Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1985 - Adjourned City Council Meeting365 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA September 20, 1985 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session on September 20, 1985, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was duly and regu- larly ordered adjourned from the.adjourned regular meet- ing of September 19, 1985, and a copy of the Notice of Adjournment is on file in the Clerk's office. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Hertzog, Hornbuckle, Schafer, Hall COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Wheeler OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager, City Attorney, Development Services Director, Building/Safety Director, Senior Planner, Deputy City Clerk Moratorium on Mayor Hertzog announced that this meeting was being held Issuance of to discuss the action taken at the regular Council meet - Building Permits ing of September 16, 1985. At that time Council adopted Urgency Ordinance 85-25, establishing a moratorium until October 1, 1985, on the issuance of building permits for properties north.of the San Diego (405) Freeway. The moratorium excluded tenant improvement, plumbing, elec- trical, and mechanical permits. At the request of the Mayor, the Development Services Director enumerated the projects which have been affected by the moratorium: South Coast Plaza II, the Arnel apartment carports, the block wall along San Leandro Drive, an industrial building for Emergency Power Equipment (EPE), the Boy Scout offices, an indus- trial building at 1675 MacArthur Boulevard, and the Bullock's project. Council Member Schafer stated that she believed the Council intended to establish the moratorium north of the 405 Freeway and east of Harbor Boulevard. Mayor Hertzog agreed that Harbor Boulevard should be established as the moratorium boundary eliminating projects west of Harbor Boulevard. The Development Services Director reported that if Harbor Boulevard were established as the boundary, the Boy Scout offices, the EPE industrial building, and the industrial project at 1675 MacArthur Boulevard would be outside of the moratorium area. Council Member Hall was of the opinion that if any one of the projects under construction within the moratorium boundaries were responsible for damages to the homes in North Costa Mesa, that developer would be liable for those damages. He commented that whether or not construction continues, the developer will be liable if it is found that his project is causing the damage, therefore, the moratorium should be lifted. Council Member Hall concluded his statements by asking for a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the enactment of urgency ordinances. 3 During his detailed response, the City Attorney indi- cated that the Council has authority to adopt an urgency ordinance provided that the Council has sufficient facts to justify the conditions that must be met to adopt the ordinance. He cautioned that he could not guarantee that if the passage of the ordinance were challenged in Court by an affected developer, that the Court would agree that the facts were sufficient. The City Attorney stated that the legal issue of whether or not a developer would be liable for damages is very complex. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked what the City's liability would be if Council would permit projects to continue that are ultimately found to have caused damages to the homes in question. The City Attorney answered that there are a number of possibilities which he has con- sidered. Since the construction activities in North Costa Mesa do not involve a public project, the question is whether or not there is exposure to the City simply by issuing a permit to excavate and build and it is later determined that the excavation itself caused the harm. The City Attorney reported that immunity has been granted to cities for issuing a permit for that kind of error,,if, in fact, an error did occur. The Development Services Director commented that it has been indicated that dewatering of a certain construction site has caused the damages and that theory is certainly feasible; however, the geotechnical consultants hired by the City have mentioned other plausible reasons: expan- sion and raising of the area since the soil is very expansive; a broken water line; old irrigation lines; or a grading problem with the original tract. The Director pointed out that there is a wide range of possibilities. Council Member Hall ccmented that in all probability, reasonable facts will not be established by the next Council meeting on October 1, and if the moratorium were continued, the City would be in a position of greater liability than if the moratorium were ended. Council Member Schafer expressed her opinion that at the October 1 meeting, the Council must make a decision based on the information available from staff and the consulting f inn. MOTION Vice Mayor Hornbuckle made a motion to adopt Urgency Urgency Ordinance 85-31, being AMENDMENT TO AN URGENCY ORDI- Ordinance 85-31 NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, Adopted CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS -IN THE AREA NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY, exempting the area west of Harbor Boulevard from the building permit moratorium, maintaining the boundaries of the 405 Freeway, Harbor Boulevard, the 55 Freeway, and the City limits to the north; and directing the City Attorney to provide a memorandum as soon as possible outlining his statements and the basis of his beliefs, reasons for his conclusions, and directing staff to provide information as to whether or not the boundaries established for the moratorium are reasonable for a building permit ban, or if those boundaries should be reduced or eliminated altogether. The motion was seconded by Council Member Schafer. Council Member Schafer stated that she agreed with the motion except for that portion relating to staff input regarding the boundaries. She felt that the decision should be made by the Council. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle agreed to delete that phrase and so amended the motion. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Schafer. Council Member Hall commented that if the Council is going to define boundaries, they should furnish some reasons for defining those boundaries. The Development Services Director requested Council to specifically address the construction of the block wall along San Leandro Drive which is required to buffer the noise for the residents during the construction of the Arnel project. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that under the circumstances, the homeowners will understand the reason for the short delay. Mayor Hertzog noted that none of the public properties have been damaged, such as roads, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. She mentioned that the developers are aware of the fact that if their projects are causing the problems, they will be required to pay for the damages. The Mayor was concerned with delaying commercial develop- ments which are scheduled to be opened by the end of the year and the loss in employment caused by the delay. She also commented that the same damages which have occurred on the properties in North Costa Mesa have occurred in other sections of Orange County and in San Diego. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that the purpose of the moratorium was to examine the complaints received from residents concerning damage to their properties. The Mayor called for a vote, and the amended motion carried 4-0. Transcript Vice Mayor Hornbuckle requested that staff prepare a Requested verbatim transcript of the meeting for distribution to each Council Member so that they will be able to review each other's comments. ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 a.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Octo- ber 1, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Ma r of the City ofs Mesa ATTEST: y Clerk of the City of Costa M a