Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedCity of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 August 24, 2021 Agenda Item No. 1 City Attorney Harp reported the financing cost applies to property owners who choose to finance their assessments, and the interest rate in 2023 is unknown. Assistant City Engineer Sinacori advised that the interest rate for the last assessment was 2.1% and some property owners have chosen not to vote because they do not want their names to be public information. Jodi Bole expressed concern regarding the preservation of cottages because many cottage owners have fixed incomes and the assessment may be a financial burden for them, stated she never received the exact amount of the assessment, and questioned whether other Southern California residents or Southern California Edison (SCE) would pay for the undergrounding. Jamshed "Jim" Dastur recalled Assistant City Engineer Sinacori stating the estimate was based on the west end, but pointed out that the construction cost for properties in central Balboa Island was $6,000 or 25% more than for properties in the west end. Assistant City Engineer Sinacori related that, based on the construction cost with the contingency, the cost averages to approximately $33,000 to $34,000. fik Jim Mosloney, Balboa Island Preservation Association Chair, appreciated staff trying to reduce costs by taking the project back from SCE, advised that his cost for undergrounding will be around $45,000, took issue with the $100 administrative fee per parcel per year, expressed the opinion this will result in more homes being sold which will change the character of Balboa Island, questioned staffs ability to contact property owners who did not submit a ballot when sealed ballots were supposed to be opened during the hearing, and expressed his disdain that 306 property owners could decide whether almost 1,000 property owners are responsible for the assessment. City Attorney Harp related that the ballotvelopes were numbered and staff can determine who voted based on the number on the env _I Jim Mosher discussed the general and speci benefits of an assessment district, the utility companies' contributions, and the General Fund, and expressed the opinion that the percentages in pages 52-54 of the staff report need close attention. 4W An unidentified speaker questioned the need to change Balboa Island, indicated a lot of people love Balboa Island's sweet lifestyle, and expressed the concern that there is no money for this. Patti Janssen stated her mfn concern and priority is safety because homes are 6 -feet apart, undergrounding halftven to be the safest and most efficient way to get power to everyone, utility companies in Northe alifornia have realized that they should have put lines underground a long time ago, one life is worth more than $32,000 or $50,000, maybe there is a way to subsidize the cost for those with a true hardship, and expressed the opinion that the big picture is there will be less chance of fire and a safer community. Lynn O'Brien expressed concern that linemen will climb a utility pole and damage a very expensive tree on her property in an effort to provide internet to businesses, and stated everyone will benefit from removing utility lines. Pam Howard shared her and her husband's efforts to contact property owners about voting, and expressed the opinion that property owners who care would vote, undergrounding is not new, and some people are being selfish rather than considering the greater good. Sue Pearl related efforts to locate and educate property owners regarding undergrounding utilities, her faith in Council Members' integrity and ethics, property owners' support for undergrounding due to benefits related to safety, convenience, and aesthetics, and vehicles currently cannot travel the alleys because of the utility poles. An unidentified speaker questioned the need for a bond if property owners pay the assessment. Volume 65 - Page 101 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 Jim Carlson, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile, utilized a slide to provide an alternate view simulation, and noted the applicant's simulations do not include elevator shafts, the applicant refused to erect story poles, and locating parking against residential areas is a first. Patrick Gormley utilized slides to discuss a Mariners' Mile Master Plan, the project's consistency with the General Plan and the vision for Mariners' Mile, Mr. Moshayedi's community outreach meeting, the project as a preceden-tea, the community's opposition to the project, developing Mariners' Mile as a village, and suggested next steps. In response to Mayor Avery's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the site is designated for mixed use, the applicant seeks a waiver of the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) requirement, the project is consistent with the General Plan designation, waterfront parcels have a different General Plan designation and zoning than the subject site, and the City and community would have to develop a vision for Mariners' Mile and start the process to update the General Plan and subsequently the zoning. David Tanner related various challenges facing Council regarding the project and encouraged Council to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and delay consideration of the project until the General Plan Update is complete or until the Coasl�l Commission can address the coastal issues. Charles Klobe stated the applicant's letter has not been" the City website, and in his opinion, Council has sufficient information to make a decision on the project. An unidentified speaker shared her observations about veli ales, bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, and dog walkers traversing on Avon Street, whicAkhas no sidewalks or streetlights, and implored Council to obtain an environmental analysis of the sect. Jim Mosher indicated his confusion regar e office building, the vision for Mariners' Mile, and the staff report's explanation of th�eight f ver. IF Sandra Ayres related thaWsidents support responsible revitalization of Mariners' Mile and provided inform ati or why Council should not approve the project. Bill Dunlap disagreed with Mr. Matsler's allegation that Council has no authority over planning and zoning and expressed the opinion that Council should consider upcoming projects in determining cum tiv impacts. Mr. Matsler advised at both he and the applicant are residents of Newport Beach and want to provide a project they can be proud of. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Avery closed the public hearing. In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported a parcel map is needed to allow the construction of buildings overa property lines, for at least ten years, buildings have not been constructed overir property lines without some action to eliminate the property lines, Council may consider imposing a development moratorium until a master plan can be adopted, developing a master plan could take a year or more, the revitalization plan could be the starting point for a master plan, staff is preparing a traffic study for the Circulation Element, the traffic study should be ready September or October 2021, the net increase of traffic for the project is less than 300 trips, the project is not required to conduct a Level of Service analysis of intersections pursuant to the traffic phasing ordinance, 30 to 50 people attended public workshops for the Circulation Element, modeling for the traffic analysis is underway, the Circulation Element does not address Avon Street because it is technically an enhanced driveway, Mr. Tanner's suggestion for Council to delay the project and seek Coastal Commission input is probably not consistent with Council's legislative platform relative to local Volume 65 - Page 107 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 control, a Council action on a coastal development permit may be presented to the Coastal Commission to determine if the matter falls within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction, and staff has evaluated the cumulative impacts of the subject project and pending projects in the area. In response to Mayor Avery's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated a credible environmental analysis is not based on market assumptions and zoning, and noted concessions and waivers complicate the analysis. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Principal Planner Schneider stated the project proposes a total of 36 units, and an additional unit was available to the applicant in the original design, but the applicant utilized it in the redesign. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated an agenda item for Council going forward in August contains potential improvements to Tustin Avenue in response to residents' concerns, and national rates for trip generation are used to calculate the number of trips a project may generate. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the project will not be the tallest building in Mariners' Mile, a maximum height of 35 -feet is allowed under the existing zoning, and the base height limit is 26 -feet. Community Development Director Jurjis advised that Council will discuss next steps in the General Plan Update process later in the year, and staff will recommend forming of a steering committee ttoupdate other General Plan Elements with the Land Use Element being the priority. A No Council Member Dixon commended the applicant for redesignin! the project so that it is consistent with Mariners' Mile, expressed disappointment with the applicant holding only one community meeting, and indicated that the State has tied Council's hands as to what it can and cannot approve. She emphasized that Mariners' Mile and the i ustrial area of Newport Heights need immediate attention in terms of land use planning. up Council Member O'Neill reviewed the HAA's requirements for denial and noted that Council's efforts to push back on the City's RHNA allocation have not worked, this project is a good example of the reason the State Legislature wantteolo stop local jurisdictions from denying housing projects, a court may review Council's decision on a project, Council's record will be weak at best in a court of law, a court decision against the City for this project will set a terrible precedent for a much larger project for Mariners' Mile, d Council cannot make the findings necessary to deny the project under the HAA. A In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis suggested a master plan process for Mariners' Mile can begin with the 2017 revitalization plan or from scratch, and only objective design standards can be implemented. City Attorney Harp clarified that additional criteria'cannot be imposed on the subject project, Council cannot consider subjective standards under HAA, a Council decision to deny a project or reduce the density of a project shifts the burden of proof to the City, and the project seems to comply with the objective criteria. In response to Mayor Avery's question, City Attorney Harper- advised that compliance with the Coastal Act is separate from compliance with the HAA. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis reported that the current version of the project complies with all objective standards contained in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Principal Planner Schneider indicated the view simulations are accurate as to elevator shafts, elevator overruns are common but more expensive, and the project does not propose them. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated the applicant's offer to dedicate land for widening Avon Street would benefit the City. Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon advised that he has no plans for Mariners' Mile, but he will protect the aesthetics of the City, and appreciated the redesign of the project. Volume 65 - Page 108 City of Newport Beach City Council Meeting July 27, 2021 In response to Council Member Brenner's questions, City Attorney Harp understood Mr. Matsler's letter was made available to the public. City Clerk Brown added that copies were provided in the lobby and late correspondence will be added to the packet. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that the applicant may submit an application to rezone the site from office to retail in the future, the application will be subject to the review process, the Coastal Act and the Local Coastal Program (LCP) do not provide percentages delineating significant impacts for views, and protecting views is a subjective standard. Council Member Brenner appreciated the applicant complying with residents' request for a nautical theme, especially since the applicant was not required to do so. In response to Council Member Dixon's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell stated a condition of approval requires the applicant to dedicate land for widening Avon Street, but the City is not obligated to do so. Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that the applicant has not offered to pay for widening the entire length of Avon Street, it is late in the process to require the applicant to pay for the widening, the City does not have a view plane protection ordinance, and the City has not documented all the V in the City. Council Member Dixon requested developers work with the community when developing future projects in Mariners' Mile, at least until a master plan is adopted, arol remarked that rampant development could be the result of State mandates, the community values its villages, the City does not require design standards, and the City needs Vective standards for views Motion by Council Member O'Neill, seconded by Mavor ro Tem Muldoon, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In -fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2021-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Upholding the Planning Commission's Approval of Coastal Development Per o. CD2019-062, Site Development Review No. SD2019- 003, Tentative Parcel Map No. N 0-013,and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2021-001 for a Mixed -Use ocated at 2510 and 2530 West Coast Highway (PA2019- 249), including the amended C Mayor Avery ex pr ed conWr �t widening Avon Street could increase vehicle speeds, noted slowing traffic is cany people cross at Tustin Avenue, discussed how businesses in Mariners' Mile Irecommunity time, pointed out that Pacific Coast Highway is not pedestrian - friendly, the scaleevelopment is both exciting and daunting, the applicant willingly improved the pro jec has informed developers about the r aspirations for Mar ners' Mile, and the City mitigate the impacts of more traffic. With Council Members Blom and Duffield recusing themselves, the motion carried 5-0. MkVd[GY[97►MWON1ND14191069111 DIN:VYCOMMONGSR_ XXI. ADJOURNMENT -Adjourned at 9:27 p.m. in memory of Terry Donahue The agenda and amended agendas were posted on the City's website and on the City Hall electronic bulletin board located in the entrance of the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive on July 22, 2021 at 4:00 p.m., July 23, 2021 at 8:35 a.m., and July 23, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk Brad Avery, Mayor Volume 65 - Page 109