Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/1990 - Adjourned City Council Meetinga �:a 349 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA FEBRUARY 7, 1990 The.City,Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session February 7, 1990, 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 regular meeting of January 29, 1990, and copies of the Notice of Adjourn- ment were posted as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Vice Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Invocation by Council Member Genis. . ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS.PRESENT: Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Ed Glasgow COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Peter Buffa OFFICIALS PRESENT: Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services Lon Lamm Assistant City Attorney Eleanor Frey Public Services Director William Morris City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson Senior Planner Alice Angus MINUTES On motion by Council Member Amburgey, seconded by January 29, 1990 Council Member Genis, and carried 4-0, the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of January 29, 1990, were approved as distributed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers under Oral Communications. PUBLIC HEARING The Vice Mayor opened the public hearing, continued from GP -89-02 the meeting of January 29, 1990, to discuss the General General Plan Plan Review Program: Review Program General Plan Amendment 6P-89-02: Proposed land use building intensity standards. Proposed land use element map amendments. Amendments to the Master Plans of Highways and Bikeways. The Principal Planner stated that the focus of this hearing is the Land Use Element of the General Plan, of which two primary issues should be addressed: overall land use intensities and densities within the General Plan designations; and a series of amendments to the Land Use Map for specific sites (24 study areas are identified in the General Plan and an additional 7 are identified in Alternative 2 of the Environmental Impact Report). Sensitivity The Principal Planner reported that staff will address a Analysis/General question which has been carried over from a previous Plan Uses Council meeting, and that concerns the relationship of 'Land Use assumptions to the results and conclusions in the Traffic Model. He referred to two reports prepared by the City's transportation consultant, Austin -Foust Associates, Incorporated, 1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108, Santa Ana: the first report analyzes the impact of a 25 percent theoretical reduction in Land Use assumptions for major properties primarily in the north 'end of the City (Sensitivity Test); and the second !report focuses on the concept of system performance and evaluating the results of the Traffic Model. Terry Austin, Austin -Foust Associates, summarized his report, "Sensitivity Analysis - General Plan Land Uses" dated February 1, 1990, reporting that General Plan land ,use intensities for Home Ranch, Trans -Pacific Develop- ment Corporation, Sakioka Farms, and South Coast Plaza were reduced by 25 percent; the Costa Mesa Traffic Model was run with these reduced intensities and the intersec- tion data summarized accordingly. Mr. Austin pointed out that only Group A intersections north of the 405 Freeway show any significant differences (5 percent) because the land use reductions are in that immediate iarea. He concluded that this outcome reflects the fact that major intersections in this area carry a signifi- cant amount of other Costa Mesa traffic and traffic from the City of Santa Ana to the north. Council Member Genis noted that the most dramatic change in Group A is the Bristol Street/Anton Boulevard inter- section, a reduction in the ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) from .99 to .90. She asked if this could be accomplished without a 25 percent reduction in intensities. The Public Services Director replied that alternatives will be submitted indicating the levels which can be attained based on ultimate build -out. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, asked what was causing intersections to operate over .90, the maximum desirable ICU. Mr. Sherrick could not accept the fact that some of the average daily traffic (ADT) of 34,000 generated by the Segerstrom project would not be traveling through the Mesa Verde area. He contended that a 20 -year traffic forecast was not realis- tic and felt that a prediction for 3 to 5 years made more sense. Council Member Genis asked if it were possible to deter- mine the sources of the trips traveling through the critical intersections. Terry Austin replied that much of this information can be extracted from the computer. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa,- suggested that more accurate information could be obtained by driving around the City to observe the origin and destination of traffic, by doing traffic counts, and by synchronizing traffic signals. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, member of the Steering Committee, commented that a mere review of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will indicate that significant reductions in land use results in improved levels of service. He read the Post -2010 ICU Summary (AM/PM) for Reduced Development Potential with Improve- ments, shown in Appendix B, Traffic Analysis, Table IV -8 of the EIR. Mr. Korando stated that the figures in the EIR are approximately 10 points lower than those shown in Austin-Foust's Sensitivity Analysis dated February 1, 1990. He contended that if the Floor Area 4 51 Ratio (FAR) recommendations made by the Steering Commit- tee were applied to the Traffic Model, there would be significant decreases in the amount of traffic and improvements in the levels of service. He suggested doing a traffic count and comparing it with the Traffic Model in order to determine the accuracy of the Traffic Model. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, stated that in planning for future traffic, intersec- tions should remain at their current LOS (Level of Service.) designations. He reported that a Traffic Management System has been implemented by the County of Orange, and that construction of a project was delayed by the Board of Supervisors until extensive road improvements were completed. Frank Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, stated that while observing traffic on Harbor Boulevard at Adams Avenue and at Gisler Avenue, it appeared that a great number of vehicles are traveling from Huntington Beach to the freeway. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked if the traffic projections included the 57 Freeway extension. Terry Austin replied that the extension was not assumed; however, the exten- sion most definitely would change the traffic patterns in the City. Proposed Land Use The Principal Planner addressed proposed land use build - Building Intensity ing intensity standards: density limits expressed in Standards temps of units per acre in residential areas, and floor area ratio for nonresidential uses. He gave a slide presentation of the tables containing residential, commercial, and industrial land use designations, along with densities/intensities included in the existing General Plan, the proposed General Plan, and recommenda- tions from the Planning Commission and General Plan Steering Committee. The Principal Planner responded to questions raised by Council Member Genis about the proposed maximum density of 7.9 units per acre for Low Density Residential. Council Member Genis contended that there are intensi- ties proposed which have not been examined in any of the traffic studies, and she made a suggestion to specify that certain areas of the City could not be subdivided. Council Member Genis questioned the taking of property for public right-of-way before intensities are adopted. She stated that Council must first decide whether the impacts are acceptable, and then determine what the intensities should be. RECESS Vice Mayor Hornbuckle declared a recess at 8:10 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Planning Commission Vice Mayor Hornbuckle recognized the Chairman of the Chairman Recognized Costa Mesa Planning Commission, Walter Davenport. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked that the Principal Planner respond to the concerns of Council Member Genis. The Vice Mayor.stated that it was her understanding that Council's vote at this hearing is not final. The Principal Planner explained that all Council deci- sions on the General Plan will be brought back again for final consideration. He reported that actions on ?o • �3 5.2 Residential Land Use Designations building intensities, specific site amendments, and the ;Master Plans of Highways and Bikeways amendments will be ,entered into the Traffic Model prior to adoption of the ;Final Environmental Impact Report and General Plan. 'Council Member Genis expressed her concern with certain intersections which she will address when the Master Plan of Highways is discussed: No. 25, Bristol Street/ Sunflower Avenue; No. 28, Sakioka Drive/Sunflower Avenue; No. 33, Bristol Street/Anton Boulevard; No. 34, Park 'Center Drive/Anton Boulevard; No. 39, Bristol Street/ ,I-405 southbound ramp; No. 45, Bristol Street/Baker Street; No. 46, State Route 55 southbound ramps/Baker Street; No. 51, Raitt Street/Sunflower Avenue; No. 70, State Route 55 northbound ramps/Paularino Avenue; No. 91, Fairview Road/Wilson Street; and No. 96, Newport Boulevard southbound/Fairview Road. The Principal Planner reported that new legislation requires an annual monitoring report on mitigation !measures for the EIR. He stated that at the same time, staff could institute an annual growth monitoring ;project, and if it were found that additional right-of- way cannot be obtained, or there are difficulties with CALTRANS improvements, the General Plan can be changed accordingly. Council Member Genis commented that doing the studies later is not an adequate mitigation measure according to a recent court case. Scott Williams, Steering Committee member, asked which document Council was using when referring to the inter- sections. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle directed him to Page 73A, Appendix E, Responses to Comments. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle opened discussion for Residential Land Use Designations. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, Steering Carnnittee member, reported that comments from citizens overwhelmingly opposed the urban direction in which the City has been going. He claimed that the proposed General Plan is more of the same high density/intensity development. Mr. Hutchins stated that citizens were concerned about the high percentage of apartments in relationship to single-family housing. He stated that the Steering Committee came to the conclusion that a maximum of 8 units per acre with smaller lots would be appropriate for Low Density Residential. While answering questions from the Council, Mr. Hutchins reported that the Steering Committee is opposed to the Urban Center designation. He confirmed that most of the citizens who provided input to the committee were home- owners, and very little information was obtained from renters. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, Steering Commit- tee member, advised that renters who did provide input were not happy with the high densities of the projects in which they resided. Ms. Luymes stated that it was made very clear by the citizens that they wanted a reduction in residential densities. She reported that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, of which she is a member, recommended reducing densities in the Redevelopment Area as well. ¢j 353 Walter Davenport, 1888 Parkview Circle, Costa Mesa, believed the input received by the Steering Committee represented the vocal, discontent minority, and stated that it is difficult to arouse interest from satisfied citizens. Mr. Davenport stated that comments received by the caTmittee were received by the same attendees and did not reflect the opinion of the majority of Costa Mesa citizens. Council Member Genis asked about the manner in which the survey was conducted by the City. The Principal Planner replied that a random phone survey was taken. Frank Cole read a portion of a report by a Survey Analyst who commented on the opinion survey given to each participant in the Steering Committee workshops. The analyst asserted that such workshops are anything but typical since they are poorly advertised, a document is presented which is a mystery to the average City resident, and as a result, only those who are most concerned make the extraordinary effort required to attend. Mr. Cole offered to provide the Council with a copy of the report. Scott Williams, Steering Committee member, was dismayed with the comments being made about the validity of the surveys and citizen comments received at the committee workshops. Lori McDonald, 284 Walnut Street, Costa Mesa, took a survey in her neighborhood and none of the 30 residents she contacted knew of the General Plan public hearings or the density changes. She wanted to know why an R2 structure was being permitted in her Rl neighborhood. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle referred Ms. McDonald to staff to resolve any problem she may have regarding the structure in question. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, stated that citizens were unhappy with the proposed General Plan's reflecting a decrease of approximately 1,300 single- family residents., Mr. Hutchins reported that using the traffic ratios, he found that apartments generated approximately 46 percent of the trips, detached single- family units represented 48 percent, and attached single-family dwellings were at 6 percent. Jim Wells, 1797 Oriole Drive, Costa Mesa, President of the Mesa Verde Homeowners Association, gave a lengthy report on a recent survey being conducted by the home- owners association, and overall, 80 percent of the responses were opposed to urban development and favored preservation of single-family neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested that Mr. Wells provide Council with a copy of the survey and responses. Allan Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, did not want to waste his time tied up in traffic jams because developers want .to make a big profit by constructing intense projects. Council Member Amburgey stated that Council has clearly shown concern about the development in Costa Mesa, and it would behoove the community to work together for the benefit of the entire City. He supported the General Plan as proposed; however, he believed that 25 to 50 354 Council Member Genis commented that if 8 units per acre were adopted, financial incentives should be pro- vided in lieu of density bonuses. She also commented that the EIR would have to be written to reflect 0-8 units per acre. Council Member Amburgey stated that in order to provide homes at affordable prices, sub -sized lots must be made available; therefore, he supported 0-8 units per acre. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle commented that the most reliable source of citizen input for her is personal contact with the residents. She reported that most people with whom she has spoken want reduced density because of traffic congestion, and Council must decide -how much reduction is appropriate. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle then withdrew her second to the motion. MOTION ;units per acre would be appropriate east of Bristol Low Density ,Street and north of the 405 Freeway. Residential Council Member Genis stated that surveys clearly indi- Adopted at 0-8 cate that the highest percentage of concern was traffic Units Per Acre congestion, and the next highest was too much growth sand crowding. Motion Made to Council Member Genis made a motion to adopt the Low Adopt Low Density Density Residential category to be 0-6 units per acre Residential at except that a maximum of 8 units per acre may be pro - 0 -6 Units Per Acre vided with a density bonus. The motion was seconded Units Per Acre 'by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle which she later withdrew. Council Member Glasgow opposed the motion because he felt that with the scarcity of land, small -lot and condominium developments should be encouraged so that owner -occupied housing would be more affordable. In order to accomplish this goal, he believed 8 units per acre would be more appropriate. Council Member Genis commented that if 8 units per acre were adopted, financial incentives should be pro- vided in lieu of density bonuses. She also commented that the EIR would have to be written to reflect 0-8 units per acre. Council Member Amburgey stated that in order to provide homes at affordable prices, sub -sized lots must be made available; therefore, he supported 0-8 units per acre. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle commented that the most reliable source of citizen input for her is personal contact with the residents. She reported that most people with whom she has spoken want reduced density because of traffic congestion, and Council must decide -how much reduction is appropriate. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle then withdrew her second to the motion. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Low Density Council Member Amburgey, to adopt the Steering Commit - Residential tee's recommendation for Low Density Residential at Adopted at 0-8 0-8 units per acre. The motion carried 3-1, Council Units Per Acre Member Genis voting no. The Principal Planner mentioned that the Traffic Model will be updated by incorporating Council's decisions. MOTION/Medium A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded Density Residential by Council Member Amburgey, and carried 4-0, adopting Adopted at 8-15 Medium Density Residential at 8-15 units per acre as Units Per Acre recommended in the proposed General Plan. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded High Density by Council Member Amburgey, to adopt High Density Residential Residential at 15-25 units per acre, except that a Adopted at 15-25 maximum of 35 dwelling units per acre is allowed in the Units Per Acre ! Downtown Redevelopment Area. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, spoke about conformance of the Redevelopment Plan to the General Plan. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle requested staff to provide more information on the relationship between the two plans. The motion by Council Member Glasgow carried 4-0. 1 Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked for clarification of the densities so that numbers would not overlap. The Principal Planner suggested that for Low Density Resi- dential, the density would indicate under 8 units per acre, Medium Density Residential from 8 units to less than 15 units per acre, and High Density Residential from 15 units to less than 25 units per acre. Motion Made to Council Member Genis stated that most people in Costa Adopt Urban Center Mesa do not want developments of 50 units per acre, and Residential at thereafter, she made a motion to adopt Urban Center 25-35 Units Per Residential with a density of 25 to 35 units per acre. Acre The motion was seconded by Council Member Glasgow. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, asked for clarification of the Planning Commission's recommendation for density bonuses. He also asked about densities permitted in the Planned Development areas. The Principal Planner responded that in the General Plan Policies, the Planning Commission recommended that the number of units including density bonuses not exceed the General Plan in any category; that if the addition of a density bonus exceeded the General Plan maximum, other incentives were to be offered by the City. As to Planned Development zones, the Principal Planner stated that a developer is guaranteed the minimum density for that zone; however, in order to develop a project containing more than the minimum density, the developer must provide additional open space, parking, setbacks, etc. Council Member Amburgey commented that the density of 40 to 50 units per acre is not the primary issue, but the location, style, and the surrounding area are important. He compared the negative comments about the Villa Martinique project with the positive comments about The Lakes development. Council Member Amburgey stated that he supported 25 to 35 units to the acre except that the area north of the 405 Freeway and east of Bristol Street would be appropriate for 50 units per acre. During discussion, staff confirmed that the Traffic Model would be updated in accordance with Council's decisions. Substitute Motion A substitute motion was made by Council Member Amburgey Failed to Carry to approve 25-35 units per acre for Urban Center Resi- dential, except for the area north of the 405 Freeway and east of Bristol Street which shall be 25-50 units per acre. The substitute motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Glasgow commented that he would not like to see another Villa Martinique at 50 units per acre; however, he felt The Lakes development is not offensive in any respect at 40 units per acre. SUBSTITUTE MOTION A substitute motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, Added an Area for seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, designating 25-35 25-40 Units Per units per acre for Urban Center Residential, except Acre in Urban that 25-40 units per acre shall be permitted in the area Center north of the 405 Freeway and east of Bristol Street. Council Member Genis was opposed to a density as high as 40 units per acre. r Council Member Amburgey pointed out that 25 units per acre would be allowed, and any request for a higher density would require the developer to provide addi- tional mitigation measures. Council Member Genis asserted that the policy referenced by Council Member Amburgey is not in the General Plan; therefore, she has not been adequately assured that those limits would be enforced. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, asked about the ;density bonus which would be permitted for either 35 or A0 units per acre. The Senior Planner replied that Council's General Plan Policy is that the density bonus may be granted as long as the density for a project did not exceed the General Plan. In response to Council Member Amburgey's question, the Principal Planner confirmed that the details on how ,a developer works up the density ladder is not contained ,in the General Plan, but is contained in the Planned Development Residential zone. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle requested that staff provide some wording for the General Plan which would address the criteria for a development to exceed the base density. The substitution motion by Council Member Glasgow carried 3-1, Council Member Genis voting no. ANNOUNCEMENT Vice Mayor Hornbuckle announced that after a brief Alternative 2 Land recess, the next item to be discussed will be taken out Use Amendments/ of order because one of the owners of property located Site 6 within Site 6 of Alternative 2 Land Use Amendments has traveled a long distance to speak on this issue. Walter Wada, 4401 Stinson Drive West, Columbus, Ohio, had sent a communication to Council advising them of his intention to be present at this meeting. RECESS The Vice Mayor declared a recess at 10:45 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. The Principal Planner summarized the data contained on Page 12 of his memorandum dated October 16, 1989, concerning Site 6, Alternative 2 Land Use Amendments, which is an area containing 30 acres and is located in the southwest area of the City west of Whittier Avenue. He reported that the existing General Plan designation is Light Industry with a corresponding zone designation of MG, and both the Planning Commission and Steering Committee recommended changing the land use designation to Tow Density Residential. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, stated that because of this area's proximity to the ocean, and views of the ocean that are available, the committee recom- mended single-family development for Site 6. Walter Wada, owner of property within Site 6, located at 1741 Whittier Avenue, spoke of his intention to develop an industrial park on his parcel. Mr. Wada felt it would be inappropriate for his property to be desig- nated Low Density Residential except for the area along the ridge line. He mentioned that 90 percent of Site 6 is flat land, and it is only along the ridge line of his parcel that the ocean can be seen; however, development of a proposed oil field (outside Costa Mesa's jurisdic- tion) will block the ocean view. Mr. Wada stated that 1 .,°x'357 it would not be fair for him to have to suffer the financial and economic loss which would result if the land were changed to a residential use. Ted Truesdale, 883 Production Place, Newport Beach, representing Gary Davis, owner of two buildings at 1721 Whittier Avenue and 1030 West 17th Street, provided Council with a booklet which describes the existing industrial development within Site 6. He contended that the recommendation to change the land use designation to Low Density Residential is unrealistic because of exist- ing conditions. Mr. Truesdale pointed out that 21.9 acres, or 73 percent, of the subject site are already developed as Light Industry. Clarence Turner, 1501 Antiqua Way, Newport Beach, owner of property at 1711 Whittier Avenue, reported that when Site 6 was annexed to the City of Costa Mesa, the plan was to gradually phase out the residential areas, and for the most part, that has happened. He mentioned that if the land use were changed to residential use, future homes would be surrounded by industrial buildings for many, many years. Calvin Rohrs, 12151 Singing Wood Drive, Santa Ana, owner of Pacific Bluffs Business Park at 1835 Whittier Avenue, stated that if the site were rezoned, it could create substantial restrictions, for example, in the case of a disaster, he would not be able to rebuild to full capacity; and he would not be able to obtain a 30 -year loan in the future because his business would be a nonconforming use. Mark Korando, Steering Committee member, preferred resi- dential use; however, he was of the opinion that all properties within Site 6 should have the same land use designation. Bud Richley, 123 Via Genoa, Newport Beach, representing Richley Trust and Jerrel Barto, Sea Breeze Business Park, 1041 West 18th Street, stated that his project was completed in April, 1989, that it was quite obvious that Site 6 is an industrial area, and to change it to resi- dential would be futile. He mentioned that ocean views will disappear when adjacent land is developed. Leonard Post, 1043 West Center Street, Costa Mesa, owner of one acre of land behind Pacific Bluffs Business Park, reported that he has site plans ready to submit to the Planning Division for manufacturing use. He stated that the only access to this property is through a private street, so to construct homes in that area would be senseless. Council Member Amburgey commented that residential use for Site 6 may have been ideal 30 years ago, but not at this time. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Light Industry by Council Member Glasgow, and carried 4-0, to retain Retained the Light Industry land use designation for Site 6. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle announced that the public hearing on the General Plan will resume on February 14, 1990. COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS Council Member Genis spoke about &--table adopted many years ago which declared the CL (Commercial Limited) CL Zone zone to be compatible with all residential designations under the General Plan. She pointed out that the Land Use Element dated June, 1989, does not include any camnercial designations as permitted uses in the resi- dential land use categories. She considered the latter entirely appropriate and hoped to see that in the future, the CL zone would no longer be considered compatible with residential districts. ,The Principal Planner referred to an attachment to his (memorandum dated January 25, 1990, General Plan Errata ;dated September 27, 1989, stating that under residential uses, there is a paragraph which addresses complementary :commercial uses within residential areas. Public Uses 'Council Member Genis suggested examining the Public Use designation and separating properties containing build- ings (such as City Hall) from those which are open space (parks). Site Descriptions Council Member Genis questioned the description of some ,sites, for example, sites that are designated Medium ,Density Residential, are predominantly Tow Density Residential, and because of the General Plan, will be converted to a designation opposed by the people in the neighborhood. The Principal Planner mentioned that the Planning 'Commission recognized this situation and recommended ;that staff initiate a study of those areas. He added that because the owners of the properties -in these areas were not noticed and the sites are not included in the EIR, it would be more appropriate to make amendments 'to the General Plan after its adoption. Council Member Genis responded that if at all possible, she would like to see this matter incorporated into the ,General Plan before its adoption. 'Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested having staff provide a brief memorandum concerning these properties. City of Santa Council Member Glasgow mentioned that a 32 -story high - Ana High -Rise rise is being proposed for Main Place in Santa Ana, and Developments if approved, the City of Costa Mesa will no longer be reminded of having the tallest building in Orange County. Council Member Glasgow also reported that a high-rise condominium is being proposed in the same area of Santa Ana, which he believes is a very good concept and he is anxious to see if the project will be successful. Assistant City 'Vice Mayor Hornbuckle announced that this meeting is Attorney the last one for Assistant City Attorney Eleanor Frey. Commended She commended Ms. Frey for her service to the City and wished her a successful tenure with Culver City. ADJOURNMENT At 11:55 p.m., the Vice Mayor adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, February 14, 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 P'an Review Program. Mayor o the City Costa Mesa C ty Clerk of the City of Costa a 1