06-11-1996 Council Minutesf\.:'.c:/,:'<.UV _~..J .::>.:L n.i \.....J~_.\\....._~_--' l)..\t...-:J I _< :::':::''0.CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF A REGULAR
MEETING ORANGE, CALIFORNIA June
11, 1996
The City Council
of the City of Orange, California convened on June 11, 1996 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 PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Mayor
Coontz 1.2 ROLL
CALL PRESENT - Murphy, Mayor
Coontz, Slater ABSENT - Barrera, Spurgeon NOTE: -
Mayor pro tern Barrera
and Councilman Spurgeon arrived at 4:40 p.m.1.3 PRESENTA TIONSI ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS -
None 1.4PROCLAMATIONS - None 2.CONSENT CALENDAR
Tape 59 2.1 Declaration
of City Clerk, Cassandra J.
Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council agenda of a regular meeting of June 11, 1996
at Orange Civic Center, Main Library, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, the Eisenhower Park Bulletin
Board and summarized on Time Warner Communications; 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.2.2 Request Council confirmation of warrant registers
dated May 28 and 31, 1996.ACTION: Approved.2.3 Approve the following City
Council Minutes:
Regular Meeting, May 28, 1996 and Adjourned Regular Meeting, May 29, 1996.ACTION: Approved.
APPROPRIATIONS 2.4 Request Council appropriate
funds in
the
amountof $50,000.00 and authorize final payment for 1-5 Consultant Services provided for
by Agreement AGR-2046 with the City of Anaheim. (A2100.0 AGR-2046)
PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $50,000 to be appropriated from TSIP
Unappropriated Reserves to Account No. 284-5011-483300 (TSIP Area
B
Capital Improvements).
ACTION:
Approved.BIDS 2.5 Request Council award a three year bid for the annual financial audit
to Conrad &Associates, L.L.P. for 1995-96 - $38,925; 1996-97 - $37,720; and 1997-
98 $40,655.
A2100.0 AGR-2617)FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted
in the following accounts:
100-1231-426300 - General
Fund 291-7026-
426300 - Assessment Dist.
310-6041-426300 -
CDBG 910-9801-
426300 - Redevelopment 911-
6023-426300 - Housing
920-9811-426300 -
Redevelopment 921-6023-
426300 - Housing
930-9821-426300 -
Redevelopment 931-6023-
426300 - Housing 29,
500.00 800.
00 4,000.
00 1,200.
00 2,400.
00 3,300.00 2,400.00 1,500.00 2,400.
00 Discussion: Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, asked what the three Redevelopment funds
are and the three housing totaling $13,200 for the annual financial audit.The
Director of Finance explained the three Redevelopment funds are 910 - Tustin Project Area, 920 - Southwest and 930 -
Northwest. The budget for 1996/97 is $47,000 to adequately cover the cost of the proposal. The
cost for the audit firm is $38,925 for Fiscal Year 1996/97, which is performed
in the budget year 1996/97. If expenditures are less than the budgeted amount at
the
end ofthe year, the remainder goes back into fund balance.ACTION: Authorized Mayor
and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.2.6 Request Council award Bid No. 956-34
in the amount of $371,190.05 to R. F. Paulus,
Inc., 2871 E. Coronado St., Anaheim, CA 92806. (A2100.
0 AGR-26l8)FISCAL
IMPACT: Funds are budgeted
in the following accounts:
530-5011-483400-
5331 (Drainage Dist.
Fund)272-5011-
483300-3431 (Gas Tax Fund)590-5013-483300-3123 (Assessment Dist. 86-1)
252,682.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
2.7 Request Council award Bid No. 956-35, D-121 for storm drain construction
on Batavia Street from Walnut Ave. to Angus Ave. and Maple Ave. from Batavia
St. to approximately 1200 ft. west in the amount of $85,970.00 to Urbantec
Engineering, Inc.,1835 W. Orangewood Ave., #330, Orange, CA 92668. Included with this request
is a transfer of funds. (A2100.
0 AGR-26l9)FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in
the following accounts:310-6058-483400-5382 (CDBG Maple
Ave. Storm Drain) $3,473.00.310-6058-483400-
1810 (CDBG Batavia St. Storm Drain) $62,275.00.Transfer of funds for
the
award, contingencies and engineering costs is requested as follows:From Account No.
310-6056-473300-1326 (CDBG Lemon St./Maple Ave.) $45,000.
00 to Account No. 310-6056-473300-1810 (CDBG Batavia Ave. Storm Drain) $45,000.
ACTION: Authorized Mayor
and
City Clerk to execute on behalf
of the City
and approve transfer
of funds.CLAIMS
2.8 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM:a. Lon McGovern b. Lori Ortiz
FISCAL
IMPACT: None.ACTION: Denied claims and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster. (C3200.0)CONTRACTS 2.9 Request
Council award a contract in an amount not to exceed $21,500.
00 to Michael AhIering & Associates for a realignment and environmental study of Hewes Avenue
from Bluebird Avenue to Julie Avenue. An appropriation of funds is required for this
contract.This work
is needed in connection with the County sale of the "Strawberry Patch".A2100.0 AGR-
2620)FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $24,000.
00 are requested
from the Traffic Safety Fund Unappropriated Reserves, Fund 251, to Account No. 251-5011-
483300-3241 Hewes Alignment
Study).ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
EASEMENT
2.10 Request Council approve an easement for fuel modification zone over a portion of future
Reservoir Site 8A located north of Cliffway Drive east of Crawford Canyon Road.
D4000.0)
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Discussion: Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, asked what the term fuel modification
meant?
The Acting Fire Chief explained fuel modification is changing the brush within 150 ft. of
structures to make it more fire resistant. There is usually a 50 ft. web zone that is irrigated
with special plants, and 100 ft. zone of clearing designed to protect structures in case of a
fire.
ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
2.11 Request Council find that public convenience and necessity will be served by downgrading
the Alcoholic Beverage Control license at the Circle K Mini Market located at 492 N.
Tustin Street from a Type "21" Off-Sale General to a Type "20" Off Sale Beer and
Wine.P1300.0.
2)FISCAL IMPACT: No impact on the City's budget since this action can be carried
out with existing staff as part of their normal
duties.ACTION:
Approved.
RESOLUTIONS 2.12 RESOLUTION NO.
8578 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line
Adjustment LL 95-12 adjusting a lot line of certain real property situated at 1800 W.
Culver Avenue together with 1811, 1815, 1831 and 1835 W. La Veta Avenue. (C2500.M.16.
1
LLN-95-12)OWNERS: Summit Care Corporation,
a California
Corporation ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
REMOVED AND HEARD SEP ARATEL Y)
2.13 RESOLUTION NO. 8592
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line Adjustment
LL 96-6 adjusting a lot line of certain real property situated at the northwest corner of
La Veta Avenue and Main Street in the City of Orange, County of Orange, State
of California. (C2500.M.16.l
LLN-96-6)OWNER:
City of Orange
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon
ABSTAIN - Slater ACTION:
Approved.2.
14 RESOLUTION NO 8618 A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving amendment of the Joint Powers
Agreement for Orange County Cities Risk Management Authority. (A2100.0 AGR-
0233.B.l)
ACTION: Approved.
2.15 RESOLUTION NO. 8632
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange initiating proceedings and ordering
the preparation of an Engineer's Report for certain Assessment District proceedings (AD
82-1). (L1200.0
LMA-82-
1)ACTION: Approved.2.16
RESOLUTION NO. 8633 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange giving preliminary
approval to the Engineer's Report" for Landscape Maintenance Assessment
District 82-1 (Shadow Ridge) and declaring its intention to provide for an annual
levy and collection of assessments in that special maintenance district and setting a time
and place for public hearing to receive evidence on the foregoing
matters. (L1200.
0
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
2.17 RESOLUTION NO. 8634
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange initiating proceedings and ordering
the preparation of an Engineer's Report for certain Assessment District proceedings (AD
86-2). (L1200.0
LMA-86-
2)ACTION: Approved.2.18
RESOLUTION NO. 8635 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange giving preliminary
approval to the Engineer's Report" for Landscape Maintenance Assessment District
86-2 (Santiago Hills)and declaring its intention to provide for an annual levy and
collection of assessments in that special maintenance district and setting a time and place for
public hearing to receive evidence on the foregoing
matters. (L1200.
0 LMA-86-2)ACTION:
Approved.2.19 RESOLUTION NO. 8636 A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Orange initiating proceedings and ordering the preparation of an Engineer's Report
for certain Assessment District
proceedings (94-
1). (L1200.0 LMA-94-
1)ACTION: Approved.2.20 RESOLUTION NO. 8637 A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Orange giving preliminary approval to the Engineer's
Report" for Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 94-1 (Sycamore Crossing) and declaring its intention
to provide for an annual levy and collection of assessments in that special maintenance
district and setting a time and place for public hearing to
receive evidence
on the foregoing matters. (L1200.
0 LMA-94-1)ACTION: Approved.2.21 RESOLUTION NO. 8641 A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the completion of a certain
public work and improvement; Bid No. 945-36, SP 3136,
Damon Construction,
Lincoln
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June II, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
2.22 RESOLUTION NO. 8642
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, calling and giving
notice of the holding ofa General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5,
1996, for the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the laws of the
State of California relating to General Law Cities. (EllOO.O)
ACTION: Approved.
2.23 RESOLUTION NO. 8643
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, requesting the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a General Municipal Election to be
held on November 5, 1996, with the Statewide General Election to be held on the date
pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code. (El100.0)
ACTION: Approved.
2.24 RESOLUTION NO. 8644
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, adopting regulations
for Candidates for elective office pertaining to Candidates Statements submitted to the
voters at an Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996. (EllOO.O)
ACTION: Approved.
2.25 RESOLUTION NO. 8645
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, providing for the
conduct of a Special Runoff Election for Elective Offices in the event of a tie vote at any
Municipal Election. (EllOO.O)
ACTION: Approved.
2.26 RESOLUTION NO. 8646
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, California, setting priorities for
filing written arguments regarding a City Measure and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an Impartial Analysis. (EllOO.O)
Discussion: Barbara DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, asked for an explanation of the item.
The City Attorney responded the Resolution sets priorities for filing written arguments
and authorizes the City Council to file written arguments for the measure, directing the
City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis pursuant to the Election Code.
PAGE 7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved.
2.27 RESOLUTION NO. 8647
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, upholding the recommendation of
the Planning Commission of the City of Orange and granting a variance to allow an
accessory second housing unit and total area of all accessory structures to exceed
maximum square footage allowed by code. (V1300.0 V AR-
2008-95)Variance 2008-95 -
Steve Loritz
ACTION: Approved.2.28 RESOLUTION
NO. 8648 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the
recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange and granting a conditional use
permit to allow construction of an accessory second housing unit upon property situated
at 6909 East Oak Lane. (C3300.
0 CUP-2139-95)Conditional Use Permit
2139-95 -
Steve Loritz ACTION: Approved.REMOVED AND
HEARD SEP ARATEL Y)2.
29 RESOLUTION NO. 8650 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange, denying the
appeal of approval of Minor Site Plan Review No. 3-96 and approving said minor
site plan review for property located at the southwest corner of Rancho
Santiago Boulevard and
Pearl Street.A4000.0 APP-428)Minor Site Plan
Review No. 3-
96 - Tony Alves MOTION -
Murphy SECOND - Mayor Coontz AYES - Murphy,
Mayor Coontz, Slater NOES -
Barrera, Spurgeon
ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
SPEED LIMIT
2.30 Request Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to Ordinance No. 5-
94 changing the speed limit on Loma Street from Serrano Avenue to north City limits
from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. in accordance with vehicle code requirements. (S4000.S.3.
4)FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are budgeted in Account No. 250- (Traffic
Safety
Funds).ACTION:
Approved.MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Barrera AYES -
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Items Nos.
2.13 and 2.29 were removed and heard separately. Ail other items on the Consent Calendar
were approved as recommended.END OF
CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS
FROM MAYOR COONTZ - None 4. REPORTS FROM
COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS,
COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None 6.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Tape 351
6.1 Appeal by Beatrice
Leslie Kight-Herbst of the Traffic Commission ruling denying the installation of an
All-Way Stop control at the intersection of Walnut Avenue at Lincoln Street. This item
was continued from the May 14, 1996 Council meeting to allow the appellant to discuss
the issue with the Director of Public Works and the Traffic Engineer.S4000.S.3.
3)The Directorof
Public Works reported concerns were raised regarding the process involved, the Traffic Commission approval
and the merits ofthe case. The Southern California Automobile Club is in
the process of performing an independent review to obtain an unbiased opinion on the merits of the
request, which will be available for Council review at the July 9, 1996 meeting.MOTION SECOND AYES
Murphy
Mayor
Coontz
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon,
Slater Moved to continue to the July
9, 1996 meeting.PAGE 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 8.
LEGAL AFFAIRS Tape 380 8.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 15-96 (SECOND READING)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange approving the public lease back of
certain facilities with the Countywide Public Financing Authority. (p2500.0.5)
The Director of Finance explained the 800 MHz system is financed through a lease back provision
where the City Hall is the asset leased back to the Financing Authority to provide assurances for
the bondholders that there is adequate coverage for the debt service on the bond.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Murphy
Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved that
Ordinance No. 15-96 have second reading waived and be adopted and same was passed
and adopted by the preceding vote.9.
RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 10.
ORAL PRESENTATIONS Carole
Walters, 534 N. Shaffer, asked if the grocery cart law is in effect, and if so, it should be enforced.
The
Assistant City Attorney responded the Ordinance is in effect and individuals are being cited.A
provision of the Ordinance which has not yet been implemented is the City is currently devising a
study to calculate costs if the City has to retrieve carts, whereby the costs would be charged back
to the grocery industry or businesses which have shopping carts. The City is also looking at a
partnership with the private sector for the collection of carts, which may be more cost effective.Councilman
Slater, member of the ad hoc committee, clarified the Ordinance is being enforced at this
time in targeted areas by the bicycle patrol with a very positive effect.Mayor
Coontz requested an update.Barbara
DeNiro, 1118 E. Adams, distributed copies of her letter to Council and expressed her concern
about giving her address at Council meetings, since it is already indicated on the speakers card.
11.
RECESS MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera
Murphy Murphy,
Barrera, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
11. RECESS (Continued)
The City Council recessed at 4:50 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - anticipated litigation. Initiation oflitigation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(c) (one potential case).b.
Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:City
Negotiator: Personnel Director.Employee
Organization: All Employee Organizations (List Available in Personnel Office).c.
Public employment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: City Attorney.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.
1 INVOCATION Councilman
Murphy gave the invocation.12.
2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led
by Mayor Coontz 12.
3 ANNOUNCEMENTS - None 12.4
INTRODUCTIONS - None 12.5 PROCLAMATIONS -
None 12.6 PRESENTATIONS - None
13.PUBLIC HEARINGS Tape 735
13.1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-
96, CITY OF ORANGE:Time set for a
public hearing on petition by the City of Orange to modifY its zoning regulations pertaining to cellular antennas.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1495-
96 has been prepared to address the environmental impacts of this proposal.The
Director of
Community Development reported requests for cellular antennas have been prompted by the
use of cellular telephones across the county and new services such as enhanced specialized mobile radio
and personal communication services being introduced into the marketplace. There are
a growing number of companies providing wireless communication PAGE 11
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
services, resulting in a demand for new antenna sites. Antennas complying with the provisions
contained in the existing Ordinance are pennitted by building pennit only and do not require a
Conditional Use Pennit process. Expanding regulations to allow antennas in other zones and in
closer proximity to residential zones should be done subject to review and approval by the
Conditional Use Pennit process.
The current regulations provide cellular antennas pennitted in commercial and industrial districts
must be located a minimum distance of 100 ft. from residential zoned property and are allowed a
maximum height of65 ft. Building mounted antennas are pennitted to a maximum height of 10 ft.
and the combined height of the building and antenna must comply to the building height allowed
in that zone. Expansions to these provisions would include pennitting cellular antennas in public
institution and office professional districts under the same conditions as in the commercial and
industrial zones; adding design criteria for building mounted antennas; Allowing antennas subject
to issuance of a CUP in situations where ground mounted antennas are less than 100 ft. from R-
3 and R-4 zones where antennas are in public parks, recreation facilities and school
properties and at least 100 ft. from an R-l or R-2 zone; in residential zones on
properties containing legal non-conforming uses; and building mounted antennas which exceed
10 ft. in height.MAYOR COONTZ
OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Bill Blodget, 660 So. Glassell, representing Park Orleans
Homeowners Association, reported his property is located in the R-3 zone and is excluded from the
Ordinance, and only protects him with a CUP. He requested the pending Ordinance be modified to allow
such antennas in the R-3 and R-4 zones, subject to a CUP, provided that no such
antennas should be closer than 100 ft.from the R-l or R-2 zoned property. Further, he
indicated the reason for his request would
be for a commercial gain for the homeowners association.THERE
BEING
NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.The Director of Community Development
responded Mr. Blodget's property is located in a residential community property directly
adjacent to the Garden Grove (22) Freeway, and indicated a provision could be added
allowing cellular towers and other wireless towers on residential properties. However, criteria could be
added to include only properties adjacent to a freeway system and within a certain proximity of a commercial
zone, or a distance away from R-l and R-2 zones. Criteria to
be established would be the proximity to freeways; properties where a homeowners association exists;
proximity to R-l and R-2 zones, and properties
in close proximity to zones that do allow or conditionally allow the pennits.
Council discussion ensued relative to new changes in technology, expansions to the existing ordinance, and
R-3 and R-4 zones being
considered
on
their
own merit.
Mayor Coontz
directed staff return in one year for
review.MOTION
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Moved to approve Negative Declaration 1495-96, finding that the project will not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife
resources.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Murphy Mayor Coontz
Murphy, Barrera, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Moved
to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-96 and direct staff to return in 30 days with draft
language to amend the Ordinance to include the potentiality ofR-3 and R-4
in specialized situations
as noted.13.2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-96,
ZONE CHANGE 1181-96,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1500-96,
CITY OF ORANGE:Tape 1914 NOTE: Discussion ofItems 13.2, 13.3 and Redevelopment
Item 10.1
were considered under this item.Time set for a public hearing to consider Environmental Impact Report
No. 1500-96 for the Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment
Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. A proposal to amend the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Plan by adding approximately 2.2 acres ofland comprised of a total of 13
properties to the existing project area.The project site is bounded by Culver Avenue to the north, La
Veta Avenue to the south, Main Street to the east and Alpine Road to the west. The addresses
of the properties are as follows:405-491 South Alpine Road; 1422-1430
West Culver Avenue; 1425-1435
West La Veta Avenue and 402-490 South Main Street.Amendment to the General Plan Land Use
Element of 10 residential parcels on the east side of Alpine Road from Low
Density Residential (2-6 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial.Zone
Change to allow the reclassification of residential parcels from R-I-6 (Residential-Single
Family District, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to C-2 (
General Business District).In compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA),Environmental
Imoact Report (EIR) 1500-96 has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
ofthis project.Mayor Coontz announced the City Council of the City of Orange, Orange Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing Agenda,
City Council Items 13.2 and 13.3, ORA Item 10.1 -
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project and Related General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Environmental Impact Report for Tuesday, June II, 1996 at 7:00 p.
m. will be considered at this time. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency agenda items are closely related.
It is important to note that neither the Council nor the Agency will take any
action at this evening's meeting concerning either item; per Redevelopment law; however, this is the
public's
official opportunity
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan
General Plan Amendment 1-
96 Zone Change
1181-96 Environmental Impact
Report 1500-96 Legally, any comments regarding the General Plan Amendment and zone
change are considered to be directed to the City Council only, and comments regarding the EIR
and redevelopment plan amendment are directed to both the City Council
and the Agency.Councilman Spurgeon reported a potential conflict of interest due to a residence he
owns which is approximately 1800 feet away from the area which is proposed to be added
to the Southwest Project Area, indicating he had not yet obtained an appraisal for the property to
determine if it
would be affected.Councilman Slater reported a potential conflict of interest because he is currently
negotiating on a property within 300 feet of
the project area.Mayor pro tem Barrera reported a potential conflict of interest as he owns a
commercial piece of property within the Southwest Project Area at the corner of
Chapman and Batavia.The City Attorney indicated Councilmembers Barrera, Spurgeon and
Slater have potential conflicts, and since it requires four votes in order to take action on the matters
before the Council and/or Agency, the City Clerk was directed to place their names in a drawing
to determine who would be allowed to participate in the decision and who would have
to disqualifY himself.The Deputy City Clerk drew the names of Councilman Slater and
Councilman Spurgeon to participate; Mayor pro tem Barrera was disqualified and did not participate
in the meeting.ROLL CALL - ORANGE
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
PRESENT ABSENT Spurgeon, Murphy, Slater, Chairman
Coontz Barrera
Chairman Coontz indicated the prior wording to Resolution No. ORA-03l4 at the 4:30 p.
m.Session which read, "A Resolution of the Orange Redevelopment Agency approving,
in connection with the proposed Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, the
Plan Amendment, Relocation Plan and Report to Council, and authorizing and directing the Agency
to transmit the Report to Council and Third Amendment to the City Council of the City of
Orange,"gives the perception the Agency was approving the item without a public hearing, which
is scheduled for the 7:00 p.m. session. Chairman Coontz made the following changes to
Resolution No.
ORA-03l4:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. ORA-
03l4 A Resolution of the Orange Redevelopment Agency authorizing the transmittal of the
Agency Report in connection with the proposed Third Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment
Plan,the Plan Amendment Relocation Plan, and Report to the City
Council.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
ABSENT Coontz
Spurgeon Murphy,
Chairman Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Barrera Moved
that Resolution
No. ORA-03l4 as introduced, be adopted and same was passed and adopted by
the preceding vote.The Interim
Director of Economic Development reported the amendment would include three parcels on
the corner of La Veta and Main, and ten parcels on the east side of Alpine. The City presently owns
the three parcels and the one house on the corner. There are nine other houses with three
owners - parcels 4 and 5 are owned by different owners and the remainder of the parcels are owned
by one person. The objectives of the amendment is to provide for more productive land utilization
and prevent blighting; to provide for an adequately sized development which would be
appropriate for modern redevelopment; and for public improvements needs on the parcel, in
hopes to create a condition that would make it possible to redevelop the area. Part of that effort
includes a zone change, which requires a General Plan Amendment.The Director of
Community Development stated the land use applications address the ten lots on the east side
of Alpine between La Veta and Culver, which is 2.16 acres in size. Currently the General Plan designation
is low density residential, which allows a range of two to six dwelling units per acre.
Zoning is currently R-I-6 (Single-Family Residential) 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot
size. The proposal is to change the General Plan Designation to a General Commercial
classification and to change the zoning to a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning. The
proposed designations are the same as what exists to the east of the properties in the shopping center
which fronts on Main
Street.There is no specific proposal at this time. Actions would allow for the opportunity and
direction for future proposals for commercial development on the site. Addressing residential
structures which would remain on the west side of Alpine, there is a 10 ft. setback from the property line,
a height limit of32 ft. within 120 feet ofa residential zone. This increases as you get further
from the residential properties, increasing at a ratio of I ft. in height for every 4 ft. away from
the residential zone. Additional height is allowed by a Conditional Use Permit and a public
hearing before the Planning Commission. The City has regulations which address noise and light
within commercial properties. A mitigation measure prohibits commercial access directly on to
Alpine.Pat Mann, representing the firm of Cotton Beyland, Pasadena, reported the EIR was
circulated and comments were received from three public agencies as well as the Planning
Commission hearing, and responses to those comments are included in the EIR. The cumulative affect of
air PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
quality resulting from traffic generated by the project and others exceed the AQMD threshold was
identified as a potential significant affect which could not be mitigated.. Other impacts of concern
include land use, visual affects, construction noise and traffic noise.
Murray Kane, Agency Counsel representing the firm of Kane, Ballmer and Berkman, 354 S.
Spring Street, Los Angeles, requested the following Exhibits be officially entered into the record:
Exhibit A
ExhibitB
Exhibit C
ExhibitD
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
ExhibitH
Exhibit I
The affidavit of publication of the Notice ofJoint Public Hearing.
The affidavit of mailing of the Notice of Joint Public Hearing to each property
owner within the area to be added by the proposed Third Amendment
Amendment Area) as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to persons
or businesses residing or operating a business within the Amendment Area,
The affidavit of mailing of the Notice ofJoint Public Hearing to each property
owners within the existing Project Area and as shown on the last equalized
assessment roll, and to persons or businesses residing or operating a business
within the existing Project Area,
The affidavit of certified mailing of the Notice of Joint Public Hearing to each
property owner within the existing Project Area and as shown on the last equalized
assessment roll, and to persons or businesses residing or operating a business
within the existing Project Area; and to persons owning property or residing on the
west side of the 400 block of South Alpine Road,
The affidavit of mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to the governing bodies of
each taxing agency within the existing Project Area and the Amendment Area,
The Statement of Economic Interests of each member of the Orange City Council
and Orange Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. These original
documents are on file in the City Clerk's office,
The Agency Report to Council,
The Final Environmental Impact Report,
The proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest
Redevelopment Project.
The documents were made part of the record.
The Agency Counsel explained the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council are not
permitted to taken action at this meeting to written objections by an owner or affected person to
the proposed Plan. Staff and legal counsel will review and prepare a response to the written
comments and objections, and bring them back to the Agency and the City Council at the next
meeting for consideration.
PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
The Interim Director of Economic Development summarized the process involved, stating a
Project Area Committee (pAC) was established on March II, 1996 and met several times to
answer questions and disseminate information.
Kathy Rosenow, Redevelopment Consultant, 540 N. Golden Circle, Santa Ana, gave an overview
of the report which states the reasons for the Third Amendment; describes the projects that could
occur; economic and physical conditions in the area; and why the Third Amendment is needed in
order to effectuate redevelopment of the existing Southwest Project Area, as well as the proposed
Third Amendment Area.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
The Agency Counsel reported in addition to Exhibits A - I, written documents have been received from
Metropolitan Water District and from other members of the public and property owners.Exhibits
J, comments received from taxing agencies, and K general public comments received were
entered into the record.ORAL
TESTIMONY Carole
Walters, 534 N. Shaffer, expressed concern for using eminent domain as a possibility,stating
it could be used in other areas of Orange. There was not enough time between the Planning
Commission hearing and the CounciVAgency hearing to review the minutes and comment
on any issues.The
Agency Counsel responded there is no legal requirement that the issue be deferred because of when
the Planning Commission acted. The Planning Commission's decision has been clearly made,
which has to do with the General Plan conformity and a recommendation on the amendment.
The use of eminent domain is strictly limited to the proposed amendment, and would not
be available any where else in the City.Chris
Jamieson, 460 Alpine Road, expressed opposition to the proposed amendment, stating that pealing
paint on the houses does not indicate a blighted area; asked if there is a variance that stipulates
a minimum or maximum distance between C-l and R-l; indicated he would prefer a
cul-de-sac at the end of Alpine; stated an eight foot wall is not high enough; and
asked what procedures the Agency has for eminent domain. The proposed amendment allowing
for a potential invasion and demolition of residential houses for the purpose of
developing commercial property should be dealt with carefully. He stated the Redevelopment Agency offered a
first time home buyers down payment assistance program which helped him buy his house,
indicating those funds are wasted when the same funds are used to buy the property back and knock
it down.Stu Dygert, 147 N. Grant Place, owner of property located at 443 S. Alpine, spoke
in opposition to the proposed amendment, however, he is not opposed to the general plan amendment
or the zone change, indicating the homes are not in a blighted area. Traffic concerns, lighting,
noise and pollution were not adequately addressed in the EIR. It was also indicated that a 15 ft. wall
is too high and proposed a 5-6 ft. berm with landscaping and a wall be placed on top. Mr.
Dygert felt
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
the amendment is not done, developers should talk to the property owner prior to approaching the
Redevelopment Agency.
Simon Goodyear, 422 S. Alpine, expressed opposition to the proposed amendment, as he recently
purchased his property and was unaware of the changes to the area prior to the purchase.
Councilman Spurgeon asked Mr. Goodyear if there was anything in the disclosure of sale that
there was evidence of street widening. A traffic study was conducted and it was known twelve to
fifteen years ago that street widening would be done at Main and La Veta. In the last several
years there has been activity and public hearings involving the shopping center, indicating this
information should have been disclosed to him.
Mr. Goodyear responded that the realtor did not disclose the street widening at Main and La Veta
in the disclosure of sale.
Geneva Fulton, 454 S. Main Street, indicated the houses on Alpine were built in 1953. Ms. liked
Mr. Dygert's idea that the developers approach him directly relative to sale of his property, as wen
as the berm and wall, with a setback of 15 or 20 ft. from Alpine.
The Interim Director of Economic Developed concluded that if the Amendment to the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, General Plan Amendment and zone change are approved, the property
could sit for years before there may be interest. The staifis sympathetic with residential owners
next to commercial properties, and would work with them in whatever development is proposed.
She indicated she would refer anyone interested in development to call Mr. Dygert personally and
talk with him.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
ABSENT
Slater Murphy
Murphy, Mayor
Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Barrera Moved to
close the
public hearing and continue to June 25, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.13.3 JOINT PUBLIC
HEARING WITH THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CONSIDER THE THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN:Time set
for a
joint public hearing with the Orange Redevelopment Agency on the proposed adoption of the Third
Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. A
proposal to amend the Southwest Redevelopment Plan by adding approximately 2.2 acres
ofland comprised of a total of 13 properties to the existing project area.NOTE: See Item 13.
2 for discussion.PAGE 18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 11, 1996
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
ABSENT
Slater Murphy
Murphy, Barrera,
Mayor Coontz, Slater Barrera Moved to
close the
public hearing and continue this item to June 25, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT -
None 15. ORAL PRESENTATIONS Rocki Sclunidt,
business owner at
529 W. Katella, spoke regarding a notice that Southern Pacific Railroad work would begin on
Monday, June 24, with full closure on June 30, and anticipated completion on July 5. She
requested a copy of the list; the date and time fliers were mailed to businesses on Katella; and indicated
she was not notified. She referred to the Orange Municipal Code Chapter 12.54 relative
to consent of public agencies utility or adjacent property owners regarding obstructions to City streets,
and asked the City Attorney if she qualifies as an adjacent property owner, and if so,
how can an appeal be filed?Mayor Coontz directed Ms. Sclunidt
to speak with the City Attorney and Public Works Director following the meeting.Carole Walters,
534 N. Shaffer,
commented it is wrong for a business to lose money. She asked if the City of Orange
has made a deal with Chapman University to help them buy the school site?The City Manager responded the
City has not made a deal with Chapman University, and the item would have to be heard
before the City and Agency for discussion.Geneva Fulton, 405 S. Main
Street, spoke relative to Chapman University taking over property.16. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECOND AYES
ABSENT Murphy
Slater
Murphy,
Mayor
Coontz,
Spurgeon,
Slater Barrera
The City Council adjourned at 9:
05 p.
m.I JA4(l/UR-tP A1~fA1A-X
CASSANDRA
1. ATHCART, CMC CITYCLERT<1c._-<- /' ~___ ;::,,~"'-
l.JOANNE C. COONTZ
MAYOR
PAGE
19