Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/30/1991 - City Council Special MeetingSPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA OCTOBER 30, 1991 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in special session October 30, 1991, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, and notice of the special meeting was given as required by law. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Vice Mayor Sandra Genis Council Member Jay Humphrey Council Member Joe Erickson Council Members Absent: Officials Present: Council Member Peter Buffa City Manager Allan Roeder Deputy City Attorney Sally May Deputy City Manager/Develop- . ment Services Donald Lamm Director of Public Services William Morris City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner Mike Robinson ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, was concerned about not having copies of all minutes from Planning Commission the Planning Commission meetings concerning the EIR and Minutes Regarding General Plan because without them, he could not respond EIR No. 1044 and to actions taken by the Commission. The Principal General Plan Planner reported that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 1991, were not avail- able at this time. (The Planning Commission motions from the meetings of October 17, 22, and 24, 1991, as well as Planning Commission Resolutions PC -91-43 and PC -91-44 were included with the Development Services Agenda Report dated October 30, 1991.) Mayor Hornbuckle announced that no action will be taken on the EIR at this meeting. Copies of Agenda Brahn Walker, 479 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, stated Report that the aforementioned report should be available to the public. The Mayor informed Mr. Walker that copies of Agenda Report dated October 30, 1991 could be found in the vestibule of the Chambers. Request to Hold Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, referred Some General Plan to a letter he submitted to the City Manager in which Meetings at NCC he requested that General Plan meetings on the Trans- portation Subelement of the General Plan be held at the Neighborhood Community Center. The City Manager stated that he has been investigating the possibility of providing television coverage from that facility. PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced that this was the time and 1990 General Plan place set for the public hearing to consider 1990 EIR No. 1044 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1044. The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the City Clerk's office. All communications concerning the General Plan were forwarded to the City Council. ANNOUNCEMENT The Mayor announced that she intended to conclude this meeting by 11:00 p.m., and adjourn to November 13, 1991. The Principal Planner provided background data on the City's General Plan: The Council's prior hearings occurred between October, 1989, and April, 1990, at which time Council recommended significant changes to the format and content. As a result of these changes, the General Plan was revised and the EIR recirculated, and the latest General Plan differs in scope and format from the 1989 General Plan. In the 1990 General Plan, some elements were combined and some deleted based on comments from Council, the Technical Appendixes were deleted, and where appropriate, that technical data was incorporated directly into the General Plan. During preparation of the Response to Comments for the EIR, an error was found in Table 18, Page 184 of the EIR, and a corrected page was attached as an errata to the Agenda Report dated October 30, 1991, which indicates that only two, not four, intersections exceed State and Federal eight-hour carbon monoxide standards; a second attach- ment to the Agenda Report is a letter from Terrell Watt, Planning Consultant, 1757 Union Street, San Francisco, representing Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth; the third attachment is a new Appendix F to the EIR which was recommended for incorporation by the Planning Commission, and it is simply a list of resumes and statements of qualifications from key staff who have worked on the General Plan and consultants who assisted with technical information. Associate Planner Kimberly Brandt summarized the intent and findings of EIR No. 1044 prepared for the 1990 General Plan, emphasizing that the EIR analyzes build- out conditions of the City which are not expected to occur until after the year 2010; in addition, specific future projects anticipated by the 1990 General Plan will be subject to additional environmental review and analysis at the time they are proposed. She reported that the EIR has identified potential impacts of the General Plan's implementation and provides mitigation measures designed to eliminate or minimize the antici- pated impacts; however, there are several areas for which the EIR identifies significant impacts even after mitigation. The Associate Planner explained that CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that all Environmental Impact Reports analyze alternatives to the proposed project, and four project alternatives have been included in the EIR: "No Project", two reduced density alternatives, and an alternative that does not permit any additional development in the City. She stated that the EIR concluded that only the reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) were reason- able alternatives to the proposed project, and that these two alternatives were environmentally superior. Vice Mayor Genis was concerned that the information relating to commercial areas containing a standard mix of uses, indicates that even though the square footage in some areas has increased significantly, the projec- tion for traffic increase is only 20 or 30 percent. Senior Planner Alice Angus stated that since the Vice Mayor had provided staff with some of her questions beforehand,. a Trip Rate Summary dated October 30, 1991, was prepared and submitted to Council. Vice Mayor Genis asked how much right-of-way would be required to widen 17th Street, an alternative to be considered if the 19th Street Bridge were deleted. The Public Services Director responded that there are no detailed studies; however, the major issue is that there would be no impact on residential properties if 17th Street were widened. The Vice Mayor asked staff to provide information on the right-of-way required for the alternative of connecting the 19th Street bridge to 17th Street and the associated widening of 17th Street. Vice Mayor Genis asked about the process of providing environmental reviews on future projects which meet all requirements of the Municipal Code and would not require Planning Commission or Council review. The Associate Planner stated that in compliance with CEQA, an environ- mental review and determination is made on all applica- tions processed by the Planning Division and Public Services Department. The Principal Planner explained that the Municipal Code requires a Development Review for any project in multiple -family, commercial, and industrial zones, and the only applications exempt from the development review process are single-family homes and additions to homes in the R1 zone. Vice Mayor Genis questioned the accuracy of the state- ment on Page 275 of the EIR indicating that adoption of Alternative 3 could have a significant impact on the City's ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. The Vice Mayor felt the entire plan was based on traffic impacts, regardless of impacts on air quality, water, etc. Council Member Erickson referred to the City Attorney's memorandum dated October 25, 1991, Page 3, which addresses the 19th Street bridge, and the fact that the EIR does not consider deletion of the bridge or realign- ment with reductions in land use density to improve levels of service. He asked staff about the length of time it would take to provide either of the two alterna- tives recommended by the City Attorney. The Principal Planner responded that it would take at least two months to prepare technical information. (The issue regarding amendments to and recirculation of the EIR would take longer.) Responding to a question from Vice Mayor Genis, the Principal Planner confirmed that the EIR will not be adequate if Council deletes the 19th Street bridge because additional analysis will be required. The City Manager reported that the County of Orange is planning on preparing an environmental analysis on the 19th Street bridge. The Public Services Director advised Council that it would be approximately six to eight months before the County's EIR on the 19th Street bridge would be ready for circulation. Vice Mayor Genis requested information on the City's requiring the same right-of-way acquisitions if traffic generation and the ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilitiza- tion) were reduced. She expressed her concern about the possibility of having to take the homes on Baker Street. The Principal Planner responded that after reviewing the alternatives, staff felt that no matter what land use options were adopted, there were certain areas where significant improvements would be required. Terry Austin, of Austin -Foust Associates, Incorporated, 2020 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, the City's traffic consultant, stated that the level of land use contained in the General Plan does affect the traffic improve- ments; however, he found that when looking at the year 2010 and beyond, many of the significant improvements are required because of the large amount of regional traffic. He did point out that there are many improve- ments contained in the General Plan which would not be needed if intensities were reduced. During discussion regarding the 19th Street bridge, the City Manager asked how the City would be affected if the County's EIR failed to adequately support construction of the bridge, and/or if the EIR failed to be approved by the appropriate agencies. The Public Services Director responded that the County would have the responsibility of amending its Master Plan of Highways, and it would be the obligation of affected cities to conform to that change. Vice Mayor Genis requested staff to provide Council with the dollar loss if the City did not conform with the County's Master Plan of Highways, and the amount of money the City would save by not having to acquire prop- erties to widen 19th Street. The City Manager stated that a report would be available prior to discussion of the Transportation Subelement. Martin South, 20332 Riverside Drive, Santa Ana Heights, representing the Riverside Drive Kennel Owners Group, thanked.staff, particularly Associate Planner Kimberly Brandt, for rewriting those sentences which will now properly depict the commercial kennel businesses in conjunction with the single-family residences, and also be consistent with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan as set forth by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Janet Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, disagreed with information given about the 19th Street bridge, specifically, she contended that the County's EIR would not be ready for approximately 12 to 18 months. Ms. Remington referred,to Page 29 of the EIR regarding fire services, and commented that 75 percent of calls to the Fire Department are not for fires. She asked if that fact had any influence on the statements in the docu- ment. The Associate Planner responded that it did. Ms. Remington referred to Page 28 of the EIR and commented on Mitigation Measure 253, to develop standards to minimize vulnerability to criminal activity. She felt that Mitigation Measure 158 on Page 29, to develop a fee or financing tool to fund additional fire and police personnel, facilities, and equipment, should have been more detailed. The Associate Planner stated that since this is a General Plan, the focus is more on a policy level as opposed to precise implementation. She added that at this time there is an impact fee in place for fire protection services in North Costa Mesa and has been a condition of approval for many of the large projects in that area. Ms. Remington was concerned about deterioration of air quality in North Costa Mesa, and was not satisfied with the response she received (shown on Page E-92 of Appendix E, Response to Comments). Vicki Endo, of Endo Engineering, the City's air quality consultant, stated that based on pollutant measurements taken in Costa Mesa, it appears that the City benefits from being close to the ocean and the sea breezes tend to lower the concentration of pollutants; however, on the inland side of the freeway, concentrations can build up to a more significant degree because that area does not benefit as much from ocean breezes; nevertheless, standards are not being exceeded. David Palmer, 1622 Corsica Place, Costa Mesa, commented that according to Alternative 2, the projection is for a 13 percent traffic increase and he was unwilling to accept that. Mr. Palmer strongly opposed both the 19th Street bridge and Gisler bridge. [I 1 Brahm Walker, 379 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, objected to the proposed General Plan and asked about funding for the project. The City Manager responded that the General Plan and text were prepared by the Planning staff, except for certain technical data which was done by outside consultants. He suggested that staff prepare a report for Council on the cost of this process. As to the cost of implementing the plan, the City Manager reported that this data will be brought back to Council in the Implementation Phase, and Council may find that some desirable improvements may be cost prohibitive. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:40 p.m., and the meet- ing eeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Richard Mehren, 1824 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, urged Council not to allow Orange County to hold the City captive by withholding funds if the City were to delete the 19th Street bridge from its Master Plan of Highways. Mr. Mehren felt that the EIR rejects much of that which the citizens proposed. He quoted from Pages 6 and 7 of the Agenda Report dated October 30, 1991, which contains a letter from Terrell Watt, and mirrored Mr. Mehren's thoughts: "The clear and consistent message to the City from these various sources is that residents want less intense development and an end to traffic problems"; and "As a practical matter, the General Plan will be an effective guide for future development only if it has been prepared with the active involvement of the public and adopted with the support of broad public consensus". Mr. Mehren asked the Council if they would give the same weight to the General Plan which staff prepared as to the recommendations contained in Alternatives 2 and 3. The Mayor explained that the point of the public hearings is to receive additional information from the community to be considered with the existing document, and all those things are of equal importance. She commented that the document is based on a series of straw votes that Council took -previously. Council Member Humphrey stated that the straw votes were taken by the previous Council, and he does not support the proposed General Plan for a variety of reasons. Vice Mayor Genis stated that it was apparent that EIR No. 1044 is not adequate for a General Plan which excludes the 19th Street bridge; and she asked staff whether the document is adequate for the alternatives recommended by the Steering Committee, and the alterna- tives addressed in the Alternative Section. The Principal Planner responded that in terms of land use issues, it was his opinion that the document adequately addresses those alternatives, but not the bridge. Responding to Mr. Mehren's question, Council Member Erickson stated that it is very important for Council to listen to all comments with an open mind or it would be a waste of time to hold the public hearings; however, one issue of concern was that although Alternatives 2 and 3 are environmentally superior, they would not allow for any more housing units to be constructed. He found that to be a problem. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, commented that this EIR does not address any impacts of the Gisler bridge over the Santa Ana River between Gisler and Garfield Avenues. He read from Page 155 of the EIR, "In terms of individual intersections, Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue are most affected with ICU values of 1.05 and 1.07 . . .". He felt this should convince anyone that a bridge should not be constructed over the river at Gisler Avenue, and the EIR should address this issue. He stated that if the General Plan includes the 19th Street bridge, he wanted Council to take particular notice of the impacts it will have on 200 homeowners and 50 businesses because they will not be able to sell their properties until this issue has been resolved. Jack Douglas, 2605 Westminster Place, Costa Mesa, asked when discussion will be held on the Transportation Sub - element of the General Plan. The Mayor responded that the date for that discussion has not been set; however, she hoped that by the next meeting on the EIR, November 13, 1991, future meetings will be scheduled. Mr. Douglas felt hat the proposed Transportation Subelement will negatively impact the quality of life for residents who will pay for improvements they do not want. Heather Somers, 313 Robin Hood Lane, Costa Mesa, asked if Council planned on allowing 100 percent of the City to be developed. She mentioned that approximately 270 acres on the Sakioka and/or Segerstrom properties are to be developed north of the 405 Freeway which would overburden traffic, noise, and pollution levels. Ms. Somers commented that the AQMD (Air Quality Management District) already determined that the most severe pollu- tion levels are along the 405 Freeway in Costa Mesa. She requested an explanation of AQMD Tier 1 Control Measure. The Principal Planner explained that there are three tiers: Tier 1 includes all those control measures that seem to be technically feasible at this time; Tier 2 includes measures which are not technically feasible at this time, but have some potential for implementation at some future date; and Tier 3 includes those measures which are in very early stages of research and develop- ment but no practical, feasible technology is available at this time. Ms. Somers asserted that the proposed 600 apartments and 1.45 million square feet of office and retail space to be constructed on the Sakioka property would further congest the 405 Freeway, and she could not understand how the City or developers could warrant this level of density. Ms. Somers was appalled at an esti- mated traffic increase of 45 percent by the year 2010. She urged Council to consider those alternatives which seem to be more reasonable and environmentally superior. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke about the possibility of the County withholding funds if the City's Master Plan of Highways did not conform with the County's. He believed that the County would agree to remove the Gisler bridge from its Master Plan after making a study of existing conditions. At the request of the Mayor, the City Manager gave a brief history of proposals for a river crossing on Gisler Avenue: Every Council for at least 10 years went on record in opposition of the Gisler/Garfield overcrossing. County staff indicated that the bridge is not a priority project; however, the project is very much supported by the cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. Don Osterlund, 329 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, stated that he is a new resident of the City and has heard that residents' input has been disregarded by Council and staff. He urged Council to respond to concerns of the citizens, especially in regard to increased traffic. Jeff McConville, 466 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, was concerned because the General Plan Steering Committee spent so much time on obtaining citizens' input, yet it seemed to have been ignored. Mr. McConville was in favor of lower density. Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, requested Council to implement the RUDAT (Regional Urban Design Assistance Team) Study and delete the Transition Zone on the west side. He expressed disappointment that the 19th Street bridge had not been deleted frcm the City's Master Plan of Highways. Mayor Hornbuckle clarified that the direction of the previous Council was to keep the 19th Street bridge in the General Plan in order to move the plan forward; however, she has not found much Council support for the bridge. She stated that to avoid losing County and State funds, it may be necessary to retain the bridge in the plan for the present time until the County completes its EIR. She felt that the bridge would be found to be infeasible, that it would be removed from the County's Master Plan of Highways, and the City could do the same without being penalized. Bob Bradley, 2030 Goldeneye Place, Costa Mesa, referred to the Agenda Report of October 30, 1991, the letter from Terrell Watt, representing Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth (Pages 6 through 12), and the response which starts on Page 13. He noted that the letter mentioned a lack of recognition of public input, and on Page 13, the response is that the Urban Center Residential designation (50 du/acre) was eliminated. Mr. Bradley contended that this is meaningless because Urban Center Mixed Use allows 50 dwelling units per acre. He also opposed an FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.47 including Medium Density Residential for the Home Ranch site, because it would allow approximately 2 million square feet of commerical space, and according to the vote on Measure "I", the public was opposed to that intensity. In regard to "employment generation", he felt the employment reducing alternatives were not adequate. Mr. Bradley asked about the affect on the City if it failed to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. The Senior Planner responded that a requirement in the Housing Element is that it be sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). She reported that the Housing Ele- ment of the proposed General Plan was sent to HCD and was found to be adequate; however, staff's concern is that if the Housing Elements of the two alternatives are found to be inadequate, the General Plan could be attacked by various groups as to its adequacy if it does not comply with State law.. Mr. Bradley asked if intersections must be mitigated individually or in groups. The Public Services Director responded that the EIR addresses mitigation measures to be utilized at individual intersections in order to bring the Inter- section Capacity Utilization into conformance. Mr. Bradley commented that Page 18 of the October 30 Agenda Report gives the impression that Alternatives 2 and 3 include the 19th Street bridge, which is not true. The Principal Planner stated that Alternatives 2 and 3 are strictly land use alternatives, and they all assume the same basic circulation system which includes the 19th Street bridge. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, stated that the EIR assumes that the 19th Street bridge would be included in Steering Committee Alternative 2; how- ever, since the Steering Committee recommended deletion Y 84 of .the bridge, a comparison of impacts with and without the bridge should have been made. In comparing the proposed EIR with the one prepared approximately two years ago, Mr. Hutchins commented that there is a significant difference in impacts on single-family homes, apartments, and improvements required under Alternative 2. He asked what caused these changes since they seem to be negative toward the Steering Committee plan. In regard to the housing question, the Senior Planner reported that in looking back at the 1989 EIR and its evaluation of reduced density Alternative 2, the numbers for single-family are comparable. She believed the number that Mr. Hutchins referenced was shown in a Community Report published in 1989 and it did indicate a higher number for single-family residences; however, she was not able to determine the origin of that number since it was not from the EIR. She suggested that the brochure may have contained a typographical error. Mr. Hutchins addressed the Executive Summary contained in the EIR and felt that it should have contained much more data, especially key elements of the proposed plan and the alternatives. He submitted a four-page, condensed report on the proposed plan and the Steering Committee plan, and requested feedback from staff. In regard to the Community Report, Mr. Hutchins suggested mailing a report to the community summarizing the General Plan. The City Manager recommended dedicating an entire page or an entire edition of the Community Report to the General Plan. Council Member Humphrey recommended mailing the report in early December so the public will have ample time to review it. Richard Vinson, 1857 Parkview Circle, Costa Mesa, commented that the City apparently does not have detailed information in the EIR on the impact of the 19th Street bridge on the environment because of the pending County EIR. The Principal Planner stated that analysis in the EIR is very general and some of the more specific impacts cannot be determined until the design is developed by the County. Mr. Vinson was concerned about the County's land use plan which shows a six -lane, major street coming from Coast Highway and joining the 19th Street extension and bridge. He reported that the County indicated to him that even if the bridge were not constructed, the six -lane street would be built. He 'felt that this information should be addressed in the City's EIR. The Public Services Director stated that he has seen the document prepared for the development of the Newport Oil site, and staff has -made specific comments on it. He offered to share those comments with Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson expressed concern about the Newport Oil project not being included in the EIR, and the Principal Planner stated that the Traffic Model did address that development of approximately 2,642 units. Associate Engineer Dave Sorge stated that Page 145 of the EIR contains the data on the Bluff Road extension, the six -lane road referenced by Mr. Vinson. Brahm Walker, 479 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, asked if the EIR would be inadequate if widening of East 19th Street were deleted, and the Principal Planner answered that it would. In response to a question from Mr. Walker, the Senior Planner reported that the new Hous- ing Element would supersede the interim, existing 1988 version. Mayor Hornbuckle advised Mr. Walker that she believed the widening of East 19th Street was also contained in the 1981 General Plan.' M There being no other speakers, the Mayor concluded this meeting, and announced that the public hearing would be continued on November 13, 1991. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Erickson called attention to the memoran- COMMENTS dum dated October 25, 1991, and asked staff to determine the length of time it would take to revise the EIR with Council Member deletion of the 19th Street bridge and reduced intensi- Erickson ties. He suggested that Council approach the Board of Supervisors in a personal letter stating the concerns of the citizens and Council regarding the river crossing. It was his understanding that if it were deleted from the Master Plan of Highways, an appeal process could be utilized by the City if funds were withheld. Council Member Erickson supported the idea of having separate hearings on the bridges. He referred to comments about people not being able to sell their homes until some important issues are resolved, and he was more concerned about people not being able to improve their homes. Mayor Hornbuckle stated that prior to contacting the Board of Supervisors by letter as recommended by Council Member Erickson, it may be advisable to have the City Manager prepare a report on contacts staff has made with the County on any concerns expressed in the past so that Council will have some background information. The City Manager suggested providing Council with a summary of previous contacts with the County, as well as a draft letter for Council review. He commented that it may be premature to assume that the Council majority is opposed to the bridge, although that has been clearly indicated. In addition to sending a letter to the Board of Super- visors, the City Manager felt it would be appropriate to send letters to neighboring communities. Council Member Erickson mentioned that on Page 5 of the EIR Executive Summary, it speaks of the reduced need for bridges when the flood hazard has been removed. Council Member Council Member Humphrey expressed his support of mail - Humphrey ing information on the General Plan to residents in a timely manner, and use of the Neighborhood Community Center for these types of meetings to allow more people to attend. He encouraged residents to participate in the General Plan process. Vice Mayor Genis Vice Mayor Genis asked if it would be possible to address downgrading of East 19th Street during the General Plan meetings. The Vice Mayor had some ques- tions for staff which did not require a reply at this meeting: (1) In regard to total residential units, do the totals reflect residences provided in mixed-use areas? (2) Is it proposed to incorporate the EIR miti- gation measures into the General Plan as policies? ADJOURNMENT At 10:25 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Novem- ber 13, 1991, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chanbers of City Hall. Mayor op the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST _ _ __ City Clerk of the City of Cos a Mesa