06/13/2000 - Regular Meeting
Packets/Minutes, Ordinances, Resolutions & Council Videos
06/13/2000 - Regular Meeting
12/5/2012 4:42:03 AM
12/4/2012 10:43:59 PM
Council Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
• <br />City of Newport Beach <br />City Council Minutes <br />June 13, 2000 <br />INDEX <br />but may even eliminate more variance applications and the need to <br />these debates that have become so divisive and contentious. <br />Motion by Council Member O'Neil to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -55 <br />ordering the vacation and abandonment of the street right -of -way in excess <br />of 60 feet in width along the southerly side of Pacific Drive (varying from <br />approximately 12.4 to 19 feet), subject to approval of Zoning Amendment <br />No. 899 on June 27, 2000, to modify property setbacks; direct the City Clerk <br />to have the resolution recorded by the Orange County Recorder subject to <br />the approval of Zoning Amendment No. 899 on June 27, 2000 (Resolution <br />No. 2000 -55 to become effective at the same time as Ordinance No. 2000 -12 <br />which approved Amendment No. 899); and introduce Ordinance No. 2000 -12 <br />approving Amendment No. 899 and pass to second reading on June 27, 2000. <br />Council Member Ridgeway stated that a right -of -way is intended to be used <br />for public purposes; however, it should be restored to private use if it has no <br />public purpose. He noted that the Public Works Director has said there is no <br />public use for this land. <br />Noting that he once lived on Pacific Drive, Council Member Ridgeway stated <br />that the most beautiful thing about the street was the gazebo and the rose <br />garden, but the character was changed substantially and no one objected <br />when they were removed. If there were objections, there was a very <br />gentlemanly, civil approach. He stated that the healing process should start <br />• as he personally believes there is no impact. <br />Council Member Glover stated that there was an abandonment in her <br />district about five or six years ago and, to this day, people on the street are <br />not speaking to each other. She expressed hope that this neighborhood can <br />be above this sort of thing and not let this become a point of contention for <br />many years in the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Webb requested and received confirmation from the maker of the <br />motion, Council Member O'Neil, that the motion also includes the findings <br />that there are no present or perspective public use for the property, as well <br />as no motorized transportation use. <br />Mr. Burnham requested and received confirmation from Council Member <br />O'Neil that the resolution will take affect if, and when, the ordinance takes <br />affect. <br />Council Member Thomson reported that he must abstain from voting on <br />these issues. Noting that he is a real estate agent, he reported that he <br />represented the Bettingens when they sold their house to the Ying Lings and <br />is broker of record for the Cox family and Street family. Further, he stated <br />that he has funds in Mr. Bettingen's investment company. <br />The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: <br />Ayes: <br />Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes <br />Noes: <br />• <br />None <br />Abstain: <br />Thomson <br />Absent: <br />None <br />Volume 53 - Page 426 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.