Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/1989 - City Council Special MeetingSPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAY 24, 1989 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa met in special session with the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency on May 24, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. Notice of the special meeting was posted as required by law. The joint meeting was called to order by Mayor Buffa and Agency Chairman Amburgey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Peter Buffa Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Ed Glasgow COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None AGENCY MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ory Amburgey Vice Chairman Ed Glasgow Agency Member Mary Hornbuckle Agency Member Peter Buffa Agency Member Sandra Genis AGENCY MEMBERS ABSENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: None City Manager Allan Roeder City Attorney Thomas Wood Assistant City Attorney Eleanor Frey Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services Don Lamm Transportation Services Manager John Lower Redevelopment Agency Principal Planner Millie Summerlin Deputy City Clerk Mary Elliott Redevelopment Agency Secretary Patricia Smith ANNOUNCEMENT Agency Chairman Amburgey announced that in an effort to Mayor Buffa eliminate any confusion as to whom the public should Designated Acting address during the joint meeting, that is, the Mayor Chairman of the or the Agency Chairman, he appointed Mayor Buffa as Act- Agency ctAgency ing Agency Chairman for this evening's proceedings. LENGTH OF MEETING Mayor Buffa stated that he would let the audience decide The Audience Voted whether they wished to have the meeting end at midnight to have All Items if all the items were not yet addressed, and continue Addressed and the public hearings to another evening; or to proceed Voted upon this until the agendas were completed. After voting on these Evening options by raising their hands, the audience chose to proceed with the meeting until the Agency and Council addressed and voted on all items. PROCEDURE FOR THE Mayor Buffa announced that the Council and Agency will JOINT MEETING be considering all items on both Agendas, some of which must be acted upon by both bodies, and others which must be acted upon by either the Council or Agency, for the Triangle Square Project located on property bordered by Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and 19th Street, for development of approximately 185,000 square feet of land including retail, theatre, and restaurant uses. The Mayor summarized the items to be considered: Initial Study of environmental impacts prepared for this project, and a recommendation to recertify Final Supplemental EIR No. 1026. (Council and Agency) Measure "G" Compliance Report. (Council) General Plan Amendment GP -89-1C, amending the Land Use Element to establish a Floor Area Ratio of 0.95, and amending the Master Plan of Highways by deleting the right -turn lane on northbound Harbor Boulevard to eastbound 19th Street, and adding a right -turn lane on southbound Newport Boulevard at Broadway. (Council) Rezone Petition R-88-09, to rezone from C2 to PDC. (Council) Planning Action PA -89-31 (Redevelopment Action RA -89-05), for a Final Development Plan; a Condi- tional Use Permit for deviation from the shared parking analysis; and a variance from'lot coverage standards for the PDC zone. (Council) Redevelopment Action RA -89-05 (Planning Action PA -89-31) for review of a Final Development Plan for the proposed project. (Agency) A change in the public use of the parking lot within Vehicle Parking District No. 2 and conveyance of that property by the City to the Agency. (Council) Disposition and Development and Owner Participation agreement by and between the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, the City of Costa Mesa, and Triangle Square Associates. (Council and Agency) Resolutions of Necessity to acquire the following properties by eminent domain: 1869, 1875, and 1879 Newport Boulevard; 1880, 1882, 1884, 1886, 1892, and 1894 Harbor Boulevard; and to acquire the leasehold interest in 1870 Harbor Boulevard. (Agency) Developer's basic concept drawings. (Agency) Development Agreement DA -89-01 between the City of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency. (Council and Agency) MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by To Read Ordinances Council Member Amburgey, and carried 5-0, to read all by Title Only ordinances by title only. Public Hearing Mayor Buffa opened the public hearing for both the Opened Council and Agency. The Deputy Clerk reported that notices of public hearing were published and mailed as required by law, and she summarized the list of notifications. Former Mayors Mayor Buffa recognized former Mayors Din Raciti and Recognized Eonn Hall. Triangle Square Gerald Klein, Triangle Square Associates, 33161 Camino Presentation Capistrano, Suite A, San Juan Capistrano, stated that after reviewing the Redevelopment Agency Guidelines, he designed the Triangle Square project accordingly. Mr. Klein summarized some of the changes which have been made since the development was first introduced, and thereafter showed slides of the project and described the development in detail. Ronald Altoon, Altoon and Porter, 3275 Wilshire Boule- vard, Los Angeles, project architect, continued with the slide presentation, detailing the architectural aspects of the project. Gerald Klein completed the slide presentation and mentioned that he has executed leases with two major tenants: Quality Foods International and Cineplex Odeon Theatres. Patrick Barber, Quality Foods International, 5531 Monte Vista, Los Angeles, reported that Quality Foods operates stores throughout California using various names, and the name of the market which will be located in Triangle Square is "Market Basket", a name used throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties. Mr. Barber stated that the store will be a very upscale, first class supermarket. Gary Mahler, Cineplex Odeon Theatres, 15260 Ventura Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, confirmed that he has executed cuted a lease with the developer, stating that he was enthusiastic about the design of the project and the mix of tenants. He was of the opinion that there was more than ample parking for the project. Gerald Klein stated that Triangle Square Associates now owns the Venture 16 building, and recently acquired the Wells Fargo Bank property. He reported that he has been attempting to negotiate with the various dentists within the triangle, and intends to continue to negotiate with those property owners with whom he has not yet reached an agreement. Presentation The Deputy City Manager/Development Services stated that by Staff there are five particular land use areas contained in the Planning Division Staff Reports: (1) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance; (2) Measure "G" Compliance Report; (3) General Plan Amendment GP -89-1C and Rezone Petition R-88-09; (4) Planning Action PA -89-31 and Redevelopment Action RA -89-05, which relate to the specific development of the project; and (5) Development Agreement DA -89-01, for confirmation of actual development of the property and the terms under which it will be developed. CEQA Requirements/ The Deputy City Manager reported that the Initial Supplemental EIR Environmental Study analyzes the potential impacts of No. 1026 the project and compares them with the most recent certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this property, Supplemental EIR No. 1026. He stated that based on the Initial Study, staff and the Planning Commission recommended recertification of EIR No. 1026. Council Member Genis expressed her concern about the water table inasmuch as water was found at a depth of 16 feet at The Courtyards project and the parking pro- posed for Triangle Square will go down to 20 feet. The Deputy City Manager responded that according to the geotechnical study, there would be very little dewater- ing, pumping of the water would be minimal, and there should be no adverse impacts on surrounding properties. '181 Measure "G" Report The Deputy City Manager/Development Services stated that the Triangle Square project is not exempt from the requirements of Measure "G", and the compliance report is the first since the measure was adopted in November, 1988. He reported that the developer submitted a report in response to the requirements of Measure "G", and it addresses the four basic areas requiring an analysis: traffic impact, flood control, police response time, and fire response time. The Deputy City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution, making findings that this project will comply with Measure "G", subject to conditions which mitigate the impacts on police, fire, flood control, and transportation, so that the current situation in that community is not degraded by the project. Council Member Genis asked for clarification of the engineering calculations which are based on 8.2 acres, when the subject site is only 4.5 acres. Rick Doolittle, Hall and Foreman, Incorporated, an engineering firm, 3170 Red Hill Avenue, Costa Mesa, responded that 8.2 acres is the calculated area which extends to the centerline of the surrounding streets. Planning Commission Mayor Buffa recognized former Mayor Jack Hammett and Chairman and Former Chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission Walter Mayor Recognized Davenport. General Plan Amend- The Deputy City Manager/Development Services reported ment GP -89-1C and that the current land use designation for the site is Rezone R-88-09 Commercial Center, and the zoning is C2; however, because the site did not have a maximum building land use intensity, General Plan Amendment GP -89-1C would establish a maximum intensity level of 0.95 FAR (Floor Area Ratio); secondly, GP -89-1C provides for amendments to the Master Plan of Highways. Referring to Rezone Petition R-88-09, to rezone the site from C2 to PDC, the Deputy City Manager stated that the PDC zone is more consistent with the General Plan. PA-89-31/RA-89-05 The Deputy City Manager/Development Services addressed Planning Action PA-89-31/Redevelopment Action RA -89-05, reporting that these actions are simply those land use permits necessary to approve the actual design of the building construction. He commented that Mr. Klein had already gone into detail on the design of the project via his slide presentation. The Deputy City Manager reported that PA -89-31 contains two processes: a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Variance. He explained that the CUP is for a deviation of the shared parking standards, and that standards for shopping centers were established because of different parking demands at different times of the day. The Deputy City Manager reported that 1256 parking spaces are required, the developer is proposing 1150; therefore, Triangle Square Associates requested a CUP because of the number of theatres, and because those theatres will not be filled 100 percent of the time. He stated that the Variance relates to site coverage (the percentage of building footprint which is useable floor area, and excludes parking structures, fountains, or walkways). He reported that the Municipal Code provides for 30 percent site coverage; the applicant is requesting 32 percent; and staff feels the additional coverage is justified based on the design of the project. He also mentioned that an amendment to the Municipal Code will be presented to Council at the meeting of June 5, 1989, changing the site coverage to 35 percent which staff feels is more realistic in the Redevelopment Area. Development The Deputy City Manager/Development Services referred Agreement to Development Agreement DA -89-01 which is the contract DA -89-01 between the City and the Redevelopment Agency outlining specifically that this project will be developed as presented. He advised that the agreement is effective for five years, and it is subject to annual review to ensure ccdmpliance by the developer. Vehicle Parking Celeste Brady, law firm of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson, District No. 2 and Rauth, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600, Newport Beach, Special Counsel for the Redevelopment Agency, gave background data on the establishment of Vehicle Parking District No. 2, and reported that the boundaries of the district include the Triangle Square site, three parcels across 19th Street, and several parcels at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and 19th Street. Mrs. Brady stated that in order to accommodate this project, it will be necessary for the public parking lot in the Triangle block to be devoted to another public use and conveyed by the City to the Redevelopment Agency for redevelopment purposes. She reported that within the procedure of devoting the parking lot to another public use, there is an allowance for a protest by the majority of the property owners; however, the protests received do not represent a majority. Disposition and Marilyn Whisenand, 232 West Avenida Gaviota, San Development/owner Clemente, Consultant for the Redevelopment Agency, Participation referenced the "Executive Summary" of the Disposition Agreement and Development and Owner Participation Agreement by and between the City of Costa Mesa, the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, and Triangle Square Associates. She reported that the scope of development and uses of the site are controlled by the agreement. Mrs. Whisenand stated that the agreement requires the Agency to use its best efforts to acquire the "acquisi- tion parcels" (those not owned by the City, Agency, or developer), relocate the occupants, and convey the parcels, along with City and Agency parcels to the developer for demolition, site preparation, and develop- ment. Mrs. Whisenand reported that the estimated cost to acquire the parcels is $6,306,277.00; the estimated value of City/Agency owned property is $1,253,000.00, for a total of $7,559,277.00 in acquisition costs. Mrs. Whisenand concluded her report by summarizing the method of financing, developer payments, schedule of perform- ance, and termination provisions. Responding to Council Member Genis's question concerning the possibility of the developer defaulting on the loan, Celeste Brady stated that the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement allow the Agency to cure any default of mortgage payments, permit the Agency to re - vest itself with the property, immediately find another developer, convey the property, use the proceeds to cure outstanding indebtedness, and proceed with development. Cal Hollis, Keyser Marston Associates, Incorporated, 500 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, financial consultant, stated that the Agency has no obligation to cure a 7I L default, it merely has the option to do so. Mr. Hollis reported that it is the lender's obligation to complete the project. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:55 p.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Resolutions of Celeste Brady, Agency Special Counsel, referred to the Necessity to Resolutions of Necessity which must be adopted by the Acquire Parcels Agency in order to exercise its power of eminent domain. She reported that three findings must be made by any public entity who exercises the power of eminent domain: the public interest and necessity require the proposed redevelopment project; the redevelopment project is planned or located in a manner which will be most compat- ible ompatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and the properties planned for acquisition by eminent domain are necessary for the redevelopment project. She reported that it is staff's opinion that the redevelopment project meets the requirements con- tained in the above findings, and that redevelopment and removal of blight on the block is in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan objectives and goals, and is in the best public interest. Council Member Genis asked for a definition of "blight". Celeste Brady responded that "blight" is defined in the Community Redevelopment Law (Section 33000 of the Health and Safety Code), a summary of which was given to Agency Members at a Study Session. She stated that the deter- mination of blight was made by the Redevelopment Agency when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted in December of 1973. Mrs. -Brady also answered questions from Council Member Genis regarding the building to land ratio, irregular parcels, and mixed residential/commercial use. Basic Concept Marilyn Whisenand, Agency Consultant, stated that the Drawings Basic Concept Drawings consist of the elevations, schematics, and site plans, which were part of the Planning Action/Redevelopment Action report, and which were shown during the slide presentation by Mr. Klein. Public Testimony The Mayor announced that this was the time to accept testimony from the public. Barry A. Ross, Attorney at Law, 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 159, Tustin, read his letter dated May 24, 1989, copies of which were distributed to the Council/Agency Members. Mr. Ross represents the following owners of property within the project area: Simon R. and Margaret L. Nord, owners of property at 1894-1896 Harbor Boule- vard; Zachary T. Pedicini and George Brennan, owners of property at 1884-A and -B and 1886 Harbor Boulevard; Curtis A. and Virginia L. Herberts, owners of property at 1880-1882 Harbor Boulevard; and Hugh T. and Dorothy S. Jones, owners of property at the rear half of 1879 Newport Boulevard. In summary, Mr. Ross's letter stated that Council/Agency Member Amburgey should abstain from voting on these items because of financial contributions he received from the developer, Mr. Klein, and from Rutan and Tucker, attorneys for Triangle Square Associates. Mr. Ross contended that the Initial Study is an inadequate attempt to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; Applications for Certificates of Conformity to the Redevelopment Plan should have been granted to the property owners; elimination of the park- ing district is prohibited by Streets and Highways Code X83 Section 31851.5; the Disposition and Development Agree- ment is unreasonable and unfair; eminent domain is improper in this case; and the Disposition and Develop- ment Agreement violates the spirit of Measure "G" Council Member Amburgey commented that receiving cam- paign funds from the developer and his attorney does not prohibit him from voting on the project. The City Attorney confirmed that there is no conflict of interest. Ernie Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, expressed her concern with condemning properties. She stated that at a candidates forum for the November, 1988, election, she asked the candidates if they would be in favor of - condemnation within the Triangle Square block, and both Council Members Genis and Glasgow responded "no". Curt Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, Balboa, owner of property at 1880-1882 Harbor Boulevard, mentioned that in October, 1988, when this site was being considered for redevelopment, he submitted over 500 signatures on a petition requesting that the project be denied. Mr. Herberts submitted another petition containing 1,481 signatures, urging the Council/Agency to vote against this development. Mr. Herberts stated that his property is not for sale now, nor has it ever been for sale. Zachary Pedicini, 102 Scholz Plaza, Newport Beach, co- owner of property at 1884 and 1886 Harbor Boulevard, stated he has never received an offer for his property from either Triangle Square Associates or the City. Celeste Brady, Agency Special Counsel, responded that letters were sent to Mr. Pedicini and Mr. Brennan since 1985, and she gave the dates on which the letters were mailed. Harold Hofer, 4701 Von Karman, Newport Beach, co-owner of The Courtyards, 1835 Newport Boulevard, spoke in support of the Triangle Square project, commenting that it would be an outstanding addition to downtown Costa Mesa. Simon Nord, 1414 Dover Drive, Newport Beach, owner of property at 1894-1896 Harbor Boulevard, thanked the Council/Agency for listening to the property owners, and expressed his objection.to condemnation. Hugh T. Jones, owner of property at the rear of 1879 Newport Boulevard, reported that because of the threat of condemnation of his property, he has not been able to sell his dental practice, or to lease the office, so that he could retire. He asked that the Agency deny condemnation. Camille Courtney Politte, 2756 Lorenzo Avenue, Costa Mesa, mentioned that she is President of Mesa Pride, a community organization, but she was speaking on her own behalf, not as a representative of that organization. Ms. Politte considered the Triangle Square project the last jewel in the crown of the downtown redevelopment plan. She asked that the Council/Agency approve the project even though condemning properties is a very unpleasant task. Gerry McClellan, whose dental practice is at 1879 Newport Boulevard, thanked the Council/Agency for the time they have spent listening to the concerns of the property owners and tenants. Mr. McClellan stated that he preferred not to move from his present location; however, he would be willing to do so if he received an appropriate offer. Mr. McClellan suggested a vote by Costa Mesa residents to determine whether the majority would support the project. John Mead, 9151 Wister Drive, La Mesa, co --owner of Adventure 16, an outdoor sporting goods retailer, located at 1870 Harbor Boulevard, stated that Adventure 16 has been in the retail business for 26 years and it was his opinion that the project does not have quality retail space and will not attract high class retailers. Mr. Mead asked the Council/Agency not to make special provisions to develop this project, and certainly not to condemn any properties. Arthur Parkins, whose dental practice is at 1879 Newport Boulevard, reported that most of his patients live near his office, and it would be very disruptive to them if the practice were -to be moved. He mentioned that his present dental office has recently been remodeled and he does not want to move to a site less attractive then his present location. Jim Flores, 219 Broadway, Costa Mesa, tenant at 1879 Newport Boulevard, was opposed to condemnation, and spoke about the hardship it would create for him if he were forced to move his dental practice. He contended that there was no need for more theatres, markets, or retail shops in the City. Sid Crossley, 1793-1/2 Newport Boulevard, reported that he owns property at the southwest corner of West 18th Street and Newport Boulevard. He stated that as a property owner, he is concerned about condemnation; however, he was in favor of the.project because he felt it would encourage pedestrian traffic and would benefit the City. John L. Ganger, 5202 West Yale Avenue, Westminster, Music Director of Costa Mesa South Coast Symphony, was impressed by the project because of its attention to public space, and he endorsed the project as proposed. Steve Packer, 550 Paularino Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that when he moved to Costa Mesa in 1973, he resided near the subject site, and it was obvious to him that this was a blighted area. Mr. Packer supported the project. Yvonne Watters, Newport Check Cashing, tenant at 1882 Harbor Boulevard, spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Watters was of the opinion that there were enough restaurants on the west side, and this type of develop- ment is not appropriate for the neighborhood. She mentioned that the land from.which her business was moved for a prior redevelopment project is still vacant. Alex Skarbek, 2262 Avalon Street, Costa Mesa, commented that the project is long overdue and it would not be fair to the community to reject it. Frank Flores, whose dental practice is at 1879 Newport Boulevard, stated that he is merely asking for a fair offer from Triangle Square Associates. He contended that the developer is not doing a good job in negotiat- ing egotiating with the property owners. Mr. Flores suggested that the City divest itself of the properties it owns, and allow the existing businesses to remain. John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that although the project appeared to be a good one, he was opposed.to taking property by eminent domain. Mr. Feeney suggested that if the property owners were offered a substantial amount of money, the developer would have no problem acquiring the remaining prop- erties. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 11:05 p.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 11:15 p.m. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that she compared a previous Staff Report (October, 1988) with the current Staff Report. She also compared the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts prepared in July, 1988, with the Initial Study dated March, 1989, and had some concerns after reading these documents. Ms. Luymes questioned the assumptions made regarding Newport Boule- vard and the 55 Freeway, not only on air quality, but also regarding noise and traffic. She contended that to merely point out that the freeway is not funded south of 19th Street and that there are no current plans to do so, does not adequately evaluate the impacts of the free- way on this particular project. Ms. Luymes questioned the adequacy of the noise impacts contained in the Staff Report. She was concerned about the safety of people using the parking structure. She also mentioned that there is a statement omitted in the latest Staff Report regarding the significant impact the project will have on fire protection services. Ms. Luymes stated that a major concern is traffic, and mentioned that the new study shows a lower number of daily trips than the previous study. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle responded to Ms. Luymes's remarks about the traffic data, stating that the square footage of the project is less than that of the earlier proposal. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Speaking Time Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to extend Ms. Luymes's speaking Extended time by five minutes. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Buffa.and Amburgey voting no. Ms. Luymes disagreed with several other issues in the latest Initial Study concerning traffic, and was of the opinion that the project is too intense for the excep- tionally busy intersection of Newport and Harbor Boule- vards. She concluded her comments by expressing her doubts about the reliability of the Environmental Impact Report; reported that most people are opposed to taking of property by eminent domain; and generally opposed the project because it was too intense and because of the traffic problems it would create. Paul E. Garber, Attorney at Law, 201 East Sandpointe, Suite 330, Santa Ana, representing owners of Costa Mesa Dental Properties, Incorporated, 1879 Newport Boulevard, reported that the developer should pay the fair market value for properties they wish to acquire; however, the offers received by his clients have been too low. He suggested delaying condemnation so that his clients can continue negotiations with the developer. Council Member Amburgey advised Mr. Garber that even if the Agency were to adopt Resolutions of Necessity to condemn the properties, the developer and the owners could continue to negotiate. -is Dave Ruffell, owner of property 1922 Harbor Boulevard, commented that the project is not needed because there are still vancancies at The Courtyards, and rentals at the project would be too expensive for small businesses. He opposed the taking of a public parking lot without compensation to the public who paid for it and use it. Mr. Ruffell contended that the project is a flagrant violation of Measure "G", and was opposed to taking of property by eminent domain. John Allen, 8811 Pacific Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, co-owner and manager of Adventure 16, 1870 Harbor Boule- vard, stated that this store, which he helped design and build, is not blighted, and it would be a crime to demolish it. Mr. Allen mentioned that his shop is considered by experts in his industry to be one of the best in the country. Mitchell Mead, co-owner of Adventure 16, 1870 Harbor Boulevard, tenant of Triangle Square Associates, reported that negotiations were suspended when Mr. Klein withdrew his application in October, 1988, and since that time, Mr. Klein has made no attempt to continue negotiations, and has never submitted a written offer. Mr. Mead stated that staff has advised him that condem- nation will be used only if negotiations fail. He asked that the developer be required to negotiate fairly. John DeWitt, 2000 Balearic Drive, Costa Mesa, commented that he appreciates the concerns of the property owners in the matter of condemnation; however, the project will benefit the entire community. Mr. DeWitt stated that as a landscape architect, it was his opinion that the land- scaping for the project is appropriate. Former Mayor Donn Hall, 3165 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, announced that he also would be speaking for former Mayors Jack Hammett and Norma Hertzog-Wagner. Mr. Hall read a statement by Mrs. Hertzog Wagner in which she commented that redevelopment of the Triangle block is a vital link in the completion of the most exciting, viable redevelopment project in the nation. She urged the Council/Agency Members to give their full support to the project. Mr. Hall read comments from Jack Hammett which stated that he was an original member of the Redevelopment Agency, and it was the goal of the members to utilize all legal means available to upgrade the City of Costa Mesa. Mr. Hammett felt that even though condemnation is sometimes necessary, property owners must be justly compensated. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded Speaking Time by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to allow Mr. Hall an addi- Ey.tended tional five minutes to speak. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Buffa and Amburgey voting no. Mr. Hall addressed the issue of dewatering, and it was his opinion that the proposed project would have little or no negative impact on surrounding properties. He opposed the use of eminent domain except as a last resort. He stated that the most difficult decision and most unpleasant job for the Council/Agency is to condemn someone's property.. Mr. Hall commented that this would be the last opportunity for the City to improve the Triangle block. Report on Written Communications Walt Davenport, 1888 Parkview Circle, Costa Mesa, Chair- man of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, stated that the project will reap numerous benefits for the City, one of the most significant being the tax increment. He felt it would be a tremendous loss to Costa Mesa if the project were rejected. Rob Jones, whose office at 1879 Newport Boulevard will be affected by approval of the project, stated that it is very difficult to move a dental practice. He also mentioned that the negotiations with the developer have not been successful. Betty Jean Beecher, 200 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, reported that she has lived in the area since 1936, and although she does not always agree with the Council, and voted against incorporation in 1953, she believes the City has progressed beautifully. Mrs. Beecher commented that no town remains the same after 30 years, and that she was in favor of the project. Virginia Herberts, owner of property at 1882 Harbor Boulevard, felt that Council Members Glasgow and Genis should support the statements they made during their election campaigns indicating they were opposed to eminent domain. The Deputy Clerk announced the communications received concerning items listed on the Council and Agency agendas: Lawrence Somers, 201 Shipyard Way, Suite 2, Newport Beach, representing property owners of 440-448 West 19th Street and 1902 Harbor Boulevard, opposed abandonment of the public parking lot within Vehicle Parking District No. 2. Board of Trustees, First United Methodist Church, 420 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, withdrew their objection to the abandonment of the public parking lot within Vehicle Parking District No. 2. Leo and Eunice Ford, 2450 Duke Place, Costa Mesa, supported the project. Mitchel Mead, Adventure 16, Incorporated, 4620 Alvarado Canyon Read, San Diego, principal owner of Adventure 16, 1870 Harbor Boulevard, opposed the project, and advised in a second communication that he would be speaking at the public hearing. Yvonne Watters, tenant at 1882 Harbor Boulevard, opposed the project, and stated that she would be speaking at the public hearing. Roy Andreen, 2769 Cibola Avenue, Costa'Mesa, opposed the project. Barry A. Ross, Attorney at Law, 17291 Irvine Boule- vard, Suite 159, Tustin, representing owners of properties at 1894-1896 Harbor Boulevard, 1884 A & B and 1886 Harbor Boulevard, 1880-1882 Harbor Boule- vard, and the rear half of 1879 Newport Boulevard, opposed the project, and informed staff of his intention to speak at the public hearing. Paul Garber, Attorney at Law, 201 East Sandpointe, Santa Ana, advised that he, and Doctors McClellan and Flores, would speak at the public hearing. J ICS Arthur B. Parkins, D.D.S., 1879 Newport Boulevard, notified staff that he will speak at the public hearing. James F. Flores, D.D.S., 1879 Newport Boulevard, notified staff that he will speak at the public hearing. Public Hearing There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the Closed public hearing for both the Council and Redevelopment Agency. Closing Comments Gerald Klein, Triangle Square Associates, responded to by Developer statements made by some property owners. He mentioned comments by John and Mitchell Mead of Adventure 16, stating that he and Mitchell Mead have had several phone conversations about their relocating elsewhere during construction, and then coming back into the project. He reported that he,made a written offer to relocate Adventure 16 during construction, and then to move the shop back to Triangle Square at no expense to the Meads. Mr. Klein reported that Ronald Altoon, project archi- tect, has been responsible for the design of over 40 million square feet of retail uses across the United States since 1973, is a qualified retail expert, and believes that Triangle Square will be as successful as the Villa Westwood and Brentwood Court developments. In regard to statements that he has not negotiated in good faith, Mr. Klein stated that in the case of the dentists, he made an offer of 15 percent over the appraised value of the property, including furniture, fixtures, and equipment. He then offered to sell back to them the furniture, fixtures, and equipment for $1.00. Mr. Klein expressed his desire to continue to negotiate with the property owners even if acquisition by eminent domain is approved. Addressing a comment about Triangle Square being a seven -story development, Mr. Klein explained that there are seven levels of parking; however, the project is basically a two-story project, and those two stories will screen the four parking levels above grade. During discussion, Mr. Klein, staff, and the consultants answered questions from the Council/Agency Members concerning continents made during public testimony and statements contained in the project documents. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 1:10 a.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 1:20 a.m. Mayor Buffa called for motions on items listed on both agendas. Recertification The Deputy Clerk presented Environmental Impact Report of EIR No. 1026 (EIR) No. 1026 for recertification by the Council. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolution 89-142 by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Resolution 89-142, Adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN EARLIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED TRIANGLE SQUARE DEVELOP- MENT PROJECT. Council Member Genis announced that she would oppose the motion in that she believed there were significant differences in the projects, such as, housing, depth of the parking structure, and water quality. She also was concerned with the adequacy of the original EIR because she felt there should be greater discussion of growth inducing impacts. Council Member Genis stated that she was disappointed in the limited geographic scope of the traffic analysis. The motion to adopt Resolution following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 89-142 carried by the Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Glasgow Genis None The Agency Secretary presented Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1026 for recertification by the Agency. AGENCY MOTION On motion by Agency Chairman Amburgey, seconded by Resolution 107-89 Agency Member Hornbuckle, Resolution 107-89, A RESOLU- Adopted TION OF THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN EARLIER ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS REG?RDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED TRIANGLE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Amburgey, Glasgow, Buffa, Hornbuckle NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Measure "G" The Deputy Clerk presented the Measure "G" Compliance Compliance Report Report for Council action. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolution 89-143 by Mayor Buffa, to adopt Resolution 89-143, A RESOLU- Adopted TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE TRIANGLE SQUARE DEVELOP- MENT PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITI- ZENS' SENSIBLE GROWTH AND TRAFFIC CONTROL INITIATIVE (MEASURE "G"). Council Member Genis believed the project meets the criteria of Measure "G" for emergency services and traffic requirements; however, she did not believe the project meets Measure "G" criteria for flood control. Rick Doolittle, Hall and Foreman, project engineer, was asked to respond to Council Member Genis's concern, and he assured the Council/Agency that according to his calculations, the project would not produce any more moisture than presently exists. Mr. Klein mentioned that the City Engineer reviewed these calculations and found them to be satisfactory. The motion to adopt Resolution 89-143 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Agency Acquisition The Agency Secretary presented Resolutions of Necessity of Properties by for Agency acquisition of the following properties by Eminent Domain eminent domain: 1879 Newport Boulevard; 1875 Newport F�l 4-91 Boulevard; 1869 Newport Boulevard; 1870 Harbor Boule- vard; 1880-1882 Harbor Boulevard; 1884-1886 Harbor Boulevard; and 1892-1894 Harbor Boulevard. AGENCY MOTION A motion was made by Agency Chairman Amburgey, seconded Resolutions 108-89 by Agency Member Buffa, to adopt the following Resolu- through 115-89 tions of Necessity to acquire the aforementioned prop - Adopted erties : Resolution 108-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRAGI NUMBER 428, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1884 and 1886 Harbor Boulevard, Assessor Parcel No. 424-231-16, owned by Zachary Pedicini, Harbor Boulevard Properties. Resolution 109-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER 18, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1879 Newport Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Nos. 424-231-07 and 424-231-08, owned by Costa Mesa Dental Properties, Incorporated. Resolution 110-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBERS 18 AND 428,,IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1870 Harbor Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Nos. 424-231-13 and 424-231-14, Adventure 16 property. Resolution 111-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND 4-9;2111 MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER 428, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1892-1894 Harbor Boulevard, Assessor Parcel No. 424-231-19, owned by Simon R. Nord. Resolution 112-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER 18, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1879 Newport Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Nos. 424-231-05 and 434-231-06, owned by Doctors Jack W. Andrews and Hugh T. Jones. Resolution 113-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER 428, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPEKCY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTION(S) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1880-1882 Harbor Boulevard, Assessor Parcel No. 424-231-15, owned by Curtis A.'Herberts, Jr. Resolution 114-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER 18, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, CCM14ENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1869 Newport Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Nos. 424-231-10, owned by Michael D. Hughes Trust. Resolution 115-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DETER- MINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE -DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN A PORTION OF TRACT NUMBER 18, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE:OF CALIFORNIA; AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING PROPERTY, located at 1875 Newport Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Nos. 424-231-09, owned by K. Allen Pederson. Agency Member Genis opposed the motion because it was her opinion that the financial benefit to the City was too trivial to warrant taking of the properties. Also, she was opposed to condemnation because the owners are being denied freedom of choice. Agency Chairman Amburgey stated that elected officials must decide on what is best for the entire community. He believed The Courtyards was a good example of upgrad- ing a once blighted area, and approving this project would be an opportunity to do likewise in the Triangle block. Agency Chairman Amburgey commented that the financial aspects are not his primary concern. Agency Member Buffa supported the motion for several reasons, one of which was that the project would benefit the downtown area in particular, and the entire City in general. He described the blighted condition of the downtown area in the early 1970s, stating that as diffi- cult as it is to condemn property, the reality is that the needed improvement of the downtown area would not have been realized without eminent domain. Agency Member Buffa agreed with Agency Chairman Amburgey's statement that the marketing aspects of the project should not be the Agency's primary concern. Agency Member Genis commented that a few weeks ago the owner of The Courtyards was complaining to the Council about the need for additional parking spaces and that he was having difficulty leasing the second floor units. In response to comments that marketing aspects are not a primary concern, Agency Member Genis stated that it is a concern to her because she believes in a free market without government interference. Agency Member Hornbuckle felt it was the role of the Agency and Council to envision what the future could be, and to work toward that goal throughout the City. She believed they were elected to be the policy makers and goal setters for the City, not staff members who develop the material. Agency Member Hornbuckle stated that when she looks at the improvements which have been made in downtown Costa Mesa, it becomes glaringly obvi- ous that the Triangle block will not change because none of the property owners have the wherewithal to make that change happen. She spoke of the agonizing involved in voting for eminent domain, stating that she is prepared to do so this evening because she is convinced that the vision of the future Costa Mesa must include the Triangle block, and that improvement cannot happen without the Agency participating in assembling the properties. The motion to adopt the Resolutions of Necessity carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Amburgey, Glasgow, Buffa, Hornbuckle NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None GP -89-1C The Deputy Clerk presented General Plan Amendment GP -89-1C, amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan by establishing a Floor Area Ratio of 0.95, and amending the Master Plan of Highways. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolution 89-144 by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Resolution 89-144, Adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -89-1C, ESTABLISHING A BUILDING INTENSITY STANDARD OF 0.95 F.A.R. FOR THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY 19TH STREET, HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NEWPORT BOULEVARD, AND AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN OF HIGHWAYS TO DELETE A RIGHT TURN LANE ON SOUTHBOUND NEWPORT AT BROADWAY. Council Member Genis did not believe Council should be establishing a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) at this time. She stated that it appears the F.A.R. being suggested is higher than will be permitted for other properties in the area based on a memorandum received earlier in the day that used a 0.75 ratio for surrounding properties, in which case, Council is granting a special privilege not available to other people. The motion to adopt Resolution 89-144 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None R-88-09 The Deputy Clerk presented Rezone Petition R-88-09, to change the zoning from C2 to PDC. COUNCIL MOTION On motion by Council Member Amburgey, seconded by Vice Ordinance 89-15 Mayor Hornbuckle, Ordinance 89-15, AN ORDINANCE OF THE Given First CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, Reading CHANGING THE ZONING OF PROPERTY BORDERED BY 19TH STREET, HARBOR BOULEVARD, AND NEWPORT BOULEVARD FROM C2 TO PDC, was given first reading and passed to second reading by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Genis, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL ME24BERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None RA -89-05 The Agency Secretary presented Redevelopment Action (PA -89-31) RA -89-05 (Planning Action PA -89-31) for Redevelopment Agency review of a Final development Plan for the proposed project. AGENCY MOTION A motion was made by Agency Member Hornbuckle, seconded RA -89-05 Approved by Agency Chairman Amburgey, to approve RA -89-05. Council Member Genis opposed the motion for the same reason she opposed the motion for General Plan Amendment GP -89-1C, and because it would be more appropriate to wait until the General Plan Review is considered. Agency Member Hornbuckle was in favor of the Final Development Plan because the project satisfies all Redevelopment Area criteria as listed in the Staff Report. The motion to approve RA -89-05 carried 4-1, Agency Member Genis voting no. PA -89-31 The Deputy Clerk presented Planning Action PA -89-31 (RA -89-05) (Redevelopment Action RA -89-05), for a Final Development Plan; a Conditional Use Permit for deviation from the shared parking analysis; and a Variance from lot cover- age standards for the PDC zone. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded PA -89-31 Approved by Mayor Buffa, to approve Planning Action PA -89-31 based on staff's analysis, and subject to all condi- tions contained in the Staff Report. Responding to Mayor Buffa's question, Mr. Klein agreed to all conditions, except that more clarification was needed for Condition of Approval No. 25: "Center park- ing area shall be capable of supporting Costa Mesa Fire Department's heaviest fire apparatus and have proper turn radius for fire access". Mr. Klein felt this was a minor issue and could be resolved easily. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolution 89-146 by Mayor Buffa, to adopt Resolution 89-146, A RESOLU- Adopted TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE COSTA MESA DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO TRIANGLE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, AND APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AND OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO. ��kS Council Member Genis opposed the motion because of the deviation from the shared parking analysis. The motion to approve PA -89-31 carried 4-1, Council Member Genis voting no. Vehicle Parking The Deputy Clerk presented a request to convey the District No. 2 parking places within Vehicle Parking District No. 2 Parking Places to another public use. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolution 89-145 by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Resolution 89-145, Adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PARKING PLACES WITHIN VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 2 WILL NOT BE NEEDED FOR PUBLIC PARKING, AND AGREEING TO CONVEY AND DEVOTE SUCH PARKING PLACES TO ANOTHER PUBLIC USE. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Genis, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Disposition and The Deputy Clerk presented the Disposition and Develop - Development and ment and Owner Participation Agreement by and between Owner Participation the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, the City of Costa Agreement Mesa, and Triangle Square Associates. COUNCIL MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolution 89-146 by Mayor Buffa, to adopt Resolution 89-146, A RESOLU- Adopted TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE COSTA MESA DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO TRIANGLE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, AND APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AND OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO. ��kS Council Member Genis stated that based on the amounts of money which have been paid by the developer for other. properties in the the area, the taxpayer is not getting a good deal. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle commented that based on experience with The Courtyards, the City received a much higher return than anticipated and in a shorter period of time. She felt the City would have the same experience with this project. The motion to adopt Resolution 89-146 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Disposition and The Agency Secretary presented the Disposition and Development and Development and Owner Participation Agreement by and Owner Participation between the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, the City Agreement of Costa Mesa, and Triangle Square Associates. AGENCY MOTION On motion by Agency Chairman Amburgey, seconded by Resolution 116-89 Agency Vice Chairman Glasgow, Resolution 116-89, A Adopted RESOLUTION OF THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE COSTA MESA DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO TRIANGLE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, AND APPROV- ING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AND OWNER PARTICIPA- TION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Amburgey, Glasgow, Buffa, Hornbuckle NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Basic Concept The Agency Secretary presented the basic concept and and Schematic schematic drawings for the project. Drawings On motion by Agency Member Hornbuckle, seconded by AGENCY MOTION Agency Chairman Amburgey, Resolution 117-89, A RESOLU- Resolution 117-89 TION OF THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF Adopted COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE BASIC CONCEPT AND SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL SPACE, INCLUDING RESTAURANT AND THEATRE SPACE WITHIN THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Amburgey, Glasgow, Buffa, Hornbuckle, Genis NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None DA -89-01 The Agency Secretary presented Development Agreement DA -89-01 between the City of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency. AGENCY MOTION On motion by Agency Chairman Amburgey, seconded by DA -89-01 Approved Agency Member Hornbuckle, Development Agreement DA -89-01 was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Amburgey, Glasgow, Buffa, Hornbuckle, Genis NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None DA -89-01 The Deputy Clerk presented Development Agreement DA -89-01 between the City of Costa Mesa and the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency. 1 7 COUNCIL MOTION On motion by Council Member Amburgey, seconded by Vice Ordinance 89-16 Mayor Hornbuckle, Ordinance 89-16, AN ORDINANCE OF THE Given First CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, Reading APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -89-01 BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, was given first reading and passed to second reading by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Genis, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ADJOURNMENT At 2:55 a.m., Mayor Buffa declared the meeting adjourned for both the Council and the Agency. Mayor of the City Ouosta Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa sa laFll);