committee was misleading and I thinkit is. I didn't say anyone on staff or the committee ever said the case was "binding." . However, I know of nopurpose for which that case is relevant to the HEUAC proceedings unless discussed as a court opinion with someauthority. Your response refers to none. Even to suggest the unpublished decision is persuasive or relevant toNewport Beach for any purpose is to place some reliance on the case and I submit that is a violation of theCalifornia rule I cited.. I do not think anyone on staff or the committee intended to mislead the public but I thinkthat could be the result. So I suggest the staff and committee refrain from discussing the case in official publichearings of the HEUAC, unless and until the case has some legal authority, which very clearly under the Ca law Icited it does not.
Sincerely,Debra Allen
On Monday, March 15, 2021, 11:18:08 AM PDT, O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Debra - we are all attorneys on this response. We all know that it’s not illegal to reference legalproceedings that have occurred. That rule of court cited has to do with legal briefings. No one has saidthat it’s binding. When it is referenced, it is discussed as a cautionary tale. If you’re going to push backon us for a legal issue, please don’t overstate a citation.
Will O’NeillNewport Beach City Council
Visit www.newportbeachca.gov/covid19 to see our City’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Please
sign up for City updates.
On Mar 15, 2021, at 12:01 PM, Debra Allen <debraeallen@yahoo.com> wrote:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Subject: Re: San Diego case dealing with voter approval of housing
development and RHNA
Dear Chair Tucker and members of the Committee'
Several times in the HEUAC meetings, staff and some members of the committee
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items
have referred to a case from North San Diego County where apparently the court held
that a voter initiative similar to our Greenlight ((City Charter Sec. 423) could not be
used to avoid the mandates of the state in the RHNA housing numbers. I have nowdiscovered that case is not a published opinion.
I don't think you meant any harm, but I think you should stop referring to that case. First of all because it is against the law in California to cite or rely on any case that isnot a published opinion. [CRC 8.1115(a)] Therefore your reference to that case couldbe misleading to the public. I know I was led to believe that case had someapplication to Newport Beach. Since it is not a published opinion, nothing in that casewould prevent the citizens of Newport Beach from voting down this outrageous stateRHNA demand to add over 4,800 new housing units and tens of thousands of newresidents to our City's already congested roads and overtaxed infrastructure.
Thanks you for your consideration.Debra Allen
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - March 17, 2021 Item III 2 - Additional Materials Received Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items