Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/1992 - Adjourned City Council MeetingY Y. ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA 14ESA JANUARY 8, 1992 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in adjourned special session January 8, 1992, at 7:45 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair. Drive, Costa Mesa., The meeting was duly and regularly ordered adjourned from the regular meeting of December. 16, 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 Vice Mayor. Sandra Genis Council Member. Peter. Buffa Council Member. Jay Humphrey Council Member. Joe Erickson Council Members Absent: Officials Present: None 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. Buffa, seconded by Council December. 11, 1991 Member. Erickson, and carried 5-0, the minutes of the adjourned special meeting of December. 11, 1991, were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers under. Oral Communications. PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced the public hearing, continued EIR No. 1044 for from the adjourned special meeting of November. 20, 1991, the 1990 General to consider. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1044 Plan for. the 1990 General Plan. PUBLIC HEARING The City -Clerk also announced that this was the time"and Transportation Sub- place set for the public hearing to consider, the Trans - element and Land portation Subelement of the-Ccmmunity Development/ Use Element of the Management Element, and the Land Use Element of the 1990 1990 General Plan General Plan. Associate Planner Kimberly Brandt referred to the Agenda .Report dated December. 27, 1991, which includes addi- tional information for. EIR No. 1044. She explained that in response to Council's direction at the adjourned special meeting of November. 20, 1991, staff prepared two appendixes to the environmental document: Appendix G summarizes all the environmental data presented in the EIR and the public record regarding the Gisler. Avenue bridge as to either maintaining it or deleting it fran the City's Master. Plan of Highways; and Appendix H analyzes the "no 19th Street bridge" scenario. The Associate Planner, also mentioned that the potential fiscal impact of noncohfornity.-with the County's Master. Plan of Arterial Highways has been -included in the aforementioned appendixes.` - - Mayor. Hornbuckle referred to Appendix "G", Page G-4, lines 6 and 7, stating -that it should read TeWinkle Middle School, rather, than California Elementary School. Council Member. Erickson suggested including a letter from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency in the EIR documentation since the EIR references that which the County may or may not do about the 19th Street and Gisler. Avenue bridges and improvements on East 19th Street. At the request of Council Member. Erickson, the City Manager reported on events which have transpired between the City and the County: In November., 1991, staff wrote a letter to the County requesting a coopera- tive study on the issues of deleting the Gisler. Avenue/ Garfield Avenue overcrossing, the 19th Street/Banning Street overcrossing, and widening of East 19th Street between Newport Boulevard and Irvine Avenue, from both the City's Master. Plan of Highways and the County's Master. Plan of Arterial Highways. In December., 1991, the City received a letter. from Supervisor. Thomas Riley, indicating that he would cooperate with the City and Supervisor. Harriett Wieder., in proceeding with a study. Earlier in the day, the City Manager received a letter from the Director. of Transportation for. the County of Orange, Ken R. Smith, committing the County Environ- rnnental Management Agency to work with the City to perform a cooperative study on all arterial highway crossings over. the Santa Ana River south of the I-405 Freeway. Jeffery Childs, 1139 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, Acting President of the Marina Highlands Homeowners Association, opposed construction of the 19th Street bridge for several reasons: the amount of traffic it would generate; destruction of approximately 69 homes in order to construct the improvements; and the nega- tive impact on endangered animals. Mr.. Childs mentioned that approximately 2,600 homes proposed for. the Newport Oil property would not be built if the 19th Street crossing were eliminated. Joel Spencer., 1837 Bowsprite Lane, Costa Mesa, felt there was a need for traffic circulation from Costa Mesa's west side to Huntington Beach. Bob Wilson, 3435 Plumeria Place, Costa Mesa, voiced his displeasure with higher government agencies possibly withholding transportation funding if the City were to unilaterally delete the 19th Street bridge from its Master. Plan of Highways. Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, referred to Appendix G (Gisler. Avenue br. idge ) and Appendix H (19th Street bridge), asserting that these documents contain arguments in support of the two bridges, yet he could not find any compelling argument that the crossings benefit the City of Costa Mesa. Mr.. Sherrick disagreed with several conclusions contained in the Appendixes regarding noise and air. pollution. He maintained that there are unacceptable impacts on Harbor. Boulevard intersections in the Mesa Verde area, on 19th Street traffic, on East 19th Street homes, and on the entire east side. Mr.. Sherrick commented that the accuracy of the Traffic Model, estimated to be plus or. minus 5 to 10 percent, is too large a discrepancy. Referencing Table 49, Page 310 of the EIR, which indi- cates that Level of Service (LOS) C should be the guideline for residential areas, Mr.. Sherrick noted that a commuter./collector designation in a residential area with homes on both sides having two lanes and no parking is 3,000 to 5,000 Average Daily Trips (ADTs); however., in Costa Mesa, daily trips are much higher on many residential streets. He pointed out that the General Plan indicates a plan for. 15,000 ADTs on Country Club Dr. ive . Mr.. Sherrick was of the opinion that the General Plan Steering Committee's Alternative 2 represents the desires of Costa Mesa residents. In conclusion, he suggested that the matter of constructing the Gisler. Avenue and 19th Street bridges be placed on the ballot so that Costa Mesa residents can make the decision. Fred Muders, 940 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, stated that traffic on West 19th Street has increased consider- ably in the past few years. He was concerned about the the possbility of the City's taking 10 to 15 feet of_his property if the street were to be widened. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor. Street, Costa Mesa, and Alan Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, opposed the 19th Street br. idge . Diann Osterlund, 329 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, representing the East Side Homeowners Association, commented that the Gisler. Avenue and 19th Street bridges, as well as widening of East 19th Street, would exacer- bate existing traffic problems and ultimately lead to the decay of established neighborhoods. She felt these traffic projects could justify future high density development, resulting in more traffic congestion. Ms. Osterlund referred to the possibility of the City's losing two million dollars per year in transportation improvement funds if the City were to adopt a General Plan which is not in compliance with the County's Plan, and raised several questions: If Council supports deletion of these projects, is it wise to adopt a General Plan which includes the projects with the expectation of amending the General Plan in the near. future? Will it set a precedent for future amendments? What is the risk that the County will, in fact, cut off transportation funding and to what extent? What are the future costs for these projects, and how much will the taxpayers have to carry? Are there legal grounds to question whether, the County has the right to withhold transportation funds collected from tax dollars? Given the time it has taken to adopt the General Plan, is the transportation and land use information still valid? Should the City delay adopting the General Plan until these issues are addressed and resolved? Ms. Osterlund concluded that the citizens of Costa Mesa would be best served if the Gisler. Avenue bridge, the 19th Street bridge, and widening of East 19th Street were deleted from the General Plan at this time. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, was concerned about data contained in Appendix H, 19th Street Bridge Alternative Analysis, which states that 66,000 vehicles may shift to Victoria Street if the bridge were not built. He asked about the development scenario used to arrive at that conclusion. The Principal Planner replied that information contained in Appendixes G and H is a combination of all data already contained in the current General Plan, the EIR, or administrative record. He also stated that data relating to traffic volume was .taken from the EIR discussion, which was based upon the Austin -Foust Study, and the Study was based upon the proposed General Plan land use intensities. Terry Austin, Austin -Foust Associates, 2020 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, the City's traffic consultant, responded to Mr. Korando's question: What land use development assumption was used to determine that approximately 66,000 vehicles would be diverted to Victoria Street if the 19th Street bridge were not constructed. Mr.. Austin explained that all alternatives contained in the EIR and Appendixes assume the same land use development in the City and in the surrounding area as is currently proposed for. the General Plan. Vice Mayor. Genis stated that she was not aware of any traffic analysis in the EIR which reflects the inclusion of the Gisler. Avenue bridge. Terry Austin reported that there is information in the EIR and Appendixes which addresses the Master. Plan of Arterial Highways for. the County of Orange, and includes the Gisler. Avenue bridge. He referred to Page 156 of the EIR. Kimberly Brandt, Associate Planner., reported that in the Transportation Circulation section of the EIR, Pages 152 through 157, there is discussion of the various links that staff is proposing to delete from the City's Master. Plan of Highways, that being Gisler. Avenue, Wilson Street, Bluff Road, Del Mar. Avenue/University Drive. She referred to Figure 17 which provides the comparison between the run of the traffic model based on the proposed General Plan land use assumptions with the aforementioned deletions and without those deletions. She further explained that Page 156 contains traffic volumes with the Master. Plan of Arterial Highway improvements, and the traffic volumes for the proposed General Plan improvements, the latter being shown in parantheses. Vice Mayor Genis requested further clarification after. Mr.. Korando was finished speaking. Mark.Korando felt that some information was missing, stating that the assumptions do not provide for. the - other three alternatives. In addition, Mr.. Korando commented that if the bridge were not built, it would change development for surrounding cities, including the 2,500 to 2,800 homes proposed for. the Newport Oil site. Therefore, the number of trips being assumed may not be there because surrounding cities may not be able to build out to their present projections. Ronald Coulombe, 1022 Cannonade Circle, Costa Mesa, reported on the constant traffic noise he must endure at his home adjacent to Sunflower. Avenue. He supported controlled development and noise abatement, and sug- gested that developers pay for abatement of the noise which they create. Discussion resumed on Vice Mayor. Genis's question: Did staff actually run the traffic model with the Gisler. Bridge included? Associate Planner. Kimberly Brandt referred to Appendix B, Page B IV -33 of the EIR which lists various'Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values for. over. 100 intersections. Sylvia Marson, 339 Walnut Street, Costa Mesa, opposed widening of 19th Street, reducing the number of single- family homes, and high density development. Jeff McConville, 466 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, commented that the majority of Costa Mesa residents oppose increased density which would require widening of 19th Street, 22nd Street, Del Mar. Avenue, Baker. Street, and others, as well as building bridges over. the Santa Ana River. at 19th Street, Gisler. Avenue, and Wilson Street. He urged Council to make a decision based on the wishes of its constituents. Janet Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, asked the question: If the County decided that it would be possible to remove the bridges from its Master. Plan of Arterial Highways based on the City's reducing its densities and intensities, would an amendment be appro- priate, or would a new General Plan be required? The Principal Planner responded that the EIR analyzes two other lower intensity alternatives so it is within the Council's range of decisions to adopt those lower intensities which are shown in the EIR; however., any- thing below that would require further analysis via a new EIR or at least an addendum. Charles Robertson, 1885 Tahiti Drive, Costa Mesa, commented that if Council is opposed to constructing the Gisler. Avenue and 19th Street bridges, there is no basis for. Council to support the proposed General Plan, He asserted that the only solution would be to adopt Alternative 2 which was proposed by the General Plan Steering Committee. Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier. Avenue, Costa Mesa, thanked Council and staff who have been working with the citi- zens to resolve major issues, such as traffic problems, and deletion of the river. crossings. Mr.. Pizarek felt that in order to delete the bridges from the Master. Plan, densities must be lowered, and that it was impera- tive that the City,and its citizens work with the County to remove these river. crossings. Gene Hutchins, 1808 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa, referred to the Agenda Report dated December. 27, 1991, which included Appendixes G and H, and stated that this data shows the extent of the densities/intensities contained in the proposed General Plan. He contended that road improvements contained therein are not acceptable and the General Plan actually justifies to the County the construction of the 19th Street bridge because of the maximum build out being proposed. Mr.. Hutchins also addressed traffic circulation problems which he asserted would occur in the area of Harbor. Boulevard and Gisler. Avenue should the proposed General Plan be adopted. He felt that the Steering Committee alternative was an appropriate compromise. John Rice, 3027 Warren Lane, Costa Mesa, questioned the need for six lanes on Baker. Street between Fairview Road and Harbor. Boulevard, since in the 36 years he has lived in the City, he has never, encountered traffic congestion on Baker. Street. Michael Dunlevie, 245 East Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, stated that the two bridges are causing so much concern because of the negative impacts which would be created by excess traffic generated by the bridges. Fred Staudigel, 3107 Warren Lane, Costa Mesa, thanked Council for eliminating the bike lane on Baker. Street between College Avenue and Fairview Road, but he was concerned about the proposed widening of Baker. Street. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 9:15 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Corrie Kates, 3087 Warren Lane, Costa Mesa, was opposed to widening Baker. Street to six lanes because of the increased noise impacts on residential areas. Respond- ing to a question from Mr.. Kates, the Public Services Director reported that the proposal for. the Master. Plan £.A_ZO4 of Highways is for. Baker. Street to remain a secondary road except between Harbor. Boulevard and Fairview Road which would be six lanes. Based on this information, Mr.. Kates recommended that Council review that portion of the EIR and make any adjustments to reduce or down- grade the current designation in the Master. Plan of Highways and make that recommendation to the County. Tony Petros, LSA Associates, One Park Plaza, Suite 500, Irvine, addressed the Agenda Report dated December. 20, 1991, Exhibit 5, Pages 94 through 97, regarding mixed- use development. He stated that when the General Plan was being discussed approximately 2-1/2 years ago, it was recognized that mixed-use commercial developments do provide benefits to the City in a number of ways; for instance, when uses are mixed, there is a potential for trip savings during the peak hours because employees may tend to shop or take in a movie after working hours. He stated that in view of this potential, Council agreed to include a definition for. "Effective Trip Generation", and emphasized that this is a well-known standard in traffic engineering. He was very disappointed in learn- ing that "Effective Trip Generation" (Page 97) and "Trip Budget Transfers" (Page 96) had been deleted. He urged Council to retain these items in order to provide flexi- bility for commercial mixed uses. In response to Mayor. Hornbuckle's question regarding Pages 94 through 97, the Principal Planner confirmed that these are pages from the City's General Plan. He reminded Council that at the adjourned special meeting of November. 20, 1991, there was some controversy in allowing a 25 percent increase over the allowable Floor. Area Ratio (FAR) for low trip -generating uses; as a result, staff advised Council that if it was a concern, these items could be deleted without affecting the majority of the General Plan. Tony Petros commented that if there were a concern about allowing additional intensity for low trip generators, it could be addressed while still retaining the two issues he mentioned. The City Attorney reported that he and staff made the dele- tions in order to provide Council with an example of the transportation element without these items; however., Council would have to decide whether the text should remain or be deleted. Vice Mayor. Genis's greatest concern was that the language contained in the document did not correspond with the staff's Agenda Report in that the document's language is looser and lends itself to abuses. Richard Vinson, 1857 Parkview Circle, Costa Mesa, refer- enced the Summary on Page H-10 of Appendix H, 19th Street bridge, and commented that the negative impacts listed as a result of deleting this bridge seemed to be guess work. He read the sixth item, "The intersection of Placentia Avenue and Victoria Street is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service in POST -2010 conditions", and commented that if these bridges were built and the high density development continued, almost every intersection in Costa Mesa would be impacted even more. He maintained that building the 19th Street bridge is in conflict with the desires of the Coastal Commission, Fish and Game, Corps of Engineers, and the Sanitation District. Bob Wilson, 3435 Plumeria Place, Costa Mesa, commented that high density will destroy the City because it requires additional water supplies, fire and police protection, upgraded sewer systems, and wider. streets. Barbara Gallo, 17220 Newhope Street, Apt. 224, Fountain Valley, representing the owners and residents of 12 triplexes on the south side of Baker. Street, spoke in opposition to Baker. Street being designated a six -lane, primary highway with no parking, and opposed the taking of 14 properties which would be necessary to construct the improvement. Michael Gannon, 3089 Loren Lane, Costa Mesa, opposed the Baker. Street widening which would require demolition of single-family homes. As an employee of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Transportation Department, Mr.. Gannon felt that widening Baker. Street would make it extremely difficult to pick up and drop off students at the school bus stops located on that street. He also commented that it is difficult enough to exit the Hale - crest Tract at the present time, and widening Baker. Street would aggravate the problem. Ron Storf, 18966 Capense Street, Fountain Valley, owner of an apartment complex on Baker. Street, opposed the primary route designation for. Baker. Street because it would require the taking of property and elimination of existing parking. Margaret Peterman, 3002 Killybrooke Lane, Costa Mesa, opposed the widening of Baker. Street because her home would be taken if that improvement were made. She also stated that there is not enough traffic on Baker. Street to warrant six lanes. Jim Wells, 1797 Oriole Drive, Costa Mesa, President of the Mesa Verde Homeowners Association, stated that he could not conceive nor has he heard any benefits which would be derived by any property owner or businessman in the City if the proposed General Plan were adopted; Harbor. Boulevard simply cannot handle additional traffic; and adoption of the proposed General Plan would make it necessary to construct the bridges. Mr.. Wells commented that widening streets and increasing density would do nothing but harm the small businessman. Sid Soffer., 900 Arbor. Street, Costa Mesa, stated it was the City's fault that citizens are disturbed by noise frcxn local bars and traffic because it allowed residen- tial uses adjacent to commercial areas, and did not provide a buffer between busy streets and residences. Dave Leighton, 1074 Redding Avenue, Costa Mesa, Presi- dent of the North Costa Mesa Homeowners Association, mentioned that the association represents approximately 3,000 residents in the area bordered by Baker. Street, Sunflower. Avenue, Bear. Street, and Harbor. Boulevard. Mr.. Leighton recalled that in past years, after, the General Plan had been adopted, amendments were made which allowed construction of Crystal Court on land which had been designated medium density residential, and other property which was zoned Rl eventually was developed for high intensity commercial uses by means of amending the General Plan. He asked Council to lower densities in order to lower the traffic volume. Mayor. Hornbuckle announced the conclusion of public comments for this evening. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member. Erickson thanked Roy Pizarek, Dick COMMENTS Sherrick, Gene Hutchins, and all other members of the Bridge Study Group bridge study group for their of for. is . He reported that at their last meeting, the committee did not reach a clear, consensus on the method of removing the - br, idges and the East 19th Street widening from the General Plan; however., there seemed to be a feeling of agreement that (1) A few policies, specifically 77, 154, and 125 through 129, have not appeared in any of the consolidated sections. She requested that these policies, or any other policies which may have been omitted, be addressed at the next General Plan meeting. (2) Was the traffic model run at any time for land use scenarios with the existing street system? The City Attorney replied that there is a no - growth alternative so it would have had to be run with existing streets, and the assumptions would have included surrounding cities. .Vice Mayor. Genis clarified her. question: Was a traffic model run for all land use scenarios with the present circulation system? (3) Regarding the map on Page 156 of the EIR, why is the County Master. Plan of Arterial Highways so different from the City's base case ADT? (4 ) mere there is a mixed use, for example, the Home Ranch property, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would apply to all development on the site including residential development; however., there is a definition on Page 392 of the General Plan which indicates that "Gross Floor. Area" shall mean the Council should remove these projects from the General Plan, although he did realize that this must be dis- cussed in more detail at the General Plan meetings. Home Ranch Site Council Member. Erickson reported that he called Malcolm Ross, of C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, and asked him to consider developing most of the Home Ranch site as small -lot, single-family housing, assuming that it would require a land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and zoned PDR -MD (Planned Development Residential - Medium Density). Questions from Council Member. Humphrey referred to Appendix H, 19th Council Member. Street bridge, and stated that he could not determine Humphrey on the origin of the numbers used in this document, speci- Traffic Numbers fically the table on Page H-6, traffic volumes on Victoria Street west of Placentia Avenue, with and without the bridge; Page H-4, Table 12, Post 2010 ICU Summary - without the 19th Street Bridge, Intersections 12 and 15; EIR Page B IV -36, Intersection 11, Placentia Avenue and 19th Street, portion of Table IV -5, Post -2010 Alternative 1 ICU Summary - County MPRH (Master. Plan of Arterial Highways) Alternative; EIR Page B IV -34, 35, 36, portions of'Table IV -5; EIR Page B V-9, ICUs with mitigation for. Intersection 11; and EIR Page B IV -22, Gisler. Avenue and Wilson Avenue overcrossings. Associ- ate Planner. Brandt, Traffic Consultant Kendall Elmer., and the Public Services Director. attempted to answer. Council Member. Humphrey's questions to his satisfaction; however., since the data requested was somewhat detailed, Council Member. Humphrey agreed to having staff respond in a memorandum. Questions from Vice Mayor. Genis had a number of questions and sugges- Vice Mayor. Genis tions for. staff: (1) A few policies, specifically 77, 154, and 125 through 129, have not appeared in any of the consolidated sections. She requested that these policies, or any other policies which may have been omitted, be addressed at the next General Plan meeting. (2) Was the traffic model run at any time for land use scenarios with the existing street system? The City Attorney replied that there is a no - growth alternative so it would have had to be run with existing streets, and the assumptions would have included surrounding cities. .Vice Mayor. Genis clarified her. question: Was a traffic model run for all land use scenarios with the present circulation system? (3) Regarding the map on Page 156 of the EIR, why is the County Master. Plan of Arterial Highways so different from the City's base case ADT? (4 ) mere there is a mixed use, for example, the Home Ranch property, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would apply to all development on the site including residential development; however., there is a definition on Page 392 of the General Plan which indicates that "Gross Floor. Area" shall mean the total nonresidential building area. Clarify whether or not residential development counts towards the gross FAR. (5 ) In regard to densities prescribed for. some of the mixed use areas, most notably Home Ranch, it specifies a maximum of 15 units per acre average; do the 15 units apply to the entire 100 acres so it results in 1,500 dwelling units plus the .47 FAR since residential does not count, or do the 15 units per acre only apply to the portion of the site utilized for residential use? (6) There is a general description of some of the uses allowed in the various land use types; what uses specifically are intended, for. example, Neighborhood Commercial, would that allow hotels and restaurants? Clarify data contained on Page 399 of the General Plan, Commercial Center., sixth paragraph, which specifies a five -story limit; that conflicts with Policy. 233 which was adopted on January 17, 1988, limiting all buildings south of the 405 Freeway to four. stories. In the Commercial Center., Red Lion Inn area, the trip budget indicates that the FAR of .75 could never be achieved with that trip budget. If that were the case, there would be a need to establish an FAR since this will be nonconforming anyway. Staff should provide an FAR for. the Commercial Center generation rate so it would be consistent with the established trip budget. (7) Clarify the issue involving mixed uses within a given site. There is a specification that office uses would not be permitted to exceed the maximum allowable FAR in any instance. For example, where there -is a mixture of uses and the basic FAR is exceeded, could any of these be office uses, or could there be a certain FAR for office use in addition to .25 FAR for another. use. The Vice Mayor felt that the difficulty was in the wording, resulting in inconsistencies. Page 388 of the General Plan addresses additional FAR of .25 allowed in Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, and Commercial Center.; how- ever., in the text of the document, there is also a reference to additional FAR in Light Industry and Industrial Park areas, and this should be clarified. (8) If the residency hotels have a population of 110 persons per acre, is that intended to be the density limit for. SRDs, that is, no more than 110 rooms per. acre? (9) Page 403 of the General Plan, Development'Assump- tions and Trip Budget, clarify whether this is a land use element. Will there be development specifications consistent with State planning law and.will the type and intensity of land use be specified, or is traffic the only issue that will be addressed? On Page 405, the Vice Mayor ques- tioned using the word "approximately" in reference to a land use limit. (10) Will certain sites on the map be reviewed at the next General Plan meeting? The concern was the site shown at the end of what would be 19th Street since it is designated High Density Resi- dential; it is in the area projected as Talbert Park but is presently owned by a petroleum company, and could potentially be developed High Density Residential. (11) Add a new policy: To the extent feasible, mini- mize circulation improvements that will necessi- tate taking of private property on existing developed parcels (or instead of "existing devel- oped parcels", use "previously subdivided lots"). ADJOURNMENT At 10:45 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to Janu- ary 27, 1992, 6:30 p.m., at the Neighborhood Community Center., 1845 Park Avenue, Costa Mesa. -_2 ii_� -e� � /J�,L Mayor of Ohe City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of V sta Mesa