Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/2003 - City Council1 �I L REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA August 18, 2003 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in regular session August 18, 2003, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Monahan, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by the Mayor, and invocation by Pastor David Manne, Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Gary Monahan Mayor Pro Tem Chris Steel Council Member Libby Cowan Council Member Allan Mansoor Council Member Mike Scheafer Council Members Absent Officials Present: None City Manager Allan Roeder Acting City Attorney Tom Wood Development Services Director Don Lamm Public Services Director William Morris Administrative Services Director Steve Hayman Planning and Redevelopment Manager Mike Robinson Senior Planner Kimberly Brandt Deputy City Clerk Julie Folcik MINUTES/Regular On motion by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Member Meetings of July 7 and Cowan, and carried 5-0, the minutes of the regular meetings of July August 4, 2003 7 and August 4, 2003, were approved. ORDINANCES AND A motion was made by Council Member Cowan, seconded by RESOLUTIONS Mayor Pro Tem Steel, and carried 5-0, to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only. PRESENTATION Mayor Monahan thanked Kimberly Woods, who was in attendance, Outstanding Commit- and Stella Hacker, who was not in attendance, for their time, ideas, ment to Fairview Park and outstanding commitment in overseeing the annual events, Friend/Fundraising sponsored by the Fairview Park Friend/Fundraising Committee, and Committee presented them with Certificates of Appreciation. PROCLAMATION Mayor Monahan read a Proclamation regarding the 14th annual ARCO Kids Care Fair ARCO Kids Care Fair, being held on August 23, 2003, which is coordinated by Paularino Medical Plaza, offering free immunizations and health screenings to children and health education for families to promote a healthy start in life. City Manager The City Manager announced that a new follow-up report procedure Announcement has been established in response to concerns and requests expressed at the previous Council meeting. He explained the new procedure would result in a written summary of the follow-up and disposition of action taken for a specific concern/complaint made by a member of the public at a Council meeting. The summaries will be provided to the Council Members, the individuals expressing the concern, and made available in the agenda reading folder, to members of the public. i ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Monahan announced that due to the length of the public hearings on the agenda, he would be continuing the following items. MOTION/Continued On motion by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Member New Business Item Cowan, and carried 5-0, New Business Item No..2 Annual Review No.'s 2 and 3 No. 1 and first amendment to Segerstrom Home Ranch Development Agreement (DA -00-01); and New Business Item' No. 3, Park Encroachments at Fairview Park, were continued to the meeting of September 2, 2003. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dick Matherly, 1640 Newport Boulevard, No. 22, Costa Mesa, Talbert Park described his daily hikes through Talbert Park, and commented on the wildlife he sees and wondered why more of the community does not take advantage of the beauty of the park. Traffic Signal Installa- Anne Hogan-Shereshevsky, 2152 Elden Avenue, No. 1, Costa tion Mesa, expressed her appreciation of the installation of the traffic signal at Victoria Street and Maple Street; and questioned why the signal at Superior Avenue and 17th Street has three lanes that must Superior Avenue/17th turn left, instead of offering a lane that provides the option to either Street go straight or turn left. The Public Services Director reported that the option has been presented to CALTRANS, but that he has not, as yet. received a response. Ms. Hogan-Shereshevsky also requested that the City investigate how other cities in the county Fireworks raise money for fundraising efforts, without the sale of "safe and sane" fireworks; and reiterated her concern for the residents to be Mobile Home Parks evicted from EI Nido and Snug Harbor Mobile Home Parks. Trees On Myran Drive Tiny Hyder, 2156 Myran Drive, Costa Mesa, showed photographs of old growth trees located on Myran Drive, stating they are in jeopardy of removal by a developer who is the new owner of two parcels. Mayor Pro ,Tem Steel asked if there was a possibility that staff could speak to the developer regarding saving the trees. New Development on Pamela Frankel, 2166 Myran Drive, Costa Mesa, also presented Myran Drive pictures of the neighborhood and explained that the development planned for Myran Drive is to place two two-story homes on two single parcels in this neighborhood that is made up of single-family dwellings and pleaded with the Council that the ambience and uniqueness of her neighborhood not be taken away by the new development. 1901 Newport Judy Berry, 2064 Meadowview Lane, Costa Mesa, questioned the Boulevard Plaza City's consideration of the 1901 Newport Boulevard Plaza Project Project when it is twice the size of what is permitted within the City's General Plan. She also questioned the purpose of the plan when Conditional Use Permits are consistently being issued. Shade/Shadow Issue Robin Leffler, 3025 Samoa Place, Costa Mesa, commented on the standards threshold for shade and shadow that she felt should not be deemed appropriate for the City, suggesting that the City of Costa Mesa adopt its own standards by which to evaluate projects. Drain Problems on John Feeney, 1154 Dorset Lane, Costa Mesa, reminded Council of Dorset Lane a drain from the Mesa North Shopping Center that runs from the rear parking lot, and drains into his neighborhood, reportedly liquids, food waste, and chicken parts. Mr. Feeney informed the Council that he had previously requested that a screen be placed over the drain to eliminate this problem, but would now like to request the drain be closed off and rerouted. Mayor Monahan stated City staff would be following up on this problem and responding to Mr. Feeney as soon as possible. SARX Study Robert Graham, 3260 Dakota Avenue, Costa Mesa, showed a diagram from the SARX study that was approved by Council recently and noted that if the 19th Street bridge were eliminated from the Master Plan of Highways, traffic would increase dramatically on Bluff Road, and asked Council to reconsider a study of the 19th Street Bridge. Mobile Home Parks Dorothy Harmer, 1640 Newport Boulevard, No. 61, Costa Mesa, stated that the residents of EI Nido and Snug Harbor Mobile Home Parks would like to be treated fairly by the owner of the parks when they are offered compensation for their homes. 1901 Newport Tamar Goldmann, 2324 College Drive, Costa Mesa, expressed that Boulevard Plaza a full public hearing of the 1901 Newport Boulevard Plaza Project Project has not been held for the community to speak out about their concerns, and her hope that Council still believes their responsibility is to the citizens of the City of Costa Mesa. Millard Comments Martin Millard, 2973 Harbor Boulevard, No. 264, Costa Mesa, reported that there are over 200 chemicals released daily into the air on the Westside. He reiterated his belief that to rid the Westside of the pollution and odors from the industrial businesses the bluffs need to be rezoned residential as they are upwind of the rest of the City, that Whittier Elementary School has 585 kids breathing these carcinogens and demanded that something be done to clean up the air on the Westside. Mayor Monahan announced there would be a presentation by the AQMD at the next City Council Study Session on September 8, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. "Dyke March" Wendy Leece, 1804 Capetown Circle, Costa Mesa, stated that she attended the "Dyke March", and felt that it was like "having garbage dumped on her front lawn," she was surprised that the City would allow this type of behavior, and expressed it was sending the wrong message to children. Ms. Leece reported an incident where she witnessed men in the women's restroom and upon confronting them she was met with argument and obscene gestures. She asked that the City find a way to deny this request for the coming year. The Mayor confirmed that the Special Events and Street Closure Permit processes are being looked into. Davidson's Comments Janice Davidson, 1982 Arnold Avenue, Costa Mesa, thanked the Planning and Redevelopment Manager for his assistance with the Community Redevelopment Action Committee; asked that the City look into raising business license fees; and commented that the businesses located on the bluffs should be removed, and the area rezoned for residential. She expressed her appreciation of Mayor Pro Tem Steel attending the "National Night Out" sponsored by the Human Relations Committee. Mayor Monahan advised that Council would be considering raising the business license fees in the near future. Concerts in the Park Beth Refakes, 320 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, expressed her appreciation of the Recreation Department for providing the "Concerts in the Park" Series at Fairview Park, and stated how much she and others she knows have enjoyed them. She advised of the overgrowth and unsightliness of weeds on Newport Weed Overgrowth Boulevard, near Aaron Brothers, on 17th and Rochester Streets, as well as on Broadway and Fullerton Avenue. Ms. Refakes did not Rutter Development believe the City or its residents should be intimidated by Rutter Lawsuit Development and the lawsuit they have filed against the City. City Government Jeffrey Childs, 1139 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa,.expressed his belief that it is residents of Costa Mesa that are responsible for bad government commenting that "selfish short term thinking leads to bad government". He encouraged residents to speak up when there is a problem in the City. Senior Housing Sandy Johnson, 344 Cabrillo Street, Costa Mesa, expressed that she had contacted Casa Bella, which is a senior resident home, and they have a waiting list of five to six years, which will not help the residents of EI Nido and Snug Harbor Mobile Home Parks who are currently looking for a place to live. She felt that if the 1901 Newport Boulevard Project is approved, it should include senior housing. Redevelopment Paul Flanagan, 3090 Bali Circle, Costa Mesa, commented that he Agency felt that redevelopment was not working in the City of Costa Mesa, that it is draining monies from the City, and he was not seeing any improvements. CONSENT The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar: CALENDAR Item No. 13, alternate billing process for the Red Light Camera Enforcement Program; and Item No. 14, Contract for Shopping Cart Retrieval Services. MOTION/Approved On motion by Council Member Cowan, seconded by Mayor Pro Except Item Nos. 13 Tem Steel, and carried 5-0, the remaining Consent Calendar items and 14 were approved as recommended. READING FOLDER The following Reading Folder items were received and processed: Claims Claims received by the Deputy City Clerk: William Thomas Berry, Jr., Audrey Leong; and Sergio Ramos Sanchez. Public Utilities Southern California Gas Company filed an application requesting Commission approval of an equivalent rate to replace the Core Subscription Cost of gas rate that will be eliminated effective December 1, 2003. Follow-up Reports The following residents received follow-up reports from staff: From Staff Mike Berry, 2064 Meadow View Lane, Costa Mesa of the Westside Improvement Association, complained of the dirty bus benches throughout the City. Carolyn Harvey, 674-B Center Street, Costa Mesa, expressed concern regarding tree maintenance along Harbor Boulevard. WARRANTS The following warrants were approved: Approved Warrant Warrant Resolution 1965, funding Payroll No. 316 for 1965/Payroll No. 315A $2,019,427.97, Payroll No. 315A for negative $1380.69, and City and No. 316 operating expenses for $559,229.09, including payroll deductions. Approved Warrant Warrant Resolution 1966 funding City operating expenses for 1966 $1,869.930.84. ADMINISTRATIVE The amendment to an agreement with A.C.T. GIS, Inc., 19000 ACTIONS/Approved Grovewood Drive, Corona, was approved for $57,200.00, for Amendment to Agree- support services for the City's Geographic Information System, and ment with A.C.T. GIS, the City Manager and Deputy City Clerk were authorized to sign on Inc. behalf of the City. ._F Approved Amendment The following action was taken regarding the Amendment to the to the 800 MHz Joint 800 MHz Joint Agreement: Agreement The amendment to language in Section 15 and 19 of the Joint Powers Agreement for the implementation and operation of the Orange County 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communication System dated December 15, 1995 was approved. The amendment to the Joint Agreement for the Implementation and Operation of the Orange County 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communication System was approved, and the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk were authorized to sign on behalf of the City. Approved Addendum The addendum to the agreement with Carl Warren & Company, 750 to Agreement with Carl The City Drive, Suite 400, Orange, was approved for third party Warren & Company liability claims administration services, extending the contract for a three-year term beginning September 1, 2003, and the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk were authorized to sign on behalf of the City. Accepted Street Im- Street Improvements at 3420 Bristol Street were completed to the provements at 3420 satisfaction of the Public Services Director by Irish Construction, Bristol Street by Irish 2641 River Avenue, Rosemead, in connection with Encroachment Construction, PS01- Permit No. PS01-00604. The work was accepted, and the bonds 00604 were ordered exonerated. Accepted Street Im- Street Improvements at 3006 Harbor Boulevard were completed to provements at 3006 the satisfaction of the Public Services Director by Exxon Mobile Harbor Boulevard by Corporation, 3700 West 190th Street, Torrance, in connection with Exxon Mobile, PS02- Encroachment Permit No. PS02-00009 (PA -01-06). The work was 00009 (PA -01-06) accepted, and the bonds were ordered exonerated. Accepted Street Im Street Improvements at 3006 Harbor Boulevard were completed to provements at 3006 the satisfaction of the Public Services Director by Exxon Mobile Harbor Boulevard by Corporation, 3700 West 190th Street, Torrance, in connection with Exxon Mobile, PS02- Encroachment Permit No. PS02-00008 (PA -01-06). The work was 00008 (PA -01-06) accepted, and the bonds were ordered exonerated. Accepted Street and The street and highway easement on South Coast Drive and Harbor Highway Easement Boulevard granted to the City of Costa Mesa for 1475 South Coast at 1475 South Coast Drive (PA -99-34) was accepted, and the Mayor and Deputy City Drive (PA -99-34) Clerk were authorized to sign and record the easement deed on behalf of the City. Accepted Work for Construction of Concrete Park Monument Signs at Various Parks Construction of and the Costa Mesa Tennis Club, Project No. 02-09, was Concrete Monument completed to the satisfaction of the Public Services Director on May Signs, Project No. 27, 2003, by TFN Architectural -Signage, Inc., 3411 Lake Center 02-09, by TFN Drive, Santa Ana. The work was accepted; the Deputy City Clerk Architectural Signage was authorized to file a Notice of Completion; authorization was given to release retention monies 35 days thereafter; the Labor and Material Bond was ordered exonerated 7 months thereafter; and the Performance Bond was ordered exonerated 12 months thereafter. Accepted Work for Asbestos and Lead -Base Paint Removal and the Demolition and Asbestos and Lead- Disposal of Park Structures, Project No. 03-02, was completed to Base Paint Removal, the satisfaction of the Public Services Director on June 20, 2003, by Project 03-02, by J&G J & G Industries, Inc., 18627 Brookhurst Street, Suite 302, Fountain Industries, Inc. Valley. The work was accepted; the Deputy City Clerk was authorized to file a Notice of Completion; authorization was given to release retention monies 35 days thereafter; the Labor and Material Bond was ordered exonerated 7 months thereafter; and the Performance Bond was ordered exonerated 12 months thereafter. Approved Extension of The request from Anna Dolewski, Finance Department, Accounting Leave of Absence Division, was approved for an extension of a leave of absence to November 13, 2003. Approved Emergency The emergency purchase requisition for Underground Storage Tank Purchase Requisition (U.S.T.) upgrades and selected removals was approved. Alternate Billing Item No. 13 on the Consent Calendar was presented: Alternate Process for Red Light billing process for the Red Light Camera Enforcement Program. Al Camera Enforcement Morelli, 3412 Geranium Street, Costa Mesa, did not agree with the Program approval of the addendum, and instead suggested that three police officers be stationed at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue to issue tickets to the individuals running the red lights instead of utilizing the Red Light Cameras. MOTION/Approved On motion by Council Member Cowan, seconded by Mayor Pro Addendum with Nestor Tem Steel, and carried 5-0, Addendum Number Two to the Service Traffic Systems, Inc. Agreement with Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., 400 Massasoit' Avenue, Suite 200, East Providence, Rhode Island, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to sign on behalf of the City. Shopping Cart Item No. 14 on the Consent Calendar was presented: Shopping Retrieval Services Cart Retrieval Services: Award contract to Hernandez Cart Service, Inc., 1808 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, for $40,000.00, for shopping cart retrieval services through June 30, 2004. Budget Adjustment No. 04-013 in the amount of $40,000.00 to appropriate sufficient funding from the "Net Revenue Special Projects" account within the General Fund to cover the contract cost. Martin Millard, 2973 . Harbor Boulevard, No. 264, Costa Mesa, commented that enforcement by the police department should be the first priority; questioned if there was a company in the City of Costa Mesa that could be contracted with for the retrieval of shopping carts; and recommended that the cart retrieval system utilized by Smart and Final be used by other retailers in the City. Tiny Hyder, 2156 Myran Drive, Costa Mesa, stated she spoke to three of the local retailers who claim they currently have a retrieval service for their shopping carts, and she did not understand the need for this contract to be awarded. Mayor Monahan explained that the ordinance has a provision for the retailers who have a retrieval company, but that the retailer would be fined if their carts were found and collected. Ms. Hyder also disagreed with the contract being awarded to a company outside the City. The Mayor advised that the project was advertised, and there was not a company within Costa Mesa that bid on the project. Council Member Mansoor stated that he would not support the approval of the contract as the contract amount of $40,000.00 was not budgeted, but instead would be paid from "Net Revenue Special Projects", which is money that is to be used for infrastructure and one-time expenses, not long-term expenses. He believed the business owners should be responsible for keeping the shopping carts on their property; stating that it is not the City's responsibility to retrieve the carts; or to pay for the carts to be retrieved. 1 f] 1 Mayor Pro Tem Steel expressed he would not be supporting the award of this contract as it does not address the "heart of the problem." MOTION/Awarded On motion by Council Member Cowan, seconded by Council Contract to Hernandez Member Scheafer, and carried 3-2, Mayor Pro Tem Steel and Cart Service/Approved Council Member Mansoor voting no, the contract was awarded to Budget Adjustment Hernandez Cart Service, Inc., 1808 Lincoln Boulevard, Venice, for No. 04-013 $40,000.00, for shopping cart retrieval services through June 30, 2004; and the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk were authorized to sign on behalf of the City; and Budget Adjustment No. 04-013 was approved in the amount of $40,000.00 to appropriate sufficient funding from "Net Revenue/Special Projects" account within the General Fund to cover the contract cost. Council Member Cowan commented that shopping carts have long been an issue in the City of Costa Mesa and reported that the City had previously adopted an ordinance that also focused on keeping the carts off the streets, but the California Grocer's Association went to Sacramento and lobbied for a State Law that was passed which rendered the ordinance null and void. She advised that staff has worked diligently over the past couple of years along with the California Grocer's Association to put together an ordinance in which those businesses who have an effective system keep those systems in place, and those that do not can either sign up to be part of the City's system, or risk being fined by the City. Council Member Cowan continued that while there are some retailers in the City who make it a priority to keep their shopping carts off the streets, others have not and do not have an interest in having their own program. She stated that this is one way that Council can address an issue that has been ongoing, thought this was a step in the right direction and a program that would work. Council Member Mansoor stated that citations should be issued more diligently from the Police Department when there are shopping carts being taken off the retailer's property. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 7:45 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING The Deputy City Clerk announced the public hearing, continued Proposed Zoning from the meeting of July 14, 2003, proposed zoning overlay for Overlay for Residential residential Tract 1154, which is generally bounded bye East 19th Tract 1154 Street on the north, Irvine Avenue on the east, East 18 Street on the south, and Tustin Avenue on the west. Environmental Determination: Exempt. Communications were received from the following Costa Mesa residents: Margaret Lexzkowski, 471 Flower Street, supporting a single -story limit in the rear yard for Tract 1154; Bart and Charmaine Rosa, 422 East 18th Street, in support of an overlay zone; Susan Sampson, 487 Magnolia Street; in opposition of overlay zone option two; Christine Shingleton, 487 Magnolia Street, also in opposition of overlay zone option two; Matthew and Jessica Bodas, 418 Broadway, in opposition of the four -car parking requirement; John and Regina Cornucke, 423 Broadway, asking Council not to require four parking spaces for remodels; Brad and Danielle Barton, 458 Broadway, opposing additional building restrictions for Tract 1154; Thomas Riker, 436 Flower Street, opposed to larger and higher houses on the east side; Walter Richardson, 486 Broadway, supporting option two of the overlay zone proposal; Steven Sloan, 462 Flower Street, strongly opposing the overlay proposal; Barbara Beck, 443 Flower Street, supporting overlay zone option two, and submitting letters in support from the following individuals: Walter Richardson, 486 Broadway; James Caruthers, 448 Broadway; Harold Bailey, 423 Flower Street; Catherine Bailey, 423 Flower Street; Helen Riker, 436 Flower Street; Thomas Riker, 436 Flower Street; Frances Coleman, 487 Flower Street; Loretta Beach, 487 Flower Street; Norma Wildeboer, 481 Flower Street; Margaret Leczkowski, 471 Flower Street; Lucille Pratt, 416 Flower Street; Marcia Swanson, 471 Broadway; Richard Tradewell, 418 Magnolia Street; Jennifer Kelder, 459 Broadway; Victoria Eary; 477 Broadway; Betty Patch, 487 Broadway; Lisa Arcaira, 466 East 18th Street; Robert Temple, 429 Flower Street; Rena Weisshaar, 459 Magnolia Avenue; Gary James, 481 Magnolia Street; Chiyo Matsubayashi, 408 Magnolia Street; Michael Hutchins, 408 Magnolia Street; and Wendell Mayberry, 414 Bernard Street. The Senior Planner reviewed the Agenda Report dated August 7, 2003, and responded to questions from Council. Jeff Zahedi, 429 Broadway, Costa Mesa, commented that he was opposed to an overlay zone for Tract 1154, and felt that Council was asking the residents of Tract 1154 to "jump through hoops" in order to improve their properties. He agreed that there should be guidelines for every resident in the City, not just Tract 1154. Robin Leffler, 3025 Samoa Place, Costa Mesa, commented that Tract 1154, as well as other tracts on the eastside with alley access homes, have a uniqueness that adds character to the City and needs to be preserved. John Cornucke, 423 Broadway, Costa Mesa, advised that he is opposed to an overlay zone for Tract 1154, and would like to keep the integrity of the neighborhood, but would like to maintain the ability to add on to his property within the guidelines set by the City. Martin Taylor, 433 Broadway, Costa Mesa, indicated that putting restrictions on remodeling in Tract 1154 would lower the property value for the residents and make the property more difficult to sell in the future. Brad Barton, 458 Broadway, Costa Mesa, expressed his opposition to an overlay zone for Tract 1154. Anne Gifford, 412 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, advised that the residential design guidelines would address the concerns of the residents of Tract 1154 and expressed her opposition to an overlay zone. Lee Rogaliter, 412 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, urged Council not to adopt an overlay zone, stating he felt that all four proposals.for the overlay zone forces building to the front of the lot, though keeping the rear of the lot as open space, and that it would .produce the opposite of the desired effect and the look of "mansionization." Steven Dewan, 439 Broadway, Costa Mesa, commented that the community is diverse in its homes, and in its people, and felt that the proposed overlay zone is an ill-conceived attempt at limiting property rights, that it would be a bad land use policy and described it as arbitrary and inflexible. Mr. Dewan advised that he could not -, 291 find another City that has an overlay that penalizes two-story, alley access homes. Lori McDonald, 284 Walnut Street, Costa Mesa, reported that she is concerned as the City continues to weaken Title 13 thereby reducing the R1 character with an "ever -widening building envelope." She felt that the Tract 1154 residents are dealing with privacy invasion in their backyards, and the threat of "big boxes" that would be "sneaky fresh air stealers" blocking fresh air and oxygen. Barbara Beck, 443 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, reported that Tract 1154 was built in 1947 as a "cookie cutter" tract, and CC&R's protected the backyards for many years, but expired in the 1970's. She indicated that no two houses are the same, reporting that 90 percent of the 140 homes still have traditional backyards, 87 percent are one-story, 96 percent are original or have been acceptably expanded or rebuilt over the past 50 years. Ms. Beck advised that in recent years a few "huge" projects have been built, showing the new trend. She asked the City to stop the upcoming "domino effect" that will wipe out the neighborhood. Andrew Hartzell, 440 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, revealed that he is not a resident of Tract 1154, but advised that individuals living in alley -access homes have the alley as an extra buffer between their backyard and their neighbors. He opposed the overlay zone for Tract 1154. Anne Jordan, 452 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, concurred with Mr. Hartzell's comments, and asked Council to consider the rights of all of the residents of Tract 1154, not just the ones who have been the most vocal on this issue over the past year. She felt that Council should not approve an overlay zone. Michael Hutchins, 408 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, commented that the City has recognized the importance of open space and privacy in the backyard, and those characteristics have been protected, except for alley -access lots, by way of setbacks. He commented that a rear alley does not provide the same protection as non -alley loaded lots due to setback, and added that with an alley there is traffic in the rear of the lot as opposed to the quiet space without a rear alley. He stated the residents of Tract 1154 are not asking for special protection, but simply the same protection as the rest of the lots in the City. Lucille Kring, 1619 Lorane Way, Anaheim, felt that the residents of Tract 1154 who want an overlay zone seem to agree that option two in the Agenda Report would be the most reasonable compromise for all concerned, but noted that some privacy would be given up by the residents. Lance Moore, 438 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, opposed an overlay zone, and asked that Council give the property owner the right to choose regarding the location of the second story element. Beth Refakes, 320 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, commented that some protection is needed for the residents from the large "box style" homes that are being built that are taking away the privacy and open space of their neighbors. She thought that any overlay should include all alley -access tracts, not only Tract 1154, as they have similar characteristics. Ms. Refakes agreed that the best alternative was option two in the Agenda Report. Steve Sloan, 462 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, read a letter he wrote and presented to Council that outlined his many objections to the overlay zone. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Mayor Pro Tem Steel, the Acting City Attorney advised that the City Attorney's office has not yet studied the possibility of adding the language of..."with the consent of your immediate neighbors"... as a condition of approval in the zoning code requirements, or residential design guidelines. Council Member Mansoor expressed his appreciation of staff and the public who have expended much effort into analyzing the proposed overlay zone. He reported that he had driven around the eastside, and found that there are many additions in the front, rear, and side yards that are attractive. He felt that the zoning overlay is a "one size fits all" approach; that it would encompass homes that would not benefit due to the side of the street they are located on, and that it does not fully address the problem. He therefore commented that he would not support an overlay zone. Council Member Cowan commented she would not support a motion to approve the Planning Commissions recommendation until the Residential Design Guidelines and the Residential Development Standards, to be discussed later in the meeting, included some provision to protect views and open space that she felt an overlay zone would provide. Mayor Pro Tem Steel also expressed his opposition to a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation agreeing with comments made by Council Member Cowan, and further expressed support for option two in the staff report. MOTION/Zoning A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Overlay not Adopted Member Scheafer, and carried 3-2, Mayor Pro Tem Steel and for Residential Tract Council Member Cowan voting no, to approve the Planning 1154 Commission's recommendation that a zoning overlay not be adopted for residential Tract 1154. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 9:35 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING It was unanimously agreed that Public Hearings No. 2 and No. 3 Residential Design would be heard concurrently. Guidelines The Deputy City Clerk announced the public hearing, continued from the meeting of July 14, 2003, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, amending the City of Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines, including, but not limited to, view preservation guidelines. Environmental Determination: Exempt. Communications were received from the following Costa Mesa residents: Julie O'Neill, no street address given, supporting view protection; Geri Cicero, 1147 Aviemore Terrace, opposing a view ordinance; Robert Wilson, 3435 Plumeria Place, supporting view preservation; John and Debbie Clark, 1167 Aviemore Terrace, submitted a current petition with 84 signatures opposing a view preservation ordinance; Virginia Colwell, 1111 Aviemore Terrace, opposed to a view preservation ordinance; Ciaran O'Connor, 2020 Continental Avenue, supporting the proposed view preservation 1 The Senior Planner and the Planning and Redevelopment Manager reviewed the Agenda Reports dated August 7, 2003, and responded to questions from Council. Paul Flanagan, 3090 Bali Circle, Costa Mesa, expressed his opposition to view preservation reading from Article V of the United States Constitution, as well as the 14th Amendment, and pointed out that the views to be preserved, as proposed in Title 13, Section 11, are for private views, not public views, and commented that guidelines should be set for everyone, not a select few. Vicki Muhonen, 1023 Linden Place, Cost Mesa, opposed view preservation for individuals where a view never existed, and those who were never intended to have a view. She expressed her support for Alternative No. 2 in the Agenda Report and felt that Council did not have the right to keep individuals from improving their properties. Steven VanWagoner, 1009 Grove Place, Costa Mesa, felt that the current Residential Design Guidelines fights progression by limiting structure size and design to existing structures, ensures no potential for growth, and lacks diversity. Mr. VanWagoner commented that currently his residence is included in the view preservation area, although due to Eucalyptus trees, a view is nonexistent. Carey Read, 1009 Grove Place, Costa Mesa, asked Council not to include the Freedom Homes tract in the view preservation area because it is an un -terraced neighborhood, explaining that the homes within this tract are on level land and were never designed to be view homes. Ms. Read indicated that she purchased her home with the understanding that she would be able to remodel it without restrictions from the City. She otherwise expressed concern of the overhead power lines that are located to the rear of her property as obstructing clear view of the sky... Gary Handova, 2052 Valley Road, Costa Mesa, displayed a map of his neighborhood, and stated that "some residents were being discriminated against to the detriment of others," asking that the same consideration be given to him that was given to his neighbors in the past for remodels. He also showed photographs of his neighbor's home that is two-story, and partially blocks the view of another neighbor who also has a two-story home. Willard Chilcott, 167 Rochester Street, Costa Mesa, felt that the way to attract families, and builders to the Westside of Costa Mesa guidelines for Marina Highlands; Dick Woodworth, 1111 Aviemore Terrace, opposing a view preservation ordinance; Robert Reeder, 1127 and 1131 Aviemore Terrace, clarifying information previously received by Council, and opposing a view preservation ordinance; Christine O'Connor, 1128 Gleneagles Terrace, introducing the history of the Marina Highlands Development, and supporting the adoption of view preservation guidelines; and Robert Wine, 1933 Republic Avenue, expressing his confusion over the proposed view PUBLIC HEARING preservation areas. The Deputy City Clerk announced that this is the time and place for Title 13 Amendments the public hearing to consider an ordinance of the City Council of Residential Develop- the City of Costa Mesa amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa ment Standards Municipal Code relating to Residential Development Standards and review procedures. Environmental Determination: Exempt. The Affidavit of Publishing is on file in the City Clerk's Office. The Senior Planner and the Planning and Redevelopment Manager reviewed the Agenda Reports dated August 7, 2003, and responded to questions from Council. Paul Flanagan, 3090 Bali Circle, Costa Mesa, expressed his opposition to view preservation reading from Article V of the United States Constitution, as well as the 14th Amendment, and pointed out that the views to be preserved, as proposed in Title 13, Section 11, are for private views, not public views, and commented that guidelines should be set for everyone, not a select few. Vicki Muhonen, 1023 Linden Place, Cost Mesa, opposed view preservation for individuals where a view never existed, and those who were never intended to have a view. She expressed her support for Alternative No. 2 in the Agenda Report and felt that Council did not have the right to keep individuals from improving their properties. Steven VanWagoner, 1009 Grove Place, Costa Mesa, felt that the current Residential Design Guidelines fights progression by limiting structure size and design to existing structures, ensures no potential for growth, and lacks diversity. Mr. VanWagoner commented that currently his residence is included in the view preservation area, although due to Eucalyptus trees, a view is nonexistent. Carey Read, 1009 Grove Place, Costa Mesa, asked Council not to include the Freedom Homes tract in the view preservation area because it is an un -terraced neighborhood, explaining that the homes within this tract are on level land and were never designed to be view homes. Ms. Read indicated that she purchased her home with the understanding that she would be able to remodel it without restrictions from the City. She otherwise expressed concern of the overhead power lines that are located to the rear of her property as obstructing clear view of the sky... Gary Handova, 2052 Valley Road, Costa Mesa, displayed a map of his neighborhood, and stated that "some residents were being discriminated against to the detriment of others," asking that the same consideration be given to him that was given to his neighbors in the past for remodels. He also showed photographs of his neighbor's home that is two-story, and partially blocks the view of another neighbor who also has a two-story home. Willard Chilcott, 167 Rochester Street, Costa Mesa, felt that the way to attract families, and builders to the Westside of Costa Mesa was to keep the integrity of the design guidelines, and stated that once the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and the Development Guidelines are "tinkered with" on a piecemeal basis the integrity is forfeited. He illustrated his point by giving examples of view preservation ordinances, zoning overlays, excess density exceptions, and proposed changes to development standards. Henry Hernandez, no street address given, opposed the view preservation for the Freedom Homes tract and commented that they are on level ground and none of his neighbors would be affected by second -story additions. He revealed that as an investor in his home, he would not like to be restricted from improving his home to increase its value. David Muhonen, no street address given, commented that there are trees planted in Canyon Park directly in front of the homes in the Freedom Homes Tract that block any possibility of a view, and opposed view preservation for this tract. Glen Davidson, 2009 Republic Avenue, Costa Mesa, agreed that the Freedom Homes Tract should not be part of the view preservation, and presented photographs and a map to illustrate his opinion. Barbara Beck, 443 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, asked that Council not allow a minor modification to take two-story additions to 29.7 feet as it would constitute a 45 percent loss of view when a second - story is erected causing loss of light and air. She indicated that parking is a problem, felt that there was a need for more off street parking, and that alley -access homes are being "discriminated against" by only requiring three parking spaces as opposed to residents with four. She believed that 50 percent thresholds should not be adopted and given over the counter approval, that it provides no protection for backyards of alley -access homes, and felt that minor design review with notification is the only way neighbors have to defend themselves from encroachment. Ms. Beck felt that supporting the .65 FAR would reduce the problems of scale and mass, but would not solve the problem of backyards being turned into "racquetball courts." She asked that "harmonious and compatible" not be removed as it has protected residents from neighbors who would maximize size, and sell their home at a profit. Robin Leffler, 3025 Samoa Place, Costa Mesa, commented that the current zoning code needs further revisions to help preserve and protect the unique characteristics of the residential neighborhoods. She did not agree that a "one size fits all" standard is right for the City, and thought that neighborhood notification was an important aspect of the review process and should be preserved. Ms. Leffler supported the side setback provisions and felt that it would prevent "shoulder to shoulder' urbanization and protect the neighbor's light, air, and privacy. Paula Litten, 1161 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, thanked Council for including view preservation in the proposed Residential Design Guidelines, and agreed that the Freedom Homes Tract should not have been included since they are not terraced lots. She supported alternative two in the view preservation guidelines where only the Marina Highlands Tract would have view protection. Ms. Litten did not agree that "harmonious and compatible" should be removed from the guidelines, and urged Council to continue to require the use of story poles. Lucille Kring, 1619.Lorane Way, Anaheim, recognized the positive benefits of streamlining the review process and felt that retention of the minor design review, with input from the neighbors, would protect property owner's interests. Gail Hall, 1147 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, supported the inclusion of the Marina Highlands tract as part of the view preservation area, and of exempting the homes that do not apply. She did however feel that the "gray" areas in the view preservation guidelines needed to be clarified. Stephanie Hernandez, 1023 Linden Place, Costa Mesa, advised that she is to inherit her grandmother's home and would like her future family to be able to enjoy the view and the open space in the backyard. Ms. Hernandez stated that she would like to be able to add a second story, and urged Council not to place building restrictions on the Freedom Homes tract. Steven Dewan, 439 Broadway, Costa Mesa, believed that two-story additions should be reviewed and discussed by all parties who could be impacted and felt that alley -access homes should not have an additional parking space requirement. Rory Hughes, 2010 and 2013 Republic Avenue, Costa Mesa, felt that all residents impacted by a view preservation ordinance should be noticed at to the intent. Mr. Hughes supported Option Two in the Agenda Report. Steve Sloan, 462 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, reviewed the letter he sent to Council: supporting the immediate/adjacent neighbor notification for all second -story additions; that Council review the architectural styles that are "boxy" in nature, and asked that plane breaks and varied forms not be required as long as they are "tastefully" done; he requested Council look at the definition of a "bedroom", and felt that additional parking spaces should not be required for the addition of a "hobby" room, a "music" room, a "recreation" room, or a "family" room. Mr. Sloan proposed that under the current Residential Design Guidelines a 300 -foot notification requirement should be adequate. He was confused about the maximum FAR guideline, and requested clarification. Marilyn Douglass, 1149 Sea Bluff Drive, Costa Mesa, thanked staff for their time and effort in putting together the view preservation ordinance, as well as the proposed changes to the Residential Design Guidelines. She felt that the community should respect their neighbors when considering an addition to their home. Ms. Douglass read from the original sales brochure for the Marina Highlands tract that boasted the view of the Pacific Ocean. Terry Douglass, 1149 Sea Bluff Drive, Costa Mesa, disagreed with reducing the notification requirement from 500 -feet under the Residential Design Guidelines. Mr. Douglass addressed the proposed view preservation guidelines and stated that of all 62 homes on the perimeter of Canyon Park, included in the proposed view preservation area, fifty homes do not have an ocean view. Sid Thompson, 1174 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, read a letter in support of the view preservation guidelines from Mr. and Mrs. Paul Abels, 1160 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, and thanked the Planning Commission for their recommendations. a r� Lori McDonald, 284 Walnut Street, Costa Mesa, expressed her concern regarding a potential conflict of interest Mayor Monahan might have with some of the issues being addressed due to his current construction plans, and asked him to abstain from voting. Brad Barton, 458 Broadway, Costa Mesa, supported limiting the open parking space requirement to two, as opposed to four. Geraldine Colson, 1143 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, expressed her support of the view preservation guidelines, and asked Council to adopt the ordinance. Beth Refakes, 320 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, commented that there were a lot of improvements being proposed in the Residential Design Guidelines, but requested that there be a notification requirement for second -story additions especially for alley -access homes, as well as the retention of an existing driveway for homes that have alley -access. She thought that this would alleviate some of the .parking problems on the eastside. Ms. Refakes agreed that more notification should be required for a remodel, and that "harmonious and compatible" should be retained to uphold the look and characteristics of the older neighborhoods. An unidentified speaker expressed that the view preservation guidelines would be: helpful in preventing court cases, and neighborhood misunderstandings and encouraged Council to adopt the ordinance. Michael Hutchins, 408 Magnolia Street, Costa Mesa, reiterated that second -story additions to alley -access homes should require neighbor notification, as well as the requirement to remove their driveways be eliminated. Nancy Dunton, 1136 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, expressed that she is in favor of the view preservation guidelines asking that the ocean view be preserved. Andrew Hartzell, 440 East 19th Street, Costa Mesa, encouraged the change for alley -access homes to have three parking spaces as opposed to two or four, and thought that some of the changes proposed for Tract 1154 could be included by Council in the Residential Design Guidelines. Virginia Colwell, 1111 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, commented that the homes on Aviemore Terrace are between 1400 and 1600 square feet and felt that the owners' rights to add-on to their home should not be taken away, and negatively impact property values. Robert Reeder, 1127 and 1131 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, advised that he has been a resident of Costa Mesa for 27 years. He showed photographs of Gleneagles Terrace where a second - story addition was built but did not block the ocean view of other residents. Mr. Reeder reiterated his opposition to view preservation for Aviemore Terrace. Alan Hall, 1147 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, reported that he is currently completing an extensive remodeling of his home, and that, due to a good architect, he was able to maximize his lot to 2500 square feet without the addition of a second -story. Jeffrey Childs, 1139 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa, felt that view preservation was not an issue and considered it "over regulation". There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearings. Mayor Pro Tem Steel commented that relative to the establishing of the view preservation area he had interest in including only the Gleneagles Terrace and he would support the exclusion of the Freedom Homes, California Seabreeze and Marina View. He continued that notification should be made, even on small modifications, to neighbors that might be immediately impacted by the modification, and agreed with reducing the proposed parking requirement to three parking spaces. Mayor Monahan confirmed with staff regarding the qualifications and noticing requirements for Minor Design Review. He expressed his concern that while he didn't agree with notification requirement of residents within 500 feet for all modifications, as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Steel that do not meet the Minor Design Review qualifications, that he did support some 'kind of notification of the neighbors that share a common property line and therefore would be immediately impacted. Staff confirmed that a "courtesy notice" could be made a requirement and the Acting City Attorney clarified that determination would need to be made and specified in the process regarding the ability to appeal by those residents notified by the "courtesy notice." Council Member Cowan felt that the neighbor(s) across the street should also receive the "courtesy notice." She stated that she did not support the concept of view preservation guidelines and procedures but rather supported a compromise and felt that the noticing requirement could address the concerns. Mayor Monahan thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their hard work on the Residential Design Guidelines. He stated that he supported the second -story to first -story percentage in the thresholds. He explained when the ordinance was submitted to the Planning Commission there were no thresholds, which added a considerable amount of time and cost to the process. He advised that he had concerns with the Residential Design Guidelines with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and its use for residential development and how it relates to the open space requirement and allowable building space and felt that requirements for setbacks and the thresholds would not contribute to "mansionization." He pointed out that in commercial development different uses have different FAR limits, and are mainly connected to such things as trip fees. Another concern that Mayor Monahan advised of was that there are existing homes that are over the proposed .65 ratio which would create future problems when selling or in remodeling the existing property in that it would require a variance or become a disclosure item. He expressed an additional concern with extra side setback in how to define "an average of ten feet." He reiterated his dissatisfaction with the View Preservation Guidelines and felt that the concerns can be addressed in the Design Guidelines and Minor Design Review process. He shared his comments regarding the amendment to Title 13, referencing Table 13-85 subsection 3, regarding Tandem Parking and proposed that Tandem parking be used to meet parking requirements. He also disagreed with the requirement that all garage doors require an automatic roll -up doors and opener. He further suggested that the additional open space parking requirement for additions of alley access lots not be required and emphasized that he was not referring to new development parking requirements. Council Member Cowan had a concern regarding the need for additional parking spaces and commented that some additions require a provision for an additional parking space. She expressed interest in requiring a Minor Design Review for all alley -loaded lots, as they have a uniqueness that should require the 500 -foot notification. Council Member Cowan pointed out a concern she had with the deviation range for minor modification found in Section 4 Table 13-9; commenting that building height modifications over 27 feet should require a' review that is "something more than a minor modification" and expressed interest in deleting that reference. She asked staff to provide a better definition of a "bedroom", as she felt their needs to be a distinction between a "workspace/office" and which could be a trigger for additional parking. She stated that she would also support the deletion of the references to residential FAR. Council Member Scheafer expressed his appreciation for the work staff and the Planning Commission had put into the Residential Design Guidelines. He did however comment that he did not support the Mayor's views relating to view preservation, indicating that there is a need to protect unique neighborhoods and that Marina Highlands' uniqueness should be preserved. He, therefore, felt that view preservation needed to remain as part of the guidelines. MOTION/Revised A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Table 13-32 Member Cowan, and carried 5-0, to revise Table 13-32 by adding "or a public street or a park" to "...rear abutting publicly dedicated alley..." and that "rear yard coverage does not apply" be included in the Rear Yard Coverage subsection. MOTION/Revised A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Table 13-85 (3) delete Member Cowan, and carried 5-0, to revise Table 13-85, Residential Tandem Parking Parking Standards, subparagraph (3) by deleting reference to tandem parking. MOTION/Amended A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Table 13-85(3) delete Member Mansoor, and carried 5-0, to amend Table 13-85, Automatic Garage subparagraph (3) by deleting "The garages shall be furnished with Door Openers automatic garage door openers and roll up doors as appropriate under the direction of the Planning Division." Council Member Mansoor expressed his support of the motion as he did not agree with requiring an individual to utilize a roll -up automatic garage door. MOTION/Amended A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Mayor Pro Section 13-85(a)(2) Tem Steel, and carried 4-1, Council Member Cowan voting no, to amend Section 13-85(a)(2) to read "the off-street parking requirements as stated above shall not apply to an existing residence at the time the residence is increased in size and/or the number of bedrooms is increased," and deleting subsections 13-85 (a)(2)(a) and (b). MOTION/Amended A motion was made by Council Member Cowan, seconded by Sections 13-28 and Mayor Pro Tem Steel, and carried 4-1, Mayor Monahan voting no, 13-56 to amend Section 13-28(e)(2), Section 13-28(1)(1) and Section 13- 56(5)(2) by adding a subsection to read "Is located on an alley - loaded lot, "; and deleting subparagraphs (a) and (d) from Section 13-28(e)(2), Section 13-28(1)(1) and Section 13-56(c)(2). MOTION/Revised A motion was made by Council Member Cowan, seconded by Table 13-280)(1) Mayor Monahan, and carried 5-0, to revise Table 13-280)(1) by deleting "Increase in maximum building height in residential zones" and "Residential Parking Deviations." MOTION/Gave On motion by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Member Ordinance 03-8 First Cowan, and carried 4-1, Mayor Pro Tem Steel voting no, Ordinance Reading 03-8 was given first reading with the approved revisions: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES; second reading and adoption are scheduled for the meeting of September 2, 2003. MOTION/Approved A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council "Courtesy Notice" to Member Cowan, and carried 4-1, Mayor Pro Tem Steel voting no, Neighbors for Second- for any project citywide to include a second -story that a "courtesy Story Additions notice" be mailed to neighbors that share a common property line; for any second -story addition within the Marina Highlands tract, that a "courtesy notice" be sent not only to neighbors that share a common property line, but also to neighbor or neighbors, as suggested by staff, directly across the street from the residence; and they would be provided the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Division to the Planning Commission. MOTION/ To Include A motion was made by Council Member Scheafer, seconded by View Preservation Mayor Pro Tem Steel, to include alternative number two in the View Failed to Carry Preservation Guidelines. Council Member Mansoor expressed a concern regarding the story—poles and felt that computer generated pictures would address the issue and felt that some of the wording was. vague and would not solve the problem as stated. Mayor Monahan confirmed with staff that, if passed, all modifications would require a Minor Design Review and indicated that he would not support the motion as he felt that the "courtesy .notice" would allow for the appeal -ability by those that are directly affected by the modification and that the proposed wording "went a little far." He also pointed out that anything over 50 percent would go to a Minor Design Review. The motion was presented and failed to carry 3-2, Mayor Monahan, and Council Members Cowan and Mansoor voting no. MOTION/Deleted A motion was made by Council Member Cowan, seconded by Section 11 from the Mayor Monahan, and carried 3-2, Mayor Pro Tem Steel and Council Proposed Residential Member Scheafer voting no, to delete Section 11 from the proposed Design Guidelines Residential Design Guidelines, relating to View Preservation Guidelines and Procedures, and the "courtesy notice" requirement supports the Council's interest in view preservation. MOTION/Deleted A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Section 2 from the Member Cowan, and carried 4-1, Mayor Pro Tem Steel voting no, to Proposed Residential delete Section 2 of the proposed Residential Design Guidelines Design Guidelines relating to overall lot floor area ratio (FAR), and all references to FAR within the guidelines. MOTION/Adopted On motion by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Member Resolution 03-51 Cowan, and carried 5-0, Resolution 03-51 was adopted with the approved revisions: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess at 1:10 a.m., and reconvened the meeting at 1:15 a.m. OLD BUSINESS The Deputy City Clerk presented from the meeting of August 4, Claim from Rita Joy 2003, claim from Rita ' Joy Kunkel (trip and fall on City sidewalk). Kunkel The Administrative Services Director advised that he would answer any questions from Council. MOTION/Rejected On motion Council Member Cowan, seconded by Mayor Monahan, Claim and carried 5-0, the claim was rejected. OLD BUSINESS The Deputy City Clerk presented from the meeting of August 4, Public Convenience or 2003, request from Target Greatlands, 3030 Harbor Boulevard, Unit Necessity Finding for A, for a public convenience or necessity finding for a premise -to - Target Greatlands premise transfer of a Type 20 ABC License (off -sale beer and wine). The Development Services Director reviewed the Agenda Report dated July 21, 2003, and responded to questions from Council. Beth Aboulafia, Hinman & Carmichael, LLP, 260 California Street, Suite 1001, San Francisco, representing the Target Corporation, provided background for Council regarding the motive for the request. She advised that Target Greatlands would only be selling wine at this time and assured that no refrigerated alcohol will be sold. Al Morelli, 3412 Geranium Street, Costa Mesa, disagreed that the license transfer was a public necessity considering the current availability of beer, wine, and liquor in the immediate area of the Target Greatlands Store. He pointed out that the accumulative impact from the center has changed since it was first approved claiming that it was zoned as C1, Local Retail Center, and that it is now considered a Regional Center with each new approval, which is impacting the area and thereby affecting the quality of life. MOTION/Made On motion by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council Member Finding of Public Mansoor, and carried 4-1, Mayor Pro Tem Steel voting no, the Convenience necessary finding of public convenience or necessity was made. Council Member Mansoor commented that he supported the motion. Mayor Monahan also supported the motion and commented it would be a convenience for the public and would be a benefit. Mayor Pro Tem Steel expressed his opposition due to the over concentration of liquor stores in the area and to send a message. Council Member Cowan commented that although she would support the motion she requested that Target pick up their shopping carts around the area. Council Member Scheafer and Council Member Mansoor concurred. NEW BUSINESS The City Manager presented revised Council Policy 300-1 Revised Council Policy incorporating the recommended plan changes to the Retired 300-1 Retired Employees' Medical Program, effective August 19, 2003. Employees' Medical Program 1 1 1 11 J MOTION/Continued A motion was made by Mayor Monahan, seconded by Council to September 2, 2003 Member Cowan, and carried 5-0, to continue this item to the meeting of September 2, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO The Mayor announced that Closed sessions have been requested CLOSED SESSION to discuss the following: Tort Claim Pursuant to Section 54956.9(b)(3) of the California Government Code a closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation of matters that involve significant exposure to litigation - One (1) case. It was announced that discussion would be regarding allegations in a tort claim received from Jerry Scheer on April 24, 2003. Rutter Development Pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the California Government Code a closed session was held for the City Council to confer with legal counsel, Tom Wood, Acting City Attorney, regarding existing litigation in the case of: Rutter Development Corp. v. City of Costa Mesa, Case No. 03CC09792. At 1:40 a.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a closed session in first floor Conference Room 1A to discuss the items mentioned. No Action Taken Mayor Monahan reconvened the meeting at 2:13 a.m. and announced that no action was taken during the closed session regarding anticipated litigation of matters that involve significant exposure. No Action Taken The Mayor also announced that no action was taken during the closed session regarding existing litigation in the case of Rutter Development Corp. v. City of Costa Mesa (Case No. 03CC09792). ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 2:15 a.m. May the City-oTtosta Mesa ATTEST: C -'19, ) Dep City.Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa