Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1988 - Adjourned City Council MeetingROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARING GP -88-1 ' City of Costa Mesa 1 ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY ODUNCIL QTY CF COSTA MESA - February 11, 1988 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned special session February 11, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was duly arra regularly ordered adjourned frau the special meeting of February 3, 1988, and .ccpies cE the Notice of Adjournment were posted as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. ODUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: ODUNCIL MEMBERS. ABSENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Hall, Amburgey, feeler, Hornbuckle, Buffa W=0 _1 City Attorney, Development Services Director, Public Services Director, City Clerk The Clerk presented the public hearing, continued from the special meeting of February 3, 1988, to consider General Plan Arrenduent GP -88-1, City of Costa Mesa, to amend the Land Use Element by establishing land use intensity and population density standards to allow 3.1 million square feet of camTerci.al development for the Segerstran Home Ranch bordered by Harbor Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, Fairview Road, and the San Diego Free- way, and to amend the Circulation Element to correlate with land use standards. Environmental Determination: Environmental Assessment pursuant to Goxernment Code Section 65759. The Development Services Director reported that Council continued the public hearing for General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 to allow additional time for staff and the environmental consultants to respond to issues and questions raised during the special meeting of February 3. He stated that most of the questions concerned the Env -e Environmental Assessment doont which is not an Environmental Impact Report. He explained that the doc anent is not subject to the caument and response process; however, staff has provided responses to canments made at the last meeting even though the law does not require it.. The Director and the Principal Planner reviewed the docur ent, "Staff Responses to Public Comments - Febru- ary 3, 1988, Public Hearing - General Plan Amendment GP -88-1". Pages 1 through 6 contain staff's responses to the following issues raised by Council Member Wheeler and Costa. Mesa residents: Council Member Wheeler - mixed use findings, Auto Club traffic model assumptions, and child care considera- tion/findings; Jan Luyrres - Environmental Assessment/I-405 Access Study conflicts; Lila Amor - pay parking impacts; Mark Yorando - additional street maintenance costs as a result of increased traffic; Roy Pizarek - future residential growth; Stephen Goldberger - Level of Service (LOS) "D" vs. building occupancy; Sandra Genis letter dated February 3, 1988, and her comments - preparation of reports, timing of General Plan Amendment GP -88-1, CALTRANS review of circulation improvements, reduced commercial alternative, mixed use alternative, industrial alternative, economic benefits, child care center, General Plan build out calculations, traffic zone land use data, and Home Ranch uses; Scott Williams - maintenance of LOS "D"; and North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association - timing/ processing of General Plan Amendment GP -88-1, timing of circulation improvements, traffic impactsp cumula- tive impacts, and previous "low profile garden office conplex". Dwayne Mears, The Planning Center, 1300 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, preparer of the Environmental Assessment (EA) , referred to Page 40 of the response document which addresses Council Member Wheeler's ques- tions concerning the EA's Biological Resources Section, and the Air Quality Section regarding the 10 -mile average trip length. Mr. Mears referred 'to information contained on Pages 41 through 44 of the response docurrent which answer ques- tions from Costa Mesa residents: Gilbert Collins - freeway and park barriers; Sandra Genis - the EA noise analysis, Circulation Elenent, the Greenville -Banning Channel, noise,con- tours fron the centerline of the roadways listed in Table 24, Page 3-48 of the EA, jurisdictions other than Costa Mesa providing housing for the project, sewer/waste water treatment, and the Biological Resources Section of the EA; North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association - distance between the site and residential areas south of the freeway, and proposed noise walls to be constructed by CALTRANS. Grey Broughton, Planning Consultants Research, 1251 Santa Monica Mall, Santa Monica, consultant for C. J. Segerstren and Sons, summarized "Fiscal Impact Analysis of Home Ranch General Plan Amendment GP -88-1" which is shown on Pages 64 through 73 of the response document. The analysis indicates that the net fiscal surplus, based on build cut of Hame Ranch, would be approximately $313,819.00. Mr. Broughton then referred to the Local, Areawide, and Regional Economic and Associated Benefits shown on Pages 75 and 76 of the response document. He commented on the proposed improverrents'by the developer relating to traffic circulation, drainage and flood control, fire protection, and long-term employnent opportunities. Responding to a question fron Council Member Wheeler, Mr. Broughton reported that the Gann Limitation had not been considered in the econonic analysis. 0 Council Member Wheeler referred to the Biological Resources section of the Environmental Assessment and asked if Council had the power to impose mitigation treasures for the loss' of biological resources in addi- tion to the Fish and Game mitigation measures. The City Attorney responded that Council could include a require- ment in the General Plan Amendment calling for mitiga- tion Treasures when a project comes before Council. Council Member Wheeler referred to the I-405 Access Study which states that all traffic should move at IAS "D" on City streets because traffic will be able to get onto a freeway whose traffic will be moving at LOS "D" also. He conmented that it was his understanding that freeway traffic would not move at LOS "D" unless the Talbert Bridge at I-405 were widened. Paul Wilkinson, Linscott, Law, Greenspan, 'Incorporated, 1580 Corporate Drive, Costa Mesa, vho had worked with IWA engineers on- the I-405 Access Study, stated that it was very clear frdn the. studies that there were downstream deficiencies which would have to be net eventually. Those deficiencies are a conbination of what might happen in Costa Mesa as well as what happens on a regional scale. , Mr. Wilkinson mentioned that the engineers and planners who worked on the I-405 Access Study felt it was their responsibility to consider what happens beyond the technical boundaries of the study which was the Santa Ana River. -He stated that the Talbert Bridge widening, is an issue which should be dealt with by CALTRPNS and the City of Fountain Valley on a nore regional scale. Council Member Wheeler was concerned that if the Talbert Bridge, were not widened, the freeway traffic would back up and impact the streets in Costa Mesa. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom. arra Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, spoke about modifying the wording of a proposal. from the Planning Canmission by attaching the word "affected" to the ervironnental document as it relates to a one percent increase in ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization). Referencing the Talbert Bridge widening, Mr. Ross reported.that it was his understanding that the Joint lowers Authority. (JPA) technical staff has been assigned a project to investigate the impact of the corridor traffic on the northern reaches of the 405 Freeway with the understanding that they are to come back with a report on what those,. impacts may be. Mr. Ross believed that if therewere impacts caused by the increase in traffic frau the corridor, those impacts would be corrected by JPA or sorre other agency such as CALTRPNS.. or the federal government. Diane Goldberger, 3036. Java Road, Costa Mesa, spoke about the taking of homes as it relates to high density projects, asserting that this issue has not been: addressed in discussing the traffic mitigation measures which will be implemented if Herne Ranch were allowed to proceed. She referenced the Forth Costa Mesa Specific Plan arterial improvements necessary to make traffic flow, and contended that maps for the specific plan indicate that Baker Street will be widened between Harbor Boulevard and Bear Street where homes, churches, apartments, and condaniniums are located. Mrs. Gold- bergar stated that- if all mitigation reasures for Home Ranch were implemented, many of these structures would be demolished. Mayor Hall responded that widening of Baker Street is on Orange County's . Master Plan of Highways, and if there were absolutely no more construction in the northern portion cf the City, Baker Street would be widened to its ultimate width at some time in the future. Dwayne Mears reported that the Baker Street widening was not included in the Circulation Element amendments; therefore, loss cf homes was not identified as a result of the project. Council Member Wheeler agreed that the Baker Street widening is on the Master Plan of Highways' and at some point will have to be widened; however, he contended that if the additional vehicles cgrnerated by this and other projects in the area were added to the traffic on Baker Street, the widening would be required much sooner. He conmanted that the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the I-405 Access Study nention street widen- ings as mitigation measures for the increased traffic from these projects, and since the studies are being relied upon, he believed. it, appropriate to mention the acceleration of the process.cf taking homes. Council Member Hornbuckle stated that she was tired of the . fear rongering that occurs when projects are discussed. She canmented that there was no point in upsetting those people living along Baker Street with talk .of losing their homes since the widening is not a part cf this project. She reported that Council would be required to have many public hearings before homes could be taken, and expressed her hope that people in the audienoe, those listening at home, and those who read the newspaper accounts, understand that those who bring up Baker Street. and the loss of homes are attempt- ing to influence .them by making them afraid. Council Member Hornbuckle asked: If this Council were to decide not to widen Baker Street, or if a future Council were.to decide not to ever widen Baker Street, and the level of service at - intersections fell below LOS "D", uould projects then be delayed in North Costa Mesa? The Development Services Director confirmed that projects would be -postponed. Council Member Wheeler denied that anyone was using fear tactics, and stated that Baker Street would have to be widened much sooner if proposed projects for North Costa Mesa were approved. Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, stated that since the financial input given to the Council did not include the Gann Limitation, and the Talbert Bridge issue was not considered, Council should not make a decision based on information that is questionable. David Palner, 1622 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, expressed his opinion that Council was not concerned about the desires and welfare of the citizens. Charles Markel, 2851 Clubhouse Road, Costa Mesa, spoke about the Gann Initiative ceiling, cam ranting that there seems to be a misconception'that once the limitation is reached, the additional fund are lost and cannot be recovered. Mr. Markel pointed cut that at a recent election, the citizens of Costa Mesa voted to have the City use the, excess funds for street and sidewalk improvenents. Mr. Markel read a newspaper article which contained six benefits derived frau commercial development. Gilbert Collins, 3159 Sharon Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that he recalled that a hotel was planned for the Auto Club •property. -Mayor Hall responded there are no plans fDr a -hotel on that site. Jack Hammett-, 809 Presidio-Drive, Costa Mesa, former Costa Mesa Planning Comrdssioner, Council Member, and 'Mayor, commented that''he has found few people who believe the Council is trying to destroy the City. He reminded Council that they have over 89,000 constitu- ents to consider, not only those who live north of Baker Street or west of Harbor Boulevard. Mr. Hammett believed that the project would be a step forward, and any problems which might arise could be solved. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, -Costa Mesa, thanked Council Member Wheeler for pointing out serious flaws in the project. He claimed that the City Attorney will- have a difficult time defending the Environmental .Assessment. Mr. Sherrick suggested that General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 not be considered at this time since the General Plan --Update is now in progress. He also recanrrended that. thevoters decide whether or not this project -should be - approved. Alvin L. Pinkley, 1833 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, furrier Ccsta Mesa _Council Member and Mayor, mentioned that an' investment of $400 million dollars by the Segerstrons should not be taken lightly, and it was not likely that this developer would invest that much imney, without knowing'that the occupants of the build- ings were quality tenants.` Steve Slohim; - 2979 Royal Palm Drive, Ccsta Mesa,' was opposed -to -the project because it would negatively impact traffic. circulation, add to air pollution, and the additional traffic would result in added costs for street repairs.. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess. at 8:35 p.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Nate Reade; 2285 Cornell Drive, Costa Mesa, commended City staff andthe consultants fDr the remarkable job they have done. - Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, spoke about sone ce the cam vents made this evening, such as the Talbert Bridge widening; projected trip ends for the project, and the Gann Limitation. He thanked Council Member -Hornbuckle for -her statement concerning scare tactics. Dave Leighton, 3105 Loren Lane, Costa Mesa, member of the Board of Directors, North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association, stated that after the proposal for a 32 - story building was withdrawn because cf public opposi- tion,. the Daily Pilot stated that the Auto. Club cancelled: its plan for a 10 -story hotel. He believed there were plans for construction cf a hotel at the corner of Sunflower .Avenue and Fairview Road, and asked if the DeveRpment Services Director had any knowledge of those plans. 390 The- Development.Services Director responded that he was not aware cf such plans, and the Principal Planner had indicated to him that an office building had been proposed. Council Member Wheeler thought he remembered an Environmental Impact Report being prepared for that site, although the applicant decided not to pursue the project. He reported that he had a copy of that EIR arra cEfered to give it to Mr. Leighton. Mr. Leighton referred to Table 5 entitled, "Current vs. Augmented General Plan Major Undeveloped Properties", on Page 2-34 of the Environmental Assessment, commenting that the Auto Club preperty is not included, and since there is a potential for a 10 -story building at that site, the EA..d_oes not accurately reflect potential developments. Dick Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, stated that the crux of. the entire meeting is the limitation of 3.1 million square feet, and asked if the Council could change that figure. The Mayor responded affirmatively. Alice Leggett, 1088 Salinas.�Avenue, Costa Mesa, was confident that the Segerstroms would continue to pro- vide quality developments. She commented that all questions raised haxe been -addressed and answered point by point. Ms. Leggett believed traffic would increase whether or not the project were built, and with the traf f is improvements pcc posed by the developer, traffic circulation would be enhanced. Lila Amor, 1875 Wren Circle, Costa Mesa, expressed her fear that General Plan AiTendnent GP -88-1 would be adopted. She conmanted that Council Member Wheeler seemed to be the only one asking questions; therefore, she was concerned that the other Council Members may not haxe studied the documents. John Moorlach, 3169 Madeira Avenue, Costa Mesa, was concerned about the possibility of the City's revenues decreasing if development of canmercial properties were not permitted to proceed. Bob Chapman, 2037 South Cappella Court, Costa Mesa, reported that approximately 25 years ago, the Mesa Verde area was not supposed to be davelcped because of the expansive: soil, but because of quality development, the City has continued to grow. He was of the opinion that if development, .growth, and redevelopment are stopped, the result will be less employment, and reduction in property values and revenues. Sally Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, comanted that to add a second story to her home, a variance is required as well as approval from the neigh- bors because of the possibility of intrusion into the privacy of tYnse.neighbors. She canpared the Home Ranch project to her situation, asking why the neighbors of Hare Ranch are not given the same consideration. Conrad Nordquist, 974 Modjeska Circle, Costa Mesa, stated that he was familar with the project and was in favor of the General Plan Anendmant being approved. Jan Lauymas, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, referred to the Cann Initiative and stated that she anticipated that the excess funds which the voters approved to repair streets, parkways, and sidewalks would not be spent on improvements for Home Ranch- but would be spent on exist- ing problems. The Mayor responded that the excess funds are not being spent for Home Ranch improvements. Ms. Luymes read the second paragraph under Sandra Genis, No. 21, Page.43 cf the response document concerning water.facilities, and alleged that staff's- response was not adequate. Ms. Luymes questioned the appropriateness of setting densities in General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 which will impact future water availability. Ms. Luyms ccmrrented that the I-405 Access Study refers to six to eight unidentified intersections which could not be mitigated. She asked if any of those intersec- tions were identified to be addressed in the improve- ments which are contained in the table attached to the General Plan resolution. Ms. Luymes claimed that the response to her question frau the last meeting ( Page 7 cf the response docurrent) did not adequately address her concerns. Jeanine Nordquist, 974 Modjeska Circle, Costa Mesa, agreed with the camrents made by former Mayors Pinkley and Hammett. She conmended the Council for listening to the concerns cf the citizens. She urged Council to approve General Plan Amendment GP -88-1. Stephen Goldberger, 3036 Java Road, Ccsta Mesa, asserted that the response document does not adequately answer the questions he posed. He claimed that LOS "D", could not be maintained after the site is occupied, and stated that the traffic data is inadequate. Ruth Rossington, 1340 Garlirgford Street, Costa Mesa, referred to an issue she raised at the February 3 meeting concerning the absence cf sound walls on the south side cE the freeway. -She stated that this.issue has not been addressed. Ms. Rossington asserted that the project was too intens_ e and the City did not. need the revenues. Roy Pizarek, 270 Del Mar Avenue, Costa Mesa, disagreed with a statement in the response document, Page 5, "The Whittier Avenue General Plan Amendment has not been incorporated; but its size and distance from the Home Randa site ensures that it will not impact the analysis on the Environmental Assessment." Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, sub- mitted an eight -page letter in which she addressed several concerns and alleged that errors still exist in the analyses. Before summarizing her letter, Ms. Genis read frau Draft Environmental Impact Report, Auto Club Expansion, dated February 16, 1986, which was prepared for a project which was later withdrawn: "The existing headquarters consists of three office buildings .totaling 467,000 square feet. The Auto Club presently holcb entitlement to construct an additional 273,000 square feet cf office space. She noted that the revised tables do include the 467,000 square feet but not the additional entitlement for 273,000 square feet. She then referred to Paragraph 11, Page 7 of her letter which says that the figures for the Auto Club are still inaccurate. Ms. Genis then read a portion of a letter frau Mesa Consolidated Water District found on Pages A-34 and A-35, Paragraph No. 8 of the Environmental Assessment: . . . Mesa Consolidated Water District will lose 20 per- cent cf its current import supply capacity, [arra] the effects of water rationing on the project should be discussed, etc. She alleged that the effects of water rationing were not examined. Ms. Genis referred to her letter of February 11, and summarized her views concerning Additional Findings (Pages 3 and 4). Regarding the cast/revenue study which is addressed. on Page 3, Paragraph 2 under "Planning Consultants Research, M3. Genis stated that use of per acre costs without _regard to developmnt intensity was not appropriate because a low intensity development would generate different costs in revenue than a high intensity development and suggested that it should haw been changed to a per square -footage cost. Ms. Genis claimed there were numerous errors in the original analyses and continue to appear, some being lack of data on the future development for the Auto Club; 124,000 square feet already developed at South Coast Plaza which are missing; development on the Segerstran Hone Office site is not included; and there is no explanation as to why 122 residences will be lost in the Halecrest area.. Edward Baker, 3468 Wimbledon Way, Costa Mesa, was in favor of the project and urged the Council to approve the General Plan Amendment. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, stated that the project is a negative to the community because presently the City has an imbalance of caTurer- cial use versus residential use, and there has been a trend to approve multi -family uses to support the ca mrcial developments. Steve Slonim, 2979 Royal Palm Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that the City's streets are already too congested, and people will rove frau Costa Mesa if traffic conditions worsen. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, mentioned that an amndment to the City's General Plan was ordered by the court, and canmented that more constructive ideas should be offered rather than merely trying to defeat projects. John Moorlach, 3169 Madeira Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that the City cannot depend upon increasing its revenues based upon past trends. He agreed that traffic is a problem; however, mitigating Treasures have been provided. He encouraged the Council to approve the General Plan Amendment. Stephen Goldberger, 3036 Java Road, Costa Mesa, was of the opinion that the canments made by former Mayors Pinkley and Hammett were not relevant to the General Plan ATwndrrent. He contended that Council Member Hornbuckle's remarks about the Baker Street widening were inappropriate. Mr. Goldberger recanmended that Council reject the project. Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, referred to Table 1 of the Environmental Assessment, stating that it includes some improvements on Baker Street. 39 Ms. Genis was concerned that the information being addressed has been put together in such a quick manner, especially the responses to canments, that she ques- tioned whether Council, the public, or staff, have had an opportunity to digest all of it. Ms. Genis was of the opinion that the deadline for submitting the amend- ment to the court is being used as an excuse, and commented that there are provisions for granting extensions. Ms. Genis cam-ented that the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan will be available in .a few months; and 'although the General Plan land use' intensities will not be adopted until next fall, the General Policy Statements are scheduled for adoption in June, 1988. She stated that this would be within the titre frarre to allow for an extension of the 120 -day reply period as provided by law. Ms. Genis.summariaed the statements contained in her letter of -February 11, Page 2, which contradict staff's responses to connents_ made at the February 3 meeting. Her ca rants related to street maintenance costs, freeway improvements, fiscal benefits, General Plan build out, and land use categories. Ms. Genis.contirued to summarize her letter of February 11, specifically Page 5, which disagrees with staff's cannents concerning the Biological Section, trip. length, CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) referenced on Page 3-48 of the Environmental Assessment, housing availability, and updating the Housing Elerrent. Ms. Genis then reviewed Page 6 and a portion of Page 7 of her letter regarding the , I-405 Access Study as it relates to regional impacts, impact of the project on the Harbor Boulevard/Adams Avenue intersection, and impacts of railway operations. Jan Luyrres, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, asked if under the existing General Plan, regardless of the level of intensity proposed in the General Plan Amendment, will the developer be required to provide a certain number of housing units within the City of Costa Mesa. Ray House, 1938 Killdeer. Circle, Costa Mesa, suggested that Council postpone. a decision until the documents could be studied further. He believed the existing information was insufficient. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:35 p.m., and the met- ing reconvened at 10:45 p.m. John DeWitt, 2000 Balearic Drive, Costa Mesa, congratu- lated Council Member Hornbuckle for looking at all the issues, aryl camended the entire Council on a job well done. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, urged Council to reduce the density of the project. David Palmer, 1622 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, canmented that LOS "D" could only be maintained if the 405 Freeway works; however, traffic would not flow on the freeway unless the Talbert Bridge were widened. Bill Polder, 1628 Inkhite Oak ,Street, Costa Mesa, recom- mended making a compromise for .1 ower density. 391 Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, urged the Council to allow the voters to decide the issue. David Palmer, 1622 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, stated that the density _ of the project should be reduced. Gene Hutchins; 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, commented that if develcpirent continues at the present pace, a rapid transit system may be the only solution. He asked if the developer would be required to contribute to the cost of such a system. Mr. Hutchins wanted to know if residential use had been considered for the property. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing; MOTION A rmtion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Resolution 88-11 Vice Mayor Amburgey, to adopt Resolution 88-11, being A Adopted RESOLUTION CF THE CITY COUNCIL CF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -88-1 FOR SE;ERSTROM HCME RANCH, with modifications to be made- after Council discussion. Council Member Buffa addressed Stephen Goldberger's ca rants challenging the accuracy of proposed trans- portations solutions. Council Member Buffa stated that Mr. Goldberger's contention that LOS "D" could not be maintained at intersections once the buildings were occupied, grossly misses the point. He explained that the Environmental Impact Report considers the estimated trip ends the project will generate, and the developer is required to pay frer intersection improvements which will accommdate those trip ends before the building opens. Council Member Buffa cemmented that one issue which has not been rentioned is that the 20 -story building will cast a 1,600 -foot shadow; yet, that shadow does not touch one residence. Council Member Buffa mentioned that during the many hours devoted to the public hear- ing, most of those hours were spent addressing the Home Ranch project, and by doing so, serious discussion of General Plan Amendrrent GP -88-1 was overlooked. Council -Member Buffa agreed with camments by Council Member Hornbuckle that tactics are being used to scare the citizens. He mentioned that a short time ago, a circular was being distributed stating that the Gisler Avenue overcrossing, would be constructed, and that was not 'true. He compared that tactic to the comments made about homes being condemned on Baker Street. Responding to a question frau Mayor Hall, Paul Wilkinson explained the difference in� intersection findings con- tained in the 1-405 Access Study versus those in the Arterial Study versus those in the Envirormental Assess- nent. He reported that the purpose of the I-405 Access Study was to evaluate the I-405 corridor and to evaluate access t:) that corridor; draft findings in the Arterial Study are not available as yet; and the Environmemtal Assessment findings are contained in Table 10, on Page 3-22. He mentioned that some intersections shown as adverse in the I-405 Access Study are not adverse now. Dwayne Mears addressed comments made by Ruth Rossington concerning freeway sound walls, and was of the opinion that future development will not create a noticeable increase in noise. - 10 - 39:5 The Development Services Director responded to comments made by several speakers. In answer to Ms. Genis's question as to whether the Auto Club had entitlement to an additional 273,000 square. feet of space, the Director reported that since the project was withdrawn, the Auto Club is entitled to only the existing square footage, and any future request would require further environ- mental review and would be processed.through the usual channels. In response to Sally Humphrey's comment that a variance is needed to add a second story to a residence, the Director reported.that a variance is not required for a second story addition if it neets development standards. As to Roy Pizarek I s, concern about Hcme Ranch traf f is impacting the west side, the Director stated that the traffic analysis did not include streets south of Harbor Boulevard/Adams.Avenue since traffic beyond that point would-be difficult to project. The Director addressed conments by Sandra Genis regard- ing mixed use alternatives and why certain alternatives were rejected even though they had lesser impacts on certain intersections. He ca Tented that the project as proposed, vhile it may have had 11 intersections versus 9 in the mixed.use, or 6 in the industrial use, the consultants did- not reject that for the project as a preferred alternative: because it could be mitigated to LOS "D". As to Ms. Genis's canments regarding Mr. Korando's question concerning maintenance of streets, it was the Director's impression that Mr. Korando was asking about impacts cf the project on existing streets and the additional cost to maintain them. The Director addressed Ms. 3--nis's question about the City requiring other cities to accept 80 percent of future heusing which would be required by the project. He reported that Costa Mesa cannot mandate that other cities accept 80 percent, but based on previous docu- mentation, the likelihood is that 80 percent of those people would not move into the City. Responding to a question fram Jan Luymes asking if the developer would be required to provide housing, the Director stated that in the past, the housing program becomes a mitigation rreasure which converts to a_ condi- tion on the project. In response to a question frau Mr. Hutchins asking if the developer will be responsible for funding a mass transit system if needed, the Director canmanted that the only responsibilities for developers to pay occurs at the time the project canes forward and funding for pass transit is a condition of approval. If it is not a condition cE approval, the only way to retroactively require payment would be through benefit assessment districts or other types cf financing. Mr. Hutchins had asked how much housing credit the developer would receive from the Villa Martinique project. The Director reported that this will be deter- mined if the project comes forward. As to the question frau Mr. Hutchins concerning property at Mesa Verde Drive East/Adams Avenue, the Director reported that the site is still zoned for cammrcial use. Responding to another question frau Mr. Hutchins asking if a 100 -percent residential use alternative had been considered for the property, the Director stated that it was not considered because staff did not believe it was feasible. Council Member Buffa asked Malcolm Ross to camment on the Planning Cammission' s recamrendation for a five-foot height limitation on that portion of the site closest to Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. Mr. Ross responded that this modification is acceptable. Vice -Mayor Amburgey asked for an explanation on how pollutants are determined. The Development Services Director responded that when an Air Quality analysis is done, two categories of Emissions are considered, stationary and mobile. Stationary pollutants result fran consumption cf electrical energy which equates to power plant emissions; rrobile source emissions relate to motor_ vehicles ahl those miles traveled as a result of a new land use. Vice Mayor Amburgey read an excerpt fran a report on air quality which indicates that plants control air - polluting uses, collect airborne particles, and act as air cleaners. The Vice Mayor stated that.based upon that information,. it is obvious that the hundreds of trees which will be planted on the Home Ranch site, along with vegetation fran the cpen space, would miti- gate additional pollutants.. Vice Mayor Amburgey read standards for the adequacy of an environmental document. Council Member Hornbuckle asked what the next step would be if General Plan Amendment GP -88-1 were adopted. The Develcprrent Services Director replied that if the reso- lution were adopted, and neither a legal challenge nor a successful referendum cam forward, the City Attorney, along with the Attorney for' the plaintiffs, would return to court with the docurrents and.the judge would decide if they camply with the court's order. The Director stated that if the court determines that the City has canplied, then the Environmental Impact Report arra the project would wire forward. The City Attorney reported that the Attorney represent- ing the group who filed the lawsuit notified him that he would advise the City whether or not they feel the action cE the Council, if the amandment were adopted, is satisfactory. If they are satisfied with it, then the City reports to the court that the Council adopted the General Plan Amendment, that it complies with the court's order in that it adds a building intensity for the Herne Ranch site, and correlates that with the circu- lation system, and the case would end at that point. On the other hand, if the group determines they do not like the anendr ent, and they feel there are problems with it, Judge Seymour would decide if the amendment adequately fulf ills his order. Council Member Wheeler requested clarification of Ms. Genis's contention that 124,000 square feet are miss- ing from the South Coast Plaza square footage. Paul Wilkinson replied that the traffic generation factor applies .to the grass leasable area, not floor area. Council Member Wheeler mentioned that the land use tables do not indicate any use or development cE the current Herne Randa cif f ice site. The Development; Services Director stated that the anendmant does not include the. Home. Ranch corporate of f ice, and that was specifically requested by the property owner because the family does not wish to have higher levels of intensity placed on that particular area. The Director also.reported that there is some traffic generated by the 30-40 employees at the one-story office building. AMENDED MOTION Council,Member Buffa made an anendment to the motion, Modifications Added seconded :by Vice Mayor Amburgey, by incorporating the Planning Commission's recommendations and additional modi f icat ions : 1. Modify the second paragraph of the Circulation Element (Page 4'cf.the Staff Report) as follows: No phase _will be certified for occupancy unless the necessary improvem:nts to the circulation system to attain Level cf' ,Service "D" at all intersections described in, the Environmental Assessment,. as of fe ct ed by the Home Ranch project traff is area also provided for; 2. Modify the third paragraph of Section 3.1.3 (Miti- gation Measures) of the Environmental Assessment (Page 3-23) as fDl'lows: No phase will be certi- fled for occupancy unless the necessary improve- ments to the circulation system to attain Level of Service "D" at all intersections as affected by the Hane Randa, project 'traffic are also' provided for; 3. There shall be a five -story height limitation for that portion of the site closest to Harbor Boule- vard and South Coast, Drive; 4. Add the finding concerning the mixed use alterna- tive which is included in the memorandum from R. Michael Robinson dated February 10, 1988. 5. Modify the first paragraph of the Circulation Ele- . ment by adding the following as the last sentence: ,"To ensure that the, circulation system remains correlated, the building intensities used in the Environmental Assessment for properties in the North Costa Mesa Study Area, as shown on Tables 4 (Revised) arra. 5, Figure 4, and Page 2-23, shall not be exceeded without a General Plan Amendment. Council Member Wheeler moved to include an additional arrendrrent to the motion: Add a condition that would require as mitigation for the loss of biological resources that.the applicant shall leave the channel open unless staff determines that it is not possible. Council Member Hornbuckle suggested considering the above mitigation measure for the project if it canes forward. Council Member Wheeler moved to add another amendment to the motion: reduce the square footage to a total of one million square feet. Council Member Wheeler roved to amend the motion by continuing the public hearing. until such tine as staff can analyze the General Plan kmndm iiE-:_ in .light of the citizens initiative Which -.was 'recentlypresented' to the City. Council Member Wheeler then moved to_amend the motion by indicating that the action by the'Council this evening shall be taken to the citizens for a public vote. Council Member Wheeler's motions died for lack of seconds. Council . Member Wheeler gave his reasons for opposing General Plan Amendment GP -88-1: Unless the Gann Limita- tion were raised, there would be no financial benefit to the City, and may cost the City $1 million in additional services; alternatives were rejected because they would not produce enough revenue,.and he disagreed with that assumption; traffic -would bottleneck at the Talbert Brid(p and would negatively impact City streets; the Baker Street widening would occur much sooner if the project ware built, resulting in loss of homes at an earlier time; the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Phase I will be much higher than .76; the vacancy rate in Costa Mesa is only three percent, and the increased demand for housing would result in higher rents; the intensity is too high for the area and would negatively impact traff is circulation; and there was not enough time to study all the documents. Council Member Hornbuckle mentioned that she has learned one thing very well and that is how easy it is for some groups to prey on the fears of others, for instance, using phrases such as, "]mock down homes", "cancer in the conmunity", "drop, in property values", and if they are repeated often enought, people will believe that it is actually happening. Council Member Hornbuckle reported that not one person in the community has called or written her urging her to vote against General Plan Anendrrent GP -88-1. She stated that she found it incred- ible'that people assume that most residents are against the project and the General Plan Amendment, yet no one bothered to call and tell her that they opposed them. She reported that -the Council as a whole received one letter. Council Member Hornbuckle stated that the City and the developers have been working diligently for some time to improve traffic conditions, and it is a long process. She was of the opinion that the City cannot be kept suburban because the truth is that Costa Mesa is already an urban area. Council Member Hornbuckle mentioned that the Staff Report addressed this project and the citizens initiative and carreto the conclusion that the Hane Ranch amendment would meet the objectives of the initiative. Mayor Hall expressed his opinion that the traffic miti- gation measures contained in this program far exceed these called for in the citizens initiative. The motion to adopt Resolution 88-11, and adding certain modifications, carried by' the following roll call vote: A)ES : COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Hornbuckle, Buffa. NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler ABSS ENT : COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meet' ned 12:35 a.m. Mayor the City of Costa. Mesa -.ATTEST: Ci y Clerk of the City of Costa Mr 1