2/26/2002 - Council Minutes - CC Minutes Reg Meeting
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 12,2002
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING February 26, 2002
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on February 26, 2002 at 4:30 p.m.
in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
4:30 P.M. SESSION
1. OPENING
1.1 INVOCATION
Given by Harry Thomas, Public Works Director
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilmember Cavecche
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
ABSENT - None
1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS
Proclamation was presented to City Librarian Nora Jacob for library volunteers
celebrating Honoring Our Volunteers Week from February 24 - March 2,2002.
Mayor pro tern Alvarez introduced Rex Davenport whose postal stamp design has been
successfully selected by the Government of Mexico. Mr. Davenport presented his design
of Robert F. Kennedy and Caesar Chavez.
The following employees received Service Awards:
Joseph Grant - Fire (not present); Joseph Losch - Fire (not present); Velia Balter -
Police (not present); Sally Trejo - Economic Development; Thomas Bevins - Police;
Jeffrey Guzzetta - Fire (not present); John Waken - Fire (not present); Douglas Weeks
- Fire; Alex Varga - Police (not present)
Mayor Murphy recognized Dave Rudat, City Manager commending him for 30 years of
service to the City.
Mayor Murphy reported on a recent newspaper article recognizing Mike Short, Orange
High School Music Director who was honored with the Bravo Award for outstanding
music teacher.
PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TAPE 760
Terri Vernon, 363 N. Lincoln, requested an appeal of the Fire Department's requirement
for a fire hydrant on their property in East Orange, and asked why they have not heard
from the City on this matter.
Mel Vernon, 363 N. Lincoln, requested an appeal of the Fire Department's requirement
for a fire hydrant on their property in East Orange, and requested quick attention to the
matter.
Rex Ricks, 7451 Warner, Huntington Beach, spoke against Measure W (Great Park / EI
Toro Airport) on the Orange County ballot; and the proposed expansion of John Wayne
Airport.
Arlen Craig, 3402 E. Vine, spoke on environmental issues in Orange and submitted
environmental information to Council, asking them to consider both sides of every issue
to provide a balance. He also spoke on the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance.
Dan Gilliland, 1134 E. Balboa, Balboa, spoke in opposition to Measure W (Great Park /
El Toro Airport) on the Orange County ballot.
Margaret Scott, 721 Alcoa, Placentia, spoke in support of Measure W (Great Park / EI
Toro Airport) on the Orange County ballot.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
TAPE 1230
All items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motion
approving the recommended action listed on the Agenda. Any member of the City
Council, staff or the public may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion or separate action. Unless otherwise specified in the request to remove an
item from the Consent Calendar, all items removed shall be considered immediately
following action on the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.
3.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council
agenda of a regular meeting of February 26, 2002 at Orange Civic Center, Main
Library at 101 N. Center Street, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, the
Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board, summarized on Time-Warner Communications
and available on the City's Website www.cityoforange.org, all of said locations being
in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72
hours before commencement of said regular meeting.
ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a
public record in the Office of the City Clerk.
3.2 Request Council Confirmation of warrant registers dated February 7,14,2002.
ACTION:
Approved.
PAGE 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting February 12, 2002.
ACTION: Approved.
3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda.
ACTION: Approved.
3.5 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report for the period ending January 31,
2002.
ACTION: Approved.
AGREEMENTS
3.6 Water Service Agreement with the City of Anaheim.
SUMMARY: The developer of an eleven (11) lot subdivision in the City of Anaheim,
Tract 16036, has requested that the City of Anaheim allow the City of Orange provide
water service to the tract in order to avoid the costs of extending approximately 1,000 ft.
of 12-inch water main from Anaheim's existing water system to the development. The
agreement would allow Orange to serve the project.
ACTION: Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of
the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: All costs for the installation of the water system will be the
responsibility of the developer. Estimated annual gross revenue from the sale of water to
11 homes is $5,600.00.
3.7 Award of Consultant Services Agreement for engineering plan revisions for the La
Veta Avenue Street Widening (SP-3284).
SUMMARY: This contract authorizes the consultant to complete field surveys, traffic
engineering, civil engineering and preparation of cost estimates for completion of the
construction plan revisions necessitated from the right-of-way acquisition and negotiation
phase ofthe project.
ACTION: Approved Consultant Services Agreement with Merit Civil Engineering Inc.,
in the amount of $11,835.00 and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute on
behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program and
available in the following account:
286-5011-483300-4039 $60,000 La Veta Avenue Improvement
PAGE 3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.8 Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Services Agreement No. 3879 with Joseph C.
Truxaw & Associates for additional survey and base plans for water main
replacements.
SUMMARY: Amendment No. I to Consultant Services Agreement No. 3879 will allow
Truxaw & Associates to provide additional field surveying, underground utilities
research, and base plans preparation for sites not included in the original contract.
ACTION: Approved Amendment No. I in the amount of $15,850.00 to Consultant
Services Agreement No. 3879 with Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates and authorized
Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted and are available in the following account:
600-8011-426200 $15,850.00 Engineering Services
3.9 First Amendment to Lease by and among Sam Franciosa, Trustee of the Sam
Franciosa and Susan Franciosa Family Trust, the City of Orange, and the Orange
Redevelopment Agency for 216 E. Chapman Avenue.
(See ORA Agenda Item No. 3.4)
SUMMARY: Approval of the First Amendment to Lease by and among Sam Franciosa,
Trustee of the Sam Franciosa and Susan Franciosa Family Trust, the City of Orange, and
the Orange Redevelopment Agency for 216 E. Chapman Avenue.
ACTION: Approved the First Amendment to Lease by and among Sam Franciosa,
Trustee of the Sam Franciosa and Susan Franciosa Family Trust, the Orange
Redevelopment Agency, and the City of Orange and authorized and directed the Mayor
to execute, and the City Clerk to attest, the First Amendment to Lease on behalf of the
City.
FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the City of Orange.
3.10 Award of Consultant Agreement to SCS Engineers for the Environmental Site
Assessment (Phase II) at Cerro Villa Park
SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City retain the firm SCS Engineers in an
amount not to exceed $64,235 to prepare an Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II)
for Cerro Villa Park. SCS Engineers has been selected based on the firm's relevant
experience and expertise in evaluating former landfill and refuse sites for municipal park
sites in the State. The City received $200,000 from the Environmental Protection
Agency via the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Grant which will be
used to pay for the consultant fees.
PAGE 4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Awarded the consultant agreement to SCS Engineers in the amount not to
exceed $64,235 for Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II); and, authorized the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the contract on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: After the contract is executed, the Environmental Protection Agency
will pay the cost of the consultant services directly to the SCS Engineers in an amount
not to exceed $64,235.
3.11 Revised Storm Drain Construction Agreement with the City of Anaheim. Request
by SunCal Developers to construct a portion of the Serrano Heights Development
storm drain system in the City of Anaheim.
SUMMARY: SunCal Developers, owners of the Serrano Heights residential
development have requested that the City of Orange enter into an agreement with the City
of Anaheim to allow a portion of Serrano Heights storm drain system to be constructed in
Anaheim. Anaheim has requested some minor changes to the Agreement approved by
the City Council in November, 2001.
ACTION: Approved the revised version of the Storm Drain Agreement between the City
of Orange and the City of Anaheim and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMP ACT: None.
3.12 Award Consultant Services Agreement to Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC.
SUMMARY: One year ago the City Council approved a water rate structure change and
a water rate increase of 9% per year for three consecutive years. The City Council
requested that prior to implementing the increases recommended for the second and third
years, an analysis be made of current financial conditions to verify the recommended 9%
Increase.
ACTION: Awarded Consultant Services Agreement in an amount not to exceed
$14,470.00 to Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funding for this project is available in the following account:
600-8011-426200 $14,470.00 Engineering Services
(REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)
3.13 Authorize expenditure of up to $100,000 for environmental consulting services
required for Library Bond Act application process to develop an expanded Main
Library.
PAGE 5
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
SUMMARY: To speed and smooth the process of obtaining proposals for environmental
consulting services, the City Council is being asked to authorize expenditure of up to
$100,000 for this work, which is required as part of the Library Bond Act application
process to develop an expanded Main Library.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
ACTION: Withdrawn from the Agenda as requested by staff.
3.14 CLAIMS
The City Attorney recommends that the Orange City Council deny the following
Claim(s) for damages:
a. Rosemary McKee
b. Joshua Moore
c. Denise Towry
ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster.
CONTRACTS
3.15 Award of Contract - Bid No. 012-34; Project SP-3380; ADA Wheelchair Access
Ramps Various Locations (Year 2001-2002).
SUMMARY: This project will provide for construction of wheelchair access ramps
conforming to the requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act at various locations.
ACTION: Awarded Contract - Bid No. 012-34 in the amount of $118,303.15 to the low
bidder, Ranco Corporation, P.O Box 9007, Brea, CA 92622 and authorized the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and available in the following account:
310-9645-483300-1328 $ 143,710.00 (Community Development Block Grant
Funds- ADA Improvements).
3.16 Award of Contract - Bid No. 012-27; Project SP-3373; Grijalva Park at Santiago
Creek Improvements.
SUMMARY: The award of the bid for construction will provide for the development of
Grijalva Park at Santiago Creek which will be a new 15 acre community park at the
northwest corner of Prospect Street and Spring Street.
PAGE 6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Contiuued)
ACTION: Awarded Contract - Bid No. 012-27 in the amount of $2,476,831.23 to the low
bidder, Consolidated Contracting Services, 33157 Camino Capistrano, Suite B, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675 and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of
the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and available in the following account:
Total Budget
310-9645-485100-0149 $ 70,000.00
510-7021-485100-0149 $ 664,337.91
551-7021-485100-0149 $2.138.900.00
Total $2,873,237.91
Available Budget
$ 70,000.00 Grijalva Park
$ 581,670.00 Grijalva Park
$1.938.900.00 Grijalva Park
$2,590,570.00
PURCHASES
3.17 Purchase two Detroit Diesel Series 60 470 HP Engines.
SUMMARY: Purchasing two diesel engines now, before March 15th, will save $8,000 to
$20,000 on the purchase of the two Fire Department pumpers tentatively scheduled for
replacement in fiscal year 2002/03. The dealer and engine manufacturer will assist the
City in resale of the engines if the pumper purchases are deferred beyond next fiscal year.
ACTION: Approved purchase of two Detroit diesel engines in the amount of $50,000
from Seagrave Fire Apparatus.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in Account Number 720-5023-472102,
Motor Vehicle Replacement.
REAL PROPERTY
3.18 A recommendation to quitclaim a water line easement to Albertson's Inc., a
Delaware corporation.
SUMMARY: Albertson's Inc. has requested the abandonment of a water line easement
on the property at 4550 E. Chapman Avenue because the redevelopment of this site has
required the abandonment of an existing City water main that is no longer needed.
ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute a quitclaim deed to Albertson's
Inc., a Delaware corporation, for an easement formerly used for a water line as described
on the attachment.
FISCAL IMP ACT: A check in the amount of $302.00 has been deposited in Account
No. 100-5011-279600 for the document preparation.
PAGE 7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTIONS
3.19 RESOLUTION NO. 9444
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange temporarily closing Olive St.
from Chapman Ave. to Almond Ave. from 6:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Saturday, March
23, 2002 for a special event at the Orange Senior Center.
ACTION: Approved.
3.20 RESOLUTION NO. 9532
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange amending the Joint Powers
Agreement for the Orange County Cities Risk Management Authority, changing its name
to the California Insurance Pool Authority.
ACTION: Approved.
(REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)
3.21 RESOLUTION NO. 9548
TAPE 1260
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange endorsing the joint filing with
Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance of an application for an Urban Streams Restoration
Grant for a portion of Santiago Creek within the City; conditionally accepting the grant if
offered; designating a Contract Manager and Fiscal Agent and making certain findings
with respect thereto.
Mayor Murphy recognized and thanked the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance for their
volunteer efforts in assisting the City with this grant application.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Cavecche
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
ACTION: Approved.
3.22 RESOLUTION NO. 9565
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange determining that there is a need to
continue the repair of the roofs at the City's Administration and Public Works buildings
at 300 E. Chapman Avenue in response to an emergency.
ACTION: Approved.
PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
SPECIAL EVENTS
3.23 Request for temporary suspension of permit parking restrictions within Permit
Parking Area "I" (McPherson Sports Complex), for a special event on Saturday _
March 2, 2002.
SUMMARY: The South Sunrise Little League Opening Day Ceremony and City
sponsored coed Youth Basketball will be held at McPherson Sports Facility. Due to
anticipated attendance it may be necessary to park in the surrounding residential
neighborhood adjacent to the sports complex, which restricts on-street parking except by
Permit.
NOTE: Councilmember Coontz indicated Council direction was to place these types of
items on the Agenda as soon as possible; and this request should have been brought
before Council sooner so there would be more time to distribute fliers and give the
neighborhood residents and Council more time to plan for this event.
ACTION: Approved.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Slater
A YES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Items 3.13 and 3.21 were removed and heard separately. All other items on the Consent
Calendar were approved as recommended.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
********
4.
REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY
TAPE 1330
4.1 Recommend creation of a joint City/Schools Task Force to study residential
growth/facility needs.
Mayor Murphy indicated this proposed Joint Task Force is a way to combine the efforts and
actions of the City and School District in moving forward with planning the needs and
requirements for both the City and School District as residential growth happens to the east.
However, this item was to have been placed on the Council Agenda the same day it was being
considered by the Orange Unified School District Board, as it is a joint resolution between the
Cit6' and the School District. So instead of February 26th, he asked it be continued to the March
26t Agenda.
Councilmember Slater stated this proposed Task Force is a fantastic idea, noting the recent
passage of AB 1367 which requires City Councils and Planning Commissions to plan for schools
PAGE 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY (Continued)
in their General Plans. He suggested, however, the words "in the East Orange area" be deleted
from the proposed resolution, so that it refers to all schools city wide that could be impacted by
development. He also asked about the membership of the proposed Task Force.
Mayor Murphy noted the make up of the Task Force is just being formulated and additional
information can be put together prior to the March 26th meeting; but he was looking forward to a
hopeful joint adoption of the Resolution and trading signatures on the joint resolution.
Councilmember Coontz noted most of the impact is in East Orange and that is why it was
designed to refer to East Orange in the Resolution. She agreed there are problems throughout the
community, but the thrust will definitely start in the East end. She suggested removing the word
"the" in the last paragraph before "proposed residential development".
Mayor pro tern Alvarez spoke in support of this idea, and suggested including a sunset date or
date for accomplishing these goals.
RESOLUTION NO. 9568
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange creating a joint City/School Task Force
to study residential growth impacts on schools and parks.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Coontz
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to continue to March 26, 2002.
5.
REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
TAPE 1580
5.1 Mayor pro tern Alvarez
Mayor pro tern Alvarez reported on Proposition 40 which is on the March 5th ballot. This is a
state wide bond for parks and open space, and if passed, the City could receive approximately $1
million for parks and open space acquisition and development. This will help promote the
efforts of the citizens of Orange who are working to preserve open space.
Mayor Murphy noted the time sensitivity of this Resolution, as the State election is the following
week.
Councilmember Cavecche stated she is not generally a fan of bond acts because they usually cost
taxpayers more than the benefits that are received. However, because the State budget is in such
bad shape, this is the only way to get the infrastructure improvements that are needed; and she
will make an exception and vote in favor of this proposition.
PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. 9567
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange in support of passage of the California
Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act of2002.
Proposition 40, California State Measure - March 5, 2002 Election
MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Murphy
A YES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to approve Resolution No. 9567.
TAPE 1760
Mayor pro tern Alvarez reported Measure V, which is on the March 5th ballot, will create a
charter initiative whereby if there is a vacancy on the Orange County Board of Supervisors, there
would be a special election rather than an appointment by the Governor.
Councilmember Cavecche spoke in support of this initiative.
Councilmember Coontz spoke in opposition to this initiative, stating an initiative to develop a
Charter County takes a great deal of study and discussion and just one piece of a charter should
not be approved. A charter should be looked at as a whole; and she did not want to see one issue
brought forward, and governmental changes made, because of individual personalities, which is
poor policy.
Councilmember Slater also spoke in opposition to this initiative, as he sees it as a political issue.
The issue of appointing someone to a vacancy is not enough of a reason to put together a charter,
which is quite involved. It seems this is based on self interest instead of what is right and just. It
is a measure to prevent the incumbent Democratic Governor from having the authority to appoint
a successor to a Republican County Supervisor who has opted to run for the Assembly before his
term expires.
Adam Probolsky, 2306 Crescent Oak, Irvine, spoke in support of Measure V.
Mayor Murphy stated he supports this initiative for the same reasons he supported the Special
Election in Orange last year; that representatives should be elected by the voters and not be
appointed.
RESOLUTION NO. 9566
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange relating to Measure V, the People's
Initiative.
PAGE 11
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Cavecche
AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Cavecche
NOES - Slater, Coontz
Moved to approved Resolution No. 9566.
Off Al!enda Item
TAPE 2030
Councilmember Coontz reported on the North Irvine Ranch and it's effect on the City of Orange.
She has been keeping track of this issue and at the last board meeting of the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (ETC) Agency, the subject came up about a request of The Irvine
Company to plan for what would happen, what is going to happen and what they would like to
have happen because of their changes in development planning.
It was discussed at the ETC Agency meeting, off Agenda, in response to her request at a
previous meeting. It was indicated the Corridor Agency wished to work with The Irvine
Company and they needed to have a study done by May 3rd This was not responded to very
positively by many members of the Board because they felt that the proposal of The Irvine
Company could result in negative effects in many of the corridor cities which are members of the
Agency Board.
She sent a memo to the Public Works Director and to the City Manager regarding unintended
consequences, as she does not believe The Irvine Company realizes the effect their pullback on
development will have on the cities. One of the things they have said is they do not wish to put
any money into capital needs, which of course could relate to not only schools and parks but also
to transportation issues. Reduced development in East Orange does not mean the City will have
an easy time with traffic. There are certain benefits of the development, such as TSIP and
development fees. The City really can not do this without those monies because of the
increasing development happening in East Orange over a period of time and the traffic problems.
So what has happened behind the scenes is the City Managers and Public Works Directors got
together with OCT A and The Irvine Company. The City Manager has a memo regarding what it
is that the cities are planning along with aCTA and The Irvine Company. The decision was
made to allow The Irvine Company to conduct a traffic study, with OCTA as the lead agency
overseeing the project and with clear milestones which require Agency consensus. This study
should not be rushed.
All elected officials throughout the affected cities need to have good information and the Council
needs for OCTA, The Irvine Company and our own staff to let the Council know what is going
on.
Last Friday, Councilmember Coontz had a meeting with Mr. Leahy, OCTA and City staff in
which concerns were outlined. It was noted The Irvine Company likes to work behind the
scenes, which sometimes means the Councilmembers do not all have the same information. She
PAGE 12
---r--~---
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
requested to Mr. Leahy they have an advertised meeting that elected officials can attend and that
there be continuous communication. She had received a memo by Mr. Leahy to the members of
the Eastern Transportation Corridor Board of Directors. It was available but not presented to
them at their Board meeting, which is indicative of the communication problem.
These issues are important and change on a daily and weekly basis. That is why this was
brought up off-agenda because new information keeps coming in. This is a regional problem and
affects other cities in addition to Orange, such as Anaheim Tustin and Irvine.
Mayor pro tern Alvarez - noted a Task Force is a good step, but suggested the City of Orange be
the lead agency in this so Orange receives an independent study on traffic and environmental
issues. It is easy for consultants to tip the scales on studies and he did not want to get The Irvine
Company's viewpoint or OCTA's viewpoint, but the view that is best for the City.
The City Manager reported that for Orange to be the lead agency on a study of the Master Plan
of Arterial Highways, would require a major capital infusion in order to do an adequate job.
OCTA would be the best agency to take the lead on a such a study; and with the process which is
in place, the Council will ultimately have the final say.
The City Manager further reported concerns were raised when The Irvine Company took action
to create their environmental gift, because with the actions on the Santiago Hills II project, there
lacked the industrial/commercial/retail component. That element is important because although
we do not want more traffic, it is necessary to have a sustainable tax supported community.
Otherwise, the balance of the City would have to support East Orange, which should be able to
stand on its own.
With those concerns and seeing that the City needed to revisit this, he took the action of meeting
with The Irvine Company and informing them of the City's concerns when they talked about
having to study this Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It is a natural element that needs to be
studied as they move forward in this development process, but yet, no determination was made
on land use decisions herein Orange. The City Manager came to an agreement with The Irvine
Company of how this had to be done, but went to the City of Irvine and Tustin first and
explained to them about Orange's concerns. OCTA also had concerns. So a meeting was called
by aCTA and included the cities of Orange, Tustin, Irvine, Anaheim as well as the County, TCA
and Caltrans. They all reviewed The Irvine Company's proposal and jointly helped develop
some criteria. He is very satisfied with the checks and balances that are in place and that we will
have a very good project. No matter what is done, at the end, this project must have integrity so
that elected officials from all cities have the confidence it was done correctly.
A consultant will be selected by The Irvine Company but will be a person or company that
everybody will have agreement on. OCTA will be the lead agency but it can not move forward
unless everyone agrees on what the outcomes are.
PAGE 13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
The Master Plan will come back to the Council to use in traffic studies and used to make
decisions on any development that would occur in the East.
The Public Works Director reiterated that under the proposed arrangement, OCTA will approve
the work product and they are the ones who will ultimately have to approve any changes to the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways anyway. That is their ultimate responsibility. They will also
authorize payments to the consultant, so there is accountability even though it is being funded
by The Irvine Company.
There are weekly meetings of a technical committee and monthly meetings of the Public Works
Directors to oversee the activities of the technical committee. With eight governmental agencies
involved, it is a regional effort, and for the study to have credibility with the other agencies, this
is probably the best structure to do this. This needs to be a collaborative effort and under the
umbrella of regional leadership.
Councilmember Coontz reiterated that there was a lack of communication for the Eastern
Transportation Corridor, and she is concerned with communication to elected officials as this
process goes on. This was the point she made at the last ETC meeting. The other comment
made was why are we looking at a situation when the development plans have not come forward,
since The Irvine Company has indicated publicly they are not coming forth with development for
the other side of the Corridor for up to 24 months.
Mayor Murphy noted communication to all parties has been heightened based on taking this
regional approach and he looks forward to the communication being much more timely and
specific in nature. He agrees that there are many challenges in Orange without having to take
this issue on as the lead agency. This approach balances our concerns which includes making
sure our interests are recognized and protected, along with accomplishing a larger regional plan.
Off-Ae:enda Item
TAPE 2800
Councilmember Cavecche reported she has been following the problems occurring with the
Internet Cafes nationwide. One was just approved on Katella, noting this is the fifth Internet
Cafe in Orange and another application is being brought forward next month. She recently
visited all the Internet Cafes in Orange, both before and after the 10:00 p.m. curfew. These seem
to be the new video arcades and she would like to have a clear handle on the impacts these
establishments are having on the community. She observed a youth being written up for drug
paraphernalia at one of them and was told by the patrons that they are coming here from other
cities because there are no Internet Cafes in their cities. Also, some of the establishments are not
closing at the time required but are staying open as long as there are customers.
She asked the Mayor if he could direct the City Manager to have the Police Department put
together a report with crime statistics and trends at these establishments both County wide and
for the City of Orange; and provide an overview of the Police Department's concerns about the
impacts the proliferation these Internet Cafes have in the City.
PAGE 14
"-u__
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Mayor Murphy agreed they need to look at the implications before more permits are issued; and
requested the City Manager to bring a report back on these issues as soon as possible. He asked
about future applications and ifthere is a way to enact a moratorium.
The City Attorney stated a moratorium would not apply to any application already in process,
only to new applications. He stated there would have to be a determination made that public
health and safety was affected and requires a need for a moratorium until it can be further
studied. These findings could not be made at this meeting as the Council would have to wait for
information on the impacts of these establishments.
Mayor Murphy requested a report for the next Council meeting and wanted to explore the idea
that if there is a finding that these establishments are having a negative impact, the City Council
could also consider a moratorium at that time.
Councilmember Coontz expressed concern that the Council was not informed about the number
of these establishments coming into Orange. In the past, when there were issues that were
questionable regarding police activity, a report was usually provided by the Police Department.
She requested information on the background of how we got to this point and who makes these
decisions.
Councilmember Cavecche thanked the Police Department and the Zoning Administrator, noting
that for the permit granted in January, they had included an incredible list of conditions which
are much more restrictive than those for the others that are already operating.
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None.
7.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
TAPE 3100
7.1 Capital Improvement Project No. 6100, Tustin Branch Trail Project. Approval of
Consultant Services Agreement and appropriation of funding for the preparation of
Environmental Documentation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
SUMMARY: This Consultant Services Agreement authorizes the consultant to prepare an
environmental document and process the document through the appropriate state and federal
agencies, in compliance with CEQA and NEP A.
Note: Staff requested Items 7.1 and 7.2 be continued to March 12, 2002 in order to provide
additional briefings as well as time to prepare appropriate maps.
Councilmember Coontz stated this was the second time this item had been continued and asked
for a more definitive reason why this is being continued. She also suggested that in the future,
the maps be improved to indicate more specific and complete information.
PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
The Community Development Director reported that after the report was distributed, staff
received feedback on the map which showed the alternative routes. There was a segment of the
alternative routes that needed to be added to the map. Staff would also like additional time to
re-briefthe Council before it is brought back for final action.
Mayor Murphy also noted the map they have should be the same map that was submitted for the
project funding.
Councilmember Slater agreed the maps need to show all viable options and not just those that
would entail funding through OCT A.
Councilmember Coontz stated it would be helpful to show that portion of the trail that is
connected to the Santiago Creek Trail.
Mayor pro tern Alvarez asked about the timing of this issue and the monies that are being applied
for.
The Community Development Director reported the funding runs through June 2002. It is very
unlikely they would have an approved project by that time and staff will most likely go back to
OCTA with a request for an extension for that funding.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to continue to March 12, 2002.
7.2 Capital Improvement Project No. 6100, Tustin Branch Trail Project. Approval of
appropriation of funding for a Consultant Services Agreement.
SUMMARY: The requested appropriation of funding for a Consultant Services Agreement will
allow the City to retain Joan Wolff, AICP as a contract planner to manage the City's Tustin
Branch Trail Project. Ms. Wolff will serve as the project manager on behalf of the City for the
Tustin Branch Trail Project and will conduct activities as defined in the attached contract and
scope of work. Ms. Wolffs responsibilities would include coordinating public outreach efforts
and managing the preparation of an enviromnental document in compliance with CEQA and
NEPA.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to continue to March 12,2002.
PAGE 16
-,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER
The City Manager reported that the County Board of Supervisors, earlier that day, unanimously
certified EIR 582 and also unanimously approved Scenario I as the approved project alternative
for the operation of John Wayne Airport. Scenario I represents the lowest impact to all the
corridor cities, which also includes the City of Orange. In order to get a unanimous vote, there
was one small compromise for an additional two cargo flights in addition to Scenario 1.
Mayor Murphy noted the Councilmembers, along with staff, spent significant time speaking with
all the Supervisors; and he was glad to see the Supervisors focus on the important issue of the
extension agreement for the operation of John Wayne Airport.
9.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
TAPE 3400
9.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2-02 (SECOND READING)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending and revising Section 3.08.590
of the Orange Municipal Code delegating certain emergency contracting authority to the City
Manager for a public facility.
MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved that Ordinance No. 2-02 be read by title only and same was passed and adopted by the
preceding vote.
10. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
11. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The City Manger reported the following item just came to his attention; and there are time
constraints in trying to meet the requirements for the application for bond financing for the Main
Public Library. Time is running short and they need to proceed with an environmental study for
a project, and he needs to discuss certain conditions on acquiring property for this project.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to find the following matter arose after the posting of the Agenda and there is a need to
take immediate action:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 -
439 E. Chapman;
Negotiating parties: City of Orange and Bob Holland
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
11. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION (Continued)
The City Council recessed at 6:20 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, existing
litigation:
1) Nieupointe Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. City of Orange, et aI., Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 01CC02712.
2) Inez Castro v. Orange County Sheriffs Department, et aI., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 01CC03152.
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(b) (one potential case)
c. Public employee performance evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: City
Manager.
d. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the
City Attorney, City Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess
indicates any of the matters will not be considered in Closed Session.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
12.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TAPE 3550
Theresa Sears, 7733 Santiago Canyon Road, thanked the Council for their support of Proposition
40, the California Park Bond Initiative; thanked Council for conducting a Study Session on the
Orange County Sanitation District 301(h) waiver; spoke in support of a Joint City/School
Resolution to work together in siting schools; and asked the Council to revisit the East Orange
General Plan since The Irvine Company gift.
Gloria Boice, 143 N. Pine, spoke on a small section in Old Towne which is zoned R-1-6 and
asked Council to preserve the single family character of this area and impose a moratorium until
appropriate safeguards are in place to protect this neighborhood.
Mel Vernon, 363 N. Lincoln, reported on a community open house on Wednesday, February 27th
to discuss the Metrolink proposal to double track through Santa Ana and portions of Orange.
Alex Mintzer, 465 N. Christine, thanked Council for their support of Proposition 40, the
California Park Bond Initiative; thanked Council for conducting the Study Session on the Orange
County Sanitation District 301(h) waiver; and asked the Council to reexamine the East Orange
General Plan in lieu of the land donation from The Irvine Company.
John Ufkes, 20121 Clark Street, spoke on the flawed process and the Water Runoff Management
Plan for the Santiago Hills Development.
PAGE 18
~~.-----~-----_.__.~._-------~.--
,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
12. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued)
Eric Noble, address on file, thanked the Council for the environmental decisions made earlier in
the meeting; and thanked The Irvine Company for their land donation gift to the City. He spoke
on the need to show good stewardship in planning for this land gift and the future development
for the East Orange area.
Roy Shebazian, 3808 E. Palm, spoke on the Trip Reduction program in the City; spoke in
support of the proposed Metrolink double track project; and asked the Council to be proactive in
the future design of East Orange to reduce traffic.
Bill Bouska, address on file, spoke on the efforts of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance and
their work on trail design, creek restoration and a watershed workshop they are conducting. He
also asked the Council to not support the Orange County Sanitation District 301(h) wavier.
Christopher Koontz, 10252 Lolita, thanked the Council for their vote on Proposition 40, the
California Park Bond Initiative, and for the study session on the Orange County Sanitation
District 301(h) wavier. He asked the Council to update the East Orange General Plan and the
City's General Plan before reviewing any proposal for East Orange so that it is a planning
process and not a reactive process. He also noted that freight trains are the biggest problem with
the Metrolink double track.
13.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TAPE 4520
13.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2369-01 - DAVID AND SONIA JOHNSON:
Time set for public hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an
existing accessory second housing unit in the R-I-20 (Single Family Residential) District, upon
property located at 5028 East Glen Arran Lane.
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The Community Development Director reported the property owner purchased this property
with an illegal accessory unit already built on the property, as it was built without permits. The
property owner is trying to legalize the unit and it does comply with all codes. The one issue
brought up at the Planning Commission meeting was the private access road and parking issues.
There is adequate parking provided on the property with a driveway and garage.
MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
Shirley Grindle, address on file, spoke in support of the project. She noted the property owners
have agreed to provide on-site parking. In response to Council questions, she reported this area
was annexed to the City in the early nineties and the improvements to the subject property were
made in 1999. With regard to the private street, she reported each lot extends to the center ofthe
PAGE 19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
street, and there is an agreement in place with all the property owners to share equally in the cost
of maintaining the street.
MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Murphy
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Find that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Murphy
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Approve Conditional Use Permit 2369-01, subject to the conditions of approval contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-38-01.
TAPE 4850
13.2 ZONE CHANGE 1212-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-04, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 1683-01 - CITY OF ORANGE
Time set for public hearing to consider Zone Change 1212-01 and General Plan Amendment 2001-
04, a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Policy Map and Zoning Map to resolve
existing inconsistencies for two sites located adjacent to Santiago Creek Channel and north of
Chapman Hospital. The proposal is a change in land use designation and does not include any site
development.
Negative Declaration 1683-01 has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.
The Community Development Director reviewed the maps of the subject property. This is a City
initiated General Plan / rezone consideration due to a court case and court order that the City
bring the General Plan and zoning into conformance on these two parcels.
The two sites are separated by Santiago Creek, which is owned by the Orange County Flood
Control District. The northerly site is designated Low Density Residential which is consistent
with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The General Plan for the southern site, as of
about a year ago, was also Low Density Residential. There was an application for a storage unit
project and in association with that, a General Plan amendment and re-zone. A preliminary vote
was taken and then due to a change in the Council composition, there was no affirmative vote to
move ahead with the action. The court did determine that based on the preliminary vote that the
General Plan had been changed to General Commercial which was the request associated with
PAGE 20
,----
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
the storage unit facility. However, no action was taken at that time on the zoning because of a
required first and second reading of the Ordinance and the change in the Council composition.
Both the north and south properties are zoned Recreation-Open Space. That zone is not
consistent with either the Low Density Residential nor with the General Commercial General
Plan designations.
To correct the problem, a number of options were presented in the initial review and staff report
to the Planning Commission. The staff recommendation focused on an option of returning the
General Plan to Low Density Residential for the southern site and then propose a zoning that is
consistent with the predominant zoning around it. Alternative options were also presented for a
General Plan category that matched the existing zoning on the southern site, something
compatible with the Recreation-Open Space zone.
Staff also looked at the Commercial General Plan designation and a compatible zoning of C-I
which had been the applicant's original request.
The Planning Commission has recommended the Recreation-Open Space zone and OS General
Plan designation for the southern site. These two are consistent and can be seen as a holding
zone. An applicant could still come back with a particular land use project and at that time
request a General Plan / Zoning that would accommodate it. In looking at the R-O zoning and an
Open Space designation, staff did find that all properties which had been given those two
designations were owned by a public agency, except for the Ridgeline Country Club property.
In looking at a Commercial zoning, there was concern about not having a particular project to
look at, as commercial could allow for the most intense development of any of the zoning. It
would be consistent with the General Commercial designation, but could allow an intensity of a
5.0 Floor Area Ratio, assuming the site is rehabilitated. Staff did not recommend a commercial
zoning for the site.
Questions that have arisen regarding the appropriateness of anyone of the zoning configurations
has to do with the compatibility of the neighborhood, what makes sense and what could actually
be developed in the future. There is consensus that the northern site should retain Low Density
Residential and be zoned something similar to what is around it. It is recommended for R-I-6.
The southern site has various uses surrounding it, such as low density residential, a park site, a
hospital use and the creek which runs immediately adjacent to it. The Community Development
Director reviewed a map showing the creek and the parcel that is owned by the Orange County
Flood Control District and a more actual configuration of the creek bank and the final map.
About an acre of the southern property is actually within what would be considered the creek and
about 10,000 square feet in a riparian habitat. This can create potential conflicts or opportunities
for future development that could occur on the site.
PAGE 21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
In addition, the site was previously used for land fill and there are a couple of pit areas and
unstable soil. Questions have arisen whether it would be economically feasible to develop this
site as residential. The precise costs for actually rehabilitating the site are not known, but there
are some land fill operations that were successfully rehabilitated for residential use. At this
point, staff is recommending that Council consider the options provided by both the Planning
Commission and staff.
Council Ouestions
TAPE 5350
Councilmember Coontz asked for clarification on the court action.
The City Attorney explained there is a legal action filed by the developer and property owner.
Essentially, the allegation in the first cause of action was that the General Plan and the zoning
were not in conformance and the City was required to bring them into conformance. There is
also an allegation of a due process violation and also an allegation of statements by the City that
there had been an inverse condemnation and the City should buy the property.
The only action resolved so far is the first cause of action. Under the Government Code,
anybody can bring an action to force the City to bring the General Plan and the zoning into
conformance if it is not in conformance. Whether or not the General Plan was commercial or
residential, the zoning was Recreation-Open Space, and he agreed that the City had to bring the
zoning and General Plan into conformance, which is a mandatory duty.
The court ordered the City to do this within 90 days and we are 40 days passed that time. In
January, a declaration was filed with the court saying the City was making good faith efforts to
try to bring the General Plan and zoning into conformance.
Mayor Murphy asked the City Attorney to comment on the legal implications of the choices
being presented, and if there are there any implications from a legal standpoint, in terms of the
City's position in this case, whether the Council chooses either recommendation.
The City Attorney reported the Plaintiffs counsel has taken a position that the City Council is
required to adopt a zoning which is consistent with the General Plan designation of General
Commercial. In other words, as the City Attorney understood it, the court would limit the
legislative discretion of the City Council to adopt a specific zoning classification. However, in
his opinion, all the Council is required to do is bring the General Plan and zoning into
conformance. City Council maintains its full legislative discretion.
It could be argued by the Plaintiffs counsel that the Recreation-Open Space does not allow them
to economically develop their property. But there are certain uses for Recreation-Open Space
and it is also a holding pattern. Often times property can be zoned Recreation-Open Space
pending a developer bringing forth a specific project. The City Attorney did suggest to the
developer and the property owner that before asking for a zone change or general plan
amendment, they should bring forward a specific development plan for the property. However,
PAGE 22
T--------
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
the developer and owner chose not to do this. Plaintiff s counsel has also argued that if it is
zoned single family residential and General Plan residential, it is still economically unfeasible to
develop because of all the remediation that would be required.
Councilmember Coontz asked for a review of the uses allowed in the residential zone.
The Community Development Director reviewed some of the uses allowed in the Residential
zone, including single family residential, accessory second units with a conditional use permit,
congregate care type facilities, planned unit developments, day care uses, and educational and
church uses with a conditional use permit.
The City Attorney also reviewed some of the uses in the Recreation-Open Space zone, including
educational facilities, museum and libraries, antennas, cemeteries, observatories, veterinary
clinics, and livestock / animal operations. Some are allowed in both Recreation-Open Space and
Residential
MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
TAPE 5630
Shirley Grindle, address on file, spoke in support of the southern site being zoned Recreation-
Open Space and not Residential. There are problems with the site having been a trash dump and
sand and gravel pit, and suggested future developers can request a zone change when a
development is proposed.
Robert George, 242 N. Wheeler, supports Recreation-Open Space for the southern site. He
purchased his property, which backs up to the subject property, with the understanding it would
remam open space.
Marilyn Moore, 2707 Killingsworth, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space for the southern
site. The land is unstable and a residential development would create problems with access,
traffic and impacts to the creek environment and the existing neighborhood.
John Moore, 2707 Killingsworth, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space for the southern
site. It is unsuitable for residential development, has historical significance, and the open space
should be preserved. He also spoke on the actual alignment of the creek. In response to Council
questions, he stated he has lived in the area 40 years and would love to see a park or open space
on the site and was only speaking to the south side with regards to creek embankment problems
and building structures close to it.
Sue Craig, 3402 E. Vine, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space and maintaining trails
through this area. She also asked about the recent problems of trash being dumped into the
creek.
The Assistant City Manager reported the property owner was cleaning up the property pursuant
to a Code Enforcement action. A skip load driver pushed about five loads of trash over the bank
PAGE 23
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
of the creek. A Police report was filed and the owner was told to clean up the problem. The Fish
and Wildlife Agency was notified and staff is actively working on that illegal dumping problem.
Bill Bouska, address on file, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space, noting that the property
last changed hands under an R-O zoning umbrella. He suggested the owner or developer come
forward with development plans for the City and neighborhood to review.
David Piper, 6705 E. Oak Lane, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space and that plans
should be finalized before the zoning is changed.
Paula Hill, 232 N. Wheeler, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space as the property is
unsuitable for residential use due to the dumping on the property over the years.
Mel Vernon, address on file, spoke in support of Recreation-Open Space, and suggested a buffer
or easement along the creek to support trails and the riparian habitat.
MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
TAPE 6940
Council Ouestions
Councilmember Coontz asked about the actual alignment of the creek and to what extent does
the City have jurisdiction over the creek as it actually is and not as it is shown; and how changes
can be made on the map. There has been confusion as to what the ability is of the Council on
what they can do to protect the creek if the property were zoned residential. Was there any
thought given as to what is done with the creek as a vital part of our community if an application
comes through. How is the creek protected and who has the actual ownership?
The Community Development Director reported there is a portion of the creek, an approximate
200 feet wide stretch, that is owned by Orange County Flood Control. There is a portion that is
currently in the creek bed that is in private ownership. With regard to control, ownership is one
issue and another issue is wetlands, fish and game. There are planning and permitting processes
that any development or improvement, whether it's for flood control purpose or for some other
private development, would need to be evaluated on its merit. Any development would need to
go through the various permitting agencies in addition to the city. For example, if a property has
a residential designation, it does not necessarily mean that someone can develop residentially
within a wetlands or a creek area. The City would look at the total improvement plan to see how
it still facilitates the drainage needs, how the existing wetlands is facilitated on the property and
how the development fits around that.
The City Attorney reported that from the protection of the creek standpoint, the zoning does not
drive how the creek is protected. A project, and the conditions imposed on a project, would
ultimately drive how the creek is protected, whether it's residential, commercial or a facility
allowed under Recreation-Open Space zone. He also noted that the Constitution recognizes that
a person who owns private property does have a right to put it to some economic use, and if the
PAGE 24
T'---
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
property owner is denied that right, then it constitutes an unconstitutional taking. So while the
public may want to maintain open space, the Council is not in a position to adopt a zoning to
preclude development. And if it were to be zoned Recreation-Open Space, this does not mean
there will not be any development there, as there are a number of different developments that can
go in Recreation-Open Space. The charge of the Council is to look at the surrounding land uses
and determine what land uses are compatible with the surrounding ones, not to adopt some
zoning that might preclude development.
Councilmember Coontz pointed out that the creek has changed its course as all waterways do
and asked what it will take to relate the direction ofthis creek properly on the map.
The Community Development Director reported the map shows ownership as opposed to
necessarily the exact alignment of the creek, and agreed the alignment changes over time. Staff
is doing a Santiago Creek Study, including floodway, greenway and trails, looking at the pattern
of the creek, future development standards, what we want the creek to be as a community and
how we want the creek developed or not developed. The City does have aerial maps which are
probably the best indication of the flow lines, but they have not been documented.
TAPE NO. 2
Mayor Murphy stated one of the questions that might come forward later on outside this hearing
would be something that gives a designation to indicate a creek or waterway, which is more
factually correct than showing a zoning of anything else on a creek. It would give people a piece
of mind and might be something to explore in the future.
Councilmember Slater asked about a reference made to trees in the creek.
The Community Development Director explained there are some mature trees on the site, but
they are not a riparian type tree. The Planning Commission requested mention of those trees be
added into the environmental documentation, which was done.
Councilmember Slater asked about the northerly parcel. It is identified as being approximately
20,000 square feet, which would allow for 3 single family homes in an R-I zone. He walked that
site and could not imagine how that could take place, especially with the embankment being
unstable on that side of the creek as well. The existing nearby homes are very close to the creek
embankment. He asked if some of the 20,000 square feet is actually in the creek and what would
be involved with mitigation of the embankment if homes were proposed for that location?
The Community Development Director believed all of the 20,000 square feet is outside of the
creek. It is an irregularly shaped parcel, and whether or not someone could maximize the zoning
and actually get 3 lots on it may be unlikely, given some of the physical constraints and odd
shape of the parcel. Staff would need to look at drainage patterns and protection patterns and
would be looked at on a case by case basis as a development proposal came in.
PAGE 25
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Councilmember Slater asked about the 1969 flood and if homes on the north side of the creek
were flooded out. He expressed concern about the stability of the embankment and the
contiguousness of the creek. He is reluctant to see even the north side changed to R-l zoning, as
he could not imagine building homes on that site.
The City Manager reiterated that several buildings, up closer to Kathleen and Morgan, were lost
during the 1969 flood.
Mayor pro tern Alvarez stated he agrees with the Planning Commission recommendations for the
south side, as it makes the most sense, and he was interested in knowing what the neighborhood
thinks would ultimately fit in there. In looking at the northerly site, he asked if there is any
difference whether it is zoned R-I-6 or put in the open space designation to mirror the south side,
especially if it is done as a holding pattern.
The Community Development Director reported the action the Council needs to take is to come
up with a General Plan and a zoning that is consistent and a rationale for why that decision is
made.
The City Attorney stated if the Council wants to designate it Recreation-Open Space, the Council
would need to make the findings as to why Recreation-Open Space is a compatible land use
designation given the surrounding uses.
Councilmember Cavecche asked about the northern side, if the City would be able to mitigate the
creek stability so that somebody could put in three homes if zoned R-1.
The Community Development Director stated that with any development, the City would need
to ensure that the site is safe for development, so a developer may not be able to maximize the
zoning with three houses.
The City Manager noted, with regard to the 1969 flood, that back when those existing homes
were built, there was not the sensitivity to environmental issues, the protection of the creek or the
long term protection of the homes as there is today. Since that time, there have been more
environmental concerns with permitting and environmental agencies, and more mitigation
measures in place before any development takes place.
Mayor Murphy noted the property owners were not in the audience, but wanted to ensure they
received notice of the meeting.
Council Comments
TAPE 2-270
Councilmember Slater stated at the original hearing on the property, the public stated they did
not want to see a storage facility, and the public is saying at this hearing that they do not want to
see this property zoned residential. He was not sure what the best use of the land is, but did
concur with the public on both counts, that the General Plan should be changed to match the
PAGE 26
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
zoning of open space. He also has the same feelings for the north side of the creek for the
reasons previously stated and for most of the same reasons he feels about the south side. Both
lots are odd shaped, not suitable for a reasonable residential zoned plan. On both sides, there are
questions about the stability of the creek and a question about a development's effect on the
riparian habitat in the creek. If we're going to talk about the best use of adjoining land and how
that would fit in with the General Plan, he thinks they need to look at the creek first and what is
the best use of the properties that are contiguous to the creek. In that regard, residential is not an
appropriate fit for both parcels and he would rather see the General Plan changed to Open Space
for both of them. He also requested that the Council vote on each parcel separately.
Councilmember Coontz stated she wanted to review the uses in Open Space, because the City
Attorney indicated that by law landowners should have the right to get some economic advantage
from this piece of property. If it is designated Open Space, she was unsure if anybody would
want manure stockpiling or any of the other categories that are listed, such as egg ranches, hog
feeding, horticulture, animal raising, apiaries, commercial dairies, tree crops and orchards. A
holding zone would seem to be what the Council is talking about, unless there's an expectation
that the City of Orange is going to buy this piece of property, which would be very expensive
and would cost a lot to mitigate the problems. One of the other problems with that property is
the access to it. It is very difficult to get in and out of this area and she was not sure how that
would be addressed even though it is still unclear about the extension ofYorba to the north.
Councilmember Slater stated it is clearly not his intent to have the City purchase this property. -
He agreed that Recreation-Open Space is a good holding zone, which was the thought of some of
the Planning Commissioners. He was not sure what the best use of the property was, but knows
he has not seen it. In the meantime, Recreation-Open Space is the best thing to do.
Mayor pro tern Alvarez stated that staff did a fine job in detailing this proposal, especially in
light of the lawsuit that the City is in, since that is what motivated this coming forward. They
need to be sensitive to the neighborhoods that will have to live with this decision, and he looks to
the neighborhood to help guide the Council through what will ultimately be there. Ultimately
they may have to accept the fact that Yorba Street may go through. The City is at the infancy
stage in trying to decide what to do with the creek - how they will treat it and maintain it into the
future. That is important, and by designating both sides as Recreation-Open Space, it will give
the City the time and opportunity to see what they can do as far as preserving a true asset to the
City, which is a greenbelt of the Santiago Creek from Hart Park to Santiago Oaks Park.
Councilmember Cavecche stated she was not happy having to discuss this, but understands they
have to because of the lawsuit. She was not comfortable having to rule on a zoning or General
Plan designation without a specific project in front of them. She appreciated the comments about
using Recreation-Open Space as a holding zone and understands that does not preclude a land
owner from coming forward with a development request. She was not willing to zone the
property R-l without a project to make sure it is a suitable residential project for that property.
In the southern side, she will be voting to recommend approval of the Planning Commission's
recommendation to keep it Recreation-Open Space. She was still unsure about the northern site.
PAGE 27
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26, 2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Mayor Murphy stated that given the answers by the legal staff in terms of really having either
choice being legally defensible, which is his first priority from a fiduciary responsibility to the
City, he would choose the Recreation-Open Space designation for the south side of the creek,
because it provides a holding use and a recognition as well that someone can come back and
apply for something else. In the meantime, it gives the consistency that is needed from a
planning standpoint but also some indication of the types of things that might be considered for
the future. He is still considering the northern side, but recognizes that anything proposed to be
built has to take into consideration the creek and issues surrounding the creek; and there would
be mitigation inherent in place. He also wanted to note for future consideration, the idea of
coming back at a more appropriate time, in a noticed hearing, to talk about a better designation
for creek properties, along with the implications that go along with that in terms of what the real
setbacks are, what the protections are from a banking standpoint and maybe create a designation
to recognize what really exists. From good sound principles, it needs to be called what it is
instead of what it might be in another designation. It needs to be made as simple as possible.
Councilmember Coontz stated, on the issue of the creek, she was unsure what Council can do
from a legal standpoint and just how one determines how far it is taken in a zoning situation
when there is a development application. There is also the idea that the creek alignment does
change and there should be some room in whatever they do, in a new designation if they have it,
that takes that into account. She noted that area is very difficult to access off of Chapman, and
regardless of what her vote was before, she always thought it was difficult to access and
wouldn't it be more difficult if residential were on this particular parcel. Access is difficult
because of the freeway and traffic along Chapman. Councilmember Coontz supports the
recommendation to zone both parcels the same way with Recreation-Open Space. She realized
the hard work done by the Planning staff. The property has been held for many years, and there
have been many projects in the same vicinity. There is more of an attitude about the creek that is
positive than there used to be in the past.
Council Action
TAPE 2 - 650
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to approve Negative Declaration 1683-01 as being prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15070 et seq.
MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Slater
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved to approve General Plan Amendment to change the southerly site land use designation
from GC (General Commercial) to OS (Open Space)
PAGE 28
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 26,2002
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Coontz
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz
NOES - Cavecche
Move to change the Land Use Designation on the northerly site from LDR (Low Density
Residential) to OS (Open Space)
14. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Cavecche
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
The City Council adjourned at 9: I 0 p.m.
(~J.t AUA~.4'dOsr~_-uu7'"
CASSANDRAJ(C CART,CMC
CITY CLERK
PAGE 29