Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1989 - Adjourned City Council MeetingADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA OCTOBER 19, 1989 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session October 19, 1989, at 16:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was duly and regularly ordered adjourned from the regular meeting of October 16, 1989, and copies of the Notice of Adjournment were posted as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Invocation by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle. 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 OFFICIALS PRESENT: Acting City Attorney Eleanor Frey Deputy'City Manager/Develop- ment Services Don Lamm ,,Public Services Director William Morris Transportation Services Manager John Lower City Clerk -Eileen Phinney Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson Senior Planner Alice Angus ORAL Bob Chapman, 2037 South Capella Court, Costa Mesa, COMMUNICATIONS representing the Costa Mesa Youth Athletics Committee, reported that the committee has organized baseball, Costa Mesa Youth football, and soccer leagues, and requested City assist - Athletics ance in obtaining playing fields. The Mayor suggested that Mr. Chapman contact staff 1990 Census Frank Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, reported that the United States Senate determined that illegal aliens would be counted in the 1990 census. Request for City Clifford W. Lindsay, 2336 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, Assistance to asked for guidance to improve his property in accordance Improve Property with City requirements. The Mayor advised Mr. Lindsay to contact Development Services Department staff who can advise him on the proper procedure. Plan Check i Eric Olson, 1132 Victoria Place, Costa Mesa, requested Requested that City staff check his revised plans for a project at 426 Victoria Street. He reported that the City ordered construction stopped because of an easement problem. Mayor Buffa requested the Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services to prepare a report for Council by the next meeting. The Deputy City Manager reported that staff has been working on this very complicated matter. Former City Mayor Buffa announced that former Costa Mesa Mayors Officials Donn Hall and Arlene Schafer were in the audience, as Recognized well as former City Attorney Thomas Wood. PUBLIC HEARING The Clerk announced the public hearing, continued from General Plan the meeting of October 16, 1989, to consider the General Review Program Plan Review Program: EIR No. 1043 and Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1043. GP -89-02 General Plan Amendment GP -89-02: Proposed land use element map policies; Proposed land use building intensity standards; Amendments to the Master Plans of Highways and Bikeways; and Final recommendations on the remaining General Plan topics. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services discussed four areas of concern which came to his attention during the first public hearing on October 16, 1989: (1) How the General Plan came into existence and how it was written; (2) The purpose of traffic modeling or traffic analysis; (3) Standards in the General Plan for building construction; and (4) Financing the General Plan public improvements. The Deputy City Manager gave a slide presentation while explaining the four aforementioned topics: (1) The proposed (not preferred) General Plan is an update of the 1981 General Plan which is now in place. He mentioned that the General Plan contained density categories in residential areas only; however, the General Plan now addresses maximum development intensities for commercial and industrial areas. (2) Traffic modeling is nothing more than a traffic analysis projection. In the General Plan, staff based their projections on the City's being completely built out in 20 years, and determined that they must use the absolute worse scenario in the traffic analysis. (3) In reference to suggestions from the public to impose building height limitations in the General Plan, which Council may do if they so desire, the Deputy City Manager advised that development standards for building structures are tradition- ally contained in a city's zoning codes. (4) Financing for traffic improvements contained in the General Plan are based on private developer funding, that is, trip fees which will be collected when building permits are issued. For the four large nonresidential properties in North Costa Mesa, it is the City's intention to use the bonding process to finance $100 million for public improvements, and staff is in the early stages of forming an assessment district. The Principal Planner reported that at the October 16 public hearing, specific questions arose which required responses. He referred to his memorandum dated October 19, 1989, which addresses those concerns: (1) Belding's Savannah Sparrow Habitat; (2) Alternative 2 Deficient Intersections; (3) Air Quality and Traffic Congestion; h Mobile Home Park Zoning Trailed (4) Analysis of Planning Commission Recommendations; (5) Fairground Uses; (6) CNEL vs. Peak Noise Levels; (7) Mobile Home Park Zoning (8) Gisler Bridge Impacts; (9) Mesa Verde Streets; (10) Mesa Verde Traffic Noise Impacts; (11) Trip Budget Transfers; (12) Air Quality Modeling Locations; (13) John Wayne Airport Noise; (14) Roadway Noise Contours; and (15) Sanitation Treatment Plant Impacts. Mayor Buffa suggested discussing the mobile home park zoning at this time because of the many citizens in attendance who wished to speak on this item. The Principal Planner stated that the subject zoning was ,not included in the General Plan update because Council did not direct staff to proceed with creation _of a new zone for mobile home parks. He mentioned that Goal XII of the Housing Element addresses establishing ways to preserve existing affordable housing opportunities. The spokesperson for the Regal Mobile Home Park resi- dents was not present; therefore, Mayor Buffa trailed this item. The Principal Planner summarized data contained in his memorandum of October 16, 1989: Land Use Map Amendments and Alternative 2 Land Use Amendments. He reported on sites proposed for Public and Semi-public Use; the proposed Land Use Element for the Santa Ana Heights area bordered by Santa Ana Avenue, Mesa Drive, Bristol Street, and the eastern limit of the City's sphere of influence; 24 additional Land Use Map amendments; and Alternative 2 Land Use Amendments for 7 sites. The memorandum con- tains the following Planning Commission recommendations: approval of the Public and Semi-public uses and the Santa Ana Heights proposals; approval of proposals for Sites 1 through 8, 10 through 20, 23, and 24; denial of redesignation for Site 9 to Neighborhood Commercial, recommending CL (Commercial Limited) instead; approval of Category 5 for Site 21, and Option 2 for Site 22. As to Alternative 2, the Commission recommended denial of amendments proposed for Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7; redesignation of Site 5 to General Commercial, but at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50; and approval of amendments for Site 6. The Transportation Services Manager gave a slide presen- tation and a detailed report on amendments to the Master Plans of Highways and Bikeways: The first amendments include those previously recommended by the City Council: (1) Deletion of the Gisler Avenue crossing at the Santa Ana River; (2) Deletion of the Wilson Street crossing at the Santa Ana River and associated street widening; (3) Deletion of the Bluff Road segment between Victoria and Wilson Streets; and (4) Downgrade of the Del Mar/ University drive segment east of Newport Boulevard. The Transportation Services Manager summariezed the second set of amendments which are a result of the traffic analysis conducted by Austin -Foust Associates. He reported that this analysis identified a number of improvements to the current Master Plan of Highways to handle the traffic projected at build -out (post 2010). He stated that these amendments include upgrades and downgrades to 9 street segments and improvements at 26 specific intersections listed in Table 21, Pages 136 and 137 of the General Plan. 1 f A�2 The Transportation Services Manager explained the Levels of Service (TAS) designations: "A" being the best; "C" is average; "D" is maximum desirable operation during peak periods; "E" implies maximum physical carrying capacity; and "F" is failure. He reported that the existing General Plan calls for improvements at 83 locations; the proposed General Plan calls for a total of 114 locations, including the 83 contained in the current General Plan; and the alternative plan calls for 107 intersection improvements. He stated that the traffic model forecast prepared by Austin -Foust indi- cates that approximately 51 percent of the traffic growth on Costa Mesa streets will be generated by regional development. Discussion on Mayor Buffa announced that Goals, Objectives, Policies, Goals, Objectives, and Programs of the proposed General Plan will be intro - Policies and duced and comments from the public will be heard. Programs (These items are contained in the document attached to staff's memorandum dated October 12, 1989.) Goal I Coal I, Environmental Quality and Resource Conservation, Environmental was presented: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa Quality and to provide its citizens with a high quality urban Resource environment through the development and conservation of Conservation resources, including land, water, minerals, wildlife, and vegetation; the protection of areas of unique natural beauty and historical, social, cultural, and scientific interest; and the integration of natural features into the man-made environment. Objective I A Mayor Buffa opened the public hearing for discussion of Preservation of Objective I A: Preserve the City's open space lands to Open Space provide adequate recreational opportunities and relief from the pressures of urban development. Policies 1 through 10 Jeffrey Childs, 1139 Aviemore Terrace, Acting President of the Marina Highlands Homeowners Association, opposed the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, and development of Bluff Road. Mr. Childs contended that these developments will adversely impact the environ- ment of the community, and destroy the Santa Ana River wetlands which is recognized as the largest unprotected wetlands from Los Angeles to the Mexican border. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, member of the General Plan Steering Committee, pointed out the committee's recom- mended revisions for Goal I, Objective I -A, and Policies 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. He commented that additional open space will be needed as population increases. He suggested updating park fees and dedication requirements on an annual basis, and to retain existing open space in Lions Park. Kevin Shannon, 2541 Greenbriar, requested that the word "urban" be deleted from Goal I as recommended by the Steering Committee. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, member of the Steer- ing Committee, referred to Page 169 of the document, and stated that the committee is opposed to Policy 3 which addresses the Quimby Act. Mr. Hutchins commented on the other policies recommended by the committee. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, reported that some of the Santa Ana schools are using portions of their open space for placement of temporary classrooms. He was afraid that this might occur in Costa Mesa if the student population were to double in the next 20 years. - John De Witt, 2000 Balearic Drive, commented that he did not believe the City will be able to acquire additional open space; however, the key issue is for Costa Mesa to have quality open space. He suggested improvements for existing parks and streetscapes. Mr. De Witt referred 'to the Home Ranch site and commented on the large amount of open space which was lost because of the project's being rejected. He recommended not deleting the word "urban" from Goal I. Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, asked about the cost to widen Victoria Street, and staff replied that the estimate is between $15 and $16 million. Mr. Pizarek opposed the 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River and high density development on Victoria Street. He commented that residents in the Transition Zone will be displaced if the 19th Street bridge is constructed, and he opposed the taking of those homes. Mr. Pizarek was concerned about traffic impacts at the intersection of Whittier Avenue and 19th Street when the apartment project in that area is completed. ;Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, member of the Steering ;Committee, reported that at the committees workshops, many people expressed the need to retain open space at Orange Coast College; to resist development of open :space by Coast Community College District, or any other state or local agency; and to preserve the wetlands. She stated that specific recommendations from citizens ',included the need for more parks, youth services and recreational programs, and preserving and increasing ;the open space in the Redevelopment Area. Ms. Luymes 'reported that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee ;recommended retaining all existing open space in Lions ,Park. In conclusion, Ms. Luymes gave a brief report on the number of citizens attending the Steering Committee workshops, and responses to various surveys. Richard Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, asked if the Fair- grounds and the Orange Coast College site were included gas part of the total assessment of open space. The Principal Planner responded that the open space counted to meet the City's policy of 4 acres for every 1,000 !residents did not include those two sites. ,Ellen Wright, 999 Hartford Way, asserted that there is ;minimal use of many City parks because of the lack of tables and benches, drinking fountains, and bathrooms. ',Mary Wollak, 1042 West 18th Street, mentioned that ;vehicles do not stop at the 18th Street/Whittier Avenue intersection, and that traffic will triple when the new apartments are occupied. !There being no other speakers on Objective I -A, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ,Discussion ensued regarding the proposed open space, ,and open space in relation to the census. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that the General Plan Update indicates a minimum of 4 acres of open space for every 1,000 ,residents, the Steering Committee recommended 4.5 acres, and she wanted to know what the open space figure is presently. Council Member Genis stated that it is 4.4 'acres excluding schools. The Senior Planner responded ;that there are 6.5 acres, including school yards. (The latter figure does not include the Fairgrounds or ,Orange Coast College.) Council Member Genis reported 1 that State law provides for cities to require a minimum of 3 acres and a maximum of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, and anything in between would be based on the census and how much parkland is available at the time of the census. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested a change in the policy indicating that the City will provide maximum open space allowable under State law. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Amended Policy 1 Council Member Genis, to adopt Policy 1: Maintain the Adopted existing ratio of parkland to population and require the maximum park dedication or payment of in -lieu fees per- mitted under State law. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, requested clarification, and asked if the motion included school district land or only City land. Council Member Genis responded that it referred to City parkland, excluding school property. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle commented that Policy 1 as stated in the motion is a substitute for Policies 1 and lA contained on Pages 168-169. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. ADJOURNMENT TO At 8:55 p.m., Mayor Buffa adjourned the meeting to a CLOSED SESSION closed session to discuss Item 1 under City Attorney Reports, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 602309, McCoy Lawsuit McCoy vs. City of Costa Mesa. Closed session ended at 9:00 P.M. RECESS A recess was declared at 9:00 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Continuation of Mayor Buffa presented Policy 2: Provide maximum visi- General Plan bility and accessibility for future public parks by locating such facilities adjacent to existing or planned public streets. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 2 Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Policy 2 as proposed. Adopted The motion carried 4-0, Council Member Amburgey absent. Council Member Council Member Amburgey returned to the Council Chambers. Amburgey Returned Policy 3 was presented: Support legislation to modify the provisions of the Quimby Act (State enabling legis- lation which permits the dedication of parkland or payment of in -lieu fees to acquire parkland) to allow the use of park and recreation fees for the maintenance of existing public parks to reduce the impact of yearly maintenance costs. A motion was made by Council Member Genis to support the Steering Committee's recommendation to delete this policy; however, the motion died for lack of a second. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Policy 3 by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt Policy 3 as Adopted presented.. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Genis voting no. Mayor Buffa presented Policy 4: Encourage other local, regional, state, or federal agencies to maintain an ade- quate inventory of open space lands within Costa Mesa. The Mayor mentioned that the Steering Committee made three recommendations for this item. !A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt Policy 4 as pro- posed. The motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Hornbuckle, and Genis voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Steering Committee Hornbuckle, adopting the Steering Committee Policy 4: Policy 4 Adopted To the extent legally possible, require other local, regional, state, or federal agencies to maintain an adequate inventory of open space lands within Costa Mesa. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Council Member Genis moved to adopt Steering Committee Policies 4A and 4B, with the addition to 4B that the policy is followed to the maximum extent consistent with State law. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION i A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 5 Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, to adopt Policy Adopted 5: Review alternative means to acquire open space lands to reduce the fiscal impact of providing such facilities. Mayor Buffa presented Policy 6: Encourage, through development rights transfers or other incentives, the development of private permanent open space, and recrea- tion facilities to meet the needs of the City's resi- dents. A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt the Steering Committee's Policy 6. The motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Amburgey, and Glasgow voting no. MOTION On motion by Council Member Glasgow, seconded by Council Policy 6 Member Amburgey, and carried 5-0, Policy 6 was adopted Adopted as proposed. MOTION A motion was made by -Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 7 Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0, to adopt Policy Adopted 7: Encourage, through open space easements, development rights transfers or acquisition, zoning regulations, or other incentives, the long-term maintenance of existing open space lands. Mayor Buffa presented Policy 8: Encourage, through development standards, building height/bulk bonuses, or other incentives, the integration of open space uses (plazas, courtyards, landscaped areas, etc.) into major commercial and industrial development or redevelopment projects. The Mayor also announced that the Planning Commission and Steering Committee made recommendations for this policy. I Council Member Amburgey asked why the Planning Commis- sion deleted that portion of Policy 8 relating to "building height/bulk bonuses, or other incentives". The Principal Planner replied that the Commission preferred to amend the Municipal Code or develop development standards rather than giving bonuses for providing additional open space. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Steering Committee Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Committee Policy Policy 8 Adopted 8: Require, through development standards and planned development review criteria, the integration of open space uses (plazas, courtyards, landscaped areas, etc.) into major commercial and industrial development or 7I L 1 redevelopment projects. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Mayor Buffa presented proposed Policy 9 and Steering Committee Policy 9. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Steering Committee Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Steering Committee Policy 9 Adopted Policy 9: Require, through development standards, the integration of open space and recreational uses and facilities into all multiple -family residential projects. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 10 Council Member Amburgey, to adopt proposed Policy 10: Adopted Review.the possibility of incorporating an Arts in Public Places program in City parks. The motion carried 5-0. A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Steering Committee Policy 1OB: Require the periodic updating of park fees and dedication requirements. Mayor Buffa believed that this item should be addressed in an ordinance, not in the General Plan. The motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Amburgey, and Glasgow voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded by Planning Commission Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Planning Commission Policy 10A Adopted Policy 10A: Strongly encourage improved maintenance of City and school district facilities used for recreation and organized sports activities. Council Member Amburgey opposed the motion because he preferred including this item in an ordinance instead of the General Plan The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Buffa and Amburgey voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded Steering Committee by Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Committee Policy 10C Adopted Policy 1OC: Retain all existing open space in Lions Park. Council Member Amburgey felt that this should be a Council Policy, not part of the General Plan. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Buffa and Amburgey voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Steering Committee Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Carnnittee Goal I Goal I and and Steering Committee Objective I A: Objective I -A Adopted Goal I: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a high quality environment through the development and conservation of resources, including land, water, minerals, wildlife, and vege- tation; the protection of areas of unique natural beauty and historical, social, cultural, and scien- tific interest; the integration of natural features into the man-made environment; and the preservation of open space. Objective I A: Preserve the City's current ratio of parklands and open space lands to population to pro- vide adequate recreational opportunities and relief from the pressure of urban development. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Mobile Home Mayor Buffa announced that even though Gerald Gibbs, Park Zone representative of the Regal Club Mobile Home Park resi- dents, was not present, Robert Singer, President of the homeowners association, requested that discussion on the mobile home park zone take place at this time. Mr. Singer made a brief statement requesting that the ;City establish a zone for mobile home parks. ;Betty Bowers, resident of Snug Harbor Travel Trailer Park, 1626 Newport Boulevard, Space 24, commented that 'Snug Harbor is actually considered a mobile home park according to California Civil Code, Chapter 2.5, Section ,798.4. Ms. Bowers reported that she was surprised to 'learn that there are 21 parks in Costa Mesa and no mobile home park zoning. She stated that most residents of these parks are elderly and would have no place to go if the parks were converted to another use. Ms. Bowers urged Council to establish a mobile home park zone to ;ensure the residents that they will be able to keep their homes. Roy Thomas, one of the owners of Snug Harbor Travel - ;Trailer Park, was opposed to the City's down -zoning his property by means of establishing a mobile home park ,zone. Mr. Thomas contended that park residents are asking for rent control along with their request for 'a new zone. He asserted that Snug Harbor has 54 spaces of which 11 are mobile homes; the remainder are travel trailers. Mr. Thomas asked Council not to tamper with the free enterprise system. Don Hunter, District Manager, Golden State Mobile Home Owners League, stated that mobile homes are now referred ,to as "manufactured housing", and this type of housing his a means of supplying affordable housing for elderly citizens. Mr. Hunter believed it was the responsibility of the City to protect these long-time residents. He commented that the issue is zoning, not rent control. Michael Szkaradek, 1555 Mesa Verde Drive East, was of the opinion that for the City not to establish a mobile home park zone allows owners of the parks to continue .their monopoly over the park residents. He remarked that mobile home park residents have a substantial ;investment to protect, and it is an economic hardship when residents are forced to move. ;Stephen Goldberger, 3036 Java Road, spoke in support of establishing the mobile home park zone. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, commented that it might be ;considered spot zoning if all existing mobile home parks jin various parts of the City were changed to the mobile home park designation. ,There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the ;public hearing for the mobile home park zone. 'Vice Mayor Hornbuckle.asked staff when the last mobile ;home park conversion occurred. The Principal Planner 1 responded that there have not been any conversions under the new State law which requires an impact report, and he thought that may have been 5 or 6 years ago. The Principal Planner stated that the last conversion he could remember was done in the late 19701s. Council Member Glasgow reported that two years ago, the owners of the mobile home park on 16th Street requested a change to industrial use; however, nothing resulted from that request because of legal difficulties. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle supported the concept of a mobile home park overlay zone; however, she believed that the State law has been effective in preserving that type of housing. She stated that the new General Plan addresses mobile home park conversion guidelines, and the objec- tive is that it would protect the existing supply of mobile homes and ensure that existing park tenants are not adversely impacted by conversion of existing parks. Mayor Buffa commented that mobile home parks are a special category, and to a large degree, the City's jurisdiction has been superseded by the State. The Mayor reported that it is very difficult to convert a mobile home park because of stringent State require- ments. Council Member Genis referred to Page 207 of the pro- posed General Plan, and stated that under State law, those wishing to convert a mobile home park must prepare a report on the impact of conversion; the report would be subject to public hearings; and guidelines must be drafted to allow imposition of reasonable conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts of the conversion on existing park tenants. She believed that this suggested mechanism would be the appropriate manner of addressing requests for conversions. Council Member Glasgow had reservations about establish- ing the new zone at the request of the park residents, rather than at the request of the park owner. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to adopt Program XII -C Program XII -C, Mobile Home Park Conversion Guidelines, Adopted as outlined on Page 234 of the document attached to staff's memorandum dated October 12, 1989. The motion was seconded by Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0. Patricia Wada, 30 Upton Street, Cambridge, Massachu- setts, whose family owns a 4 -acre vacant site at 1741 Whittier Avenue, opposed the land use amendment for Site 6, listed under Alternative 2. She believed that low density residential is an improper use for the site, with the exception of the area along the ridge line. She commented that 90 percent of the 30 -acre parcel is flat, and it is only from the land along the ridge line that the ocean can be seen. Ms. Wada contended that people would not purchase homes sandwiched between fully developed industrial areas. Donald Studer, 20 Corporate Park, Irvine, attorney for Olin Properties, seconded the comments made by Patricia Wada, and expressed opposition to the proposed amendment for Site 6. Russ Gilbert, 265 Briggs Avenue, President of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, and President and founder of Cimco, Incorporated, commented that the proposed General ,Plan as prepared by staff and recommended by the Plan- ning Commission is well conceived in that it addresses environmental issues and the best interests of Costa Mesa residents, as well as those of business, industry, and commerce. He stated that the restrictions placed on building densities should reduce vehicular traffic congestion and improve air quality. On behalf of the Chamber, local industry, and his employees, Mr. Gilbert urged the Council to adopt the proposed General Plan. Rod Henderson, Director of Human Resources for Cimco, and Industrial Committee Chairman for the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposed General Plan and commended staff on the sections concerning hazardous waste and natural disasters. Mr. Henderson submitted 35 letters from Costa Mesa residents commending staff and Council for their work on the proposed General Plan. Camille Courtney, 2756 Lorenzo Avenue, President of Mesa Pride, referred to a letter from that organization dated October 12, 1989, and summarized its contents. She reported that the overwhelming majority of Mesa Pride felt strongly that the Planning Commission's recommenda- tions should be adopted as stated, except that the members supported a density of 30-50 units per acre in the Urban Center Residential area, rather than 25-35 as proposed. The reason for supporting the higher density was the concept that if more people lived near their Work place, traffic would be reduced. Objective I -B Mayor Buffa presented Objective I -B: Evaluate the preservation of the City's existing biotic resources in as ecologically viable and natural a condition as possible, and, where feasible, restore and integrate these resources into the urban environment. Susan Shaw, 2870 Tabago Place, opposed the General Plan as proposed because she felt it promotes commercial and industrial uses. Ms. Shaw was of the opinion that more jobs are not needed, and stated that she was told that there is now a 20 percent vacancy rate for commercial developments. Charles Robertson, 1885 Tahiti Drive, expressed his satisfaction with the City as it now exists, commenting that if the City were developed in accordance with the proposed General Plan, developers would gain the most. He questioned whether the increased property tax base would offset the additional cost of infrastructure. Mr. Robertson admitted that sales tax revenues would increase, but in view of the Gann limitation, he doubted whether the City would gain by the additional revenue. He concluded that the City would gain very little if the proposed General Plan were adopted. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Steering Committee member, pointed out the committee's recommendations for policies listed under Objective I -B. I There being no other speakers, Mayor Buffa closed the public hearing for Objective I -B and its policies. MOTION/Objective On motion by Council Member Glasgow, seconded by Council I -B Adopted Member Genis, and carried 5-0, Objective I -B was adopted. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to adopt Amended Policy 11 Policy 11, with one amendment (underlined): Ensure Adopted that all future developments will be adequately reviewed I with regard to possible adverse effects on plant and animal life, and critical wildlife habitat, and, where feasible and appropriate, incorporate sufficient mitiga- tion measures into the project design to reduce such effects. The motion was seconded by Council Member Genis. Council Member Genis suggested adding a phrase at the end of the policy, "in compliance with Federal and State wildlife protection laws and regulations"; however, the Vice Mayor decided not to include this recommendation. The motion to adopt Policy 11 as amended by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle carried 4-1, Mayor Buffa voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow to adopt Policy 12 Policy 12: Require landscape plans for all public and Adopted private developments to consider the retention and/or enhancement of existing mature vegetation. The motion was seconded by Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0. A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to adopt Steering Committee Policy 12A, amended to read: Encourage public aware- ness of environmental protection issues. The motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Amburgey, and Glasgow voting no. Objective I -C The Mayor presented Objective I -C: Encourage the preservation and protection of the City's natural and man-made historic resources. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Steering Committee member, reviewed the policy recommendations submitted by the committee. There being no other speakers, Mayor Buffa closed the public hearing for Objective I -C and its policies. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:45 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Buffa invited the public to make any general statements they wished on the proposed General Plan. Jim Ferryman, 1095 Tulare Drive, member of the Chamber of Commerce Executive Board, agreed with the reccomenda- tions made by the Planning Commission and Planning staff. He believed that the residents and the business community have some of the same concerns, for instance, traffic congestion and too much density is not good for either -the business or residential communities. Mr. Ferryman supported having traffic improvements funded by trip fees, and having high density residential located north of the I-405 Freeway. Michael Szkaradek, 1555 Mesa Verde Drive East, wanted to know the origin and rationale of the policy decisions being made by Council. He suggested that anyone who believes the intensity in the General Plan is too high should let it be known. Mr. Szkaradek read from the General Plan: "It is unrealistic to assume that cities can provide a one-to-one balance between employment and housing; however, cities can and should be expected to adequately acccmmodate a reasonable share of the housing demand created by employment centers within their juris- diction, and not overburden adjacent communities which do not benefit from the assets of commercial business Discussion Continued for Objective I -C development". He suggested that the General Plan define the meaning of "balance" in that context. Kevin Shannon, 2541 Greenbriar, referred to the recent earthquake in Northern California, stating that most of the damage in the City of Oakland was because of high (intensity development. He urged moderation for future development in Costa Mesa. Mayor Buffa announced that Council would now discuss ,Objective I -C and its policies. Mayor Buffa supported the Historical Society's recom- mendation, Policy 13A, and expressed his concern that the word "historical" could present a problem. He suggested that when the General Plan comes back to Council in its final form that staff contact the Historical Society to obtain ideas on how that which is of local historical significance can be qualified. The Principal Planner referred to Steering.Committee !Policy 17 which states in part, "and determine which historical resources merit preservation. He suggested that these words are an indication that the Historical !Society could decide which resources merit preservation. ;Betty Beecher, member of the Costa Mesa Historical Society, reported that the society is very interested in 'working with the City, and has been soliciting people to do resource work on historical structures in the area. Mrs. Beecher mentioned a gentleman who was in the area in 1919 who can provide the names of people to assist the society with this project. She stated that even though some structures need not be preserved, they should be documented. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Objective I -C Member Genis, and carried 5-0, the following action was and Policies 13 taken: (Amended), 14, 15 and 16 Adopted Objective I -C was adopted: Encourage the preservation and protection of the City's natural and man-made historic resources. Amended Policy 13 was adopted: Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources and the impact of proposed development of those resources. (Underlined words were added.) Policy 14 was adopted: Require monitoring of grading operations by a qualified paleontologist or archaeo- logist when the site is reasonably suspected of containing such resources. If, as a result, evidence of resources is found, require the property to be made available for a reasonable period of time for salvage of known paleontological and archaeological resources by qualified experts, organizations, or educational institutions. Policy 15 was adopted: Require developments on land containing known archaeological resources to use reasonable care to locate structures, paving, land- scaping, and fill dirt in such a way as to preserve these resources undamaged for future generations when it is the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist that said resources be preserved in situ. I. 1 2 - Policy 16 was adopted: Encourage and assist further research into the background of potentially historic buildings about which sufficient information is not yet known. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Steering Council Member Glasgow, and carried 5-0, to adopt Committee Policy amended Steering Committee Policy 17: Consult with 17 Adopted local organizations and individuals to designate sites, buildings, and structures of historical significance and determine, by working with the Costa Mesa Historical Society, which historical resources merit preservation. Consider designating a site for the preservation of significant historical buildings and structures. (Amendment is underlined.) MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis to adopt Amended Steering Steering Committee Policy 18, amended: Promote Committee Policy ("through budgetary allocations" deleted) the preserva- 18 Adopted tion of significant historical resources and encourage other public agencies or private organizations to assist in the purchase and/or relocation of sites, buildings, and structures deemed to be of historical significance. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0. (Addition is underlined.) MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 19 Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, to adopt Policy Adopted 19: Create an overlay zone, or similar tool, to require approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to demoli- tion, grading, or construction on sites identified as having significant historical resources. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Amended Steering Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Committee Policy Committee Policy 19A, amended: Encourage development of an interpretive 19A Adopted center for paleontological, archaeological, and histori- cal resources at Fairview Park. The center may contain resources found in the park area as well as resources found throughout the City. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no. (Underlined words were added.) A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Committee Policy 19B: Encourage the Newport -Mesa Unified School District to teach the history of Costa Mesa in Costa Mesa schools. Mayor Buffa opposed the motion because he would not presume to tell the school district what to do. The motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Amburgey, and Glasgow voting no. Objective I -D Mayor Buffa presented Objective I -D: Work towards the protection and conservation of the City's existing and future water resources. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Steering Committee member, reported that citizens are concerned about the sources, availability, and cost of water. She stated that specifically, citizens were concerned about the demands for water because of too much density and intensity of development, and were opposed to paying higher water bills because of development. Ms. Luymes reported that from 1979 to 1986, the cost of water supplied by the Metropolitan Water District rose over 120 percent, and this increase can be linked to increased development. She stated that even though Mesa Consolidated Water District established new impact fees, the cost to finance $7-1/2 million is being imposed on all water users, apart from the impact fee. Ms. Luymes stated that the State Department of Water Resources indicates that increased water demand due to growth is a signifi- cant impact irrespective of the status of supply. She reported that citizens made the following suggestions: encourage water conservation through the use of recycled water such as is being contemplated for North Costa Mesa; encourage the use of native desert plants and landscaping and the need for long-range plans for addi- tional wells and supply. Ms. Luymes then mentioned the Steering Committee policies shown in the document under Objective I -D. Council Member Amburgey stated that he has consistently heard comments about the proposed General Plan favoring developers. He commented that the Plan is for everyone in the City, and if citizens want to make additions to their homes, they also create some of these impacts. He emphasized that all citizens contribute their fair share of impacts. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Steering Committee member, stated that the committee members are merely passing on comments made by citizens at the committee workshops. He clarified Steering Committee Policy 23B, stating that it refers to long-term dewatering, not short-term. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Steering Committee member, referred to Steering Committee Policy 25A, and stated that this policy is to ensure that water rates are fair for everyone, including developers. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Amended Objective Council Member Genis, to adopt Objective I -D, amended to I -D Adopted incorporate Steering Committee Policy 20A (indicated by underline): Work towards the protection and conserva- tion of the City's existing and future water resources, recognizing water as a limited resource requiring conservation. The motion carried 5-0. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Policy 20, amended to 20 Adopted 'include Steering Committee Policy 20B (indicated by underline): Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major development or redevelopment project impacts on local water supplies and water quality. The analysis shall include cumula- tive analysis of the impact of each new development project on water capacity, water availability, and water costs. Responding to a question from the Mayor, the Principal Planner reported that cumulative impacts are required to be included in any Environmental Impact Report. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Planning A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Commission/ Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, to adopt Policy Steering Committee '21 as recommended by the Planning Commission and Steer - Policy 21 Adopted ing Committee: Pursue the use of reclaimed waste water ,for the irrigation of all appropriate open space facili- ties and require new developments and City projects, 1 ,ti � �y fir, and encourage existing developments, to tie into the reclaimed water system when recommended by the Orange County Water District. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Policies 22, 23, Member Genis, and carried 5-0, the following action was 23B, and 24 taken: Adopted Adopted Policy 22: Require proposed development projects to incorporate all interior and exterior water conservation measures required by state law and state and local water agencies. Encourage the imple- mentation of measures recommended by water agencies. Adopted Policy 23: Amend the landscape standards to require the use of low flow irrigation systems and native California vegetation and/or other low water demand plants, with evaluation as to their drought resistance, in all proposed development projects. Adopted Amended Steering Committee Policy 23B (changes underlined): Require, when possible, re -use of pumped water from long-term dewatering operations for land- scape irrigation. Adopted Policy 24: Cooperate with the Mesa Consoli- dated'Water District and Santa Ana Heights Water Company to advise the citizens of Costa Mesa of the benefits which can be obtained from the practices of water conservation. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Steering Committee Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Committee Policy Policy 23A Adopted 23A: Encourage Mesa Consolidated Water District to offer credits, rebates, or reduced water rates to users of "Green Acres" reclaimed waste water. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle_, seconded by Council Policies 25 and Member Genis, and carried 5=0, the_following action was 25A Adopted taken: Adopted Policy 25: Encourage potential private sector uses of reclaimed waste water in Costa Mesa to use such water for the irrigation of landscaped areas by publicizing the economic and environmental benefits of this action. Adopted Policy 25A: Direct developers to work with the local water agency when the water agency deter- mines that a project impacts the local water supply system; the water agency may require fees or other financial assessments of developers to finance any required expansion of the water supply system to serve new projects. DISCUSSION After brief discussion, the Council agreed to schedule a meeting on November 1, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., to continue the public hearing for the General Plan Review Program. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Genis thanked the Planning Commission, COMMENTS Steering Committee, and staff for their work on the General Plan proposed General Plan. Council Member Amburgey thanked Jan Kausen for encour- Sister City aging his son, Ron, to correspond with the Lions Club of Costa Mesa's Sister City, Werribee, Australia. He reported that his son received a banner and pin from Werribee, and in a letter sent to his son, he was told that there is a city near Werribee named Newport which is near the coast. Red Ribbon Week Mayor Buffa announced that he was at Pomona School earlier in the day to kick off Red Ribbon Week. Northern Mayor Buffa referred to the recent earthquake in and California around the San Francisco/Oakland area, and urged every - Earthquake one to intensify earthquake awareness efforts, noting that staff has been at work improving the City's disaster program. He reminded citizens that it has become quite obvious that in major disasters, there may not be any help available for hours or days. Dedication of Mayor Buffa announced that on Friday, October 20, the Police Facility Police Facility will be dedicated to Arthur McKenzie, the City's first Police Chief. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to November 1, 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 eral Plan Review Program. Mayor of the C40f Costa Mesa ATTEST: