Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1991 - Adjourned City Council MeetingADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA NOVEMBER 20, 1991 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned special session November 20, 1991, 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 special meeting of November 13, 1991. 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 Council Member Peter Buffa Council Member Jay Humphrey Council Member Joe Erickson Council Members Absent: Officials Present: Vice Mayor Sandra Genis (Arrived at 7:00 p.m.) City Manager Allan Roeder City Attorney Thomas Kathe Director of Public Services William Morris City Clerk Eileen Phinney Principal Planner Mike Robinson MINUTES On motion by Council Member'Erickson, seconded by Mayor October 30 and Hornbuckle, and carried 4-0, Vice Mayor Genis absent, November 13, 1991 the minutes of the special meeting of October 30, 1991, and the adjourned special meeting of November 13, 1991, were approved as distributed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Warren Hampton, 257 Del Mar Avenue, Costa Mesa, asked when Del Mar Avenue improvements would be discussed. Del Mar Avenue The Principal Planner responded that it would be Improvements addressed during the Community Development/Management Element hearing, probably at the next General Plan meeting, and the recommendation is to downgrade Del Mar Avenue from a primary, six -lane road to a secondary, four -lane road. Mayor Hornbuckle requested that the City Clerk contact Mr. Hampton after Council has decided on the future dates for General Plan meetings. PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced the public hearing, continued EIR No. 1044 for from. the special meeting of October 30, 1991, to 1990 General Plan consider Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1044 for the City's 1990 General'Plan. Additional communications received by the City Clerk were forwarded to the City Council. The Principal Planner referred to his Agenda Report of November 7, 1991, in which he replied to questions asked at the Council meeting of October 30,:_1991, regarding Residential Noise Impacts; LOS -(Level of Service) Defin- itions; Traffic Model Trip.Rates; and EIR Master Plan of Highways Assumptions. At the request of Mayor Hornbuckle, the City Attorney reviewed his memorandum of November 20, 1991, entitled, "Proposals Concerning the 19th Street Bridge". He indicated that after having reviewed the EIR, it was his opinion that it provides adequate detailed informa- tion to enable Council to adopt the General Plan with the 19th Street Bridge remaining in the General Plan; however, it was his recommendation that Council either amend the EIR or direct that a Supplemental EIR be pre- pared before Council adopts a General Plan or amendment deleting the bridge. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, submitted a list of those items with which he is in disagreement, and are contained in Planning Commission Resolutions PC -91-43 and PC -91-44 for the EIR and General Plan, respectively; actions by the Commission; and Tables from the EIR. Mr. Sherrick elaborated on the following issues: the EIR does not address impacts of the Gisler/Garfield bridge which was deleted from the General Plan; Page 155 of the EIR, the Harbor Boulevard/Gisler Avenue ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) is predicted to be 1.05 (a.m.) and 1.07 (p.m.) without the bridge, but there is no indication of the ADT (Average Daily Trips) crossing the bridge if it were constructed; ADT for Harbor Boulevard (at Gisler Avenue) increases to 98,000 for a street which has been designed for 80,000 ADT; the EIR ignores the impacts on adjacent intersections related to and coexisting with the subject intersection, and ignores noise and air pollution impacts along Gisler Avenue from Harbor Boule- vard to the Santa Ana River; Table 20, Page 193 of the EIR, omitted TeWinkle School with respect to the traffic passing the school; the impact of 15,000 ADT on Country Club Drive has been completely ignored; Gisler Avenue ADT from Country Club Drive to the Santa Ana River is shown on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways as 12,000, and does not warrant a Gisler Avenue bridge; impact on homes along Gisler Avenue and the Mesa Verde Golf Course has been omitted; Gisler Avenue does not meet secondary highway standards and urged Council to continue to omit the Gisler bridge from the General Plan; the EIR does not address funding for the costly improvements; the quality of life in residential areas is not adequately addressed in either the EIR or General Plan; the EIR and General Plan are too ambitious and premature for the City at this time; urged Council to seriously consider Alternative 2 which he felt was far superior; expressed his disagreement with the Planning Commission recommendations on the EIR and General Plan; and read a portion of a communication to the Planning Commission from the Planning staff dated August 21, 1991, "Of the four alternatives on the General Plan, only reduced density Alternatives 2 and 3 were deter- mined to be reasonable and environmentally superior to the proposed General Plan". The Principal Planner referred to sections of the EIR to clarify some issues for Mr. Sherrick: Table 11 on Page 153, Average ICU Summary; Figure 17, Page 156, showing traffic volumes and comparing the proposed General Plan to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (O.C. MPAH) and the Gisler bridge; Page 201, Comparison of noise levels along the major links contained in the proposed General Plan and the O.C. MPAH; and finally, Page IV -33, which shows the ICU f,- sp i f i i,t.,_.s ti s, again comparing the proposed General Plan with the O.C. MPAH. Beverly Ritterrath, 208 Virginia Place, Costa Mesa, preferred "no project"; however, she supported Alterna- tive 2 if a new General Plan were adopted. Doug Underwood, 2024 South Capella Court, Costa Mesa, stated that if a bridge were constructed on Gisler Avenue, it would make that street a major thoroughfare 110 Vice Mayor Genis Arrived and unsafe for pedestrian crossing. He urged Council to reject any proposal for a river crossing on Gisler Avenue. Vice Mayor arrived at the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Council Member Erickson commented that at its meeting of November 18, 1991, the Council took action to attempt to have the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue bridges removed from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The City Manager stated that he would advise all inter- ested parties of the date of the Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting at which this issue will be dis- cussed if they would leave their names and addresses with the City Clerk. Amy Hoskins, 3017 Warren Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that most of the Halecrest residents oppose the widening of Baker Street east of Harbor Boulevard. Arthur Ritterrath, 208 Virginia Place, Costa Mesa, spoke against adoption of the proposed General Plan, and supported Mr. Sherrick's comments. William Kuhn, 1086 E1 Camino Drive, Costa Mesa, commended Council for adopting a resolution on November 18, 1991, regarding deletion of the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue bridges from the Master Plan; reminded Council that they are employees of the people; and spoke in opposition to the proposed General Plan. Franklin W. Dunlap, 3007 Donnybrook Lane, Costa Mesa, commented that the Council has donea good job so far, but felt that growth and density have reached the limit. Charles Robertson, 1885 Tahiti Drive, Costa Mesa, commented that the proposed General Plan envisions a 30 percent increase in population, a 60 percent increase in the number of jobs, and a 45 percent increase in traffic flow; but the Steering Committee approach would allow half those percentages in population and job increases, and approximately one-third that percentage in traffic increase. He felt that the greatest single concern of the residents is the increased traffic, and mentioned that the proposed mitigation measures for the Placentia Avenue/Adams Avenue intersection would be ineffective. Mr. Robertson expressed opposition to construction of a Gisler Avenue bridge across the Santa Ana River. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, spoke about the EIR's emphasis on peak -hour trips; he felt the document should include the total trips generated by a project and their impact on various roads and intersec- tions. Referring to the document, Environmental Impact Report No. 1044, Appendix E, Response to Comments, Octo- ber, 1991, Page 117, Home Ranch Statistical Comparison, Mr. Hutchins pointed out that it shows a.m. peak -hour trips at 2,605 and p.m. peak -hour trips at 2,793; how- ever, he understood that the Home Ranch project would generate between 23,000 and 24,000 trips per day, which leaves a -difference of approximately 18,000 trips that occur at times other than peak hours. Mr. Hutchins then referred to the Trip Budget proposed in the General Plan which allows increased FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of up to 25 percent for nonresidential projects if the trips generated by that project were on the low side. He asked what other agencies in the county or state use this method to determine the FAR. The Principal Planner 1 responded that the City of Newport Beach adopted a similar type of approach citywide for its General Plan update two or three years ago. He added that the City of Irvine used this method for the Spectrum and East Irvine Business Complex, and will adopt this method for the new Irvine Business Complex. Vice Mayor Genis commented that the City of Newport Beach has a similar approach but differs in several ways, one being that the City of Newport Beach has a set base FAR for set uses. In response to a concern raised by Mr. Hutchins which would allow an increased FAR if reduced trips warrant it, the City Attorney stated that limits and controls are imposed for each project through the development review process. The Principal Planner clarified that the 25 percent increase in FAR is for specific, single - purpose buildings, such as mini warehouses, and that office buildings would not be entitled to a 25 percent density bonus regardless of the traffic generated. Nora Lusk, 3022 Donnybrook Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Baker Street widening. George Wines, 3218 Minnesota Avenue, Costa Mesa, was against the proposed General Plan and supported the Steering Committee alternative. He also opposed construction of the river crossings. Franklin Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, made the following comments: traffic generated by the Orange County Fairgrounds is greater than any bridge would ever generate; more housing is needed, but not everyone wants and/or needs.a picket fence and a large yard; and the City cannot alleviate traffic by blockading every street. Heather Somers, 313 Robin Hood Lane, Costa Mesa, was vehemently opposed to all high density projects being proposed. She believed the City and developers were planning the highest density possible in order to maxi- mize the remaining 10 percent of undeveloped land. She contended that if the planned high density projects are allowed to be constructed, traffic in Costa Mesa could be close to a standstill. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, commented that the EIR does not address a bridge on Gisler Avenue. The Principal Planner responded that the EIR is based on the proposed General Plan, and the General Plan does not currently propose the bridge; however, analysis in the EIR shows conditions with and without the bridge. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, asked about the committee working with Council and the County on .removal of the bridges, and also wanted to know about the deadline for obtaining Measure M funds. Council Member Erickson reported that various homeowner associa- tions are represented on the committee, including Mesa Verde Homeowners Association. As to Measure M funding, the Public Services Director explained the procedure for obtaining these funds, indicating that March 27, 1992, is the deadline for the City to submit its request. There being no other speakers on EIR No. 1044, the Mayor closed the public hearing for this item. At the request of Council Member Erickson, the City Attorney explained the options available to certify the EIR as outlined on Page 5 of his memorandum dated 112 October 25, 1991, entitled, "Summary of General Plan Adoption and Environmental Impact Report Certification Procedures". Considerable discussion ensued regarding questions raised by Vice Mayor Genis on various aspects of the Trip Budget process. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 8:30 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Discussion on the Trip Budget continued. Responding to additional questions from Vice Mayor Genis in which she referred to Pages 388 and 392 of the General Plan, the City Attorney stated that office use cannot exceed an FAR of .45, and mixed uses are not permitted to have a 25 percent density bonus. Mayor Hornbuckle suggested that Vice Mayor Genis work with the Principal Planner in making the text more specific. MOTION Mayor Hornbuckle requested discussion on certifying Approved the Straw the EIR. Council Member Erickson made a motion to Vote Procedure proceed based on the City Attorney's memorandum dated October 25, 1991, to take straw votes on both the EIR and General Plan which will culminate with the final vote at the final public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hornbuckle. Council Member Buffa opposed the straw vote procedure, noting that Council has already done straw votes, and updating the General Plan has been going on for four years. Vice Mayor Genis was concerned about the method of analyzing Trip Budgets. She also mentioned that she had specifically requested an alternative which would minimize condemnation. The City Attorney commented that according to case authority, Council decides which alternatives shall be included in the EIR. The motion to proceed via straw votes carried 4-1, Council Member Buffa voting no. Council Member Erickson stated that he will provide a written request to staff to respond to questions posed by Mr. Sherrick, and suggested that the other Council Members do the same if they have specific concerns. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Erickson, seconded EIR No. 1044 by Mayor Hornbuckle, to certify EIR No. 1044. Mayor Certified Hornbuckle requested that the Principal Planner provide written responses to Dick Sherrick's comments by the next General Plan meeting. Council Member Humphrey announced that he would not support the motion because he wanted the 19th Street bridge removed from the EIR. Vice Mayor Genis opposed the motion, explaining that if Council is serious about asking the County to delete the 19th Street bridge, yet makes a finding that it is not a feasible alternative at this time, the City would lose its credibility with the County. Council Member Buffa was of the opinion that the bridges will never be built. Mayor Hornbuckle asked if it would be possible to pre- pare an addendum to the EIR which would simply identify some of the impacts that would occur without the 19th Street bridge. The Principal Planner responded that such a change would be significant enough to require recirculation of the EIR. The City Attorney reminded Council that these are merely straw votes; however, staff does need direction so that a final vote can be taken to certify the EIR. The motion to certify the EIR carried 3-2, Council Members Genis and Humphrey voting no. The Mayor requested that Council provide written requests to staff on any additional information they need on the EIR before it comes back,to Council for a final decision. PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk an that this was the time and 1990 General Plan place set for the public hearing to consider the 1990 General Plan: (a) Environmental Resources/Management Element; (b) Community Development/Management Element; and (c) Land Use Element. The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the City Clerk's office. Staff has recom- mended that items (b) and (c) be continued to the next General Plan meeting. The Principal Planner summarized his Agenda Report dated November 6, 1991, regarding the Environmental Resources/ Management Element, and the list of subelements to be considered: Air Quality, Hydrology, Biological Resources, Open Space, Geology, Cultural Resources, and Noise. He also noted that he had provided Council with Planning Commission motions (Exhibit A) which includes specific modifications to the Environmental Resources/Management Element. He recommended proceeding with the vote in the same manner as the Consent Calendar, that is, to remove and discuss only those items on which further informa- tion or modification is requested, and vote on them separately. Tony Petros, 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine, asked if staff's responses to Council's questions on the EIR would be available to the public, and the Principal Planner replied that they would be available. Mr. Petros asked if there were any concerns by staff as to time constraints in regard to a court mandate to get a General Plan in order. Mayor Hornbuckle commented that updating the General Plan started long before the court case was initiated. The City Attorney stated that the lawsuit only related to one parcel, not the entire City. Since Mr. Petros is a traffic consultant, Council Member Buffa asked him if it would be feasible to obtain accurate figures on traffic being generated by existing developments. Mr. Petros responded that it would be very easy to determine those numbers. Janet Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, requested information on the Quimby Act. The Principal Planner explained that the Quimby Act applies to residential projects that are subject to either a tract or parcel map, and enables the City to require either a dedica- tion of land for park purposes or the payment of fees to acquire park land. He reported that the City's ordinance sets forth requirements based on a population density and average cost of park land in the City. He further explained that at the present time, the Quimby Act limits use of the fees to acquisition and initial improvement of park lands; it does not allow funds to be used for maintenance. Ms. Remington felt that it would be a mistake to amend the existing regulations by allow- ing fees to be used for park maintenance because it was more important to acquire more land for park uses. Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, commented that more telephones are needed in City parks, more park land must be purchased; and citizens want quality parks for sports activities. There were no other speakers on the Environmental .Resources/Management Element of the General Plan. Council Member Erickson reported on his meeting with C. J. Segerstrom and Richard Mehren, member of the City's Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Parkways Commission, regarding a park site on the Segerstrom's Home Ranch property. ..,_i,114 Air Quality MOTION/Air Quality Subelement Adopted Hydrology Mayor Hornbuckle introduced the Air Quality Subelement (Pages 23 and 27). On motion by Council Member Erickson, seconded by Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the Air Quality Subelement of the General Plan was adopted. The Mayor opened discussion on the Hydrology Subelement (Pages 49 through 51). MOTION/Hydrology A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Subelement Adopted Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, adopting the As Amended Hydrology Subelement with amendments recommended by Mayor Hornbuckle for Policy 26, and the Planning Commis- sion for Policy 30: Policy 26: " . . . to tie into the reclaimed water system when recommended by the Orange County Water District or Mesa Consolidated Water District." Policy 30: " . . . for landscape irrigation, or for construction." Motion to Add a Vice Mayor Genis made a motion, seconded by Council Policy was With- Member Humphrey, to add a policy to this subelement: drawn "New developments shall provide for 100 -year flood protection within said development area and shall not increase existing downstream peak flow of flood waters or runoff and shall retain increased cubic feet per second on the project site should adverse impacts result". The Principal Planner stated that this was part of Measure "G" which was overturned by the court. After discussion, Vice Mayor Genis withdrew the motion and staff was directed to prepare wording for the next meeting. Biological Discussion on the Biological Resources Subelement Resources (Page 62) commenced. MOTION/Biological A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Resources Subele- Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, adopting the ment Adopted Biological Resources Subelement, with Policy 25 amended: " . . . on plant and animal life and critical wildlife habitat, and wetlands, and, where feasible " Open Space Discussion ensued on the Open Space Subelement (Pages 80 and 81). MOTION/Adopted A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Open Space Subele- Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, adopting the ment Except Open Space Subelement, except for Policies 2 and 5, and Policies 2 and 5 including the Planning Commission amendments for Poli- cies 11 and 13: Policy 11: "Continue to require, through development standards " Policy 13: . . recreation and organized sports activities. Strongly support recreation programs that benefit the youth of the community". Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Policy 2 as Amended Council Member Erickson, to adopt Policy 2 as amended by Planning by the Planning Commission: ". . . 1990 Federal Census Commission Died and available in order to consider possible adjustment to the ratio of . . ." After considerable discussion, Council Member Erickson withdrew his second, and the motion died. 115 MOTION On motion by Vice Mayor Genis, seconded by Council Policy 2 Adopted Member'Humphrey, and carried 5-0, Policy 2, as shown on Pages 80 and 424 of the General Plan, was adopted. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor Genis, seconded by Policy 5 Deleted Council Member Humphrey, to delete Policy 5 which would allow use of park land fees for maintenance of existing public parks.- The motion carried 3-2, Council Members Hornbuckle and Buffa voting no. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Erickson, seconded Adopted an Addi- by Mayor Hornbuckle, to add another policy to the Open tional Open Space Space Subelement: "Encourage the acquisition of land Policy for neighborhood or community parks for active recrea- tional use". The motion carried 5-0. Geology Mayor Hornbuckle opened the discussion on the Geology Subelement (Pages 122 and 123). MOTION/Geology On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Subelement Adopted Council Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, the Geology Subelement was adopted. MOTION/Adopted On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Amended Policy 73 Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, Geology Policy 73 was adopted as amended by the Planning Commission: " . . . property owners of appropriate protection measures. Offer information regarding earthquake standards to reduce or eliminate structural damage." Cultural Resources The Mayor introduced the Cultural Resources Subelement (Pages 137 and 138). MOTION/Cultural On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Resources Subele- Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, the Cultural Resources ment Adopted Subelement was adopted. Noise Subelement Discussion commenced on the Noise Subelement (Pages 162, 170, and 171). Motion to Adopt A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Noise Subelement Council Member Erickson, to adopt the Noise Subelement. Withdrawn After brief discussion, Council Member Buffa withdrew his motion and announced that he would abstain from voting on this subelement. MOTION/Adopted A motion was made by Council Member Erickson, seconded Noise Subelement by Council Member Humphrey, adopting the Noise Subele- as Amended ment as amended by the Planning Commission: Policy 102: "Strongly encourage the governor to appoint - Policy 104: "Strongly encourage the Orange County Fair Board and other . .-'01`1 The motion carried 4-0, Council Member Buffa abstaining. MOTION/Adopted On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Policy 92 as Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, Policy 92 Amended was adopted as amended: " . . . when considering alter- ations to the City's circulation system and Master Plan of Highways." NEW BUSINESS The Mayor announced that Council will select dates for Future General future General Plan meetings. Council agreed that the Plan Meetings next meeting shall be held on December 11, 1991, immediately following the Redevelopment Agency meeting which commences at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, mentioned that he had made a.written request to have the hearing on the Transportation Subelement held at the Neighbor- hood Community Center. The City Manager replied that the center is booked for the entire month of December. Mr. Pizarek suggested delaying the Transportation Subelement until after January 1, 1992. Council Member Humphrey agreed with Mr. Pizarek's suggestion. Vice Mayor Genis recommended that at the meeting of December 11, 1991, Council consider all subelements of the Community Development/Management Element except the Transportation Subelement, and Council indicated agree- ment with her suggestion. Discussion followed regarding dates for meetings in January, 1992, and Council agreed to meet on January 8 and 29. Janet Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, wanted to know the date on which the Land Use Element would be discussed.. Mayor Hornbuckle indicated that the Trans- portation Subelement would be discussed on January 8, 1992, and the Land'Use Element on January 29, 1992; however, she stated that the public could speak on both subjects at both January meetings. ADJOURNMENT At 11:10 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Decem- ber 11, 1991, following the Redevelopment Agency meeting which will begin at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. May -or oT the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: &L*') City Clerk of the City of Cost Mesa