Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1990 - Adjourned City Council MeetingADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA JANUARY 10, 1990 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session January 10, 1990, at 7:30 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 regular meeting of December 11, 1989, and copies of the Notice of Adjourn- ment 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. ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Buffa announced that the City Attorney Reports will be discussed in closed session immediately follow- ing Oral Communications. 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: City Manager Allan Roeder City Attorney Thomas Kathe Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services Donald Lamm Public Services Director William Morris City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson Senior Planner Alice Angus ORAL Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, COMMUNICATIONS reported that the Mesa Verde Homeowners Association is opposed to Gisler Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive, and Baker Arterial Highways Street being placed on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Route 57 Extension Mr. Sherrick referred to the Gisler/Garfield connection and Off -ramps at over the Santa Ana River, and the connection between Garfield and Garfield Avenue and the Route 57 extension being Gisler Avenues supported by the City of Huntington Beach. Mr. Sherrick expressed his firm opposition to a 57.Freeway off -ramp at Gisler Avenue. Mayor Buffa advised Mr. Sherrick that in their statement of support for extension of the 57 Freeway, Council was very specific about the fact that the connectors for that extension shall not extend southerly of the 405 Freeway; therefore, Council does not support a Gisler Avenue off -ramp. Costa Mesa Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, Tourism, Arts asked about the status of the Costa Mesa Tourism, Arts and Promotion and Promotion Corporation, and requested that this Corporation item be placed on a Council agenda. Mayor Buffa replied that this matter will be on the agenda for the regular Council meeting of January 15, 1990. X73 ADJOURNMENT TO At 7:40 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a CLOSED SESSION closed session in the first floor Conference Room, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and 54956.9(c), to discuss items listed under City Attorney Reports. During closed session, the following action was taken: CCCM vs. Ned West By a 5-0 vote, Council approved the City Attorney's recommendation to reject the settlement relating to MOTION Orange County Superior Court Case No. 42-07-28, Settlement Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa vs. Ned West, Incor- Rejected porated. Green Contract By a 4-1 vote, Council approved the City Attorney's recommendations concerning the Costa Mesa Golf and MOTION Country Club concessions; directed the City Manager to Directed Staff to transmit a letter to Harry S. Green, Incorporated, Pursue Options 2 pursuant to Options 2 and 3 contained in the City and 3 Attorney's report; and further clarified that, as it pertains to the contract with Harry S. Green, Incor- porated, gratuties reported as all or a portion of service fees shall not be considered part of gross revenues. MOTION/Authorized By a 4-1 vote, Council authorized settlement of the Settlement of claim from Merle V. McEntee as recommended in staff's McEntee Claim confidential memorandum dated December 26, 1989. MEETING RECONVENED The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor opened the public hearing, continued from the GP -89-02 meeting of December 11, 1989, to discuss the General General Plan Plan Review Program: Review Program , 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 reported that at the last General Plan meeting held on December 11, 1989, Council took action on policies through 167A; however, there were questions raised at that meeting which are addressed in his memorandum dated January 4, 1990. The Principal Planner reported that Council decided that Steering Committee Policy 161A was inappropri- ately located in the Transportation Section, and staff's recommendation is to place it under Objective III -A with other redevelopment -related policies, and to renumber it Policy 92A. The Principal Planner stated that as a result of questions raised regarding the traffic model assump- tions and analyses, development of a policy was recommended, and staff is recommending new Policy 167B as shown in the aforementioned memorandum. The Principal Planner summarized those portions of his memorandum regarding the position of the City of Huntington Beach regarding the Gisler/Garfield connec- tion, and relocation of the Fairview Regional Park bike trail to Tanager Drive. As indicated in his memorandum, the Principal Planner recommended changing Policy 164 to show "peak hour" instead of "peak period", and to make that change in any policy where "peak period" is shown, such as in Policy 174. In conclusion, the Principal Planner asked Council to provide direction for scheduling future General Plan hearings. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 161A Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, changing the Adopted and number of Steering Committee Policy 161A to 92A and Renumbered 92A placing it under Objective III A: "Prepare a specific under Objective plan to ensure that the portion of the Route 55 exten- III-A sion from 19th Street through the Redevelopment Area is compatible with the Redevelopment Area". MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Policy 167B Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, adopting Policy Adopted 167B per staff's memorandum of January 4: "Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal synchronization or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve the efficiency of intersections to more closely approxi- mate theoretical carrying capacities". Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, wanted confirma- tion that even though Policy 164 had been adopted at the last General Plan meeting, it now will be modified to indicate "peak hour". Mayor Buffa responded affirma- tively. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Changed "Peak Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, changing "peak Period" to "Peak period" to "peak hour" in Policies 164 and 174, and in Hour" any other policy where applicable. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Objective VI -B Council Member Glasgow, to take the following action: and Policies 168, 169, 170, and 171 Adopt Objective VI -B: "To promote the use of Adopted nonsingle-occupant vehicular modes of transporta- tion in and through the City". Adopt Policy 168: "Coordinate with OCTD to construct the planned transit way along Routes 55 and I-405". Adopt Policy 169: "Coordinate with OCTD to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations with attractive shelters designed for safe and comfortable use". Adopt Policy 170: "Coordinate with OCTD for ride - matching services for major employers and/or activity centers, with an emphasis placed on the development for origin parking programs". Adopt Policy 171: "Coordinate with major employers to gain support for implementation of transportation management rideshare programs. Program components may include flex -time, transit subsidies, and improved communications. Improved (future) communications could entail a linkup between OCTD and major employers M270 to show the progress of a bus along its route. Bus users could then time their exit from work so as to minimize the wait time". Council Member Genis stated that she could support Objective VI -B if it were to state: "promote the use of alternative modes of transportation" so that it would include bicycles and motorcycles which are single - occupant vehicles. She stated that she supports the basic meaning of the goal; however, the wording of the objective seems to promote the use of large vehicles. Mayor Buffa was of the opinion that the spirit of the objective does not discourage the use of bicycles or motorcycles. Jay Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, stated it appears that Council wants to promote use of high - occupant vehicles as opposed to nonsingle-occupant. Amended Motion Vice Mayor Hornbuckle amended her motion by changing the Died for Lack of words in Objective VI -B from "nonsingle-occupant" to a Second "multiple -occupant". The motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Genis stated that it seems Council's intent is to promote mass transit and carpools; there- fore, wording of the objective should reflect that. Mayor Buffa commented that he would oppose the original motion because of the confusion regarding its intention. The motion to adopt Objective VI -B, and Policies 168, 169, 170, and 171, carried 3-2, Council Members Buffa and Genis voting no. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, member of the General Plan Steering Committee, reported on the input received from the public, resulting in the commit- tee's recommending Policies 172, 172A, 172B, and 172C. During discussion regarding parking needs, Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, elaborated on citizens' concerns about air quality; alternate forms of trans- portation; and insufficient parking, especially at multi -family projects. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, stated that Policy 172A would place condi- tions on a project prior to knowing what type of project would be constructed. He suggested rewording the policy. Frank Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, commented that it makes no sense to require developers to provide a minimum amount of parking, then requiring them to charge for it and forcing people to park in the street. He disagreed with comments that multi -family dwellings are the major cause of excessive on -street parking. Council Member Genis was opposed to paid parking because it encourages employees to park at the closest free facility or in the surrounding neighborhoods, and it taxes those who can least afford it. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, reported that at Town Center, parking is allocated to each,tenant who must decide how to use it. He stated that most employers give the employee the parking fee; those who utilize parking pay the employer back; and those who do not drive keep the money. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Policies 172 by Council Member Genis, to take the following action: Deleted Delete Policy 172: "Condition new development of major employment centers (as defined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulation 15) to provide paid parking, with reductions and/or waivers for car and van pools". Delete Steering Committee Policy 172: Same as above except "new" was deleted and replaced by "any addi- tional". The motion carried 5-0. Policy 172A Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested that staff reword Referred to Steering Committee Policy 172A. Staff Mayor Buffa recommended rewording the policy to indicate that any new development of a major employment center shall participate in an existing or proposed light rail systems in the area if it appears participation will significantly reduce the traffic burden of that development. Referencing Steering Committee Policy 172B, "Study the feasibility of a City -sponsored shuttle bus system", the City Manager advised that existing State law would preclude the City from becoming a municipal bus opera- tor. He suggested deleting the words "City -sponsored". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Policy 172B by Council Member Glasgow, to delete Steering Committee Deleted Policy 172B. The motion carried 4-1, Vice Mayor Hornbuckle voting no. Council Member Genis expressed her support of Steering Committee Policy 172C; however, she did not believe it should be located in this section. Motion Made to Council Member Genis moved to adopt Steering Committee Adopt Policy 172C Policy 172C and directed staff to find a more appro- priate location. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested an amendment to the policy by rewording it to read: "Reevaluate current parking standards for residential developments." (The remainder of the policy was deleted, "to provide adequate and usable on-site parking and reduce competi- tion for public street parking spaces from residential developments".) AMENDED MOTION Council Member Genis amended her motion by incorporat- Amended Policy ing the above recommendation. The amended motion was 172C Adopted seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Objective VI -C Member Amburgey, and carried 5-0, the following action and Policy 173 was taken: Adopted Objective VI -C was adopted: "To invest capital via a rationally phased allocation process for imple- menting transportation projects and programs". Policy 173 was adopted: "Complete and annually main- tain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety". 'a .27 Council Member Genis commented that there was no real significant difference between Policy 174 as proposed and Steering Committee Policy 174, but preferred the former because it is consistent with previous policies using "standard LOS" rather than "acceptable TAS". MOTION On motion by Council Member Genis, seconded by Council Policy 174 Member Glasgow, and carried 5-0, Policy 174 was adopted: Adopted "Develop and annually update a priority list of improve- ment projects, with priorities based on (1) correcting identified hazards; (2) improving/maintaining peak hour operation to standard LOS; (3) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure utilization; and (4) inter- governmental coordination". No action was taken on Steering Committee Policy 174. Implementation Mayor Buffa announced the next section to be considered: Programs "Implementation Programs", the necessary programs to implement the goal of Transportation Management. Council Member Genis liked the idea of having an Imple- mentation Program, but wondered why this type of detailed program was placed in this section but not included anywhere else. She suggested that the Imple- mentation Program may be more appropriate as a supple- ment to the General Plan, or having a program for all the other goals in the General Plan. The Principal Planner reported that the Implementation Program is a carry-over from last year when the Trans- portation Management Element was adopted. He stated that the Transportation Element, like the Housing Ele- ment, had goals, objectives, policies, and implementing programs incorporated into the element itself. Mayor Buffa commented that he thought it was unusual to have the Transportation Implementation Program located in this section when none of the other subjects previ- ously discussed had this type of plan. The Principal Planner responded that if Council were more comfortable in having the Implementation Programs contained in a separate document, staff would do that. He did mention that in the matter of the Housing Element, the State Housing Element Guidelines require the programs to be contained in the General Plan itself. Jan Luymes, member of the Steering Committee, stated that her personal view was to support the suggestions made by Council. Ms. Luymes briefly reviewed the Steer- ing Committee's recommendations contained in the Implementation Programs for Transportation. MOTION Vice Mayor Hornbuckle made a motion to move the Imple- Implementation mentation Programs to a separate document. The motion Programs Moved was seconded by Council Member Genis. to Separate Document Council Member Glasgow was of the opinion that to place the implementation programs in a separate document was a poor idea. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members P.mburgey and Glasgow voting no. The Mayor introduced Goal VII: Land Use. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, commented on citizen concern about high density. He stated that Costa Mesa has the highest ratio of apartments to houses than any other city in Orange County. 1 Jay Humphrey commented that the people in Costa Mesa have clearly voiced their preference for lower densi- ties, intensities, and heights. Council Member Amburgey was of the opinion that Goal VII as recommended by staff appropriately reflects the City's intent, and commented that the General Plan is for all citizens of Costa Mesa, not specifically for major project developers. Motion Made to A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Adopt Goal VII by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt Goal VII as pro - as Proposed posed. Council Member Genis was opposed to the phrase, "to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification", and explained her reasons. SUBSTITUTE Council Member Genis made a substitute motion to adopt MOTION amended Coal VII: "It is the goal of the City of Costa Amended Goal VII Mesa to provide its citizens with a balanced community Adopted of residential, ccmmercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and, to ensure the long teen viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. (Additions are underlined.) The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, reported that citizen comments reflected their fear of single-family areas being transformed into multi -family residences. Scott Williams stated that the committee received citi- zens' comments and made recommendations based on that input. Frank Cole read State law which specifies that during preparation or amendment of the General Plan, the Agency must provide opportunities for the involvement of citi- zens, public agencies, public utility companies, civic, education, and other community groups through public hearings and other means the City or County deems appro- priate. He read further that in preparation of the Housing Element, the law requires local governments to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all segments of the community. Mr. Cole took excep- tion to a minority of the people attacking his and other citizens' preference to live in multi -family projects. Jan Luymes stated that the Steering Committee Report indicates areas of both major and minimal concern. Scott Williams objected to being put on the defensive, and stated that the Committee Report contains a con- sensus of citizen input and results of the opinion survey. Mayor Buffa responded that the Steering Committee did produce a consensus of the people with whom it inter- acted; however, it does not follow that those opinions are a clear consensus of the entire community. Gene Hutchins reported that the number of respondents with whom the Committee dealt was approximately 1,800. 280 MOTION Amended Objective VII -A Adopted The substitute motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Mayor Buffa introduced Objective VII -A. Gene Hutchins spoke about the committee's recommenda- tions for the need to focus on the residential character of the City. He referred to Steering Committee Policy 176 which addresses limiting permanent employment - generating land uses until housing opportunities and employment are in balance. Mr. Hutchins also spoke about Steering Committee Policies 176B, 176C, and 176D. Jay Humphrey was concerned that the wording in the document would not be specific enough to produce the balance which the City is striving to attain. Frank Cole, speaking in this case for the Fairview Village Homeowners Association, stated that the Asso- ciation views Policy 176B as an attack on those residents who choose to live in multi -family develop- ments, and saw no reason to discourage that type of residential living. Gene Hutchins commented that Mr. Cole does not live in a high density project, and reported that most citizens object to very high density apartment housing. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that the document does not address zero -lot line single-family homes for young, first-time home buyers. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle recalled that at one of the Steer- ing Committee meetings, the type of housing mentioned by Mr. Sherrick was addressed. The Principal Planner offered to investigate whether small -lot residences were addressed, and if not, he would draft a policy for Council consideration. Jan Luymes mentioned that one of the first issues she spoke about at the October 16 General Plan meeting was criteria for low density residential, and the committee recommended 8 units per acre. Ms. Luymes read from the Committee Report Summary on the number of people responding to surveys and submitting input at various committee meetings. She reported that the committee attempted to make recommendations which reflected what it perceived to be the majority consensus. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to adopt amended Objective VII -A: "Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to pre- serve the residential character of the City at a level no areater than can be supported by the infrastructure (Addition is underlined.) The motion was seconaea by Council Member Genis, and carried 4-1, Council Member Glasgow voting no. Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Amended Policy Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt a modified version of 175 Failed to Steering Committee Policy 175: "Maintain the residen- Carry tial character of the City (deleted 'and satisfy residential demands') while providing for the develop- ment of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment oppor- tunities". The motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Amburgey, and Glasgow voting no. 1 1 Motion Made to Adopt Policy 175 as Proposed SUBSTITUTE MOTION Amended Policy 175 Adopted COUNCIL MEMBERS CCMMENTS Public Documents A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded by Council Member Amburgey, to adopt Policy 175 as pro- posed. Council Member Genis made a substitute motion to adopt amended Policy 175: "Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities (deleted 'to support the City's business community and to satisfy the demands of the City's resident popula- tion') in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community". (Addition is underlined.) The motion was seconded by Mayor Buffa, and carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Council Member Genis reiterated her previous comments that staff continue to make public documents available to the public and strive to provide them in a form that will enhance their availability. CALENDAR FOR As requested by staff, Council proceeded to schedule FUTURE GENERAL dates for the next few General Plan meetings. Council PLAN MEETINGS agreed to meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the following dates: January 17, January 23, and January 29, 1990. Jan Luymes announced that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee is meeting on January 23, at 6:30 p.m.; therefore, she and Mark Korando would not be attending the General Plan meeting until approximately 8:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 11:45 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, January 17, 1990, 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:- _ 0 J ity Clerk of the City of Costa esa 281