4/18/2005 - Council Minutes - CC Minutes Adj
I
I
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 26, 2005
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING April 18,2005
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened an Adjourned Regular Meeting at
4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
4:00 P.M. JOINT STUDY SESSION
WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
1.
OPENING
I.2
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Mayor Murphy
1.3 ROLL CALL
Citv Council
PRESENT - Smith, Murphy, Cavecche
ABSENT - Dumitru, Ambriz (Councilmembers Dumitru and Ambriz arrived at 4:15 p.m.)
Planning Commission
PRESENT - Pruett, Domer, Enderby, Bonina
ABSENT - Imboden
1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS - None.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chris Koontz 18962 Fowler, asked for a study session that focuses on the content of the
development and also for a night meeting.
Cesar Covarrubias, 1033 Cumberland, spoke on the need for a discussion on affordable housing
on this development.
Theresa Sears, 7333 Santiago Canyon Road, spoke on the runoff management plan; asking
that the Plan be redone and circulated.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR - None.
4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY - None.
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None.
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None.
PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 18, 2005
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
7.1 Discussion of Traffic and Circulation, and Noise considerations of the proposed
Santiago Hills II / East Orange development project.
Ed Knight, Principal Planner, introduced the Consultants.
Kendall Elmer, Austin Foust, provided a power point presentation on a Traffic Analysis. He
reviewed history of project, comparing the original 1989 plan to the proposed Santiago Hills II /
East Orange Plan, which shows a considerable reduction in dwelling units and traffic. He
reviewed the scope of the Traffic Analysis - the CEQA required impact analysis and impacts of
the proposed MP AH amendments. He reviewed criteria and statistics for trip generation;
project related roadway improvements; traffic distribution patterns; existing deficiencies; and
impact mitigation by intersection.
J.D. Douglas, Consultant, reported he had conducted a peer review of the Traffic Analysis;
noting the key questions of the analysis include, How much more traffic will there be?, How
much traffic will be contributed by this development?, and How will traffic growth affect
congestion? He reviewed daily traffic volumes in 20 I 0; and peak hour intersection congestion
levels.
Council Ouestions
Councilmember Smith suggested the print in the report be larger for ease of reading. She
expressed concern on the original traffic projections for Santiago Hills I - if those projections
actually hit the mark. There are already traffic problems along Santiago Canyon Road, and there
would be more problems if the current traffic analysis was building upon the original one.
In response to questions by Councilmember Smith, Mr. Elmer indicated the projected 43,433
trips per day are trips strictly generated by this proposed development. There will be distribution
changes in traffic patterns due to the development level throughout the County as residents in
this community orient themselves toward other areas. He reported the improvements at the Toll
Road on and off ramps may be funded through Corridor fees and this project will pursue a credit
or reimbursement plan and build improvements when needed, but not be outright responsible for
it.
Councilmember Dumitru asked about the criteria to determine peak morning and evening hours;
and how additional roads such as the Jeffrey extension will change traffic patterns and reduce
traffic.
Mr. Elmer indicated peak hours can vary depending on the location; the traffic figures do
include trips for schools, parks and golf course; and that road extensions are a major feature that
has been assumed for the year 2025 and which would benefit or enhance the ability for residents
to travel in other directions.
PAGE 2
I
I
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 18,2005
Councilmember Ambriz askcd about the portion of Santiago Canyon Road east of Area 2 and
why the proposal does not show any enhancements or modifications, as that is a very sensitive
section of the roadway; and asked what methods were used to determine deficiencies at
intersections. He asked about the elimination of Jamboree to Gypsum I Weir Canyon, noting
that a parallel road to complement the toll road would be nice, but unsure if that would be
financial feasible for The Irvine Company.
Mr. Elmer explained that the portion of Santiago Canyon Road east of Area 2 was looked at, but
by the time traffic gets that far east the capacity did not exceed the two lane roadway which
exists today. Also, there is a standard prescription in determining deficiencies, such as number
of lanes upon approach to an intersection. He stated that no official action has been taken to
remove Jamboree to Gypsum I Weir Canyon.
Mr. Dan Miller, The Irvine Company, reported that in order to fast track improvements along the
TCA Corridor, they have entered into an agreement with the Transportation Corridor Agency for
$50 million for improvements at four major intersections, the priority of those intersections
being Santiago Canyon Road and the 2411261 toll road. Normally, development fees are paid
and the project is built at a later date. However, with this agreement, The Irvine Company will
advance $15 million and tie it into thresholds in order to complete that intersection. The Irvine
Company will then get reimbursed by the TCA when the money is available.
Mayor pro tem Cavecche expressed concern on the timing of improvements, noting it is better to
build the traffic improvements before, rather than after, the development. She also questioned
other developments in the Irvine area and the impacts that will have to this area and the 241
roadway. She noted that the Jeffrey addition is not shown on the 2025 Committed Circulation
System Improvements Map.
Mr. Elmer noted that projects in other areas have all gone through their own environmental
review with mitigation measures. He stated that traffic numbers from other developments are
included in this traffic analysis as numbers attributed to other developments.
Planning Commission comments
Chairman Bonina stated that due to the time constraints of this meeting, the Commissioners
would defer their comments to a later date, and put them in writing.
Mayor Murphy suggested, with Council and Commission concurrence, the presentation on the
Noise Assessment be deferred to the next Study Session.
PAGE 3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 18,2005
Public Comments
Ron Matheson, 7316 E. La Cumbre, asked for improvements to the asphalt on Chapman Avenue as
a noise reduction factor.
Tom Davidson, Address on File, suggested the entire study be looked at again as there are already
impacts in the area and those impacts actually extend further from study area.
J ann Koepke, Santiago Canyon Road resident asked that further safety issues for residents living on
Santiago Canyon Road be taken into consideration.
Bobbie Bloecher, Chapman Avenue resident, noted the portion of Chapman Avenue which has been
resurfaced has helped with noise reduction; and that speeding is still a problem on Chapman.
Jane Canseco, 7204 Pony Court, asked that the noise reduction asphalt on Chapman Avenue be
extended; and noted the difficulty in turning out onto Chapman.
Don Gillespie, Chapman Avenue resident, stated the noise levels at his residence are already above
noise standards with current traffic; and there is a loss of property values to homeowners off of
Chapman.
Sam Markell, Silverado Canyon resident, spoke on quality oflife issues.
Anthony Mack, Silverado Canyon resident, spoke on quality of life issues; and questioned the traffic
modeling statistics.
Chris Koontz, 18962 Fowler, stated it was not appropriate to evaluate impacts against the 1989
Plan; and spoke on the costs and benefits of additional traffic into Orange.
Theresa Sears, 7733 Santiago Canyon Road; stated the Cannon and Santiago Canyon Road
intersection needs to be looked at again; and that speeds need to be reduced.
Dan Miller, The Irvine Company, noted that additional traffic will be generated whether this
development is built or not; but that development fees will come with the development. He also
noted there are 20,500 acres of permanent open space which can not be developed.
8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS - None.
PAGE 4
I
I
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
Apri I 18, 2005
10. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
NOTE: The Council did not recess.
The City Council will recess to a Closed Session for the following purposes:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a):
Lynn Tam v. City of Orange, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 78 69 49
b. 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.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned at 6:10 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting, Study Session
on April 19, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2005-06 Budget,
including a summary of projected revenues and recommended expenditures.
DECLARATION OF POSTING: Declaratton of City Clerk, Mary E. Murphy, declaring posting of
the City Council Agenda of an Adjourned Regular Meetiug of April 18, 2005 at Orange Civic
Center in the north facing kiosk, Police Facility at 1107 North Batavia, and Shaffer Park; all of
said locations being iu the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72
hours before commencement of said Adjourned Regular Mcetiug; and also available at the City
Clerk's Office and Main Library at 101 N. Center Street.
/ cc/
L"(~iH D----<~
MARY, . MURPHY
CITY CLERK
~fM
MARKA.MURR
MAYOR
PAGE 5