Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1989 - Adjourned City Council MeetingJL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA NOVEMBER 1, 1989 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session November 1, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was duly and regularly ordered adjourned from the adjourned meeting of October 19, 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 Members Absent: Council Member Edward Glasgow Officials Present: City Manager Allan Roeder Acting City Attorney Eleanor Frey Deputy City Manager/Development Services Donald Lamm Director of Public Services William Morris Transportation Services Manager John Lower City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson Senior Planner Alice Angus Associate Planner Kim Brandt The Mayor announced that Council Member Glasgow was absent because his mother passed away a few days ago. ORAL Richard Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, COMMUNICATIONS wanted to know the difference between two organizations: Mesa Pride and Newport Mesa Pride. Council Member Genis Mesa Pride and explained that Newport Mesa Pride's main function is to Newport Mesa Pride fight drug abuse. Council Member Amburgey reported that Mesa Pride was founded to promote projects for the wel- fare of Costa Mesa. Speed Humps Mr. Sherrick stated that the speed humps on Country Club Drive should slow traffic down to 25 miles per hour. He contended that humps being placed 350 to 400 feet apart would not be adequate. General Plan Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, General Comments Plan Steering Committee member, referred to comments by John De Witt who questioned the Mesa Verde Homeowners Association's participation in the General Plan Steering Committee, and Mr. De Witt not having received informa- from the Association. Mr. Hutchins stated that John De Witt was President of the Mesa Verde Homeowners Association until June of 1989, and attended four meet- ings at which he had the opportunity to give his input to the Steering Committee. Richard Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, mentioned the impact that development is having on the residents of Costa Mesa. He pointed out that Mesa Consolidated Water District has had to make -extensive alterations and additions to their existing facilities, of which -8-1/2 million dollars was directly related to new development in Costa Mesa. Mr. Sherrick stated that this amount was to be collected through impact fees from developers. He claimed that the interest is being paid by the Water District customers; therefore, customers are subsidizing developments. Mayor Buffa commentedd that Mesa Consolidated Water District has another viewpoint. Alvenos Opti, 952 Denver Drive, Costa Mesa, expressed concern and frustration over increased traffic conges- tion. He said that allowing high rise buildings will greatly increase the traffic and pollution, and slow down the fire, police, and paramedic response. He stated that there would be higher water bills resulting from the increase in the number of residents per square foot. Council Member Amburgey stated that the City has a very low fire rating of Class Two, and thanked the devel- opers, property owners, citizens on the north side in particular, and Council for affording the City an oppor- tunity to increase its fire apparatus and for building the new fire station at the Civic Center, which will bring about a reduction of home owner and business insurance rates. Nancy Vanderlinden, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Manager of Research and Communications, reported that the Board of Directors has agendized the General Plan for its meeting at the District Office, 1965 Placentia Avenue. She commented that the District did adopt a development impact fee which is presently in effect, and stated that the 1984 Master Plan changed the District's direction by developing a plan which would eliminate having to rely on any one source of water in case of an emergency. She stated that the greatest concerns of the Water District are emergency services during an earthquake and drought situations and for that reason the facility for local water production has increased greatly. She pointed out that import water is $231.00 per acre foot versus $92.00 per acre foot to pump the ground water. Tamar Goldman, 2324 College Drive, Costa Mesa, said that Costa Mesa now is at the point where Los Angeles was 14 years ago in regard to suburban character change. She opposed high density development. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor opened the public hearing, continued from the General Plan meeting of October 19, 1989, to discuss the General Plan Review Review Program: Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1043. General Plan Amendment GP -89-02: Proposed goals, objectives, and policies. Proposed land use building intensity standards. Proposed land use element map amendments. Amendments to the Master Plans of Highways and Bikeways. Final recommendations on remaining General Plan Topics. The Principal Planner requested additional direction regarding Council's previous votes on Objective lA and Policy 1 in regard to memo dated October 24 from the Associate Planner. After rewriting the policy to see how it would fit into the overall General Plan and the Enviromental Impact Report as a mitigation measure, he expressed concern on how the Council intended the words "current park ratio" to be interpreted. The Associate Planner stated that the first item which needed additional clarification was Objective lA which was adopted by Council at the previous meeting, and defined as "Preserve the City's current ratio of park lands and open space lands to population to provide adequate relief from pressure of urban development". She reported that. in staff's review of this objective, they concluded that the words "park lands" referred to community and neighborhood parks; therefore, the objective was modified to read "Preserve the City's open space lands and provide additional community and neighborhood park lands in conjunction with future population increases to provide adequate recreational opportunities and relief from the pressure of urban development". The Associate Planner stated that in regard to Policy No. 1, the words "existing ratio of park land" need clarification. She explained that if it refers to community and neighborhood park land, the current ratio should be put in the policy itself, and based on the current population and acreage in the City, the ratio would be approximately 4.2 acres. She stated that in order to implement this policy, additional park land would have to be acquired in conjunction with future development in order to maintain that ratio as the population increases with General Plan build -out. The Associate Planner estimated that 55 acres should be set aside based on the present build -out population numbers, and advised that since the current park dedi- cation and in -lieu fee ordinance would not be adequate for obtaining the 55 acres, additional types of mechan- isms would be required to acquire park lands. She further advised that if only new development would pay for additional park land, an alternative policy could be considered: "Maintain existing ratio of community and neighborhood park land to population to the extent feasible by requiring the maximum park land dedication or payment of fees permitted under State law". Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Amended Policy 1 Council Member Genis, to amend Policy No.l to read: Failed to Carry "Maintain existing ratio of community and neighborhood park land to population to the extent feasible by requiring the maximum parkland dedication or payment of fees permitted under State law". Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Steering Committee member, spoke about issues addressed at public workshops and in the Opinion Research Survey: (1) existing open space which the City has development control over be main- tained as open space; and (2) existing ratio of park land to population be preserved because of the pressures of urbanization. The staff answered questions from Council concerning the number of park land acres per 1,000 residents. Mayor Buffa opposed the motion because he was interested in maintaining and increasing the available park land. He stated that his understanding of staff's report is that the mechanics of the proposal do not work. He emphasized that Council should not allow degradation in the ratio of park land to population from the current status and that a mechanism be put in place which would increase the available park land. The motion failed to carry 2-2, Council Members Buffa and Amburgey voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Council Staff Directed Member Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, directing staff to to Reword Policy review Policy No. 1 again, and come back with wording No. 1 which will specify how the City can maintain the exist- ing ratio of park land to population with no degrada- tion, and encourage the ratio to become more park land rather than less to the population between now and build -out. The City Clerk read the following communications: Judy and Clayton Sturtevant supported the General Plan. Jean Marie Morton opposed the five-year City plan, and suggested more places for outdoor recreation and better air quality. John W. DeWitt supported the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission which allows for the most land designation flexibility. Patricia S. Wada opposed Alternative 2 land use amend- ments for Site No. 6. Lois M. Bennett opposed the five-year City plan and suggested a plan for slower growth and development. Lorin Haskins opposed the five-year City plan. Mr. and Mrs. R. Churchill opposed the five-year City plan and recommended aiming for low density and low building heights. James Ikeda opposed a zoning change from M1 to R1 at 1709 Whittier Avenue. Mayor Buffa clarified that there is no five-year plan; however, the Housing Element, which is one part of the General Plan, must be updated every five years. He stated that there is no time limit on the General Plan or any of the alternatives being proposed; it can be revised and updated next year, next month, or 10 years frcm now. The Mayor reported that the State requires every city to have a current, accurate General Plan, but there is no five-year City plan. The Associate Planner reported on the numbering system used for the General Plan policies and objectives. She stated that where there are alternatives to a policy or objective that was originally proposed in the draft General Plan, it is listed as the same number; for instance, No. 28, there may be either a notation of PC, for Planning Commission; SC, Steering Committee; TC, Transporation Commission; and/or HS, Historical Society. Those are all alternative policies to the original policy contained in the draft General Plan. She 1 MOTION Objective I -E and Policies 26 through 32 Adopted 131 reported that there are additional policies which have been inserted in the document with numbering such as 10A, 10B and 10C. Staff answered questions from Council regarding Objec- tive I -E and Policies 26-39A. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, spoke about the solid waste problem caused by increased population and development. There being no other speakers, Mayor Buffa closed the public hearing for Objective I -E and Policies 26 through 39A. The Mayor asked for an umbrella motion for Poli- cies 26-32 since there were no alternatives. On motion made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Amburgey, and carried 3-1, Mayor Buffa voting no, the following action was taken: Objective I -E was adopted: "Conserve energy and resources in the development and operation of public and private buildings, facilities, and activities". Policy 26 was adopted: "Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of the impacts of climatic conditions on proposed projects and a discussion of appropriate mitigation measures". Policy 27 was adopted: "Require analysis of avail- able energy conservation measures in excess of Title 24 requirements, including consideration of modified site and building design, in conjunction with or as a mitigation measure of, EIRs and Negative Declarations for major developments". Policy 28 was adopted: "Consider effects of building height on adjacent parcels to ensure minimum inter- ference with solar access in the vicinity of all new developments". Policy 29 was adopted: "Continue the program of replacing mercury vapor and other street lights with highpressure sodium vapor". Policy 30 was adopted: "Establish guidelines which will encourage maximum consideration of local climatic conditions in the development and operation of public facilities". Policy 31 was adopted: "Require, where feasible, all new buildings and subdivisions to be designed and oriented in such a way as to take maximum advan- tage of the sun and winds for natural heating and cooling". Policy 32 was adopted: "Encourage publicity or educational programs to promote 'energy conscious ness' and disseminate information about conservation techniques". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 33 Adopted Vice.Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 33 as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Steering Committee: "Adopt regulations to require all new heated swimming pools to be equipped with solar heating and encourage retrofitting of existing swimming pools with solar heaters". MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Council Policy 33A Adopted Member Genis, and carried 3-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no, to adopt Policy 33A: "Encourage active solar systems for either water and/or space heating in all residential, commercial and industrial building designs". Mayor Buffa requested that staff review all approved policies to determine if they can be.consolidated. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 34 Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 34: "Encourage solar water heating for all new resi- dences and encourage retrofitting of all existing residences with wall and ceiling insulation and water heater insulation". MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 35 Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 35 as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Steering Committee: "Encourage a Citywide program for regular house-to-house pick-up and separation of recyclable materials". MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 36 Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 36: "Permit, encourage, and assist public and nonprofit private organizations to establish, expand, or improve collection stations for recyclable materials". MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded Amended Policy 37 by Council Member Genis, to adopt amended Steering Adopted Committee Policy 37: "Require large new office, commercial, and industrial developments to establish and maintain programs and facilities for on-site collection of separated, recyclable waste materials. Encourage collectors to provide pick-up service for such recyclable materials, or to contract with refuse disposal services which separate recyclable materials. (The phrase "at transfer stations" was omitted.) The motion carried 3-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy 38 Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Policy 38 as Adopted recommended by the Planning Commission and the Steering Committee: "Institute a program within City Hall to separate all recyclable materials for recycling or contract with a refuse.disposal service which separates reyclable materials. (The phrase "at transfer stations" was omitted.) The motion carried 3-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no. Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 39 Failed Council Member Genis, to adopt Steering Committee Policy to Carry 39: "Encourage the County to construct or expand trans- fer stations near or in Costa Mesa to reduce trips of City -contracted trash collectors to replacement dump sites after Coyote Canyon is closed and encourage Orange County to investigate use of pyrolysis. Take steps to ensure that the location of any transfer station does not impact surrounding residential or commercial areas. Prohibit the use of land for disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work towards the prohibition of contigu- ous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground water contamination". The motion failed to carry 2-2, Council Members Buffa and Amburgey voting no. -f q_q MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Amended Policy 39 Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Policy 39: "Prohibit the Adopted use of land for disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground water contami- nation". The motion carried 4-0. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 39A Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 39A: "Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan". The Principal Planner answered questions from Council regarding Objective I -F: "Work towards the orderly, balanced utlization and conservation of the City's coastal reources." Frank Cole, 2482 Fairview -Way, Costa Mesa, was opposed to having a small craft harbor adjacent to the east levee of the Santa Ana River. Jeffrey Childs, 1139 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, acting President of the Marina Highlands Homeowners Association, was opposed to a marina at the specified location. Scott Williams, Chairman of the Steering Committee, spoke about the small craft harbor and pointed out that the majority opposed it because of the traffic which would be brought into the area, the pollution brought by the traffic, and other generating pollution sources. He stated that the people opposed to the marina favored a low intensity development; those favoring it thought it was acceptable if it were developed by the City, would increase recreational opportunities, and that there would be no commercial, or income producing, uses. Mark Korando, Steering Committee member, spoke regarding Policy 48 and recommended that the Gisler Avenue bike trail connect with the Santa Ana River trail to give more east -west connections through a predominently residential area, and to provide more access to the river trail. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing for Objective 1-F and Policies MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Objective 1-F Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Objective 1-F: "Work Adopted towards the orderly, balanced utilization and conserva- tion of the City's coastal resources". The motion carried 4-0. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy 40 Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Policy 40: Adopted "Coordinate the planning efforts of the City with those of the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach, and other appropriate agencies to develop uniform and consistent policies regarding the future use and devel- opment in the Santa Ana River lowlands extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Fairview Regional Park Site". (The addition is underlined.) The motion carried 4-0. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 41A Adopted Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt Steer- ing Committee Policy 41A as a replacement for Policy 41: "Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas." 13 MOTION Policies 42 through 48 Adopted Mayor Buffa stated that the marina is one of the great, unfulfilled potentials of the City. He reported that the County will adopt their Local Coastal Plan and all indications are it will have no provision for a marina of any kind. The City Manager stated that at a Council study session with the Marina Committee, specific direction was given to the Committee to go back to the County and the City of Newport Beach requesting resolutions of support for the marina project, as well as to secure a letter of endorsement from the private sector regarding underwrit- ing of the project. He said that he sent correspondence to the committee and others soliciting a status from them so that they could help this Council make a deter- mination, and that has not happened. He reported that the County Coastal Plan will settle the issue of the marina and at the present time, the marina is not included in the plan. On motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, the following action was taken: Policy 42 was adopted: "Develop the Canyon Park site as a low density, wilderness area combining hiking, picnicking, and educational uses in a restored natural environment". Policy 43 was adopted: "Require the provision of adequate on-site parking facilities to serve proposed public recreation uses within the Coastal Zone". Policy 44 was adopted: "Encourage the County of Orange to acquire the remaining 5 -acre privately owned parcel adjacent to the Santa Ana River". Policy 45 was adopted: "Require that all public recreation areas and facilities be available at the lowest feasible cost to allow all economic segments of the community to use and enjoy the recreational opportunities provided in the Coastal Zone". Policy 46 was adopted: "Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the Coastal Zone and to limit planned capacities to conform to the demands created by development which is consistent with the Coastal Act". Policy 47 was adopted: "Coordinate the development of plans, policies, and design standards for projects within the Coastal Zone with appropriate local, regional, State, and Federal agencies". Policy 48 was adopted: "Pursue adoption of a Local Coastal Plan". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Steering Commit - 48A Adopted tee Policy 48A: "Participate with the County of Orange to provide pedestrian and bike linkages between open space and recreation facilities in and adjacent to the coastal area to take advantage of coastal resources". (The addition is underlined.) The motion carried 4-0. 1 MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Steering 48B Adopted Committee Policy 48B: "Preserve City views of coastal resources". The motion carried 3-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:35 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 8:40 p.m. The Mayor presented Objective I -G, regulating oil extraction activities within the City. There being no speakers on Objective I -G, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion Made to A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Adopt Objective I -G Council Member Amburgey, to adopt Objective I -G and and Policies 49 Policies 49 through 51. through 51 Mayor Buffa opposed the motion because he wanted a more stringent policy that would limit present oil extraction activities in existing areas in the City and eventually eliminate that activity altogether. SUBSTITUTE MOTION A substitute motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Objective I -G and Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, the following Amended Policy 49 action was taken: Adopted Objective I -G was adopted: "Regulate oil extraction activities within the City to attain a reasonable accommodation of the need to recover a precious resource with the need to protect other properties and uses from the detrimental impacts of such activi- ties and to work towards the eventual termination of such activities within the community". Amended Policy 49 was adopted: "Limit present oil extraction activities to those portions of the City overlaying the Newport and West Newport oil fields". MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Amended Policy 50 Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Policy 50: "Continue to Adopted allow oil extraction activities in those portions of the City overlaying the Newport and West Newport Oil Fields". The motion was carried, 4-0. MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Policy 51 Adopted Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 51: "Establish development standards and review criteria to minimize the impact of existing and future oil produc- tion activities on other land uses existing or proposed to be developed on properties containing producing oil wells". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by New Policy Mayor Buffa, and carried 3-1, Council Member Amburgey Prohibiting Oil voting no, to add a new policy: "To the extent per - Pipelines Adopted mitted by law,,prohibit the location of major oil pipe- lines throughout the City". The Mayor presented Objective I -H: "Provide spatial, visual, and experimental opportunities for cultural enjoyment and participation including both the perform- ing and visual arts". Scott Williams, Steering Committee member, reported that citizen input was for arts and art projects, and clari- fied the addition of the words "supported by private J. 3(11__Z donations" contained in the Steering Committee's recom- mendation. He stated that citizens do not want public funds used to put art objects in private developments. The Mayor replied that Council did not want to see add- itional support of the arts to the detriment of general fund items, such as public services. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Objective Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt amended Steering Commit - I -H Adopted tee Objective I -H: "Encourage the provision of spatial, visual, and experiential opportunities for cultural enjoyment and participation including both the perform- ing and visual arts. (The addition is underlined.) The motion carried, 3-1, Mayor Buffa voting no. Comments on The Mayor called for general comments on the General General Plan Plan. Arthur Goddard, 2901 Palau Place, Costa Mesa, addressed ,the financial impact of the General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, and asked about projected costs of mitigations or the increased City budget which would be attendant with increased services for a popula- tion increase. He said that he was informed by someone in the Finance Department that they had not been involved in projecting costs for planned build -out. He asked about major assumptions and analyses which have been made to ensure the affordability of the Plan. Mayor Buffa responded that the questions he asked were part of another process, and that Council would not be addressing calculations in the General Plan because the assumptions used only work for a very short term. The City Manager stated that the General Plan is only goals and objectives, not necessarily those that must be accomplished at a specific time, and the economic analysis will be part of the Implementation Phase. Council Member Genis was concerned about overall balance of uses, stating that an inappropriate balance can lead to financial disaster. Dick Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, was con- cerned about implementation of growth and development, and the person responsible for giving the parameters to staff. The Deputy City Manager replied that the General Plan is a staff -generated revision to the existing General Plan which was written in 1981. He explained that the City now has the original proposed text, changes which have been made by staff designated in the plan by "M" for modified, and new policies, corrections, and recommenda- tions by the Steering Committee, designated "SC". Alan Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, commented that 92,000 people will be affected by this plan and asked if it could be submitted to the voters. visual, and experimental opportunities for cultural Mayor Buffa responded that the General Plan could be submitted to the voters; however, the plan is a State - mandated document developed over a period of four years, containing a general vision of the City's future devel- opment, and it does not imply that this is exactly what is going to happen. Council'Member Genis mentioned that the General Plan provides the blueprint and framework for future projects. Mr. Remington suggested that Council put reasonable limits into a resolution to determine whether the blue- print passes the voters' scrutiny. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that there have been reduc- tions in the proposed General Plan, and the public must vote for Council Members who will adopt a plan satis- factory to the citizens. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, stated that when she first became a member of the committee in 1987, they were presented with several volumes of the General Plan including three technical appendixes which represented a draft of the updated plan, then five workshops were conducted; however; the densities and intensities in the present General Plan did not appear in the original document. She stated that the Trip Budget was not mentioned, and there is material in the General Plan documents now before the Council that were not included in the documents received by the Steering Committee in December of 1987. Richard Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, strongly objected to the General Plan. He stated that the 63 percent of the electorate voted against Measures "H" and "I". He asserted that the General Plan permits not only what was limited by the measures, but allows a 50 -story building, probably at the Segerstrom Ranch. Mr. Sherrick stated that responsible growth and traffic control were voted for in Measure "G", and the Council cannot allow unrestricted limits in the General Plan. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle pointed out that Council is in the discussion phase of the General Plan. Frank Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, stated that the voters defeated Measure "G" by 288 votes, and the write-in votes passed it by 388 votes. He encouraged the people to get involved and not depend on others to make interpretations of documents. Alan Remington, referring to the document which his wife had written, stated that all the figures in the document were exact figures from the Planning Commission's report, no interpretations. The Mayor disagreed with Mr. Remington and said that the document spoke in adjectives, was wildly inaccurate, and did not help the process. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing for general comments. MOTION On motion made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policies 52 Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, the following through 55 Adopted action was taken: Policy 52 was adopted: "Encourage the local arts community to maintain and expand activities within the Costa Mesa area". Policy 53 was adopted: "Review alternative means to acquire art through (a) encouraging developers to incorporate visual art in the architecture, f N i,✓a MOTION Additional time for Mark Korando Approved landscape, and display of art work; (b) encouraging donation of art work to the City; and (c) encourag- ing the location of performing groups within the City". Policy 54 was adopted: "Encourage the development of private, permanent art and cultural facilities to meet the City's cultural needs". Policy 55 was adopted: "Encourage through develop- ment standards the integration of art into major commercial and industrial developments or redevelop- ment projects". The Mayor presented Goal II, Environmental Protection and Preservation, and Objective II -A, "Work towards the mitigation or prevention of potential adverse conse- quences of natural disasters". Mark Korando, Steering Committee member, suggested up- dating the Geology Section -to incorporate the fact that the Whittier quake has had recent movement, and it is a potential concern in Costa Mesa. He advised that Los Angeles had an earthquake drill (Newport -Inglewood fault) and he asserted that this information should be in the document to help the Council determine whether the the City has the same earthquake potential as San Francisco. Jeffrey Childs, acting President of the Marina Highlands Homeowners Association, stated that he was representing Friends of the Santa Ana Wetlands and Seabluff Canyon Homeowners Association, Mesa West Homeowners Associa- tion, Oceanview Homeowners Association, Lexington Place Homeowners Association, and also Newport Terrace Home- owners. Referring to Goal II, existing environmental conditions, air quality, and noise, a major threat is the proposed 19th Street bridge and Bluff Road project which will have a direct affect on air quality and noise. In regard to flooding (Policy 61), he stated that the 19th Street bridge and extension will have a raised road which will create a damming effect on the wetlands being planned by the Corps of Engineers. He contended that this damming effect will cause loss of homes. He believed that the Bluff Road project will be another Costa Mesa death trap with curves and changes in'elevation. He opposed the 19th Street bridge and Bluff Road. Council Member Amburgey asked Mr. Childs that if it should become necessary for this City to build one of the bridges, either the Gisler bridge or the 19th Street bridge, which one did he recommend be constructed. Mr. Childs asked if it was really necessary to build either one; he was interested in a Newport Beach bridge. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, presented their proposals: Goal II, City work towards improvement of air and water quality and reduced noise; Objective II -A, concerning the flooding potential of the Santa Ana River and river channels in the Mesa Verde area; should resolve local storm drain problems before development. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Genis, and carried 3-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no, allowing additional time for Mark Korando to speak. 1 1 -9 41- � Mark Korando, Steering Committee member, referred to Policies 64 and 65 recommended by the Steering Commit- tee, and suggested that action be taken. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the pub- lic hearing for Goal II and Objective II -A. MOTION On motion made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Coal II and Mayor Buffa, carried 4-0, the following action was Objective II -A taken: Amended Steering Committee Goal II was adopted: "It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to protect its citizens and property from injury, damage, or destruction from environmental hazards, including hydrologic, geologic, and climatic episodes, and to work towards the improved noise abatement and improved air and water duality". (Amendment is underlined.) Objective I -I --A was adopted: "Work towards the mitigation or prevention of potential adverse consequences of natural disasters". MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 56 Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 56: "Consider geologic hazard constraints in the devel- opment of land use policies and public decisions relat- ing to land development". Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 56A Failed Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Policy 56A: "Require to Carry geologic studies on oil-producing lands prior to devel- opment to minimize detrimental effects on future structures". The Mayor opposed the motion because he wanted the policy to read that Council would discourage development on oil-producing lands. The motion failed to carry 2-2, Council Members Buffa and Amburgey voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy Mayor Buffa, to adopt amended Steering Committee Policy 56A Adopted 56A: "Take steps to minimize detrimental effects of the conversion of existing oil producing lands to other uses". (Amendments are underlined.) The motion carried 4-0. Motion to Add a Mayor Buffa made a motion that a new policy be estab- New Policy was lished that would prohibit new development on sites on Withdrawn which oil is currently being produced. The motion was seconded by Council Member Genis, and later withdrawn by the Mayor. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services pointed out that a difference between residential and industrial areas must be made. The Principal Planner referred to Policy 51 where devel- opment -standards for properties which could be developed will be established. Mayor Buffa withdrew his motion. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 57 Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 57: "Design all structures, including both critical and 110; noncritical structures, to conform to the seismic design requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code to provide a minimum level of seismic hazard protection". Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy 57 Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt Steering Committee Withdrawn Policy 58, amending the amount of vertical rise to 20 feet or greater. In answer to Vice Mayor Hornbuckle's question, the Principal Planner stated that the definition of a bluff should be placed in the zoning ordinance. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle withdrew her second and Council Member Genis withdrew her motion. MOTION A motion was made by -Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 58 Adopted Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 58: "Develop standards, review criteria, and other methods to ensure that structures on or adjacent to bluffs are set back sufficiently to preserve the natural contour and aesthetic value of the bluff line and to provide sufficient access for fire protection". MOTION On a motion made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Amended, Policies Council Member Amburgey, and carried 4-0, the following 59 and 60, and action was taken: Policy 61 Adopted Amended Policy 59 was adopted: "Require geologic surveys of all new development located on or adjacent to bluffs". (Amendment is underlined.) Amended Policy 60 was adopted: "Permit in 100 -year flood plains only those new uses which are flood - proofed or which can sustain periodic flooding". (Amendment is underlined.) Policy 61 adopted: "Require that new development within the 100 -year flood plain elevate building pads or floodproof sufficiently to protect the buildings from a 100 -year flood". MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 62 Adopted Mayor Buffa, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 62: "Cooperate with local, State, and Federal flood control agencies to reduce the potential for flood damage in the City of Costa Mesa". In response to Council Member Genis's question about how Policy 62A differs from what is now being done, the Director of Public Services stated that the referenced Orange County maps are updated periodically, and the information staff uses to determine how much flooding there will be depends on the soil conditions which have remained the same in Costa Mesa. He reported that it depends on rain fall intensities and rain fall history which does not change very much. He stated that the third criterion used to determine flood run-off is the type of development, that is, how much of the property is developed with hard scape and soft scape; therefore, residential development would absorb much more water than a commercial development which would have more building area and asphalt. He advised that any updates refer to additional areas in the County which are now being developed. The Mayor requested a report on the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the City's present relationship to it. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 63 Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 63: "Require developers to conduct site-specific seis- mic design studies, including consideration of the structure use and occupancy, for all critical structures (schools, hospitals, high-rise structures over three stories, emergency medical and disaster centers, and important government facilities) to identify specific seismic design parameters in excess of the Uniform Building Code necessary to preclude the collapse of the structure in the event of a major seismic episode". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Policy 64 Adopted Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt Policy 64: "Identify and publicize the extent of geologic and seismic hazards within Costa Mesa and advise affected residents and property owners of appropriate protection measures". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt amended 65 Adopted Steering Committee Policy 65: "Identify and publicize the location of all public structures which do not meet current seismic design criteria and which may pose public health hazards in the event of a major earthquake. To the extent feasible, so identify and publicize priv- ate structures". (Addition is underlined.) MOTION On a motion made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Policies 66 and Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, the following 67 Adopted action was taken: Policy 66 was adopted: "Encourage, through technical assistance or development incentives, private prop- erty owners to take adequate steps to protect their property against seismic hazards". Policy 67 was adopted: "Ensure that all vital or critical City facilities are operated and maintained in a manner to maximize their ability to remain operational in the event of a major seismic disaster". Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked about the minimum design standard in Policy 68, the 100 -year storm, and its meaning in relationship to that which is currently being done in the City. The Director of Public Services stated that normally the design of a flood control facility for the 100 -year storm would only be a major facility, such as that for the Santa Ana River. He advised that standard practice is to have the local drain systems designed for a 10 -year storm, which would keep at least two traffic lanes dry. The Director explained that the local system would empty into a 25 -year storm tributary and that would empty into either a 50- or a 100 -year major storm system, such as the Santa Ana River. The Acting City Attorney reported that in regard to the 100 -year storm standard, the Subdivision Map Act prohibits the City from imposing a higher standard on a subdivider than provided in the City's own public facil- ities. She stated that if the 100 -year storm standard were adopted for private development, the City would have to provide public facilities at a comparable level. The Acting City Attorney further advised that the Subdivision Map Act only applies to subdivisions, but it would seem irrational to apply a higher standard for a 142:2 smaller development than for a major development such as a subdivision; therefore, she suggested that Council could not apply it to public development, unless they were prepared to construct enormous 100 -year storm standard public facilities. Discussion followed regarding downstream impacts, on-site retention basins, and the 100 -year storm standard. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded Amended Policy by Council Member Amburgey, and carried 3-1, Council 68 Adopted Member Amburgey voting no, to adopt amended Steering Committee Policy 68: "Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize both the volume and velocity of surface runoff and permit no adverse down- stream impacts due to increased runoff through the proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grad- ing, on-site retention basins, or other appropriate measures". Mayor Buffa requested the City Manager and his staff to prepare a seminar on earthquake preparedness, available City services, what can be expected, and methods of saving lives and property. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 11:00 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 11:15 p.m. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded Policy 69 Adopted by Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, to adopt Steering Committee Policy 69: "Publicize the extent of flood hazards within Costa Mesa and advise affected residents and property owners of appropriate protection measures. Develop an education program, such as the Flood Awareness Program and emergency disaster plans for flooding". MOTION A motion was made by Mayor Buffa, seconded by Vice Mayor Policy 69A Adopted Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, to adopt Steering Committee Policy 69A: "Strongly encourage County, State, and Federal agencies to complete flood control improvements to the Santa Ana River to protect Costa Mesa residents and property located in the 100 year flood zone from a potential major disaster". COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Genis mentioned the Fairgrounds Master COMMENTS Plan schedule and requested that Council take an official City position. She reminded everyone to vote on Tuesday, November 7, for the school board election and issues that will affect them. She suggested that meetings be held on Tuesday or Wednesday instead of Monday which may encourage more public participation. She read some items from the June, 1970, Costa Mesa General Plan. Council Member Amburgey mentioned that this Council is presently addressing issues which the 1970 City Council did not do very successfully as far as providing improvements to mitigate traffic. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested that something be done about the chairs for the City Council. She said that her chair and Council Member Genis' chair needed repair. The Mayor encouraged the citizens of Costa Mesa to vote on November 7, 1989. ADJOURNMENT At 11:25 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Novem- ber 8, 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: Gay Clerk of the City of Costa Me 1