The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/04/1987 - City Council1 RMUTAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA MAY 4, 1987 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in regular session May 4, 1987, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Invocation by the Reverend Bill Burnett, Mesa Bible Chapel. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa Council Members Absent: None Officials Present: City Manager, City Attorney, Development Services Director, Public Services Director, City Clerk MINUTES On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by April 20, 1987 Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the minutes of the regular meeting of April 20, 1987, were approved )as distributed. 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. PROCLAMATION Mayor Hall read a proclamation declaring the week of Police Memorial May 10 through May 16, 1987, as Police Memorial Week, Week and presented the document to Costa Mesa Police Captain Thomas Lazar. PROCLAMATION Mayor Hall read a proclamation declaring the week of Newport -Mesa Schools May 4 through May 9, 1987, as Newport -Mesa Schools Foundation Week Foundation Week. The proclamation was presented to John'Murray, President of the Foundation. ORAL John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, suggested COMMUNICATIONS that persons speaking at the Council meetings give their home addresses rather than their business Addresses of Speakers addresses. Mayor Hall stated that either address has at Council Meetings been acceptable to the Council. East Side James White, 493 Broadway, Costa Mesa, canmended the Improvements City for the storm drain and street improvements which have recently been completed on the east side. Costa Mesa Mobile Mildred Kniss, resident of Costa Mesa Mobile Home Hone Estates Estates, 327 West Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, complained about the parking situation at this location. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar: Item 1, Letter frau State Senator Gary K. Hart concerning tax credit to employers who provide child care services for their employees; Item 12(a), Agreement with Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, to prepare a feasibility study for the North Costa Mesa Assessment District; Item 12(b), Agreement with Norris- Repke, Incorporated, to prepare plans for the Bristol Street rehabilitation; and Item 15, request from staff for authority to prepare the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. I READING FOLDER On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, the remaining 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 On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the following Reading Folder items were received and processed: Claims Claims received by the City Clerk: Attorney Larry H. Parker on behalf of Nancy L. Defusco; Attorney Larry H. Parker on behalf of Jeffrey Joel Hib ler; Magdalena Betancourt; Attorney Jeffrey P.. Walsworth on behalf of P. H. Hagopian, contractor; Jonathan Lazar; Mercury Insurance/Toan Nguyen; and James V. Young. Alcoholic Alcoholic Beverage License applications for which Beverage parking has been approved by the Planning staff: Licenses BHTE, Incorporated, doing business at 145 East 19th Street; Hee Ran and Kun Young Rhee, doing business as Power Liquor, 1888 Placentia Avenue; and Wine Hunter U.S.A., Incorporated, doing business as Australian Wine Society, 2925 College Avenue, Suite A-8. Public Notification from On Time Charter Service, 17538 Santa Utilities Rosalia Street, Fountain Valley, that an application Commission to operate as a passenger stage corporation has been filed with the Public Utilities Commission. This would be an on-call service to transport passengers from their residences or businesses to John Wayne Airport or Los Angeles International Airport, and return. League of Cities Letter from Mayor Pro Tem James T. Fasbender, City of Committee on Villa Park, requesting the Council's support of his Toxic Waste election to the Tanner Committee on Toxic Waste, Orange County Division, League of California Cities. AB 2948 Resolution frau the City of Seal Beach supporting Hazardous Waste Assembly Bill 2948, concerning reduction in hazardous waste, and urging all Orange County cities to support and participate in the Tanner process. AB 1608 Letter from the City of Rolling Hills Estates, urging Roadway Safety the Council to support and endorse Assembly Bill 1608, which will help to improve the overall safety of road- ways in the State. SET FOR PUBLIC On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by HEARING Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the following item was set for public hearing May 18, 1987, at MOTION 6:30 p.m.: CDBG Statement Set for Hearing Final Statement for use of Community Development Block May 18, 1987 Gant (CDBG) funds. Abandorment on A motion was made by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded Newport Boulevard by Council Member Buffa, to adopt Resolution 87-25, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOTION COSTA MESA, CALIFOR4IA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER Resolution 87-25 THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF NEWPORT BOULEVARD AT THE Adopted Setting a COSTA MESA COURTYARDS, setting a public hearing June 1, Hearing for 1987, at 6:30 p.m. The motion carried by the following June 1, 1987 roll call vote: --- -. R AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS; Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None GP -87-3A and On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by R-87-05 Council Member-Buffa, and carried 5-0, the following Mullis/Nabers items were set for public hearing May 18, 1987, at 6:30 p.m.: MOTION Hearing Set for For Karl Mullis, authorized agent for Richard Nabers, May 18, 1987 2600 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, for property located at 464 Princeton Drive and portions of 455 and 458 Princeton Drive: General Plan Amendment GP -87-3A, to charge the land use designation. from Low Density Residential to General Canmercial. Envirormental Determination: Negative Declaration. Rezone Petition R-87-05, to rezone frau RI (Single- family Residential) to ,C1 (Local Business District). On motion.by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Clickner Council Member Buffa,- arra carried 5-0, the claim fran Thomas F. Clickner was rejected. Forsberg On motion.by Council.Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the claim from Kathy D. Forsberg was rejected. Sedighe Hosseini On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member.Buffa, and .carried 5-0, the claim frau Sedighe Sadate:Hosseini was rejected. Tahereh Hosseini On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the claim from Tahereh Sadet.Hosseini was rejected. Zahra Hosse.ini On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the claim frczn Zahra Seyedeh Hosseini was rejected. Khangari On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried'5-0, the claim fran Eshrat Khangari was rejected. Molano On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member. Buffa, and carried 5-0, the claim frau Jose V. Molano was rejected. Brill 'Transfer On motion -by Council.Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, an Application for Leave. to Present a Late Claim was denied. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS A motion was made by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, to approve the following Budget Budget Adjustments Adjustments: MOTION Budget Adjustment No. 87-84 for $300,000.00, for the Adjustments 87-84, 1986-87 Street Maintenance Program. 87-88, and 87-89 Approved Budget Adjustment'No. 87-88 for $25,000.00, for Rea ,Community Center improvements. Budget Adjustment No. -87-89 for $30,000.00, for design of the overcrossirg on Fairview Road at the San Diego (405) Freeway. Release 500 of Retention Funds to Mike Prlich Tustin -19th Storm Drain MOTION Release Approved. Purchase of Radio Equipment frau Motorola MOTION Purchase Approved Final Map for Tract No. 12859 Mike Shu Lin MOTION Map Approved Designating Portion of Presidio Square as a Public Street MOTION Resolution 87-26 Adopted Designating Portion of Junipero Drive as a Pub 1 is Street MOTION Resolution 87-27 Adopted The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Director..of .Public Services recommended releasing 50 percent of retention funds ($85,244.85) to Mike Prlich and Sons, 9316..K1ingerman-Street, South El Monte, for the Tustin Avenue -19th Street Storm Drain construction. On motion.by Council. Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council ,Member Buffa, authorization was given to release said funds by the.following"roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Staff recommended .purchase of radio equipment from sole source vendor, Motorola, Incorporated", 2080 South Anaheim. Boulevard, Suite 204, Anaheim, for $6,100.00. This is a sole.source.purchase because the radio equip- ment must be canpatible with the existing Orange County Law Enforcement Frequencies and Systems. On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa:, the purchase was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall® Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Final Map.was.presented for Tract No. 12859, Mike Shu Lin; developer,.172 Flower Street', Costa Mesa; 6 lots, 0.37 -acre., located.at 330 - 16th Place, for condominium purposes. On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle,-.seconded.by.Council Member Buffa, the map was approved; the Council did accept on behalf of the City the ingress/egress easement for emergency and security vehicle purposes over Lots 1 and 6 as dedi- cated; and. the Clerk was authorized to sign said map on behalf of the City. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES:.. COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle,,seconded by Council Member-Buffa, Resolution 87-26, being A RESOLU- TION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING A PORTION OF PRESIDIO SQUARE AS A PUBLIC STREET FOR ALL PURPOSES, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle,-seconded by Council Member Buffa, Resolution 87-27, being A RESOLU- TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING A PORTION OF JUNIPERO DRIVE AS A PUBLIC.STREET FOR ALL PURPOSES, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL.MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Designating Portion of Arlington Drive as a Public Street MOTION Resolution 87-28 Adopted On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, Resolution 87-28, being A RESOLU- TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING A PORTION OF ARLINGION DRIVE AS A PUBLIC STREET FOR ALL PURPOSES, was adopted by the following roll call.vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler-, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Agreement/Fairview The Director of Public Services requested approval of an Development agreement with.Fairview Development Company, 2510 North Shelley Circle, Costa Mesa, for traffic -signal and Traffic Signal median improvements -at Harbor Boulevard arra Fair Drive, and Median in exchange for payment of Developer Trip Charges. On Improvements at motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Harbor and Fair Member Buffa, the agreement was approved, and the Mayor and Clerk were.autborized.to sign on.behalf of the City. MOTION The motion carried' by the following roll call vote: Agreement Approved AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Conference.Advances On motion by Council.Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa, a Conference Advance for $1,009.40, MOTION for a police.officer to attend a Narcotics Investiga- Advance Approved tion Conference in Sacramento from May 31 to June 12, 1987, was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES:, COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Advance.Approved Council Member Buffa,Conference Advance for $575.00, .a for the Police Chief to attend the 67th Annual CPOA Training Conference in Los Angeles, May 10-14, 1987, was approved by the .following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Imposing Charges for On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Disl-onored Checks Council Member.Buffa, Resolution 87-29, being A RESOLU- TION OF THE CITY.COUNCIL'OF THE CITY OF COSH MESA, MOTION CALIFORNIA,. IMPOSING A CHARGE FOR DISHONORED PERSONAL Resolution 87-29 CHECKS, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Adopted AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Southern California A letter was received from the Southern California Water Water Policy Committee, Incorporated, 17752 Skypark Circle, Suite 120, Irvine, requesting.the Council to support the Southern California Water Policy which was developed by a consortium of organizations representing business, MOTION government, and the water industry. On motion by Resolution 87-30 Council Member.Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Adopted Buffa, Resolution 87-30, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORT- ING THE.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER POLICY, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 5 i SB 722 Item 1 on the Consent Calendar was presented: A letter Child Care from State Senator Gary K. Hart, requesting support of Tax Credit Senate Bill 722, a measure which would provide a tax credit to employers who assist in providing child care to the children of their employees. Staff recommended referring this request to the Child Care Committee. John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, requested a public hearing before official action is taken by the City. Council Member Hornbuckle reported that the Child Care Ccodttee has been reviewing legislation dealing with this subject. The canmittee meets on the last Tuesday of the month, at 7:00 p.m., in the first floor Confer- ence Roam of City Hall, and meetings are open to the public. Council Members Amburgey and Tieeler preferred to take action in support of the measure rather than referring it to the Child Care Committee. Council Member Hornbuckle did not object to Council taking action this evening; however, she canmented that the Child Care Carnnittee will review SB 722 in any event. John Feeney indicated that he had not had an opportun- ity to read the sentate bill. MOTION A notion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Held Over'to Council Member Wheeler, and carried 5-0, to continue May 18, 1987 this iten to May 18, 1987, so that Mr. Feeney could review Senate Bill 722. Agreement Item 12(a) on the Consent Calendar was presented: An Fieldman, Rolapp agreement.with Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, 2061 Business Center Drive, Suite 203, Irvine, in an amount North Costa Mesa not to exceed $12,500.00, to.prepare a feasibility study Assessment District for the North Costa Mesa Assessment District. Feasibility Study Responding to questions frau Council Member Buffa, the Development Services Director reported that the agree- ment is for a feasibility study only; a report will be available by the first week of July, 1987; costs for the study will be paid by the City, and the City will be reimbursed from Assessment District funds when the District is horned. Council Member Wheeler asked if staff time will be paid fron Assessment District .funds. The Director responded affirmatively; however, if a District is not formed, the City cannotbe reimbursed. MOTION On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Vice Agreement Approved Mayor Amburgey, the agreement was approved, and the Mayor and Clerk were autYnrized to sign on behalf of the City. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Agreement Item 12(b) on the Consent Calendar was presented: An Norris-Repke agreenent with Norri�Repke, Incorporated, 507 East First Street, Suite A, Tustin, for $32,700.00, to evalu- Bristo l Street ate and prepare plans arra specifications for the Bristol Rehabilitation Street rehabilitation fran Baker Street to Bear Street. I� L [1 In response to Council Member Buffa's inquiry, the Director of.Pub.lic Services reported that this project is not related to the I-405 Access Study nor to the University Drive. extension. MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Agreement Approved Council Member Buffa, the agreement was approved, and the Mayor and Clerk were authorized to sign on behalf of the City. .The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:. None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Newport Boulevard Item 15 on the Consent Calendar was presented: Request Specific Plan frcm _the Development Services Director for authority to prepare the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. A draft of the scope. of work outlining staff's proposal was sub- mitted with the birector's memorandum of April 29, 1987. Mark Norando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, asked about the boundaries of the Specific Plan. The Development Sery ices'Director responded that the Study Area is frnn Mesa Drive to 15th Street, including land within 200 to 300 feet from the adopted 55 Freeway alignment. Mr. Korando mas concerned about the Redevelopment Agency taking action contrary to that of the Council's. Mayor Hall responded that.public hearings will be held to receive public input. Council Member Buffa caumented that the Specific Plan is an opportunity to plan for future development along Newport Boulevard arra the freeway alignment. Richard Sewell, 1112 West Bay Street, Newport Beach, whose business is located at 136 Rochester Street, Costa Mesa,.expressed his concerns regarding freeway impacts, particularly freeway noise attenuation as required in the City's General Plan. Council Member Wheeler thanked Mr. Sewell for the sound studies and his.negotiations with CALTRANS (California Transportation Department). MOTION On motion by Council.Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Staff Directed Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, staff was to Prepare directed to prepare a Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Newport Boulevard pursuant to the proposed scope of work and objectives, Specific Plan and to submit a proposed schedule, cost estimate, and public participation plan. OLD BUSINESS The Clerk presented for second reading and adoption, Ordinance 87-8, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Satellite Dish OF THE,CITY OF.COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE Antennas LOCATION AND 'IREA'IMENT OF SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS. A ccmnunication was received from Patrick Dolan, 923 West 20th Street, Costa Mesa, listing various reasons for not adopting this ordinance. Council Member Hornbuckle stated that Mr. Dolan's letter was received too .late to permit her to review his conn ments, and she wanted more information concerning areas abutting residential zones. MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Held Over to Mayor Hall, and carried 5-0, Ordinance 87-8 was May 18, 1987 continued to May 18, 1987. R-87-01 The Clerk presented for second reading and adoption, Arnel Ordinance 86-9, changing the zoning at 655 Baker Street from R2 and C2 to PDR -HD. Council Member Wheeler opposed rezoning to high density. He also opposed residential being located adjacent to a canmercial area. Council Member Hornbuckle was opposed to the rezone because of the traffic impactson the already congested Baker/Bristol intersection. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by Council Ordinance 87-9 Member Buffa, Ordinance 87-9, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE Adopted CITY COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 16 ACRES AT 655 BAKER STREET FROM R2 AND C2 TO PDR --HD, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hornbuckle, Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Harbor Boulevard The Clerk presented from. the meeting of April 20, 1987, Rehabilitation contract award for Rehabilitation of Harbor Boulevard from. Baker Street to MacArthur Boulevard. After reviewing staff's memorandum dated April 20, 1987, Council Members Amburgey and Buffa agreed that the contract should be awarded to.Blair Paving. Victor Larsen, 1629 White Oak Street, Costa Mesa, commented that Blair Paving has been working in a two - block area. of his neighborhood for five months, and although the paving has been completed satisfactorily, the parkway is not finished. The work is in connection with the 1986-87 Street Maintenance Project (Street Reconstruction and Parkway Maintenance for Country Club Drive, Oxford and Greenbriar Lanes, Myrtlewood Street, and Jacaranda Avenue.) Hillary Larsen, 1629 White Oak Street, reported that Blair Paving has been attempting to complete the park- way work, and it was her opinion that a paving company should not be doing landscaping work. Vice Mayor Amburgey mentioned that in defense of Blair Paving, staff attempted a new concept for the above - referenced project arra it was not effective. He noted that Blair Paving.has done several jobs for the City and there was never a problem. William Polder, 1628 White Oak Street, asked why the project was extended 35 days. Council Member Hornbuckle gave Mr. Polder her copy of the schedule.for his review. Mayor Hall asked if. the City could complete the land- scaping and bill Blair Paving. The.City Attorney responded that he would investigate that possibility. Council Member Wheeler reluctantly supported the recan- mendation to award the Harbor Rehabilitation project to Blair Paving because if it were awarded to the second lowest bidder, the City would be required to pay an additional $86,000.00. Council Member Buffa commented that he would not support awarding the contract to Blair Paving unless the award was based on assurances that the parkway will be can- pleted satisfactorily. In response to.Council Member Wheeler's question, the Director of .Public Services reported that the Harbor Boulevard project ($590,815.00) will be jointly funded by the City and the County at 50 percent from each agency. The City 's. portion will be taken from the gas tax fund.- Council.Member Wheeler was opposed to using the City's gas tax money. -for the. project.since the City is consid- ering the.fornation of_a North Costa Mesa Assessment District, and those assessments should be used for these types of improvements. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by Council Resolution 87-31 Member Hornbuckle., Resolution 87-31, being A RESOLUTION Adopted OF THE CITY COUNCIL .OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALI- EORNIA, REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTA- TION TRUST (OCUTT) FUNDS FOR R�RBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN BAKER STREET AND MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS.: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Senior Citizens The Clerk presented from the meeting of April 20, 1987, Ccmmittee a recommendation to appoint a new member to the Senior Citizens Contmi.ttee.. Council Member Hornbuckle recommended the appointment of Bill Bandaruk for a.:two-year term. She announced that the committee has another vacancy for a one-year teen and urged Costa Mesa citizens to apply. MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Vice - Bill Bandaruk Mayor Amburgey, and carried.5-0, Bill Bandaruk was Appointed appointed to the Senior Citizens Committee for a two- year terns. City of Orange The Clerk presented fron the meeting of April 20, 1987, Billboard a letter from the Mayor of the City of Orange., request- Lit' equest Litigation ing the Council -to provide political, legal, and moral support concerning that City's billboard litigation. The City Manager mentioned that Blair Paving has posted a bond with the City.which can be drawn upon if there were a problem in completing the parkway project. MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Vice Harbor Boulevard Mayor Amburgey,,the-contract for the Harbor Boulevard Contract Awarded Rehabilitation was awarded to Blair Paving, Incorporated, to Blair Paving 4226 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, for $590,815.00. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, directing Staff to Report on staff arra the City Attorney to report back to Council Charge Back to Blair on the methodology of estimating a charge back to Blair Paving for Parkway Paving for problems with the 1986-87 Street Maintenance project. The motion carried 5-0. Request fJor OCUTT The Clerk presented from the meeting of April 20, 1987, Funds for Harbor a resolution requesting Orange County Unified Trans - Rehabilitation portation.Trust.(OCUTT) funding for resurfacing Harbor Boulevard between Baker Street and MacArthur Boulevard, In response to.Council Member Wheeler's question, the Director of .Public Services reported that the Harbor Boulevard project ($590,815.00) will be jointly funded by the City and the County at 50 percent from each agency. The City 's. portion will be taken from the gas tax fund.- Council.Member Wheeler was opposed to using the City's gas tax money. -for the. project.since the City is consid- ering the.fornation of_a North Costa Mesa Assessment District, and those assessments should be used for these types of improvements. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by Council Resolution 87-31 Member Hornbuckle., Resolution 87-31, being A RESOLUTION Adopted OF THE CITY COUNCIL .OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALI- EORNIA, REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTA- TION TRUST (OCUTT) FUNDS FOR R�RBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN BAKER STREET AND MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS.: Wheeler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Senior Citizens The Clerk presented from the meeting of April 20, 1987, Ccmmittee a recommendation to appoint a new member to the Senior Citizens Contmi.ttee.. Council Member Hornbuckle recommended the appointment of Bill Bandaruk for a.:two-year term. She announced that the committee has another vacancy for a one-year teen and urged Costa Mesa citizens to apply. MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Vice - Bill Bandaruk Mayor Amburgey, and carried.5-0, Bill Bandaruk was Appointed appointed to the Senior Citizens Committee for a two- year terns. City of Orange The Clerk presented fron the meeting of April 20, 1987, Billboard a letter from the Mayor of the City of Orange., request- Lit' equest Litigation ing the Council -to provide political, legal, and moral support concerning that City's billboard litigation. -_11-C-11 Council Member Wheeler was in favor of supporting other cities when their powers are being questioned. Motion to Donate Council Member Wheeler moved to contribute $1,000.00 to Funds Died.for the City of Orange to assist with its billboard litiga- Lack of a Secord tion costs. The motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Hornbuckle stated that if the City of Orange's ordinance were similar to Costa Mesa's, she could support a contribution; however, the ordinance in Orange is more restrictive. She suggested supporting legislation concerning cities' rights to regulate signs. Council Member Buffa cammented that based on information contained in the City Attorney's memorandum of April 30, 1987, he was.of the opinion that Costa Mesa should not become directly involved in this.particular lawsuit. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded Monitor Billboard by Council Member Buffa,,and carried 5-0, directing Litigation staff to continue to monitor the situation, with the possibility of aiding the City of Orange when Council feels it would be more appropriate. Street Closure The Clerk presented the Traffic Ccaranission's proposed Guidelines guidelines for processing street closure requests. During discussion, Council agreed to certain amendments to the guidelines: No. 7 - Delete the last sentence, "Only one request will be studied -at anygiven time". No. 15 - Amend the guideline to read, "The Commission study will include affected neighboring streets and arterials. Each study will be pursued to the point where closure is either recommended or not reconr mended". No. 16 - Requested clarification from the Traffic Ccmmi ss ion . MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by Council Amended Guidelines Member Wheeler,,and carried 5-0, Street Closure Guide - Approved; Requested line Nos. 1 through 15 were approved as amended, and Clarification of the Traffic Coxmi.ssion was requested to clarify Guide - No. 16 line No. 16. WARRANTS On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Amburgey, Warrant Resolution 1356, including MOTION Payroll 8708, was approved by the following roll call Warrant 1356 vote: Approved AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MOTION On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Vice Warrant 1357 Mayor Amburgey, Warrant Resolution 1357 was approved by Approved the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING The Clerk announced the public hearing to consider staff Wimbledon Way recommendation for the Wimbledon Way closure. The Closure Affidavit of Mailing is on file in the Transportation Services Office. I A canmunication was received frcan Michael W. Hylton, 3498 Queens Court, Costa Mesa, recommending closure of Wimbledon Way at Sunflower Avenue. Staff madethe following recamiendations: 1. Direct staff to design a street closure inside the tract at Wimbledon Park. 2. Continue design of the traffic signal at Sunflower Avenue and Greenville Street, including signaliza- tion of the Wimbledon Way leg. 3. Retain and monitor newly installed turn restric- tions until closure is constructed. During discussion, Council indicated that they favor a design study for closure of Wimbledon Way at Sunflower Avenue and at Wimbledon Park. Michael Hylton reported that 90 percent of Wimbledon Village residents were contacted and 171 favored closure of Wimbledon Way at Sunflower Avenue. They felt that a closure at Wimbledon Park would divide the community. Mr. Hylton asked for an approximate date for completion of the study. The. Director of Public . Sery ices responded that staff could have a report ready by June 1, 1987. Philip Charlberg, 3441 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, resident of the Mesa Woods Tract, stated that residents in his neighborhood opposed the -Wimbledon Way closure because of the adverse impacts it would have on their streets. The Director of. Public Services responded that the Traffic Management Plan, prepared for the City by Kunzman arra Associates,.indicates that a closure on Wimbledon Way should have no affect on surrounding streets. Mr..Charlberg recommended installing speed bumps. Howard Roop, 3400 Wimbledon Way, Member of the Board of Directors, Wimbledon Village Homeowners Association, reported that the Board supports a closure at Sunflower Avenue. Mayor Hall suggested a meeting between Mr. Roop arra Mr. Charlberg (Mesa Woods). Bill Schwenneker, 3478.Wimbledon Way; Ernie Miehle, 1125 Debra Drive, President of -Plaza del Sol Homeowners Association; and.Fred. Elliott, 3485 Wimbledon Way, spoke in support of a closure at Sunflower Avenue. They were also concerned about traffic by-passing South Coast Drive and Fairview Road, using"Wimbledon Way as a short cut to Sunflower Avenue. Hazel Temple, 3396 Wimbledon Way, suggested a closure at the end of Danielle Drive near Wimbledon Park and on Wimbledon Way at Sunflower Avenue. Gary Harper, 1115 San Jose Avenue, cco mented that the newly installed turn restrictions have not impacted Mesa Woods. Leslie IInmes, 3470 Wimbledon Way, reported that she lives at the location where.a 15 mile -per -hour sign was installed, and the sign. has not been effective. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Hall suggested a design study for closure of Wimbledon Way at Sunflower Avenue because that is what the residents }refer. Council -Member Hornbuckle disagreed and suggested that the study include closure at Sunflower Avenue and at Wimbledon Park. Vice Mayor AThurgey agreed with Council Member Hornbuckle's suggestion, and pointed out that until residents were aware of the property the City may have to take, the Council could not guarantee that there would be a closure at Wimbledon/Sunflower. Council Member Buffa was not in favor of a closure on Wimbledon Way at Wimbledon Park but felt it was worth including it in -the design study. Steve Willems, 3456 Wimbledon Way, noted that the report by Kunzman and Associates recommended a closure at Sunflower Avenue: Council Member Hornbuckle responded that Kunzman had not considered the proposed closure at Wimbledon Park. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Hornbuckle authoriz- Design Study ing a design analysis for Wimbledon Way closures at both Authorized Sunflower Avenue and at Wimbledon Park, and directing staff to provide approximate costs for each closure and funding sources. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wheeler, and carried 5-0. MOTION On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Authorized Design Council Member Wheeler, and carried 5-0, staff was of Traffic Signal authorized to continue design of the traffic signal at and Monitoring of Sunflower Avenue and Greenville Street, and to retain Turn Restrictions and monitor newly installed turn restrictions until the closure is constructed. RBCESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:30 p.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 8:45 p'.m. PUBLIC HEARING The Clerk announced the public hearing to consider an Appeal of PA -87-63 appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Planning Cruz Action PA -87-63 from Joe Cruz, 1089 San Pablo Circle, Costa Mesa, for a variance.from interior garage dimen- sion requirements to allow conversion of existing carports to garages at 2917 and 2925 Mendoza Drive in an R4 zone. Environmental Detennination: Exempt. The Affidavit of Mailing is on file in the Clerk's office. No communications have been received. The Development.Services Director reviewed staff's memorandum of April 23, 1987, and the Staff Report. On March 16, 1987,_ Council upheld the Planning Cammission's denial of a request to convert eight carport spaces to single -car garages. The current request proposes four two -car garages instead of eight single -car garages. Double garage spaces are required to be 20 feet wide and 20 feet long. This proposal is for garages measuring 17 feet, 4 inches wide by 19 feet, 4 inches long. The appellant is also requesting waiver of the minimum garage door width standard to provide a door 17 feet wide rather than the required 18 feet wide. Joe Cruz asserted that the interior dimensions will not change, and he merely wants to add garage doors for security purposes. He reported that he intends to pro- vide storage cabinets and garage door openers. Council Member Hornbuckle asked Mr. Cruz if the exterior lighting had been -improved as reccmmended by Council at the March 16 meeting. Mr. Cruz responded that lighting had not been improved. - Council Member Buffa suggested that Mr. Cruz install improved exterior..lighting, and expressed his concern that the garages.would be used for storage rather than for vehicle parking. Council. Member Wheeler stated that there were no site hardships that would .legally justify granting a vari- ance. Mayor Hall.was of the opinion that hardships exist because of vandalism problems. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by PA -87-63 Denied Council Member Wheeler, upholding the Planning Commis- sion's denial of -Planning Action PA -87-63. The motion carried 4-1, Mayor Hall voting no. PUBLIC HEARING The Clerk announced the public hearing for Environ- EIR No. 1036 and mental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1036 and Planning Action PA -87-15 PA -87-15, C. J. Segerstram and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Segerstran Costa Mesa, for an office/commercial development corn taining 722,400 square feet, including one 12 -story and one 20 -story office building, an interconnecting pavil- ion, and a.15,00.0 -square -foot child care center, located on South.Coast Drive between Fairview Road and Harbor Boulevard in a PDC zone. The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the Clerk's office. There were 51 communications received: 28 in favor of the project; 19_opposed; and 4 in favor subject to conditions. The Development Services, Director reviewed staff's memorandum of April 28, 1987, regarding the EIR, and the memorandum of April 29, 1987, concerning Planning Action PA -87-15. EIR No. 1036 evaluates environmental impacts associated with the proposed.Planned Development (PA -87-15) corn sisting of 18.34 acres (Phase I) on a site containing a total of 98 acres. The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR together with comments, responses, and revisions to the text, arra mitigation measures which were necessary for clarification or corrected errata. Major areas of concern were traffic, housing, visual impact, and public service needs. The Director reported that the project conforms to the General Plan Land Use Element and to the Planned Development Commercial (PDC) zoning. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant and Commissioners expressed concern over apparent conflicts between the.mitigation.measures in the Draft EIR and the Conditions . of .Approval for the project. Because of these concerns,. the. Planning Commission recommended that these conflicts be resolved prior to Council action on both aspects of. the project. Thereafter, staff met with other City Departments, the EIR consultant, and the applicant to develop a consistent list of mitigation measures arra Conditions of Approval. As a result of these meetings, modifications to the Conditions of Approval were recommended, and similar changes were incorporated into the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR. Following are the recommended modifi- cations to the Conditions of Approval: 11. Prior to occupancy of any buildings on the site, applicant shall provide a fully operational fire station facility either within the project or at another location acceptable to the Fire Chief. The City of Costa Mesa shall provide equipment and manpower. A temporary facility may be accepted provided that a permanent site (minimum. 30,000 square feet) acceptable to the Fire Chief is deeded to the City for fire station purposes prior to subsequent development proposals for Home Ranch. Applicant shall participate in the cost of construction of a permanent facility in conjunction with other developers within the station's first due response area. The cost of the temporary facility, if built, and/or the cost of dedicated land area shall be credited towards the cost of the permanent facility. Considera- tion may be given to combining the fire station with another building such as a parking structure if applicant so desires. 13, 14, 16, and 17. These conditions should be noted as mitigation measures in the EIR. 14.(3). Delete. (Harbor/Gisler improvements) 15. Delete. (Participate fully in any future financ- ing mechanisms established to improve access to the I-405 freeway.) 18. Dedicate right-of-way and construct Sunflower Avenue as required to provide four lanes between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for tenant_ space in excess of 50 percent of total gross leasable floor area. 19. Dedicate right-of-way and construct a two-lane pilot road for Susan .Street between Sunflower Avenue and South Coast Drive, and plan for a four -lane secondary arterial prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for tenant space in excess -of 50 percent of total gross leasable floor area. The Planning .Commission recommended approval of the project. Staff recommended that Council certify the Final EIR. Council Member Hornbuckle expressed several concerns: absence of a plan for the entire 98 acres; hours of construction; the requirement for merely a study of the impact of dewatering on adjacent areas if dewatering is necessary (Geology/Groundwater Finding No. 6 contained in the attachment to staff's memorandum dated April 28); and deletion of. Condition No. 15. She expressed a desire to pursue construction of a bike trail through the railroad undercrossing between Wickes Furniture Store and the subject site as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1987. Council Member Wheeler was concerned about congestion on surface streets when the I-405 Freeway traffic backs up. Terry Austin, Austin Foust Associates, Incorporated, preparer of the Traffic/Circulation portion of the EIR, responded that the planned widening of the I-405 should alleviate traffic congestion on that freeway. Council Member Wheeler cammented.that the EIR should have 1 addressed traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard intersec- tions south of Baker Street because he believed the next four intersections south of Baker Street would be sub- stantially impacted by traffic generated by the project. Council Member Wheeler was also concerned about the impact the project may have on police services, radio and television reception, the existing sewage system, arra air quality. The Development Services Director commented that the County Sanitary Districts confirmed that the Sunflower Avenue Trunk Sewer has the available capacity to handle sewage from the proposed project (Phase I), and the letter containing this information can be found in the Final EIR. Dwayne Mears, representing the preparer of the EIR, The Planning Center,,240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 215, Newport Beach, addressed the issue of pollutants. The EIR states,that implementation of the Home Ranch Master Plan will result in the emission of 7.7 tons of air pollutants daily at full build -out. He calculated that Phase I would produce 2.06 tons daily. Malcolm Ross, representing C. J. Segerstrom arra Sons, gave a brief description of the site, mentioning that 11 acres of the 16 -acre site will be open space. Mr. Ross referred to comments made earlier regarding a Master Plan for the entire..98 acres. He reported that a Master Plan was presented in 1983 or 1984, and another was submitted last year. -Dos Mabe, CRSS Group, architect for the project, 2500 Michelson Drive, Irvine, reported on the floor plans of the project. A three-story pavilion will connect the two office buildings and will contain such uses as a fine arts museum, an athletic club, restaurant, and specialty retail space. Both the restaurant and retail space will be incorporated in the lobby level of the six -level parking garage structure, also connected to the central pavilion. The one-story child care center contains 15,000 square feet and will be located across South Coast Drive. Malcolm Ross commented that the CRSS group is a quality firm and designed both the.Performing Arts Center and the Thwn Center.building. He mentioned that the project is a joint venture between Segerstrom and IBM, emphasizing that IBM demands the best project possible. Mr. Ross.reported.that 75 percent of IBM employees do not report to the office, at peak hours because they are out selling to.IBM customers. In conclusion, Mr. Ross reported -that the Segerstrons will be spending over $6-1/2 million for transportation improvements. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:35 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at.10:50 p.m. Mayor Hall suggested that speakers be limited to two minutes to expedite the proceedings. Council Member Wheeler adamantly.opposed that recommendation and made a motion to allow five minutes for each speaker. The motion died for lack .of a second. Council Member Hornbuckle suggested that if a two -minute time limit were imposed, extension of time should be permitted with Council approval. Mayor Hall agreed, stating that extension of time shall be permitted by vote of the Council. Council Member Wheeler stated that it is not fair to limit open discussion, and that he is vehemently opposed to the two -minute time limit because it diminishes the first amendment rights of the citizens. Council Member Buffa suggested adding a condition which would guarantee that the open space would be maintained in perpetuity. Malcolm Ross responded that such a condition would beperfectly acceptable. Responding to questions from Council Member Wheeler, Mr. Ross stated that the applicant totally favors and sup- ports the I-405 Access Study; the applicant will not oppose an assessment district; when costs for transpor- tation improvements in North Costa Mesa are identified, the applicant will support the means to cover those casts; arra the applicant did oppose Condition No. 15 as it was worded .(staff recommended that it be deleted). Council Member Wheeler suggested that since the Day Care Center will be for .children of tenants of the project, it will not benefit the public. Malcolm Ross replied that the Day Care Center will provide for 120 children, and when tenants of the project move their children to the project's Day Care Center, it will open up that many spaces in -other centers throughout the City. Rita Jamiesen, representing C. J. Segerstrom arra Sons, answered questions from Council Member Hornbuckle, reporting that there will be 17 teachers, some of wham will be part-time; 3 executive staff members; and a janitorial staff. Hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The subject of a Master Plan.for the entire 98 acres was raised again. Responding to Council Member Wheeler, Malcolm Ross stated that a plan for the entire area was not requested by .the City, therefore, none was provided. In answer to Council Member Hornbuckle's inquiries, Mr. Ross reported that IBM will occupy 50 percent of the project. As to providing a satellite dish, Mr. Ross advised that there will be a satellite dish placed on top of the 20 -story building. The dish will be screened by a mansard roof . Council Member Hornbuckle asked if the applicant would be willing to provide a relay station if it were deter- mined that the project interferes with television and radio in the surrounding areas. Malcolm Ross replied that there would be no objection to such a condition; however, he dial not foresee an interference problem. As to providing bike trails and pedestrian pathways, Mr. Ross expressed his willingness to work with staff in linking the bike trail through the railroad underpass, noting that it would be necessary to obtain the coopera- tion of the State and Wickes Furniture Store. Responding to Council Member Wheeler's question, Malcolm Ross stated that he had requested that the Harbor/Gisler improvements.be deleted as a requirement because that intersection is not impacted by the project and it will be paid for with developer fees. Terry Austin, traffic consultant, replying to Council Member Wheeler's inquiry, explained the criteria which determines when a developer must pay for transportation improvements, and when the improvements are paid for with developer fees. Richard Herman, 365 Costa Mesa Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the project because of the loss of open space and the adverse impacts resulting frcan additional people, traffic, and.air-pollutants. Carey %rd, 2464. Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, supported the project because of the excellent design, the extensive open space which will be provided, and the past record of the Segerstrom family in constructing quality projects. James R. Vh ite, 493 Broadway, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the development, stating that the planned transporta- tion improvements will mitigate the impacts of addi- tional traffic. Michael Lawler, 1611 Aliso Avenue, Costa Mesa, supported the project since the .applicant has proposed improve- ments which will resolve the traffic problems. He also noted that the Child Care Center would open up spaces in other centers throughout the City. Gilbert Collins, 3159 Sharon Way, Costa Mesa, represent- ing the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association, sent surveys to 2,300 residences and 8.6 percent responded. Residents' concerns were additional traffic, air pollu- tion, noise, ground alteration, arra loss of privacy. Mr. Collins gave,10 reasons for rejecting the Home Ranch project: (1) A solution to residential ingress/egress is lacking.. (2) The intensityof the project will damage the residential environment due to traffic increase, noise, and air pollution. (3) ' Consideration for traffic has focused on the regional commercial center but not the residential canmunities. . (4) The EIR does not illustrate the building heights so residents.can determine its effect. (5) There has been no cooperation offered to residents to help them determine how building heights will appear frau their properties. (6) The EIR indicates that no soil test has been taken in residential areas most likely to be affected by construction -dewatering or other ground disturb= ances due to the type. of construction. (7) No property in North Costa Mesa should be devel- oped until all streetand highway improvements have been completed., (8) There stould be a canplete Master Plan of North Costa Mesa to properly examine all factors rela- tive to how much growth we can accept before reviewing isolated projects such as this project. (9) Standards.and codes must be drawn up as to height .limitations especially vhere such a high density com ercial.development is proposed near residen- tial areas. (10) The Planning Commission approved the project with eight major conditions unresolved and not accept- able cceptable to the developer. .r - ..LI c Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, also repre- senting the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association, addressed the issue of dewatering, and concluded that after studying.a geologist's report, dewatering will affect the Halecrest and Hall of Fame tracts. Mayor Hall advised Mr. Williams that no dewatering is pro- posed for the project. Art Kidman, 1154 Santiago Drive, Newport Beach, and whose business address is 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project, asserting that property values in the surrounding areas will not decline. Steven Marcus, 1852 Illinois Street, Costa Mesa, was of the opinion that Phase I would set a precedent for the ranainder of the . site, and that there should be a height limitation of 15 stories.. RMESS The Mayor .declared a recess at 12:40 a.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened.at.12.:50 a.m. Earle Weichman, 1823 Hummingbird Drive, Costa Mesa, was agitated with some groups in the City constantly oppos- ing Segerstran projects. He believed the Segerstrans had done more for, the City than any other developer. Nancy Noble, 12 Queens Wreath, Irvine, mentioned that she has been involved with child care services for many years and was in favor of the project. She commended the Segerstrans for proposing a child care facility because of the great need for these services at the work place. Alvin Pinkley, former Mayor of the City, 1833 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, favored the project, noting that the project will generate traffic only five days per week fran 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In contrast, if high density residential were constructed, the additional trip ends per day, seven days per week, would more than double. Katie Elson, 3160 Mountain View Drive, Laguna Beach, teacher at Orange Coast College in the child care pro - gran, supported the project. She praised the child care facility being proposed arra expressed her hope that other corporations would use it as their model. Tweed Stone, 2182.Santa Ana Avenue, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project, expressing his opinion that the Segerstrans have. always produced excellent projects. Mr. Stone was especially pleased with the child care center. Brian Theriot, 2510 Back Bay Loop, Costa Mesa, supported the development because of its excellent design and the fact that the child care center will allow parents to spend more time with their children. Frank Bissell, 874 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, resi- dent since 1946, stated that he is proud of the City's development over the years, and encouraged the Council to approve the project. Sandra.Genis, 1586 14yrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, asked that the application be denied, or continued for one year until the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, the I-405 Study, and the.General Plan Review are completed. She asserted that the EIR does not meet CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) standards; the project does not have a valid General Plan designation in accordance with State law; and the project is not in accordance with.the zoning. Ms. Genis recanmended the following conditions if the project is approved: (1) The developer shall participate in the Developer Fee Program (which is already a Condition of Approval); (2) The developer shall contribute his fair share to the I-405 Study; (3) The developer shall participate in a noise wall program for those residential areas impacted by major roads; (4) No fee shall be charged for on-site parking; (5) The developer shall contribute to a housing fund; (6) A deed restriction shall be recorded reserving the on-site open space in perpetuity; and (7) Per PDC zoning requirements, the parking structure shall be screened frau view from public streets. Jill Sada, Director of the Fairview Employees Child Care Center, 2501 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, and resident of the City, canznended the Segerstrans for providing child care spaces. She canmented that these spaces will alleviate the existing shortages in other child care centers throughout the City. Ms. Sada mentioned that at the Fairview Center, there is a six-month waiting list. Bob Ford, 1065 Santa Cruz Circle, Costa Mesa, opposed the project because he believed it would adversely impact the quality of life for residents in the area. David Stiller, 2879 Regis Lane, Costa Mesa, opposed the development because he felt that.traffic impacts have not been adequately addressed by the developer. Russ Purcell, 3344 California Street, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the project. He contended that the EIR did not provide solutions for significant impacts such as traffic, land use, aesthetics, sewers, water, air quality, noise, biological resources, energy resources, public services, and utilities. Alice Leggett, 1088 Salinas Avenue, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the project, ccnoenting that Costa Mesa has developed into an excellent City, thanks to the Seger- strans. She praised the developer for the museum which is included in the project plans. Marilyn Wright, 3279 Arizona Lane, Costa Mesa, voiced her concern about increased traffic. Mark Bisaha, 9811 Cloverdale Avenue, Westminister, supported the development and was of the opinion that the Segerstrcros have attempted to meet the concerns of the citizens. Michael Nutter, 3469 Plumeria Place, Costa Mesa, agreed with previous recommendations that the open space be reserved in perpetuity; objected to the deletion of Condition No. 15; suggested that costs for additional fire arra police services be paid by the developer via a fee assessment; .recam ended that if dewatering is necessary, the issue shall be brought back to the Council; suggested that if ceinplaints are received about construction noise, the hours of construction shall -be restricted. Mr. Nutter liked the project overall, but was concerned about the 20 -story height. Dr. Francis Crinella, Fairview State Hospital, 2501 Harbor Boulevard,.Costa Mesa, favored the project and the types of mixed uses. He urged the Council to respond favorably to the request. Dick Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, was of the opinion that the Segerstrans have not adequately responded to all questions; suggested that the height limitation be 12 stories; asserted that the EIR had not adequately addressed traffic or pollution impacts; and mentioned that no parkland had been dedicated by the applicant. Mr. Mehren contended that the project did not meet the needs of the citizens. Marion Talley, Executive Director of the Newport -Mesa Girls arra Boys Club, 1815 Anaheim Avenue, Costa Mesa, praised the developer for attempting to meet the needs of the children in the community by proposing a child care center. Bill Schwenneker, 3478 Wimbledon Way, Costa Mesa, connended the Segerstrams for upgrading the community and although he believed the project was very attrac- tive, he opposed its construction because of the height, and because of smog and traffic impacts. John DeWitt, 2000 Balearic Drive, Costa Mesa, supported the application, stating that the Segerstrems have been candid arra listened to the residents. He was pleased with the proposed child care center, and expressed his opinion that the developer had mitigated the traffic impacts. Replying to Council Member Dieeler's question, Mr. DeWitt reported that.the Mesa Verde Homeowners Asso- ciation had not taken a stand on the project because the members had varying viewpoints. John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, canmended the Segerstrcams for the forums that were held to communicate with the citizens. He was concerned with the buildings causing television and radio interference. Jim Aynes, 2811 Loreto Avenue Costa Mesa, Director of Mesa Action, was concerned about the 20 -story height of one of the buildings and the traffic impacts. He can- mented that a referendum or initiative may be in order. Derril Steele, 3472 San Rafael Circle, Costa Mesa, stated that the EIR indicates there are many excesses such as height, traffic, pollution, and sewage, and he has not seen any evidence that these items will be mitigated. Doug Yates, 274 Cecil Place, Costa Mesa, speaking for himself and Mesa Action, was opposed to the project being located in Costa Mesa. He canmented that the issue of soil expansion had not been addressed. Steve Willems, 3496 Wimbledon Way, Costa Mesa, stated that although the project is beautiful, the EIR does not address the citizens of the canmunity. He canpli- mented the Segerstrams and Malcolm Ross for meeting with the citizens in an attempt to resolve the traffic issue. Mr. Willems remarked that the Council has shown more concern over the closure of Wimbledon Way than they have for this development. Bill Peterson, 3440 Meadow Brook, Costa Mesa, President of the Village Creek Homeowners Association, reported that the Board of Directors heartily approves the project. Mr. Peterson was appalled at the treatment being given to the Segerstran Family. He canmented that increased traffic is inevitable because of the many people moving to California. Mr. Peterson contended that in any other state, the community would be most happy to have a developer as considerate as Segerstrom and Sons. He expressed his opinion that the project has been so well designed that it will be envied by many cities in the world. Michael Hylton, 3498 Queen's Court, Costa Mesa, stated that he was in favor of the project when he saw the model; however, since traffic and pollution impacts have not been resolved to his satisfaction, he now opposes the development. Mildred Kniss, 327 West Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, was concerned about overdevelopment and excess traffic. Jim Jones, 2004 Calvert Avenue, Costa Mesa, whose busi- ness address is 575 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project and commented that he felt the Mesa Action group distributed misleading information. Steve Matt, 278 Rose Lane, Costa Mesa, referencing the Gann Initiative, asked if the City would have access to the additional revenues generated by this project. Council Member Wheeler explained that the City must either lower taxes or ask the citizens if the money shall be retained by the City. If the voters direct the City to keep the revenues, they must also determine how that money will be spent. Sharon Liddle, 1645 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, stated that the EIR was inadequate as far as air pollution was concerned. She was appalled that over 7 tons of pollu- tion would be generated by the project. Council Member Hornbuckle responded that this project (Phase I) would generate 2.06 tons per day, not 7.7 tons. Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, spoke again about the EIR not being adequate and gave several opinions. Under CEQA, a.project is required to have a clear project description. At.the Planning Commission level, reference was made to the Greenville -Banning Channel being covered; however, the scale model does not show that a channel exists. References are made to EIR No. 1015 for General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B. Inasmuch as the new project contains 4171/2 percent more square footage than General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B, that document is not adequate for the proposed project. An EIR must address impacts of mitigation measures that are prescribed. EIR No. 1036 contains mitigation measures requiring 362 homes but it is not known whether or not those homes exist. The cumulative impacts are limited in scope. The alternative section is inadequate. The Council had requested that a mixed use of both commer- cial and residential be presented in future planning alternatives, and that has not been presented in the EIR. The project.is not in conformance with PDC zoning requirements. The project does not conform to General Plan rules established by the State of California. Council Member Hornbuckle was concerned about some of the points brought up by'Ms. Genis. Mayor Hall stated that staff can respond after a brief recess. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 2:25 a.m., and the met- ing eeting reconvened at 2:40 a.m. %p �, t :.v ,, Mayor Hall asked the Development Services Director to respond to the issues raised by Ms. Genis. The Director made the following cam -rents: Referencing the statement that the project had no clear description in the EIR, the Director canmented that he believes there is a series of mix-ups or misunderstandings on the part of Ms. Genis. The EIR was sent to a series of State departments as shown in the EIR. The State departments included Fish and Gane, Parks and Recreation, and Air Resources Board. If the State had any concerns regarding wild life or the channel, it would have responded; however, no responses were received. The Director did not understand Ms. Genis's reference to a 41-1/2 percent increase in square footage. In reference to the EIR addressing the residential mitigation measure, the Director reported that the EIR mitigation measure addresses the fact that it identifies there may be a need for housing and there may be a plan submitted. It does not necessarily state that the developer must construct residential units. The Director did not understand the reference made to cumulative impacts. As to Ms. Genis's contention that the alternative section is not adequate, the Director commented that this is a matter of opinion. Regarding mixed-use requirements, the Director stated that if Council made a request 1-1/2 years ago that there should be a mixed use of camercial and resi- dential, he was not aware of it and he would research the records. Mayor Hall mentioned that Ms. Genis's reference to a certain mixed use was merely a Council canmient. In reference to the allegation that the project is not in conformance with the zoning, the Director reported that this is subject to interpretation. PDC zoning allows camnercial, retail, and other uses. It has been the interpretation of the City for the past 10 years to allowoffice use. In regard to the project not being in conformance with the General Plan, the Director cammented that this is Ms. Genis's opinion. The City believes the EIR is adequate and the General Plan addresses this subject. The Director concluded that if the General Plan is not adequate, than the City has been operating for years with an inadequate General Plan. Council Member Buffa asked for the City Attorney's legal opinion. The City Attorney responded that the issues raised by Ms. Genis are commonly raised in discussing the adequacies of EIR's; they are issues that are sub- ject to differences of opinion; and the Council must decide if those matters were adequately discussed. The City Attorney was of the opinion that based on his information, the Council would be making a reasonable decision in concluding that the EIR is adequate and correct. In regard to the statements by Ms. Genis concerning the General Plan, the City Attorney commented that there have been a number of significant, important, and contested major decisions made by the Council since the General Plan was last amended, and no one found flaws in the document during these previous proceedings. The City Attorney concluded that there are no flaws in the General Plan of which he is aware. Responding to Council Member Wheeler's inquiry concern- ing imposition of time limits for those wishing to speak, the City Attorney.stated that a reasonable amount of time must be given; it is up to the Council to decide upon a limitation; and it is not unreasonable to impose a time limit. Vice Mayor Amburgey was satisfied that Ms. Genis was given ample time to.address the issues which were of concern to her. Council Member.Wheeler was not satisfied that Ms. Genis was able to complete her .canments. He believed she had many more points to make concerning the EIR and its adequacy, and he believed the Council was denying her the opportunity to canplete those remarks. Council Member Buffa canmented that Ms. Genis spoke twice as long as any other speaker. Council Member Hornbuckle asked if enclosure of the Greenville -Banning Channel was addressed in the EIR. The Development Services Director responded that the County of Orange'is responsible for the channel project, and is referenced.on Page 67. _ Malcolm Ross also pointed out that references are made to the Greenville -Banning Channel in the EIR. (See Pages D-20 through D-25.) Ms. Genis insisted that the channel was not addressed in the EIR, and after discussion, it was found that Ms. Genis had been referencing the Draft EIR, not the Final EIR. Mayor Hall asked the Development Services Director if he believed Ms. Genis's canments=were.adequately covered in the EIR. The Director responded that he would not have presented the document to the Council if he thought it was not adequate. Jim Aynes, Mesa Action, 2811 Loreto Avenue, requested that the record show that Ms. Genis had more points to make regarding the EIR, and as an attorney, he believed she was cut off. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, reported that he had a copy of the.Draft EIR, and asked when the final document was made available. The Development Services Director responded that the Final EIR was available to the public Wednesday or Thursday of the previous week. There being no other speakers,'the Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Buffa suggested that the Council Members restrict their camments to a total of 15 minutes each, including rebuttal. Council Member Wheeler responded that as an elected representative of .the people of Costa Mesa, he would not agree to having his canments limited, stating that it would'abrogate his First Amendment rights. Vice Mayor hiburgey reported that he had attended sev- eral neighborhood forums at which the developer had shown a model of Phase I. At these meetings, the Vice Mayor had the opportunity to receive input from the residents. He was of the opinion that the property should not be used for Rl development because of its proximity to the freeway. As to R4 zoning, that use would be denser than the proposed plan. The Vice Mayor favored the project because of the traffic mitigation measures being proposed, and because 75 percent of the employees will not be driving to or from the site at peak hours. He commented that the Segerstrans are honorable developers; however, Phase I is a small portion of the entire site, and if there were the possi- bility that the project was not completed to the satis- faction of the City, the developer would receive little consideration for the balance of the site. Council Member Wheeler opposed the project for several reasons. He contended that garden offices would be more acceptable along the freeway because they would buffer the medium density residential area from freeway noise. Because new employees at the project will prefer living in Costa Mesa, that will adversely impact available rental units in the City, resulting in rent increases. A plan for the entire site should have been considered rather than for one portion only. Road improvements should be built Lr for to approving the development. Council Member Wheeler objected to deletion of Condition No. 15 which concerns participation in future financing mechanisms for access to the I-405 Freeway. The EIR addresses traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard south to Baker Street only, when the next four intersections should have been included because they also will be impacted by the project. Council Member Wheeler opposed PDC zoning because it does not contain the limitations required under other zoning designations. Council Member Buffa commented that all projects have same negatives, but the most -serious concern is traffic impacts. He mentioned that when the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan is in place, as well as the assessment district which will pay for improvements, the impact of an estimated.11,000 tr ip'ends per day generated by this project should be resolved. Council Member Buffa reported that in addition to this project, traffic impacts were considered for the most intensive develop- ment for the balance of the Segerstrom property and the most intensive development of the balance of the land to be developed in Costa Mesa. Also taken into consid- eration were maximum build -outs from the City of Irvine to the City of San Juan Capistrano. He predicted that the most Explosivegrowth in the next few years will be in the.City of Irvine. Council Member Buffa contended that the State, the County of Orange, and the cities are 25 years behind in freeway and surface street improve- ments, and something must be done now. He noted that 70 percent of the project site will be open space in perpe- tuity, and it will be maintained by the developer, not by the City. In conclusion, Council Member Buffa expressed his support of the project because the positives out- weigh the traffic concerns. Council Member Hornbuckle suggested that developers in North Costa Mesa be put on notice that the Council will not settle for less than what has been proposed for this project. She also recommnendeid several amendments to the. conditions: LJ 1 Amend Condition No. 13 to indicate a fee of $95.00 ( instead of $7.8.00) per trip errs. Reinstate Condition No. 15 and amend it to read, "The developer shall participate with his fair share in future financing mechanisms to improve access to the I-405 Freeway". Add a condition concerning a deed restriction to ensure that the open space will.remain in perpetuity. Add a condition concerning the development of a bicycle path from the project _south through the rail- road undercrossing, with staff and the developer working together -to accomplish this. Add a condition to provide for a television relay or booster station if reception is:found to be diminished in the surrounding area. Add a condition concerning hours of construction, with those hours to be reviewed by the Council if complaints about noise are received. Add a condition requiring the.developer to finance necessary measures to relieve any impacts identified by the study on dewatering. Council Member Hornbuckle commented that opinions which were heard this evening seemed to be equally divided both for .and against the project; however, the letters received by Council indicate that those in favor of the project far outweighed those against it. Additionally, she reported that of all the citizens to wham she spoke, most did not appose the project but were concerned about traffic. In assessing .the project, Council Member Hornbuckle noted several benefits: retaining 70 per- cent of the subject site as open space perpetually; the addition of a child care center which in turn will free up space in other centers in the City; and the addition of an art museum would be a great boon to the community. She stated that traffic improvements are a primary need and this may be the only possible way to obtain them. Council Member Hornbuckle commented that if the condi- tions she recommended were included, she could vote in favor of the development. Mayor Hall commented that the subject has been well covered and the concern of everyone is traffic. He stated that he knew of no way to decrease traffic; however, traffic impacts can be alleviated. The Mayor suggested that the assessment district be put into place as soon as possible. He concluded by stating that with the conditions suggested by Council Member Hornbuckle, the project is a.good one. Addressing Malcolm Ross, Vice Mayor Amburgey asked if the developer will design and construct the on-ramp at South Coast.Drive in lieu of imposing Condition Nos. 18 and 19. Mr. Ross responded affirmatively, advising that the improvements required by those two conditions will not mitigate traffic for this project. After discussion, Mr. Ross suggested retaining Condition Nos. 18 and 19 and assessing them as the project proceeds. MOTION A notion was made by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by EIR Certified Council Member Buffa, certifying that EIR No. 1036 was completed in compliance with CEQA, and certifying that 216 the document was reviewed and considered prior to final action on the project. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Wheeler voting no. Mayor Hall suggested reviewing the conditions recom- mended for modification, conditions recommended for deletion, and new conditions suggested by Council Member Hornbuckle. Condition No. 11 shall be modified as shown in staff's memorandum dated April 29, 1987. Condition Nos. 13, 14, 16, and 17 shall be noted as mitigation measures.in the EIR. Condition 14.(3) shall be deleted. After brief discussion, Condition No. 15 was retained and reworded: "The developer shall participate with_ his fair share as uniformly assessed against other property owners within the area of benefit for the proposed improvements, except residential property owners, and which will be more particularly described in the Benefit Assessment Analysis approved by the Council, for future financing mechanisms established to improve access to the I-405 Freeway". Retain Condition No. 18 as shown in staff's memorarr dum of April 29, 1987, with the .correction that four lanes shall be provided on Sunflower Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road. Retain Coalition No. 19 as shown in staff's memorarr- dum of April 29, 1987. Condition No. 20, concerning alignment for Susan Street, shall be deleted. First aided condition: Developer shall agree to an open space easement for this site similar to that established in Tbwn Center, to ensure that the open space will remain in perpetuity. Secord added conditions Developer shall provide a bicycle path from the project up to and under the freeway.on property under his control, and the developer shall work with staff to extend the path further. Third. added condition: Developer shall take appro- priate mitigation measures if .television reception is found to be diminished in the surrounding areas. Fourth added condition: If canplaints about noise are received, the hours of construction shall be reviewed by the Council. Fifth added condition: If dewatering is necessary, developer shall have a study done which identifies any corrective measures that should be taken, and developer shall take those corrective measures. Malcolm Ross agreed to all modifications, deletions, and additions stated above. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by PA -87-15 Vice Mayor Anburgey, approving Planning Action PA -87-15 Approved based on the findings.and analysis contained in the Staff Report, and subject to all conditions including 1� the aforementioned modifications, deletions, and addi- tions. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Wheeler voting no. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 4:50 a.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 4:55 a.m. Council Member Council Member Wheeler left the Council dais and did not Wheeler Leaves participate .in the remainder of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS The Clerk presented staff's recommendations for member- ship on the Housing arra Community Development Ad Hoc Community Committee. Development Ad Hoc Committee On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Amburgey, and carried 4-0, the following persons MOTION were appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee: Carol D. Ball, Committee Members Kathy Young, Michael Vivian, Barbara Jean, Thomas J. Appointed Ralph, -Mike Chitjian, and Thomas Brenneman; and Council Members Hornbuckle arra Buffa were appointed as Council representatives on the committee. Child Care The Clerk presented a recommendation frc:.Council Member Cam mittee Hornbuckle to appoint a new, member to. the -Child Care Appointment Committee.. The new member will fill the -position of Joyce Snith who recently resigned. MOTION On.motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Elisabeth Rizo Mayor Hall, and carried 4-0, Elisabeth Burt Rizo was Appointed appointed to the Child Care Committee. South Coast- The Clerk presented a request from the South Coast Symphony Request Symphony for a grant of $4,000._.00 in support of the for 'Funds upcoming "Pops Concert" on May 17, 1987. Council Member Buffa.reported that Larry Granger will reserve two tables for the City, and recommended that the tickets be given to those citizens who may not have had an opportunity nor the means to attend a concert. MOTION On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Vice Funds Mayor Amburgey.,.a grant of $4,000.00 was authorized Authorized by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler COUNCILMANIC COMMENTS Council Member Buffa reported that he has received input fran local college presidents concerning a Literacy Center, and he will submit a report shortly. The City Manager mentioned that the Literacy Center is scheduled for discussion at the May 11 Study Session. Senior Citizens Council Member Hornbuckle requested that discussion Nonprofit concerning appointments to the Board of Directors, Corporation Senior Citizens Nonprofit Corporation, be scheduled for the. May 11 Study Session. Ilmployee of the Council Member Hornbuckle suggested some additions to Month Program the Fmployee of.the Month Program: establish a special parking space at City Hall for the Employee of the Month; design a button containing the City Seal and "Employee of the Month"; and recognize the Fmployee of the Month at a Council meeting. I< el �r3o Traffic Cc mission Vice Mayor Anburgey asked the City Manager to submit recamTendations at a Study Session for two changes involving the Traffic Canmission and Transportation Services Department: An ordinance allowing the Transportation Services Manager to implement some of the routine business such as stop intersections, parking prohibitions, etc., and having the Traffic Conunission ratify these actions. Investigate the feasibility of holding Traffic Cammis- sion meetings. in the evening so that more citizens can participate. Parkway Maintenance Mayor Hall requested the City Manager to investigate at Bus Stops the.matter of maintaining.parkways where bus stops are located. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the m=.ajourat 5:05 a.m. Mayor of .the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa sa 1