Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/1990 - Adjourned City Council MeetingADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA MARCH 22, 1990 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned regular session March 22, 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 27, 1990, and copies of the Notice of Adjournment were posted as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Invocation by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Peter Buffa Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Ed Glasgow COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Allan Roeder City Attorney Thomas Kathe Public Services Director William Morris City Clerk Eileen Phinney- Senior Planner Alice Angus MINUTES On motion by Council Member Amburgey, seconded by Vice March 7, 1990 Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0, the minutes of the adjourned meeting of March 7, 1990, were approved as distributed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers under Oral Communications. PUBLIC HEARING the Mayor opened the public hearing, continued from the GP -89-02 meeting of March 7, 1990, to discuss the General Plan General 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. Final recommendations on remaining General Plan topics. Intersection Shares The Senior Planner reported on a memorandum from the Analysis Principal Planner dated March 14, 1990, which addresses two issues raised at the March 7 Council meeting. She referred to'Item No. 1, Intersection Shares Analysis, and the report dated March 2, 1990, from the City's transportation consultant, Austin -Foust Associates, Incorporated, 2020 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, which contains the relative contribution attributed to new development in each identified subarea of the City. At the request of Council Member Genis, the Public Services Director explained the correlation between Intersection Capacity Utilization (UCI) and the data contained in the Austin -Foust report. y : 414 Employment the Senior Planner advised that the figures shown for Generation Rates/ Employment Generation Rates/Projections in staff's Projections memorandum must be recalculated and will be resubmitted to Council. Urban Center The Senior Planner referred to a memorandum from the Designations Principal Planner dated March 19, 1990, which addresses questions raised at the meeting of March 7, 1990, regarding Urban Center Residential and Urban Center Mixed Use designations. She reported on staff's conceptual proposals: Retain Urban Center Mixed Use for properties east of Bristol Street and north of the I-405 Freeway: Town Center, The Lakes, Transpacific Metro Center, and Sakioka Farms; South Coast Plaza, Arnel Metro Pointe, and Home Ranch were excluded. Retain Urban Center Residential and apply it to the existing Villa Martinique project site; or, a second option would be to redesignate the site to High Density Residential, which would create a nonconform- ing situation for the project. In order to recognize the unique use of South Coast Plaza and the special vesting status of Metro Pointe, staff recommended creating a new land use designation of "Regional Commercial/Office" which could allow the special type and intensity of uses originally assumed for these sites in the General Plan Traffic Model. Staff recommended another new designation of "Business Park Mixed Use" for the Home Ranch site which would allow a mix of commercial and residential uses as suggested by the property owners. An alternative would be to call the new designation "Business Park" and apply this designation to the southern portion of the site, and designate all or part of the northern portion of the site (east of the Susan Street exten- sion) to either Low or Medium Density Residential. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, supported staff's proposals. MOTION Council Member Amburgey made a motion, seconded by Adopted Urban Council Member Glasgow, to adopt the designation of Center Mixed Use Urban Center Mixed Use for _the area east of Bristol at 1.15 FAR and Street and north of the I-405 Freeway, with an FAR 50 Units/Acre (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.15, and a maximum of 50 units per acre for residential. Council Member Genis was concerned with development intensities and contended that Council had two choices: (1) find the impacts acceptable; or (2) find the docu- ment that specifies those impacts to be defective. She asked whether the decisions which are being made are preliminary, and if intensities will be reexamined. Mayor Buffa responded that his understanding is that these are preliminary decisions which provide staff with some guidance. The motion to adopt Urban Center Mixed Use as proposed by Council Member Amburgey carried 3-2, Council Members Hornbuckle and Genis voting no. South Coast Plaza, The Senior Planner stated that the next issue to con - Crystal Court, and sider would be the proposed designation of "Regional Metro Pointe Commercial/Office" for South Coast Plaza, Crystal Court, 1 A Arnel Metro Pointe, with separate FAR's to reflect the existing intensity level in the Development Agree- ment with Arnel Metro Pointe, and to reflect the intensity level in the Traffic Model for South Coast Plaza and Crystal Court. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrcm and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, commented that although the Traffic Model calculated more traffic for South Coast Plaza than presently exists, it does fit within the total modeling for the area north of the freeway and suggested retaining the calculations as shown. Mr. Ross reported that according to their traffic counts, which are more accurate than any Traffic Model could ever be, traffic is decreasing because the character of the Plaza is changing from lower end to higher end retail, the latter of which produces less traffic. Mr. Ross predicted that the Plaza traffic would continue to decrease in the next few years. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, stated that his personal opinion was that South Coast Plaza and Arnel Metro Pointe should not have the same designation because the uses are quite different from one another. Mr. Hutchins mentioned that the General Plan Steering Committee concluded that the Villa Martinique develop- ment was a mistake and that it has adversely impacted traffic at Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Council Member Genis preferred having separate designa- tions for South Coast Plaza and Arnel Metro Pointe particularly because they have different traffic gener- ating characteristics. Mr. Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, agreed. MOTION/South Coast Council Genis made a motion to designate South Coast Plaza Designated Plaza as Regional Ccmmercial at the intensity shown Regional Commercial; in the Traffic Model; and to designate Arnel Metro Metro Pointe Desig- Pointe as Urban Center at the intensity contained in nated Urban Center the Traffic Model and Development Agreement. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0. Urban Center At the request of Mayor Buffa, the Senior Planner Residential explained that Council could retain the Urban Center Residential designation for the Villa Martinique site, or redesignate the property to High Density Residential which would create a nonconforming use for the project. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Villa Martinique Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, to delete Urban Designated High Center Residential, and to designate Villa Martinique Density Residential as High Density Residential. Home Ranch The Senior Planner referred to the recommendations made by staff in the memorandum of March 19: change Home Ranch to Business Park Mixed Use, or change the southern portion to Business Park and the northern portion to either Low or Medium Density Residential. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons,.wanted a separate land use designation for Home Ranch; however, he opposed a designation of Urban Center Mixed Use because of the property's .47 FAR. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, reported that the committee recommended limiting the daily vehicle trips to 14,000, limiting building heights to four 415 R . 41G MOTION/Home Ranch Designated Business Park Mixed Use stories, designating the northern portion of the site as residential, and designating the southern portion as Industrial Park. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, replying to comments by Mr. Hutchins, stated that he had no objec- tion to dividing .the property into two classifications, but he believed it should be discussed in more detail with staff. Council Member Genis expressed her delight with the dialogue taking place between the Segerstroms and the citizens group. The City Manager stated that staff would participate in these discussions with Council's approval. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Amburgey, to designate the Home Ranch site as Business Park Mixed Use at a .47 FAR. Substitute Motion A motion was made by Council Member Genis to defer this to Continue the item until after additional discussions take place Item Died for Lack between interested parties with staff participation as of a Second appropriate. The motion died for lack of a second. The original motion carried 4-1, Council Member Genis voting no. Public and Semi- The Senior Planner summarized the information contained Public Use in the March 19 memorandum regarding Public and Semi - Public Use which addresses Council Member Genis's concern that the designation did not differentiate between pure open space and institutional uses. She reported on staff's recommendation to amend the text and Land Use Element maps to specify the intended use of the sites as either parks, schools, institutional uses, or resource conservation areas. Ed Brown, representing First Church of Christ Scientist, 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East, Costa Mesa, stated that the Church intended to use some of its excess parking area to construct a HUD -financed home for seniors; however, staff advised him that construction of the facility is not permitted in Public and Semi -Public areas. Mr. Brown requested a rezone to Planned Development Resi- denntial. He advised that the proposed project would be two stories, the apartments would contain between 350 and 450 square feet, and a recreation area would be included. The Senior Planner.suggested that Council first address Public Use intensities and then deal with specific sites. She reported that since the Institutional and Recreational zone does not list housing as a use, staff would recommend the Planned Development Residental zone for the proposed project. Franklin Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, mentioned that the Orange County Fairgrounds is designated Public and Semi -Public, yet the traffic generated from that site exceeds the maximum for this designation. Mr. Cole asked if it would be appropriate to change the land use designation for the Fairgrounds because of the traffic it generates. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle asked whether the Fairgrounds could be redesignated "Fairgrounds" since it does not meet some of the standards for Public and Semi -Public 417 Use; and whether the current Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being circulated by the Fair Board could be incor- porated into the City's EIR. The City Attorney replied that it may be necessary to have a supplemental EIR prepared dealing with impacts from the Fairgrounds. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Adopted Additional Council Member Genis, that in the case of Public and Designations for Semi -Public Use, intended use of sites shall be desig- Public Use Sites nated either parks, schools, institutional uses, or resource conservation areas. The motion carried 5-0. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Intensities Adopted Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, adopting a maxi - for Public Use mum building intensity of .30 FAR for the Civic Center Designations complex, schools, and colleges, with a lower FAR to be designated for park sites, that the Golf Course designa- tion be retained at a .01 FAR, and directing staff to investigate the possibility of a new designation of "Fairgrounds" for the Orange County Fairgrounds site. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, stated that Costa Mesa residents indicated to the committee that senior housing should be expanded, and since the project proposed for the Mesa Verde Drive church site would meet that objective, Council should support the request. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle to retain Retained Low the present designation of Low Density Residential for Density Residential the aforementioned church property pending approval of for the Church Site the proposed senior housing project, and if the project were not constructed, the land use designation would be reconsidered by Council. The motion was seconded by Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:20 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Intersection Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, Shares Analysis referred to the Intersection Shares Analysis report of March 2, 1990, from Austin -Foust Associates, the City's traffic consultant, which was discussed at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Sherrick commented that the report addressed only six of the nine intersections which are deficient, and included only the traffic from the cities of Newport Beach and Santa Ana, but not the traffic from the City of Huntington Beach. Mr. Sherrick stated that the information contained in the report indicates that Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road will be greatly impacted at the I-405 Freeway by the growth within Subareas C, Northwest; D, Central; and E, West. He stated that the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan does not guarantee that the increased traffic volumes can be acccmmodated without impacting arterial highways to unsatisfactory levels (above Level of Service "D"). Mr. Sherrick suggested that in order to prevent motorists from detouring to residential streets when intersec- tions reach Level of Service (LOS) "D", that Council consider using LOS "C" as a criteria. Gene Hutchins, speaking for himself and not as a member of the Steering Committee, questioned whether the increased traffic levels shown for some of the intersec- tions in the Austin -Foust report would be acceptable. Mr. Hutchins mentioned that the Steering Committee had recamended lower densities for multi -family areas to offset State requirements for granting density bonuses. c Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, wanted to know when the General Plan Review would be completed. The City Manager responded that depending on the progress made this evening, he estimated that all documents would be ready for final discussion in June. Mr. Ross stated that any proposed development will be reviewed on the basis of that particular project, not on the basis of the General Plan. He commented that the General Plan can be fairly simple and can be amended as Council sees fit. Fire Station on The Senior Planner referred to the fire station site Sakioka Property located on the Sakioka Farms property at the corner of Anton Boulevard and Sakioka Way, which is one of the sites proposed for redesignation to Public and Semi -Public use. She stated that staff is considering ,alternative locations for the station and will submit a follow-up amendment once the location has been finalized. Proposed Land Use The Senior Planner reported that numerous sites in the Map Amendments City contain libraries, schools, parks, and other public uses for which the General Plan designation is either Commercial or Residential, and in order to ensure that those public uses remain, staff recommended that the General Plan be changed to Public and Semi -Public Use. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Institutional and Council Member Amburgey, to change the land use desig- Recreational Zone nation to Public and Semi -Public for those areas zoned Designated Public Institutional and Recreational. The motion carried and Semi -Public Use 4-1, Council Member Glasgow voting no. Site 11 After polling the audience to determine the number of Fair Drive and people wishing to speak on specific sites, Mayor Buffa Fairview Road suggested starting with Site 11, southeast corner of Fair Drive and Fairview Road. The Senior Planner reported that the .54 -acre site contains a service station and is zoned C1 with a General Plan designation of High Density Residential. She stated that since the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, staff recommended either a General Plan amendment to Neighborhood -Commercial since the site is located on a major intersection; or, because of Council's previous action indicating that Commercial uses should not be permitted in residential areas, retain the residential designation, in which case staff will ccme back with a rezone to an appropriate resi- dential designation, making the existing service station a nonconforming use. Council Member Genis suggested designating the site as Neighborhood Ccmmercial but not necessarily at the full .45 FAR, and stipulating that the uses shall not exceed the trip generation or intensity which now exists. The City Attorney stated that this would amount to condi- tional zoning, and the Neighborhood Commercial designa- tion should be consistent. Council Member Glasgow wanted to retain the residential designation so that alcoholic beverages could not be sold at the service station, a request made by the property owner some time ago. Responding to Council Member Genis's question, the Senior Planner stated that the Municipal Code allows a nonconforming use to continue but not to expand. �7j 419 Council Member Amburgey stated that this site is a prime example for a Commercial Limited designation, and suggested that Council change the policy concerning commercial uses in residential areas. Franklin Cole, representing the Fairview Village Home- owners Association, recalled the time Exxon wanted to add a 24-hour mini -market, including the sale of alcoholic beverages. He suggested that by retaining the residential designation, this type of operation would not be permitted. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, reported that the committee agreed with the recommendations for 11 of the 24 sites; therefore, he would be commenting on the other 13 sites. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Retained Council Member Glasgow, to retain the residential Residential designation for Site 11, making the service station Designation nonconforming. The motion carried 4-1, Council Member for Site 11 Amburgey voting no. Site 18 The Senior Planner reported on Site 18 which contains Valley Circle; 4.4 acres of residential subdivisions along Valley Ridgecrest Circle; Circle and Ridgecrest Circle and several parcels on Sea Sea Bluff Drive; Bluff Drive and Valley Road, which include 39 single - and Valley Road family residences and a preschool. She stated that a General Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential has been recommended because of the existing subdivision pattern and existing single-family residences. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle recommended delaying discussion on Site 18 until the Rezone Petition for property at 2109- 2115 Valley Road is considered at the meeting of April 2, 1990. Ron Amburgey, 2736 Cibola Avenue, Costa Mesa, represent- ing Dorie Gist, owner of the .90 -acre site on Valley Road which contains,two single-family homes and a preschool, stated that this is the only property within the area which is undeveloped and most directly affected by the change to Low Density Residential, a designation which the owner opposes. He reported that in addition to the rezone, a plan for the site will be presented at the meeting of April 2. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, stated that. the committee agreed with the change to Low Density Residential and R1 zoning. Roger Blanchard, 1144 Sea Bluff Drive, Costa Mesa, agreed with the proposed change to Low Density Residen- tial. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Continued to Council Member Amburgey, and carried 5-0, to continue April 2, 1990 discussion on Site 18 to the meeting of April 2 when the applications for the Gist property will be heard. Alternative 2 The Senior Planner referred to Alternative 2 Land Use Land Use Amend- Amendments, Site 5, consisting of 80.6 acres located at ments; Site 5; the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue, Harbor Boulevard stating that the -area consists of retail commercial and Adams Avenue uses, including the Mesa Verde Shopping Center. She reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the site be redesignated as General Commercial, but at a 0.50 FAR as contained in the proposed General Plan. 420 Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, referred to a :letter he submitted indicating that the Segerstroms would like to develop the vacant portion of Site 5 as a residential planned development and changed to Medium Density Residential; and the developed portion of the site, approximately 78 acres, changed to General Commer- cial at a .50 FAR. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, reported that the committee supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for a General Commercial designation but with a lower FAR. As to the vacant portion of the site, Mr. Hutchins believed that Medium Density Residen- tial would have less traffic impacts than the commercial use. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by General Commercial Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0, approving a and Medium Density designation of General Commercial for the developed Residential portion of Site 5 at an FAR of .50, and a designation Approved of Medium Density Residential for the undeveloped portion. Santa Ana 'Ilse Senior Planner stated that should the Santa Ana Heights Area Heights area bordered by Santa Ana Avenue, Mesa Drive, Bristol Street, and the eastern limit of the City's sphere of influence (Figure 2 in staff's memorandum dated October 16, 1989) be annexed to the City at a later date, the proposed land use designations reflect the density and use classifications included in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan adopted by the County on March 30, 1988. MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Approved Staff's Member Glasgow, and carried 5-0, staff's recommendation Recommendation for the Santa Ana Heights area was approved. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, stated that the committee agreed with the recommendations made for Sites 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 23. Site 1 The Mayor opened discussion for Site 1, 6.43 acres Harbor Boulevard located at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast and South Coast Drive. Drive Franklin Cole mentioned that when it was first made known to the public that these sites would be placed on the Agenda, there were quite a few people in the audience; however, since it has taken so long to finally address these properties, public interest has waned. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, asked if the property north of the I-405 Freeway would be addressed. The Senior Planner responded that the following areas will be discussed at a later date: Site 2, Home Ranch; Site 3, Town Center/South Coast Plaza; Site 1, Alternative 2, 98 acres north of the I-405 Freeway and east of Harbor Boulevard; Site 2, Alternative 2, 30 acres containing The Lakes development and associated retail uses; Site 3, Alternative 2, 41 acres located northeast of the intersection of Sakioka Way and Anton Boulevard; and Site 7, Alternative 2, 52.5 acreas containing Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Metro Pointe and Crystal Court. She also mentioned that Council has already dealt with Site 6 of Alternative 2, 30 acres in the southwest area of the City west of Whittier Avenue. 1 F� n.1;. 421 MOTION/Approved A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey to approve Reccmendations for the recommendations contained in the report dated Octo- Sites 1, 5, 6, 14, ber 16, 1989, for Sites 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 23. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor 21, and 23 Hornbuckle. AMENDED MOTION At the request of Council Member Genis, Council Member Site 6 Exempted Amburgey amended his motion by exempting Site 6 from the from the Motion motion. The amended motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, and carried 5-0. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Approved Recom- Council Member Amburgey, to approve the recommendation mendation for contained in the aforementioned report for Site 6. The Site 6 motion carried 4-0, Council Member Genis abstaining. Site 4 The Mayor opened discussion for Site 4, 8.23 acres Gisler and located at the southwest corner of Gisler and College College Avenues Avenues. Gene Hutchins, Steering Committee member, reported that the committee opposed redesignation of the site to Medium Density Residential. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Approved Medium by Council Member Glasgow, approving Medium Density Density Residen- Residential for Site 4. The motion carried 3-2, Council tial for Site 4 Members Hornbuckle and Genis voting no. Site 7 'Ihe Mayor invited comments on Site 7, 17.87 acres Bristol Street located on the east side of Bristol Street between the I-405 Freeway and Paularino Avenue. Gene Hutchins reported that the Steering Committee opposed redesignating the site to Commercial Center with a maximum FAR of .75. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Approved Commercial by Council Member Glasgow, to approve the redesignation Center for Site 7 of Site 7 to Commercial Center stipulating that the intensity limits contained in Specific Plan SP -82-01 shall be incorporated into the General Plan. The motion carried 4-1, Mayor Buffa voting no. Harbor Boulevard Dave Ruffell, 1922 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, stated Frontage he was speaking for himself; Larry Summers, owner of property -at the northwest intersection of 19th Street and Harbor Boulevard; and Curt Herberts and Mrs. Stewart, owners of parcels in the same block on the west side of Harbor Boulevard north of 19th Street. Mr. Ruffell advised that he and the others represent 8 of the 9 parcels in that block and they all object to the City's taking of 400 feet of their frontage because they cannot afford to lose the parking spaces. Site 8/Between The Mayor opened discussion for Site 8, 9.54 acres Garfield, Coolidge, located west of Garfield Avenue and east of Coolidge Baker and Paularino Avenue between Baker Street and Paularino Avenue. Gene Hutchins reported that the Steering Committee opposed the recommendation to redesignate 7.8 acres from Medium to High Density Residential. MOTION/Low Density A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded Residential by Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, approving a Approved for 1.74 designation of Low Density Residential for 1.74 acres Acres in Site 8 along Garfield Avenue in Site 8. 2 MOTION/High Density A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded Residential by Council Member Amburgey, approving a designation of Approved for 7.8 High Density Residential for 7.8 acres in Site 8. The Acres in Site 8 motion carried 3-2, Council Members Buffa and Genis voting no. Site 9 The Mayor invited comments on Site 9, a .70 -acre site E1 Camino Drive located on the southeast corner of El Camino Drive and and Lorenzo Avenue Lorenzo Avenue. Gene Hutchins advised that the Steering Committee agreed ,with staff's recommendation to redesignate this site Neighborhood Commercial. Motion to Approve A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Neighborhood Mayor Buffa, approving Neighborhood Commercial for Site Commercial was 9. After discussion, the Vice Mayor withdrew her Withdrawn motion and the Mayor withdrew his second. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Low Density Resi- Council Member Genis, to retain Low Density Residential dential Approved for Site 9. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members for Site 9 Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Site 10 Mayor Buffa opened discussion for Site 10, a .83 -acre San Juan Lane site located on San Juan Lane consisting of five lots. Gene Hutchins reported that the Steering Committee agreed with the recommendation for a designation of Low Density Residential. MOTION/Approved A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Low Density Resi- Council Member Genis, and carried 5-0, approving a Low dential for Site 10 Density Residential designation for Site 10. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:45 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Site 12 The Mayor invited comments on Site 12, 7 acres located Harbor Boulevard on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Fair and Fair Drive Drive. Gene Hutchins stated that the Steering Committee agreed with staff's recommendation contained in the report dated October 16, 1989. MOTION/General Commercial and High Density Residential Approved for Site 12 Site 13 Newport Boulevard Between Mesa Drive and Walnut Street MOTION General Commercial and Residential Approved for Site 13 A motion was made by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, seconded by Council Member Amburgey, and carried 5-0, approving the following designations for Site 12: General Commer- cial for the automobile dealership and commercial center, and retaining High Density Residential for the apartment complex. Mayor Buffa asked for comments on Site 13, 51.4 acres located on the east side of Newport Boulevard between Mesa Drive and Walnut Street. Gene Hutchins reported that the Steering Committee did not agree with staff's recommendation to redesignate the site General Commercial, and recommended retaining the Neighborhood Commercial designation. A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Council Member Glasgow, and carried 5-0, to approve the General Commercial designation for that portion of the site which is largely commercial, with the larger aggregates of residential uses to be designated resi- dential at the densities staff finds appropriate. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Glasgow, seconded General Commercial by Mayor Buffa, and carried 5-0, to approve the General Approved for Site Commercial designation for Site 20, 16.5 acres located 20 at 16th Street at the southeast corner of 16th Street and Superior and Superior Avenue Avenue. Site 22 Mayor Buffa invited comments on Site 22, 14 acres 18th Street and located southwest of 18th Street and Santa Ana Avenue. Santa Ana Avenue Gene Hutchins reported that the Steering Committee recommended that the site remain Medium Density Resi- dential because of the surrounding residential uses. Motion to Approve A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Option 1 was Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to retain Medium Density Resi- Withdrawn dential (Option 1). After discussion, Council Member Genis withdrew her motion; Vice Mayor Hornbuckle with- drew her second. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Genis, seconded by Option 2 Approved Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, to approve Option 2: As shown for Site 22 in Figure 6, designate the Martinique Apartments and portions of Cabrillo Street as High Density Residential in recognition of existing land uses and densities; designate the Rochester Street cul-de-sac as Low Density Residential which would recognize the single- family nature of the street and require a subsequent rezone to Rl; and leave the remainder of the area as Medium Density Residential. Council Member Amburgey opposed the motion because he believed that Rochester Street should be Medium Density Residential. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Site 24 The Mayor opened discussion on Site 24, 2.1 acres 19th Street and located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Vphlittier Avenue TiJhittier Avenue. Gene Hutchins stated that the Steering Committee recom- mended that the site be changed to Medium Density Residential instead of High Density Residential as recommended in staff's report. Motion Made to A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Approve High by Council Member Glasgow, to redesignate Site 24 as Density Residential High Density Residential. SUBSTITUTE MOTION A substitute motion was made by Council Member Genis, Medium Density seconded by Vice Mayor Hornbuckle, approving Medium Residential Approved Density Residential for Site 24. The motion carried for Site 24 3-2, Council Members Amburgey and Glasgow voting no. Next General Plan Discussion was held regarding the date for the next Meeting Scheduled General Plan Review meeting, and Council agreed on for April 18, 1990 Wednesday, April 18, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. Council Member Genis suggested publishing a press release to advise the public when the next General Plan meeting is being held. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor dbclared the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Mayor of the City Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa M a