Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1990 - Adjourned City Council Meeting}• 387 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF. COSTA MESA MARCH 7, 1990 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session March 7, 1990, at 8:00 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 27, 1990, and copies of the Notice of Adjournment were posted as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Peter Buffa Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Ed Glasgow ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING GP -89-02 General Plan Review Program Orange County Sanitation District Report COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Allan Roeder Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services Donald Lamm City Attorney Thomas Kathe City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson There were no speakers under Oral Communications. The Mayor opened the public hearing, continued from the meeting of February 27,.1990, to discuss the General Plan 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. Final recommendations on remaining General Plan topics. Tom Dawes, Orange County Sanitation District, Fountain Valley, was present to answer questions on the capabil- ity of the sanitation system to service the level of development proposed for the City of Costa Mesa. Mr. Dawes reported that the District has completed a 30 -year Master Plan for which the Environmental Impact Report has been certified. He explained that data on future development was obtained from all member cities and the 30 -year plan was based on those projections. Mr. Dawes was certain that the District's Master Plan would meet the needs of the member cities; however, because the Sanitation District is controlled by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD), expansion of the system cannot proceed without conformity to AQMD requirements, that is, the District must provide proof to AQMD that member cities are in conformance with the Air Quality Management Plan. Council Member Genis asked Mr. Dawes to report on information she has received that since 1979, the Sanitation District has been operating under variances from existing water quality regulations, specifically, that the District does not provide full secondary treat- ment. She also wanted to know what would happen if the District's expired permit were not renewed, and asked about the -financial status of the District in providing expanded services. Mr. Dawes responded that the District filed an applica- tion in August, 1989, for a five-year ocean -discharge permit based on providing 50 percent secondary treat- ment, the level now provided by the District. He stated that studies indicate that this level of service is very adequate for protection of all the beneficial uses of the ocean. Mr. Dawes reported that the request is under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, a recent letter from the EPA indicates that the request will not be considered for approximately two years. He stated that the District is providing a very acceptable level of service and that secondary treatment will not alleviate toxic problems. Mr. Dawes contended that the secret to handling toxic materials which enter the ocean is source control, and the District has an excellent source control program which exceeds all EPA and State requirements for all the pollutants which are of a concern. Mr. Dawes explained that if a new permit were not issued, the District would enter into an agreement with the EPA to provide full secondary treatment over a specified number of years. In response to Council Member Genis's question regard- ing sewer hook-up fees, Mr. Dawes reported that the fee is designed to pay for the cost of sewers, the primary system, head works, and secondary treatment in accordance with the Districts permit application. He explained that if the District institutes full secondary treatment, new and existing development will share equally in the cost; however, existing development would not be charged for expansion of services made necessary by new development. Land Use Review The Principal Planner referred to Page 2 of the Plan- ning staff's memorandum dated March 1, 1990, concerning Council's request for staff to provide modifications for residential designations that limits the commercial activity that may be allowed. He directed Council to revised language for Low, Medium, and High Density Residential uses: "Limited support commercial uses within this designa- tion 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. These support ccmmercial uses shall be limited to locations on major streets and/or intersections within the residential area. In Planned Development projects, combination of resi- dential and support 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 potential as allowed by the General Plan." Council Member Genis was concerned that the designations adopted by Council for existing residential areas do not necessarily reflect the existing use, although the General Plan modeling, the environmental document, and Council's intent is that there would not be future sub- dividing or intensification of use in these areas. She mentioned that the current General Plan is silent on the issue of subdividing lots; therefore, it leaves open the potential for lot combinations, resulting in more trips than are presently contained in the Traffic Model. Council Member Genis asked for a definition of "major streets". The Principal Planner responded that it was not intended for the General Plan to contain that level of detail, but suggested that specific designations could be added to the Master Plan of Highways. Council Member Amburgey stated that the mere fact that thoroughfare has been designated a major street would not automatically permit a commercial use. He commented that the intent is to advise Council of any unusual cir- cumstances which should be considered to allow a limited commercial use in a particular area. Council Member Glasgow stated that he was not excited about allowing any commercial uses in the residential zones, and could not think of any area where it would be appropriate. The Principal Planner explained that the language reflects past policy that the CL zone is an appropriate "support commercial" use consistent with the residential neighborhoods. Council Member Amburgey was in favor of permitting CL in certain residential areas, and pointed out that the shopping area in the Mesa del Mar Tract has been beneficial for the neighborhood and has alleviated traffic on Baker Street. Mayor Buffa saw some value in allowing support commer- cial in Planned Development projects; however, he was uneasy with allowing it -in residential zones. The Principal Planner stated that the support commer- cial recognizes direction from past Councils; however, it can be deleted in residential areas and retained for Planned Development. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, Steering Committee member, stated that it was his under- standing that in Orange County in the 19601s, most service stations, such as the one on Fair Drive and Fairview Road, were developed on residentially zoned properties and received a Conditional Use Permit because it was easier to proceed in this manner. He contended that if the language is adopted, service stations will want to change the property to a commercial setting.. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Commercial Support Mayor Buffa, deleting support commercial uses in resi- Deleted in Residen- dential zones, and.retaining support commercial uses in tial; Retained in Planned Development projects. The motion carried 3-2, Planned Development Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Urban Center The Principal Planner summarized that portion of Page Residential 2 of the aforementioned memorandum dated March 1, 1990, which addresses staff's recommendation to delete a portion of the Urban Center Residential text regarding complementary commercial uses (Page 158a of the General Plan Errata dated September 27, 1989). He reported that staff has recommended deleting the last sentence in the first shaded paragraph: "Floor Area Ratios and popula- tion densities for commercial projects would be similar to the Urban Center Mixed Use land use designation". He explained that the deletion is recommended because staff recognizes that the Floor Area Ratios of the commercial components in the Urban Center Residential designation would not be similar to those in the Urban Center Mixed Use designation due to the proposed restriction of the Trip Budget. Motion to Delete Reference to Floor A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to delete Area Ratios Died for the sentence referring to Floor Area Ratios as recom- Lack of a Second mended by staff. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Buffa advised Jan Luymes, who was waiting to speak, that public testimony on this subject had been taken at previous meetings. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Accepted Comments Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to allow Ms. Luymes to comment frau Jan Luymes on Urban Center designations. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Jan Luymes, 592 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, Steering Commit- tee member, carmented that if Council's goal is to have Urban Center Residential, then it should be developed residential at the density tentatively approved at the February 7, 1990, meeting. She suggested that any mixture of residential and commercial uses in the Urban Center designation should be called Urban Center Mixed Use. Council Member Genis suggested having an Urban Center Mixed Use with tiered ratios of residential/commercial uses. She mentioned an Ohio city where more residential uses were placed near job sites, and more commercial uses placed near residential areas, resulting in a reverse flow of traffic, reduction in commute time, and a tremendous reduction in traffic pollution. Mayor Buffa believed that the Urban Center Residential designation should retained 50 units per acre. He suggested designating the Sakioka property north of the 405 Freeway, east of Bristol Street as Urban Center Mixed Use, allowing the developer to be as creative as possible by eliminating a predetermined Floor Area Ratio and allowing unrestricted mix of residential and commer- cial uses, with a maximum residential density of 50 units per acre. Council Member Glasgow agreed with the proposal recom- mended by the Mayor. MOTION Mayor Buffa made a motion directing staff to implement Staff Directed to an Urban Center Mixed Use designation for the area north implement Mixed of the 405 Freeway, east of Bristol Street, eliminating Use for North Costa a commercial/residential ratio and a specified Floor Mesa Area; Deleted Area Ratio, with a maximum residential density of 50 Urban Center units per acre; and deleting the Urban Center Residen- Residential tial designation. The motion was seconded by Council Member Glasgow. Council Member Genis had concerns about deleting Urban Center Residential: the Villa Martinique development already has this designation; the impact on the Housing i Element of the General Plan which must specify the number of housing units; and the requirement in the Land Use Section that population density and land use intensity standards must be adopted. The Principal Planner was of the opinion that Council should retain both Urban Center designations, and stated that it would be necessary for staff to review the proposed changes and report back to Council. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, Costa Mesa, wanted clarification of the intent of the motion. He stated that Sakioka Lot 1 is Urban Center Residential, Lot 2 is Urban Center Mixed Use, and it is his understanding that Council is suggesting that both lots be designated Mixed Use. Mr. Sakioka stated that units -per -acre can be misleading at times since he has seen projects which are denser than 50 units per acre, yet the open space is much greater than the exist- ing Urban Center Residential. He contended that having the flexibility which has been suggested would provide him with the opportunity to submit a very unique plan. Council Member Genis wanted some assurance that an all-ccmmercial project would not be permitted in the Urban Center Mixed Use designation. AMENDED MOTION Mayor Buffa amended the motion to clarify his intent: Clarified Original do away with the residential/commercial ratio in Urban Motion; Directed Center Residential and allow 50 residential units per Staff to Retain acre; delete the commercial/residential ratio in Urban Both Urban Center Center Mixed Use; set out a more detailed list of Designations requirements and incentives for property owners to follow for the mixed use concept, with less direction from Council regarding commercial/residential ratios, Floor Area Ratios, etc.; and retain both designations to serve the mixed use concept.. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Glasgow. Based on this information, the Principal Planner made a recommendation to modify the second shaded paragraph on Page 158a of the General Plan Errata by amending the second sentence to read,,"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 resi- dential potential as allowed by the General Plan". (Deleted the phrase, "and provided that the commer- cial component does not exceed 35 percent of the total project land area".) He explained that this deletion would be in addition to the deletion of the last sen- tence regarding Floor Area Ratio. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked whether the Mayor intended to have staff examine his recommendations and report back to Council. Mayor Buffa responded affirmatively. The amended motion carried 5-0. Additional General The Principal Planner referred to his memorandum dated Plan Information March 7, 1990, which addresses four General Plan topics for which Council Member Genis requested a report: Traffic Model Information; Acceptability of Environ- mental Impacts; Additional Land Use Element map amend- ments; and Land Use Acreage Changes. Density Bonuses Council Member Genis stated that she also requested a report on density bonuses. She recalled that Council did not want to grant any density bonuses which would result in a project exceeding General Plan intensities, and although State law allows a city to provide other incentives in lieu of density bonuses, Council expressed concerns about the cost to the City. She understood that Council could adopt lower densities so that if a density bonus were granted, a project would not exceed the General Plan standard. Council Member Genis referred to a report from the City Attorney dated Febru- ary 27, 1990, entitled, "Density Bonus and Development Incentives", stating that the report indicates that Council would be required to grant a density bonus in excess of the General Plan maximum density or provide similar incentives which could bankrupt the City. She requested clarification from staff. '[he City Attorney stated that his report of February 27 is self-explanatory, that is, where a density bonus is granted, State law requires an increase in density by at least 25 percent over the maximum density allowed by the zoning ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. He reported that in those situations where Council does not want to grant a density bonus, it has the option of granting incentives as defined in the State Code. The City Attorney then addressed the housing issue. He stated that in 1989, the Legislature changed the housing requirements in the Government Code, and he offered to work with the Planning staff to provide information on those technical changes. He reported that there is flexibility in regard to the mix being proposed; how- ever, where housing is reduced, findings must be made; and if exact density requirements are not shown, there will be a problem with correlating the Land Use and Housing Elements with the Circulation Element. The City Attorney stated that there are a series of housing requirements which must be addressed. Council Member Genis stated that based on the data provided by the City Attorney on density bonuses, it may be necessary to review the residential densities and reduce them so that any density bonuses that may be approved would bring the total density up to that which the Council has tentatively approved. The City Attorney pointed out that in the event Council were to reduce the densities in an attempt to avoid the density bonus provisions, there is a specific Govern- ment Code Section which addresses that situation and it requires Council to analyze the possible loss of existing housing units and to provide findings justify- ing the reduction in densities. Council Member Amburgey commented that it may be illegal to intentionally reduce the densities, knowing that with the density bonus, a project would be at the density which Council considers proper. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, Steering Committee member, believed that the Steering Committee had made this same point when it presented its resi- dential density recommendations. Mayor Buffa suggested that staff examine this issue further and report back to Council. Council Member Genis was concerned because she perceived that zoning could be less dense and the density bonus would bring the density up to the General Plan intensity, but the information obtained this evening contradicts her assumption. She stated that the whole premise upon which previous discussions and public comments was based has changed radically; therefore, she felt this was an entirely new issue. Mayor Buffa directed the City Attorney to examine the argument which has been raised, and report back to Council in two weeks. Council Member Amburgey asserted that this is not new information since this issue was discussed previously and the minutes will reflect it. Jan Wymes, Steering Committee member, contended that if there were going to be density changes made because of the issues which were brought to light this even- ing, public comments should be permitted. Ms. Wymes also requested a copy of the City Attorney's report dated February 27, 1990. The City Attorney replied that it is available in the Clerk's office. Council Member Genis asked the City Clerk to provide a verbatim transcript of that portion of Page 6, minutes of January 23, 1990, where Council adopted Policy No. 211; and other portions of General Plan minutes where this issue was discussed. The Principal Planner advised that the other Policies were Nos. 231 and 231A. General Plan The Principal Planner stated that since he has completed Commercial his report on follow-up data requested by Council, the Designations next topic to be discussed is -General Plan Commercial designations. He referred to Table A, Commercial Land Use Designations, which contains data and recommenda- tions for the commercial categories. MOTION/Adopted .45 A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded FAR and 1.85/4.26 by Council Member Amburgey, to adopt .45 FAR (Floor Area Trip Rate for Ratio) and a 1.85/4.26 AM/PTM Peak Hour Trip Rate for Neighborhood Neighborhood Commercial. Commercial Council Member Genis stated that she could not support Substitute Motion an FAR of more than .30, and thereafter made a substi- Failed to Carry tute motion to adopt a .30 FAR for Neighborhood Commer- cial. The substitute motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, but failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Amburgey, and Glasgow voting no. The original motion by Council Member Glasgow carried 3-2,'Council Members Hornbuckle and Genis voting no. MOTION/Adopted .50 A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded FAR and 2.43/3.83 by Council Member Amburgey, to adopt .50 FAR and a 2.43/ Trip Rate for 3.83 AM/PM Peak Hour'Trip Rate for General Commercial. General Commercial The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Genis voting no. MOTION/Adopted A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded .75 FAR and 1.52/ by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt .75 FAR and a 1.52/ 3.50 Trip Rate for 3.50 AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Rate for Commercial. Center. Commercial Center The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Genis voting no. Motion to Adopt FAR A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded and Trip Rate for by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt 1.15 FAR and a Urban Center Mixed 1.74/2.04 AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Rate for Urban Center Use Failed to Carry Mixed Use. Council Member Genis requested clarification of that which is being envisioned for the Urban Center Mixed Use designation, specifically for sites such as South Coast Plaza and Crystal Court which are exclusively retail. She mentioned that even though an FAR of 1.15 has not been proposed for South Coast Plaza, it appears that this is the direction being taken. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, responded that Urban Center Mixed Use would make sense if South Coast Plaza and Town Center were combined as one operating entity. The Principal Planner referred to Table 27A, Page 164a of the General Plan Errata, and proceeded to explain the method by which FAR's are determined, and answered questions from Council Member Genis. Malcolm Ross attempted to clarify this topic, using the Home Ranch site as an example: Home Ranch contains 100 acres designated Urban Center Mixed Use with a maximum FAR of .47 which cannot be considered urban density. Mr. Ross contended that a less oppressive designation would be more appropriate, and based on future plans for the site, both the City and the Segerstroms are ill - served by designating the property Urban Center. Mayor Buffa stated that he would not support the motion because he did not believe there should be restrictions for this designation. The motion to adopt an FAR of .75 and a Trip Rate of 1.52/3.50 for Urban Center Mixed Use failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Buffa, Hornbuckle, and Genis voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Urban Center Mixed Mayor Buffa, to withhold further determination on Urban Use Designation Center Mixed Use until a report has been received from Held Over staff addressing Council's earlier discussion of mixed use categories.. Responding to a question from Council Member Genis regarding traffictrip transfers, the Principal Planner referred to the last page of the General Plan Errata which contains proposed standards to allow combination and/or transfer of trips between Traffic Analysis zones. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Amburgey voting no. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:25 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 10:40 p.m. Commercial Text The Principal Planner suggested addressing the commer- cial text on Pages 159, 159a, and 160 of the General Plan Errata. Council Member Genis referred to the text for General Commercial (Page 159a) which allows complementary uses such as residential, industrial, and other noncommercial uses, and questioned the legality of this type of flexi- bility. The City Attorney responded that he would provide a report. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, spoke about the reference to residential density in Planned Development projects and density ranges contained in the first 1 }F.395 paragraph, Page 160 of the Errata, and assumed that population and density ranges will be brought into conformance. Ms. Luymes asked if a Conditional Use Permit would be required if a property were sold to someone with a use generating more trips. She also wanted to know how the City would enforce limiting the Floor Area Ratio if the trip budget allowed were exceeded. The Principal Planner explained that when a project exceeds the base FAR, a Conditional Use Permit or some other type of permit would be required, the Planning Commission would review the application and place Conditions of Approval on the project, and a Land Use Restriction would be recorded against the property indicating that a specific use has been approved. Motion to Approve A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow to approve Commercial Text the text for the commercial portion of the General Died for Lack of Plan Errata. The motion died for lack of a second. a Second Council Member Genis recommended deleting the comple- mentary industrial uses. MOTION/Commercial A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Text Adopted Except Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to adopt the commercial text in Industrial Cample- the General Plan Errata for Neighborhood Commercial, mentary Uses Were General Commercial, and Commercial, but deleting those Deleted (Urban sections concerning Industrial Complementary Uses. Center Excluded) (Urban Center was excluded.) Mayor Buffa mentioned that the intensities contained in the errata will be adjusted to reflect Council's action. AMENDED MOTION After discussion, Council Member Genis amended her Excluded Downtown motion by excluding the last paragraph on Page 159a Redevelopment of the Errata relating to the Downtown Redevelopment Area Paragraph Project Area. The amended motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0. Industrial Land The Principal Planner referred to Table A, Industrial Uses Land Use Designations, stating that there are only two industrial categories, Industrial Park and Light Industry. He reported that the Planning Commission agreed with the proposed FAR of .50 and an AM/PM.Peak Hour Trip Rate of 0.93/0.97; the Steering Committee recommended .40 FAR for Industrial Park with a 60 -foot height limitation, and .35 FAR for Light Industry with a height limitation of 35 feet. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, stated that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report was pro- jecting an increase in industrial uses from 11 million to 22 million square feet. He referred to the Commit- tee's Report and Recommendations dated October 10, 1989, Page 26g, Table G, which contains eight examples of Light Industry uses, none of which have a Floor Area Ratio as high as .50. Mr. Hutchins reported that the examples for Industrial Park shown on staff's Table A, and on Table H, Page 26h of the Steering Committee document, show FAR's below .50. MOTION _ A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Adopted .45 FAR Mayor Buffa, to adopt .45 FAR for Industrial Park and and .40 FAR for .40.FAR for Light Industry. The motion carried 3-2, Industrial Uses Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. MOTION Industrial Text Approved Date for Next Meeting Mayor Buffa announced that the Industrial text will be adjusted to reflect that which has just been adopted. Jan Luymes, Steering Committee member, spoke about compatible uses in the Industrial Park and Light Industry categories. She reported that several people at the Ccmmittee workshop held in February, 1988, were concerned about the impact of industrial uses on resi- dential areas in certain portions of the City. She suggested that Council consider whether there should be combined residential and industrial uses in Planned Development projects. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member�Genis, to approve the General Plan Errata text for Industrial designations on Pages 160, 160a, and 161. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member Genis voting no. Discussion ensued regarding the next General Plan meet- ing, and Council decided on March 22, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Genis referred to a meeting held Febru- COMMENTS ary 28, 1990, at which the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) representative indicated SCAG that despite the fact that Single -Room Occupancies (SRO) are considered acceptable by Housing and Community Development (HCD) and San Diego Association of Govern- ments (SANDAG) in meeting housing allocations for the San Diego region, SCAG does not. She felt it would be appropriate for the various cities to adopt resolutions or write letters, and work through the League of Cities, to convince SCAG to change its position since SCAG is not in conformance with other regional government associations. General Plan Council Member Genis commented that although she did not Progress agree with 90 percent of the intensities which have been adopted, she was pleasantly surprised that something was accomplished this evening. Council Member Genis stated that she was ready to have the General Plan placed on the ballot because of the times when the entire Council was not present to vote on the issues and because of a lack of enthusiasm for making any progress. Mayor Buffa responded that there has not been an unwill- ingness to proceed with the General Plan; however, it is sometimes difficult to reschedule previous commitments on short notice. Council Member Amburgey contended that the meetings would proceed faster if members of the audience were not allowed to waste so much time asking for points of clarification merely to make additional comments; and if Council Members would not talk for 20 to 30 minutes on issues which have been asked and answered previously. General Plan Council Member Genis referred to the increased intensities Intensities for the Albertson center, the Courtyards, Newport -Boule- vard from 17th Street to 19th Street, and Harbor Boule- vard between Adams Avenue and the Nabers Cadillac site, stating that she would like to see these areas changed from Commercial Center to General Commercial. Placing Items on Council Member Genis requested information from the City the June Ballot Attorney regarding the last day on which a measure can be placed on the ballot for the June, 1990, election. She ,t 9 f stated that if the General Plan were placed on a ballot, she did not want it to become an issue during the Novem- ber, 1990, General Municipal Election. ADJOURNMENT At 11:40 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Thursday, March 22, 1990, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, to continue the public hearing on the General Plan Review Program. Mayor of the Cittu Costa Mesa ATTEST:` ity _Clerk of the City of CostaM a