Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/1977 - Adjourned City Council Meetingt ADJOURNED.MEETING.OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA December 8, 1977 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa met in adjourned regular session on December 8, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers -of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, said meeting having.been duly and regularly ordered adjourned from the regular meeting of December 5, 1977, and a copy of the Notice of Adjournment having been posted as required by law. Roll Call Council Members Present: Hertzog, Hammett, Raciti, Smallwood, McFarland Council Members Absent: None Officials Present: City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Planning,*City Clerk Initiative The Mayor announced the purpose of this meeting to Measure bring together the parties involved in the Initiative Measure to discuss publicly, possible solutions to the issue. The impetus for this meeting was brought about as a result of recent discussions -between the devel- opers, opponents of the Measure, and Mike McLaughlin, a strong advocate of the Measure. During these dis- cussions, it was felt that a.mutually acceptable compromise might be reached.which could then lead to a change in the Council's position. The City Attorney explained further.some of the events leading up to the Initiative being placed on the ballot, and the subse- quent law suit which was brought against the City by the developer.. As it now stands, the basic issue is, in the opinion of the City Attorney, is R1 the proper zoning for the 1and'in question? The City Attorney presented options for consideration by the Council in deliberating any possible change in their position on this matter. The first option presented was to let the prior decision stand, that is, the Initiative will go on the ballot unless the Court orders it off. In the second option, the Council lets the prior decision stand but with qualifications; that is, the Council does not take action alone. This solution requires the cooperation of the proponents and opponents of the Initiative as follows: the Council would authorize the City Attorney to enter into a Stipul'a'tion with all of the necessary parties to'the present suit, that in effect shows that'the.underlying controversy or dis- pute as to the basic problem has been resolved among themselves, that the proponents and opponents agree that R1 is not the only proper zoning for the land involved. By filing such.Stipulation or agreement with the Court, this would then allow the Court to render judgment ordering the City to take the Initia- tive off the ballot. But because of the Initiative machinery, the City Attorney feels this may be diffi- cult to do. However, the City Attorney did suggest that an additional Stipulation would make this option more sound.�­In the additional Stipulation, all parties would. agree that the Initiative Ordinance is invalid on one or'more of the grounds that were used to attack it. This would then submit -the whole matter to the Court on an agree& basis and should allow a judg- ment'to take the matter off the ballot and dismiss the 1 1 L 674 suit without trial. As a third option, the Council could change its prior decision and rule that the .Initiative is invalid because of .the testimony received from the parties tonight. In effect, if the Council, as a result of the testimony, finds that the underlying problem has been resolved, then the Council alone takes action to remove the Initi- ative from the ballot. In this option, the Council would also make a finding that the Initiative is invalid; this would then avoid the trial on the present suit because the case would become moot. In the fourth and final option presented by the City Attorney, the Council would change their prior deci- sion and rule the Initiative invalid for one of several reasons despite the testimony or findings tonight. This option would rely on a finding by the Court that rezoning by Initiative should not apply to so small a geographical area as the subject prop- erty. Harry Rinker and George Argyros of the Arne1 Development Company expressed their position in regard to arriving at a solution to the matter. During the recent discussions, the developer indi- cated a willingness to consider an alternate zone for the property which would be mutually acceptable to all concerned, as well as to include certain Development Standards. Mr. Rinker indicated that the developer would propose to build only the R1 and 363 units of the R3 at this time, deleting 176 units of the R3 - being that portion of the higher density adjacent to Bear Street. This portion would be withheld from the development until such time as the City Council had an opportunity to hear and con- sider alternate zoning. The alternate zoning would be proposed only for an office/professional/financial park. Mr. Rinker described the following Development Standards which the developer would be willing to attach to the project: (1) substantial setbacks from the west property line would be a minimum standard to assure that there would not be buildings in view of the line of sight; (2) that a landscaped berm would be included along the westerly boundary to prevent any view of the buildings; (3) a minimum height standard would be agreed to, stipulating one-story structures for the first 85 feet, two-story struc- tures for the next 115 feet, a height limitation of 35 to 50 feet for the next 200 feet, and a height limitation of 60 feet for the balance of the prop- erty; and (4) that the westerly portion of the property would be restricted from commercialuse or zoning. Henry Roberts, 2761 East Diana Place, Anaheim, con- firmed the suggestions made in the recent discussions, expressed agreement to the Development Standards be- ing proposed, and stated that although he would prefer commercial development of his property, he is willing to go along with whatever the Council feels is appro- priate. Henry Segerstrom, also concerned with the development of'a portion of property within the Ini- tiative boundaries, spoke in support of any efforts made to resolve this issue. Mike McLaughlin, 925 Crocus Circle, Costa Mesa, speaking in his own behalf, expressed the opinion that the validity of the Initia- tive Measure is one that should be decided by the Court. He further expressed the belief that Council took the right action in placing this matter on the ballot and stated that he could not support any action which would remove it. John.Paradis, Presi- dent of the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association, indicated that he had made contact with the officers of the Association and that the concensus of opinion was strongly in opposition to the Council taking any action to remove the Initiative from the ballot. He personally expressed.support of the concept of having Development Standards on the project but felt that the problem, in this regard, would be one of enforcement. Don Bull, 397 Princeton Drive, Costa Mesa, expressed his opinion that even if the Homeowners Association agreed to everything proposed, this would not be sufficient reason to remove the Initiative from the ballot because the Homeowners Association does not represent all of the signers to the petition. As an alternative consideration, Mr. Bull suggested that if the developers and.homeowners.co.uld reach some agree- ment -on the Development Standards, they could then promote a negative vote on the Initiative. Douglas Toohey, a resident of Mesa Del Mar, expressed his opinion that the Council has not represented the people in this matter, has shown indifference to their concerns, and.is now attempting to destroy their efforts to express their feelings through the ballot. Mr. Toohey further spoke in opposition to the purpose of this meeting tonight. Bill Bandarak, 2448 Andover Place, Costa Mesa, President of the College Park Homeowners Association- speaking in his own behalf, expressed the opinion that the citizens involved in bringing about this Measure might feel betrayed if the Council were to take action to re- move it from the ballot or bring about a compromise. Jean Robins, 1807 Tahiti Drive, Costa Mesa, sup- ported the Measure going to the ballot. George Argyros spoke again to clarify that the intent of the developer is not to request a zone change but to develop the property as it has been approved but also to indicate their willingness to compromise by modification of the plan. Leonard Hampel of Rutan _ and Tucker, attorneys for Arnel Development Company, stated that regardless of the number of signatures on the petition or the amount of work that has been involved, this.will not make any difference to the validity of the Initiative. Mr. Hampel feels the City Council should do the right thing in consider- ing the whole issue. Sally Rout, 1070 Tulare Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of leaving the Initia- tive as it now stands. Recess The Mayor declared a recess at 9:05 p.m., and the meeting reconvened. at 9:15 p.m. After recess, the Mayor kept the public hearing open for questions from the Council. Councilman McFarland stated that information had been related to him on two occasions that. Mike McLaughlin had asked the Arnel Development"Company for money to cover attorney's expenses. Councilman McFarland asked Mr. McLaughlin to comment on these statements. Mr. McLaughlin recounted the fact .that he had been named, along with others, in a suit brought by the Arnel Company arising out of the Initiative process. In this suit, certain statements were made against Mr. McLaughlin so as to cause him to filea counter- suit against the Arnel Company. Mr. McLaughlin related that when'the prospect of settlement came, up, he made the statement that it was going to cost them some money. Mr. McLaughlin chose not to elaborate further on this matter as the suit in question.may still yet be.settled. Vice Mayor Hammett asked questions relating.to the number of signatures required for the Initiative Petition and whether or not signatures could be withdrawn at this time, and if they could, would the petition still be valid if sufficient signatures were withdrawn so as to make the total count fall below that required by the law. The City Attorney responded that accord- ing to strict interpretation of the law, signatures cannot be withdrawn after the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Councilwoman Smallwood asked why the Arnel Development Company dismissed their suit against the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Asso- ciation, and if this was done because there was some reason to believe that the homeowners may be amenable to removing the Initiative from the ballot. Mr. Hampel responded that there was no such tie be- tween the dismissal and any move to drop the Tnitia- tive from the ballot. He further stated that the suit was dismissed because it sought, among other things, an Injunction from circulating the petition, and at that point the circulation was already com- pleted and the matter irrelevant. During the discus- sion which followed, several comments were made that one of the main reasons for calling this meeting i.e. that the parties involved were amenable to a compro- mise, did not appear to be materializing or even desired by certain of those present. Mayor Hertzog responded to Mr. Toohey's comments earlier in the meeting and stated that he was wrong in his allega- tion that the Council has acted without concern for the community. Mayor Hertzog said that -a difference of opinion should not be construed as a lack of con- cern, and that there has never been a lack of concern on the part of the Council with regard to what was going on in the community. Also, the Council did not come here tonight for any preconceived notions of what decisions would be made, but rather to seek in- put from all parties concerned and hopefully come up with a solution acceptable to everyone. After fur- ther discussion, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman McParland discussed the options presented by the City Attorney earlier in the meeting and ex- pressed his opinion that nothing had been presented tonight that would indicate any change in the Coun- cil's position. Councilman Raciti also expressed the opinion that the matter should go forward to the ballot, but this should not prevent further discus- sions between the developers and homeowners which might result in some acceptable agreement and bring about a defeat of the Measure. Vice Mayor Hammett stated that he would still like to see a solution reached but agreed that the.matter should go forward, and made a motion, seconded by Councilman McParland, and carried, that no action be taken at this time. Adjournment The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. or of the ity of/ --OV s a Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa esa