Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/1990 - Adjourned City Council Meeting1 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA FEBRUARY 14, 1990 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session February 14, 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 February 7, 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 Glasgow. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Ed Glasgow COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: ADJOURNMENT TO Mayor Peter Buffa City Manager Allan Roeder City Attorney Thomas Kathe Public Services Director William Morris City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson Senior Planner Alice Angus REDEVELOPMENT At 6:35 p.m., the Vice Mayor adjourned the meeting to AGENCY MEETING the regularly scheduled Redevelopment Agency meeting. COUNCIL MEETING Vice Mayor Hornbuckle reconvened the Council meeting at RECONVENED 8:35 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, expressed the pleasure of the Steering Committee upon learning that "Employees of the Principal Planner Mike Robinson was named "Employee of Month" the Month". She stated that Mr. Robinson provided the committee with a great deal of General Plan information, and mentioned that there were other staff members who were extremely helpful also. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle advised Ms. Luymes that Principal Planner Mike Robinson, Senior Planner Alice Angus, and Associate Planner Kim Brandt were named December, 1989, "Employees of the Month" because of their excellent work on the General Plan review process. PUBLIC HEARING The Vice Mayor opened the public hearing, continued from GP -89-02 the meeting of February 7, 1990, to discuss the General General Plan Plan,Review Program: Review Program General Plan Amendment GP -89-02: Proposed land use building intensity standards. Proposed land use element map amendments. Amendments to the Master Plans of Highways and Bikeways. A communication was received from Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, in which he stated that 359 360 his question has not been answered in regard to traffic ;impacts of individual projects on the City's Traffic Model, that is, growth north and south of the 405 Free- way, regional growth, and other sources. His letter ,indicates that the presentation by Austin -Foust Associ- ates at the meeting of February 7, 1990, did not address 'this issue. Urban Center The Principal Planner referenced his memorandum dated Residential February 13, 1990, which responds to land use questions raised by Council at the last General Plan meeting of ,February 7, 1990. He addressed the first issue, Urban Center Residential, for which Council directed staff to develop language for inclusion in the General Plan text description to allow 25 to 35 units per acre in select locations, and to ,permit 40 units per acre north of the 405 Freeway and east of Bristol Street: "Densities up to 40 units per acre may be developed in the area north of the 405 Freeway and east of Bristol Street if the projects meet specific performance standards. In order to exceed the base density, projects in this area must exhibit excellence in design, site planning, and integration of structures and uses into the community; provide a positive impact on the City's job -housing balance, including the provision of low- and moderate -income units; and pro- vide open space and landscaped setbacks in excess of the minimum standards contained in the zoning ordi- nance". Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked if staff intended that a project would have to meet all criteria, or to base criteria on the density of the project. The Principal Planner responded that Urban Center Residential would be treated the same as the Planned Development zone, that is, additional criteria would be added as the density increases. Council Member Genis questioned the feasibility of using the phrase, "provide a positive impact on the City's job -housing balance". The Principal Planner suggested deleting that phrase if Council so desired. Council Member Amburgey asked for clarification of the new State law regarding density bonuses and its rela- tionship to the Council's policy that a project shall not exceed the maximum density allowed in the General Plan, including any density bonus. It was his under- standing that State law required the City to provide a density bonus regardless of whether the density exceeded the General Plan limitations. The Principal Planner explained that State law says that a city must provide a density bonus for very lour and low-income units, or in lieu of a density bonus, the City must provide an economic trade-off. The City Attorney confirmed that State law provides for an economic incentive in lieu of a density bonus; therefore, the Council policy which provides for an economic incentive in lieu of a density bonus where a project would exceed the General Plan maximum density is valid. In regard to Vice Mayor Hornbuckle's question concerning additional criteria for increased density, the Principal Planner explained that Council would have the option of determining which criteria were more important, depend- ing upon the project being considered. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that providing child care would be very important to her. The City Attorney stated that in light of the Council's policy, he would be happy to provide a report on the density bonus issue. He again explained that when the General Plan maximum density is reached, other economic incentives may be provided instead of the density bonus. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle agreed that a brief report from staff would be helpful. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, referencing the proposed density of 25 to 35 units per acre in Urban Center Residential, stated that it was his understanding that not all projects are entitled to exceed the base density. The Principal Planner responded that in the Planned Development zoning district, a developer is entitled to the lowest density.range, and in order to work up the density ladder, he must provide additional amenities. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Urban Center by Council Member Glasgow, to continue the issue of the Text Description Urban Center Residential text description to the first Continued to a General Plan meeting in March at which time staff shall March GP Meeting provide additional information. The motion carried 4-0. Land Use The Principal Planner summarized Item 3, Page 2, of his Designation Text memorandum of February 13, 1990, Land Use Designation Descriptions Text Descriptions, and suggested discussing them at this time. He referred Council to the most recent edition of the proposed descriptions contained in the General Plan Errata sheets dated September 27, 1989. Council Member Genis read the paragraph concerning commercial uses which appears in each of the residential designations: "Complementary commercial uses within this designation may be allowed provided that the commercial uses will not generate any additional AM or PM peak hour vehicle trips than what would occur if the site were developed at its maximum residential potential as allowed by the General Plan. In Planned Development projects, the combination of the residential and complementary commercial uses may not exceed the AM or PM peak hour vehicle trips that would occur if the entire project area were developed at its maximum residential poten- tial as allowed by the General Plan. Floor Area Ratios and population densities for commercial projects would be similar to the Neighborhood Commer- cial (Urban Center Mixed Use in the Urban Center Resi- dential) land use designation". Council Member Genis stated that the description is too open-ended and suggested restricting the types of commercial uses which would be allowed in the residen- tial areas. She was leery of mixing commercial and residential uses because, as a rule, the uses are not compatible. l.. ,5362. Council Member Glasgow agreed with Council Member Genis.'s comments in opposing a commercial/residential mix. Council Member Amburgey mentioned that the small shop- ping center in the Mesa del Mar residential area helps to reduce traffic on Baker Street. Council Member Genis suggested allowing Neighborhood Commercial with maximum densities stipulated for particular residential areas. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle requested that staff bring back modified language for the text description concerning commercial uses in residential areas. Commercial Land The Principal Planner referred to Table A, Commercial Use Designations Land Use Designations, which contains the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Rate for the proposed General Plan, as well as recommendations from the Planning Commission and Steering Committee. (The FAR and Trip Rates equal the number of trip ends per 1,000 square feet of buildings.) The Principal Planner explained the basic concept of the Trip Budget and referred to Table VI -1, Commercial Use Mix and Traffic Generation Standards, shown on Page 64 of the Land Use Element Errata. To further clarify application of the Trip Budget, the Principal Planner gave a detailed explanation of the table entitled, "Trip Budget Examples". This table includes nine existing developments, their locations, and the data required to determine the Trip Budget for each. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, Steering Committee member, reported that the committee concluded that most citizens want density and intensity modified and were generally opposed to the urban direction in which the City has been going. He spoke at length about the committee's recommendations being the best choice for future development of the City. Mr. Hutchins com- mented that the Trip Budget was too complicated and should be used as a safety net only. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, contended that although Urban Center Mixed Use would not be appropriate in all parts of the City, it would be suitable in the northeast portion. Mr. Sakioka supported the Trip Budget concept because it puts a limit on vehicle trips and density; therefore, it alleviates the traffic concerns of the citizens. Jan Luymes, speaking as an individual, stated that the problem with Urban Center Mixed Use is that it does not guarantee that residential use will be included. She commented that the EIR indicates that there are sewage problems associated with an Urban Center Mixed Use designation at 1.15 FAR, and that it is dangerous to allow residential within 200 feet north of the 405 Freeway. Ms. Luymes reported that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend that Commercial Center have a designation of .35 FAR for retail use and .50 FAR for office use in the Redevelop- ment Area. She spoke about intersections which may be severely impacted by the Home Ranch site with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.15. Ms. Luymes contended that the proposed intensities north of the 405 Freeway must be scaled down to alleviate traffic congestion. 363. George Sakioka asked staff to clarify his interpreta- tion that limits are placed on the Urban Center Mixed Use by the Trip Budget. The Principal Planner replied that the Trip Budget does limit densities in Urban Center Mixed Use, and referred to Pages 65a and 66 of the Land Use Element Errata dated September 27, 1989. He gave the FARs for several projects: Home Ranch site, .48; Metro Pointe, 1.15 (the maximum); South Plaza, .53; Crystal Court, .90; Town Center, approximately 1.12; Metro Center and Sakioka Lot 1, 1.0. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, clarified that the FAR for the Home Ranch site is approximately .47, not 1.15 as indicated by Ms. Luymes. Mr. Ross commented that Town Center is fairly close to build -out, he felt that Town Center is a fine residential site and would be disappointed to find out that the opportunity to place residential on the remaining land would not be available. Scott Williams, speaking as an individual, commented on Arnel Metro Pointe's having an FAR of 1.15 and having that density used as a benchmark for development of North Costa Mesa. He asserted that the Metro Pointe development was based on the 405 Freeway off -ramp which certainly is not a reality at this time. Mr. Williams stated that the EIR contains a letter from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District which says that the sewer system cannot support development of .75 FAR for Commercial Center and 1.15 FAR for Urban Center Mixed Use. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle mentioned that 1.15 FAR is not a benchmark but merely a proposal. Council Member Amburgey asked about. the status of the 405 Freeway off -ramp. The Public Services Director replied that the design for the South Coast Drive off - ramp is approximately 70-80 percent complete, and that project reports have been submitted to CALTRANS. The Principal Planner responded to a question from Jan Luymes regarding Average Daily Trips (ADT) by explaining Table VI-lA on Page 64 of the Land Use Element Errata. Jan Luymes commented that because the Home Ranch site is such a unique property, the designation should reflect that which is -actually going to be done with the land, rather than lumping it together with Urban Center Mixed Use. Malcolm Ross addressed the sewer system capacity which was mentioned earlier, and stated that this is a criti- cal issue in many areas of the County, one reason being that the Orange County Sewage Treatment Plant does malfunction. Mr. Ross mentioned an actual situation which occurred while planning the new tower (IBM build- ing). He stated that detailed investigation proved that there was plenty of sewer capacity, not only for that building but for all future building that could possibly occur in and around that site. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle suggested that staff obtain clari- fication from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District on the sewer system capacity. 64 Council Member Genis requested staff to inquire about the variance for the treatment plant on Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley which may have expired or is about to ,expire, and how the future status of that plant will 'affect Costa Mesa. Gene Hutchins stated that it was the Steering Commit- tee's opinion that the Trip Budget should only be used as a safety net. ,Franklin Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, gave a slide presentation of building trends in Orange County: In nonresidential building categories there was an 11 percent decrease from 1988 to 1989 in all categorgies except one; however, in Riverside and San Diego counties, nonresidential building increased. Industrial construction decreased by 3 percent; offices, 23 percent; stores and mercantile buildings, 39 percent; hotels and motels, 18 percent; however, building rehabilitation increased. Regarding construction of multi -unit housing between January and October, 1988 and 1989, Costa Mesa issued the most permits in 1988, with a decrease of 795 permits during the 1989 period. The County as a whole showed a decrease with the exception of a few cities including Newport Beach. There was a decline in this type of housing since 1986. RECESS The Vice Mayor declared a recess at 10:35 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:40 p.m. Council Member Genis asked whether the Steering Commit- tee's reccmmendation for office PM peaks was a desire to reduce overall building bulk, or was it to ensure that Council would not encourage office use at the expense of retail use. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, responded that he believed it was merely an approach at trying to recognize traffic generation. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked why the proposed General Plan and the recommendation from the Planning Commis- sion did not include building height limitations in Commercial designations as did the Steering Committee reccmmendation. The Principal Planner replied that staff and the -commission do not believe the General Plan should be so specific, and that building heights should be addressed in a Specific Plan for certain areas or in the Zoning ordinance. In response to Council Member Genis's question regarding notifications to property owners, the Principal Planner reported that those owners whose properties are being considered for a change in land use designation have been notified of the public hearings. Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Planning Commission by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt the Planning Commis - Recommendation for sion recommendation for Neighborhood Commercial: 0.45 Neighborhood FAR; 1.85/4.26 AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Rate. Commercial Failed to Carry Council Member Genis stated that this density was not acceptable to her. 1 Substitute Motion A substitute motion was made by Council Member Genis Died for Lack of to adopt the Reduced Development Potential of .25 FAR a Second for Neighborhood Commercial which was examined in the EIR. The motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that she would not support. the Planning Commission recommendation. She believed that an FAR of .45 was too extreme, .25 was too restric- tive, and that .40 would be appropriate. The motion by Council Member Amburgey to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation failed to carry 2-2, Council Members Hornbuckle and Genis voting no. Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to adopt an .40 FAR Died for FAR of .40 for Neighborhood Commercial. The motion died Lack of a Second for lack of a second. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Genis was concerned with the fact that CCMMENTS intensities which Council adopted previously do not match the intensities examined in the EIR Traffic Study. General Plan Intensities Vice Mayor Hornbuckle mentioned that Council's decisions thus far are not final. Testimony on Council Member Glasgow asked if all the testimony given Commercial Uses this evening would have to be heard again in light of the fact that Council made no decisions. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that the minutes will be available for everyone, and Mayor Buffa could view the video tape. Council Member Genis commented that most of the people who testified were not all that excited about the intensities which were presented in the motions, and that may have been part of the problem. Council Meeting Council Member Amburgey reiterated remarks he made at Procedures a previous General Plan meeting that it is vitally important that Council move ahead as rapidly as possi- ble to accommodate these items and not allow special interest persons to make a mockery of the procedures established for Council meetings. He mentioned that people are being allowed to speak after the close of public input and it shows a disrespect for the City Council. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle commented that she attempted to keep track of the amount•of time the public spoke and the Steering Committee spoke a total of 28 minutes. ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., the Vice Mayor adjourned the meeting to Thursday, February 15, 1990, at 5:30 p.m., in the fifth floor Conference Room of City Hall, to hold a closed session to conduct a personnel performance evaluation; and to 6:30 p.m.,.on Tuesday, February 27, 1990, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, to continue the public hearing on the General Plan Review Program. Mayor of the CiV(bf Costa' -Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Cost Mesa