Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/1981 - Adjourned Regular MeetingCOUNCIL ME B RS ant I (A1 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 3:00 P.M. DATE: September 28, 1981 MINUTES I Mf1FY Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. B. Minutes for approval: None. on . x C. The reading of all ordinances and resolutions under Ayes consideration was waived, and the City Clerk.was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing regarding General consideration of proposed revisions to the HOUSING Plan /Housing ELEMENT of the Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN, initi- Element ated by the City of Newport Beach, and the accep- (45) tance of an Environmental Document. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Letter from The Irvine Company regarding the Newport Beach Housing Element, was presented. It was pointed out that Attachment No. 5 of the Planning Department's report reflected the proposed modifications under consideration at this time. Ward Connerly, Consultant for the Housing Element, addressed the Council and stated that since sub- mission of the Housing Element in draft form, there have been countless meetings with those who have expressed interest in commenting upon the document. They have entertained the suggestions submitted by the Coastal Commission, and he has conferred at length with staff representatives of the State Department of Housing and Community Development. As a result, there have been several . changes made in the draft element that they feel respond to findings and comments of those named. Mr. Connerly commented that he felt the market place was demanding higher density, and that con- trary to popular belief, the proportion of multi- family units in this community, in relation to single - family, is far greater than the proportion. of multi- family to single- family in Orange County as a whole, and in the State of California. In addition, he felt that the development industry, in many instances, is somewhat behind in what the market place is asking for. The essence of the Housing Element is to provide the.flexibility for the market place to adjust to their own economic realities. Higher density is one method of hand- ling it, and allowing the conversion of existing rental units to ownership, is another alternative. Discussion ensued with respect to the Mello Bill (SB 626), and it was pointed out that there was nothing in the Housing Element that contradicts with what the bill intends. Volume 35 - Page 298 CITY OF NEWPORT REACH C UNCIL s ME B o R S MINUTES ROLL CALL September 28 1981 INDEX As requested by the Mayor, undeveloped sites for General Plan/ housing, as enumerated on Page I -61, 62 and 63 of Housing Elem the Draft Housing Element, were reviewed as to the number of dwelling units per acre. During discussion, the subject of airport noise was raised, wherein Mr. Connerly pointed out that there are requirements in the State Housing law which govern noise control. Mr. Leonard Hampel, Attorney with Rutan and Tucker, representing the City of Newport Beach, advised the Council that there were two alternatives for con- sideration with respect to the adoption of the Housing Element: 1) The Council could adopt the Draft Housing Element as presented, and then pro- ceed with the implementation plan, or it could instruct the staff to treat it as another amendment to the document, bringing back specific sites; or 2) not adopt the Housing Element at this time, thereby not complying with State Law. As to time constraints, Mr. Hampel stated, that basically, the law now .provides (as part of the Roos Bill) that cities adopt a Housing Element by October l of this year. Irma Batham, 20451.Upper Bay Drive, Santa Ana Heights, addressed the Council and commented on airport noise and laws relating thereto. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and referred to a letter dated September 10, 1981, from Mr. Thomas Nielsen, Senior Vice - President of Community Development of The Irvine Company regarding the City's Housing Element. Mr. Dmohowski stated that they view the draft Housing Element as a reasonable and defen- sible attempt to meet in good faith the intent of State law, as well as accommodate the needs of the City. In response to question raised by Council Member Hummel, Mr. Dmohowski stated that they did review _ the responses from the State Department of Housing. and Community Development, as well as the responses to those responses, and felt they were adequately addressed. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 11051, amending the Housing Element of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the provisions.of Article 10.6 of Chapter III, Title 7 of the Government Code (Roos Bill), and certifying as complete the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the proposed amendments. Said action includes the recommendations of the Planning Commission as set forth in their report. In addition, the • Planning Commission is directed to review sites an densities and report back to the City Council. Volume 35 -'Page 299 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C AU L ti MsE � � GB .c 9 � R S MINUTES ROLL C September 28, 1981 INDEX Motion x Council Member Strauss amended the motion, with General Plan/ the consent of the maker of the motion, to delete Housing Elem from the Housing Element Item No. 2 -(a), Implemen- tation Plan relating to Condominium Conversion as set forth on Page IV -25 of Attachment No. 5. Council Member Hummel stated for the record, that he would support the motion even though he was not in support of the Housing Element in its entirety. In his judgment, the Condominium/ Conversion Ordi- nance, if taken away, would not provide one single more unit for people living in the City. He felt the City, and most coastal cities, have rents which are far below what should be achieved by the economics, or the value of the property. The City is running less than 1/2% per month rent of the value of the property. Ayes x x x The motion on the floor, as amended, was voted on, Noes x x x x and FAILED. Adopted Resolution No. 11051 amending the Housing R -11051 Motion x Element of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the provisions of Article 10.6 of Chapter III, Title 7 of the government code of the State of California (Roos Bill) and certifying as complete the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the .proposed amendments. Council Member Hummel stated for the record that he was opposed to the motion for the following reasons: "I feel that the Housing Element as prepared, although due on October 1, is fraught • with items which are not compatible with what it is designed to do. I do not feel an urgency exists to accomplish this by the due date, since there is no great penalty before the City to not revise it into an accessible mode prior to submission." Council Member Maurer stated for the record that he was in support of the motion for the following reasons: "I believe in following the State Law, even though it may not have any teeth in it. I also believe this is something the City is imple- menting only, and that the concerns expressed could be addressed at the time of public Bearings before the Planning Commission, and if necessary, the Housing Element can be amended at that time." Ayes x x x x x The motion was voted. on, and carried. Noes x x J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - Coastal Commission Staff LCP /Planning recommendations. Commission (67) Volume 35 - Page 300 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES s � o ROLL CALL �n A Annrnrol 9R IQAI INQFX A report from the Planning Department regarding LCP /Plug Com City Council Ad Hoc Committee direction to staff, was presented. The City Manager stated that on February 23, 1981, the City Council adopted conceptually, a Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The adoption did modify the language with respect to University Drive as recommended by the Planning Commission. Under policies within the Land Use Plan, the Plan- ning Commission had recommended the existing City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and High- ways be utilized as a guide for system recommenda- tions, except for University Drive, which is specifically excluded from the Land Use Plan. The City Council in adopting the Local Coastal Plan, conceptually deleted "except for University Drive which is specifically excluded from the Local Coastal Plan," and inserted in lieu, thereof, the following sentence: "Future decisions on University Drive should be based on formal environmental and technical analysis, recognizing the proximity to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve." The City Manager advised that following adoption of the Land Use Plan, it was submitted to the Coast al Commission. After it had been analyzed, the City Council received their comments, and as a result, created a Council Ad Hoc Committee to assist staff in preparing a sales /presentation plan to work out and resolve the differences between the conceptual adoption and the comments of the Coastal Commission. staff. To initiate this effort, a Policy Change Summary list was prepared by the staff which divides the Coastal Commission comments into three categories; unacceptable, resolvable, and acceptable. After preparation of the Policy Change Summary, the Ad Hoc Committee met and agreed with the division made by the City staff of the Coastal Commission com- ments, with the'exception of University Drive. There was a division amongst the Ad Hoc Committee as to whether the deletion of University Drive should be "resolvable" or "unacceptable" to the City staff. The Ad Hoc Committee, therefore, requested this subject be placed on the Council agenda so that the Council, without amending the Land Use Plan, could give direction to the staff to commence negotiations with the staff of the Coastal Commission. It was noted that the City's Land Use Plan will be before the Coastal Commission again during the week of October 20, wherein the Mayor and City staff will be present. Volume 35 - Page 301 C UNCIL ME B RS \y � o CAL\RROLL 11 Motion Ayes Noes Motion All Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 28. 1981 INDEX University Drive (67) a In response to Council inquiry, the City Manager advised that the City would be receiving a cost estimate for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report within 45 days. Irma Batham, 20451 Upper Bay Drive, Santa Ana Heights, addressed the Council in support of deleting University Drive from the Land Use Plan. Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham Drive, addressed the Council, and stated that he felt there were alternatives available to University Drive, which he explained. x Motion was made to place University Drive'in.a category of "resolvable,'.' and that those represent- ing the City before the Coastal Commission be directed to negotiate this position and report back to the City Council. Mayor Heather indicated that.a further report could come before the Council on October 13; however, no official action was taken, or direction given. x x x x The motion was voted on, and carried. x x x x The meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m. ayor ATTEST: City Clerk Volume 35 - Page 302 INDEX University Drive (67) a