Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/1988 - Special Meeting - City Council 376 SPECIAL MEETING CF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY (F COSTA MESA February 3, 1988 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, net in special session February 3, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The neeting 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: Nene OFFICIALS-PRESENT: - City Manager, City Attorney, Development Services Director, Director of Public Services, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING This was the tine and place set for the public hearing GP-88-1 to consider General Plan Amendment GP-88-1 for the City City of Costa Mesa of Costa Mesa, to amend the Land Use Elenent by estab- lishing land use intensity and population density Segerstran Home standards to allow 3.1 million.square feet of commercial Ranch Site development for the Segerstran Home Ranch, bordered by Harbor Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, Fairview Road, and the San Diego Freeway; and to amend the Circulation Elenent to correlate with the land use standards. Environmental .Determination: Environmental Assessment pursuant to Governnent Code Section 65759. The Affi- davit of Publication is on file in the Clerk's office. A letter in opposition to the request was received from Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kirglet Court, Costa Mesa. The Mayor announced that the procedure for this hearing will be to have staff presentations first; then Council questions of the staff; -and- thereafter, public input. It was his desire to conclude the meeting by midnight; however, if more time were needed, the meeting would be adjourned to-another date. The Development Services Director summarized the Staff Report and his memorandum dated January 28, 1988. Gen- eral Plan Amendment GP-88-1 concerns 94 acres located in the area describedin the first paragraph. It excludes properties -owned, by. the Automobile Club, Los Angeles Times, and the frontage properties along Harbor Boule- vard. The subject site has a General Plan designation of Camnercial Center and is zoned for Planned Develop- ment Commercial use. The application was initiated by the City as a. result of a court order (CCSC Case No. 52-54-40, Costa Mesa Residents, for Responsible Growth vs. City.of Costa Mesa. The Director continued his presentation, stating that the application is a twofold request: (1) to amend the City's Land Use Element, and-. (2) to anend the City's Circulation Element. 'The Land Use Element amendment addresses• population standards and building intensity standards.. The Circulation Element amendment adds circulation improvements to correlate the capacity necessary toaccommodate development at Hone Ranch. In presenting background for this item, the Director reported that General Plan Amendment GP-88-1 was initi- ated following a recent lawsuit concerning One South Coast Place,, the first phase of Hane Randz. The judge 317 issued a final decision November 10, 1987, directing the City to make certain amendments to its General Plan regarding the Land Use Element and Circulation Element. The Director stated that the City retained the consult- ing f inn, The Planning Center, 1300 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, to write the Environmental Assess- ment for this application. The Planning Center also wrote the first Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for One South Coast Place and the previous EIRs for Hane III Ranch. The Director explained the Environmental Assessment document. Government Code Section 65759 states that when a court orders a City government to correct defici- encies in its General Plan, that process is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the Council deems that it should be. The court order provides for a 120-day period in which the City must return with the corrected deficiencies, and the 120 days expires in March, 1988. According to law, staff was required to complete an Initial Environmental Study as is done for all projects. If that study shows sig- nificant adverse impacts from the project, and staff believes there will be, an Environmental Assessment must be prepared. The Environmental Assessment is essenti- ally the same as a draft EIR, the difference being that the Environmental Assessment does not follow the normal EIR process. It does not go cut for public review or 45-day review period, and it is not certified by Council as an adequate EIR because it is not an EIR. If the General Plan Amendment ware approved, the Environmental Assessment becomes part of the General Plan text and is an exhibit thereto. The Director continued his presentation by addressing the General Plan Amendment as it relates to Home Ranch. Regarding the intensity and land use issues, staff is proposing that a maximum development intensity level be 1 established at 3.1 million square feet of building. This includes commercial office, retail, restaurant, hotel, museum, child care, and health care space. Building space of 3.1 million square feet on 94 acres results in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.76. Staff is proposing height limitations although the law does not require this in a General Plan Land Use Element. Staff prefers to have that question resolved now and proposes maximum heights of 11 stories north of South Coast Drive, with 12 and 20 stories for the southern portion of the site. The Planning Commission recommended a height limitation of 5 stories at the corner of South Coast Drive and Harbor Boulevard. The Directoraddressed the issue of population density level, under court order as well. Staff is not propos- ing a population density or intensity level for Home Ranch since no residential lard uses are being proposed; therefore, staff cannot produce a residential or habit- able population. Staff has projected that there would be an employment base at build out of approximately 10,637 employees, resulting in 113 people per acre dur- ing working hours. The Director pointed cut that the Circulation Element is discussed in his memorandum of January 28, 1988. The circulation improvements are being proposed along with the General Plan Amendment. Proposed circulation improvements for 15 intersections which will be impacted by the ultimate development of Home Ranch are shown in Table 1 cf the Staff Report. 378 The Director referred to Pages10 and 11 of the Staff Report which address project alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Assessment. In addition to the proposed project, four reasonable alternatives were considered: no project, industrial use, a 2-million- square-foot office use having a floor area ratio of 0.48, and mixed uses. The Director reported that at the meeting of January 25, 1988, the Planning Canmission recommended adoption of the General Plan Amendment with three modifications which are contained in his menmrandum of January 28. Terry Austin, Austin-Foust Associates, Incorporated, 1450 lrth Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, traffic consultant for the Environmental Assessment, discussed the data base used in the traffic study. The General Plan Traffic Analysis projects traffic figures to the year 2010 and beyond. The basis for the traffic. projections is build cut cf the City's General Plan and cf the surrounding cities. These traffic figures cone from the County of Orange where forecasts are made annually • and formally adopted every two.years. There are two types of traffic data: average daily traffic, and peak- hour traffic. All cities in Orange County, except Tustin, use the average daily traffic basis, for General Plan analysis. The South Coast Metro Traffic_Model was developed two years ago to examine freeway access through the I-405 corridor and that model allows staff to analyze traffic on a peak-hour basis in the South Coast Metro area of the. City. That area for the traffic model projects peak-hour traffic data as far south as Baker Street. •Mr. Austin stated that it was his recom- mendation to use the South Coast Metro data base for this study since it has been well tested. Mr. Austin reported that in the area of the South Coast Metro Traffic Model, criteria was established to define the area to be studied in relation to Hare Ranch: If an intersection has more than two percent of traffic which is related to Home Ranch, or if that traffic increases the ICJ (Intersection Capacity Utilization) • by.more than one percent, it was included in the study area. Council Member Wheeler referred to Zone 33, Page 2-28 of the Environmental Assessment and asked why there were no trip generation figures shown for the Automobile Club. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom.and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Ccsta Mesa, explained that there is a' typographi- cal error in the chart, and the figures do prove out to include the Automobile Club. Paid Wilkinson, Linscott, Law, ,Greenspan, Incorporated, 1580 Corporate Drive, Ccsta Mesa, reported that labels were added bo each zone for easier identification. He • stated :that Zone 33 includes a,port ion of Hare Randa and the Auto Club. Council Member Wheeler asked for an estimate of the number of cars which will be traveling south on Harbor Boulevard past the Baker Street intersection. Terry Austin responded that regional,projections indicate that there will be approximately 56,000 trips a day after build out. Mr. Austin contended that most of that traffic is already there, and with or without the project, the increase in traffic would be about the same. The Development Services Director spoke about actual funding of circulation improvements for this project, and confirmed that there will be -no levy on residential property owners. In reference to water run-off from this project, the Director reported that the Greenville/ Banning Channel, which abuts South Coast Drive, will be improved in this area to the 100=year storm, capacity. Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center, stated that the Air Quality Study is based to a large extent on the aver- age number and length cf trips per day, and the average length of each trip has been determined to be 10 miles. This changed the total vehicle miles traveled, and it was reduced in the analysis from 1.8 million miles traveled on an annual basis to-467,000 miles per year. The conclusion concerning Air Quality in the Environ- rrental Assessnent changed, and-.the conclusion now•is that there is no longer a significant impact on an individual project basis.. Council Member Wheeler referred to the Floor Ratio Area (FAR) for the entire parcel being .76, and asked what the FAR is for Phase I:only. The Development Services Director responded that the FAR.is between .9 and 1.0; also, there is a policy setting the maximum FAR for any individual block at 1.06. Council Mather Wheeler referred to the 120-day time , limit set by the court for the City to present the General Plan corrections, stating that the law provides for extensions. The City Attorney explained that there is a provision.in the law that does allow a city to petition the court to extend the 120-day requirement. If a city'desires to do that, there is a requirement for good cause to be shown, and that indicates that there must be a factual showing that the city is unable to comply within the 120-day period. Council Mather Wheeler noted that there were no findings addressing the mixed use alternative. • Council Mather Wheeler stated that the I-405 Access Study shows 5 to 8 intersections operating at unaccept- able Levels of Service (LOS) "E" or "F" at particular tines, .yet the Environmental Assessnent repeatedly states they will operate at LOS "D". Terry,Austin replied that as a result of those findings in the • freeway study, the City has recently undertaken a North Costa Mesa Arterial Intersection Improvement Study and that is where those intersections were improved; there- fore, all intersections will operate at LOS "D" after build cut. Council Member Wheeler commented that in order for intersections to operate at LOS "D" would depend upon vehicles being able to get onto the freeway. Mr. Austin stated that proposed improvements will enable freeway traffic to flow. Malcolrii Ross, C. J. Segerstran and Sons, gave a slide presentation showing the boundaries of the 94-acre site. He stated that Phase I is not the issue this evening; the Master Plan for entire 94 acres is the issue. Mr. Ross stated that Phase I, One South Coast Place, con- tains 16 acres of which 11 acres will be open space, and the sane theme will be followed for the remainder of the property. He. pointed cut the proposed child care 'facil- ity across the street from Phase I. Mr. Ross reported that major traffic improvements are being proposed on Fairview Road at MacArthur Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, South Coast Drive, Baker Street, and on Harbor Boulevard at South Coast Drive, and the I-405. 380 Mayor Hall requested an explanation of the relationship between the Environmental Assessment beim considered this evening and the next Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for One South Coast Place. The Development Services Director explained that when the next phases are presented: to the City, the Environmental Assessment is no longer used. Each phase then would have its ain EIR that would go through the normal process cf public review, public comments and responses, and certification by;Council. The EIR for One South Coast Place is already being prepared; however, if the General Plan Amendment were denied this evening, further preparation of the EIR would cease. The Director clarified the fact that sone cf the text in the Environmental Assessment would be contained in the new EIR. Council Member lbrnbuckle was concerned about a comment made by Council Member Wheeler indicating that there were no findings for the mixed'use alternative, and asked if those findings should' be included in the 'reso- lution. 'The City Attorney responded that technically, provisions of CEQA do not apply to the Environmental Assessment; however, if they did apply, this would be a serious omission. The City Attorney offered to prepare findings for the mixed use alternative and to submit it to Council later in the evening. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:20 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Council Member Wheeler asserted that after reviewing the figures in the Environmental Assessment, he' could not find that Automobile Club figures were included in Zone 33 cf the Traffic Model. He also expressed his concern with the conclusions contained in the Biological Resources section, and the data concluding that the average trip length would be 10 miles. Ruth Rcssington, 1340 Garlingford Street, Ccsta Mesa, representing the North Costa Mesa Homeamers Associa- tion, 'read a prepared statement stating reasons why the project and proposed densities should be denied: (1) The project should not be considered until the City has updated the General Plan. (2) Requirements cf the court will not be fulfilled because this is a piecemeal plan. (3) State Code provides for an extension of tine for the General Plan to be brought into conformity. (4) The dates for correcting,street and freeway deficiencies are too far' in the future to warrant construction cf the project before improvements are in place. (5) The traffic circulation pattern will strangle the surrounding residential neighborhoods. (6) The added traffic will cause hardships throughout the entire north section cf the City. (7) The freeways cannot be considered as a buffer between residential and comnercial uese with such an intense regional development. (8) Nunercus other projects have not been cumulatively considered in the total impacts. (9) The environmental document does not contain solu- . tions to the noise and:air pollution. There are no sound' walls on the south side of the freeway separating the single-family area from the free- way and CALTRANS (California Department of Trans- portation) does not intend to install such walls. (10) Alternatives would he to. re-examine the original low profile garden office complex and hotel which were presented to the homeowners four or five years ago. Art Kidman, Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa,, President of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber cf. Caimerce supports the project. Mr.. Kidman cam tinted that the plan is a quality project by a quality developer, referring to previous Segerstran projects in the City. Mr. Kidman reported that Mike Lawler, who could. not be, present, also supported the proposal. Sid Soffer, ,900 Arbor Street, spoke about the need for additional housing for the project's employees. Barbara Burns, 2161 Miner Street, Costa Mesa, urged Council bo approve the application. Dick Sherrick, . 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, was concerned. about the traffic which would be generated by the project and the negative impact on residential streets. He._suggested solving traffic problems before approving the General Plan Amendment. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, commented that there are problems with the project one of which is the, additional_ traffic which would impact residential areas. He stated that the citizens want height limitations and down-zoning. Mr. Williams_sug- gested. continuing the public hearing to provide more . tine to study the documents. Jacqueline Gillis, 40-year resident of the City, real estate broker, member of the Chamber of Commerce, and Vice Chairman of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, stated that the proposed Home Ranch development is one of the finest .projects'she has seen, and that it is a wonderful example of controlled, responsible develop- ment, Ms. Gillis was of the opinion that the project would definitely raise property values in the area. David Palmer, 1622 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, contended that the project will negatively impact quality of life, air quality, and traffic; increase crime, insurance rates, and absentee landlords. Mr. Palmer suggested allowing the citizens. to vote on this item at one cf the upcoming elections. 111 Jan Luymes,. 592 Paris Drive, Costa Mesa, referred to the I-405 Access. Study, stating that it was her recollection that the Study. identifies _five or six intersections near the 405 Freeway for Which traffic can never be improved adequately, no matter what happens in the area. In view of that, she expressed her concerns about the resolution and. the General Plan Amendment. She referred to the General Plan Anendnent which states, "no phase will be certified for occupancy unless the necessary improvements to the circulation system to attain LOS "D" at all affected intersections are also provided for". She 382 asked which intersections are affected, and are any of the affected intersections those which can never be improved beyond LOS "F Ms. Luyrres questioned the validity of the conclusion contained in the Environ- mental Assessment concerning air quality. Lila Amor, 1875 Wren Circle, Costa Mesa, was concerned that there would be pay parking at the project resulting in an adverse impact onavailableparking in residential areas. Alvin L. Pinkley, 1833 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, Bonner Mayor of the City, commented that the application to be considered is the General Plan Amendment, not the project. He expressed confidence that the Segerstroms will improve the traffic circulation, and mentioned that the court has ordered the City,to amend its General Plan. Sandra Hanilton, 3106 Mace Avenue, Costa Mesa, was in favor cf the project, cementing that the proposed open space will ensure that the quality of life in the City will not be diminished. Nate Reade, 2285 Cornell. Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the General Plan Amendment, canmenting' that the project is nct the issue this evening. Mr. Reade mentioned that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval because of the traffic improve- ments being proposed by the developer. Gilbert-Collins, 3159 Sharon Lane, Costa Mesa, gave a slide presentation showing the location cf his home as it relates to the subject site. He was of the opinion that the General Plan Amendment should not be considered prior to completion of the General Plan Update. Mr. Collins agreed with the concerns addressed by the Nbrth- Costa Mesa Homeowners Association. Jack Hall, 1859 Tahiti Drive, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the General Plan Amendment, commenting that the amendment controls develcprrent on the site. Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, stated that there are many citizens who believe the data provided is inadequate, and suggested that the Council take more tine to evaluate the General Plan Amendment. Gary Dimeo, 3106 Mace Avenue, Costa Mesa, canmented that the Council should take advantage of the cppgrtun- ity of having the proposed project located in Costa Mesa. Louise Denton, 962 Joann Street, Costa Mesa, expressed her agreement with the comments made by Alvin Pinkley and Jacqueline Gillis, and urged the Council to approve the application. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that the additional traffic generated by the project will11/ adversely affect all streets in the City which are now in need of repair. He consented that the citizens will pay for these repairs, not the developer. Mr. Korando opposed the intensity being proposed, and suggested that approval of the General Plan Amendment would pave the way for acre high density projects. Bill Peterson, 3440 Meadow Brock, Costa Mesa, President of the Village Creek Homeowners Association, stated that Costa Mesa is.the most financially sound City in Orange X83 County because of effective planning by this Council and previous Councils. .:Mr. Eetersori was in favor of approv- ing the General Plan Amendment so Council could contirue with planned growth within the City. Dick Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, stated that the figures for this application have changed so many times that he did not know vtrat to believe. Mr. Mehren carurented that he is notagainst growth; however, he believed the prcposed project is too intense. He suggested spending more tine evaluating the General Plan Amendment. RDCESS The Mayor obclared a recess at 10:30 p.m. , and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Jim. Wells, 1797 Oriole Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that additional revenues are not needed; there is not enough housing in the City to meet the needs of future employees at the site; and other alternatives should be cons ide red. Hazel Teeple, 3396 Wimbledon Way, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of therequest, stating that traffic circulation would be enhanced because of the improvements proposed by the developer. Annemarie Mooiweer, 3371 Larkspur Street, Costa Mesa, _ stated that the quality of life in Costa Mesa has deteriorated and asked Council to delay a decision on this application. Kenneth Fowler, 3423 Meadow Brock, Costa Mesa, vias in favor of approving the General Plan Anendnent, noting that.millions -of dollars of traffic circulation improve- rents will be mace by the developer prior to occupancy. of the proposed project. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, referred to his letter dated February 3, 1988, which he submitted earlier in .the, evening.. Mr. Hutchins opposed the anend- rrent to the General Plan because he believed the nega- tive impacts listed in his letter far outweighed the positive impacts of the proposed project. Roy Pizarek, 270 Del Mar Avenue, Costa Mesa, wanted to know where the.300 to 1,000 ulits needed to house employees at the Home Randz site will be constructed. The Mayor replied that this information cannot be. deter- mined at this time. , • • • Stephen Goldberger, 3036 Java Road, Costa Mesa, asserted that LOS "D "cannot be retained once the buildings are occupied. He stated that progress and growth are not the sarre and the citizens do not want urbanization. Keenan Smith, 386 .West Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the General :Plan Amendment, and expressed his opinion that the project is quality development. Francis Crinella, 1876 Maui Circle, Costa Mesa, Director of Fairview State Hospital, canTrented that without clusters of density, traffic will increase. He stated that traffic could be alleviated if citizens were encouraged. to use public transportation. John DeWitt, 2000 Balearic Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke at length abort the merits of the proposed project. He mentioned that traffic would be reduced if people lived closer to their places of employment. Sandra Cenis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, sub- nitted.a seven-page letter dated February 3, 1988, which contains her objections to the proposed land use inten- sity, to processing the Ceneral Plan Anendnent, and the hurried manner in which the process is beim pursued. Ms. Cenis summarized her objections to information contained in the Environmental Assessment, some of Which related to preparation of reports, timing of the Ceneral Plan_Amendnont, CALTRPNS review of circulation improve- nents, reduced cannercial alternative, the mixed use alternative, industrial alternative, economic benef its, child care center, Ceneral Plan build out calculations, traffic zone land use data, and Home Ranch uses. Bob Cole, 3064 Java Road, Costa Mesa, was cf the opinion that the Environmental Assessment contained flaws which should be corrected before,voting on the Ceneral Plan Amendment. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, disagreed with a sentence on. Page 3 cf the proposed resolution relating to attaining LOS "D" at all affected intersections. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, mentioned that the .adequacy of the Ceneral Plan Amendment has been of the court and if there are flaws placed in the hands , in it, the judge will point them out. Council Member Hornbuckle expressed her desire to con- tinue the public.hearing, so staff could provide answers on the questions which were raised this evening. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Wheeler, seconded Held Over to by Council Member Hornbuckle, to continue the public February 10 hearing to February 10, 1988. - AMENLED MOTION After further discussion, Council Member Wheeler amended Held Over to his notion, by continuing the public hearing to Febru- February 11 ary 11, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Hornbuckle, and carried 4-1, Vice Mayor Amburgey voting no. ' Sandra Cenis regnested that anynew documents be made available to the public 48 hours prior to the next neeting. ADJOURNMENT At 12:15 a.m. , the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Febru- ary 11, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Mayor cf the 1 y of Costa sa ATTEST: y Clerk of the City of Costa M a