Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/1992 - City Council223 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA MARCH 2, 1992 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in regular. session March 2, 1992, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair. Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Invocation by the Reverend Denis Lyons, St. John the Baptist Catholic Church. 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 6:37 p.m.) City Manager. Allan Roeder. City Attorney Thomas Kathe Deputy City Manager/Develop- ment Services Donald Lamm Public Services Director. William Morris Principal Planner. Mike Robinson City Clerk Eileen Phinney MINUTES On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council February 6 and Member. Erickson, and carried 4-0, Vice Mayor. Genis February 18, 1992 absent, the minutes of the adjourned special meeting of February 6, 1992, and the regular meeting of February 18, 1992, were approved as distributed. ORDINANCES A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa, seconded by Council Member. Humphrey, and carried 4-0, Vice Mayor. Genis absent, to read all ordinances by title only. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dick Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, asked if it would be appropriate to address both the 1990 General Plan General Plan and EIR No. 1044 under. Public Hearing No. 1, 1990 General Plan. Mayor. Hornbuckle replied affirmatively. Vice Mayor. Arrived Vice Mayor. Genis arrived at the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Stairway Repair. at Nancy Palme, 1997 Kornat Drive, Costa Mesa, spoke about Balearic Center the necessity to repair the stairway at Balearic Center which staff estimated would cost $25,000.00. Mayor. Hornbuckle directed the City Manager, to investigate and determine whether the cost would be considered a capital improvement or, a repair. expenditure. Traffic Signal Sid Soffer., 900 Arbor. Street, Costa Mesa, addressed the Synchronization issue of appropriate synchronization of.City traffic signals. Council Member. Buffa asked the City Manager to investigate this matter., and the City Manager replied that he and the Public Services Director would reserve a half day to tour. the City with Mr.. Soffer to observe traffic signal coordination. Council Member. Buffa stated that he would be delighted to join them. Koll-Irvine Lawsuit The following members of the Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Association, Costa Mesa, urged Council to,join in their lawsuit against the County of Orange, Orange my Superior. Court Case No. 87-92-53, regarding the 1 tanks at John'Wayne Airport: Suzie and Dale - jala, 3185-C Airway Avenue; Judith Jelinek, 3184-H way Avenue; and Christine House, 3198-J Airport Loop ve. Judith Jelinek submitted a letter inviting the ncil to meet with the association's ad hoc group at of its Tuesday morning meetings. San Joaquin Hills 'Janet Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, requested Transportation information on the.toll roads proposed for Orange Corridor. Agency County, especially the City's liability if the project - were to fail financially. The City Manager replied that Costa Mesa is a member of the Transportation Corridor. Agency (TCA) but only for. the San Joaquin Hills Corri- dor., not for. the Eastern and Foothill Corridors. He explained that the cities are not liable for any finan- cial deficiencies.; Council Member. Buffa stated that the project will be financed through developer fees and the sale of bonds, and CALTRANS will be responsible for. maintenance. Design Review Board Heather Somers, 313 Robin Hood Lane, Costa Mesa, asked to Regulate Small- that Council consider, formation of a design review board Lot Developments to take the responsibility of regulating and reviewing all small -lot development projects presented to the City. She stated that the purpose of the board would be to protect the interests of individual neighborhoods and existing homeowners, and to govern the aesthetics of any Directed Staff to project within the sphere of influence of the neighbor. - Place on the Agenda hood in which it will be developed, including selection for. March 16, 1992 of design and color.. Mayor Hornbuckle directed staff to place this request on the Council Agenda for. March 16, 1992, to be considered at the same time the proposed ordinance for small -lot, single-family dwelling units is discussed. PROCLAMATION Mayor. Hornbuckle read a proclamation commending Costa Commending Police Mesa Police Chief Dave Snowden for having been elected Chief Snowden President of the California Police Chiefs Association, and presented the document to the Chief. Sergeant David Walker., President of the Costa Mesa Police Assocition, commended Chief Snowden on his accomplishments and thanked Council for recognizing a fine police chief. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items were removed from the Consent Calen- dar.: Item 6(a), Contract award for. Corporation Yard Perimeter. Wall Improvements, Project No. 92-01; Item 6(b), Contract award for. Bid Item No. 940, Revision "A", Police Patrol Vehicles; Item 8, Resolution regarding incentives program 'of the South Coast Air. Quality Management District; and Item 9, Resolutions requesting Orange County Unified Transportation Trust (OCUTT) funds for three traffic improvement projects. motion by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Council fiber Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the remaining Consent endar items were approved in one motion by the .lowing roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None READING FOLDER On motion by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Council Member. Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the following Reading Folder items were received and processed: Claims I Claims received by the City Clerk: Russell Abeyratne; Ramona Calavetta; David Kogler.; and Graciela Garcia. Alcoholic Alcoholic Beverage License for which parking has been Beverage approved by the Planning staff: Juanita M. Johnson, License doing business as Fat Freddy's, 2949 Fairview Road. Adequate Funding Resolution from the City of Rosemead, urging the for. Alcoholic Governor to restore adequate funding to the State Beverage Control Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. SET FOR PUBLIC On motion by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Council HEARING Member. Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the following items Huitt-Zollars were set for public hearing March 16, 1992, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Small Lot Develop- An ordinance establishing development standards ments; Amendment to for small -lot, single-family dwelling units and Condominium Ordinance minor technical amendments to the condominium ordinance. Environmental Determination: Negative MOTION/Change Declaration. Final draft of Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. WARRANT On motion by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Council Member. Humphrey, Warrant Resolution 1514, including MOTION Payroll 9204, was approved by the following roll call Warrant 1514 vote: Approved AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None REJECTED CLAIM On motion by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Council Member. Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the claim from. Lea Putkamer. Putkamer., regarding vehicle damage from a construction site roadway defect, was rejected. ADMINISTRATIVE The Public Services Director recommended approval of ACTIONS Change Order. "A" for $4,360.00 to the contract with Huitt-Zollars, Incorporated, 15991 Red Hill Avenue, Change Order. "A" Suite 200, Tustin, for expansion of the scope of work Huitt-Zollars for design of Vehicle Parking District No. 1 Improve- ments. On motion by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Vehicle Parking Council Member. Humphrey, the change order was approved District No. 1 by the following roll call vote: Improvements AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson MOTION/Change NOES: None Order. Approved ABSENT: None Corporation Yard Item 6(a) on the Consent Calendar was presented: Perimeter. Wall Contract award for. Corporation Yard Perimeter. Wall Improvements Improvements, Project 92-01. Sid Soffer., 900 Arbor. Project 92-01 Street, Costa Mesa, asked if the wall was a necessity, considering he City's budget -shortfall. The Public Services Director reported that this improvement was a budgeted item, and the low bid was considerably less than the City's estimate of $200,000.00; in addition, MOTION the project is a much needed improvement. On motion by Awarded to All Council Member. Erickson, seconded by Council Member. Pro Masonry Humphrey, the contract was awarded to All Pro Masonry, A Joint Venture, 1015 South Atlantic Drive, Compton, for. $123,042.00. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None Bid Item 940 "A" Item 6(b) on the Consent Calendar was presented: Bid Police Patrol Item 940, Revision "A", Police Patrol Vehicles. Sid Vehicles Soffer., 900 Arbor. Street, Costa Mesa, was concerned because the low bidder is an out-of-town provider, and asked why this item was not rebid as Council previously indicated. Mayor. Hornbuckle informed Mr.. Soffer that the previous bids were rejected and new bids were requested from appropriate sources; however., El Cajon Ford again was the lowest bidder.. Council Member. Buffa 'stated that even though he recognized that Council must follow procedures required by law, he could not support a motion to award the contract to an out-of-town dealer.. MOTION On motion by Council Member. Humphrey, seconded by Vice Awarded to mayor. Genis, the contract was awarded to El Cajon Ford, E1 Cajon Ford 1595 East Main Street, El Cajon, for. $513,170.47. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: Buffa ABSENT: None Council Member. Buffa asked the City Attorney to explore the possibility of local vendors preference. He I entioned that it was his understanding that the County of Orange has an ordinance addressing this issue. AQMD RECLAIM Iltem 8 on the Consent Calendar was presented: A resolu- Program tion opposing inclusion of essential public services in the proposed Market Incentives Program (RECLAIM) of the South Coast Air. Quality Management District (AQMD). Vice Mayor. Genis explained that under. the Market Incentives Program, the City could find itself in the position of having to buy additional credits if there were a need to expand public services, and she heartily 'supported the resolution opposing the inclusion of Pippo services into that program. MOTION A motion was made by Vice Mayor. Genis, seconded by Resolution 92-8 Council Member. Humphrey, to adopt Resolution 92-8, A Adopted as Amended RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING INCLUSION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE PROPOSED MARKET INCENTIVES PROGRAM ,(RECLAIM) OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, with additions: before the next to last paragraph which starts with the word "WHEREAS", add two : paragraphs: "WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments has developed regional housing needs assessments, the attainment of which would cause additional population and growth; and WHEREAS, certain policies of the South Coast Air. Quality Management District would encourage, if not mandate, additional growth in some locations; and" Council Member. Buffa suggested that the City Manager. I rovide all Council Members with the recommendations distributed by AQMD which will essentially usurp the powers of cities and counties in the planning process to the extent of suggesting minimum densities in each of the residential zones, and recommending a certain number of commercial outlets within two blocks of each other. in residential zones. Vice Mayor Genis noted that the last ;page of the document is blank for suggestions, and 'encouraged Council Members to return their comments to 1 QMD. Mayor. Hornbuckle mentioned that the Vice Mayor will be sitting on a board that will meet on March 16, 1992, relating to air quality and the economy. Vice Mayor. Genis stated that the meeting is being held at 9:30*a.m. at the Double Tree Inn, and testimony will be taken for approximately three to four. hours. The motion to adopt amended Resolution 92-8 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None Request for. OCUTT Item 9 on the Consent Calendar was presented: Resolu- Funds for. Traffic tions requesting Orange County Unified Transportation Signal Improvements Trust (OCUTT) funds for traffic is signal improvements at three locations within the City: Harbor. Boulevard from Adams Avenue to Baker. Street; Harbor. Boulevard at Mesa Verde Drive East and at the Harbor. Center.; and Bristol Street and the 405 Freeway northbound off -ramp. Sid Soffer., 900 Arbor. Street, Costa Mesa, needed an explana- tion of the improvements to be -constructed. The Public Services Director reviewed the proposed work shown in the Agenda Report dated February 25, 1992, which Mr.. Soffer overlooked in the documents provided for the public. A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa, seconded by Council Member. Humphrey, to adopt the following resolutions: Harbor. Boulevard Resolution 92-9, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Interconnect/Adams THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE Avenue to Baker. Street ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCUTT) MOTION FUNDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTER - Resolution 92-9 CONNECT ON HARBOR BOULEVARD FROM ADAMS AVENUE TO BAKER Adopted STREET. Improvement of Resolution 92-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Harbor. Boulevard THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE Traffic Signals ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCUTT) MOTION FUNDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON HARBOR BOULE- Resolution 92-10 VARD AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST AND Adopted HARBOR CENTER. Bristol Street/405 Resolution 92-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Freeway Traffic THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE Signal Controller. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCUTT) MOTION FUNDS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL Resolution 92-11 CONTROLLER AT THE INTERSECTION OF BRISTOL STREET AND Adopted THE I-405 FREEWAY NORTHBOUND OFF -RAMP. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced the public hearing, continued 1990 General Plan from the adjourned special meeting of February 6, 1992, to consider. the 1990 General Plan. The City Clerk also presented from the regular meeting of February 18, 1992, a request from staff to provide direction on remaining policy issues. Five communications were received in opposition to down -zoning R2 properties: Harland C. Anderson, 225 Ogle Street, Costa Mesa; Frank Eisendrath, 104 Kings Place, Newport Beach; Charles Markel, 2851 Club House Road, Costa Mesa; Gladys R. Larsen, 270 East 15th (Street, Costa Mesa; and Medford Bragg, Post Office Box 1594, Newport Beach. I ,The Principal Planner, referred to the Agenda Report dated February 25, 1992, which contains four specific issues for which staff was requesting additional discussion and direction: "ROUND UP" POLICY/SMALL R2 LOTS. Combined implica- tions of Policy 116 prohibits the practice of "rounding up" residential density calculations; and the revised density standard limits development to 12 units per, acre for. Medium Density areas. Based on these new limitations, R2 lots with less than 7,260 square feet would be limited to one unit. Staff indicated that if Council were interested in retaining the option to allow two units on R2 lots between 6,000 and 7,260 square feet, Policy 116 could be modified to read, "Strictly enforce development standards and zoning ordinances without permitting an increased unit when a proposed project does not meet the square -foot requirements of the zone so as to prohibit a 'rounding up', except for. existing Medium Density Residential lots less than 7,260 square feet, but not less than 6,000 square feet where density calculation fractions equal to or greater. than 1.65 may be rounded to two units". DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR NONCONFORMING PROJECTS. This issue relates to the Town Center. and Metro Center sites which contain vacant or unvested parcels that I staff assumed would be developed, and proceeded with the traffic model,accordingly; however,, if Council were to disagree with this assumption, then the traffic model would have to be adjusted to delete the future development assumptions for these two projects. SOUTH COAST PLAZA FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR). For clari- fication purposes, staff suggested that it would be appropriate to reference both a combined and a site- specific FAR limit for. the Regional Commercial designation as shown on Page 4 of the Agenda Report. SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING PROJECT'S. In order to prevent an "overbuilt" condition in terms of traffic model ,assumptions and environmental analysis relating to 'future subdivision of existing projects, staff recom- mended adding language in the appropriate sections of ;the General Plan: "Subdivisions of existing develop- ments or projects shall not cause the.development to !become nonconforming or., if already nonconforming with respect to the density and intensity standards for. the 'land use designation in which the project is located unless binding agreements, restricting development of the newly created parcel(s) are recorded as part of the subdivision". (See Page 5 of the Agenda Report.) The Principal Planner reported that Transpacific Devel- opment Company, 2377 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance, submitted a letter. dated February 26, 1992, containing alternative proposals for. South Coast Metro Center. in the Urban Center. Commercial designation, specifically relating to the Council's vote at the last hearing regarding residential densities within that classification. I Responding to an inquiry from Council Member. Erickson relating to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Principal Planner stated that regarding the South Coast Plaza site, the EIR would have to be recirculated if decisions were made which would increase the traffic assumptions that were included for. the Plaza. He pointed out that there was an overstatement of traffic generation in the EIR because gross building area was used to trigger traffic generation; however., staff should have used gross leasable area, resulting in an overestimate of approximately 400,000 square feet in terms of traffic generation from the Plaza. Vice Mayor. Genis was concerned that if there were a significant difference between the square footage assumed for the existing traffic model and the actual square footage which should have been used, the traffic model may have to be adjusted accordingly. In addition, she asked if the trip budget would be the controlling factor., or. the Floor. Area Ratios (FARs) of .89 for. Crystal Court and .55 for the original South Coast Plaza site. The Principal Planner suggested amending the proposed text on Page 4 of the Agenda Report to indi- cate that these FARs "shall be a maximum", rather. than "equates to a maximum". Vice Mayor. Genis expressed concern with the possibility of receivinga request to subdivide a parcel after densities have been set which would result in a higher density than that which was determined for the entire site. The City Attorney responded that in such cases, a development agreement or a recorded covenant would be required to join those parcels for transfer of develop- ment rights; therefore, a specific mechanism must be utilized to restrict those kinds of sites. Council Member. Buffa wanted clarification on the assump- tions for the traffic model in the South Coast Plaza area. The Principal Planner responded by explaining the difference between gross building area and gross leasable area, adding that the latter excludes hallways and common areas. Council Member. Erickson commented that when he made the motion at the General Plan hearing regarding the shop- ping centers, it was his intention to prohibit any further growth at Crystal Court since it abuts an Rl zone. He reported that during a meeting with South Coast Plaza representatives, they expressed a desire to construct a bridge between the two centers with shops on both sides, and an additional department store and park- ing structure near the existing Bullocks store at South Coast Plaza. He stated that the project would need an entitlement of 500,000 square feet which, according to his calculations, would not require recirculation of the EIR, peak hour trips would be nonexistent, and the resi- dential area would not be impacted. Vice Mayor. Genis asserted that the above project would require an adjust- ment in the traffic model, and recirculation of the EIR. Sid Soffer., 900 Arbor. Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the new standards which would prohibit two units on R2 lots with less than 7,260 square feet because it would reduce the values of those properties. Mr.. Soffer addressed the issue of legal nonconforming parcels, claiming that the Government Code mandates that cities shall do away with any and all nonconformities as soon as possible. 230 RECESS Charles Currey, representing trustees for. the Blake property at 2560 Newport Boulevard, stated that he has been trying to sell this property for three years and the only party evidencing interest is the storage yard next door.. He reported that their interest is directly_ related to the storage that can be placed on the site for. income purposes. Mr.. Currey understood that there had been language in the General Plan allowing greater utilization of commercial, neighborhood -type sites when the type of usage would not impact traffic, physical density, or. size. Senior Planner. Alice Angus confirmed that she had spoken with Mr. Currey and indicated to him that the original draft t of the General Plan contained language regarding low traffic generators, such as self - storage or hotel units, allowing for an increase in Floor. Area Ratio of up to 25 percent; however., Council I emoved that language from the General Plan. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Seger-strom and Sons, 3315 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, addressed the Town Center issue, asking for a determination on a vacant parcel which is legally nonconforming. The City Attorney replied that in Costa Mesa, legal nonconforming parcels can remain as such, although there is a Government Code Section that urges, and sometimes commands cities to eliminate nonconforming uses; and at this point, there are no development rights for nonconforming vacant lots which present a problem. Mr.. Ross commented that the Master. Plan for. Town Center has been in effect since 1979, and the one remaining vacant -parcel is equal to 197 hotel rooms as addressed in staff's Agenda Report. He felt it would make things very simple if the remaining vacant parcel were treated the same way as previous development of Town Center.. Mr.. Ross submitted material to Council on the proposed plan for. South Coast Plaza which was discussed earlier. by Council Member. Erickson. i Ken Wayte, 1846 Samar. Drive, Costa Mesa, owner of an R2, 6,040 -square -foot parcel at 1856 Orange Avenue, felt it was unfair to limit him to one unit on his property since his would be the only parcel in the tract limited to R1 development. He also emphasized the financial burden it would create for. him. Craig Rothenberger., 2044 Pomona Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that his lot is 6,312 square feet, and to reduce development to one unit affects his family's net worth. He urged Council to allow him to maintain the existing development potential. Larry Weichman, 1565 Scenic Avenue, Costa Mesa, read a statement from his father, Earle Weichman, 1823 Humming- bird Drive, Costa Mesa, who was unable to attend the meeting. The letter. expresses Mr.. Weichman's opposition to the Alternative 2 version -of the General Plan which Council selected by straw vote. Mr.. Weichman wrote that the proposed plan will eliminate affordable housing and urged Council to consider the needs of all the people, and particularly affordable home ownership. The Mayor declared a recess at 8:30 p.m., and the meet- ing reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Joe Gates, 396 East 15th Street, Costa Mesa, requested Council to retain standards which would allow him to build two units on his R2 parcel, and agreed with the ;language proposed by staff on Page 2 of the Agenda Report which would permit him to do so. 1 David Burke, 2949 Ellesmere Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that he has operated a real estate brokerage firm in the City since 1972. He explained that his personal experience has been that it is very difficult to finance legal, nonconforming properties; also, that the proposal to allow only one unit on R2 lots under. 7,260 square feet will reduce the property value by $20,000.00 to $25,000.00. Fd John, 2239 Pacific Avenue, Costa Mesa, reported that the properties on both sides of his lot are developed as condominiums, and he opposed any new standard which would devaluate his property by prohibiting him from developing it according to existing standards. Mayor. Hornbuckle suggested polling the Council to obtain a consensus on the new language for. Policy 116 contained on Page 2 of the Agenda Report. Council Members Buffa, Erickson, and Hornbuckle indicated their support for the wording recommended by staff. Council Members Genis and Humphrey supported the policy; however., they both felt that if a neighborhood were predominantly -single-family, then only one unit should be allowed on the small R2 lots. Jane Abbott, 1768 Kenwood Place, Costa Mesa, reported that most of her neighborhood is single-family and she would like to have it remain that way. Charles Markel, 2851 Club House Road, Costa Mesa, stated that people want quality housing and this can be accomp- lished by allowing development of R2 lots, rather than by building large, high density projects. Carey Ward, 126 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, stated that the new standard actually down zones the smaller. R2 lots, and it was not fair. for. Council to reduce the values of citizens' properties. Cathie Murphy, 237 Knox Place, Costa Mesa, supported the original standard which would only allow one unit on R2 lots under. 7,260 square feet, her reason being to preserve the quality of life and neighborhoods in the City. She felt that the City's water supply could not support much more growth. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, 14860 Sunflower. Avenue, Santa Ana, asked for clarification of the proposed land use designation for his property, and the length of time it will take staff to develop a Specific Plan for. North. Costa Mesa. The Principal Planner responded that the northerly portion between Anton Boulevard and Sunflower. Avenue was designated High Density Residential with a special density range of 25 to 35 units per acre; the southerly portion between Anton Boulevard, the 55 Free- way, and Main Street was designated Urban Center. Commercial with a maximum FAR of .6 for office use and .5 for retail use. The Principal Planner. advised Mr.. Sakioka that a final, complete Citywide traffic model will be run when the final questions have been answered on some of the development assumptions. Discussion ensued regarding the length of time needed to develop the Specific Plan for. North Costa Mesa inas- much as there were several plans authorized by Council. The City Manager commented that Council would need to prioritize the Specific Plans; however., since some of the required data has already been accumulated for. North Costa Mesa, he felt it could be concluded within 232 12 months. Council Member. Buffa believed that the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan was a critical issue and must have first priority. Vice Mayor. Genis pointed out that State law allows only one year to adjust the zoning to conform to the General Plan; therefore, it would be difficult for staff to complete the zoning changes and have the Specific Plan completed in such a short time. Tom Christiansen, real estate broker., 1892 Orange Avenue, Costa Mesa, who spoke on behalf of several brokers and property owners, suggested that Council consider very carefully the ramifications that they may incur by devaluating these R2 properties. He recommended giving affected property owners a time frame in which they could pursue their, original intent for development, such as 12, 18, or. 24 months. Scott Williams, 3465 Santa Clara Circle, Costa Mesa, asked for clarification on the Metro Pointe property. The Principal Planner responded that in regard to the unvested Phase 4 of this project, the traffic model assumes the amount of development that was vested in Phases 2 and 3, and Alternative 2 recommends the office use FAR of .6. Janet Remington, 1164 Boise Way, Costa Mesa, blamed former. Councils for overdevelopment of the City. She agreed with allowing those owners with small R2 lots to build two units if their properties were located in neighborhoods which were predominantly developed multi -family. Shurl Curci, Transpacific Development Company, developer. of South Coast Metro Center., discussed the alternatives detailed in the Transpacific letter. dated February 26, 1992. He elaborated .on traffic generation data on Table "A" which was on with the letter.. Keith Hosfiel, owner. of ,property at 245 - 16th Place, Costa Mesa, stated that he purchased his property for retirement income and the zoning allowed for develop- ment of 10 units; five new units were constructed and he planned to build the remaining units when he could afford to do so. He stated that under the proposed standards, he would be limited to adding two units only and that would reduce the income he could derive from this property. Mr. Hosfield commented that adequate notification was not given to affected property owners. Herbert Smith, 3463 Windsor. Court, Costa Mesa, repre- senting Southern California College, 55 Fair. Drive, Costa Mesa, reported that for the past three years, modifications have been proposed for the college property adjacent to City Hall. He stated that until earlier in the day, he was unaware of the implications of the Floor. Area Ratio as it applies to I and R zoning, resulting in reducing the area of development which was planned for the property. Mayor. Hornbuckle suggested that Mr.. Smith contact the Principal and Senior. Planners who are working on the General Plan to discuss the development needs of the college. Ernest L. Kostlan, 106 Via Dijon, Newport Beach, owner of property at'2031-35 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa, was opposed to down zoning the property he purchased for. retirement income. Dick'Sherrick, 3146 Country Club Drive, Costa Mesa, referred to the special adjourned Council meeting held LJ on November. 20, 1991, at which time he pointed out that there would be 15,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) on Country Club Drive. He reported that this figure was taken from the Orange County Master. Plan of Arterial Highways and has been ignored in the EIR for. the General Plan. Mayor. Hornbuckle mentioned that Alternative 2 indicates an ADT of 10,000. The Mayor directed the Principal Planner to research this issue and provide a response. George Bedros, 284 - 16th Place, Costa Mesa, stated that he purchased his property for retirement income with the intention of constructing a triplex. He suggested that if Council intends to reduce allowable development to two units, it would be appropriate for. the City to compensate him for the loss. Marie Harris, 1549 Tustin Avenue, Costa Mesa, asked that Council give more thought to the standards proposed for. La-Perle Place and La Perle Lane, Tract 1175, because it would be a shame to deprive people of their retirement income. Craig Hampton, 2405 La Mesa Court, Costa Mesa, stated that it was commendable of Council to consider the change to Policy 116 which would allow these owners to develop their. R2 properties with two units; however., he believed there would be another group of people who own lots containing 9,000 to 11,000 square feet who will be asking to discuss the development of their, parcels. He felt that property owners should have been notified beforehand that the rules for developing their proper- ties had been changed. Ed John, 2239 Pacific Avenue, Costa Mesa, commented that he found out about the down zoning through an article in the Daily Pilot Newspaper. John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that it was unfair to the owners of small parcels to have their land devaluated and felt an equitable compromise could be found. Philip Larson, 243 Knox Street, Costa Mesa, was opposed to having his retirement plans altered by having his R2 property reduced to a one -unit development. Malcolm Ross, C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, spoke again and explained that a different method is used to calcu- late traffic generation for large retail centers because of the enclosed malls; that is, the malls do not gener- ate traffic but the stores do. Mayor. Hornbuckle closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa, seconded by Approved Policy Council Member. Erickson, and carried 5-0, approving 116 as Amended Policy 116 as modified on Page 2 of the Agenda Report dated February 25, 1992, regarding lots containing less than 7,260 square feet. Vice Mayor. Genis requested reexamination of those areas which are predominantly single-family development. MOTION/Approve ADT A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa approving for. Town Center staff's assumption of 4,158 Average Daily Trips for the and Metro Pointe two remaining vacant parcels, one in Town Center. and Vacant Parcels one at the Metro Pointe site. The motion was seconded by Council Member. Erickson. After. discussion, Council decided to take separate action for each location. AMENDED MOTION An amended motion was made by Council Member. Buffa, Adopted Master. Plan seconded by Council Member. Erickson, and carried 5-0, Land Uses for. Town to incorporate the Master. Plan -land uses for. Town Center. Center into the.General Plan. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Erickson, seconded Adopted .6 FAR by Mayor. Hornbuckle, approving a .6 FAR for. the Metro for. Metro Pointe Pointe vacant, unvested parcel. The motion carried Vacant Parcel 4-1, Vice Mayor. Genis voting no. Vice Mayor. Genis felt that the overall intensity would be too high. I Motion Setting FARs A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa to approve the for. Crystal Court existing .89 FAR for. Crystal Court with the assumption and South Coast of no future expansion, to approve either. a .7 FAR for. Plaza Died South Coast Plaza or the trip ends that were used in the assumptions contained in the present traffic model. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Erickson, seconded Adopted Language by Vice Mayor. Genis, and carried 5-0, approving the for. Subdivisions language contained on Page 5 of the Agenda Report relating to subdividing existing developments or projects and adding it to Pages 390 and 391 of the General Plan. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Erickson, seconded Approved Transfer. by Council Member. Buffa, and carried 5-0, adopting a of Development method to transfer development rights in the area east Rights of Harbor. Boulevard and north of the 405 Freeway, and limiting those rights to a one -mile radius. Bear. Street Council Member. Erickson mentioned that the Newport - School Site Mesa Unified School District was not pleased with the designation for. the Bear. Street School site. The City Manager reported that the Superintendent of the District is interested in retaining the existing Law Density Residential designation. Mayor. Hornbuckle directed staff to bring back additional data regarding this site. Transpacific Council Member. Buffa requested that Council discuss Development the Transpacific Development Company's alternatives Proposal contained in the letter. dated February 26, 1992. Mayor. Hornbuckle suggested considering the proposals at the continued public hearing on March 16, 1992. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 11:05 p.m., and the I eeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m. Council Member. Erickson commented that an additional 500,000 square feet would be required at South Coast Plaza to complete the plans for the bridge with shops and a department store, and according to his calcula- MOTION tions, that would equate to a .652 FAR. Council Member. Adopted .652 FAR Erickson made a motion, seconded by Council Member. at South Coast Plaza Buffa, to approve a .652 FAR for. South Coast Plaza, and and .89 FAR at .89 FAR for. Crystal Court with no future expansion. Crystal Court Vice Mayor. Genis stated that if these FARs were adopted, she -could not certify the EIR because she felt the traffic model would not reflect the traffic which would be generated. The motion carried 3-2, Council Members. Genis and Humphrey voting no. Mayor. Hornbuckle directed the Principal Planner to address the concerns of the Vice Mayor in consultation with the City's traffic consultants. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Erickson, seconded Adopted Language by Vice Mayor. Genis, and carried 5-0, approving the for. Subdivisions language contained on Page 5 of the Agenda Report relating to subdividing existing developments or projects and adding it to Pages 390 and 391 of the General Plan. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Erickson, seconded Approved Transfer. by Council Member. Buffa, and carried 5-0, adopting a of Development method to transfer development rights in the area east Rights of Harbor. Boulevard and north of the 405 Freeway, and limiting those rights to a one -mile radius. Bear. Street Council Member. Erickson mentioned that the Newport - School Site Mesa Unified School District was not pleased with the designation for. the Bear. Street School site. The City Manager reported that the Superintendent of the District is interested in retaining the existing Law Density Residential designation. Mayor. Hornbuckle directed staff to bring back additional data regarding this site. Transpacific Council Member. Buffa requested that Council discuss Development the Transpacific Development Company's alternatives Proposal contained in the letter. dated February 26, 1992. Mayor. Hornbuckle suggested considering the proposals at the continued public hearing on March 16, 1992. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 11:05 p.m., and the I eeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m. OLD BUSINESS The City Clerk presented Ordinance 92-5 for second read - Repealing Sensible ing and adoption. On motion by Council Member. Buffa, Growth and Traffic seconded by Council Member. Erickson, Ordinance 92-5, AN Code Sections ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTIONS 13-900, 13-901, 13-902, MOTION 13-903, 13-904 AND 13-905 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL Ordinance 92-5 CODE PERTAINING TO THE CITIZENS SENSIBLE GROWTH AND Adopted TRAFFIC CONTROL, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None OLD BUSINESS The City Clerk presented a recommendation from the Golf Construction of Course Committee to call for bids to construct golf cart Golf Cart Paths paths on all existing tees and green locations on the Los Lagos course. The City Manager referred to the Agenda Report dated February 21, 1992, and answered questions from Council. He reported that there are some cart paths which may have to be removed in a few years because if a private contractor were to take over the operation of the Costa Mesa Golf Course, he would be required to complete the Master. Plan for both courses. In reference to using the Green Acres Project reclaimed water for the golf course, the City Manager reported that it will.be necessary to retain an expert on the use of reclaimed water.. In conclusion, the City Manager stated that the money for improvements will be taken from the Golf Course Capital Improvement Fund. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa, seconded by Approved Council Member. Erickson, to proceed with construction Construction of of golf cart paths per. Council's decision of January 6, Golf Cart Paths 1992, and to pay for as much of the improvement as possible from the Enterprise Fund; and to proceed with the Green Acres reclaimed water project, directing staff to obtain more information on salinity of the water and particularly the cost to equip the golf course to accept reclaimed water and to retrofit the potable systems. AMENDED MOTION At the suggestion of Council Member. Erickson, Council Eliminate Areas Member. Buffa amended the motion by approving all golf Where Future cart paths leading up to and around those areas which Improvements are will be changed when the Master. Plan improvements take Planned place. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member. Erickson, and carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS The City Clerk presented a revised Cultural Arts Spend - Revised Cultural ing Agreement and a request from staff to use Section Arts Spending VIII, Organization Statistics, as the format for. the Agreement grant expenditure accounting form. The City Manager pointed out two key issues: (1) quarterly report requirements and year. -end financial reconciliation; and (2) an amendment which would require the applicants to submit adjustments to their programs in the event that funds are granted in an amount less than that which was originally proposed. Council Member. Buffa suggested an addition to the agree- ment indicating the percentage of the applicant's annual operating budget which the City grant represents. Mayor. Hornbuckle recommended that the second requirement on Page 16 of the agreement be changed to, "Position on the Board". Vice Mayor. Genis requested an addition to the agreement indicating the percentage of total revenues represented by Costa Mesa's grant. Keith Lewis, 205 Mayfair Lane, Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Civic Playhouse Board Member., commented that the City was overburdening the board with unnecessary paperwork. John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of applicants submitting specific information on expenditure of City cultural arts grants. Beverly Allen, 2326 Cornell Drive, Costa Mesa, reported that she has been treasurer for both the Costa Mesa Civic Playhouse and the Art League, and assured Council that the treasurer's reports have been very thorough. She preferred spending less money to hire someone to do the financial reports so more money could be used for programs. In response to Mayor. Hornbuckle's question regarding the financial report, the City Manager stated that the quarterly report is merely a summary and can be recon- ciled at the end of the year.. He added that the only audited financial statement required is at the end of the full year which then can be reconciled with the quarterly report. The City Manager pointed out that the level of detail required on the quarterly report is no different than that which the City has been requiring for the past several years from the volunteer charitable organizations. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member. Buffa, seconded by Approved Amended Council Member. Humphrey, and carried 5-0, approving the Spending Agreement suggested format for. the Cultural Arts Spending Agree - and Section VIII ment, including the changes recommended by Council; and Accounting Form approving use of the Section VIII accounting fore. CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney requested a closed session pursuant to REPORTS Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and 54956.9(c) to Request for. Closed discuss certain litigation: Koll-Irvine Property Owners Session Association v. County of Orange, Orange County Superior. Court Case No. 87-92-53; and Bergeron v. City of Costa Koll-Irvine; Mesa, Orange County Superior. Court Case No. 59-39-20. and Bergeron Mayor. Hornbuckle announced that closed session will be held after the close of regular. business. COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member. Humphrey requested that the appropriate COMMENTS agency remove graffiti fram the 405 Freeway sound wall dust past the 73 Freeway. He felt this has become a Graffiti on Freeway problem because the wall for the nearby housing devel- Sound Walls opment is in disrepair and has a space approximately two feet wide which is a perfect access to the sound wall. He asked staff to investigate that problem too. Vice Mayor. Genis mentioned that the sound wall at the south- bound exit from the San,Diego (405) Freeway at Harbor. Boulevard has a large hole and is in poor. condition. Freeway Signs for. Council Member. Humphrey asked staff to contact CALTRANS Fairgrounds recommending that freeway signs indicate that there is freeway access to the Orange County Fairgrounds.. Council Member. Buffa left the chambers briefly and returned at 11:45 p.m. 1990 General Plan Vice Mayor. Genis was concerned about making any addi- tional alterations to the 1990 General Plan as adopted -by straw vote during the General Plan meetings. Mayors and Council Mayor. Hornbuckle reminded Council that the Mayors and Members Institute 'Council Members Institute will be held May 13 through 15, 1992. I- I" C Staff Commended Mayor. Hornbuckle commended staff for outstanding work during the recent rain storms. Arbor. Day Mayor. Hornbuckle noted that Saturday, March 7, 1992, is Arbor. Day. Transportation Mayor. Hornbuckle announced that Council must decide when Commission applicants will be interviewed to fill one vacant seat Appointment on the Transportation Commission. She suggested holding a special meeting following the regular. Study Session on March 9, 1992. Since there were no objections from Council, the Mayor directed the City Manager to schedule interviews accordingly. Living Room Mayor. Hornbuckle reported that the Living Room Dialogues Dialogues will start March 24, 1992, and mentioned that a pamphlet addressing this project is available at City Hall and the libraries, and have been given to students to take home to their. parents. ADJOURNED TO At 11:50 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a CLOSED SESSION closed session in the first floor. Conference Room to discuss the Koll-Irvine and Bergeron lawsuits. MEETING RECONVENED At 12:25 a.m., the Mayor reconvened the meeting, and an announcement was made on the action taken during closed session. Koll-Irvine v. In the matter. of Koll-Irvine Property Owners Assoc. v. County of Orange County of Orange, Orange County Superior. Court Case No. 87-92-53, Council voted 5-0 directing staff to request information from the County of Orange and Snafuel on possible mitigation measures to minimize the threat of an explosion from the above -ground fuel tank farm at John Wayne Airport. Bergeron v. City The City Attorney presented the status report prepared of Costa Mesa, by the Assistant City Attorney dated February 26, 1992, et al. concerning Bergeron v. City of Costa Mesa, et al., Orange County Superior. Court Case No. 59-39-20. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. -)IUW Mayor of Pe City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of.Costa esa 237