Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/1992 - City Council431 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA SEPTEMBER '21, 1992 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in regular session September 21, 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 Doyle Henderson, Costa Mesa Nazarene Church. 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: None Officials Present: City Manager Allan Roeder City Attorney Thomas Kathe Deputy City Manager/Development Services Donald Lamm Public Services Director William Morris Finance Director Susan Temple City Clerk Eileen Phinney MINUTES On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member August 31, September Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the minutes of the special meeting of 8 and 14, 1992 August 31, 1992, the regular meeting of September 8, 1992, and the special meeting of September 14, 1992, were approved. ORDINANCES A motion was made by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, to read all ordinances by title only. ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Hornbuckle announced that several Agenda items were being Continued Items continued to future meetings, and one item was being withdrawn; thereafter, Council took action on these items. PUBLIC HEARING. On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Appeal of PA -92-64 Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, Public Hearing No. 5 was continued Tower Records/Video to October 5, 1992, at 6:30 p.m.: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Planning Action PA -92-64 from Ripley M. MOTION Howe, representing Tower Records/Video, 1726 Superior Avenue, Continued to Costa Mesa, for a sign variance to allow a change of copy on an October 5, 1992 existing nonconforming ground sign that exceeds allowable height (7 feet allowed, 25 feet proposed), and area requirements (15 square feet allowed, 75 square feet proposed), located at the above address in a Cl zone. Environmental Determination: Exempt. OLD BUSINESS On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council JPA with Sanitary Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, Old Business No. 1 was withdrawn: District Continued from the meeting of August 3, 1992, Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District for manage - MOTION ment of all solid waste in connection with Assembly Bill 939, and Withdrawn the Source Reduction and Recycling Element; and a resolution approving the JPA for the Costa Mesa Solid Waste Recycling and Disposal Authority. ,e432 OLD BUSINESS On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Bus Turnouts on Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, Old Business No. 2 was continued Baker Street to October 5, 1992, at 6:30 p.m.: Continued from the meeting of August 3, 1992, request from the Sommerset Citihomes Home - MOTION owners Association for further consideration of the proposed bus Continued to turnouts on Baker Street adjacent to their property. October 5, 1992 During Oral Communications, members of the homeowners associa- tion spoke in opposition to the bus turnouts: Joe Wilson, 911 Powell Court, who also submitted a petition containing 101 signatures of Sommerset Citihomes residents, opposing increased traffic lanes, and proposed bus turnouts on Baker Street in front of their community; George Grosek, 903 Hyde Court; and Marvin Gebler, 925 Powell Court. Mayor Hornbuckle advised Mr. Wilson that the Public Services Director would be in contact with the homeowners association. OLD BUSINESS On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council GPA for J. Ray ! Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, Old Business No. 3 was continued Development to October 5, 1992;, at 6:30 p.m.: Continued from the meeting of August 17, 1992, request from J. Ray Development, 2699 White MOTION/Continued ' Road, Suite 150, Irvine, to process a General Plan Amendment to October 5, 1992 1 (GPA) for a portion of the Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel property adjacent to 1262 Bristol Street (Acapulco Restaurant). NEW BUSINESS 1 On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Round Table Member Buffa, and carried 5-0, New Business No. 1 was continued Meetings ; to October 5, 1992, at 6:30 p.m.: Request from the Costa Mesa MOTION/Continued Chamber'of Commerce and Southern California Edison Company for to October 5, 1992 endorsement of business.round table meetings. PUBLIC HEARING On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Butler-O'Bryon SRO Member Erickson, and carried 4-0, Council Member Buffa abstaining, Public Hearing No. 2, a joint public hearing with the MOTION/Continued Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, to consider the Butler-O'Bryon to October 19, 1992 Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel at 2450 Newport Boulevard, was continued to October 19, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. ORAL COMMUNI- I Bil Garvin, 1092 San Pablo Circle, Costa Mesa, read findings made CATIONS by the City's Chief Building Inspector Victor Clift dated June 15, 1992, regarding accessibility standards for City Hall facilities which Accessibility ! states that the handicap parking at the front of the building is Standards incorrect, a violation of Section 7103(d) of the State Building Code; and the first and fifth floor restrooms are totally inaccessible. Mr. Garvin stated that these are violations of Federal and State standards. He also disagreed with a letter from the City Manager, and City Attorney's Report No. 92-27, regarding accessibility issues. The City Manager mentioned that various methods of dealing with the corrections and options are being investigated. Mr. Garvin asserted that the City has only 90 days to comply with State law and asked for a meeting with Council to discuss this issue since it is Council's responsibility to see that the corrections are made. Mayor Hornbuckle assured Mr. Garvin that Council will be addressing the accessibility standards. Mr. Garvin submitted a copy of "Retro- fitting Public Restrooms for Accessibility" prepared for the j California Department of Rehabilitation. Candidates Forum ! John Moorlach, 1055 El Camino Drive, Costa Mesa, thanked I Council Members Erickson and Genis for attending the candidates forum held one and a half weeks ago. He announced that the forum is being shown on Channel 61 on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. r not active. She asserted that gang -related crimes, including shootings, have been on the increase. Referring' to the recent meeting at the Police Substation on the west side, Ms. Davidson commented that an entirely different story was told from that which she originally heard, and police confirmed that there are gangs operating in the City. She urged Council not to cut back on police personnel and commended.the police for doing their best. On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, the remaining Consent Calendar items were approved in Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, was impressed with the dialogue between the police and the citizens during the recent meeting. at the west side Police Substation relating to gang activity in the City. Bike Trails Robert Graham, 2865 Chios Road, Costa Mesa, thanked Council Member Erickson for bicycling with him to examine the routes of the City's bike trails. Mr. Graham asked about the progress of the bike trail near_ : zthe Corporation Yard, and the City Attorney responded that the project is going quite well. Soffer Comments Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, commented that young people need an alternative to gang activities, and usually the best alternative is athletic activities. Mr. Soffer stated that he has not as yet received a report from the. City Manager regarding building permits for the Police Substation, and wanted to know what the City intended to do about the lack of permits. Considerable discussion ensued on whether or not the City complied with applicable codes. Mr. Soffer contended that it did not. Mr. Soffer alleged that the City is committing the same violation for which he was incarcerated. Mayor Hornbuckle asked the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a memo for Council and Mr. Soffer containing the information the City Attorney gave during discussion on the City's having met code requirements for the substation, an explanation of the violation for which Mr. Soffer was convicted, and the distinction between Mr. Soffer's case and the City's situation. Responding to a question from Vice Mayor Genis on legalizing an older structure, the City Attorney reported that Mr. Soffer was offered an option; however, Mr. Soffer refused to do anything. JPA with School After having taken action on the Consent Calendar items, Mike Board Dunn, 2755 Gannet Drive, Costa Mesa, was allowed to speak and he asked for an update on the proposed Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District for use of district sites for athletic fields. He reported that he was told that School Superintendent John Nicoll has the document but does not intend to deal with the matter at this time. Mr. Dunn urged Council to meet with the School Board on this issue. The City Manager stated that the Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Parkways Commission and his staff have been working with the School District to develop the fields, and he would investigate the status of the JPA. Mayor Hornbuckle reported that the School Board members with whom she has spoken were anxious to proceed with the project. CONSENT The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar: CALENDAR Item 2, Solicitation Permit for Teen Challenge of Southern California, Incorporated; Item 3, Set a public hearing for Rezone Petition R-92-04, for Planning Area No. 2; and Item 4, Warrant Resolution 1528, including Payroll 9218. On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, the remaining Consent Calendar items were approved in READING FOLDER Claims Public Utilities Commission REJECTED CLAIMS Alderfer Blackburn Genske Holland Killinger Martin Mejia Menza Nichols Ribeau Witte ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS Lease Agreement with Headstart Program MOTION Agreement Approved I one motion by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None i On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the following Reading Folder items were received and processed: Claims received by the City Clerk: James E. Garmon and Janet L. Garmon; and Peter Donald Maher III and Nora G. Maher. Notice that Southern California Gas Company filed its amended Application No. 92-03-038 with the California Public Utilities Commission requesting authority to begin a new Customer Gas Storage Program which will affect customer rates. i On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, and carried 5-0, claims from the following persons were rejected: Clara and Harold Alderfer (sewer line damage due to parkway tree roots). Dale Eugene Blackburn (vehicle damage due to roadway construction). „ Gary B. and Gregory B. Genske (vehicle damage due to flooded roadway). Edward J. Holland (vehicle damage due to roadway construc- tion). Keith E. Killinger (vehicle damage caused by pothole in road- way). Jeanne Martin (sewer line damage caused by parkway tree roots). Jorge Mejia (vehicle damage due to roadway construction). Peter J. Menza (vehicle damaged when struck by baseball). Pamela Nichols (vehicle damage due to pothole). i Stacey Ribeau (vehicle damage due to roadway construction). i Edward H. Witte ft: (expense incurred as a result of stolen vehicle). The Community. Services Director recommended approval of an agreement with the Head Start Program, for use of facilities at Rea Community Center; 661 Hamilton Street, from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, 'at the monthly rate of $968.00. On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, the agreement was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to sign on behalf of the City. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: fl J AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None Final Map for The Final Map was presented for Vesting Tract No. 14535, 16 lots, Vesting Tract 0.883 -acre, located at 2160-2172 College Avenue, for condominium No. 14535 purposes; Andrew Homes, Incorporated, developer, 4400 MacArthur Andrew Homes Boulevard, Suite 900, Newport Beach. On motion by Council Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, and MOTION carried 5-0, the map was approved; Council accepted on behalf of Map Approved the public the dedication of Victoria Street and College Avenue for street and highway purposes; also accepted on behalf of the City the easement for emergency and security vehicle ingress/egress over Lot "A"; approved said map pursuant to the provisions of Section 66436(a)(3)(A) of the Subdivision Map Act; and the City Clerk was authorized to sign'rythe map on behalf of the City. BUSINESS PERMIT Item 2.. on the Consent Calendar was presented: Notice of Intention Teen Challenge to Appeal or Solicit for Charitable Purpose from Teen Challenge of Southern. California, Incorporated, 5445 Chicago Avenue, Riverside, by soliciting funds from September 22, 1992, through September 22, 1993. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, asked whether it was necessary for Council to approve these solicitation permits, and the City Attorney responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Genis stated that a review of the ordinance may be in order, and the City MOTION Attorney stated that he will have a report ready within 30 days. On Permit Approved motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Member Erickson, and carried 5-0, the permit was approved pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9-127(d). SET FOR PUBLIC Item 3 on the Consent Calendar was presented: Set a public hearing HEARING for Rezone Petition R-92-04, City of Costa Mesa, to rezone certain parcels in Planning Area No. 2, to bring the zoning into R-92-04/City of conformance with the 1990 General Plan. Environmental Costa Mesa Determination: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1044 adopted for the 1990 General Plan. Vice Mayor Genis announced MOTION that she would be abstaining from voting on this item because of the Hearing Set for proximity of Area No. 2 to her home. On motion by Council October 5, 1992 Member Buffa, seconded by Council Member Erickson, and carried 4-0, Vice Mayor Genis abstaining, Rezone Petition R-92-04 was set for public hearing on October 5, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. WARRANTS Item 4 on the Consent Calendar was presented: Warrant Resolution 1528, including Payroll 9218. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa MOTION Mesa, suggested having the total amount of the warrant list shown Warrant 1528 on the Agenda. The City Manager stated that the total would be Approved listed for the next meeting. On motion by Council Member Erickson, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, Warrant Resolution 1528, including Payroll 9218, was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced that this was the time and place set for User Fees the public hearing for adjustment of user fees and charges for Fiscal Year 1992-93, and an ordinance establishing that fees and charges shall be adopted by resolution. The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the City Clerk's office. No communications were received. 435 The City Manager reported that the User Fee Schedule was reviewed at the Council Study Session of September 14, 1992, and there were many questions from Council and the public. He hoped to address these items and set forth the process for proposed modifications. He emphasized that the recommendations were not predicated upon the adopted State Budget; but are an update of the City's existing fee schedule for specific services. The City Manager pointed out that some fees have been raised substantially; however, this is a result of not having raised those fees for many years. In conclusion, he asked Council for their input on the fees with which they have concerns. The Finance Director; explained the method by which the fees were calculated, noting that the fees will generate approximately $1.5 j million in additional General Fund revenue.. The Director confirmed that the ordinance is, merely a housekeeping document stipulating that all fees will be adopted by resolution, and after first reading of the ordinance, adoption of the resolution will be done at the same time the ordinance is given second reading and adopted. Mayor Hornbuckle stated that Council desires to reduce the costs of services, and to provide staff with a list of those fees which are of concern. Responding to Council Member Erickson's inquiry, the Finance Director reviewed the Public Entertainment Permit fee of $2,285.00 as recommended by staff, and the alternative fee structure outlined in the Finance. Director's memorandum dated September 17, 1992, which is based on actual hourly costs of $40.00. She reported that the applicant will; be given an estimate of the time necessary to process the request,, with a total amount not to exceed $2,285.00. She also confirmed that the hourly rate method could probably be applied to other user fees. Vice Mayor Genis requested staff to make recommendations on. whether or not some of the processes for services can be eliminated or simplified, thereby reducing the fee. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, was definitely opposed to adopting the fees by resolution. He suggested that the City solicit input from the business community. Mr. Soffer felt there were better ways of raising revenue than by raising fees. Frank Cole, 2482 Fairview Way, Costa Mesa, contended that the proposed fees are a bargain in comparison to those charged in neigh- boring cities. He felt that the fees were not high enough. George Sakioka, Sakioka Farms, Incorporated, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana, stated that he did not hear the discussion on fees based on hourly rates. Council Member Erickson explained that he had asked that staff investigate capturing costs for other than the Public Entertainment:Permit fee based on actual hourly costs with a maximum fee limitation. Referring strictly to Planning issues, Mr. Sakioka reported that in other cities, and possibly the County, they charge on an hourly basis; but he felt a maximum fee should be established. Roy Pizarek, 1923 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, suggested that the City charge for police having to go back to the same house or apartment for various problems. Mayor Hornbuckle stated that his recommendation would be.considered. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Continue for 60 Days Council Member Buffa, to continue the public hearing for 60 days. The City Manager asked for conformation of that which should be 1 a rY 437 accomplished by staff in the interim: each Council Member will provide a list of those fees which they want reevaluated; identify major components of each of those fees, that is, explain the high cost of the service; examine opportunities for reducing the costs, for example, permits, etc., which require Commission or Council approval, but could possibly be handled at a staff level; have staff make comparisons with surrounding cities and keep the fees within that 'range; and looking at those services in which the City may be competing with the private sector, identify where that competition exists, and possibly do away with that service if the City cannot compete financially. Mayor Hornbuckle responded that he had addressed the major issues. Vice Mayor Genis requested further research into the type of fee suggested by Mr. Pizarek by amending the "loud party" ordinance. As for classes or. other activities which are also offered by the private sector, Vice Mayor Genis felt this should be investigated; however, she believed that there are several activities in the adult instructional classes that should be retained and possibly expanded, such as self defense classes. Discussion ensued about the possibility of adopting the new police fees as soon as possible and the remaining fees in 60 days; however, the majority of Council preferred adopting new fees at one time. AMENDED Council Member Humphrey amended his motion by giving first MOTION reading to Ordinance 92-16, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY Ordinance 92-16 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, Given First Reading; AMENDING SECTIONS 9-122, 9-129, 9-168, 9-186, 9-188, 9 - Public Hearing 235(d), 9-252, 9-255, 9-274, 11-160, 11-172, 13-743(1), 15-65, Continued to AND 2-450 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE November 16, 1992 RELATING TO EXISTING FEES; and continuing the public hearing for 60 days (November 16, .1992). The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced that this was the time and place set for Appeal from Duvall the public hearing to consider an appeal of the Transportation Hecht Regarding Commission's denial of a request from Duvall Y. Hecht, Books on Overnight Parking Tape, Incorporated, 729 Farad Street, Costa Mesa, to prohibit Prohibition on Ohms overnight parking on Farad Street and Ohms Way. The Affidavit of and Farad Mailing is on file in the City Clerk's office. Communications in opposition to the parking prohibition were received from Costa Mesa business people at 711 West 17th Street: Jim Rayburn, owner, Harbor Marine Canvas, Unit H-1; Chad Twichell, owner, T & T Limited,. Unit F-5; Nancy Fulton, owner, no company name given, Suite:. F-4; Treasurer Chris Myers, President Bill Liriberg, and Vice President Fred Gillett, Mesa Business Center Board of Directors, Suite G-10; and Michael Koegel, owner, Studio 49, Suite G-1. The Public Services Director summarized the Agenda Report dated September 11, 1992, and reported that in addition to denying the request, the Transportation Commission approved initiation of a 60 - day parking enforcement program, and directed staff to send correspondence to area occupants requesting their assistance in reporting parking violations. 4• 4 , A &.0 Duvall Hecht, Books on Tape, 729 Farad Street, Costa Mesa, stated that unattended vehicles left for long, periods contribute to the decline of an area and' are a magnet for predatory behavior. He referred to 11 letters in support of -his request from owners of properties on Ohms Way and. Farad Street which were submitted to the Transportation Commission, and reported that since that meeting, he has obtained an affidavit from another owner, Walker Smith, supporting the parking prohibition. Mr. Hecht also pointed out that those business ;.people at 711 West 17th Street who oppose the prohibition_ do not 'front on either Ohms Way or Farad Street. He submitted photographs of graffiti on vehicles and structures in the area. Mr. Hecht asserted that it is much harder to enforce the 72 -hour parking limitation than to enforce overnight parking prohibition, and noted several sections of the Agenda Report with which he disagreed. PUBLIC HEARING ! The City Clerk announced that this . was the time and place set for Council Review of !the public hearing for Council review of the Planning Commission's PA -90-55A iapproval of Planning Action PA -90-55A, Lars Andersen, Triangle Triangle Square (Square Joint Venture, 33161 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, for an -amendment to the Triangle Square Planned Signing Program for .the proposed "Niketown" signage that exceeds letter height requirements (28 inches allowed, 84 inches proposed), located at 1875-B Newport Boulevard in a PDC zone. Environ- mental Determination: Exempt. The Affidavit of Mailing is on file in the City Clerk's office. One communication in opposition to the request was received from Claudia Peterman, 132 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa. Council Member Humphrey suggested a change to the 72 -hour parking limitation law which would require the vehicle to be moved a further distance than:is now required. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Erickson referred to a suggestion made at the Transportation Commission meeting to prohibit parking for street sweeping, and asked if this could be done one time each week. The Public Services Director felt that. this could be accomplished, for example, one two-hour period each week, and reported that street I weeping for that area: is scheduled for Tuesday mornings. MOTION On motion by Council Member Erickson, seconded by Council Overnight Parking Member Humphrey, and carried 5-0, the request for overnight Prohibition Denied; parking prohibition was denied; initiation of a 60 -day parking No Parking for enforcement program was approved; staff was directed to mail Street Sweeping correspondence to area occupants requesting their assistance in Authorized reporting parking violations and to post "no parking" signs for street sweeping on Tuesdays between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. At the 'request of Council Member Humphrey, the Mayor directed the City Attorney and Public Services Director to investigate changing the 172 -hour parking limitation so that a vehicle must be moved a greater distance than that now required. After recess, the Mayor announced AMENDED that the hours designated for parking prohibition for street sweeping MOTION were not the correct hours and should have been from 5:00 a.m. to Changed Time for 7:00 a.m. Council Member Erickson amended his motion to reflect Street Sweeping the hours as stated by the Mayor. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Humphrey, and carried 5-0. RECESS ;The Mayor declared a recess at 8:40 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m. . PUBLIC HEARING ! The City Clerk announced that this . was the time and place set for Council Review of !the public hearing for Council review of the Planning Commission's PA -90-55A iapproval of Planning Action PA -90-55A, Lars Andersen, Triangle Triangle Square (Square Joint Venture, 33161 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, for an -amendment to the Triangle Square Planned Signing Program for .the proposed "Niketown" signage that exceeds letter height requirements (28 inches allowed, 84 inches proposed), located at 1875-B Newport Boulevard in a PDC zone. Environ- mental Determination: Exempt. The Affidavit of Mailing is on file in the City Clerk's office. One communication in opposition to the request was received from Claudia Peterman, 132 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services reviewed the Agenda Report dated 'September 10, 1992, and gave a slide presentation of the'proposed signs for the site. Vice Mayor Genis commented on her reason for requesting Council review of this application: the kind of precedent this might set for other projects in the area, specifically the 7 -foot high letters, and the fact that the overall sign. footage exceeds that which would be allowed by the Sign Code; and a major concern on this approval was that it seemed to be approved because of who the applicant was, as opposed to what the applicant was doing. Council Member Humphrey, who also requested Council to review the request, was primarily concerned with the implication to the existing Sign Ordinance, and that there are no appropriate findings to substantiate approval of this type of sign. Jerry Klein, Triangle $quare, 1875 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke about the importance of having Nike as a tenant, not only for Triangle Square, but for the rest of the downtown business commun- ity and the entire City. He believed the revenue generated by Nike would be significant. Mr. Klein explained that the letters will be recessed into the stucco exterior of the building, and he considered this design to be an architectural rather than a sign element. He emphasized that the letters are the same material, texture, and color as the rest of the building, and there is no lighting. Mr. Klein read a letter from. Bill Sebring, Design Architect for Triangle Square, supporting -the proposed signage. John Farnum, in charge of retail design for Nike, reported that the top area of the dome is recessed 8 inches, while the bottom portion is recessed 12 inches. He described the recessed areas housing a concealed light band which, at night, will wash the band into which the Niketown letters are. recessed so they cast a subtle shadow at night, similar to the appearance during daytime hours. Considerable discussion followed during which Mr. Farnum answered questions from Council. He explained that Nike views this project as serving a broad area of Orange County, not only Costa Mesa. Brian Theriot, 2005 Paloma Drive, Costa Mesa, who spoke earlier under Oral -Communications, thanked members of Triangle Square and the Redevelopment Agency for welcoming the Nike family to this Community. He reported that he spoke with Nike's Community Affairs Division and mentioned some of the community activities in which Nike is involved: boys and girls clubs, gang prevention programs, educational incentives for teachers who request educational materials from Nike, programs for at -risk youths, midnight basketball tournaments, a program providing representation for children in court, children's TV workshops, etc. Jean .Park, 789 Paularino Avenue, Costa Mesa, commented that she has seen many, many sign requests. rejected because they did not meet requirements of the sign ordinance, and asserted that if she were to ask for a sign which did not meet City Codes, it would definitely be denied. She felt that Council would be setting a precedent if they were to approve this request. Paul Brecht, 1989 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the proposal and commented that this part of town needs a boost in business. ,i 44 0. V _ Kurt Donat, 1592 Santa Ana Avenue, Costa Mesa, was of the opinion that this should be considered architecture rather than a sign. He urged Council to approve the application. Ed Fawcett, Executive Director, Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, 1835 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, read the letter he wrote on behalf of the Board of Directors in support of the request. He also read letters supporting the application from the Costa Mesa Downtown Merchants, Association, Post Office Box 5006-171, Costa Mesa; Pasta Mesa, 212 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa; and Highline Jewelers, 1836 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa. He submitted the letters to the City Clerk. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, was neither for nor against the sign; however, it was his opinion that approving the request would not set a precedent. Mark Korando, 582 Park Drive, Costa Mesa, rebutted the Planning Commission findings, stating that this sign will not make or break Niketown, nor will it'make or break the downtown businesses. He felt that approval of the sign would be a grant of special privilege, and noted that at the same meeting at which this sign was approved, another one was denied.. Mr. Korando pointed out that this sign more than doubles the allotted signage for the site. Kim Kasell, 3057 Yukon Avenue, Costa Mesa, owner of a sign company, commented that this is not a sign because she could not make it' in her shop, and contended that this is an architectural enhancement which must be done by construction workers who are not in the sign business. Mike Dunn, 2755 Gannett Drive, Costa Mesa, reported that he is a 'real estate broker, and to him, Niketown is a very fine capture for the City, and will definitely bring people to Costa Mesa. Jim Ferryman, 1095 Tulare Drive, Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, felt that Niketown would be a great addition to the City, stating that the City's fiscal problems could stand some rejuvenation. Sally Humphrey, 1620 Sandalwood Street, Costa Mesa, supported the 7 -foot sign as proposed; however, she was opposed to the blue and white "swoosh sign and the sign proposed for 19th Street and Newport Boulevard with 36 -inch letters imprinted into the plaster. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Genis asked if Nike would be agreeable to eliminating some of the other signage to reduce the total square footage. Mr. Farnum replied that it would halt construction and start all over again on the exterior of the building, and to do so would cause quite a delay in opening Niketown which is planned for April, 1993. The Vice Mayor mentioned that she and staff had previously asked for alternate. schemes for the building and building facades of other Niketowns. Mr. Farnum responded that her request had never been relayed to him. I Council Member Buffa empathized with Nike and felt that the design was very clever, especially the subtlety of the recessed letters. He questioned whether this was a sign at all, and it was his opinion that it was not; therefore, ,the Sign Ordinance did not apply. MOTION/Accepted A -motion was made by Council Member Buffa; seconded by Council Signing Program as Member Erickson,. to accept the Planned Signing Program as Presented and presented. Council Member Erickson's opinion was that this is a Amended the Findings sign and he asked for an amendment to the Planning Commission's findings on. Page 5A of the Agenda Report by deleting the words "and the tenant" in the first finding. Council Member Buffa agreed to that amendment to the. motion. Vice Mayor Genis mentioned that at the meeting at which the Planning Commission approved this request, another sign was denied,- and she felt it was important to be consistent. She asked: if "Niketown" is not a sign, what would lettering painted on the side of a building be considered. Substitute Motion Vice Mayor Genis. made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Amending Conditions Member Humphrey, amending the second sentence of Condition No. and Findings Failed 3 in Exhibit "B" o f-, the ' Agenda Report: "The 7 -foot letters are to to Carry be indented into the building no more than 2 inches (delete 3 inches) ... "; adding a condition that the band containing the "Niketown" lettering - be indented at' least 8 inches; adding the finding that the letters are an integral feature of the project and that this is not intended to set a. precedent inasmuch as this is a unique project; and retaining the amendment to the first finding as stated by Council Member Erickson. ` As to setting a precedent, Council Member Buffa commented that this is the only PDC -zoned site south of the San Diego Freeway. After further discussion, the substitute motion failed to carry 3-2, Council Members Hornbuckle, Buffa, and Erickson voting no. . AMENDED Vice Mayor Genis had some real concerns about the precedent - MOTION setting nature of this approval, and asked if Council Member Buffa Added a Finding would amend his motion by adding an additional finding: "The .lettering is an integral architectural feature of the building as opposed to a sign and this is not intended to be precedent -setting inasmuch as it is located in a PDC zone". Council Member Buffa agreed to add that finding to his motion, as well as the amended finding proposed by Council Member Erickson. Council Member Humphrey stated that although he supports increased business in the downtown area, he could not support this sign program. The amended motion carried 4-1, Council Member Humphrey voting no. Vice Mayor Genis requested a review of the City's Sign Ordinance for discussion at a future Study Session RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 10:35 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING The City Clerk announced that this was the time and place set for R-92-03 the public hearing for Rezone Petition R-92-03, City of Costa Mesa, City of Costa Mesa - to change the zoning of various properties located in Planning Areas 5 and 6 to be consistent with the 1990 General Plan. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report No. 1044 adopted for the 1990 General Plan. The Affidavit of Publication is on file in the City Clerk's office. No communications were received. The Deputy City Manager/Development Services summarized the Agenda Report dated. September 14, 1992, and gave a slide presentation showing the areas to be rezoned. The Agenda Report states that Site F, occupied by a new, commercial building, was the only site the Commissioners felt should be excluded from the rezone, and recommended a General Plan Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial. 2. MOTION Ordinance 92-17 Given First Reading Steven Grant, owner of the property at 3140 Bear Street (Site F), spoke in support of changing the land use designation of his property to commercial. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Member Erickson, Ordinance 92-17, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA NUMBERS FIVE AND SIX TO ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 1990 GENERAL PLAN AND AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED UNDER REZONE PETITION R-92-03, excluding Site F, was given first reading and passed to second reading by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None NEW BUSINESS The City Clerk presented a request to reappoint members to the Cable TV Committee Cable Television Committee. On motion by Council Member Erickson, seconded by Council Member Humphrey, and carried 5-0, MOTION Carl Bureman and Carl 7acober were reappointed to the committee. Bureman and 7acober Mayor Hornbuckle suggested that the next time staff advertises for Reappointed committee applicants, they should include alternates for the Cable Television Committee. NEW BUSINESS 'The City Clerk presented City Attorney's Report 92-58, Conflict of Conflict of ' Interest Code and a proposed ordinance amending Exhibit "A" of Interest Code Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-402. i The City Attorney reported that changes in positions and duties of City personnel necessitate amendments to Exhibit "A", Code Section 2-402, which contains the designated classifications required to file annual Conflict of Interest statements. He recommended that the j proposed ordinance submitted with his report be adopted to comply with Government Code Sections 87306 and 87306.5. He also advised that the remainder of the Code is consistent with the Conflict of Interest requirements of the California Political Reform Act. 'Vice Mayor Genis asked if the City's Conflict of Interest Code could be amended so that contributions for any campaign could be included. The City Attorney responded that it was his opinion that it would be in conflict with the Federal Election Laws; however, if Council adopted that type of restriction, it could be subject to challenge. Vice Mayor Genis requested the City Attorney to contact someone at the Federal level for -more information. MOTION On motion by Council Member Humphrey, seconded by Council Ordinance 92-18 Member Erickson, Ordinance 92-18, AN ORDINANCE OF THE Given First Reading !CITY COUNCIL OF THE -CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING EXHIBIT A TO COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2-402 RELATING TO THE CONFLICT .OF INTEREST- CODE, was given first reading and passed to second reading by the following'roll call- vote: AYES: Hornbuckle, Genis, Buffa, Humphrey, Erickson NOES: None ABSENT: None City of Costa Mesa Human Resources/Risk Management 2 Years Additional Service Credit (GC Section 20903) "Golden Handshake" Timeline - `April 16, 2009 – Requested packets for all three of our groups (Miscellaneous, Safety – Police and Safety – Fire). - April 23, 2009 – Received "Miscellaneous" group packet. - April 27, 2009 – Re -requested packets for "Safety – Police" and "Safety – Fire". May 21, 2009 – Received packet of materials required to amend our Safety contracts. G July 7, 2009 (CC Meeting) – Adoption of "Resolution of Intention to Amend Contract" CA_ -5_4 r and first reading of the Ordinance for Safety group(s). P C`'o5fok���v *Disclose -costs to provide Golden Hand`sh`ake for Safety groups (musfoccur 2 weeks prior to adopting ordinance) and Miscellaneous group (must occur 2 weeks prior to adopting resolution to grant another window). Authorize necessary Certifications (CON -12- Certification of Governing Body's Action, CON -12A – Certification that costs were disclosed, and Certification of Compliance with GC Section 20903 – Golden Handshake provisions) for Safety and Miscellaneous groups. *Note: Target date for Cost Estimate (from Finance Department) is June 17th. Agenda Report is due June 25tH August 4, 2009 (City Council Meeting) –Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance for Safety group(s). (There must be 20 days -between the option of Resolution of Intention and Adoption of the Ordinance, therefore, we cannot adopt at the second meeting in July). +' `�-r Cl Ad p on of Resolution to Grant another Period for Miscellaneous�ro - September 3, 2009 – Effective date of ORlinance (must take effect no less than 30 days after adoption. Caveat – "Urgency" language in the ordinance could waive the 30.day wait requirement.) - September 4, 2009 – Effective date of Contract Amendment (must be one day after effective day of ordinance) The Golden Handshake window may begin for Safety and Miscellaneous groups on September 4, 2009. Retirees may begin leaving for this benefit on.September 5, 2009 (retirees must retire one day into the window to qualify for this benefit). Note on font color: Miscellaneous group in black font Safety groups in red font 06/01/09 Oldeoj,4411 0 `V 4 3l CITY ATTORNEY The City . Attorney requested a closed session pursuant to REPORTS Government Code Sections 54956.9(a) and 54956.9(b)(1) to discuss Request for Closed the following items: Claim from Bernard Rubio; Joseph A. Session Rose/Robert E. Christie v. City of Costa Mesa, United States Rubio Claim; District Court Case No. CV -91-2584 WJR; and Claim from Harry Rose/Christy Lawsuit; S. Green, Incorporated, and Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club, Green Claim and City of Costa Mesa v. Harry S. Green, et al. Mayor Hornbuckle announced that closed session would be held after completion of regular business. CITY MANAGER The City Manager presented a lease agreement with Dean L. Dow, REPORT Dow Diversified, Incorporated, 1679 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa, Agreement with Dean for use of facilities at 1697 Placentia Avenue for the Costa Mesa Job Dow/Job Center Center, at the rate of $2,200.00 per month. The City Manager asserted that the additional $200.00 per month for lease of that property is not justified and requested authority to look for an alternate location and authority to finalize negotiations. He reported that the increased rent proposed by Mr. Dow would cost the City an additional $2,400.00 per year, and if Council were to approve the new lease, the money would have to be taken from either the Community Services Budget or the Council Contingency Fund. Council Member Erickson commented that lease rates all over this area and all over the country have gone down substantially, and he directed the Council's attention to Paragraph 20 of the Commercial Lease which states, "If the Tenant, with the Landlord's consent, remains in possession of the Premises after the expiration or termination of the term of this Lease, such possession by Tenant shall be deemed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at a rental in the amount of the last monthly rental plus all other charges payable hereunder, upon all the provisions of this Lease applicable to month- to-month tenancy". MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Erickson, seconded by Authorized Month- Council Member Humphrey, and carried 5-0, to remain in to -Month Tenancy possession of the premises on a month-to-month basis per Paragraph 20 of the Lease, to authorize the City Manager to meet with the property owner and advise him that the City is looking for alternative locations, and finding that a rate increase at this time is totally unjustified. COUNCIL Council Member Erickson reminded everyone of the event on COMMENTS September 27, 1992, at Lions Park, with music, dancing, and a Party at Lions Park volleyball game. Traffic Impacts in Council Member Erickson reported that Newport Beach City Newport Heights Councilwoman Evelyn Hart who met with him and Mayor and the East Side Hornbuckle several months ago, telephoned him last week to ask if Council would cooperate with her to resolve traffic problems on 15th Street, as well as the entire- east side and Newport Heights, because she felt . that Newport Heights was being very heavily impacted. Council Member -Erickson stated that he talked with Transportation Manager Peter Naghavi who said that he could draw up some definite ideas that could be implemented at little expense. Council Member Erickson felt it would be a good idea to meet again with Councilwoman Hart, and Mayor Hornbuckle requested the Public Services Director to arrange a meeting. Public Officials Council Member Humphrey spoke about the regulation which Conflict of Interest stipulatesthat if a Council Member were to vote on an application located within 2,500 feet of his home, and it changes the valuation 4 4 4 of his house by $10,000.00, that Council Member is in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code. He wanted to know how a determination is made . on whether or not an application may affect the value of his home; -. and how it is addressed in cities where elections are held by districts, such as the City of Newport Beach. He commented that to ' prove that the property value has been affected, an appraisal would be needed, and it was his understanding that the cost of the appraisal must be borne by the Council Member/public official. The City Attorney responded that it is a concern of many City Attorneys; some say the office holder pays, and others say the citizens pay. The City Attorney stated that a clear delineation has not been found yet, and this issue has been discussed many times -by City Attorneys at League of California Cities meetings. The City Manager stated that if Council wishes to have something done without trying to change State Law, he believed there were means of providing coverage within a certain range in order to protect Council Members in the event a challenge is raised. Vice Mayor Genis commented that she heard that the law only applies -if a project would increase an official's property value by $10,000.00. The City Attorney stated that it applies to an increase or decrease of $10,000.00 of the fair market value, or affects the rental value by $1,000.00 or more in a 12 -month period if the official is the owner of rental property. Handicap Access at Council Member Buffa reported that last weekend, when entering Farr's and the Farr's Stationers, 1170 West Baker Street, he met a wheelchair - Entire Shopping bound gentleman who was having difficulty opening the door. He Center asked the .Deputy City Manager/Development Services to contact Farr's and make them aware of the problem. Vice Mayor Genis reported that she has received complaints about other features of the center in which Farr's is located, including parking access. She asked staff to investigate. Aerospace Tax ; Vice Mayor Genis asked how the City will be affected by the Rebates Aerospace tax rebates. The City Manager estimated that the City's cost is less than $10,000.00 since Costa Mesa does- not have very many aerospace companies which were directly affected by the court decision. Increasing Council Vice Mayor Genis mentioned that not all Planning Commissioners and Planning were present, or able to vote, at the meeting at which the Niketown Commission to Seven sign was considered; and suggested the possibility of increasing the Members membership on the. Planning Commission and/or the Council to seven members which may alleviate the problem, including those times the members are on vacation. The City Attorney reported that he is already working on that issue. Town Hall Meeting to Mayor Hornbuckle announced that an appropriate date on which to Discuss Gangs hold a Town Hall meeting on gang activity in the City has not been determined as _yet, and since it 'is nearing election time, she felt it would be best to hold the Town Hall -meeting in November after the election so the gang;problem would not become an election issue. Police Personnel Mayor Hornbuckle spoke about the recent meeting held at the west side Police Substation, and noted that several people stated that Police personnel commented on manpower shortage. She stated that to her knowledge, there were no reductions in police positions, yet Council has never' received a request for increased manpower, except for two DUI officers which were to be funded by forfeiture funds which the City no longer receives. The City Manager stated 1 1 that he would provide Council with an updated report which indicates that the number of hours in the field has increased. He also commented that it is true that the Police Department would like to have many, more officers, but he was not sure that the City could afford it. Mayor Hornbuckle asked the City Manager to provide the report when it is available. ADJOURNMENT TO At 11:25 p.m.,'the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a closed session CLOSED SESSION in the first floor Conference. Room to discuss the items under the City Attorney Reports. The City Manager left the closed session at 11:50 p.m: MEETING Mayor Hornbuckle reconvened the meeting at 12:00 midnight, and RECONVENED the action taken in closed session was announced. Rubio Claim By a vote of 5-0, Council rejected the claim from Bernard Rubio. Rose/Christie . By a vote of 5-0, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the Lawsuit Joseph A. Rose/Robert E. Christie v. City of Costa Mesa lawsuit, United States District Court Case No. CV -91-2584 WJR, in a maximum amount specified by Council, waive any conflict of interest for individual defendant police officers/custodial officers, and agree 'to have the City pay any punitive damages. Green Claim In connection with the claim from Harry S. Green, Incorporated, and Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club; and City of Costa Mesa v. Harry S. Green, et al'., the following action was taken: By a vote of 5-0, the City Manager was authorized to settle all claims and lawsuits between the City and Harry S. Green, Incorporated; Harry S. Green, Tim Green,. and Jim Green, in an amount specified by Council plus rent due for August, 1992, and September 1-23, 1992, with such sum to be taken from the Golf Course Fund. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the 'meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. (, A6 _ Mayor 0 the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa sa