Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/1988 - Special Meeting - City Council 1 <29 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA OCTOBER 12, 1988 At the call of the Mayor, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa met in special session on October 12, 1988, at 6:50 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. Notice of the special meeting was posted as required by law. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager, City Attorney, Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services, City Clerk Council Member Buffa Appointed to Mayor Hall appointed Council Member Buffa Mayor Pro Tem Chair the Meeting for the purpose of chairing the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR The following item was removed from the Consent Calen- dar: Item 1, Request for a Research and Botanical Garden. Research and Item 1 on the Consent Calendar was presented: A request Botanical Garden from Paul Brecht, Paul Brecht Orchid Company, 1989 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, for City participation in a Research and Botanical Garden. Council Member Hornbuckle expressed her desire to have space made available for Mr. Brecht's collection of plants at the Fairview Park site. She recommended referring the request to the Fairview Park Committee. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded Referrred to by Council Member Wheeler, to refer this item to the Fairview Park Fairview Park -Committee. Committee Mayor Hall commented that there are time constraints involved since Mr. Brecht must have a site for the plants by December 1. His concern was that if the request were referred to the Fairview Park Committee, it could be several months before the committee reached a decision. The Mayor felt that this matter should be referred to the Leisure Services Department primarily, and if time permitted, refer it to the Fairview Park Committee. He asked if the motion included referring the item to both the Leisure Services Department and the Fairview Park .Committee. Council Member Hornbuckle asked the City Manager if there were a particular reason for referring the request to the Fairview Park Committee before it comes back to Council, or if it would work just as well to have the Leisure Services Department review it and give Council _ an initial report. The City Manager responded that it was not his intention to have this matter necessarily referred to the Fairview Park Canmitttee first; the recommendation was that it be directed to both parties. He suggested having the Leisure Services Department provide a recommendation for an interim location at the November 7 meeting. Loc • • In response-to Mayor Hall's earlier question about referring the request to. the Leisure Services Depart- ment, epartment, Council Member Hornbuckle stated that the Fairview Park Committee surely should review the proposal for a -permanent'botanical garden; however, she did recognize that there is a December 1 deadline, and she hoped there • would be roan at the park for temporary placement of the plants. Mayor Hall commented that the motion still does not include referring the request to Leisure Services for immediate relief of the problem. Council Member Buffa asked Council Member Hornbuckle if she would consider referring 'this matter to the Fairview Park Committee, .informing them that their recommendation is required by the first meeting in November. Council Member Hornbuckle responded that the suggestion would be acceptable for preliminary recommendations, recognizing that recommendations for a permanent botani- cal garden would take much longer to submit. AMENDED MOTION As suggested by Council Member Buffa, Council Member Added a Stipulation Hornbuckle amended her- .motion to state that the request that Committee shall be referred to the Fairview Park Committee, and Recommendations be directing the Committee to submit their preliminary Available for the . recommendations for the November 7, 1988, meeting. The November 7 Meeting amended motion was seconded by Council Member Wheeler, ._and..carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS . The Clerk presented Ordinance 88-17 for second reading and adoption. The ordinance approves Development Agree- DA 88-01 ment DA--88-01 between the City of Costa Mesa and the City/Redevelopment Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, for property bordered Agency by Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and West 19th Street. A letter was received frau Jeffrey D. Littell, 18662 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, Irvine, stating that he wished to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency at the meetings of October 12 and October 20, 1988. Eleven letters were received fran owners of property within the boundaries of Vehicle Parking District No. 2, objecting to any determination that lands and rights-of- way now dedicated to parking uses are not needed for parking lot purposes. Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, stated r that development agreements, as well as specific projects, must_ be. consistent with the General Plan. She reported that based on her investigation, the City's General Plan for this area does specify a use, but does . not specify an intensity. Ms. Genis mentioned that this • problem existed with the Home Ranch project. She con- tended-that this item cannot go forward with the General Plan in its existing condition; also, the General Plan Land Use Element would have to be coordinated with the Circulation Element. She commented that Council cannot act on this item until such time as the General Plan is in legal form. • David Pies, Vice President and Senior Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1040, Los Angeles, filed a letter with the Clerk outlining sane of 9 ' • the legal reasons for not adopting the ordinance. He • also filed a copy of a letter with the Clerk dated October- 10i 1988, which was directed to the Planning 'Commission. • Mr. Pies reported that Wells Fargo Bank is opposed to .the inclusion of its property (1845 and 1867 Newport Boulevard) into the Triangle Square redevelopment project, and because of this objection, the bank also III opposee adop tion of Ordinance 88-17 which would allow the City to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the -Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Pies reported that the bank is in the process of redeveloping its own property at a cost of $750,000.00 to $900,000.00. He contended that Environmental Impact Report No. 1026 certified in 1985 cannot -be relied upon because it does not take into consideration the impact of the Courtyards project nor .the impact of the increased traffic on Harbor and Newport Boulevards. Other legal impediments addressed by Mr. Pies included: Owners of more than half the properties have filed notices with the Clerk stating that they are opposed to the City's proposed . abandonment of parking rights; and pursuant to State Code pertaining to parking, when owners of over half the properties have.requested that Council not make a deter- mination to release those parking rights to another . agency, Council is prohibited from doing so (Section 31851.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code) . Curtis Herberts, 2290 Channel Road., Newport Beach, owner of property at 1880-1882 Harbor Boulevard, stated that he will be-speaking on his own behalf, and on behalf of • Dr.-Nord, 1892-94 Har-bor. Boulevard, who is out of the country.. On behalf of Dr. Nord, Mr. Herberts submitted petitions containing signatures of 675 customers of businesses located within the Triangle Area who oppose the project. Mr. Herberts reported that Dr. Nord does not want to sell his property, does not want his property condemned, . • wants the triangle block to stay the way it is, and • would like the City to. follow through with the verbal agreements which were made some years ago about upgrad- ing the parking lot. Speaking on his own behalf; Mr. Herberts referred to the Marvac property in the 1800 block of Harbor Boulevard which was leased to Adventure 16 and has been improved extensively. He also reported that the property at 1880-1882. Har-bor Boulevard has been upgraded substan- tially, yet the separate offers from the developer and . Redevelopment Agency were far below that which should have been offered. • Dr.- Gerry McClellan, 1879 Newport Boulevard, stated that when he spoke to the Council a few years ago, Council approved his-request to remodel the offices at the above . address, and he was asked to cane back and acknowledge the fact that it was a long-term temporary concession • that was made by Council; however, Council never stated -that he would have to accept, from an economic stand- point, something that would be punitive, such as redeveloping the site as it is now planned. He reported . that the offers made to the doctors by the Triangle • Square developers would cost the doctors a substantial - amount of money in increased operating expense, etc. , and in return they would receive a substantially less . valuable location, and it would undoubtedly end up cost ing them loss of patients and part of their practices. He asked that the ordinance be rejected. 1.92 . Yvonne.Watters, 926 Coronado Drive, Costa Mesa, lessee of property at 1882 Harbor Boulevard, and owner of Newport Check Cashing; reported that she was formerly located on Newport Boulevard and was relocated because that site was going to be redeveloped. Ms. Watters stated that she was very happy with the present location, except when construction of the Courtyards project was in progress. Ms. Watters was opposed to moving the small businesses . out of the triangle block and allowing big developers to take over. Lawrence Somers, representing owners of properties atIII 440-448 West 19th Street and 1902 Harbor Boulevard, stated that he signed one of the letters concerning Vehicle Parking District No. 2 which were submitted to the Clerk. He reported that the letters in opposition • to abandoning the parking district now represent 65 percent of the owners of properties within the district, including Sinclair Paint and the Methodist Church. He opposed adoption of the ordinance. Vera Hughes, 1869 Newport Boulevard, was of the opinion that the proposed project is not suitable for this loca- tion. She asserted that people will not utilize under- ground nderground parking for safety reasons. Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, con- tended that this site does not require redevelopment, and the City should allow the present businesses to .remain. He did not believe the proposed project would serve the City as well as the businesses now operating at this location. Zachary Pedicini, 1884-1886 Harbor Boulevard, canmented that he has not heard of any good, major tenants begging to move to the site after redevelopment. He mentioned that there is inadequate parking at the Courtyards because the Courtyards patrons have been using his parking lot. Dr. Rob Jones, 1879 Newport Boulevard, reported that properties already acquired by the City have been vacant for a long time, and transients congregate there. He stated that some of his patients have canmented that they are afraid for their children because of the transients, especially at the property located at 18th Street and Newport Boulevard. He believed it would make more sense to upgrade properties already acquired by the City. Jeff Littell, 2650 Har-la Avenue, Apartment B-208, Costa Mesa, camnercial and industrial real estate broker, stated that he wrote a four-page letter to Millie • Summerlin, Redevelopment Agency, containing his comments about the proposed project. Mr. Littell's opinion was that the project is ill-conceived; there is no structure parking in the area; there is.no multi-story commercial that is successful; the trade barriers, which are the major highways, are very substantial in nature; the demographics are a mixed bag at best; and the custaner- nature is a mixed bag. Mr. Littell commented that no • one in attendance supports the project. Council Member Wheeler thanked Mr. Littell for his letter, stating that it was very helpful. • Charles McConney, Wells Fargo Bank, believed that most of the projects now within the block are in compliance with the Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which he had in his possession. . He referenced sections of the Plan which permit the existing parcelization, and CL, Cl, and C2 zoning. He stated that all building permits on the block since 1973 would have been -processed in accordance with the Plan; therefore, these tenants and owners would be entitled to certificates of compliance in accordance with the Plan. MOTION Council Member Hornbuckle commented that Council does 111 Held Over to not have answers to some of the issues raised. She made October 20, 1988 a motion to continue this item to the joint Council/ Redevelopment meeting scheduled for October 20, 1988, so staff could provide specific answers to the issues concerning Vehicle Parking District No. 2, and the comments made by Ms. Genis regarding the General Plan. • The motion was seconded by Council Member Wheeler. Vice Mayor Ambur-gey asked the City Manager why Parcel "A" is vacant at this time. • . • The City Manager responded that Parcel "A" is now vacant at the direction of the Redevelopment Agency pending some decision on the Triangle parcel (Parcel -"B") . The specific intent was to use the site as an interim loca- tion for businesses during construction. • Council Member Buffa carunented that in light of the fact that the EIR was certified in 1985, and Wells Fargo Bank has been a staunch supporter of the project for the past 1-1/2 years, he was interested to know why the bank was now raising objections. The motion to continue this item to October 20, 1988, • carried 4-1, Council Member Buffa'voting no. Senior Citizens The' Clerk presented fromthe meeting of October 3, 1988, Nonprofit Corpor- requests from the Senior Citizens Nonprofit Corporation: ation Requests • . Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MOU City and the Senior Citizens Nonprofit Corporation; • and Seniors Center Site selection presentation for the Senior Citizens Site Selection Multipurpose Center. • The City Manager reported that these two items were • discussed in some detail 'at the Council Study Session of October 10, 1988. He mentioned one change to the MOU recommended at the Study Session, specifically, the addition of Section 13 on Page 3: "Lessee shall not unreasonably withh ld the use -of the facility for reasonable rental to third parties, based on availabil- ity, upon written request." He acknowledged the assist- ance of the Nonprofit Corporation, particularly its President, Mike Nutter, who was present to address the item, and Susan Schollenberger, the .Ececutive Director for the Corporation. Council Member Hornbuckle asked if there would be any clarifying language added to Section 4, Page 4, regard- • ing the phrase, 'four years from the date of this Memor- • andum of Understanding" , or will it merely be placed in the minutes, and if the latter were the case, would the City Manager make. the same statement he made at the Study Session. The City Manager responded that there were two points of view expressed on that subject, and there was no • d`t..in • ...i . specific direction on either viewpoint. He suggested making the clarification in the motion if Council desires to approve the MOU. Council. Member Hornbuckle commented that if Section 4 of Page 4 is indeed intended to include this fiscal year in the four-year period, then it washer understanding from reading that section that there could be an additional agreement in writing after that period which would allow additional funding if the Corporation were unsuccessful in raising endowment funds. The City Manager replied that'there are provisions in Section 4 of Page 4 which allow the Nonprofit Corpora- tion to make' requests for additional funding after the four-year term has expired. Council Member Wheeler read the first sentence of Sec- . tion 2, Page 3 of the MOU, "City shall provide all financing for the construction of and construct a multi- purpose senior citizens facility of approximately 20,000 square feet." He stated that his interpretation is that it obligates the City to build the center, and asked if that is the intent of this section. The City Manager replied affirmatively and explained that from the standpoint that the City has in-house expertise in terms of construction supervision, which the Nonprofit Corporation does not have at the present time, staff thought it would bemire appropriate for City staff to supervise the construction as opposed to merely funding the project. Council Member Wheeler commented that he agreed with the City's building the project if sufficient funding can be gathered from various sources; however, the way he • interprets the MOU is that it obligates the City to build a 20,000-square-foot facility whether or not funds are obtained frau other sources. The City Manager referred to Section 5, Page 4, which provides for a maximum of $125.00 per square foot, or a maximum of $2.5 million for construction. Mayor Hall commented that the MOU states that the City shall provide for .all financing, and asked if "provide • for" means the same as "pay for the building", or does it mean "acquire the financing". ' The City Manager responded that provisions in the MOU • leave it open for the City to fund the project either frau cash resources, or through State grants, or through • Other sources as may be available to the City. Michael Nutter, 3469 Plumeria Place, Costa Mesa, Presi- dent of the Board of Directors of the Nonprofit Corpora- tion, reported that the MOU was a result of a joint effort between City staff and the Board of Directors. Mr. Nutter spoke about the provision in Section 4, Page 4, which addresses the City's providing $100,000.00 per fiscal year for a period of four years or until such time as the Nonprofit Corporation has received a total 111 of $5 million in endowment contributions for maintenance and operation of the facility. Council Member Wheeler stated that he could not commit • the City to paying $400,000.00 over the next four years, and as he interprets the MOU, it appears the City is committing itself to giving $2.5 million. • ..,...._..,•_, Mr. Nutter commented that if the Nonprofit Corporation raises enough endowment money, it may be possible to use those funds to 'bui'ld.the facility through some type of loan mechanism with the City. Council Member Hornbuckle stated that when the Council • formed the Corporation, construction of the facility . • was specifically excluded because it was Council's intention to have the City build the facility and lease it at a very favorable rate to the: Nonprofit.Corpora- tion, who would then. raise private funds to maintain and, operate the senior citizens -programs. Council Member. Hornbuckle commented that it•was not only bene- ficial to the Corporation to have these terms spelled out in an MOU, but it was also to the City's advantage. Mayor. Hall commented that he is totally in favor of a center for senior -citizens; however, he finds that after reading the MOU, the taxpayers of the community are going to be :building .a senior citizens center; maintaining the exterior of.the facility; providing for the design and architecture; -paying $100,000.00 a year for four years, or until such time as the lessee has received a sum of $5 million in endowment contributions, • which could be never; and that could mean a commitment of $100,000.00 a year for an indefinite period of time. Council Member Hbrnbuckle responded to Mayor Hall's comments, stating that the. Nonprofit Corporation was • . created by the Council ,and Council does have some control over.what happens by_the-fact that Council has reserved for themselves in perpetuity, two seats on the Corporation Board of. Directors. She also added that the Corporation is paying for the architect from City grant funds. Council Member Hornbuckle commented that Council . could•dissolve the Corporation, .but then the responsi- bility for building, maintaining, and operating a senior • citizens facility would ultimately come back to the City. She mentioned that Costa Mesa is one of the few cities in Orange County that does not have a multi- purpose senior citizens facility. : Council Member Wheeler stated that the Nonprofit Corpor- ation is not an entity of the City, but is a separate, • functioning entity over.which the City should not exer- cise any control for fear of having that Corporation • dissolved. He commented that ,it is not true that if the Corporation were dissolved, responsibility would fall upon the City.. Council Member Wheeler agreed that the seniors needa center-but he was :not willing to commit the taxpayers to $100;000.00 for each of the next four years, and agreed with the comments made by Mayor Hall regarding the financial obligations being placed upon . the City.. . Vice Mayor.inburgey.-responded: to the comment about this City being one of the• few.cities not having a seniors center, stating that even though there is no building III labeled "Senior Citizens" ,there are facilities avail- • able to the seniors which are far superior- to most senior centers in Orange County. In addition, the Vice Mayor contended that if the City were to construct the facility, and pay, for construction and the operation of it, then this project should be placed under the direc- tion of the Leisure Services Department, and the Corpor- 'ation dissolved. • . - Council Member Hornbuckle stated that the Neighborhood Community Center, now being used by the seniors, is not 1:36 • appropriate because it has not been designed to provide certain types of assistance to seniors beyond recrea- tional programs. Council Member Buffa expressed some concern with the wording in Section 2, Page 3, because it was his under- standing .that the Nonprofit Corporation was formed to provide a means for major fund raising, and to provide administration of programs at the facility. He stated that if a future Council were not prepared to take money - from the City's General Fund to proceed with the pro- • gram, and if funds frau the State and/or- Federal govern- ments were not available, a demand could be placed upon the City to proceed with construction of the seniors center. • . Mayor Hall stated that this whole program cafes down to a $10-million-dollar investment for a 20,000-square- foot seniors center, plus an annual operating cost of at least $100,000.00, with a return of $1.00 per year . from the lessee, which is not a very good return on the investment. Mayor Hall expressed his willingness to approve the MOU if the last sentence in Section 4, Page 4, were changed to read, "This interim funding provi- sion shall continue in effect .in full force until the • -end of the four-year term.". Council Member Wheeler suggested.having staff bring back an amended MOU that only obligates the City for $100,000.00, and addresses concerns about Section 2, Page 3, ,concerning the City's constructing the center, making it clear that the City will assist in the construction of the multi-purpose center, but will not pay for the facility. Council Member Hornbuckle stated she would be comfort- • able with Mayor Hall's recommendation concerning the last sentence of Section 4, Page 4, if he were willing to extend the sentence to include, "or as the parties shall otherwise agree in writing". Mayor Hall replied that he could agree to that amendment. Regarding Section 2, Page 3, Council Member Hornbuckle commented that .she believed the intent of that para- graph is fairly clear because when the Nonprofit Corpor- ation was .formed, Council indicated that the Corporation would not be responsible. for the construction of the facility, but would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of it; however, if the words "and construct" are a real problem, she would not object to removing those two words where they exist in that section. Michael Nutter addressed the concerns expressed about Section 4, Page 4. He stated that there is a realiza- tion that the City would not want to make an open-end canmitment to the Corporation for financing, and that was not the intent of the .Corporation. He explained . that the four-year period was merely an estimated time for raising anticipated funds. . It was Mr. Nutter's interpretation of this paragraph that if the Corporation were to raise the $5 million in less than four years, then the canmitment of any additional funding by the City would cease. Vice Mayor Panburgey stated that after listening to Mr. Nutter and examining Section 4, ,Page 4, more carefully, it appears that if this section were amended as recom- mended by Council Members Hall and Hornbuckle, the I C $100,000.00 per year canmitment ..for four years would • be inforce even if the $5 million were raised prior to the expiration of 'four :years.. Inview of this inter- pretation, the Vice Mayor believed this section should remain: as worded. Council Member Wheeler suggested that staff bring back an amended MOU which clarifies the first sentence in Section 2, -Page 3, so that it does not obligate the City to the entire construction of the facility; and delete the present wording of Section 4, Page 4, and substitute a sentence indicating that the City's obli- gation will expire when the.Corporation raises $5 million or at the end of• four years. He recommended that these changes be presented at the Council meeting •of October 20. . Michael Nutter suggested amending Section 4, Page 4, by dividing the last sentence-into two sentences: "This interim funding provision shall continue in effect in full force until the end of the four-year term, or as the parties shall otherwise agree in writing. If the • lessee has: received the sum.of $5 milion in endowment contributionsIfor .the maintenance .and operation of the multi-purpose senior citizens facility, this MOU shall terminate." . . MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded Held Over to by Council Member Wheeler, directing the City Manager to October 20,. 1988 work with Mr. Nutter to revise the sections of this MOU which. have caused. this 'discussion, and in light of the • discussion, attempt to bring back a document on October 20 which will be agreeable to all concerned. Vice Mayor Amburgey stated that. it is necessary to first clarify the Council's intent regarding construction of the center, and it was: his opinion that it was the Council's intent to construct the facility. Council Member -Hornbuckle concurred-with that statement. • Referencing Council Member Hornbuckle's motion, Mayor Hall'stated that it is incumbent. upon Council to give the City Manager sane.'guidance as to what Council expects. He suggested that staff consider incorporating his recommendation for Section 4, Page 4: end the last sentence after the word "writing", and at the end of the • first sentence., change "July 1 of each year" to "July 1, 1988". , AMENDED MOTION. Council Member Hornbuckle amended the motion to incor- Added Guidelines porate Mayor Hall's suggestion for Section 4, Page 4. for Staff. . ' - . . . Council' Member Wheeler- did not. agree with the motion as amended and withdrew his second. The amended motion was seconded by Mayor.Hall. • The City Manager requested clarification of Section 2, . Page 3, and asked if Council intended to have staff submit options for this section :or was it Council's intent to have the City fund or not fund construction. Council Member Buffa did not want staff providing a long list:of options. for Section 2, Page 3, and felt that the issue was clear. Vice Mayor Amburgey commented that the motion does not • • include Section 2, Page 3.. 19P- • Council Member Wheeler stated that it was his intention to have this section clarified- to show that Council does not intend to obligate the City to necessarily pay for construction of a 20,000-square-foot facility. The City Manager responded that Section 2, Page 3, does obligate the City and that was the specific intent. Council Member Buffa commented that Section 2, Page 3, was not part of the motion; therefore, staff need not bring back any options concerning this portion of the MOU. Council Member Hornbuckle clarified her motion, stating that it was her intention to have staff revise those sections which were discussed this evening, including Section 2, Page 3. She stated that she understood Council Member Wheeler's concern which she interpreted • to mean that the City might end up paying for the .facility. The amended motion'car-ried 5-0. RECESS Council Member Buffa declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. , and the meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Hall, seconded by Council Senior Citizens Member Hornbuckle, to reconsider the Memorandum of MOU Reconsidered Understanding with the Senior- Citizens Nonprofit Corpor- ation.• • • Council Member Hornbuckle stated that she seconded the • motion because after looking ahead to the meeting of October 20, she realized that it will be a very large meeting, and it would be best to.resolve the issue this evening. • Mayor Hall's total concern was Section 4, Page 4 of the MOU. He reported that during recess, he asked the City Attorney to suggest some wording so this matter could be resolved. Council Member Wheeler asked if any discussion was held concerning Section 2, Page 3, and was of the opinion that it would be a mistake to attempt to redraft the MOU this evening. The motion to reconsider the MOU carried 4-1, Council Member Wheeler voting no. Mayor Hall suggested amending Section 4, Page 4, to read as follows: ' "City shall provide interim funds for the lessee for a period of four years from the date of this Memorandum of Understanding in an amount of not less than $100,000.00 per fiscal year which commences July 1, 1988. The said interim funding shall be payable to lessee in one lump sum within 30 days of the adoption 'of the annual budget of the City. This interim funding provision shall continue in effect in full force until the end of the four-year term, or as the parties shall otherwise agree-in writing. At such time as the lessee has. received the sum of $5 million in endowment contri- butions for the maintenance and operation of the multi- purpose' senior citizens facility; the yearly payment shall cease." MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Hall, seconded by Council Amended MOU Member Hornbuckle, to approve the MOU with Section 4, Approved Page 4, amended as stated above. _ .3Q Council Member Wheeler stated that he could support funding of. $100;000.00 for the first fiscal year but he could not support an additional..$300,000.00 because he felt that decision should be left to future Councils. In--addition, he commented that nothing has been said about. clarification of the City's. obligation as stated in Section 2, Page 3. The motion to approve the amended MOU carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL, MEMBERS: , Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL. MEMBERS:. Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Site Selection Dave Foreman, Project Architect, Wolff/Lang/Christopher for Senior Architects, Incorporated, 10470 Foothill Boulevard, Citizens Center Rancho Cucamonga, summarized.the, Specific Site Recan- mendation .Report ,which was prepared for the Senior Citi- zens Nonprofit Corporation: Criteria used in selecting a site were site area, accommodation, environmental con- cerns, cost, accessibility, proximity, and location. Four sites were considered: Sites "A", "B" , and "C", located in Lions Park; Site "D", 'Veterans Hall, located across the street from the ,south side of Lions Park; and . • Mardan School, located on the southeast corner of 19th • Street and Parona Avenue. The architect ranked the sites as .follows: Site, E,. Mardan School; Site B, Lions Park;. Site A, Lions Park; Site D,' Veterans Hall; and Site C, Lions Park. Council Member Hornbuckle indicated that it was her intention to make .a motion to approve the Mardan site . providing that a portion of the site would be used for senior housing. . Council Member,Buffa also preferred the Mardan site, and suggested using either a portion of the site, or adding • to the height of the .building housing the center for use as senior citizens housing. Council .Member Wheeler expressed his support for such a motion. During discussion, Mr-. Foreman -answered questions from Vice Mayor Amburgey regarding information contained in' the report. It was the Vice Mayor's opinion that Sites • "A" or "B" would be more appropriate for the facility. Jan Luymes, 592 Park. Drive, Costa Mesa, opposed Sites "A", "B" , and "C" which are located in Lions Park. She read a letter addressed to the Redevelopment Agency from the Redevelopment Advisory Committee dated February 2, 1988, .which .expresses the caninittee's opposition to any more buildings being constructed in Lions Park. Vice Mayor Amburgey,referenced that portion of the let- . ter read. by Ms. Luymes regarding the fire station, library, Neighborhood Community Center, etc. having encroached into the open space of Lions Park. He stated that none of these buildings except for a portion of the Neighborhood community Center were placed within the park's open space. MOTION Council Member Hornbuckle made a motion endorsing Site Mardan School "E" , Mardan.School property, provided that a portion of Site Endorsed the site will be made available for senior housing either in a separate building, or in the building hous- ing the center at ground level. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wheeler. Vice Mayor. Amburgey expressed his opinion that Lions Park is the best location for the senior citizens center. The motion endorsing the Mardan School site carried 4-1, Vice Mayor Amburgey voting no. NEW BUSINESS The Clerk presented two items concerning the San Joaquin Hills Corridor: San Joaquin Hills Corridor Request from the City of Irvine to defer action on proposed amendments to thea Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement; and Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agree- ment. The City Manager reported that the amendments to the agreement are minor and do not commit the City to any financial expenditures, and enables the 'ICA to be in a position to issue bonds for construction of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor at such time as that agency is • prepared to take action. He stated that the Irvine City Manager feels that all terms and conditions for design of the Corridor should be in place before the Joint Powers Agreement is amended and bonds are sold. The City Manager commented that he agrees with that assess- ment; however, the amendment to the JPA is not a commit- ment ommitment for the agency to sell bonds, nor is it a final commitment as to the design of- the facility. John Meyer, Executive Director, Transportation Corridor Agency, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 450, Irvine, was present to answer questions from Council. Council Member Wheeler asked numerous questions, among them being traffic projections for the corridor. Coun- 111 cil Member Wheeler contended that the corridor would be at full capacity when it opens. Mayor Hall commented that the corridor will relieve traffic on other facilities in the County. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Amended Agreement Mayor Hall, approving the Transportation Corridor Approved Agencies Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement as presented with conceptual changes, and delegating authority to the City's voting representa- tive to approve provisions regarding such changes as may be presented by other Transportation Corridor Agency Members. Mayor Hall stated that these documents can be amended at any time and it does not preclude the City of Irvine or any other agency from amending them in the future. He commented that if the bonding were delayed, construction of the corridor will only be delayed longer and there have been enough delays in the past 10 years. Council Member Hornbuckle requested that Council be aa-ised of any changes or proposed changes on which the City's representative will be voting for informational purposes. Council Member Wheeler believed that the concerns of the City of Irvine are well taken and that Council should not reject that city's request. • • The motion to approve the amended:agreement carried by • the following roll call vote: • AYES:' COUNCIL:-MEMBERS: ,Hall, Amburgey, -Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Request for Rehear- The Clerk presented a request for rehearing of Develop- ing of DN-88-02 ment Agreement DA-88-02 from David Ball, Arnel Develop- Arnel Development ment Conpany, ' 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, authorized agent for A & R, Parcel 4, and R & A, Phases 2 and 3 Parcel 5, c/o Rutan and .,Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, Metro Pointe Costa Mesa; for Phases 2,and 3 of:Metro Pointe, located in the southwest portion of the 900 block of South Coast Drive in a PDC zone. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact-Report No. 1020 certified in 1984. Development Agreement DA-88-02 was denied by Council • on October 3, 1988. . The Deputy City Manager/Development Services reported that David Ball, Arnei Development Company, appealed Council's denial of 'LA-88-02 on October 7, 1988, He stated that if, Council were to grant the rehearing, staff is prepared to schedule the public hearing for the October 20 Council meeting. Leonard Hampel, Rutan and Tucker, felt the document was presented to Council- too early because changes were still being made just a few days before the October 3 meeting. -Mr., Hampel conunented that there was not enough - time to agree to all the revisions until the night of the public'hearing. He stated that much of the hearing concerned issues that related to whether or not the applicant would:be receiving additional development rights, and what benefits the developer- would derive • from the agreement. Mr. Hampel commented that the development agreement merely gives the applicant an additional five years' to develop the site. He contended that at the October 3 meeting, the agreement itself was not adequately addressed nor were the advantages to the • City addressed. Mr. Hampel felt that perhaps he created a wrong impression relating to a Mello Roos District. Mayor Hall asked if- there were clarifications in the document which Council did not understand previously and if- they would enhance its value to the community. Mr. Hampel responded that he is prepared to commit to addi- tional provisions' in the agreement which were not pre- sented on October 3, including the Mello Roos District. Council Member Hornbuckle admitted that she had not intended to•support the request for rehearing; however, she has now decided to support the request because it should not be the-conception of. the applicant and the community that because of the lateness of the hour, Council. did'not make a good decision. Council Member • Hornbuckle suggested that if a rehearing were granted, staff should' provide.a 'simple chart showing what bene- fits the City would derive from this agreement which would not be derived from the project or the fact that there is a vesting tract map. She also requested a simple chart showing what benefits the developer would receive. Council Member Wheeler mentioned that he had asked that • the meeting of October 3 be adjourned because it was getting too late. He contended that all of the reasons stated in the appeal can be rebutted, and pointed out that there was discussion concerning a Mello Roos Dis- trict at the October 3 meeting. Council Member Wheeler stated that a Mello Roos District is a benefit to the developer because it allows the developer to pass on the costs to future tenants of the project. Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, asked why Council was considering the request for rehearing since it :is contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code. . Ms. Genis read portions of Code Section 2-304, Procedure: for Rehearing, which states that any affected person may, within the time limits set forth in Section 2-305,. file an application for rehearing, and the appli- cation shall be considered at the first regular meeting which follows receipt of the application by 10 days or more. Ms. Genis noted that this meeting is not a regularly scheduled meeting, but a special meeting; and that the appeal.was filed October 7, just .five days • prior to today's date (October 12) . Ms. Genis read Section 2-311 which states that the procedures set forth in this chapter .are 'the exclusive methods by which appeals, rehearings, and Council reviews may be pursued and none .of the .steps set forth may be waived or omitted. She read.a portion of .Section 2-304(2) , "To justify,obtaining a reheating, the applicant must show that there is new, relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced, or which was improperly excluded, or that the • person or.body failed to comply with the law, which contention was not asserted at the earlier hearing". Ms. .Genis contended that this request was not being heard in accordance with the Municipal Code, that the . next regular meeting of the Council is November 7, 1988, and all meetings prier to that date are special meetings. . • Ms. Genis .asked why, since Council is to decide this evening whether or not a rehearing will be granted, public notices have been received on the north side of town stating that a public hearing is scheduled for . October 20, 1988. Council Member Wheeler wanted to know who directed staff to send those notices.. The City Manager replied that he gave the direction because if the rehearing were granted for the. October 20 meeting as requested by the applicant, the notices had.:-to be mailed by October 10. Council Member Wheeler asked for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the Code requirements as cited by Ms. Genis. The City Attorney responded that he would review those Code sections and report back to Council. Council Member Wheeler stated that a decision should be rendered by the City Attorney before Council takes action on whether or not to rehear this item. The City Attorney responded that it would be inappropri- ate for him to give a legal opinion without proper review of the Code. He recommended that Council make a decision concerning this matter, and he will have a report"campleted''for"the 'October`20 'meefing. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, stated-that after researching the 'City's Code, he found that only one item may be. discussed at a special meet- ing; -and`the'Agenda for this Meeting has several items. Mr.' Williams cited Code Sections 2-71 and 2-72 and was • • of the opinion that an item cannot be reconsidered • . • .•unless :a motion :to. reconsider it -is made at the same meeting the item•was heard. and acted upon. ' Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, was . curious as to why notices were sent out for the October • 20 meeting as requested'by :the applicant. It was his understanding that notices are mailed at the request of the City Council, not at the request of the applicant. MOTION- A motion was made by Mayor Hall, seconded by Vice Mayor Hearing Granted • Amburgey, to schedule the rehearing for October 20, 1988. • Council Member Wheeler requested that his following remarks be entered into the minutes verbatim: "This proposed action is not in compliance with Costa • Mesa Municipal Code Sections 2-304(1) and 2-304(2) , • 2-311,2-71, . 2-72. There.are no grounds. No grounds .have been advanced. Notices were sent by staff at the direction of the applicant. I guess we know who runs City Hall. We took an oath to uphold the laws, • yet this Council refuses to follow its own laws. Instead., the Council would like:to take the action and then find out if what they did was illegal. That is negligent. If the Council does that, I guess some- • body is- just going to have to keep suing us." Council Member Buffa commented-that the City Attorney was made aware specifically of the, Code provisions regarding this matter; he will report to Council with • eg 9 po 'an.opinion; •he needs more than 5 or 10 minutes to give • an opinion; and,if he finds that this motion is not proper, it will vacate any action taken tonight. Council Member' Hornbuckle referred to the meeting of October 3 when the Development Agreement was considered - and denied, and stated that the specific question was asked as to whether or not the project would be affected if the Sensible Growth Measure passes at the November 8, 1988, election. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services responded that the project will not be:affected by the election because the two phases of the development are currently approved under Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps. Council Member Hornbuckle commented that because the project is immune from the Sensible Growth Measure, there is no need for the developer=to hurry this through. She stated that there have-- been sufficient questions raised as to whether Council can legally rehear this item or move to. rehear -it-, and she was not comfortable with proceeding-: Council Member Hornbuckle mentioned that there are two special=meetings scheduled, October 20 and October 31, and there is a regular meet- ing on November 7. . She stated that if the City Attorney were to find that Council 'can take action at a special meeting, it would give Council three opportunities in the next few weeks to vote on whether or not to rehear this item. Vice Mayor ?mburgey commented that if Council were to grant a rehearing this evening, and the City Attorney finds that it is legal; it will allow Council to proceed in a timely manner; however, if the City Attorney were to rule that.Council cannot grant the rehearing, no harm_ has been done, and Council can rehear it at the proper time. Council Member Wheeler disagreed with the Vice Mayor's statement, contending that it is illegal for action to be taken at this meeting. Mr. Hampel informed the Council that although the appli- cant requested a rehearing as soon as possible, he is perfectly willing to have the matter heard at the first opportunity. He stated that there is no harm in the Council at least indicating its inclination. Substitute Motion A substitute motion was made by Council Member Buffa, Failed to Carry seconded by Mayor Hall, that this matter be reheard at the earliest possible date pending advice from the City Attorney. The substitute motion failed to carry 4-1, Council Members Hall, 'Amburgey, Wheeler, and Hornbuckle voting no. The original motion to grant the rehearing to be heard on October 20, 1988, carried 3-2, Council Members Wheeler.and Hornbuckle voting no. Vice Mayor Amburgey made a motion to censure Council Member.Wheeler for remarks he made about the City Attorney. The motion died for lack of a second. CITY MANAGER The City Manager requested a closed session to discuss REPORT/Request for pending litigation. Council agreed to hold closed Closed Session session at the end of regular business. COUNCILMANIC Council Member Wheeler reported that the new downtown Comments library was featured on the cover of National Libraries Monthly, a professional trade publication for librarians Donald Dungan across the country, and the article commented on the Library Featured beautiful architecture and building. ADJOURNMENT TO At 10:35 p.m. , Council Member Buffa adjourned the meet- CLOSED SESSION ing to a closed session in the first floor Conference Roan, to discuss pending litigation. Victoria Street , During closed session, the City Manager was given direc- Widening Acqui- tion for acquisition of properties for the Victoria sitions Street widening project. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Buffa declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa (;) City Clerk of the City of Costa Me