Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/1982 - Adjourned Regular MeetingC UN RS el 1 J'n CITY OF NEWPORT REACH ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 6:00 P.M. DATE: March 12, 1982 MINUTES 1 AInCN Present x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Ab nt. x B. Minutes - None. C. Reading of ordinances and resolutions - None. Mayor Pro Tem Hart announced that Mayor Heather would be absent for seperal more council meetings, due to her recent illness, and asked Council Members if there were any objectionp in proceeding with the subject hearing and taking acpion this evening. There were no objections. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Pro Tem Hart opened the continued public CPA 81 -1 hearing regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81 -1, a Banning -Npt request initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to Ranch amend the Newport Beach General Plan for the (45) Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located northerly of West. Coast Highway and approxi- mately 360 ft. westerly of Superior Avenue in the West Newport Area; AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, a Amnd 1 /LCP request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend the Land Use Plan and the adoption of an Implementing Ordinance for the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; AND AMENDMENT NO. 561, a request initiated by BEECO, Amnd 561 Ltd., Newport Beach, and the Newport -Mesa Unified BEECO,Ltd/ School District, to establish a Planned Community Npt -Mesa SD Development Plan and Development Standards for the Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community; AND TRAFFIC STUDY, initiated by BEECO, Ltd., Newport Tfc Study/ Beach, and the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, BEECO, Ltd to consider a Traffic Study for the Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community. Report from the Planning Department, dated March 8, 1982, was presented. Letter from Newport Crest Homeowners Association regarding its intentions to pursue abandonment of Ticonderoga Street and reestablish it as a private roadway, was presented. • Volume 36 - Page 96 i 1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 12, 1982 Council Member Hummel made reference to the CALTRANI WEST parcel, stating that the item had been refer- red to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for report back as to whether the property should be acquired, and the City Manager was directed to obtain an appraisal of the subject parcel. He felt that inasmuch as the item was pending and it had a direct bearing on the Banning development, he ques- tioned the staff as to whether the Council should take action at this time. The City Manager advised that the proposed resolu- tion approving General Plan Amendment 81 -1 for the Banning project contains language as set forth on Page 62,:2(a) of the staff report which reads as follows: "Park Requirement Residential development within Areas 1 and 3 will be required to comply with the Park Dedi- cation Ordinance through a combination of land and /or fees." The City Manager stated it was his understanding that the way the language was written would permit the Council the option, when the map is filed, to take either land or fees, or a combination of both. With respect to CALTRANS WEST, Mr. Wynn advised that a proposal for a range value appraisal will be submitted to him on March 15. In response to question raised by Council Member Strauss, a column was added by the staff to the "Plan Comparison Statistics" page, listing the existing uses under the current General Plan. Mike Johnson, 220 Niece Lane, speaking on behalf of the West Newport Legislative Alliance, requested the City Council to delay its action on the Banning project until a West Newport Area Specific Plan is completed, as outlined in their letter of March 8 to the Council. David Goff, 5212 River Avenue, stated that he felt the straw votes taken at the February 8 Council meeting represented a reasonable balance between developer interests and homeowner concerns, and adequately considers the best interest of the City. However, he felt there were still three areas of concern he would hope the Council would consider prior to final decision: 1) CALTRANS WEST parcel; 2) Development Phasing; and 3) Zoning in Area II ,(Industrial and Office Development). Volume 36 - Page 97 GPA 81 -1 Banning -Npt Ranch i 11J Motion All Ayes • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 12, 1982 Mr. Goff suggested the Council postpone action on the project until the City has a clearer picture of CALTRANS WEST's future. One of his biggest con- cerns is impact on traffic, and he felt that unless Bluff Road is extended to 19th Street, and unless 19th Street is widened and continued across'the Santa Ana River, the City will run a serious risk of compounding traffic problems in West Newport. He would also like to see the Council further address the issue of allowing only 200,000 sq. ft. of office and industrial development prior to extension of Bluff Road. Louise Greeley, 16 Swift Court, Chairperson of the West Newport Legislative Alliance, spoke in support of retaining the current zoning of Recreational and Open Space on the CALTRANS WEST parcel. She also urged that final determination on the Banning pro- ject be delayed until the outcome of the CALTRANS WEST parcel. Susan McBrien, 1812 Antigua Circle, stated because of the unusual circumstances involved with the subject project, it would be her suggestion that the item be deferred for the reasons recommended by Mrs. Greeley. Bill Banning, President of BEECO, Ltd., Co- Applican read a prepared statement, wherein it was noted that the straw vote action of February 8 substan- tially changed their proposed plan, which they felt was a balanced and responsible proposal with significant community benefits. They felt it con- tained appropriate land use provisions, and was economically feasible. Mr. Banning advised that upon confirmation of the straw votes this evening, they will analyze the various aspects of the compromise plan in hopes that they can go forward with the development. Mr. Banning stated that they wish to make one addi- tional point. They are aware that a number of concerned West Newport citizens have expressed, as a primary goal, the acquisition by the City of CALTRANS WEST. They sympathize with their desire and recognize that such an arrangement could compli• meat and be coordinated with final development plan, for General Plan Amendment 81 -1. if the West New- port Community continues to seek such acquisition and at the same time supports 81 -1 as approved by the Council, they will work with all interested parties toward this goal with the hope that their project can plan an important contributing role in this regard. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing Gras closed. Volume 36 - Page 98 GPA 81-1 Banning -Npt Ranch C UNCIL ME B RS ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 12. 19R2 MINUTES INDEX Council Member Maurer stated that he was disap- GPA 81 -1 pointed after reading various newspaper articles Banning -Npt • stating the City Council had not listened to the Ranch residents from West Newport regarding the Banning Project. Several hearings have been held on this project with due consideration given to the,proposal submitted by the West Newport Legislative Alliance. In looking at what the Council straw -voted on February .8, Mr. Banning's comments were correct as to a substantial change in the development. How- ever, as a Council Member, both sides must be considered and he would hope that the compromise will be good for the City. As a result of said compromise, there was an increase in residential dwelling units and a decrease in industrial /office. In addition, the City is actively pursuing the acquisition of the CALTRANS WEST property, which will be of great benefit to the area. Further, there are $4 million in road improvements connected with the subject development which are greatly needed. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study for the Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community with the Findings and subject: to the Conditions indicated in Exhibit 1. Council Member Hummel stated that he felt the so- called compromise was not necessarily that good for anyone. He felt the real issue was a project that will have a dramatic: effect on the accessibility of this part of the City. He stated he was uncomfort- able with the proposal and therefore, cannot sup- port it. Mayor Pro Tem Hart stated she felt the traffic improvements connected with the subject project would be of great benefit to the City, particularly at Superior and Coast Highway, and the improvement of Bluff Road and 19th Street. She also felt the additional park and in -lieu fees will be of major benefit to the community. Council Member Plummer stated one of her reasons fo supporting the motion was that this project had met the requirements of the City's traffic phasing ordinance. The proposed traffic improvements will not only take care of the traffic generated by the project, but additional traffic generated not as a result of the development. Council Member Strauss stated that as a result of the straw votes taken on February 8, there will be an enormous increase: in residences, as well as industrial and office space, including additional traffic, all of which are in greater amounts than what the General Plan currently permits. He felt it was important to compare "where we are and where the proposal would be taking us." He stated that • rather than seeing it as a comfortable compromise, • he felt it also could be viewed as an enormous increase. He felt it was a move in the wrong direction and therefore, will not support the motion. Volume 36 - Paee 99 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C L ME B RS MINUTES s� G RAI I N\1 �� � March 12, 1982 iiun;rX Jean Watt appeared at the podium and indicated she GPA 81 -1 wished to address the Council. Banning -Npt Ranch on x In view of the foregoing request, motion was made Ayes to reopen the public hearing and grant Mrs. Watt two minutes to speak. In response to question raised by Mrs. Watt regard- ing the City's traffic phasing ordinance, the Planning Director advised that the subject ordinance is applied to any commercial, office or industrial development with 10,000 sq. ft. or more, and to any residential development with more than 10 dwelling units. He stated that there was an exception regard ing Planned- Community Districts, which he also explained. Motion x Closed public hearing. All Ayes Mayor Pro Tem Hart pointed out that the commercial development proposed under the Banning project (.36 times buildable) will be less in density than that of Mariner's Mile (.5 times buildable). Ayes x x x x The motion was voted on, and carried. Noes x x Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 82 -40 Ayes x x x x accepting, approving and certifying the Final EIR Noes x x (Exhibit 2). on x Motion was made to make the Findings contained in X x x x the Statement of Facts (portion Exhibit 2) with Noes x x respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. Motion x Motion was made to find that the facts set forth in Ayes x x x x the Statement of Overriding Considerations (portion Noes x x Exhibit 2) are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. Motion x Motion was made to find that although the Final EIR Ayes x x x x identifies certain unavoidable significant envirpn- Noes x x mental effects that will result if the project is approved, those mitigation measures (portion Exhibits 3 and 5) identified in Exhibit A shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibily be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remain- ing unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (portion Exhibit 2), giv- ing greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable. Volume 36 - Page 100 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES �� ROLL_ CALL �n March 12, 1982 klmow - -- - -- - irevcn Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 82 -41 approv GPA 81 -1 ing amendment to the Land Use, Residential Growth, Banning -Npt Circulation, Noise and Recreation and Open Space Ranch Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan (Exhibit 3). on x Substitute motion was made to vote individually on the site areas as was done on February 8, rather than to vote on the foregoing resolution as a whole. In response to Council inquiry, the City Attorney stated that the resolution under consideration reflects the Council's straw votes taken on February 8. He felt the proper position would be to vote on the resolution as a whole. However, if there was a segment of the resolution that a Council Member wished to change, then the resolution could be amended. It was also noted that the straw votes taken on February 8, were set forth in full in the official City Council minutes. Mayor Pro Tem Hart stated that she will oppose the substitute motion, as she felt it was unnecessary, inasmuch as the straw votes reflected a vote of a full Council. A s x x The substitute motion was voted on, and FAILED. x x x x Ayes x x x x The motion on the floor was voted on, and carried. Noes x x Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 82 -42 approv Ayes x x x x ing Amendment No. 1 to the Newport Beach Local Noes x x Coastal Plan and adopting the Implementing Ordinanc- es for said amendment (Exhibit 4). Motion x. Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 82 -3 estab- -Ord 82 -3 Ayes x x F x lishing a Planned Community Development Plan and Noes x x Development Standards for Banning - Newport Ranch, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document (Amendment No. 561). Council Member Hummel stated his reasons for oppos- ing the project as follows: "I opposed General Plan Amendment 81 -1 because I felt the previous general plan for BF.ECO for low density residential was arrived at after long deliberation by a previous Council. Noth- ing has changed my mind in spite of the so- called mitigations. Traffic and circulation is becoming worse, not better in this City. Newport Beach has two times the acreage per citizens devoted to commercial than any other Orange County city, yet is without much needed Volume 36 - Page 101 .COUNCIL MEI i 0 E3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES retail service commercial, which I don't see GPA " -1 provided in this, or any other project that Banning -Npt we have been addressing lately. We have to go Ranch outside our City to obtain that type of service "This general plan amendment, in my judgement, provides too much office space to attract more commuters. Commercial usage offers better income to the developer, but less income than residential would provide to the City. Why any reasonable planner would commit some of the most desirable residential acreage on the coastline to commercial use and the attendant nuisances to our residences, is beyond my comprehension." The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m., to a closed session to discuss litigation. OW, W124 ATTEST: 1RO-1 11_140_30WMWWR City Clerk Volume 36 - Page 102