Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1988 - Special Meeting - City Council 033 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA JUNE 22, 1988 t . ' The' City Council of the City of'Costa Mesa, California, ' met in special session June 22, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council,Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, for the purpose of_ holding public hearings for C. J. Segerstrom and Sons Flame Ranch Project. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hall, followed by . the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL. Council Members' Present: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa Council Members Absent: None Officials Present: City Manager, City Attorney, Development Services Director, Public Services Director, City Clerk • Mayor.Hall announced that all public hearing items will be discussed at one time as it would be difficult to separate them. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS The Clerk announced that this was the time and place set for the public hearings to consider the following: GP-88-1 (Revised) General Plan Amendment GP-88-1 (Revised) , City of City of costa Mesa Costa Mesa, to amend the Land Use Element by estab- lishing land use intensity and population density III Segerstran Home standards to allow approximately 2 million square feet Ranch Site (or,other acceptable intensity) of commercial develop- • , ment for the Segerstran H Ranch property bordered by Harbor Boulevard, Sunflower: Avenue, Fairview Road, . and.the- San Diego Freeway, and to establish such.stan dards for all property in North Costa Mesa generally north of Baker Street, and to amend the Circulation 'Element to correlate with the land use standards. Environmental Determination: Environmental Asessment pursuant to Government Code Section 65759. For C. J. Segerstran and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa: EIR No. 1039 Environmental Impact Report No. 1039 for the 94-acre Segerstran Horne Home Ranch site consisting of 3.1 million square feet Ranch/One .South of Commercial uses, and for a Final Development Plan Coast Place Sites for the 18.34-acre first phase of One South Coast Place consisting of 739,083 square feet in two buildings (12 and 20 stories) , and a child care . center containing 15,000 square feet, located between Fairview Road, Harbor Boulevard, and Sunflower Avenue, in a PDC zone. III PA-88-51 andPlanning Actions PA-88-51 and PA-88-51F1, for a Pre- • PA-88-51F1/ liminary Development Plan for the 94-acre site, and a Segerstran Final Development Plan for the 18.34-acre first phase at One South Coast Place. The Affidavits of Publishing, Posting and Mailing are on file in the Clerk's office. Letters have been re- ceived from Hugh Kohler, Executive Director, Fairview Development-Center, 2501 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, and Richard and Martha Allan, 3404 Lavender Lane, Costa Mesa, in support of the Home Ranch and One South Coast Place projects. C)•34 , The Development Services Director explained, in detail, the applications and the various possible actions to be taken. The Director presented background information on General Plan Amendment GP-88-1, approved by Council on February 11, 1988, which amended the General Plan to establish a building intensity standard of '3.1 million square feet along with height limitations for the Home Ranch site. Following this approval, a Referendum Petition was sub- mitted and certified which has put this General Plan Amendment in abeyance. There still remains the legal requirement for a General Plan building intensity stan- dard for the site. The property owners are proposing a • second General Plan intensity standard, General Plan Amendment GP-88-1 (Revised) , referred to as the two- million-square-foot alternative, as an interim standard for the property. The results of the vote on the Re- ferendum will determine whether or not GP-88--1 will be in effect for the property. If the voters approve the . original General Plan Amendment, it will take effect. If they reject the original General Plan Amendment and the Council approves the revised amendment, the revised amendment will remain in effect. The Director presented transparencies for the Prelim- inary Development Plan, the current proposal on the Home Ranch site, PA-88-51. The health club has been removed, One South Coast Place is shown as the first phase,, and approximately one-million-square-feet of development has been removed from the project. The Director stated that the overall floor area ratio (FAR) . for the entire 94-acre Home Ranch site would be . approximately 0.53. • The Director addressed building heights and stated that. in GP-88-1 building heights ranged from five to 20 stories. In GP-88-1 (Revised) the proposed heights are • four stories north of South Coast Drive, with a range from 12 to 20 stories south of South Coast Drive, with the height restriction still remaining defined by a plane:rising at a 25 percent angle from the homes along • the east side of Fairview Road. The Staff Report details the precise amendments to the General Plan for the most current land use proposals. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1039 and Environmental Assessment (E/ ) have been previously processed. The Director presented transparencies outlining the differences .in building heights between the current proposal and past proposals,dating back to General Plan . GP-83-1B. The Director reviewed the Final Development Plan for One South Coast Place (PA-88-51F1) and the building elevations and materials. • The proposed Conditions of Approval have been outlined for the Final Development Plan and include a condition referring to and incorporating the mitigation measures in the EIR. • That condition incorporates all of the mitigation measures in EIR No. 1039 as conditions in the project for both the overall Preliminary Development Plan, PA-88-51, Hone Ranch; and, the Final Development Plan, PA-88-51F1, One South Coast Place. • . . (335 • At Council's request, Condition No. 21, concerning De- • posit Traffic Impact Fee Payment, has been addressed in staff's memorandum dated June 22, 1988. The condition • has been rewritten to state that the developer shall pay a trip generation fee at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The Planning Commission has also recommended that Condition No. 27, concerning the Susan Street extension, be revised. The Development Services Director introduced the follow- ing people who were available to.answer questions: Mike Robinson, Principal Planner; John Lower, Acting Trans- portation Services Manager; Kristen Caspers, Associate Planner responsible for environmental processing; Dwayne • Mears, representing The Planning Center, authors of both the Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact Report for the Home Ranch property; and, Malcolm Ross, 'C. J. Segerstrom and Sons. At Council Member'Wheeler's request, the City Attorney reported on the status of the lawsuit and what the court has ordered to be done regarding the General Plan build,- • ing intensity limit for this property. • The court finished its deliberations last year and in- structed the City by writ of mandate to take action to provide an adequate General Plan, and also addressed the need for a Program Environmental Impact Report if the project was to be further developed. Subsequently, Council adopted General Plan GP-88-1. This action was reported to the court and satisfied the General Plan portion of the writ. There still remains a mandate for the EIR portion of the project which is being presented this evening. The City Attorney'reported that the court's position regarding the writ dealing with the General Plan Amend- ment is premised on the assumption that action taken by Council in adopting GP-88-1 was an effective step by Council. The reason GP-88-1 (Revised) is before Council this evening is because the effectiveness of the initial • General Plan GP-88-1 has been suspended because of the certification of the Referendum Petition. In order to have an effective and operative General Plan, with re- spect to the Home Ranch property, the property owner has requested that the City adopt a revised General Plan Amendment so that the development of that property can proceed. If approved, the attorney advised that it be brought before the court for its approval in lieu of the suspended amendment. Council Member Wheeler asked if all of the reductions are on portions other than the One South Coast Place project, and the Development Services Director responded ' affirmatively, and that One South Coast Place is idem tical to what was approved previously. Council Member Wheeler asked if One South Coast Place were approved this evening, could a future Council change the intensity limits for the rest of the property. Ill approved, it becomes effective in the General Plan, and could, as for any other land use, be changed up to four times per year. The Director added that if a Develop- ment Agreement were presented and entered into which locked in the intensity level, it could not be changed in the future. Malcolm Ross, representing C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, stated that -he did not bring additional presentation material with him this evening and that he would be pleased to answer any questions concerning the informa- tion presented by the Development Services Director. ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Hall recognized former Mayor Arlene Schafer who was inthe audience. James R. White, 493 Broadway, Costa Mesa, presented a letter he wrote to the Planning Commission in support of the project. Ruth Rossington, 1340 Garlingford Street, Costa Mesa, opposed high rise buildings extending beyond Town Center. She requested that the developer abandon plans for more high rise buildings at One South Coast Place. Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, ques- tioned the legality of having two General Plan Amend- ments on the same piece of property. He spoke in favor of putting the matter before the public so that they could vote on what they favored for this property. Bob Cole, 3064 Java Road, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of delaying any further action until after the vote on the Referendum.. Art Kidman, President, Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 290, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the Segerstrom developments and stated the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of the revised project. Stephen Goldberger, 3026 Java Road, Costa Mesa, stated the revised proposed project still represents an intrus- ion on residential neighborhoods and is unbalanced. In his opinion, the project should be reduced in size. He expressed concerned with the complete retention of One South Coast Place. Ken Fowler, 3423 Meadow Brook, Costa Mesa, complimented Council and the Segerstrom's for what they have done for the City. He said one of the main concerns was traffic and, in his opinion, this is the fault of past legis- lators in Sacramento and the proposed major tenant, IBM, would not generate significant traffic. Virginia Seek, 1095 San Pablo Circle, Costa Mesa, felt the proposed project would be an asset to the community. Jack Hall, 1859 Tahiti Drive, Costa Mesa, addressed the high quality of the Segerstrom projects and spoke in favor of this project. - Michael Nutter, 3469 Plumeria Place, Costa Mesa, expres- - sed concern with the proposed project's height and traffic generation. He is in favor of it but with a lower height limitation. He also addressed dewatering. In response to Mr. Nutter, Council Member Hornbuckle 04-at"7'that the sixth mitigation measure under geology and ground water addresses dewatering. In responseto a question posed by Mayor Hall, Malcolm Ross stated that the property has been excavated to its total,depth. Anne Hogan-Shereshevsky, 2152 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, supported the project. She said the number of people who signed the Referendum Petition represent a small minority of people in the City. • : 0a7) Lesley Donovan, 3445 Wimbledon Way, Costa Mesa, expres- sed concern with high densities and traffic. Ray House, 1938 Kildeer Circle, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the project. He opposed high densities and is concerned with the possibility of flooding homes if the project were approved. Sally Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, said when she was circulating the Referendum Petition, she found that the vast majority of people were not against development but against high density. She spoke in favor of putting this matter before the public for a vote. Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of reducing the building heights, lowering densities, and keeping the Greenville-Banning Channel open. She addressed floor area ratios, screening, balancing mixed uses, traffic generation, trip ends, roadway improvements, and presented Council with a letter in which she addressed the Environmental Impact Report. Marie Maples, 461 Swarthmore Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project and the applicant's property rights. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed zoning, traffic, utility demands, and the Referendum Petition. Frank Bissell, 874 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of development and the project. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, III was in favor of waiting for the outcome on the vote for the Referendum Petition, and addressed the effects of high density throughout the City. John De Witt, 2000 Balearic Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor'of the project. He also stated that the Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth have always expressed concern about traffic and now that a lower building intensity is being proposed, they are express- ing concern about building heights. Council Member Wheeler responded to John De Witt, stat- ing that Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth have addressed a number of concerns with the projects. He referenced letters which have been written by citizens frau the project's conception which address their concerns both with the project and also the EIR. Vice Mayor Amburgey agreed that the Referendum Petition does address other issues but that the main thrust verbally presented by a majority of the people circula- ting the petition was that of traffic concerns. III Brian Theriot, 2005 Paloma Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke in faaior'of the proposed projects and felt they address the traffic issue. Sally Humphrey, speaking as one of the principles for circulating the Referendum Petition, stated that it was their intent to have the petition circulated fairly and when they found that someone was presenting misinforma- tion they were re-educated as to the intent of the petition. Bob, Cole ,stated that for a project.of such magnitude people should be allowed to speak as long as they wish. Sid Soffer felt that there should be no time limit • placed on,the speakers at special meetings and recom- mended an ending time only be set for such meetings. Bill Petersen, 3440 Meadow Brook, Costa Mesa, President of the Village -Creek Homeowners Association, felt the public has had sufficient time to address the issues and speak on the projects. He spoke in favor of them and .said many traffic improvements would be realized if they were approved. • Ruth Rossington addressed building heights, traffic, and . Measure "A". She felt that in working with the developer a compromise could be reached so that the residents would be able to maintain their same quality of life. Sandra Genis was not in agreement with the City's traffic analysis or statments of fact and overriding considerations. She- stated that she has repeatedly requested, and has not received, an analysis as to whether the proposed child care center would have a positive or negative effect on child care services within the City. Jay,Humphrey carmented` that it,appears that sane of the people have indicated that the- Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth are against the Segerstram organiza- tion. He stated that this is incorrect and what the organization is opposed to is the project as approved • by the City. There being no further speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. RECESS The Mayor declared recess at 8:35 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. . Mayor Hall asked Malcolm Ross if' he agreed to all the Conditions of Approval imposed on the projects. Mr. Ross responded that he•was not Sure whether the sugges- tions made by, the. Planning,Carnmission have been made part of the official• conditions. The Development. Services Director stated that Condition No. '21, presented to Council in staff' s memorandum dated June 22, 1988, transpired subsequent to the Planning Commission's hearing. Staff is recaYmending the condi- tion as -a result of a recent study session. Condition No. ' 27 for which the Planning Commission did make amendments are stated in the Planning Commission's motions attached to the Staff Report. These amendments are officially part of the recommended conditions. He stated that Mike Robinson will address Condition No. 28. Mike Robinson, .Principal Planner, presented.recanmended changes to Condition No. 28 which relates to addressing 70 percent of p.m. peak traffic rather than average daily traffic. The changes' in this condition were inadvertently,omitted frau the Planning Commission's recgmMended amendments. Condition No. 28 should read as .follows: "Developer shall dedicate land to provide 42 feet. southerly of the centerline of Sunflower Avenue and construct the southerly side of Sunflower Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road. This dedication 'and construction shall be completed upon the generation of 70% of p.m. peak hour trip ends forecast for One South Coast Place. That is, dedica- tion and construction shall occur upon 3,469 p.m. peak hour trip ends being generated by One South Coast Place. This will be monitored by the City at the expense of the developer. 'At times determined by the City, 24-hour directional traffic counts will be III gathered on three consecutive typical midweek days at South Coast Place West, south of South Coast Drive, and at South Coast Place East, south of South Coast Drive. Count data will be compared with the 3,469 p.m. peak hour trip end threshold to determine the timing of the Sunflower Avenue construction." Council Member Hornbuckle referred to Condition No. 22 which addresses the development plan for the parking structure. She asked if there were plans for screening the parking, structure. Malcolm' Ross replied that there were, and then presented a transparency indicating what is proposed. In response to a question posed by Council Member Hornbuckle, Malcolm Ross outlined, by utilizing a trans- parency, where the Greenville-Banning Channel runs across the property, and outlined the portions of the channel to be left open and the portions to be covered. Mayor Hall stated that questions have been posed as to the legality of taking action on these items this even- ing and the City-Attorney provided a response. Vice Mayor Amburgey spoke in favor of the projects and, in his opinion, the majority of the community supports them. ' Council Member Hornbuckle stated that the majority of her questions have been answered at previous meetings and she was pleased that the total overall impact of the projects will be approximately one-third less. Council Member Wheeler felt the speakers raised many false issues and said it 'was important to address them: The issue as to whether the Segerstroms are good people or not does not matter, the issue before Council revolves around the land and what land use is appropriate. The statement regarding property rights was pre- sented in an incorrect manner and, in his opinion, was the underlying reason for many of the statements made later. He said the presentation this evening has been made III as a choice between 3.1 million square feet or 2.1 million square feet of .development. In his opinion, the real issue is land use. Another false issue is that a reduction is being claimed. He said Phase I for One South Coast Place has not been changed. The proposed reduction is on land which will' not be developed for quite scan time and a request for higher density for that land could be presented at a later date. 04 . He felt the increase in property values has not been a result of Segerstrom developments but that the good climate, making Costa Mesa a desirable place in which to live, is the reason property values have increased. The statement that traffic problems relate back to something which happened years ago in Sacramento is false and, in his opinion, the traffic problems have been created by local government approving develop- ments which overburden the system. The statement that this is a'high quality project is false because Council is not just voting on what is going to be developed on 18.34 acres; this vote encom- passes a General Plan Amendment for 94 acres. He does not support the statement made that the silent majority supports this project. In his opinion, the correct way to proceed would be to have a detennina- • tion of what the people want 'first by putting the Referendum Petition to a vote by the public. • Council Member Wheeler stated that the real issue is. what is the proper land use for that area. In his opinion, garden'offices along the freeway would be appropriate, with the northern portion of the property being residential. Council Member Buffa felt the issue continues to be traffic. He expressed concern regarding open space, air pollution, and traffic impacts. In his opinion, this project would advance Costa Mesa's position, image and stature as one of the most progressive and finan- cially successful cities. Be stated that this City is • one of the few cities not in financial difficulty and that a large part of this is due to the work of the .Segerstrom family. In his opinion, the positive factors for the proposed projects far outweigh the negative ones. In response to a question posed by Council Member Wheeler, the City Attorney stated that the findings pre- sented by the law firm of McCutchen, Brown and Enersen do. not present a'conflict of interest. Council Member Wheeler stated.that he was'uncomfortable with the fact _ that the attorneys for the applicant also were doing work for. the City. • Malcolm Ross said Robert Break will clarify the law firm's input regarding the findings. Robert Break,- Latham and Watkins, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, stated they were one of the law firms along with McCutchen, Brown and Enersen who participated in • assisting City staff in preparing the findings pre- sented for consideration. ' He said that it is a normal practice for outside law firms to assist city staffs in circumstances such as this. • MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Resolution 88-44 Vice' Mayor Amburgey, to adopt Resolution No. 88-44, Adopted with being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Amendments COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT .GP-88-1 (Revised) , including the amendments outlined . in staff's memorandum dated June 22, 1988. In response to a question posed by Sid Soffer, the City Attorney stated that' the material presented tonight is substantially different for this General Plan Amendment as compared with GP-88-1. 04- The motion carried by. the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MOTION 'J A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Resolution Vice Mayor Amburgey, to adopt Resolution No. 88-45, 88-45 Adopted being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF With Amendments COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 1039 (SCH #87011408) , AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING PA-88-51 AND PA-88-51F1, subject to all findings, Condi- tions of Approval, with amendments as reflected in the Planning Commission's motions; staff's memorandum dated June 22, 1988; and staff's previously stated amendment to Condition No. 28. Council Member Hornbuckle addressed the building heights • and stated that,: in her opinion, they will not have an impact on surrounding residential, neighborhoods. In addition, other concerns have been, addressed in the EIR. Vice Mayor Amburgey and Council .Member Buffa concurred with Council Member Hornbuckle's statements regarding the building heights. Council Member Wheeler stated that he will be voting against the motion based on his opposition to the de- ' velopment plans. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey,. Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None OLD BUSINESS The Clerk presented from the meeting of June 6, 1988, Referendum Petition'concerning C. J. Segerstrom and Referendum Petition Sons Hama Ranch site. Home Ranch Site Mayor Hall announced that the following dates are available for a special election: September. 20, 27, and October 4. In addition, there is the general election date of November 8. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Wheeler, seconded by Referendum on Vice Mayor Amburgey, to place the Referendum Petition November 8, 1988 on the November 8, 1988, general election ballot. Council Member Buffa opposed the motion and stated that he would be in favor of putting it on a ballot at the earliest possible date. Vice Mayor Amburgey agreed with Council Member Buffa's comments but felt it unfair to have the citizens vote in September and then again in November. Council Member Hornbuckle stated that she supports putting this item on the November ballot because of the costs involved for conducting a special election. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Buffa voting no. Traffic Initiative Mayor Hall presented from the meeting of June 20, 1988, Item Withdrawn request from Council Member Wheeler to place the Traffic Initiative on the same ballot as the Home Ranch Re- ferendum. • Council Member'Wheeler stated that this item is now moot and withdrew his request. • ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meet' g adjo ned at, 1):00 p.m. - � Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa 1.11-.. ./".) • elfli City Clerk of the City of Costa Me