Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Public Comments - Non-Agenda ItemsReceived After Agenda Printed October 28, 2014 Non- Agenda Item October 28, 2014, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comment on an items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda is submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)..vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS At the City Council's last meeting I submitted a written comment on Measure Y, the updates to the General Plan's Land Use Anomaly Table and Maps which the Council has asked residents to vote on on November 4. In that comment I pointed out that in preparing the ballot question and analysis of the measure, the City Attorney has erroneously assumed that a "yes" vote would result in 356 homes being removed from the Newport Ridge planning area of the City. At your October 14 meeting, Community Development staff responded that although such a removal was not apparent from the ballot measure, staff understood it to be the Council's intent based on the description of the project studied in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Whatever may have been studied in the SEIR, and despite the confusion created by Attachment No. CC5 ( "Charter Section 423 Analysis — City Council Proposal") to July 22's Item 10, which suggests on page 10 -CC5 -5 that there may have been a proposal to add 72 single unit detached homes to Newport Ridge and remove 428 multi -unit residences for a net change of 356 units, no one seems to know where those changes would have occurred and it remains painfully obvious that the Measure Y being voted on by residents makes no changes whatsoever to either the General Plan layout of single family lots or the allocations for multi- family units in Newport Ridge. Therefore, the City Attorney has understated the increase in housing by 356 units and overstated the "reduction" in vehicle trips by 2,371 ADT. I would now like to call the Council's attention to a similar problem with the potential for 1,001 new hotel rooms which proponents, and presumably the City Attorney, think is being "removed" from the Anomaly 60 area of the Newport Coast planning area. To see the problem, the Council should review Orange County's Coastal Commission certified Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast: htti): / /www.newportbeachca.gov /PLN /MAP DOCUMENTS /PC TEXT /PC 52 Newport Coast.pdf which, as I understand it, remains the controlling planning document for this area. From the City's General Plan Land Use Map for Statistical Area N, Anomaly 60 corresponds to Tourist - Commercial Planning Area 13 in the LCP, as it is mapped out in Exhibit F on page 1 -1.3 of the LCP (page 27 of the 214 page PDF). Given this correspondence, it is clear that whoever copied the County development limits into the Anomaly Table misread the LCP. The General Plan Anomaly Table says the development limit is 2,150 hotel rooms within a maximum of 2,660,000 sf of development. Pages 1 -4.1 and 1 -4.2 of the LCP (pages 82 and 83 of the PDF) clearly state that the maximum number of units allowed in PA 13 is 1,900 (and possibly even less since some kinds of units count as two) and subject to stringent height and other restrictions. A "2,150" number is mentioned at the top of page 1 -4.2, but that includes units allowed in area PA 14, which in the LCP corresponds roughly to the General Plan's Anomaly 61 (the Crystal Cove Promenade shopping center). October 28, 2014, Council Item XVII comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Measure Y proposes to change the development limit for Anomaly 60 to 1,149 hotel rooms. While there is considerable doubt if the numbers stated in the City's General Plan have any influence over planning approvals in this area, even if The Irvine Company voluntarily bound itself and its successors to honor the General Plan, this new limit is only 751 rooms less than the maximum number allowed by the LCP, not the 1,001 rooms that proponents, the Council and the City Attorney seem to believe. This discrepancy affects the ballot language being presented to voters. In quoting traffic numbers, the City Attorney is relying on a traffic analysis that attributes the removal of a potential for 7,588 ADT to a reduction in the potential for development by 1,001 rooms (the most recent table in which the 7,588 number appears inexplicably attributes it to " -1,011 Rooms" leaving one uncertain what it is actually based on). Since the actual reduction in development potential is at most 751 rooms, the reduction in potential traffic is overstated by at least 1,895 ADT. Correcting for the potential for 356 Newport Ridge homes that is NOT being removed by Measure Y (at least in comparison to the existing General Plan) and the potential for 250 Newport Coast hotel rooms that is NOT being removed by Measure Y (at least compared to the existing and overriding planning limits) the City Attorney's promise to voters of a citywide reduction in trips by 2,922 ADT turns into a promise for an increase in citywide trips by at least: -2,922 + 2,371 + 1,895 = +1,344 ADT The potential number of dwelling units being added by Measure Y is similarly 494 and not the 138 stated by the City Attorney in his ballot question and analysis. To reiterate my comment from the last meeting, since the Council put this measure on the ballot it seems to me they have an obligation to instruct the City Attorney to provide voters with the correct information about it. As a further example of the convoluted and unreliable nature of Measure Y, I would like to call the Council's attention to the request being put before voters, as part of it, to correct a clerical error made in the 2006 General Plan in the land use designation of the City's Gateway Park, at 3531 Newport Boulevard. This is illustrated in "Map Reference 11" of Exhibit 1 - Attachment 2 (Land Use Maps) of Measure Y. I can think of little reason for putting this before voters other than to confuse them or to make Measure Y seem more comprehensive than it is. Taking credit for the correction of this clerical error as reduction in the potential for citywide commercial development and trip generation seems more than a little disingenuous considering the park was purchased with public donations in 1997 with the clear understanding that it would be forever a public park. So there has not, since 1997, been any potential for development there. But the real question is if this is so important it needs voter approval, why are we not taking this occasion to correct the land use designation of the other piece of Gateway Park (at 3600 Newport Boulevard, on the northeast corner of the intersection), which even if Measure Y passes will remain designated for commercial /residential development? Measure Y, as it stands, is both a mess and a lie. I hope you will take steps to correct the lie part, but I will still vote NO. Date: From: Balboa Island Improvement Association P.O. Box 64 Balboa Island, CA 92662 October 28, 2014 Balboa Island Improvement Association (BIIA) Newport Beach City Council Tidelands Management Committee (TMC), City of Newport Beach The on -going discussions at the TMC and the recent posting of elevation gauges on the sea walls have raised a lot of questions and some concerns from property owners of Balboa Island. In response to this, the BIIA Board of Directors at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 9, decided to form a Committee to address all issues associated with raising, repairing and /or replacing the sea walls that provide flood protection to the residents. The newly formed BIIA Seawall Committee consists of BIIA Board Members and other property owners from the Big and Little Balboa Islands. The committee will assist in communication to all property owners of the plans to raise the height of the seawalls and how the construction will be performed through small group meetings with Island property owners, and through written communications. The committee met on October 15 and discussed the five (5) options currently being evaluated by staff, as well as the consideration of repairing the deteriorated walls of the Grand Canal and the West end of the Big Island as opposed to replacing them. The options being considered are estimated by the City to provide flood protection to years 2040 (top elevation +9.0), 2056 (top elevation +9.5) and 2063 (top elevation +10.0) with estimated costs ranging from a low of $27,000,000 to a high of $70,000,000. None of these options give consideration to flood protection through year 2100. In fact, the assumption that the walls would be gradually raised to +14.0 (an additional 5 feet) for flood protection after year 2040 is neither practical nor acceptable, at face value. The Committee concluded that the City of Newport Beach should implement an immediate short-term, a short-term and a long -term program for flood protection on the Balboa Islands as detailed below. Over the immediate short-term, the City should evaluate current systems to remove flood risk from a "one time' combination of storm surge, king tide, heavy rain run -off and other conditions that exists today, according to its own analyses. Following the City's own data, this would be achieved by bringing all walls (totaling about 13,200 feet in length + / -) up to an elevation of +9.0. In addition, a robust pumping and /or drainage system should be designed to dewater any wind generated waves and chop that may slop over exposed stretches of the wall, and that would replace the current rapid response dewatering efforts by the City. Per the data provided by the City, this raising of walls to elevation +9.0 would protect the Balboa Islands from flooding, through year 2040. This can be achieved, according to the City's estimate, for under $4,000,000, and should be put in place as a first order of business. Short -term, we recommend that the City evaluate the structural integrity of the retaining walls of the Grand Canal and the West End of the Big Island (totaling about 3,800 feet in length + / -) and determine whether to replace them completely or to repair them so that the walls provide protection through the year 2040. The current City estimate for replacing these sections of wall is about $16,000,000 and for repairing the walls is about half that cost. This work should be put in place as the next order of business. The above two projects would secure the Balboa Islands against flooding through the year 2040. Long term (over the next S to 15 years), and as more data is collected on actual sea rise, as well as the impact of rising sea levels on the entire harbor is evaluated, the City needs to develop solutions that take us safely beyond 2040. More elegant solutions than turning the Balboa Islands into a fortress without a beach need to be "imagineered ". The City, as owner of the seawalls is responsible for providing a safe, "flood free" environment to the properties within its boundaries. Balboa Island is one of the only areas in the City of Newport Beach defined in a 100 year flood zone. Unlike most other Newport Beach property owners, owners on Balboa Island already incur the financial burden of flood insurance required by all mortgage companies. The recommended plan by this committee will begin a process to eliminate the flood risk to our property owners. Lastly, it is absolutely clear to BIIA that the property owners of Balboa Island should not have to assume any of the above costs. The proposed plan allows the City to prepare a responsible financial plan to address this project. With proper financial planning and reserving funds for this necessary project, the City will be able to finance this project. Respectfully, BIIA Seawalls Committee Jeff Herdman, President, BIIA Terry Janssen, Vice - President, BIIA Lee Pearl, Board Member, BIIA Ken Yonkers, Board Member, BIIA Tom Houston, Past Board Member, BIIA John Corrough, CAP Member, TMC Dan Mariscal, CAP Member, TMC Jamshed Dastur, CAP Member, TMC & Seawall Committee Chair Cc: Ed Selich, Council Member, City of Newport Beach BIIA Board of Directors