Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1989 - City Council1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA OCTOBER 16, 1989 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in regular session October 16, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Invocation by Pastor Tom Mayer, Seventh Day Adventist Church. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Peter Buffa Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Members Absent: Council Member Edward Glasgow Officials Present: City Manager Allan Roeder Acting City Attorney Eleanor Frey Deputy City Manager/Development Services Don Lamm Director of Public Services William Morris Transportation Services Manager John Lower City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner Mike Robinson Senior Planner Alice Angus Associate Planner Kim Brandt MINUTES On motion by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council October 2 and Council Member Amburgey, and carried 4-0, the minutes October 6, 1989 of the regular meeting of October 2, 1989, and the adjourned meeting of October 6, 1989, were approved as distributed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michael Wagner, 1982 Tustin Avenue, Costa Mesa, asked the Council to consider reducing the speed limit on Tustin Reduced Speed Limit Avenue to 25 miles per hour. The Mayor suggested that on Tustin Avenue Mr. Wagner contact the Public Services Director for guidance in scheduling the item with the Transportation Commission. Rezoning for Mobile Diane Laduca, 939 West 19th Street, No. B4, Costa Mesa, Home Parks expressed interest and support for rezoning mobile home parks. Gerald Gibbs, 110 East Avenue, Palizada Suite 201, San Clemente, was also interested in rezoning for mobile home parks. ANNOUNCEMENT The Mayor announced that there were two items under consideration this evening. One is a public hearing to consider the Project Study Report for the I-405 Access Study for extensive improvements to the I-405 Freeway within the City of Costa Mesa, and the accesses on and off the freeway. He reported that the lead agency for the Project Study Report is CALTRANS (California Depart- ment of Transportation), who are required to conduct a public hearing on this matter, and are meeting this requirement by combining the CALTRANS public hearing with the City Council's. The Mayor stated that CALTRANS published its Notice of Public Hearing as required by law, and the hearing will take place at 7:00 p.m., followed by the public hearing concerning the City's General Plan. i The Mayor also announced that the General Plan public hearing will be continued to Thursday, October 19, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., and would be continued if more meetings were needed. He stated that tonight's meeting will not go beyond midnight. Parking Prohibition Richard Herman, 365 Costa Mesa Street, Costa Mesa, was for Street Sweeping against parking prohibition for street sweeping purposes. The Mayor advised Mr. Herman to contact the Public Services Director since this issue usually starts at the Transportation Commission level. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Members Comments were taken out of order to COMMENTS permit the public hearing on I-405 Access to begin at 7:00 p.m. California Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that during the month League of Cities of August, she attended a conference in Monterey for the Conference California League of Cities. There were representatives from the entire State who worked diligently for three days on developing an action plan for the 90's and is included in a pull-out section in the center of this month's edition of Western Cities Magazine. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked that Council submit their comments to her since action would be taken on the plan at the annual conference of the State League of Cities. She mentioned that this was the first time that the State League of Cities proposed a growth management plan for all cities in the State. Bicycle Safety I Council Member Genis reminded people to have their at Dusk children dressed in light colored clothing when they are riding their bikes at dusk and hoped that there would be some kind of safety program to encourage safety measures such as reflectors and lights on bicyles. Relief Efforts Mayor Buffa reported that he had received many inquiries for Charleston concerning relief efforts for the southeast area of 'Charleston because of Hurricane Hugo. He stated that Charleston's Mayor Riley has been in close touch with mayors all over the country, and through the Mayor's 'Conference, has laid out some specifics on how people can help. Mayor Buffa was anxious to make the informa- tion available to anyone who wished to assist those who suffered damage from the hurricane, and suggested that anyone interested in helping could contact his office. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor announced that if anyone intended to speak I-405 Access regarding the I-405 Access Study, a card provided by Improvements iCALTRANS should be filled out so that they would have is record of those who spoke at the hearing. The Public Services Director presented the Project Study Report and the Initial Study Environmental Assessment Report for the Interstate 405 Access improvements from Bristol Street to the westerly City limits. He stated that the public hearing is part of a 45 -day public comment period which will end on November 1, 1989. He reported that the public hearing and the 45 -day comment iperiod are required in order for the Federal Government oto give final approval for construction of the projects. 'The Director advised that the Transportation Services Manager and Ron Kosinski, Senior Environmental Planner 1 Q - from CALTRANS, were present to participate. The Public Services Director explained that Mr. Kosinski will address any comments on the environmental procedure. The Director stated that there also were two consultants present to discuss the Project Study Report and the Environmental Assessment. He reported that Jerry Wood, principal with IWA Engineers, would discuss the design issues of the project; and Dwayne Mears from the Plan- ning Center would discuss the environmental document. The Transportation Services Manager presented a chrono- logy of the project: In April, 1986, the City contracted with IWA Engineers and the Planning Center to conduct an access study. An advisory committee was formed and a total of 44 candidate improvement projects were identified to be evaluated. In January and February, 1987, the Council received background information on those 44 projects. In May, 1987, a similar presentation was provided to the Costa Mesa Civic Association, and in December, 1987, alternative (B) consisting of 17 projects was selected. In June, 1988, a project scoping meeting was held to identify any issues to be addressed in the environmental document. In February, 1989, a meeting was held with the City and CALTRANS to identify what number of those 17 projects were needed to correct existing deficiencies. Seven were identified. The environmental document covers those seven, as well as a couple of other projects including, starting to the west at Euclid Street at the Euclid interchange so the traffic does not back up on the 405 and be congested through the City of Costa Mesa. In July, 1989, the Council approved a resolution committing funding for the seven projects, and in September of this year, the environmental assessment began its 45 -day circulation. On approximately November 20, it will come back to the Council with a resolution encouraging CALTRANS and the Federal Highway Administration to provide environ- mental clearance. That resolution would be prepared after all comments have been collected during the 45 -day review process. Jerry Wood of IWA Engineers, discussed each of the plan- ned projects, stating that the scope of the project was the 405 Freeway from the 55 Freeway to the Santa Ana River, which is the boundary of the City of Costa Mesa. He reported that the boundaries near the Santa Ana River were extended into the City of Fountain Valley for continuity so that the impacts could be analyzed. Mr. Wood explained that the traffic model developed for this project was based on the County's model developed specifically for the City of Costa Mesa by the firm of Austin -Foust and Associates. He reported that there are three major components in the 405 Freeway Access Study: freeway on -and -off ramps, the main freeway, and the arterial highways approximately one mile north and south of the freeways. He stated that another important factor in the study was the completion of the 73 Freeway through the South County. He mentioned that it appeared that the transportation corridor agencies are proceeding with the San Joaquin Hills Transporation Corridor. Mr. Woods stated that these were grouped into three major alternatives of various combinations of projects with several types of freeway projects. He reported that the arterial highway system was analyzed with and without the freeway improvements, and 50 intersections within a mile north and south of the freeway were analyzed. jt Mr. Woods stated that without any freeway or arterial improvements, the 50 intersections analyzed had approxi- mately 60 adverse incidences either in the morning or the afternoon; however, with arterial highway improve- ments only, the adverse incidences are reduced to about 30 or 35. He stated that if the freeway access improve- ments were added, the number of intersections which had an adverse level of service would be reduced to 6 or 7; therefore, a combination of arterial highway improve- ments plus freeway improvements result in a very accept- able level of service at most of the intersections studied. Mr. Woods went on to report that the resulting projects include freeway widenings between the Santa Ana River and the 55 Freeway, and some of the new projects include an off -ramp from the Fairview road off -ramp to South Coast Drive, an additional on-ramp at the intersection of Hyland Avenue and South Coast Drive, a significant improvement with freeway weaving between Bristol Street and the 55 Freeway. Mr. Woods stated that the Project Study Report addresses seven particular projects as the first phase of the improvements, and include the north- bound I-405 on-ramp from South Coast Drive near Hyland Avenue; separate southbound Harbor Boulevard to south- bound I-405 on-ramp traffic from southbound through Harbor Boulevard traffic; northbound I-405 Fairview Road off -ramp modification and off -ramp to South Coast Drive; widening the northbound and southbound Fairview Road off -ramps at the intersection with Fairview Road; revis- ing the southbound I-405 Bristol Street off -ramp to two lanes forming a 90 -degree intersection with Bristol Street and eliminating the existing southbound loop off -ramp to northbound Bristol Street; and widening and :lengthening the Bear Street I-405 overcrossing. i Mr. Woods stated that these are the projects that the City intends to implement quickly if the environmental document is approved, and the remaining projects would be implemented at a later date. He advised that if the arterial highways and freeway projects were approved, the 405 Freeway would operate at an acceptable level of service based on the year 2010 forecast. Dwayne Mears discussed the environmental assessment of these projects, stating that he was hired by the City to assist CALTRANS and the Federal Highway Administration in assessing the environmental effects of the project. He stated that the findings are identified in the draft initial study environmental assessment. Mr. Mears reported that the proposed project involves impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, construction, and stream bed alterations which will be discussed later. He explained that the "no project" alternative maintains the status quo and would result in continued congestion and increased diversion to local streets as people seek alternatives to the congested freeway. He stated that it also results in increased air pollution and energy consumption; however, approval of the project would provide traffic traffic relief by increasing the capacity of the freeway and improving freeway access. Mr. Mears commented that the "no project" alternative would result in deficient levels of operation at 12 intersections along the freeway, but with the project, only two intersections would remain deficient. J aq 17 Mr. Mears reported that for the stream bed alterations, some construction within the Santa Ana River would be required although the impacts to water quality and to the stream bed are very limited. He stated that the proposed improvements will improve traffic flow and, therefore, will result in some air quality benefits in most of the locations. Mr. Mears commented that the noise levels on the freeway are already very high, and that the project will permit additional traffic volumes through the freeway and in some cases, move traffic closer to residential areas, although the improvements are generally within the existing right-of-way. He stated that the increases associated with the project range from approximately .5 to 2.3 decibels at various receptor locations. He referred to Table 13 in the environmental document, stating that it provides some detail in terms of noise impacts and heights of the noise walls needed to miti- gate those accumulative levels. Mr. Mears advised that in many cases, the noise walls which were recently constructed will provide the necessary noise attenua- tion. Council Member Genis asked if other improvements out- side or adjacent to the project area were assumed, for example, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor being completed and the Talbert bridge being widened. The Director of Public Services replied that the San Joaquin Hills Corridor was assumed to remain on schedule with construction starting in 1991. He stated that 19 of the 24 North Costa Mesa arterial improvements were assumed to be in place, those which were identified as being necessary as determined by the previous Environ- mental Impact Report which has been certified. He commented that outside of the City, improvements would have been assumed for post year 2010 build -out of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, including widening of the Talbert overcrossing. The Director of Public Services replied to a question by Council Member Genis that he had attended a meeting with the City of Santa Ana staff last week to discuss the Talbert bridge widening and they are now reviewing the project. The Director of Public Services answered a question by Council Member Genis by stating that staff had met with the City Manager and Director of Public Works of the City of Fountain Valley and they are proceeding with a project study report for the Ward Street overcrossing and are also looking at the Talbert overcrossing. The Director indicated that the City of Fountain Valley is interested in proceeding with these two projects. In answer to questions by Council Member Genis, the Transportation Services Manager stated that the San Joaquin Hills Corridor would be under construction before the Foothill Eastern Corridor. He reported that the Transporation Corridor Agencies are conducting interviews with consulting firms for the design of the entire corridor, and they intend to have it under design by the first quarter of next year. Council Member Genis asked whether or not CALTRANS had any plans to construct walls adjacent to the 405 Freeway between Fairview Road and Harbor Boulevard in the Hale - crest area. The Transportation Services Manager replied that past studies indicate that residential areas do not exceed the Federal noise standards; however, if there were a request to reexamine the noise level readings, staff would do so. Council Member Genis asked if design of the Gisler Avenue Bridge could take access at Euclid and Ellis at the turn, or if there were anything that would preclude a connection across the Santa Ana River on the north side of the freeway. The Transportation Services Manager responded that in ,the study, the Garfield/Gisler connection was deleted at the request of Council, and as a result, there should be Improvements to the Euclid Avenue interchange which should take additional pressure off the Garfield/Gisler connection. Council Member Genis stated that the City has not been historically supportive of Garfield/Gisler connection, although it still remains on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and keeps popping up again and again. Arthur Goddard, 2901 Palau Place, Costa Mesa, mentioned that in this study, an environmental assessment reported ,that findings on the historic property survey but there is no record that a local historical society was contacted regarding this project. He stated that most of the historic resources in the City are not of a national significance but they do have a local signifi- cance. He asked that the City wait until a local historical society has been contacted on these EIR's. The Mayor replied that the Council would be considering placing exactly that kind of a requirement in the City's General Plan and to have the Costa Mesa Historical Society review proposed projects or changes in the City for relevant historical significance. Allen Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, stated that the Wildlife Service and Fish and Game consider the Santa Ana River area an essential habitat for an endan- gered bird, the California Least Tern. He mentioned that there are also coyotes in the area. Mr. Remington reported that the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for -the safety of species on the Federal endangered species list and the California Department of Fish and Game is responsible for those on the State list. He advised that those agencies will have to be asked to evaluate the status of the coyotes ecology and the integrity of the entire ecology, and must also be contacted regarding any development or nearby roads nearby might destroy the integrity of the coyote habitat. The Transportation Services Manager answered questions from Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, stating that the agencies mentioned were sent a copy of the document, and comments were anticipated within the 45 -day review period. He stated that there is a 1978 City of Costa Mesa document which lists historical structures within the City and is referenced in the study. Council Member Amburgey commended staff and the consult- ants on the diligent work they have done, especially in making the necessary changes required by CALTRANS and the Federal highway authorities. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public.hearing. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Staff Directed -by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, directing staff to work with to Draft a the City Transportation Commission to draft a resolution Resolution of support regarding the adequacy of the environmental assessment and the desirability of the improvement projects for consideration at the meetin of November 20, 1989. Council Member Genis asked if the maker of the motion would consider an amendment to address in more detail the area between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road on the south side of the freeway. She commented that residents have complained of noise impacts for a long time, but because there is an intervening land use, a wall has not been constructed. The Transportation Services Manager responded that in reference to the areas where there is no wall, CALTRANS has indicated that they would be willing to conduct additional noise measurements. Council Member Genis indicated that this would be satisfactory. The motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for the November 20 meeting carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced that this was the time and place Final EIR No. 1043 set for the public hearing to consider Final Environmen- GP-89-02 tal Impact Report No. 1043 and General Plan Amendment GP -89-2 concerning the General Plan Review Program. The City Clerk reported that 41 letters were received addressing the growth, density, height of development, rezoning for mobile home parks, historical significance, and deletion of certain streets from the Master Plan of Highways. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services explained that two public study sessions have been held, and this is the first public hearing on the General Plan. The Deputy City Manager reported that the Principal Planner will be leading discussions on the various topics and answering any questions. He stated that immediately following a report by staff, the Steering Committee will be asked to provide Council with their final comments and recommendations. The Associate Planner provided a brief summary of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1043: During the months of July and August, staff received oral and written comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR, which addresses the changes between the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan. The EIR examines the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element to establish building intensities for nonresidential categories, and examining reductions in the High Density Residential category and the Urban . Center Residential category. Also being considered is the Santa Ana Heights area which is within the City's sphere of influence, and 20 additional land use amend- ments throughout the City. Additional amendments to the Land Use Map include changes to public and semi-public uses, for example, parks, libraries, fire and police stations. The draft EIR also addresses the proposed amendments to the Transportation Element as part of the update for the Master Plan of Highways. Included are dele- tion of.the Gisler Avenue/Santa Ana River bridge, the Wilson Street/Santa Ana River bridge, downgrading the Del Mar Avenue extension to University Drive, and deletion of Bluff Road between Wilson and Victoria Streets. Several amendments to the Master Plan of Bikeways were also studied. Included as part of the General Plan update are amend- ments to the Housing Element in accordance with State. law, and amendments to the Air Quality Element in response to recent changes to the Air Quality Manage- ment Plan. A comprehensive review of all City school objectives and policies are included in the update, and the addition of a Hazardous Waste Subelement. The EIR evaluates all environmental topical areas, and where possible, impacts have been identified for General Plan build -out to post 2010 conditions. Mitigations have been proposed for all identified impacts in the EIR. The Transportation Model concluded that additional amendments to the Master Plan of Highways would be needed in order to correlate the Land Use and Circulation Element at General Plan build -out. The draft EIR identified six areas where significant impacts were expected after mitigation. Specifically, in terns of traffic on a system -wide basis, the circu- lation system was deemed to operate adequately but there were still nine intersections within the City that were projected to be operating above level of Service D. In terms of noise, there will be incremental noise increases on the major arterials and freeways which will impact existing sensitive land uses. As to air quality, some reduction is being considered when comparing existing to build -out conditions in the total emission inventory but the cumulative impact on regional air quality is still considered a significant impact. Additional waste water will be generated with build- out of the proposed General Plan and there is signifi- cant secondary impact associated with the expansion of the County Sanitation Treatment Facilities. Water is always considered a limited supply in California and the additional growth will have significant impacts in terms of future water supply. The draft EIR discusses two alternatives: the "no project" alternative which would retain the existing General Plan, and which was rejected in the EIR primarily due to the lack of building intensities which are now currently required, and the lack of a Housing Element update as required by State law. The second alternative included in the EIR is a reduced development alternative which addresses a 25 percent reduction in both building intensities and residential densities. Seven additional land use maps were ana- lyzed as part of this alternative. A comparative analysis between the proposed project and Alternative 2 indicated that there was an incremental decrease in impact associated with Alternative 2; however, there were still significant mitigation measures that would be required as with the proposed project. There would be three versus nine deficient intersections within the City with the implementation of Alternative 2. Air quality impacts are projected to decrease but the same cumulative regional impacts are expected. It is similar with noise, there would be some incremental decreases, but the existing adjacent land uses to streets and major highways would still experience increases over existing conditions. Additional waste water and demands for water would still be generated, so the impacts identified for the project would still be true for Alternative 2. Appendix E is the response to comments to all the written comments received on the draft EIR. This document, in combination with the draft EIR, plus all the Planning Commission and Council resolutions, will constitute the final Environmental Impact Report. In conclusion of her report, the Associate Planner advised that the Planning Commission recommended certification of the final EIR at its meeting of September 25. She stated that one of the purposes of this hearing is to receive public comments on both the draft General Plan and EIR. Council Member Genis was informed that an answer to her question would be forthcoming at the next General Plan meeting regarding the biological species of high interest, such as the Least Tern. Council Member Genis stated that in some areas in the lowlands next to the Santa Ana River, there are salicornia marshes that are occupied by the Belding Savanna Sparrow and she asked if any of those salicornia marshes would extend up into the area that is part of the study area. Replying to Vice Mayor Hornbuckle's question, the Trans- portation Services Manager stated that in 1988, Costa Mesa had seven intersections operating at worse than Level of Service (LOS) D, and some have been corrected by planned improvements provided for by the existing General Plan. The Principal Planner reported that the public hearings will focus on the goals, objectives, and policies of the overall General Plan, as well as the specific building intensities and land use designations contained within the Land Use Element. He explained that the goals, objectives, and policies provide the overall framework for the entire General Plan and set the tone for decisions that will be made at the public hearings. The Principal Planner stated that the current General Plan contains a list of 13 goals addressing such issues as open space, environmental protection preservation, circulation, socio-economic conditions, and various aspects of the Housing Element, and following each goal 1111-1)2 is a series of objectives that indicate the Council's intent on how they would meet these goals. He stated that there is a list of 237 policies which provide further detail and direction as to how the Council and staff will implement the various goals that have been set forth in the General Plan. The Principal Planner referred to the policies in the housing and transportation area, advising that there are a series of implementation programs which actually specify the type of activities which will be conducted to implement the policies, and addresses the funding to support those activities. The Principal Planner reported that policies which were modified from the current General Plan were adopted in 1981, and are indicated by an (M) in the left margin of the list of goals, objectives and policies; new policies contain an (N) in the left margin. The Principal Planner stated that the goals, objectives, and policies have been reviewed by the Planning Commis- sion, the Transportation Commission, the Historical- Society, istoricalSociety, and the General Plan Steering Committee. He 'reported that recommendations from each of these bodies I re included on the list, identified as PC for Planning Commission; TCC for the Transporation Commission; HS for the Historical Society; and SC for General Plan Steering Committee. The Principal Planner stated that as indicated in previ- ous study sessions, the City Council need not take specific action on each of the 13 goals and 237 policies in the General Plan as there are policies which seem to I arrant individual action, discussion, or debate, and the remaining policies can be recommended for adoption in a single motion. In answer to a question by Council Member Genis, the Transportation Services Manager stated that Fairview Road and Wilson Street are listed as the fourth deficient intersection and is mitigated by a second eastbound left turn. Council Member Genis asked questions regarding page B93, failing intersections. The Transportation Services Manager stated that responses would be forthcoming during the hearing, and advised that less mitigation would be required for Alternative 2. He commented that to build out the existing General Plan, traffic improvements are needed at 83 locations; with the proposed General Plan, improvements at 114 locations are needed, and mitiga- tions are needed at 107 locations. The Principal Planner stated that the second part listed on the agenda is for review of specific Land Use Element designations and building intensity levels within each General Plan designation. He reported that one of the major changes between the 1981 General Plan and the proposed General Plan is the addition of the building intensity standards for the nonresidential land use designations, primarily commercial and industrial, but also including institutional. He referenced the chart which shows proposed building intensity levels for all existing, and one additional, proposed General Plan land Muse category. He stated that the new proposed land use category the Urban Center Mixed Use, a new designation which applies to the major commercial properties north of the San Diego freeway. kJO The Principal Planner reported on the "no project" alternative which is the existing General Plan with specific building intensity standards for residential categories, but none for the commercial, industrial, or institutional categories. He stated that an additional alternative identified in the EIR and a separate list of building intensity standards had been proposed for that designation, which indicates an approximate 25 percent reduction in building intensities over those allowed by the current General Plan. The Principal Planner explained that the building intensity for residential projects is measured in units - per -acre; the intensity standard for commerical and industrial properties is measured by Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which is the amount of development allowed on a given increment of land. The Principal Planner reported that the proposed General Plan does not have any recommended change for low or medium density residential, but does include two recom- mendations for modifications at the two higher density categories. Specifically, he stated that in high density residential, the proposed General Plan calls for a reduction in building intensity from 30 to 25 units per acre; in the urban center residential category, the General Plan recommends a reduction in the maximum development intensity from 50 to 35 units per acre. The Principal Planner stated that the Planning Commis- sion agreed with retaining the low and medium density categories as shown in the proposed General Plan, and they also recommended that the high density residential land use designation be capped at a maximum of 25 units per acre, adding a proviso that density bonus units allowed in that zone should not exceed the allowable density of the General Plan. He reported that the Planning Commission also recommended that in the Urban Center Residential category, the current maximum of 50 units per acre be retained; and recommended approval of the 1.15 FAR standard for the Urban Center Mixed Use designation. The Principal Planner stated that both the Light Indus- try and Industrial Park designations have the same allowable FAR of .5; however, their trip budget varies slightly because of the different traffic assumptions. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this intensity. The Principal Planner pointed out that the building intensity standards are a combination of the allowable FAR and a new concept called the Trip Budget. He explained that the Trip Budget concept adjusts the allowable FAR by the trip generation characteristics of the various commercial and industrial uses; uses with high peak hour generation rates will be restricted to lower intensities while uses with low peak hour rates will be allowed higher intensities. He stated that in no case would any development be allowed to exceed the base FAR by a factor of more than 25 percent, and in the Urban Center Mixed Use, 1.15 FAR. He showed a chart of existing projects that have been approved, comparing it to the Trip Budget formula which is proposed. The Principal Planner stated that the projects included on this list would fall within the Trip Budget with two exceptions: (1) A small convenience retail center at 1'v RECESS 3001 Bristol Street, 500 square feet larger than would be allowed under the Trip Budget; however, that project was ;approved with a variance from setback requirements and la Conditional Use Permit for offsite access; (2) Newport ;Bay Inn in the 2000 block of Newport Boulevard received a special consideration in that it had a Conditional Use 'Permit to exceed the two-story height limit. The Principal Planner recommended that Council receive public input on the goals, objectives, policies, and the land use element building intensity standards and advise of any modifications to the proposed General Plan. ;The Principal Planner stated that the Transportation Services Department has prepared a preliminary review of three specific instances: (1) Urban Center Residential on the Sakioka Farms property where they recommend an increase from 35 to 50 units per acre; (2) a portion of Bristol Street occupied by the South Coast Corporate Center and South Coast Executive Center for which they recommend that the building intensity standards included in the Bristol Street Specific Plan be carried over to the General Plan, .75 to .85; and (3) the east side of Newport Boulevard between 16th and 17th Streets which the Transportation Services staff have identified some additional mitigation measures. Council Member Genis asked if the questions which were asked in the Study Sessions were part of the public record since it was potentially quite controversial. The Acting City Attorney replied that the study session questions could be made part of the public record. The Transportation Services Manager gave a detailed account of the changed land uses and the Mayor requested copies for everyone. The Mayor declared a recess at 8:20 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. A report from the General Plan Steering Committee was presented by Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, who gave an overview of land use and trans- portation. He stated that the General Plan Steering Committee was formed December, 1987, at the request of the Council and their primary focus was to represent and allow citizen participation in the General Plan. Mr. Williams reported that the committee conducted community workshops and received community input in generating a concensus of community opinions concerning the quality of life in Costa Mesa and the General Plan. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, member of the General Plan Steering Committee, stated that five community workshops were conducted in 1988, and comments were recorded and presented at the conclusion of each workshop. She reported that Alternative 2 was devised when the City came to the Steering Committee in December, 1988, to give input so that a Traffic Model could be run, and the committee proposed Alternative 3. Ms. Luymes commented that in the Steering Committee's view, the proposed General Plan is designed to allow and encourage continued high density and intensity development with major increases in traffic'volumes and congestion; allows higher intensity of commerical development throughout the City with many more apart- ments and condominiums, and provides for a decline in single-family detached homes. 1 An overhead summary prepared by the City showed the dif- ference within the existing conditions in 2010 General Plan and the 2010 Alternative 2. Under the reduced development alternative, there is an increase in single- family homes. Ms. Luymes gave a summary of key concerns expressed by citizens who want the job generators decreased. Alter- native 2 would result in a 16 percent reduction in the imbalance between jobs and housing; whereas build -out would be a 16 percent increase. Ms. Luymes stated that the Committee stayed with the original recommendations that were proposed earlier and shown in their report. She pointed out that the Steer- ing Committee did not propose an Urban Center Mixed Use designation because there was a very wide conflict in views, and recommendations were against a proposed marina. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, a member of the Steering Committee, spoke about tranportation. He showed a graph using the numbers in the modified plan for both the proposed General Plan and Alternative 2. Mr. Korando stated that the General Plan proposes a 46 percent increase in vehicle trips per day; Alternative 2 only proposes a 12 percent increase, and the graph indicates the major increases in seven traffic zones. Mr. Korando reported on the committee's proposal that the 19th Street bridge be deleted, along with Bluff Road in its entirety; and that the Gisler Bridge be deleted from the Master Plan of Highways. He stated that citi- zens did not care if taxes were increased, as long as traffic did not increase. The Mayor questioned the comment regarding higher taxes. Mr. Korando stated that people were concerned about not having cost analogies in the General Plan, and reported that there was discussion about alternative modes of transportation, such as, trolley, jitney, shuttle bus, and monorail linking major job and shopping centers. Council Member Genis was impressed by the presentation and the Steering Committee recommendations and commended them for the time spent attending workshops and Steering Committee meetings for two years. Former Mayor Donn Hall, 3165 Harbor Boulevard,.Costa Mesa, as a previous member of the General Plan Steering Committee, commended the committee members on their excellent presentation. He commented that conclusions of some of the Steering Committee members are totally different from the presentation which does not reflect the opinions of the entire Steering Committee. Roy Thomas, 3762 Montego Drive, Huntington Beach, owner of property in -Costa Mesa, asked a question regarding the cross-sections represented on the committee. The Mayor replied that the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association, Planning Commission, Transportation Commis- sion, College Park Homeowners Association, Mesa Del Mar Homeowners, Chamber of Commerce, City Council, Mesa Verde Homeowners Association, Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and the Mesa West Homeowners Association were represented. 10-G Vice Mayor Hornbuckle advised that Council requested homeowners associations to appoint representatives, and ;the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, ;Chamber of Commerce, and City Council appointed represen- i tatives. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle thanked the Steering Committee for putting the information together. Arthur Goddard, 2901 Palau Place, Costa Mesa, commented on making the information from reports more accessible to the general public and spoke about averaging noise measurements. The Mayor replied that the City follows the State mandates when measuring noise levels. I The Principal Planner explained that the CNEL addresses the overall noise environment while the noise ordinance addresses single -event noise, such as the Pacific Amphithreatre. He reported that the ordinance has a requirement that a certain decibel reading cannot be exceeded for more than a specific period of time during a given hour, especially evening hours. Arthur Goddard asked about traffic circulation, that is, the length of time it would take for a citizen or emergency vehicles to get around town at planned build- out compared to existing conditions. The Mayor reslied that there are many variables which makes it difficult to determine a definite time. Council Member Genis mentioned the "Webster Delay Analy- sis" which provides an average waited delay per vehicle at a given intersection. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, stated that synchronized signals would reduce traveling time. He contended that 50 percent of time is spent waiting at traffic signals. He wanted to know the traffic projec- tion in regard to South Coast Plaza. James Wells, 1797 Oriole Drive, Costa Mesa, President of the Mesa Verde Homeowners Association said that the proposed General Plan is anti -homeowner because it allows high building densities, no restraint on heights, and it diminishes single-family housing. He reported that in a survey of 3,300 people, more than 600 responded, and traffic and development were the major concerns. Regarding the Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue commerical area, he stated that 82 percent favored the present development, 77 percent favored three stories or less; 48 percent wanted the Home Ranch area to be an industrial park, 71 percent wanted low density, and 77 percent supported four stories or less. Kevin Shannon, 2541 Greenbriar Lane, Costa Mesa, urged Council to vote for suburban, low density. Jay Humprey, 1620 Sandlewood Street, Costa Mesa, spoke regarding rezoning mobile home parks, and compensation for a redevelopment change in land use. He submitted information to the City Clerk regarding an ordinance of the City of Mountain View for mobile hone park conversion to an alternative land use. He stated that the City Council of Mountain View unanimously adopted an ordinance requiring mobile home park owners to compensate residents displaced by redevelopment. Council Member Amburgey pointed out that if this were adopted as an ordinance, it would not need to be a part of the General Plan. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that the EIR fails to address the impacts of the bridge across the Santa Ana River on the residents in the Mesa Verde area, particularly in regard to noise, pollution, and traffic. He mentioned that there are five streets in the Mesa Verde area listed on the Master Plan of Highways and the EIR fails to address the impacts on these five streets if they were converted to arterial highways. Roy Andreen, 2769 Cibola Avenue, Costa Mesa, was con- cerned about the noise level at the Fairgrounds, and he urged that fast food restaurants at the corner of Arling- ton Drive and Fairview Road, and Fair Drive and Fairview Road be prohibited. He commented that survey results regarding the Harbor Boulevard/Adams Avenue area indicate that the people want it to be left as it is with no further intensive development. Mr. Andreen recommended that the property owned by Coast Community College District along Adams Avenue should be retained as open space, tending towards recreation or college use; and if the District no longer has use for the land, it should be a recreational or open area. The Mayor responded that the Fairgrounds is not bound by anything the City wants; however, the Fair Board has offered to work more closely with the City in developing the new master plan for the Fairgrounds. Council Member Amburgey referred to a letter written by Mr. Andreen to the Fair Board regarding off-track bet- ting proposed for the Fairgrounds. Council Member Genis mentioned a 1980 settlement agree- ment which indicates that the City does have some authority on remote corners of the Fairgrounds. The City Manager answered that the 1980 settlement does grant the City land use and zoning control over those perimeter corner areas that are used for commercial pur- poses or purposes not directly tied in with the Fair- grounds itself. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked about the number of surveys sent out by Mr. Andreen. Mr. Andren replied that the Directors had delivered 850 surveys directly to the homeowners and received 140 replies. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:35 p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 10:50 p.m. Anthony Petros, 1 Park Place, Suite 500, Irvine, repre- senting LSA Associates, submitted a report for review and consideration with alternative language based on the Principal Planner's submittal, along with an ordinance adopted by the City of Irvine for the transfer of devel- opment rights. He stated that this language is consist- ent with Council member Genis's statement at the study session as a recommendation in preparinga traffic study. Diane Laduca, 939 West 19th Street, No. B4, Costa Mesa, supported the concept of rezoning for mobile home parks. :v v Martin South, 20332 Riverside Drive, Santa Ana Heights, representing the Riverside Drive Kennel Owners Associa- tion, stated that the Land Use Map on Page 165A of the ;General Plan Errata is incorrect and the association is concerned. Dick Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, commended the General Plan Steering Committee for the work done for citizens of the community; however, he did not believe it reflected what was happening in the City. ;Eleanor Humphrey, 1684 Whittier Avenue, No. 35, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of rezoning for mobile home parks. Doug Frizz, Snug Harbor Trailer Park, 1626 Newport Boulevard, No. 21, Costa Mesa, supported mobile home rezoning. Alan Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, was not in favor of a bridge over the Santa Ana River because poor from heavy traffic would endanger the lives of those living in Costa Mesa by the year 2010. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, spoke regarding the sewage system and the cost involved to 'increase its capacity. The Associate Planner responded that the draft EIR had been circulated to both the Orange County Sanitation District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and written responses were received. The City Manager reported that the County will be seek- ing input from the Council in regard to the 19th Street Bridge, the Santa Ana River mouth, and the lowlands area, for inclusion in its local coastal plan. Fred Schumack, 1626 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of progress and growth for the City. Stephen Goldberger, 3036 Java Road, Costa Mesa, spoke regarding the degree of negative impacts on citizens, and asked a question about the Home Ranch project. John Ike, 1953 Parsons Street, Costa Mesa, stated that traffic conditions were proportional to the density; increased density will increase traffic, decrease the 'standard of living, and bring more noise, traffic, pollution, and health problems. He commented that in order to increase property values, the City should stay with the amendment for the General Plan and adopt the decreased density. Roy Thomas, owner of property at 1626 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke regarding Snug Harbor Trailer Park which was constructed with a use permit on commercial land. He stated that some of the people living at this park thought he would be rezoning the property; however, he wanted to make it clear that the rezoning issue was not originated by him. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, 'spoke about sanitation. He reported that there is an odor coming from the manhole covers at Sunflower Avenue and Smalley Road. He stated that the effluents that are emitted into the air by the sewer treatment plant should be included in the air quality data since the plant produces 227 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1,219 tons of carbon monoxide. Mr. Williams spoke about noise, and final build -out of the Orange County Airport not being taken into consider- ation. He suggested sound contours on maps so decisions could be made about impacts on residential areas. ADJOURNMENT At 12:00 midnight, the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Thursday, October 19, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, to continue the public hearing for the General Plan Review Program. Mayor of -the CITY Costa Mesa ATTEST: ity Clerk of the City of Costa sa 1