Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-1986 - Special MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 0 S� q S 'S 9 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING f 9 �G 9G X91 X91 c�F PLACE: Council Chambers 96 TIME: 12::00 NOON RAI l �, ®I DATE: August 7, 1986 MINUTES uunry Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. 1. Consideration of a resolution GPA 85 -1(B) CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATE GENERAL .ELECTION, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1986 REGARDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85 -1(B), NEWPORT CENTER. The Mayor stated that the purpose of this Special Meeting was to discuss the possibility of placing General Plan Amendment No. 85 -1(B), Newport Center, as a measure on the November ballot, which was approved by the City Council at the meeting of July 14, 1986.He stated that he called this Special meeting, inasmuch as some Council Members expressed a desire to discuss this possibility further. Council Member Agee stated that if the citizens' Referendum petitions being circulated regarding General Plan Amendment No. 85 -1(B) qualify for a Special Election, not only would there be a cost factor to consider, but it could put the time of election somewhere around Christmas, which could result in a small voter turn -out. He also noted that in previous elections, which were not consolidated with State General Elections, the voter turn -out was also low. Council Member Hart stated that General __Plan Amendment No. 85 -1(B) is not the only issue being petitioned by the community for a Special Election, and that if the City Council does place this on the November ballot, she felt the proposed Traffic Management Ordinance, which is being circulated as an Initiative Measure, should also be placed on the ballot. Philip Sansone, 215 Marguerite Avenue, addressed the Council and stated that when General Plan Amendment No. 85 -1(B) was considered by the Council, he recommended at that time that the project be deferred and put to a vote of the people. He suggested as another alternative, that GPA 85 -1(B) be approved in concept only, with phasing to be tied to the impact on the • community. Volume 40 - Page 321 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS c+ �¢ ,Dg 6 9➢ F S RBI I_ CAL �` �%� August 7, 1986 MINUTES INDEX Allan Beek, 1945 Sherington Avenue, GPA 85 -1(B) addressed the Council and stated that if CPA 85 -1(B) is placed on the November ballot, he is concerned with the • "wording" that would appear on the ballot, which could be misleading to the voters. He stated that he objected to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) 1:t would preempt the voters of Newport Beach's right to legislate. The Council has made their decision. Now the voters should have the chance to make their decision, if 10% of the registered voters sign the Referendum petition, and they are duly submitted as per the Elections Code. 2) 1[e would request that if the Council takes the proposed action of placing this matter on the ballot, that it not be stated in terms of repeal of a City Council action. This confuses the voter and is a violation of Election Code 4055. This issue has been :Litigated in this City before • with CPA 81 -1. 3) Is the proposed measure merely advisory to the Council, or is :It intended to be binding under the Elections Code? Bill Ficke:r, 522 W. Ocean Front addressed the Council and read into the record the following prepared statement: "I represent an organization called 'Citizens for a Better Newport.' This group has been formed of people like myself who strongly endorse your Council's approval of CPA 85 -1(B). "We also strongly believe in 'representative government,' rather than the Referendum process, so we feel that your action to let the Referendum process take its course to a Special Election is appropriate. • Volume 40 - Page 322 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \rai xs -0 (911 August 7, 1986 MINUTES INDEX "We hope the polls will show a GPA 85 -1(B) vote not to repeal this Council's action, and that CPA 85 -1(B) will thereby be expedited to provide the many road improvements and other • amenities for a 'Better Newport.' "We are raising funds and our Committee is officially organized under I.D. No. 861626. "Should repeal of CPA 85 -1(B) be placed on a Special election, our Committee is prepared for a full effort: to defeat such a ballot measure. "After the election, any excess funds collected by this Committee will be distributed to the Youth Center, the Library, and Art Museum. "We will support your action here today;, and submit to you a partial list of our committee membership. We have a 'Steering Committee' of 20 community leaders and a membership of over 250 at this time. • "Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on your deliberations here today." Monica Florian, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and spoke in opposition to placing CPA 85 -1(B) on the November ballot. She stated that they believe the plan approved by the City Council on July 14, 1986, is the best plan for the completion of Newport Center because it reflects a balance of a multitude of interests for the entire community. Included in the plan, The Irvine Company is committed to a number of benefits to the City which will be meaningful for everyone, such as open space, park additions, day care center, teen club, athletic club, additional theatres, restaurants, shops and an expanded library, and art museum. In addition, they have committed to improvements to the transportation system well beyond any of the needs generated by the Newport Center completion. In conclusion, she • requested that the previous approval given to CPA 85 -1(B) stand. Volume 40 - Page 323 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \CAL m� q ti S v ROLL August 7, 1986 INDEX Susie Picker, 110 9th Street, addressed CPA 85 -1(B) the Council and stated she felt this issue should go to a Special Election and not placed on the November ballot. She stated that, in her opinion, there • is a growing contempt by the citizenry for The Irvine Company and its "flagrant" misuse of its powers in this City, and that the benefits they profess they are going to give the City are overshadowed by the tremendous amount of traffic the project will generate. She also stated that the Chamber of Commerce is well known for its support of The Irvine Company, and not the residential aspects of this community. Council Member Hart stated that she was opposed to placing this issue on the November ballot as she believes in the legislative process. She stated she felt the Council acted after due process, which included many hours of public hearings, and reviewing volumes of documents. She also believes in the Referendum process and feels the Council should not take away the right to collect the signatures, and feels the wording on the ballot measure should be such that it "suits" the petitioners. She felt the money would be well -spent • if sufficient signatures are collected. Mayor Maurer commented that when General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B) was considered by the City Council, there was approximately eight hours of public testimony and five public hearings, including those held by the Planning Commission. As a result the project was approved by the City Council by a 5 to 2 vote which, in his opinion, is the governmental process. He stated that he was in favor of allowing the Referendum process to "take its course," and would be opposed to placing this matter on the November ballot. Motion x Council Member Plummer moved to not place GPA 85 -1(B) on the November ballot, and stated that she was opposed to placing the issue on the ballot for the following reasons: 1) The City Council consists of • seven elected officials who were elected to consider and make decisions with regard to such developments as GPA 85 -1(B). Volume 40 - Page 324 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS co \CAL S S 9 99 `G3 9G9 9�A c"9� G�'F F S ROLL cpct+ <p �9 August 7, 1986 MINUTES INDEX 2) There -was a great deal of GPA 85 -1(B) citizen input prior to this issue coming before the City Council, and as a result, the project was modified. It was also modified by the Planning • Commission, and through the public hearing process, the City Council further modified the development, which was all done in response to citizen's concerns. 3) The traffic improvements in this City make developments possible, and there will be large amounts of new traffic improvements resulting from this project. If the opposition is concerned about traffic, why don't they help the City come up with some ways to ease the hundreds to thousands of beach visitors who come to this City every clay in the Summer and the cruisers who "clog" up our streets at night. Also, if the opposition is opposed to development, why don't they go into surrounding cities and oppose those particular • developments which directly impact the City of Newport Beach. 4) She feels GPA 85 -1(B) is a good plan, not perfect, but a plan which has been given a great deal of study, and which has met all the City's requirements. Council Member Strauss stated that he was somewhat puzzled about the sequence of what has happened. He stated that he had no part in requesting this Special meeting, and did not ask in any way for the item to be placed on the November ballot. He stated he was confused in that a meeting was called, and now everyone is saying "no, that is not what we are going to do." However, he would like to see the issue put to a vote. He recognizes it was approved by the City Council by a 5 to 2 vote, but it's also an important project estimated at ® $300,000,000 and affects the entire City. He feels it is an important enough issue to not only be considered by the City Council, but also by the electorate. Volume 40 - Page 325 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \A1 s� ,q 3 - ti V q q F q< Rn1 I A`rif+ F,9 �9 August 7, 1986 MINUTES II,19Ll2V4 Council Member Cox also stated he was GPA 85 -1(B) unaware of this meeting until he received notice, and would be opposed to placing the item on the November ballot. He stated that during the last six months, this project has received a thorough review, not only by the Planning Commission and City Council, but by the residents, as was evidenced at the public hearings. He felt that a "win -win" effort has been reached on everyone's part and to place this issue on the ballot would be much too difficult for the voters to evaluate because of its magnitude and complexities. Having lived and worked in the City for over 25 years, he feels it offers one of the "finest qualities of life anyone could ask for, and he is as proud of: this City today as when he first moved here, and would be very disappointed if Newport Center was not able to be completed." Council Member Heather stated that she was one of the Council Members who requested this meeting be called because she felt it was an important issue, and that today was the final day in which a measure can be placed on the November ballot. She stated that she has been involved in City government for 15 years, and that Newport Center, which she feels is the heart of the City, is a "political football," and she is tired of it. She also feels the residents of this City are tired of it and would like to see it completed. She felt that if it means bringing the issue before the voters in November to get it completed, then maybe that is the answer, at least it is an alternative. She feels CPA 85 -1(B) is a good plan, and she would hope that the debate does not continue for another 15 years before Newport Center is completed. Council Member Agee stated that he felt this meeting was worthwhile and an important exercise for the Council to experience, inasmuch as the Referendum process is not one the Council deals with every day. He stated that he will support the motion because he finally concluded that it would be best to let "nature take its course," and not place the issue on the November ballot. Volume 40 - Page 326 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS C s o \5\p �i �G ROLL C61L 9G�f y�9 Ayes Noes • C 1 MINUTES August 7, 1986 x x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. x Meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m. au)�,I Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: City Clerk A Volume 40 - Page 327 INDEX ;PA 85 -1(B)