Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/31/1988 - Special Meeting - City Council 213 SPECIAL AND ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA OCTOBER 31, 1988 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in a special and adjourned regular meeting on Octo- ber 31, 1988, at 4:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of .City _Hall, 77. Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. Notices of said meeting were posted as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, 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, Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services, Transportation .Services Manager, 'City Clerk ANNOUNCEMENT Council Member Wheeler announced that he will be absent between 5:30 p.m-and 6:30 p.m. ORDINANCES • A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Wheeler, and carried 5-0, to read all ordinances by-title only. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, all Consent Calendar items were approved in one motion by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa • NOES: COUNCIL:MEMBERS: •None • ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Parking Prohibition The Transportation Commission recommended that parking on Sumatra Place be prohibited along both curbs of Sumatra Place. from Orcas Drive to Gibraltar Avenue on Fridays, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. , for street sweeping. .On motion by Council MOTION Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, Resolution 88-83 Resolution 88-83, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Adopted OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING ,PARK- ING ON A PORTION OF SUMATRA,PLACE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREET SWEEPING, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Parking Prohibition The Transportation Commission recommended that parking on Orcas Drive be prohibited along both curbs of Orcas Drive from Samoa Place to Sumatra_Place on Fridays, 9:00 a.m. to MOTION 11:00 a.m. , for street sweeping. On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, Resolution 88-84 Resolution 88-84, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Adopted OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING PARK- ING ON A PORTION OF ORCAS DRIVE FOR THE,PURPOSE OF STREET SWEEPING, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Parking Prohibition The Transportation Commission recommended that parking on Towne Street be prohibited•along both curbs of Towne Street between Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue on Tuesdays, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. , for street sweeping. On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member MOTION Buffa, Resolution 88-85, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Resolution 88-85 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBIT- Adopted ING PARKING ON A,PORTION OF TOWNE STREET FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREET SWEEPING, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: ..COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: ' COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS The Clerk announced that this was the time and place set - for the public hearings for C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, Segerstrom 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, for the South Coast Town Center development: EIR No: 1041 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1041, for the Town Center office tower and hotel. GP-88-3A General Plan Amendment GP-88-3A, to increase the building intensity standards within the Town Center. ZE-77-246A3 Zone Exception ZE-77-246A3, to increase the allowable • development intensity of the Town Center Master Plan from 3.0 to 3.208 million square feet. PA-88-144 Planning Action PA-88-144, for a Development Plan for a 20-story office building containing 436,000 square feet and a 5-level parking structure. PA88-145 Planning Action PA-88-1' a 5-story, 332-room hotel, with a Conditional Use Permit for valet parking, and a variance from setback requirements. The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the Clerk's office. No communications were received. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services showed slides of the proposed project, and reviewed the Staff Reports for each of the items. • Regardless of decisions made for the project, staff and the Planning Commission recommended that Council certify Final EIR No. 1041 since it adequately describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and proposes a complete package of mitigation measures. The Planning Commission recommended two amendments on Page 146 of EIR No. 1041, which are agreeable to staff and the applicant: Change Mitigation Measure 37a. to read: The applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in the cost of capital improvements reasonably required for maintain- ing adequate levels of police service to the north Costa Mesa area, should a fair share funding program therefore be recommended under the Ralph Anderson and Associates model for Service Level Impacts of New Development on Police Services and adopted by the City of Costa Mesa prior to issuance of building permits. Add the following sentence to Mitigation Measure 39: In the event that, in order to cause the station to be operational prior to the City having obtained sufficient funds, and thereby be entitled to occupy the office building, the applicant funds a larger share of the cost of construction and equipment for the fire station than is its fair share, the City ' shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant to collect funds frau other benefitting development and reimburse the applicant for the excess-costs. • The Planning Commission also recommended approval of • General Plan Amendment GP-88-3A; Planning Action PA-88-144, Zone Exception ZE-77-246A3, and Planning • • Action PA-88-145, subject to modifications and condi- tions contained in the Staff Report; however, the Co mission recommended denial of the street setback variance requested in Planning Action PA-88-145. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, addressed the height of the office building, reporting that it will be either 20 or 21 stories; however, the building will not exceed a height of 288 feet. He agreed to amend- ments to Paragraphs 37a and 39 contained on Page 146 of the EIR, and requested a minor amendment to clarify Mitigation Measure No. 14 on Page 101 of the EIR to add the words "in accordance with Resolution No. 88-10" • following the words "or have constructed" in the first sentence. • Mr. Ross reported that a recent parking study for Town Center, including photographs, was done by International • Parking Design in conjunction with another project, and the report states that in previous studies it was found that multiple office building and mixed-use projects with banks, restaurants, etc. generally result in'a lower parking demand ratio than stand-alone buildings. The report concluded that the center has a surplus of 2,300 spaces over actual demand. Maris Peika, Gruen and Associates, 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, architect for the office build- ing, gave a slide presentation of the project and described the office building, the parking structure containing tennis courts at the upper level, and build- • ing elevations. • Paul Wilkinson, of Linscott Law and Greenspan, Incorpor- ated, 1580 Corporate Drive, Costa Mesa, consulting - traffic engineers, spoke briefly on the traffic improve- ments addressed in the EIR.as mitigation measures. Malcolm Ross stated that he is aware of staff's concern about the addition of 208,000 square feet above the Master Plan's 3 million square feet, and agreed that the concern is well-founded. Mr. Ross offered to with- draw the request for the hotel. He stated that the applicant would like to reassess this portion of the property, and reserve the -right to came back at some future date with a new design. 111 Tony Petros, LSA Associates, Incorporated, 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine, reported that he was responsible for preparation of the- Traffic Study for the EIR. He stated that the document indicates that as a result of mitiga- tion measures previously.identified in the North Costa Mesa Arterial Study and the I-405 Access Study that all intersections could be mitigated to level of acceptabil- ity; however, he pointed out that the Main Street/ Sunflower Avenue intersection, as a result of forecasted Ji;.�'� H L O. • traffic volumes and mitigations, will operate in the morning with. an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) . of .92 or Level of Service (LOS) "E". He mentioned that the actual impact as. a result of this project was in the morning where the ICU went from .91 to .92, and that impact has been fully mitigated and will result in an ICU of .77. Mr. Petros stated that in the evening there would be an ICU of .92. He noted that the Level of Service at this intersection actually decreased as a result of the project and redistribution of traffic in the area, and the reduction of the ICU to .92 is still at a .level superior to what it would be without the project and other developments in the area. Mr. Petros found that as a.result of the mitigation measures, all impacts would be mitigated. Bill Mayer, LSA Associates, reported that eight inter- sections are affected by this project and all eight intersections, including Main/Sunflower, can be miti- gated through a mitigation program. Mr. Mayer stated that there are some remaining intersections which are not affected ,by the project which will still exceed the .9 threshold. Responding to a question frau Council Member Wheeler, the Transportation Services Manager reported that the Main/Sunflower intersection was not addressed in either • the North Costa Mesa Arterial Study or the I-405 Access Study. He stated that one-quarter of that intersection is located in Costa Mesa, and a Main Street widening plan is now being prepared (CENTROCCS project) in coop- eration with the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine. Paul Wilkinson canmented that the ICU will go down because of traffic redistribution proposed for the project, and because of improvements being anticipated and planned by the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine. Responding to questions from Council Member Hornbuckle regarding the Main Street/MacArthur Boulevard intersec- ' tion. in Santa Ana, Tony Petros reported that without the project, the intersection will operate at LDS "F" during peak hours; however, addition of the project's traffic will not affect that intersection, and therefore was not pursued for mitigation. Malcolm Ross canmented that the impact on the Main/ Sunflower intersection does not come from Costa Mesa; • the p.m. peak-hour impact canes frau Irvine. As to.. the Main/MacArthur intersection, Mr. Ross stated that the traffic impact canes frau MacArthur Place in Santa Ana, and he did not believe Santa Ana would allow the Main/ MacArthur intersection to continue to operate at LOS "F". Council Member At 5:15 p.m., Council Member Wheeler left the Council Wheeler Left Chambers. - Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, spoke about traffic projections merely being "opinions" of traffic consultants. • Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, asked . about the number of hours that shadows from the project -- would affect surrounding areas. Ms. Genis contended that the EIR does not adequately discuss location of required housing. She was also concerned about traffic impacts.on the Bristol Street/I-405 area. fW tl Council Member Buffa referred to Page XII of the EIR which states that actual shade encroachment will be less than one hour in the worst case scenario, and therefore, is not considered a significant impact. Council Member Hornbuckle asked the EIR consultants to address the Bristol/I-405- southbound intersection. Bill- Mayer reported that' as part of a Draft EIR which III was circulated, impact on the Bristol/I-405 southbound ramps was identified; however, part of the North Costa Mesa Arterial Study was not included in that draft. He stated that since that time, a preliminary engineering drawing for the grade separation at Bristol/Anton shows an additional southbound through lane which would create an acceptable level of service. Mr. Mayer stated that • the .improvement is planned as part of the North Costa Mesa-Arterial improvements; hence, there would be no impact. Responding to-Mayor Hall's-question regarding deletion of the hotel,. the Deputy City Manager/Development • Services referred to Page 9 of the Staff Report, stating that Council should still proceed with General Plan Amendment GP-88-3A reflecting 196,743 square feet for the hotel in Traffic Zone 17, leaving Traffic Zone 18 as proposed, resulting in a total of 3 million square feet. The Deputy City. Manager reported that an amendment to the Town Center Master Plan is still required (even though the 'current Master Plan is 3 million square feet) because reallocation of the footage by blocks is neces- ssary to accomodate the project. During discussion, Council indicated that they preferred III having the• available 196,743 square feet developed as a hotel in the future. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION 'A motion•was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by EIR Certified by Vice Mayor Amburgey, adopting Resolution 88-86, being Adoption of - A RESOLUTION CF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA Resolution 88-86 MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE FINAL .ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1041 FOR DEVELOP- ' MENT OF A HOTEL'AND AN OFFICE BUILDING, TOGETHER WITH A ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GP-88-3A) , A MASTER PLAN AMEND- 'MENT. (ZE-77-246A3) , TWO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PA-88-14'4 AND PA--88-145), AND A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VS-88-187) , incorporating amendments to the EIR, Page 146, Mitigation Measures 37a and 39, as stated in staff's memorandum dated October 27, 1988, and the revision to Mitigation Measure 14, Page 101, as sug- gested by the applicant. The motion carried by the • following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa ' NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IIIABSENT: , COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler MOTION :A :motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by • GP-88-3A Adopted Vice Mayor Amburgey, adopting Resolution 88-87, being by Adoption of . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA 1 Resolution 88-87 MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-88-3A FOR THE SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER, setting the building :intensity standards within Town Center at 33 million square feet, adjusting Traffic Zone 17 by reducing the hotel square footage fram 404,818 square bf').� feet to 196,743 square feet, and increasing Traffic Zone 18 for the existing Master Plan mixed office use frau 760,243 square feet to 968,318 square feet. Council Member Hornbuckle announced that she would be voting against the General Plan Amendment because Council has based development in North Costa Mesa on the South Coast Metro Traffic Model which shows a total area of 2,760,216 square feet in Town Center, and the amend- ment allows 3 million square feet. Council Member At 5:50 p.m., Council Member Wheeler returned to the Wheeler Returned Council table. Council Member Wheeler opposed the motion because the project does not comply with the County's growth manage- ment plan, does not comply with the slow growth initia- tive on the November 8 ballot, and would contribute to an imbalance in jobs and housing in Costa Mesa. The motion to adopt Resolution 88-87 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler, Hornbuckle ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:., None MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Staff Directed Council Member Buffa, staff was directed to submit to Submit Amended amended findings at the November 7 meeting reflecting Findings on the decreased square footage. The motion carried 4-1, November 7 Council Member Wheeler voting no. MOTION A notion was made by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by Resolution 88-88 Council Member Buffa, to adopt Resolution 88-88, being Adopted,_ Approving A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA PA-88-144 and MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING ACTION PA-88-144 ZE-77-246A3 AND ZONE EXCEPTION PERMIT ZE-77-246A3 as follows: • Approve ZE-77-246A3 retaining a development intensity of 3 million square feet, and reallocating the square footage in Traffic Zones 17 and 18 as approved for General Plan.Amendment GP-88-3A, and subject to condi- tions contained in the,Staff Report; • Approve PA-88-144, for a Development Plan for a 20- story office building containing 436,000 square feet • with a maximum height of 288 feet, and a 5-level park- ing structure, based on staff's evaluations and find- ings and subject to conditions contained in the Staff • Report. Vice Mayor Amburgey asked' if the applicant agreed to all conditions, and Mr. Ross replied affirmatively. Council Member Hornbuckle asked if the project as pre- sented met the City's traffic management ordinance which mandates LOS "D" at intersections. The Deputy City; Manager/Development Services responded that the project as presented does comply with the ordinance in that the affected intersections must be mitigated to LOS "D"; and the unaffected intersections must show a III "measurable improvement", citing. the Main/Sunflower intersection which was discussed earlier. • The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MOTIONOn motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council PA-88-145 Member Hbrnbuckle, and carried 5-0, Planning Action Withdrawn PA-88-145, for a 5-story, '332-roam hotel, was withdrawn as requested by the .applicant. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 6:00 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 6:35` p,.m ' PUBLIC-HEARING The Clerk announced that this was the time and place set DA-88-02 for the .public'hearing 'for.a rehearing of Development Arnel Development/ Agreement DA-88-02,' requested by David Ball, Arnel A & R, Parcel 4 and Development _Canpany, 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 200, R & A, Parcel 5 Costa Mesa, authorized agent for A & R, Parcel 4, and R & A, Parcel 5, c/o Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton Boule- Metro Pointe yard, Costa Mesa, for Phases 2 and 3 of Metro Pointe, Phases:2 and 3 .located in the southwest portion of the 900 block of South Coast Drive in a PDC-zone. Environmental Deter- ' mination: Environmental ImpactReport No. 1020 certi- fied in 1984. Council'denied the agreement at the . October 3 meeting. The Affidavits of Publishing and Mailing are on file in .the Clerk's office. H . A communication was received from Stephen R. Eakin, 1054 Visalia Drive, Costa Mesa, asserting that the traffic analysis in the EIR is inaccurate. ' The Deputy City Manager/Development Services referred to his memorandum da•ted October '27, 1988. The applicant has proposed inserting, additional language into the agreement as Paragraph 9 of Exhibit "E": "Owner may'satisfy any additional fees over and above those advanced pursuant 'to this ,agreement by entering - into an assessment or Mello Roos Community Facilities District providing for the equivalent monies. Should a 'Canmunity Facilities District or other 'similar . mechanism be utilized, owner shall similarly partici- pate 'on a 'fair share'basis with other benefitting development". ' The applicant has 'also indicated concurrence with the Planning Canmission""recan ended' modification of Exhibit "E", Public Benefits, relating to No. 3, Fire Station Contribution. The' new wording for this section is _contained in the above mentioned memorandum. Staff recanmnded that theduration of the agreement shall be for a maximum of 13 'years; however, applicant is requesting a term of 20 years. The Deputy City Manager- summarized the benefits to the City and the applicant which would be derived from the agreement if it were approved. Leonard Hampel, Rutan and Tucker, representing the applicant, agreed with all conditions proposed by staff including modif ications' to Sections 2.03(a) IX and No.. 3 in Exhibit "E" .as detailed in the memorandum of October 27. Mr. Hampel:mentioned that he is requesting a 20-year term for the agreement 'because he believes that is .the approximate time needed for financing and development of- the project. 'He mentioned that the City will be acquiring six tangible improvements within the next two years at a cost 'of $4.88 million, whether or not the project is. ccanpleted. Mr. Hampel stated that the development agreement clarifies many of the Condi- tions 'of Approval on the Vesting Tentative Maps. In conclusion, Mr. Hampel stated that the applicant accepts the Mello-Roos Carmunity Facilities District concept as outlined' in the-memorandum of 'October 27. 9 Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, stated that after reading the agreement, she has determined that the agreement is not about time frames to lock in development, it is about minimizing the developer's cost. Based on her assumption, Ms. Genis suggested re-examining the agreement in that light. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, commented that the legal phrases in the agreement were difficult to understand and mentioned sections of the . document with which he disagreed. Mr. Sherrick felt that the agreement will not benefit the City. Council Member Hornbuckle asked for clarification regarding the reference made to a total of $12 million in fees.. The Deputy City Manager responded that the total fees for which the -developer is obligated is • $12,535,588.00. He reported that there are two types of improvements: circulation improvements that are • project specific which must be constructed prior to occupancy of each phase, and they account for over $4 million; the remaining improvements, at a cost of approximately $8 million, are of an accumulative nature which include all other developments in the north end of Costa Mesa which the City will be building. He reported that when the projects are proposed, the City will be collectirg.funds from the developers, including utiliza- tion of a Mello-Roos District. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the agreement, noting that the developer will be constructing over $4million in traffic improvements immediately. Leonard Hampel pointed out that the agreement does not change the fees required of the applicant, and Page 6, Exhibit "E", 'of the agreement confirms that the total impact improvement fees are $12,535,688.00. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION A motion was made by Vice- Mayor Amburgey, seconded by DA-88-02 Approved Council Member Buffa, to give first reading to Ordinance 88-18, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOP- MENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND A & R PARCEL 4 AND.R & A PARCEL 5 FOR METRO POINTE PHASES 2 AND 3, said approval to be for a period of 20 years, and shall include the amendments contained in the memorandum of October 27 relating to the Mello-Roos District and the Fire Station. Council Member.Wheeler stated that the agreement was of little benefit to the City, the developer could be made to contribute to the fire station without the agreement, and formation .of a Mello-Roos District is a benefit to the developer because it allows the developer to pass on the costs of ,the project to the subsequent purchaser of the project or subsequent users of the project. Council Member Buffa mentioned that he voted against the 'original agreement because some costs were being locked in for the developer and there was nothing in that agreement which guaranteed the developer's partici- pation in .the assessment district; however, the modified . agreement guarantees the developer's participation in a future assessment district. i;: j? 1i The motion to give first reading to Ordinance 88-18 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 an agreement with the County of Orange, :GSA/Real Estate Division, Post Office Box 4106, IIIAgreement with Santa Ana, in the amount of $750,000.00, for purchase Orange County.for of property at 565 and 567_ West 18th Street, known as Purchase of 18th the ;Costa Mesa.Veterans Memorial Hall and the County ,. Street Property Probation Building. , - , . The City Manager summarized his memorandum dated Octo- ber 19, 1988, reportingthat after several years of negotiations, the .City and Countyhave developed a purchase agreement for the. .99-acre, R2 parcels. Terms of the agreement include: Purchase price of $750,000.00, with $225,000.00 down and the remainder spread,over 5.years; City and County to equally split demolition costs with the County administeringwork before close of escrow; No restriction on land. use;. Escrow to close by March 31., 1989; County to provide, City with $11,400.00 to place in trust on behalf of the,veterans organization and to be used for defraying the cost of maintenance and operation of a meeting place at Rea Community Center. III The memorandum indicates that the veterans organization views Rea Center as a temporary arrangement and will continue to work toward a more desirable, permanent location. The veterans have begun discussion with the Senior Nonprofit Corporation concerning space for their organization in the future Seniors Center. LucienBissor, 774 Allegheny Avenue, was opposed to mov- ing ,the veterans to Rea Center and suggested, that the City, keep the existing probationbuildings for, the veterans' use,, demolishing the Veterans Hall and using thatarea for parking, or retaining the Veterans Hall as an historical site. Bob Hanson, 3261 Oregon Avenue, Costa Mesa, urged the City to support the veterans in obtaining a suitable facility for the many activities they perform for the community. . Bud Hohl, 145 Cecil Place, Costa Mesa, stated that the costof renovating the Veterans Hall probably would not . be .feasible; wever, hebelieved use of the probation facilities may be a good idea, even on an interim basis. Mr. Hohl urged..the Council to assist the veterans in III obtaining a replacement for_the present facility. David Yarnal, 2583 Santa Ana.Avenue, Costa Mesa, asked how. the Council can spend millions of dollars to provide a.Seniors. Center, yet they will not spend $300,000.00 to renovate Veterans Hall. 222 Holroy Watkins, 780 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, was opposed to the: City'spurchasing the property and demol- ishing the buildings. He suggested that the property remain in the possession of the County and that the City assist the County in restoring Veterans Hall to its original stature. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the City doing all possible to resolve the problem. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Wheeler, seconded Authorized City by Council Member Buffa, directing the City Manager Manager to ' to contact the County and request a reduced purchase Renegotiate the price, deleting the trust fund and cost of demolition, Agreement and for an amount not to exceed $750,000.00, authorizing Provide the City Manager to' proceed.with negotiations, and Renovation Costs reporting the results to Council, and at that time, (Withdrawn Later) providing Council with the cost of renovating the probation facility. Council Member At 8:30 p.m., Council Member Buffa left the Council Buffa Left meeting. Vice Mayor ?inburgey'mentioned 'that Council has indicated that they are very interested in providing space for the veterans at the future Seniors Center site. He stated that Council does care about the veterans and their activities. Council Member Hornbuckle expressed here interest in preserving old buildings and asked for information Mayor Hall commented that after having heard the many alternatives suggested this evening, he believes the veterans are requesting some security for a future loca- tion large enough to continue with their many activities. The Mayor believed the motion should merely address re- negotiating the purchase agreement, deleting reference to the trust fund and demolition of buildings. First Motion Council Member Wheeler withdrew his original motion. Withdrawn ' Mayor Hall made a motion authorizing the City Manager to NEW MOTION negotiate the purchase price of the property, deleting Authorized City demolition and the trust fund,. for an amount not to Manager to exceed $750,000.00. The new motion was seconded by Renegotiate Council Member Hornbuckle. Agreement Council Member Hornbuckle commented that the motion relieves the County of any additional costs, such as the trust fund and possible demolition costs. Mayor Hall responded that he had faith 'in the City Manager's abil- ity to negotiate with the County, and felt that if these costs were removed from the agreement, the County would be willing to reduce the price accordingly. Vice Mayor Amburgey opposed the motion because he felt this would set back negotiations to where they were two years ago when the City first declared its interest in purchasing the property. The new notion by Mayor Hall carried 3-1, Vice Mayor Amburgey voting no, Council Member Buffa absent. 11 MOTION A motion was 'made by'Mayor' Hall,,'seconded by Council Directed City Member Hornbuckle, directing the City Manager to provide Manager to Provide various use alternatives relative to the structures on Alternatives site. The motion carried 3-1, Vice Mayor Amburgey vot- ing no, Council Member Buffa absent. J-7743,-11 RECESS The:Mayor declared a recess. at 8:50 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Fences on Monrovia, The•Clerk presented a request to •construct fences for Continental, and homes orf Monrovia, Federal, •and Continental Avenues Federal Avenues impacted by street closures. The City Manager referred to a memorandum from the Public Services Director dated October 10, 1988, which recommended construction of permanent fences to prevent traffic from .driving on private property. The problem started after 'traffic•diverters were installed at - Monrovia Avenue/20th Street, Continental Avenue/Oak Street, and Federal Avenue north of Oak Street. MOTION A notion was made by Council Member Wheeler, seconded Authorized Fence by Council Member Hornbuckle, authorizing the Public Construction Services Department to select a contractor to construct permanent fences as needed to prevent traffic frau driving on private property and award a contract in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00. -The motion carried by the following roll call vote: • AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle . NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa NEW BUSINESS The Clerk presented Council Policy 300-4 concerning a benefit program for part-time employees. Council Policy 300-4, Part-time The City Manager summarized a memorandum from the Employees Benefit Personnel Director dated October 6, 1988, which contains Program a proposal to provide a minimumthreshold of vacation, holiday, andpickleave benefits for those part-time employees who work on a year-round basis. MOTION • On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Vice Policy 300-4 Mayor Panburgey, . Policy 300-4 was- approved by the follow- Approved ing roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: • Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle • NOES: -COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: . COUNCIL MEMBERS: .Buffa ORAL Jim Ferryman, 1095 Tulare Drive, Costa Mesa, asked if COMMUNICATIONS \• '• the City would have to.defend Measure "G" (Slow Growth) if,it were passed .by the voters in the November 8 elec- Measure "G"/Slow tion, and then challenged in'court. Growth The City Attorney responded:that he would follow the Council's instructions. Council Member Wheeler objected=to political matters being discussed at a. Council meeting. Measures "H" and Sid. Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed "I"/Home Ranch Measures "H".and "I" (Hone Ranch Project) and contended that it is impossible to predict the number of addi- tional trip ends which would be generated by the project. - Chamber of Commerce Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, stated Political Letter that it was her understanding that the City is a member of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce and pays a certain membership fee each year. She mentioned a letter on Chamber of Commerce letterhead which was mailed to resi- dents which took a position on the ballot measures. It was her opinion that this was an improper use of City funds. Ms. Genis asked how much money the City pays to the Chamber in membership- fees. Mayor Hall responded that it was his understanding that the letter was not paid for by the Chamber. The Mayor also reported that the City's membership in the Chamber costs approximately $900.00 to $1,000.00 per year. Measure "G" Dan Worthington, 2963 Mindanao Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to Measure "G", stating that the response time which would be required by the City's safety staff for nonemergency calls would add a great deal of • unnecessary costs to the City budget. Council Member Wheeler defended the measure, stating that it will .not cost the City any additional money if it were to pass on November 8. COUNCILM NIC Council Member Hornbuckle asked that Council direct the COMMENTS City Manager to do some investigating concerning reports she has received about contractors who are taking Costa Mesa Job advantage of the workers at the Costa Mesa Job Center, Center specifically, same contractors are picking up workers and failing to pay them upon completion of the job. Orange County Vice Mayor Amburgey commended the City Manager for pro- . Detox Center posing a detox center for the County of Orange, and reported that it appears that the idea will be imple- mented. - Mayor Hall's Mayor Hall spoke at length about the years he has spent Comments with the City as Planning Commissioner, Council Member, and Mayor. He mentioned that all nine candidates on the November 8 ballot admit that Costa Mesa is a great cityvyet, there are those who say that previous Coun- cils have done a poor job. The Mayor expressed his opinion that Measure "G" (Slow Growth) would be a detri- .ment to the community, and explained why he had cane to that conclusion. Be stated that Costa Mesa is the most exciting, vibrant city in Southern -California and hoped that it would stay that way. Mayor Hall commended the City staff, stating that it is the finest. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the me ing a 'ourned at 10:. I ..m. • ji, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa . ity Clerk-of_the City of Costa Mes.