HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/31/1988 - City Council Special MeetingROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENT
ORDINANCES
SPECIAL AND ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF COSTA MESA
OCTOBER, 31, 1988
The City Council of.'the City of Costa Mesa, California,
met in a special and adjourned regular meeting on Octo-
ber 31, 1988, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. Notices of said
meeting were posted as required by law. The meeting was
called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
None
City Manager, City Attorney,
Deputy City Manager/Develop-
ment Services, Transportation
.Services Manager,'City Clerk
Council Member Wheeler announced that he will be absent
between.5:30 p.m..and 6:30 p.m.
A motion was made.by Council Member Buffa, seconded by
Council Member Wheeler, and carried 5-0, to read all
ordinances by title only.
CONSENT CALENDAR On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by
Council Member Buffa, all 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
Parking Prohibition The Transportation Commission reccnmended that parking
on Sumatra Place be prohibited along both curbs of Sumatra Place. from
Orcas Drive to Gibraltar Avenue on Fridays, 9:00 a.m. to
11:00 a.m., for street sweeping. On motion by Council
MOTION Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa,
Resolution 88-83 Resolution 88-83, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Adopted OF THE. CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING -PARK-
ING ON A PORTION OF SUMATRA.,PIACE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
STREET SWEEPING, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Parking Prohibition The Transportation Commission recotunended that parking
on Orcas Drive be prohibited along both curbs of Orcas Drive from
Samoa Place to Sumatra -,Place on Fridays, 9:00 a.m. to
11:00 a.m., for street sweeping. On motion by Council
MOTION Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Buffa,
Resolution 88-84 Resolution 88-84, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Adopted OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING PARK-
ING ON A PORTION OF ORCAS DRIVE FOR THE. -PURPOSE OF
STREET SWEEPING, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Parking Prohibition The Transportation Ccmnission recommended that parking
on Towne Street be prohibited along both curbs of Towne Street between
Monrovia Avenue and Placentia Avenue on Tuesdays,
10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., for street sweeping. On motion
by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member
MOTION Buffa, Resolution 88-85, being A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
Resolution 88-85 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBIT -
Adopted ING PARKING ON A -PORTION OF TOWNE STREET FOR THE PURPOSE
OF STREET SWEEPING, was adopted by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS .The Clerk announced that this was the time and place set
,for the public hearings for C. J. Segerstrom and Sons,
Segerstrom 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, for the South Coast Town
Center development:
EIR No: 1041 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1041, for the
Town Center office tower and hotel.
GP -88-3A General Plan Amendment GP -88-3A, to increase the
building intensity standards within the Town Center.
ZE-77-246A3 Zone Exception ZE-77-246A3, to increase the allowable
development intensity of the Town Center Master Plan
from 3.0 to 3.208 million square feet.
PA -88-144 Planning Action PA -88-144, for a Development Plan for
a 20 -story office building containing 436,000 square
feet and a 5 -level parking structure.
PA -88-145 Planning Action PA-88-1-:
a
A-88-1-: a 5 -story, 332 -room hotel, with a Conditional Use
Permit for valet parking, and a variance from setback
requirements.
-The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the Clerk's
office. No communications were received.
The Deputy City Manager/Development Services showed
slides of the proposed project, and reviewed the Staff
.Reports for each of the items.
.Regardless of decisions made for the project, staff and
the Planning Commission recommended that Council certify
,Final EIR No. 1041 since it adequately describes the
,potential environmental impacts associated with the
'project and proposes a complete package of mitigation
measures.
The Planning Ccmmission recommended two amendments on
Page 146 of EIR No. 1041, which are agreeable to staff
and the applicant:
Change Mitigation Measure 37a. to read: The applicant
shall participate on a fair share basis in the cost of
capital improvements reasonably required for maintain-
ing adequate levels of police service to the north
Costa Mesa area, should a fair share funding program
therefore be recommended under the Ralph Anderson and
Associates model for Service Level Impacts of New
Development on Police Services and adopted by the City
of Costa Mesa prior to issuance of building permits.
Add the following sentence to Mitigation Measure 39:
In the event that, in order to cause the station to
be operational prior to the City having obtained
J -P,
1 5
sufficient funds, and thereby be entitled to occupy
the office building, the applicant funds a larger
share of the cost of construction and equipment for
the fire station than is its fair share, the City
shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the
applicant to collect funds from other benefitting
development and reimburse the applicant for the
excess -costs.
The Planning Commission also recommended approval of
General Plan Amendment GP -88-3A; Planning Action
PA -88-144., Zone Exception ZE-77-246A3, and Planning
Action PA-88-145,,subject to modifications and condi-
tions contained in -the Staff Report; however, the
Commission recommended denial of the street setback
variance requested in Planning Action PA -88-145.
Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, addressed the
height of the office building, reporting that it will
be either 20 or 21 stories; however, the building will
not exceed a height of 288 feet. He agreed to amend-
ments to Paragraphs 37a and 39 contained on Page 146 of
the EIR, and requested a minor amendment to clarify
Mitigation Measure No. 14 on Page 101 of the EIR to add
the words "in accordance with Resolution No. 88-10"
following the words "or have constructed" in the first
sentence.
Mr. Ross reported that a recent parking study for Town
Center, including photographs, was done by International
Parking Design in conjunction with another project, and
the report states that in previous studies it was found
that multiple office building and mixed-use projects
with banks, restaurants, etc. generally result in -a
lower parking demand ratio than stand-alone buildings.
The report concluded that the center has a surplus of
2,300 spaces over actual demand.
Maris Peika, Gruen and Associates, 6330 San Vicente
Boulevard, Los Angeles, architect for the office build-
ing, gave a slide presentation of the project and
described the office building, the parking structure
containing tennis courts at the upper level, and build-
ing elevations.
Paul Wilkinson, of Linscott Law and Greenspan, Incorpor-
ated, 1580 Corporate Drive, Costa Mesa, consulting
traffic engineers, spoke briefly on the traffic improve-
ments addressed in the EIR.as mitigation measures.
Malcolm Ross stated that he is aware of staff's concern
about the addition of 208,000 square feet above the
Master Plan's 3 million square feet, and agreed that
the concern is well-founded. Mr. Ross offered to with-
draw the request for the hotel. He stated that the
applicant would like to reassess this portion of the
property, and reserve the -right to come back at some
future date with a new design.
Tony Potros, LSA Associates, Incorporated, 1 Park Plaza,
Suite 500, Irvine, reported that he was responsible for
preparation of the Traffic Study for the EIR. He stated
that the document indicates that as a result of mitiga-
tion measures previously.identified in the North Costa
Mesa Arterial Study and the I-405 Access Study that all
intersections could be mitigated to level of acceptabil-
ity; however, he pointed out that the Main Street/
Sunflower Avenue intersection, as a result of forecasted
traffic volumes and mitigations, will operate in the
;morning with.an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
of .92 or Level of Service (LOS) "E". He mentioned
,that the actual impact as a result of this project was
in the morning where the ICU went from .91 to .92, and
.that impact has been fully mitigated and will result in
pan ICU of .77. Mr. Petros stated that in the evening
,there would be an ICU of .92. He noted that the Level
of Service at this intersection actually decreased as a
Result of the project and redistribution of traffic in
,the area, and the reduction of the ICU to .92 is still
;at a level superior to what it would be without the
project and other developments in the area. Mr. Petros
found that as a xesult of the mitigation measures, all
impacts would be mitigated.
Bill Mayer, LSA Associates, reported that eight inter-
sections are affected by this project and all eight
intersections, including Main/Sunflower, can be miti-
gated through a mitigation program. Mr. Mayer stated
,that there are some remaining intersections which are
;not affected by the project which will still exceed
'the .9 threshold.
Responding to a question from Council Member Wheeler,
the Transportation Services Manager reported that the
Main/Sunflower intersection was not addressed in either
the North Costa Mesa Arterial Study or the I-405 Access
'Study. He stated that one-quarter of that intersection
is located in Costa Mesa, and a Main Street widening
plan is now being prepared (CENTROCCS project) in coop-
eration with the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine.
Paul Wilkinson commented that the ICU will go down
because of traffic redistribution proposed for the
;project, and because of improvements being anticipated
and planned by the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine.
Responding to questions from Council Member Hornbuckle
;regarding the Main Street/MacArthur Boulevard intersec-
tion in Santa Ana, Tony Petros reported that without the
project, the intersection will operate at LOS "F" during
peak hours; however, addition of the project's traffic
will not affect that intersection, and therefore was not
pursued for mitigation.
;Malcolm Ross commented that the impact on the Main/
Sunflower intersection does not come from Costa Mesa;
.the p.m. peak -hour impact canes frau Irvine. As to_.the
Main/MacArthur intersection, Mr. Ross stated that the
traffic impact comes frau MacArthur Place in Santa Ana,
and he did not believe Santa Ana would allow the Main/
;MacArthur intersection to continue to operate at LOS
Council Member At 5:15 p.m., Council Member Wheeler left the Council
Wheeler Left Chambers.
Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, spoke about
;traffic projections merely being "opinions" of traffic
consultants.
Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, asked
about the number of hours that shadows from the project
would affect surrounding areas. Ms. Genis contended
that.the EIR does not adequately discuss location of
required housing. She was also concerned about traffic
impacts on the Bristol Street/I-405 area.
1
Council Member Buffa referred to Page XII of the EIR
which states that actual shade encroachment will be less
than one hour in the worst case scenario, and therefore,
is not considered a significant impact.
Council Member Hornbuckle asked the EIR consultants to
address the Bristol/I-405 southbound intersection.
Bill -Mayer reported that as -part of a Draft EIR which
was circulated, impact on the Bristol/I-405 southbound
ramps was identified; however, part of the North Costa
Mesa Arterial Study was not included in that draft. He
stated that since that time, a preliminary engineering
drawing for the grade separation at Bristol/Anton shows
an additional southbound through lane which would create
an acceptable level of service. Mr. Mayer stated that
the improvement is planned as part of the North Costa
Mesa Arterial improvements; hence, there would be no
impact.
Responding to -Mayor Hall's question regarding deletion
of the hotel, the Deputy City Manager/Development
Services referred to Page 9 of the Staff Report, stating
that Council should, still proceed with General Plan
Amendment GP -88-3A reflecting 196,743 square feet for
the hotel in Traffic Zone 17, leaving Traffic Zone 18 as
proposed, resulting in a total of 3 million square feet.
The Deputy City Manager reported that an amendment to
the Town Center Master Plan is -still required (even
though the current Master Pian is 3 million square feet)
because reallocation of the footage by blocks is neces-
ssary to acccmmodate the project.
During discussion, Council indicated that they preferred
having the available 196,743 square feet developed as a
hotel in the future.
There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
MOTION
A motion was made by -Council Member Buffa, seconded by
EIR Certified by
Vice Mayor Amburgey, adopting Resolution 88-86, being
Adoption of
A RESOLUTION OF -THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA
Resolution 88-86
MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
FINAL -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 1041 FOR DEVELOP-
MENT OF A HOTEL AND AN OFFICE BUILDING, TOGETHER WITH A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GP -88-3A), A MASTER PLAN AMEND-
MENT.(ZE-77-246A3), TWO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
(PA -88-144 AND PA -88-145), AND A VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP (VS -88-187), incorporating amendments to the
EIR, Page 146, Mitigation Measures 37a and 39, as stated
in staff's memorandum dated October 27, 1988, and the
revision to Mitigation Measure 14, Page 101, as sug-
gested by the applicant. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler
MOTION
�A.motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by
GP -88-3A Adopted
Vice Mayor Amburgey', adopting Resolution 88-87, being
by Adoption of
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA
Resolution 88-87
MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
GP -88-3A FOR THE SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER, setting
the building,intens,ity standards within Town Center at
3 million square feet, adjusting Traffic Zone 17 by
reducing the hotel square footage from 404,818 square
'' � S'rV.
'feet to 196,743 square feet, and increasing Traffic Zone
18 for the existing Master Plan mixed office use from
760.,243 square feet to 968,318 square feet.
Council Member Hornbuckle announced that she would be
voting against the General Plan Amendment because
Council has based development in North Costa Mesa on the
South Coast Metro Traffic Model which shows a total area
.of 2,760,216 square feet in Town Center, and the amend-
ment allows 3 million square feet.
Council Member At 5:50 p.m., Council Member Wheeler returned to the
Wheeler Returned 'Council table.
Council Member Wheeler opposed the motion because the
project does not comply with the County's growth manage-
ment plan, does not comply with the slow growth initia-
tive on the November 8 ballot, and would contribute to
;an imbalance in jobs and housing in Costa Mesa.
;The motion to adopt Resolution 88-87 carried by the
;following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Buffa
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler, Hornbuckle
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION
On motion by Council Member Hornbuckle, seconded by
Staff Directed _
Council Member Buffa, staff was directed to submit
to Submit Amended
amended findings at the November 7 meeting reflecting
Findings on
,the decreased square footage. The motion carried 4-1,
November 7
Council Member Wheeler voting no.
MOTION
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by
Resolution 88-88
Council Member Buffa, to adopt Resolution 88-88, being
Adopted, Approving
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA
PA -88-144 and
MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING ACTION PA -88-144
ZE-77-246A3
AND ZONE EXCEPTION PERMIT ZE-77-246A3 as follows:
Approve ZE-77-246A3 retaining a development intensity
of 3 -million square feet, and reallocating the square
footage in Traffic Zones 17 and 18 as approved for
General P1an,Amendment GP -88-3A, and subject to condi-
tions contained in the,Staff Report;
Approve PA -88-144, for a Development Plan for a 20 -
story office building containing 436,000 square feet
with a maximum height of 288 feet, and a 5 -level park-
ing structure, based on staff's evaluations and find-
ings and subject to conditions contained in the Staff
Report.
'Vice Mayor Amburgey asked'if the applicant agreed to all
conditions, and Mr.. Ross replied affirmatively.
Council Member Hornbuckle asked if the project as pre-
sented met the City's traffic management ordinance
which mandates LOS "D" at intersections. The Deputy
City Manager/Development Services responded that the
.project as presented does comply with the ordinance in
that the affected intersections must be mitigated to
'LOS "D"; and the unaffected intersections must show a
"measurable improvement", citing.the Main/Sunflower
;intersection which was discussed earlier.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council
PA -88-145 Member Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0, Planning Action
Withdrawn PA -88-145, for a 5 -story, 332 -roan hotel, was withdrawn
as requested.by the.applicant.
RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 6:00 p.m., and the meet-
ing reconvened at 6:35 p..m`'
PUBLIC'HEARING
The Clerk announced that this was the time and place set
DA -88-02
for the .public'hearing for a rehearing of Development
Arnel Development/
Agreement DA-88-02,'requested by David Ball, Arnel
A & R, Parcel 4 and
Development -Company, 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 200,
R & A, Parcel 5
Costa Mesa, authorized agent for A & R, Parcel 4, and
R & A, Parcel 5, c/o Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton Boule-
Metro Pointe
vard, Costa Mesa, for Phases 2 and 3 of Metro Pointe,
Phases 2 and 3
located in the southwest portion of the 900 block of
South Coast -Drive in a PDC zone. Environmental Dater-
mination: Environinental Impact Report No. 1020 certi-
fied in 1984. Coundil'denied the agreement at the
October 3 meeting. The Affidavits of Publishing and
Mailing are on file in.the Clerk's office.
A communication was received frcan Stephen R. Eakin,
1054 Visalia Drive, Costa Mesa, asserting that the
traffic anaiys'is in the EIR is inaccurate.
The Deputy City Manager/Development Services referred to
his memorandum dated October 27, 1988. The applicant
has proposed inserting additional language into the
agreement as Paragraph 9 of Exhibit "E":
"Owner may satisfy any additional fees over and above
those advanced pursuant'to this agreement by entering
into an assessment or Mello Roos Ccmununity Facilities
District providing for the equivalent monies. Should
a'Ccl�nnunity Facilities District or other similar
mechanism be utilized,, owner 'shall similarly partici-
pate on a fair share -basis with other benefitting
development".
The applicant has'also indicated concurrence with the
Planning Commission `recd merided modification of Exhibit
Public Benefits, relating to No. 3, Fire Station
Contribution. `The new wording for this section is
contained in the above mentioned memorandum. Staff
recommended that the duration of the agreement shall
be for a maximum teim of 13 years; however, applicant
is requesting a term of 20 years.
The Deputy City Manager summarized the benefits to the
City and the applicant which would be derived from the
agreement 'if it were approved.
Leonard Hampel, Rutan and Tucker, representing the
applicant, agreed with all conditions proposed by staff
including modifications to Sections 2.03(a) IX and
No.. 3 in Exhibit "E" .as detailed in the memorandum of
October 27. Mr. Hampel mentioned that he is requesting
a 20 -year teen for the agreement because he believes
that is -the approximate time' needed for financing and
development of the project. 'He mentioned that the City
will be acquiring six tangible improvements within the
next two years at a cost'of'$4.88 million, whether or
ca
not the project is cnpleted. Mr. Hampel stated that
the development agreement clarifies many of the Condi-
tions'of Approval on the Vesting Tentative Maps. In
conclusion, Mr. Hampel stated that the applicant accepts
the Mello -Roos Caimunity Facilities District concept as
outlined'in the memorandum of October 27.
"40
Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, stated
'that after reading the agreement, she has determined
that the agreement is not about time frames to lock in
development, it is about minimizing the developer's cost.
,Based on her assumption, Ms. Genis suggested re-examining
;the agreement in that light.
Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa,
,cam-ented that the legal phrases in the agreement were
'difficult to understand and mentioned sections of the
document with which he disagreed. Mr. Sherrick felt
ithat the agreement will not benefit the City.
!Council Member Hornbuckle asked for clarification
,regarding the reference made to a total of $12 million
-in fees. The Deputy City Manager responded that the
total fees for which the -developer is obligated is
$12,535,588.00. He reported that there are two types
of improvements: circulation improvements that are
,project specific which must be constructed prior to
occupancy of each phase, and they account for over $4
;million; the remaining improvements, at a cost of
approximately $8 million, are of an accumulative nature
which include all other developments in the north end of
;Costa Mesa which the City will be building. He reported
that when the projects are proposed, the City will be
collecting funds from the developers, including utiliza-
tion of a Mello -Roos District.
Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, was in favor
'of the agreement, noting that the developer will be
constructing over $4.million in traffic improvements
immediately.
Leonard Hampel pointed out that the agreement does not
;change the fees required of the applicant, and Page 6,
'Exhibit "E", of the agreement confirms that the total
'impact improvement fees are $12,535,688.00.
There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Amburgey, seconded by
DA -88-02 Approved Council Member Buffa, to give first reading to Ordinance
88-18, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOP-
MENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND A & R
PARCEL 4 AND R & A PARCEL 5 FOR METRO POINTE PHASES 2
;AND 3, said approval to be for a period of 20 years, and
shall include the amendments contained in the memorandum
:of October 27 relating to the Mello -Roos District and
the Fire Station.
Council Member Wheeler stated that the agreement was of
little benefit to the City, the developer could be made
to contribute to.the fire station without the agreement,
and formation.of a Mello -Roos District is a benefit to
the developer because it allows the developer to pass on
the costs of the project to the subsequent purchaser of
:the project or subsequent users of the project.
Council Member Buffa mentioned that he voted against
'the original agreement because some costs were being
locked in for the developer and there was nothing in
,that agreement which guaranteed the developer's partici-
pation in the assessment district; however, the modified.
'agreement guarantees the developer's participation in
a future assessment district.
1
The ,motion to give first reading to Ordinance 88-18
carried,by the"following roll call vote:
,AYES:."COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey,
Hornbuckle, Buffa
;NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Wheeler
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
OLD BUSINESS
The Clerk presented an agreement with the County of
Orange, GSA/Real Estate Division, Post Office Box 4106,
Agreement with
Santa Ana, in the amount of $750,000.00, for purchase
Orange County -for
of property at 565 and 567 West 18th Street, known as
Purchase of 18th
the Costa Mesa.Veterans Memorial Hall and the County
Street Property
Probation Building.
The City Manager summarized his _memorandum dated Ottober-19,
1988., reporting.that after several years of
negotiations, the.City_and County have developed a
purchase agreement -for the..99-acre, R2 parcels. Terms
of the agreement„include:
-.Purchase price of $750,000.00, with $225,000.00 down
and the remainder' spread, over 5 years;
City and County to equally split demolition costs
with the.County administering work before close of
escrow;
No restriction on land use;.
Escrow to close -by March 31, 1989;
County to provide,City with $11,400.00 to place in
trust on behalf of the veterans organization and to
be used for defraying the cost of maintenance and
operation of a meeting place at Rea Camunity Center.
The memorandum indicates that the veterans organization
views Rea Center as a temporary arrangement and will
continue to work toward a more desirable, permanent
location. The veterans have begun discussion with the
Senior. Nonprofit Corporation concerning space for their
organization in the future Seniors Center.
Lucien-Bissor, 774 Allegheny Avenue, was opposed.to mov-
ing.the veterans to Rea Center and suggested that the
City keep the existing probation buildings for the
veterans' use, demolishing the Veterans Hall and using
that: area for parking, or retaining the Veterans Hall as
an historical site.
Bob Hanson, 3261 Oregon Avenue, Costa Mesa, urged the
City to support the veterans in.obtaining a suitable
facility for.the many -activities they perform for the
community.
Bud Hohl, 145 Cecil Place, Costa Mesa, stated that the
cost of renovating the Veterans Hall probably would not
be .feasible; however-, he _believed use of the probation
facilities may be a good idea, even on an interim basis.
Mr. Hohl urged the Council, to assist the veterans in
obtaining a replacement for the present facility.
David Yarnal, 2583 Santa Ana.Avenue, Costa Mesa, asked
how the Council can spend millions of dollars to provide
a Seniors Center, yet they will not spend $300,000.00 to
renovate Veterans.Hall.
Holroy Watkins, 780 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, was
opposed to the City's purchasing the property and demol-
ishing the buildings. He suggested that the property
remain in the possession of the County and that the City
assist the County in restoring Veterans Hall to its
original stature.
'Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, was in favor
of the City doing all possible to resolve the problem.
MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Wheeler, seconded
Authorized City by Council Member Buffa, directing the City Manager
Manager to to contact the County and request a reduced purchase
Renegotiate the price, deleting the trust fund and cost of demolition,
Agreement and for an amount not to exceed $750,000.00, authorizing
Provide the City Manager to proceed with negotiations, and
Renovation Costs 'reporting the results to Council, and at that time,
(Withdrawn Later) providing Council with the cost of renovating the
probation facility.
Council Member At 8:30 p.m., Council Member Buffa left the Council
Buffa Left tmeeting.
Vice Mayor Amburgey mentioned that Council has indicated
that they are very interested in providing space for the
veterans at the future Seniors Center site. He stated
that Council does care about the veterans and their
:activities.
Council Member Hornbuckle expressed here interest in
preserving old buildings and asked for information
Mayor Hall commented that after having heard the many
;alternatives suggested this evening, he believes the
veterans are requesting some security for a future loca-
-tion large enough to continue with their many activities.
The Mayor believed the motion should merely address re -
'negotiating the purchase agreement, deleting reference
'to the trust fund and demolition of buildings.
First Motion Council Member Wheeler withdrew his original motion.
Withdrawn
Mayor Hall made a motion authorizing the City Manager to
NEW MOTION negotiate the purchase price of the property, deleting
Authorized City demolition and the trust fund,.for an amount not to
Manager to exceed $750,000.00. The new motion was seconded by
Renegotiate Council Member Hornbuckle.
Agreement
,Council Member Hornbuckle commented that the motion
relieves the County of any additional costs, such as the
,trust fund and possible demolition costs. Mayor Hall
responded that he had faith in the City Manager's abil-
ity to negotiate with the County, and felt that if these
costs were removed from the agreement, the County would
be willing to reduce the price accordingly.
Vice Mayor Amburgey opposed the motion because he felt
this would set back negotiations to where they were two
years ago when the City first declared its interest in
;purchasing the property.
jThe new motion by Mayor Hall carried 3-1, Vice Mayor
'Amburgey voting no, Council Member Buffa absent.
MOTION ;A motion was'made by Mayor Hall,.seconded by Council
Directed City Member Hornbuckle,.directing the City Manager to provide
Manager to Provide various use alternatives relative to the structures on
Alternatives site. The motion carried 3-1, Vice Mayor Amburgey vot-
ing no, Council Member Buffa absent.
RECESS The_Mayor declared.a recess.at 8:50 p.m. and the meeting
reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
Fences on Monrovia, The Clerk presented a request .to construct fences for
Continental, and homes on Monrovia, Federal, and Continental Avenues
Federal Avenues impacted by street -closures.
The City Manager referred to a memorandum from the
Public Services' -Director dated October 10, 1988, which
recommended construction of permanent fences to prevent
traffic frcxn,driving on private property. The problem
started after traffic diverters were installed at
Monrovia Avenue/20th Street, Continental Avenue/Oak
Street, and Federal Avenue north of Oak Street.
MOTION A notion was made by Council Member Wheeler, seconded
Authorized Fence by Council Member Hornbuckle, authorizing the Public
Construction Services Department to select a contractor to construct
permanent fences as needed to prevent traffic from
driving on private property and award a contract in an
amount not to exceed $15,000.00. The motion carried by
the following roll call vote: .
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler,
Hornbuckle
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa
NEW BUSINESS The Clerk presented'Council Policy 300-4 concerning a
benefit program for part-time employees.
Council Policy
300-4, Part-time The City Manager summarized a memorandum from the
Employees Benefit Personnel Director dated October 6, 1988, which contains
Program a proposal to provide a minimum threshold of vacation,
holiday,'and;sick leave benefits for those part-time
employees who work on a year-round basis.
MOTION
On motion by Council Member-Hornbuckle, seconded by Vice
Policy 300-4
Mayor Arburgey,,Policy 300-4 was approved by the follow -
Approved
ing roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: •Hall, Amburgey, Wheeler,
Hornbuckle
NOES:: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:, COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa
ORAL i
Jim Ferryman, 1095 Tulare Drive, Costa Mesa, asked if
COMMUNICATIONS
the City would have to -defend Measure "G" (Slow Growth)
if.it'were passed.by the voters in the November 8 elec-
Measure "G"/Slow
tion, and then challenged in court.
Growth
The City Attorney.responded that he would follow the
Council's instructions.
Council Member Wheeler objected -to political matters
being discussed at.a.Council:-meeting.
Measures "H" and
Sid.Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed
"I"/Home Ranch
Measures "H" -and "I" (Home Ranch Project) and contended
that it is impossible to predict the number of addi-
tional trip ends which would be generated by the
project.
Chamber of Commerce
Sandra Genis, 1586 Myrtlewood Street, Costa Mesa, stated
Political Letter
that it was her understanding that the City is a member
of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Ccmmerce and pays a certain
''membership fee each year. She mentioned a letter on
Chamber of Commerce letterhead which was mailed to resi-
dents which took a position on the ballot measures. It
was her opinion that this was an improper use of City
'funds. Ms. Genis asked how much money the City pays to
:the Chamber .in membership fees.
Mayor Hall responded that it was his understanding that
!the letter was not paid for by the Chamber. The Mayor
also reported that -the City's membership in the Chamber
costs approximately $900.00 to $1,000.00 per year.
Measure "G" 'Dan Worthington; 2963 Mindanao Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke
yin opposition to Measure "G", stating that the response
time which would be required by the City's safety staff
for nonemergency calls would add a great deal of
;unnecessary costs to the City budget.
Council Member Wheeler defended the measure, stating
that it will,not cost the City any additional money if
it were to pass on November 8.
COUNCIEMANIC Council Member Hornbuckle asked that Council direct the
COMMENTS ;City Manager to do some investigating concerning reports
,she has received about contractors who are taking
Costa Mesa Job advantage of the workers at the Costa Mesa Job Center,
Center ;specifically, some contractors are picking up workers
,and failing to pay them upon completion of the job.
Orange County Vice Mayor Amburgey commended the City Manager for pro-
Detox Center posing a detox center for the County of Orange, and
,reported that it appears that the idea will be imple-
mented.
Mayor Hall's Mayor Hall spoke at length about the years he has spent
Comments with the City as Planning Commissioner, Council Member,
and Mayor. He mentioned that all nine candidates on
the November 8 ballot admit that Costa Mesa is a great
city;,yet, there are those who say that previous Coun-
cils have done a poor job. The Mayor expressed his
opinion that measure"G" (Slow Growth) would be a detri-
ment to the community, and explained why he had come to
that conclusion. Be stated that Costa Mesa is the most
exciting, vibrant city in Southern California and hoped
that it would stay that way. Mayor Hall commended the
City staff, stating that it is the finest.
ADJOURNMENTThe Mayor declared the me Ing adjourned at 10: .m.
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
ty Clerk of the City of Costa Mes