Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/1988 - City Council Special Meeting376 SPECIAL MEETING CF THE CITY COUNCIL - - CITY CF COSTA MESA February 3, 1988 The City Council cE the City =of Costa Mesa, California, net in special session February 3, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chanbers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meting was called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL -COUNCIL-MEMEERS-PRESENT: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Nene A letter in eppcsition to the request was received from Gene . Hutchins, - 1808- Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa. The Mayor -announced that the.procedure for this hearing will to to have -staff presentations first; then Council questions of the staff; -and.. thereafter, public input. It was his desire to conclude the meeting by midnight; however, if nore time were needed, the meeting would be adjourned to another date. The Development Services Director summarized the Staff Report and his mermrandum dated January 28, 1988. Gen- eral Plan Amendment GP -88-1 concerns 94 acres located in the area described in the -•first paragraph. It : excludes properties owned. by- tae Automobile Club, Los Angeles Times, and the frontage properties along Harbor Boule- vard. The subject site has a General Plan designation of Canrrercial Center and is zoned for Planned Develop- ment Canmercial use. The application was initiated by the City as a. result of a court order (OCSC Case No. 52-54-40, Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth vs. City. of Costa Mesa. The Director contirued• his presentation, stating that the application is a twofold request: (1) to amend the City's Land Use Element, and'., (2) to anend the City's Circulation Element. The Land Use Element amendment addresses population -standards arra building intensity standards.. The'Circulation Element amendment adds circulation improvements. tA.correlate the capacity necessary to: accaumodate cevelcpment at Hame Ranch. In presenting background for this item, the Director reported that General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 was initi- ated following a recent lawsuit concerning One South Coast Place,, the first phase of Horne Ranch. The judge OFFICIALS -PRESENT: - City Manager, City Attorney, Developrrent Services Director, Director of Public Services, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING This was the tin; and place set for the public hearing GP -88-1 to consider General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 for the City City of Costa Mesa of Costa Mesa, to amend the. Land Use Element by estab- lishing land use intensity and population density Segerstran Home standards to allow 3.1 million square feet of camrercial Ranch Site development for the Segerstran Hane Ranch, bordered by Harbor -Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, Fairview Road, and the San Diego Freeway; and to amend the Circulation Elerrent to correlate with the land use standards. Envirormental,Deteimination: Environmental Assessment pursuant to Government Code Section 65759. The Affi- davit of Publication is on file in the Clerk's office. A letter in eppcsition to the request was received from Gene . Hutchins, - 1808- Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa. The Mayor -announced that the.procedure for this hearing will to to have -staff presentations first; then Council questions of the staff; -and.. thereafter, public input. It was his desire to conclude the meeting by midnight; however, if nore time were needed, the meeting would be adjourned to another date. The Development Services Director summarized the Staff Report and his mermrandum dated January 28, 1988. Gen- eral Plan Amendment GP -88-1 concerns 94 acres located in the area described in the -•first paragraph. It : excludes properties owned. by- tae Automobile Club, Los Angeles Times, and the frontage properties along Harbor Boule- vard. The subject site has a General Plan designation of Canrrercial Center and is zoned for Planned Develop- ment Canmercial use. The application was initiated by the City as a. result of a court order (OCSC Case No. 52-54-40, Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth vs. City. of Costa Mesa. The Director contirued• his presentation, stating that the application is a twofold request: (1) to amend the City's Land Use Element, and'., (2) to anend the City's Circulation Element. The Land Use Element amendment addresses population -standards arra building intensity standards.. The'Circulation Element amendment adds circulation improvements. tA.correlate the capacity necessary to: accaumodate cevelcpment at Hame Ranch. In presenting background for this item, the Director reported that General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 was initi- ated following a recent lawsuit concerning One South Coast Place,, the first phase of Horne Ranch. The judge issued a final decision November 10, 1987, directing the City to make certain amendnents to its General Plan regarding the Land Use Element arra Circulation Element. The Director stated that the City retained the consult- ing f inn, The Planning Center, 1300 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, to write the Environmental Assess- ment fir this application. The Planning Center also wrote the first Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for One South Coast Place and the previous EIRs for Home Ranch. The Director eKplained the Environmental Assessment document. Governnent Code Section 65759 states that when a court orders a City government to correct defici- encies in its General Plan, that process is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the Council deems that it should be. The court order provides for a 120 -day period in which the City must return with the corrected deficiencies, and the 120 days expires in March, 1988. According to law, staff was required to complete an Initial Environnental Study as is done for all projects. If that study shows sig- nificant adverse impacts from the project, and staff believes there will be, an Environmental Assessment must be prepared. The Environmental Assessment is essenti- ally the same as a draft EIR, the difference being that the Environmental Assessment does not follow the normal EIR process. It does not go cut for public review or 45' -day review period, and it is not certified by Council as an adequate EIR because it is not an EIR. If the General Plan Anendrrent were approved, the Environmental Assessment becomes part of the General Plan text and is an exhibit thereto. The Director continued his presentation by addressing the General Plan Anendrrent as it relates to Home Ranch. Regarding the intensity and land use issues, staff is proposing that a maximum development intensity level be established at 3.1 million square feet of building. This includes cannercial office, retail, restaurant, hotel, museum, child care, and health care space. Building space of 3.1 million square feet on 94 acres results in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.76. Staff is proposing height limitations, although the law does not require this in a General Plan Land Use Element. Staff prefers to have that question resolved now and proposes maximum heights of 11 stories north of South Coast Drive, with 12 and 20 stories for the southern portion of the site. The Planning Commission recommended a height limitation of 5 stories at the corner of South Coast Drive and Harbor Boulevard. The Director addressed the issue of population density level, under court order as well. Staff is not propos- ing a population density or intensity level for Home Ranch since no residential land uses are being proposed; therefore, staff cannot produce a residential or habit- able population. Staff has projected that there would be an employrant base at build out of approximately 10,637 employees, resulting in 113 people per acre dur- ing working hours. The Director pointed cut that the Circulation Element is discussed in his memorandum of January 28, 1988. The circulation improvements are being proposed along with the General Plan Arrendrrent. Proposed circulation improvements for 15 intersections which will be impacted by the ultimate development of Home Ranch are shown in Table 1 of the Staff Report. 37 The Director referred to Pages 10 and 11 of the Staff Report which address project alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Assessment. In addition to the proposed project, four reasonable alternatives were considered: no project, industrial use, a 2 -million - square -foot office use having a floor area ratio of 0.48, and mixed uses. The Director reported that at the meeting of January 25, 1988, the Planning Cammi.ssion recammended adoption of the General Plan Amendment with three modifications which are contained in his menorandum of January 28. Terry Austin, Austin --Foust Associates, Incorporated, 1450 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, traffic consultant for the Environmental Assessment, discussed the data base used in the traffic study. The General Plan Traffic Analysis projects traffic figures to the year 2010 and beyond. The basis for the traffic projections is build cut of the City's General Plan and cf the surrounding cities. These traffic figures come from the County of Orange where forecasts are made annually and formally adopted every two years. There are two types of traffic data: average daily traffic, and peak - hour traffic. All cities in Orange County, except Tustin, use the average daily traffic basis for General Plan analysis_. The South Coast Metro Traffic -Model was developed two years ago to examine freeway access through the I-405 corridor and that model allows staff to analyze traffic on a peak -hour basis in the South Coast Metro area cf the City. That area for the traffic model projects peak -hour traffic data as far south as Baker Street. Mr. Austin stated that it was his recam- mendation to use the South Coast Metro data base for this study since it has been well tested. Mr. Austin reported that in the area of the South Coast Metro Traffic Model, criteria was established to define the area to be studied in relation to Home Ranch: If an intersection has nore than two percent of traffic which is related to Hone Ranch, or if that traffic increases the ICU (Intersection Capacity Ut ili zat ion ) by more than one percent, it was included in the study area. Council Member Wheeler referred to Zone 33, Page 2-28 of the Environrrental Assessment and asked why there ware no trip generation figures shown for the Automobile Club. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, explained that there is a' typographi- cal error in the chart, and the figures do prove out to include the Automobile Club. Paul Wilkinson, Linscott, Law, Greenspan, Incorporated, 1580 Corporate Drive, Costa Mesa, reported that labels were added to each zone for easier identification: He stated .that Zone 33 includes a portion of Home Ranch and the Auto Club. Council Member Wheeler asked for an estimate of the number of cars which will be traveling south on Harbor Boulevard past the Baker Street intersection. Terry Austin responded that regional projections indicate that there will be approximately 56,000 trips a day after build out. Mr. Austin contended that most of that traffic is already there, and with or without the project, the increase in traffic would be about the sane.- 1 The Development Services Director spoke about actual funding of circulation improverrents for this project, and conf irmed that there will be -no levy on residential property owners. In reference to water run-off from this project, the Director reported that the Greenville/ Banning Channel, %rich abuts South Coast Drive, will be improved in this area to the 100 -year storm capacity. Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center, stated that the Air Quality Study is based to a large extent on the aver- age number and length cf trips per day, and the average length of each trip has been determined to be 10 miles. This changed the total vehicle miles traveled, and it was reduced in the analysis frau 1.8 million miles traveled on an annual basis to 467,000 miles per year. The conclusion concerning Air Quality in the Environ- rient al As ses snent changed, and - _the conc lus ion now i s that there is no longer a significant impact on an individual project basis.. Council Member Wheeler referred to the Floor Ratio Area (FAR) for the entire parcel being .76, and asked what the FAR is for Phase I:only. The Development Services Director responded that the FAR is between .9 and 1.0; also, there is a policy setting the maximum FAR for any individual block at 1.06. Council Member Wheeler referred to the 120 -day time " limit set by the court for the City to present the General Plan corrections, stating that the law provides for extensions. The City Attorney explained that there is a provi s ion . in the law that does allow a city to petition the court to extend the 120 -day requirerrent. If a city desires to do that, there is a requirement for good cause to be shown, and that indicates that there must be a factual showing that the city is unable to comply within the 120 -day period. Council Member Wheeler noted that there were no findings addressing the mixed use alternative. Council Member Wheeler stated that the I-405 Access Study shows 5 to 8 intersections operating at unaccept- able Levels of Service (LOS) "E" or "F" at particular times, .yet the Environrrental Assessment repeatedly states they will operate at LOS "D" . Terry Austin replied that as a result of ..those findings in the freeway study, the City has recently undertaken a North Costa Mesa Arterial Intersection Improverrent Study and that is where those intersections were improved; there- fore, all intersections will operate at LOS "D" after build art. Council Member Wheeler canmented that in order for intersections to operate at LOS "D" would depend upon vehicles being able to get onto the freeway. Mr. Austin stated that proposed improvenents will enable freeway traffic to flow. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstran arra Sons, gave a slide presentation showing the boundaries cf the 94 -acre site. He stated that Phase I is not the issue this evening; the Master Plan for entire 94 acres is the issue. Mr. Ross stated that Phase I, One South Coast Place, con- tains 16 acres cf which 11 acres will be open space, and the sane theme will be followed for the remainder of the property. He- pointed cut the proposed child care facil- ity acrcss the street from Phase I. Mr. Ross reported that major traffic improvements are being proposed on Fairview Road at MacArthur Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, South Coast Drive, Baker Street, and on Harbor Boulevard at South Coast Drive, and the I-405. RECESS Mayor Hall requested an explanation of the relationship between the Environmental Assessment being considered this evening and the next Envirormental Impact Report (EIR) for One South Coast Place. The Development Services Director explained that when the next phases are presented: to the City, the Environmental Assessment is no longer used. Each phase then would have its own EIR that would go through the normal process of public review, public connents and responses, and certification by -Council: The EIR for One South Coast Place is already being prepared; however, if the General Plan Arrendrent were denied this evening, further preparation of the ' EIR would cease. The Director clarified the fact that sorre of the text in the Environnental Assessment would be contained in the new EIR. Council Member Hornbuckle was concerned about a canrrent made by Council: Member Wheeler indicating that there vbre no findings for the mixed use alternative, and asked if those findings should be included in the reso- lution. The City Attorney responded that technically, provisions of CEQA do not apply to the Environmental al however, if they did apply, this would be -a serious onission. The City Attorney offered to prepare findings for the mixed use alternative and to submit it to Council later in the evening. The Mayor declared a recess at 8:20 p.m. and the rreeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Council Member Wheeler asserted that after reviewing the figures in the Environmental Assessment, he could not find -that Automobile Club figures were included in Zone 33 of the Traffic Model. He also expressed his concern with the conclusions contained in the Biological Resources section, and the data concluding that the average trip length would,be 10 miles. Ruth Rcssington, 1340 Garlingford Street, Costa Mesa, representing the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Associa- tion, read a prepared statement stating reasons why the project and proposed densities should be denied: (1) -The project should not be considered until the City has updated the General Plan. (2) Requirements of the court will not be fulfilled because this is a piecemeal plan. (3) State Code provides for an extension of time for the General Plan to be brcught into conformity. (4) The dates for correcting street and freeway deficiencies are too far in the future to warrant construction of the project before improvements are in place. (5) The traffic circulation pattern will strangle the surrounding residential neighborhoods. (6) The added traffic will cause hardships throughout the entire north section of the City. (7) The freeways cannot be cons ide red as a buffer betveen residential and canrrercial uese with such an intense regional development. (8) Numerous other projects have not been cumulatively cons ide red in the total impacts. 3S (9) The enrvirormental document does not contain solu- tions tb the noise and air pollution. There are no sound walls on the .south side of the freeway separating the single-family area from the free- way and CALTRPNS (California Department of Trans- portation) does not intend to install such walls. (10.) Alternatives would be tri_ re-examine the original lou profile garden office complex and hotel which were presented to the homeowners four or five years ago. Art Kidman, Rutan and Tucker,,611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa,, President of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber cf.Ccmmerce supports the project. Mr. Kidman commented that the plan is a quality project by a quality developer, referring to previous Segerstrom projects in the City. Mr. Kidman reported that Mike Lawler, _ who ccul'd, not be. present, also supported the proposal. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, spoke about the need for additional housing for the project's employees. Barbara Burns, 2161 Miner Street, Costa Mesa, urged Council to approve the application. Dick Sher rick, .3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, was concerned about the traffic which would be generated by .the project and the negative impact on residential streets. He._suggested solving traffic problems before approving the General Plan Amendment. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, cannented -that there are problems with the project one of which is the additional -traffic which would impact residential areas. =He stated that the citizens want height limitations and down -zoning. Mr. William _sug- gested. contiruirg the public hearing to provide more time to study the documents. Jacqueline Gillis, 40 -year resident of the City, real estate broker, member of the Chamber of Commerce, and Vice Chairman of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, stated that the proposed Home Ranch development is one of the finest projects she has seen, and that it is a wonderful example of controlled, responsible develop- ment. Ms. Gillis was of the opinion that the project would definitely raise property values in the area. David Palmer, 1622 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, contended that the project will negatively impact quality of life, air quality, and traffic; increase crime, insurance rates, and absentee landlords. Mr. Palmar suggested allowing the citizens to vote on this item at one of the upcoming elections. Jan Luymes, 592 Park, Drive, Costa Mesa, referred to the I-405 Access. Study, stating that it was her recollection that the Study, identifies five or six intersections near the 405 Freeway for which traffic can never be improved adequately, no matter what happens in the area. In view of that, she expressed her concerns about the resolution and the General Plan Amendment. She referred to the General Plan Amendment which states, "no phase will be certified for occupancy unless the necessary improvements to the circulation system to attain LOS "D" at all affected intersections are also provided for". She asked which intersections .are affected, and are any of the -affected intersections those which can never be improved beyond LOS "F".' Ms. Luynes questioned the validity of the conclusion contained in the Environ- mentalAssessment concerning air quality. Lila Amir, 1875 Wren Circle, Costa Mesa, was concerned that there would be pay parking at the project resulting in an adverse impact on -available parking in residential areas. Alvin L. Pinkley, 1833 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, former Mayor cf the City, canmented that the application to be- considered ' is the General Plan Amendment, not the project. He= expressed confidence that the Segerstrcros will'improve the traffic circulation, and rrentioned that the court has ordered the City -to amend its General Plan. Sandra Hamilton, 3106 Mace Avenue, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the project, cammenting that the proposed open space will ensure that the quality of life in the City will -not be diminished. Nate Reade, 2285 Cornell, Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke' in support of the General Plan Amendment, commenting' -that the project "is not the issue this evening. Mr. Reade mentioned that the Planning Commission unanimously recannerrded approval because of the traffic improv_ e- ments being proposed by the developer. Gilbert ` Collins; " 3159 Sharon Lane, Costa Mesa, gave a slide presentation showing.the location of his horme as it relates to the subject site. He was of the opinion that the -General Plan Amandreent should not be considered prior to conpletion- cf the General Plan Update. Mr. Collins agreed with the concerns addressed by the. North. Costa -Mesa Haneowners Association. Jack Hall, .1859 Tahiti Drive,. Ccsta Mesa, was in favor of the General Plan Amendment, commenting that the amandnent controls develcprrent on the site. Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, stated that there are many citizens whro believe the data provided is inadequate, and suggested that the Council take nore tine tri , evaluate the General Plan Amendment. Gary Dimeo, 3106 , Mace Avenue, -. Costa Mesa, canmented that the Council should take" advantage of the opportun- ity of having the proposed project located in Costa' Mesa. Louise"Denton, 962 Joann Street, Costa Mesa, expressed her agreement with. the comments made by Alvin Pinkley and Jacqueline Gillis, and urged the Council to approve' the application. Mark Norando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that the additional traffic cgrnerated by the project will adversely affect ,all. streets in the City which are now in need of repair. He commented that the citizens will pay for these repairs, not the developer. Mr. Korando opposed- the intensity being proposed, and suggested that approval of the General Plan Amendment would pave the way for rrore high density projects. Bill Peterson, 3440 Meadow Brock, Costa Mesa, President of the Village Creek Homeowners Association, stated that Costa Mesa is. the most financially sound City in Orange 1 County because of effective planning by this Council and previous Councils..: Mr. Peterson was in favor of approv- ing the General Plan Amendment so Council could continue with planned growth within the City. Dick Mehren, 1824 Kinglet.Court, Costa Mesa, stated that the figures fbr this application have clanged so many times that he did not know vhat to believe. Mr. Mehren commnted that he is notagainst growth; however, he believed the proposed project is too intense. He suggested spending wre titre evaluating the General Plan Amendment. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:30 p.m., and the meet - q reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Jim. Wells, 1797 Oriole. Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that additional revenues are not needed; there is not enough housing in the City to rreet the needs of future employees at the site; and other alternatives should be cons idered . Hazel Temple, 3396 Wimbledon Way, Costa Mesa, spoke in .support of the _ request, stating that traffic circulation_ would be enhanced because of the improvements proposed by the developer. Annanar• ie Mooiweer, 3371 Larkspur Street, Costa Mesa, stated that the quality of life in Costa Mesa has deteriorated and asked Council to delay a decision on this application. Kenneth Fowler, 3423 Meadow Brock, Costa Mesa, was in favor of approving the General Plan Amendment, noting that millions of dollars: of traffic circulation improve- nents will be made by the developer prior to occupancy of the proposed project. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, referred to his letter dated February 3, 1988, which he submitted earlier in the evening.. Mr. Hutchins opposed the amend- rrent to the General Plan because he believed the nega- tive impacts listed in his letter far outweighed the positive impacts of -the proposed project. Roy Pizarek, 270 Del Mar Avenue, Costa Mesa, wanted to knaa where the.300 to 1,000 units needed to house employees at the Hane Ranch site will be constructed. The Mayer replied that this information cannot be.deter- mined at this time. Stephen Goldberger,, 3036 Java Road, Costa Mesa, asserted that LOS "D "cannot be retained once the buildings are occupied. He stated that progress and growth are'_ not the sane and the citizens do not want urbanization. Keenan Smith, 386 _West Wilson, Street, Costa Mesa, spoke in support cf the General :Plan Amendment, and expressed his opinion that the project -is quality development. Francis Crinella, 1876 Maui Circle" Costa Mesa, Director of Fairview State Hospital, ccmrrented that without clusters of density, traffic,.will increase. He stated that traffic could be alleviated if citizens were encouraged to use public transportation. John DeWitt, 2000 Balearic Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke at length about the merits of the proposed project. He mentioned that traffic would be reduced if people lived closer to their places of employment. Sandra Canis, -1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, sub- mitted a seven -page letter dated February 3, 1988, which contains her objections to the proposed land use interr- sity,. to processing the General Plan Arendrrent, and the hurried manner in which the process is beim pursued. Ms. Canis summarized her objections to information contained in the Envirormental Assessment, some of which related to preparation of reports, timing of the General Plan -Amendment, CALTRPNS review of circulation improve- nents, reduced cnnnercial alternative, the mixed use alternative, industrial alternative, econanic benefits, gild care center, General Plan build out calculations, traffic zone ]and use data, and Home Ranch uses. Bob Cole, 3064 Java Road, Costa Mesa, was of the opinion that the Envirormental Assessment contained flaws which should be corrected before voting on the General Plan Amendment. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, disagreed with a sentence on- Page 3 of the proposed resolution relating to attaining LOS "D" at all affected intersections. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, mentioned that the adequacy of the General Plan Amendrrent has been placed in the hauls of the court, and if there are flaws in it, the judge will point them out. Council Member Hornbuckle expressed her desire to- con-tinua the public,hearing so staff could provide answers On' the questions which were raised this evening. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Meeler, seconded Held Over to by Council Member Hornbuckle, to continue the public February 10 hearing to February 10, 1988. AMEN7ED MOTION After further discussion, Council Member Wheeler amended Held Over to his motion, by continuing the public hearing to Febru- February 11 ary 11, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. The amended notion was seconded by Council Member lbrnbuckle, arra carried 4-1, Vice Mayor Arrburgey voting no. Sandra Genis requested that any new docurrents be made available to the public 48 hours prior to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 12:15 a.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Febru- ary 11, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Mayor of the 1 y of Costa Mesa ATTEST. --CTEy Clerk of the City of Ccsta MqVa