Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutF-1 - Planning Commission Recommendation On Possible Public Acquisition of the Land Trade RemnantCity Council Meeting April 26, 1976 Agenda Item No. F-1 -------- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 21, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendation on possible public acquisition of the "Land Trade Remnant", an 8.8:!: acre parcel, zoned R3-B, located on the east side of the Upper Bay, adjacent to the Bluffs residential neighborhood. Suggested Action If desired, (l) concur with Planning Commission recommendation and refer to staff for study of means of acquisition, or (2) determine that property should not be acquired and refer back to Planning Commission for determination as to proper land use and development standards. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of April 18, 1976, the Planning Commission voted (6 to 1) to send the following recommendation to the City Council: "That the "Land Trade Remnant" parcel be acquired as public open space, by what ever means the Ci ty Co u n c i l can de vi s e . 11 This recommendation was made after public testimony as to the value of the site for physical and visual access to the Upper Bay and testimony regarding the paleontological resources on the site. Attached are copies of previous staff memos, a letter from the Natural History Foundation sent to the Planning Commission, and an excerpt from the minutes of the April 18, 1976 Planning Commission meeting. Appraised Value The attached November 10, 1975 letter from The Irvine Company indicates their appraisal of ,J 550,000 for the 8.8 acre site. Some members of the Planning Comm1ssf on ,n a icated concern with this appraised value, in view of the apparent development constraints on this site, and felt that a City appraisal should be undertaken. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Acquisition List The attached memo from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission indicates their tentative shopping list of open space sites for possible acquisition with a park bond issue. The "Land Trade Remnant" is included on this list (No. 13, titled 11 Eastbluff Park Ext ens i on 11 ) • Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, ~r}cto,!:-, /j~., ··; I/. ,' ()/ ~/ By (,-\,~~ =-:::t' i m e 1 1 Advance Planning Administrator TC:jmb Att: Previous staff memos. Letter from the Natural History Foundation. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes of April 18, 1976. I I I I I L Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 1976 Agenda Item No. 5 ------- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 8, 1976 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Land Trade Remnant" This subject was discussed at the March 18, 1976 Planning Commission Study Session, at which time the Commission directed that this item be placed on the April 15, 1976 evening agenda and that the property owners, all homeowners' groups and the press be noti- fied (which has been done). Attached are copies of the previous staff memos and correspondence on the land trade remnant. Also attached is the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission's "shopping list" of open space areas which are being considered for possible purchase with a bond issue. The basic question that is asked by the City Council is: "Should the City proceed with public purchase of this parcel?" Staff would reiterate the previously-suggested alternative recommendations for Planning Commission consideration, along with a possible fourth alternative: 1) That the land trade remnant parcel be acquired as public open space, or 2) That the land trade remnant not be acquired but be rezoned to the Planned Community zoning district and that public access and smaller open space areas be required in the development plan (in conjunction with this alternative, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend an amendment to the General Plan to reduce the permitted density from the current 88 dwelling units), or 3) That development be permitted under the current zoning and General Plan designations, with no special requirements for public access or open space, or 4) That there is insufficient information available at this time as to the relative value of this site, as compared to other open space sites, and that the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision on this parcel until additional information, which may be forthcoming with the Friends of the Bay study and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation study of open space areas for the proposed bond issue, is available. (The rezoning of this site to the P-C District and General Plan amendment, if desired, could be initiated by the Planning Commission at any time.) COMMUNITY DE TMENT R. V. Hogan By __ -+-t--'llff-..----:6-~lf-,t----- Advanc TC: jmb Att: Previous staff memos to Planning Commission. Memo from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission listing open space areas being considered for purchase. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 1976 Study Session Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 12, 1976 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Land Trade Remnant" Attached are copies of the previous staff memos and correspondence regarding the 8.8 acre "Land Trade Remnant" on the east side of the Upper Bay,adjacent to the Bluffs residential neighborhood. In June of 1975, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation on possible public purchase of this site. Although the Land Trade Remnant was originally on the Coastal Commission's property acquisition list, it is one of the properties which was deleted by the State Coastal Commission when the acquisition list was adopted last month. As indicated in the attached letter from The Irvine Company, their appraised market value of the Land Trade Remnant is $550,000. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission discuss this matter at Study Session and put this item on an evening agenda for decision on a recommendation to the City Council. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R . V . Ho g a n , Di r c t ~y Adva TC: jmb Att: Previous staff memos and correspondence. January 15, 1976 Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting January 22, 1976 Joint Meeting Agenda Item No. B CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Land Trade Remnant" Attached is the memo sent to the City Council for the January 12, 1976 City Council Study Session. As indicated in this memo, the question of public acquisition and use of the land trade remnant parcel was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council for consideration and recommendation. Staff suggests that the major considerations involved are: A) What are the potential public uses and benefits that could be achieved?· B) Is public purchase of this property warranted based on the potential public uses and benefits? C) Could some, or all, of the potential public uses and benefits be preserved while still permitting private development? Staff further suggests that there are three alternative recommendations that the Planning Commission could submit to the City Council: 1) That the land trade remnant parcel be acquired as public open space, or 2) That the land trade remnant be rezoned to the Planned Community Zoning District and that public access and smaller open space areas be required in the development plan (in conjunction with this alternative, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend an amendment to the General Plan to reduce the permitted density from the current 88 dwelling units ),or 3) That development be permitted under the current zoning and General Plan designations, with no special requirements for public access or open space. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, ·re , By __ -----1~--=-!Y<~'"""'!...,..'""""ff-------- 1 owe 11 Advance Planning Administratr TC:jmb Att: Memo sent to the City Council for the January 12, 1976 City Council Study Session. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Community Development Department January 6, 1976 STUDY SESSION NO. 10 TO: Robert Wynn, City Manager FROM: Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator SUBJECT: "Land Trade Remna _nt" --Undeveloped 8.8 acre site adjacent to the Bluffs. Background During Planning Commission hearings in May of 1975 on Tentative Tract 8680 in the "Bluffs" area, concern with the possible develop- ment of the adjacent 8.8 acre "land trade remnant" was raised. In response to this concern, The Irvine Company withdrew the application for Tentative Tract 8680 until a determination on the possible public acquisition of the land trade remnant is made . At the June 9, 1975 City Council meeting, the Council referred the May 21, 1975 letter (copy attached) from The · Irvine Company to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. This letter requested the City Council to reach a decision on purchasing the land trade remnant by October l, 1975. A subsequent letter from The Irvine Company extended the time for consideration to December l, 1975. On June 10, 1975, a letter was sent to The Irvine Company by the Mayor, requesting that The Irvine Company propose a price for public acquisition of the land trade remnant. By letter of November 10, 1975 (copy attached), The Irvine Company has indicated that their appraised fair market value of the land trade remnant is $550,000. (It is s .taff's understanding that The Irvine Company, in view of the date of the appraisal, is agreeable to a reasonable review period extending beyond the December l, 1975 date .) Zoning and General Plan Designation he land use remna w 1c wou permit mu ti-amily res, ential development. However, the General Plan designates this parcel as "Recreationa l and Environ- mental Open Space" with an alternate use of residential (with a maxi- mum of approximately 88 dwelling units) if public purchase, or other means of preserving the property as open space, does not prove feasible. Department of Fish and Game Evaluation The State Department of Fish and Game, at the request of the City, conducted a cursory evaluation of all undeveloped lands adjacent to the Upper Bay Ecological Reserve in September, 1975. The Page Two "Reconnaissance Survey" report, previously distributed to the City Council, ranks the land trade remnant in Priority 3, on a priority scale from l (highest) to 7 (lowest), and states that the land trade remnant contains "valuable buffer space qualities" and would serve as a vista point. The evaluation further states that "there is public parking within the Eastbluff Park, and access through the park to the site and thence to the Ecological Reserve by Trail," and that "the wildlife habitat potential is considered good because of the condition of the bluffs and existing natural cover." Coastal Commission Acquisition List The land trade remnant, along with all undeveloped properties adjacent to the Upper Bay, is on the Coastal Commission's prelim- inary property acquisition list. It is expected that final action on this acquisition list will be taken by the State Coastal Commis- sion in February, 1976; this action will consist of a recommendation to the Legislature and Governor that the lands on the final acquisi- tion list be purchased, or otherwise acquired, by the public. Planning Commission Review After receiving The Irvine Company's appraisal, the land trade remnant subject was placed on the Planning Commission Study Session Agenda. The Planning Commission decided to continue discussion of this matter until the January 22, 1976 joint meeting with the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission; this will allow the two Commis- sions to discuss the potential public recreation and open space values of the land trade remnant prior to ,the Planning Commission's formulation of a recommendation to the City Council. dvance Planning Administrator TC: j mb Att: 1) Letter from The Irvine Company dated May 21, 1975. 2) Letter from The Irvine Company dated November 10, 1975. May 21, 1975 Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Mayor Mcinnis: lHE IRVINE CONIFANY G10 N ew port Center Oriv P. Newport 8e.ich, California 92663 (714) 644 -3011 <o RJCE IVE D 0 mmun;ry Deve/op,n D ent ept. MAY 2 21975 .... N CITYOF £WPORT BEACH CALIF. /,. 1/1. 271~Y Your City Staff has indicated to The Irvine Company several concerns regarding Tentative Map No. 8680 and Use Permit No. 1729 involving a site in the Eastbluff area. As you are aware, these items are presently being considered by the Planning Commission. Apparently, several questions concerning the "Land Trade ReJTtnant" parcel have been raised because of its proximity to and irnoacts on the site in question. 'Accordingly, we have asked the applicant, IDH, a joint venture, and they have agreed, to withdraw its applications until a determination is made by the City Council on the "Land Trade Remnant" ,parcel. The Residential Growth Element of the adopted General Plan states that the "Land Trade Remnant" adjacent to the "Bluffs" shall be rezoned from R-3-B to a yet-to-be-developed zoning district which will permit a maximum density of ten dwelling units per gross acre although it is proposed that, if possible, this land be acquired as open space as part of the "Upper Newport Bay Wildlife Reserve." The Irvine Company is prepared to start preliminary studies for the development of the subject parcel. Such studies will necess.irl involve substantial expenditures. However , before we can proceed, we wish to know the City's intentions concerning this pa r cel. We cot1ld offer the parcel to any governmental agency willing to pur- chase it for fair market values. However, if there is no interest in a purchase, we would thcn ·pursue development in accordance with the adopted General Plan. In ortlcr to resolve the question, we request that the City rea c h a decision by October 1, 1975 whether or not public ow n ership of this parcel is to be undertaken and how it is to he funded. This should allow sufficient time to determine the feasibilit y of such a purchase. If the decision is ma<lc that the land should Newport B~':1ch City Council 2 ~l;i }' 21, 19 7 5 be acquired, then The Irvine Company would like to finalize the terms of the purchase by June 1, 1976. If 1t is decided tlial the property should not he acquired for public use, then h'C would assume that processing development plans, at a residentic1l <lensity of ten <lwelling units per gross acre, as provi<lcd .in the General Plan, would be allowed. Whichever <lecision is made by the City, the status of the pending applications for approval of Tentative Tract No. 8680 and Use Permit No. 1729 will then be clarified and appropriate resubmissions thereof can be made. We respectfully request your consideration of this matter and will welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you and the Members of the City Council, perhaps at an early study §ession. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. F ank E. llughes ice President Residential Divi. cc: D. Hogan City Manager Members of Council The Honorable Donald Mclnnis, Mayor of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Bo'ulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: 610 Newport Center Drive Nev,porl Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 November ~0, 1975 Re: Lot 83, Tract 6230 and Land Trade Remnant The Irvine Company has completed an appraisal of the subject parcels and concluded that the current fair market value of the approximate 8.8 acres is $550,000. If the City elects to purchase the land, the offer would have to· be presented to the Board of Directors of The Irvine Company and, therefore, The Irvine Company is not making any binding arrangements at this time and will be bounµ only when the final documents are executed and delivered. • We shall be pleased to further negotiations. with members of the City staff for \ \ I I ) TAW:ka i Dirccto~, Leasing Commercial Division cc: ltohert Wynn, City Marn,.~_~cr ✓Irie liard Hogan, Di rec tc c Community Development Dept. I I 1 -- City of Newport Beach Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission -'PARK SITE ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (Members: Evelyn Hart, Mike Johnson, Per Trebler) Al INTERIM REPORT OF THE GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION This Corrmittee has been assigned the task of bringing up to date the site acquisition and development list in the Recreation & Open Space Element of the General Plan, and estimated costs. This has meant reviewing park changes within the City and taking the impact of inflation and the skyrocketing land values into consideration. Of particular importance is the pressure now being placed on the City by the State to indicate whether the City will exercise its first right of refusal to acquire the State lands for park purposes which were fonnerly purchased for the Pacific Coast Freeway. The purchase price will be the original cost to the State or the current appraised value whichever is less, which makes this offer very attractive. However, if the City doesn't exercise its option, the State will sell the land to the highest bidder and the resi.dents will have lost this golden opportunity to greatly improve the quality of life in this City. This Coomittee has prepared a shopping list of all of the feasible sites within the City for acquisition and development and the current estimated costs. The Corrmittee beli~ves the PB & R Corrmission should review this shopping list and the attac>ed quest·ions and give the Comrnit·~ee some additional input on this important subject. After the PB & R Corrmission review, a final Committee report will be prepared refler::tins Corr::riissfon comments. Hopefrlly, the report can then be sent to the City ,:,ounci 1. l -2- Following is a shopping list of park acquisition and development projects as submitted by the Ad Hoc CoITITlittee for a Park Bond Election. PROPOSITION l ACQUISITION Site (l) West Newport Park * (2) San Joaquin Hills Park ** (3) Balboa Island Play Lots (4) 1t-lrlt (4) State Land -East of Superior (5) Semeniuk Slough (survey & legal (6) Corona Highlands Tot Lot (7) North Corona del Mar Park **** (8) Inspiration Point Lots (9) 32nd & Balboa Blvd. (10) Cliff Drive house and lot (11) Tustin at University (12) Conmunity Youth Center Extension (13) Eas tb luff Park Exte:1s ion TOTALS * J\.dditio:1al ~100,000 from County ** Sites to be selected Acres 7 5 11 fees) 3 .25 8 .50 1. 50 .30 8 8 8 *** Assuming matching funds from other governmental agency **** Delete if Coastal C001Dission financing is successful Approximate Cost $ ... 2,000.000 300,000 300,000 1,000,000 L- 100.000 75,000 640~000 220.000 300,000 400,000 400,000 400.000 sso.ooo . s 6,685.000 ,-....._._ i i i -..:>- PROPOSITION 2 . -DEVELOPMENT Site West Newport Park Balboa Island Play Lots Semeniuk Slough Corona Highlands Tot Lot North Corona del Mar Park 32nd & Balboa Blvd. Community Youth Center Extension Eastbluff Park Extension TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSITION 1 TOTAL PROPOSITION 2 GRAND TOTAL Approximate Cost $ 250,000 50,000 200,000 5,000 480,000 100,000 500,000 1002000 $ 1,~85,000 $ 6,685,000 1,685,000 $ 8,370,000 Additional development using County Revenue-Sharing Funds, Building Excise Tax Funds, State Park Bonds and other funding sources: DEVELOPMENT Site Aeproximate Cost ( 14) Spyglass Hi 11 Park $ 360,000 { 15) Spj'Jlass Hill Playfield 30,000 (16) Spyglass Nature Canyon 100,000 ( 17) Ensign View Park 200,000 I -4- ADDITIONS TO EXISTING PARKS: Miscellaneous improvements to existing parks such as tennis courts, playground equipment, handball courts, etc. EXAMPLES: Marinapark -Tennis courts, restroom, shuffleboard, etc. Mariners Park -Tennis courts * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PARK BOND BACKGROUND INFORMATION $150,000 60,000 On June 6, 1972 the City's first park bond election received a majority of the votes cast for an $8,985,000 expenditure to make our City a better place to live. The breakdown of the "yes 11 vote was as follows: Proposition F -$3,560,000 Site Acquisition Proposition G $2,425,000 Development Proposition H -$3,000,000 Future Parks 58.4% 56.9% 53.3% Unfor~una~ely, 66 2/3 % vote was needed for passage of these 29 year bonds. The "after the election 11 analysis of why the bonds didn't pass came up with a \'ariety of reasons inclu<!.ing: -The election should have been a "special", not 11 general ... election. -There wasn't enough time to familiarize the electorate with the ·three park pro~~sitions. -The voters didr;'t want to give the City pol!tic~ans a "blank check~ fur $3,000,000 in rderence to Proposition H.