Loading...
02-25-1992 Council Minutes479 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 10, 1992. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ORANGE, CALIFORNIA February 25, 1992 The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on February 25, 1992 at 3:00 P.M. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 3:00 P.M. SESSION 1. OPENING 1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 1.2 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon ABSENT: Mayor Beyer 1.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None 1. 4 PRESENTATIONS I ANNOUNCEMENTS I INTRODUCTIONS a. Resolution No. 7944 was presented to David L. Dieball of the Orange Police Department for 22 years of loyal and dedicated service.1. 5 PROCLAMA TIONS a. Save The Vision Week, March 1 - 7, 1992, Ms. Nibbler, representing the Southern California College of Optometry arrived at 4: 10 P.M. and was presented the proclamation by Mayor pro tern Barrera.2.CONSENT CALENDAR Tape 260 2.1 Declaration of City Clerk Marilyn J. Jensen declaring posting of City Council agenda of a regular meeting of February 25, 1992, at Orange Civic Center, Main Library,Police facility at 1107 North Batavia and the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board; 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. Authorize Mayor and Director of Finance to draw warrants on city Treasurer In payment of demands.ACTION: Approved. 480 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY) 2.3 Request approval to increase the amount the City may invest with the California Local Agencies Investment Fund to $15,000,000.00 each for the City and Orange Redevelopment Agency (for a total of $30,000,000.00) and to increase the limit of investments with the Orange County Investment Fund to a total of $14,000,000.00. Continued from January 21, 1992) (C2500.F) The Finance Director indicated it would take approximately six weeks for the auditors to complete their proposal for procedures and protection regarding the investment program. MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Barrera A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon ABSENT - Mayor Beyer ACTION: Moved to continue Item 2.3 to April 14, 1992.2.4 Authorize Frank V. Page, Director of Public Works, powers to execute, in the name of the City of Orange, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the widening of overcrossings and interchange improvements at Chapman Avenue, Katella Avenue, and Nohl Ranch Road and the SR-55 Freeway; and authorize the transfer of funds in the amount of $30, 000.00 from Account 284-5031-48330-6081 (Feasibility Study Grade Separation) into Account 284-5031-483300-6083 (Overpass Widening @ SR-55 Fwy).ACTION: Authorized and empower Frank V. Page to execute the MOU between the City and Orange County Transportation Authority. (A2100.A.1916)REMOVED AND HEARDSEPARA TEL Y)2.5 Repon on the revision of TSIP Fees, outlined in OrdinanceNo. 17-88, adopted July 26, 1988. (A25oo. D, TSIP A, B, C)The Traffic Engineer was asked to explain the procedures outlined in Ordinance No.17-88, regarding TSIP which is counted as a credit for requirement under AB 1600.The State mandated with the adoption of a fee programthattheCityprovideaprojectlistandtimelinetoaccomplishprojects. Over a 20 year period the cost of construction fluctuates and the Engineering News Record is the best indicator of how this fluctuation occurs throughout the Southern California area and assures the City we will have money l 481 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 19922. CONSENT CALENDAR ( Continued) MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - Coontz A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon ABSENT - Mayor Beyer ACTION: Received and filed.2.6 Request to establish a bus stop at the following locations: a) Northbound Newport Blvd. nonh of Chapman Avenue; b) Westbound Chapman Avenue at the far side of Trails End Lane. (S4000.S.3.1.4)ACTION: Approved.2.7 Request for the installation of a pedestrian actuated traffic signal on Town & Country Rd. at the Town & Country Shopping Center. (S4000.S.3.5)ACTION: Denied.2. 8 Request the installation of protected left-turn phasing on Meats Avenue at Santiago Boulevard. ((S4000.S.3.3)ACTION: Approved, and considered for inclusion in next year's Seven Year Capital Improvement Program.2.9 Request the installation of a curbside handicapped parking space on Almond Avenue at the Orange County Fire Department headquarters. (S4000.S.3.l.1)ACTION: Approved. 2.10 Request the removal of intersection vision zone on Rose Avenue at Cambridge Street.ACTION: Approved the removal of 14 ft. of red curb from the vision zone.S4000.S.3.1.1)2.11 Request. for protected left turn phasing on Hewes Street at Chapman Avenue.(S4000.S.3.3)ACTION: Denied.PAGE 3 482 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 2.12 Request the installation of a pedestrian actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Oceanview Road.(S4000.S.3.5) ACTION: Denied. 2.13 Request for the implementation of a neighborhood parking permit program at 238 S. Cambridge Street. (S4000.S.3.l.2) ACTION: Denied. 2.14 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM: a. JOSEPH MUNCY for an alleged incident occurring on or about January 24, 1992. b. LEONARD SCHLICK for an alleged incident occurring on or about December 27, 1991. c. ANANELLE AND ROBERT VANDERWALL for an alleged incident occurring on or about August 3, 1992. d. NANCY FRAZIER for an alleged incident occurring on or about December 13, 1991. e. MICHAEL PRICE for an alleged incident occurring on or about January 23, 1992. ACTION: Denied and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Coontz Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer Items 2.3 and 2.5 were removed andheard separately; all other items on the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR BEYER - None 4. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None 7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 8.LEGAL AFFAIRS TAPE 485 8.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2-92 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 10.67.040 of the Orange Municipal Code to increase Annual Transportation Permit Fees from $70 to $85 and provide for modification of fees by Resolution. (A2500.0)Continued from February 18, 1992)The Director of Public Works requested additional time to compile statistics for the report as requested by Council on February 18, 1992.MOTION - Steiner SECOND - Barrera A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon ABSENT - Mayor Beyer Moved to continue Ordinance No. 2- 92, first reading, to March 24, 1992.8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 7959 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange authorizing the execution of Program Supplement No. 013 to Local Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid Projects No. 12-5073. ( A2100.0.A.343.L)Discussion: The Director of Public Works announced the program refers to the seismic retrofitting of Glassell Street bridge which crosses the Santa Ana River.MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - Barrera A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon ABSENT - Mayor Beyer PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 8 LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) That Resolution No. 7959 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote. Note: This Resolution was continued to the 7:00 P.M. Session for the information provided by the Director of Public Works. 9. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS CHAPMAN COLLEGE Randy Williams, 544 N. Grand Street, expressed concern regarding the alarm system operations and procedures at the newly constructed Chapman University dorms. There have been many false alarm situations, and the Fire Depanment has been called out. Chapman University is turning off the alarm, which is against the Fire Code. Also students have been seen turning off the alarm. Mr. Williams feels this is a very serious situation and should be corrected. The Fire Chief reported he is aware of these problems and is working with Chapman University on a daily basis to rectify the situation. The dorm building has a working sprinkler system. When false alarms are received the culprit, if caught will be fined. These problems have been going on for approximately two months. Mr. Williams may file a complaint with the police department if he witnesses students tampering with the alarm system. All warnings issued by the Fire Department are documented. OLD TOWNE Caroline Caveche, 275 N. Shaffer, distributed photos to Councilmembers of a back view at 264 Cleveland, taken from her residence. Ms. Caveche commented she was never notified of the public hearingon this remodel, and claimed she has lost all privacy in her backyard, bedroom and kitchen. Ms. Caveche is concerned about the future of Old Towne if these bulky units are allowed. Council members expressed comments regarding the particular public hearing that allowed the unit to be built. There was a petition from the neighbors in favor of the unit. The only opposition was from the Old Towne Preservation Association. Bulk and mass problems are being reviewed at the present time. PAGE 6 485 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS (Continued) COpy CHARGES Carol Walters, 531 N. Shaffer, commented on the high costs of copies. The City Manager indicated if there are extra reports they are willingly handed out to citizens, however, if reproduction of these repons has to be done, the charge is $2.50 for the first page, and $1.00 for all remaining pages. CHAPMAN COLLEGE Ms. Walters requested that Mr. Martini be the spokesperson for the neighborhood, since Ms. Walters has been advised to not comment on Chapman University matters. 11. RECESS The City Council recessed at 3:55 P.M. to a Closed Session for the following purposes: a. To confer with its Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Doyle vs City of Orange, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 54 25 39 b. To confer with its attorney to decide whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). c. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(l). d. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. e. To meet and give directions to its authorized representatives regarding labor relation matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.f. f. 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 considred in closed session. PAGE 7 486 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 7:00 P.M. SESSION 12. INVOCATION Richard Arhlan, Local Citizen 12.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 12.2 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor pro tem Barrera announced Native American Awareness Week, Family Night at Yorba Middle School, March 19, 1992 12.3 INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor pro tem Barrera introduced former Mayor Don E. Smith and his wife Gladie.12. 4PROCLAMATIONS a. American Red Cross Month - March, 1992 was presented to Sue Samuelson representing the American Red Cross.12.5 PRESENTATIONS - None 13. PUBIC HEARINGS TAPE 1914 13.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14544, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1721-88,CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IDM CORPORATION: (T4000. 0)The Public hearing on petition by IDM Corporation to consider Tentative Tract Map 14544 to allow the subdivision of the site into seven parcels of land has been continued from December 17, 1991 and January 28,1992. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit 1721-88 allowing the modification of the site plan and project phasing as originally approved; a request to close a portion of State College Boulevard in favor of a realignment through the project site; and consider an addendum to Environmental Impact Report 1262-88, addressing the potential changes in the environmental impacts due to the changes in the project.The project site is located at the intersection of State College Boulevard, The City Drive,Anaheim boulevard and the Koll Center entrance driveway. Site development currently consists of the Orange Drive In Theater located in both the cities of Anaheim (5.7 acres) and Orange ( 12.1 acres). The General Plan designates the site for commercial development at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5 - 2.5 witha M-l Light Manufacturing Zoning Designation.THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOT OPENED.PAGE 8 487 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 13. PUBLJ;C HEARINGS (Continued) The Director of Planning and Development announced receipt of a letter dated February 20, 1992 from Ronald E. Winkler, Vice President of 10M requesting withdrawal of this application. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Sprugeon Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer Moved to withdraw the application and remove it from the agenda.13.2 PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 12, CITY OF ORANGE: TAPE 1963 (C2500. M.13)Time set for a public hearing to consider the designation and adoption of proposed Underground Utility District No. 12 requiring the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures. The area being considered is generally located on The City Drive, from Route 22 Freeway to 2000 Feet North.MAYOR PRO TEM BARRERA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.The Director of Public Works reported the County Board of Supervisors, at their meeting of October 15, 1991, expressed the desire that the City form this district, and agreed to utilize the County's Rule 20 A money set-aside by the Edison Company annually through the PUC to allow for undergrounding of overhead facilities. The County transferred approximately 200,000.00 for this project. The Redevelopment Agency has been contacted, and with direction from Council, the Agency could pass a Benefit Resolution to cover $35,000.00 for the remaining. Also, the Edison Company has approved $10,000.00 to convert existing traffic signal service and meters.The Senior Civil Engineer presented the Engineer's Report indicating the property owners at 591 and 595 S. City Drive are required to pay an estimated $2,000 for rerouting their existing service connections from the street to the buildings.THERE BEING NO SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION, MAYOR PRO TEM BARRERA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.PAGE 9 488 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilman Spurgeon commented, for the record, regarding the portion of the Engineer's Report referring to Thea Lacy Jail construction and expansion, this is what was originally agreed to with the County, not what is under dispute at this time or in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 7957 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange establishing Underground Utility District No. 12. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Coontz Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer That Resolution No. 7957 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Steiner Coontz Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer Moved to direct staff of the Public Works Department to coordinate with the Redevelopment Agency to facilitate benefit resolutions to share in the cost of this project.13.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1928-91, ABDEL AZIZ:C3300.0)TAPE 2258 Time set for a public hearing on petition by Abdel Aziz to consider Conditional Use Permit 1928-91 to allow the conversion of a substantial portion of an existing service station into a mini-market; and to allow the off-sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of the service station. The property is zoned C-l (Limited Business), and is located at 4502 E.Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303.MAYOR PRO TEM BARRERA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.PAGE 10 489 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The Director of Community Development reported the Zoning Administrator recommended approval of the request with 13 conditions. The service station building is 1700 sq. ft. in size. Approximately 450 sq. ft. of the 1700 sq. ft. is requested to be used for the mini-market. The hours of operation are from 5:00 A.M. to midnight.Councilmembers asked how many other places with this type of use are in the immediate area?The Director of Community Development remarked an exhibit map of the area was not provided, however there are a number of this type of use, but not the area is not overly overcongested.Speaking for the applicant, Robert Colin, 1247 N. Glassell, commented this request will allow the applicant to enjoy the same advantages and benefits with competiting gas stations on Chapman Avenue. This site is not close to any school, La Purisima is approximately 1 mile away, and it is not adjacent to any residential neighborhood. It is highly visible by the Police Department. There is a need for this use, which will service the El Modena area, and communities further east. The owners retain the right to refuse service or sale if they think customers will abuse the driving laws while drinking.Councilmembers indicated, for future applications of this type, exhibit maps be provided depicting other adjacent locations selling alcohol.THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR PRO TEM BARRERA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Coontz Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer CEQA Finding: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303.MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Coontz Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer Moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 1928- 91 with conditions as outlined in the Zoning Administrator's Report dated October 31, 1991 PAGE " 490 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 13.4 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, CITY OF ORANGE: TAPE 2258 (A2500.0) Time set for a public hearing on petition by the City of Orange to consider adopting an ordinance amending the Orange Municipal Code, adding Chapter 16.50, governing landscaping requirements, and a resolution adopting landscape standards and specifications, which are to be incorporated into the development review process. The Landscape Standards and Specifications establish minimum standards and specifications for landscape design construction and inspection of both private and public works projects. MA YOR PRO TEM BARRERA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. The City Clerk read a letter, dated February 25, 1992, from C. Bradley Olson, Foothill Community Builders, 550 Newport Center Dr., Newport Beach, requesting a 30 day continuance in order to review and comment on the document. A copy of the document was received February 25, 1992. The Director of Community Services reported this process began four years ago, with many meetings, study sessions and Planning Commission meetings, which were attended by Foothill Community Builders. On October 21, 1991 the document was passed by the Planning Commission with revisions made that night. The Company was in attendance that night and there have been no specific changes since that time. The completed document was advertised for tonight's public hearing on February 13, 1992. The memorandum in the letter was sent to the Department of Community Development. The Assessment District Coordinator for the City reviewed the document which establishes minimum standards for landscape and explained the intent is to provide in advance to developers and individual land owners the opportunity to submit a planned landscaped document for review and approval by the City. It identifies the residences which are exempt from the reviewing process. The document, if approved, will provide aesthetic preservation and a written review process for the applicant and staff. The Planning Commission appointed a sub-committee, Commissioners Cathcart and Murphy,along with staff to incorporate city and developer comments, and implemented the final changes within the document.PAGE 491 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 13. PUBLlC HEARINGS (Continued) Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Dr., felt it was ridiculous to delay the approval of the document any longer. Everyone has had four years to comment. The document has been sitting untouched since November 1 st. CoraLee Newman, Foothill Communities Builders, Vice-President of Entitlement, Division of The Irvine Company, remarked she had asked for a copy of the document since the Planning Commission had given their approval, and has never received one. Since there have been so many drafts, she would like the opportunity to read the document one last time before Council gives their approval. The letter submitted to staff, dated November 18, 1991 contains six comments made at the Planning Commission, and requested that these revisions as directed by the Planning Commission, could be reviewed with staff to understand how the final document was completed.Commissioner Cathcart and Murphy were asked by Council, if any changes had occurred to the document before or after the Planning Commission took action. Commissioner Cathcart indicated the Planning Commission, at their October 21, 1991 meeting approved the document with no change to the subject matter or the content. Grammar, formatting, and spelling were the only changes made to the document after Planning Commission approval.THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, MAYOR PRO TEM BARRERA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.Council discussion ensued relative to Foothill Community Builders/The Irvine Company reviewing the document between first and second readings of Ordinance No. 1- 92. The second reading would occur on March 10, 1992. If there are any changes, staff should be contacted immediately.ORDINANCE NO. 1-92 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange and approving ordinance amendment which adds Chapter 16.50 to the Orange Municipal Code governing landscaping requirements of the City of Orange. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Sprugeon Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer PAGE 13 492 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) That Ordinance No. 1-92 have first reading waived and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.RESOLUTION NO. 7946 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange adopting Landscape Standards and Specifications and directing the City staff incorporate such into the development review process. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer That Resolution No. 7946 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.RECESS Mayor pro tern Barrera recessed the council meeting at 8:00 P.M. and reconvened at 8: 10 P.M.14. PLANNING AND ENVmONMENT TAPE 3600 (RI2oo. 0)Presentation by property owners in the southwest quadrant of the City requesting to change the zoning in their area from R-4 to R-2-6. Mayor pro tern Barrera announced the presentation is to request changing the zoning from R- 3 and R-4 (Multifamily Residential) to R-2-6 (Duplex Residential). At the City Council meeting on January 21, 1992 the request was made by property owners at the southwest quadrant of the Old Towne to rezone portions of their neighborhood. The primary purpose of this agenda item will be presentations by the property owners identifying the properties on which rezoning is requested, and for the owners to provide Council with reasons why rezoning should be considered. State law permits the property owner or Council to initiate a change of zone on any specific piece of property. This is an opportunity to receive information to determine if a zoning change should 493 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) The following letters were received in favor of changing the zoning to R- 2-6:Patty Schwanz, 350 S. Olive Dean Hiser, 545 S. Grand Phone call from Brian Mickelson, 335 W. Palmyra The following people spoke in favor:Ann Sieben, 340 S. Olive Don King, 222 W. Palmyra Melissa Ello, 224 S. Olive Dan Slater, 278 N. Pine St.Doug Lake, 409 W. Marietta Steve Nelson, 357 S. Olive St Their comments were expressed as follows:Only ponions of the southwest quadrant is being proposed (Copy of map in the City Clerk' s depanment)The southwest quadrant was primarily a single family residential neighborhood and today it is in jeopardy of losing what is left to overdevelopment because of a maximum zoning designation.A study was recently completed by Stan Hoffman & Associates for the Police Department on crime, containing analysis of medium density, multi-residential usage vs single family usage.The multi-residential usage resulted in twice as much crime on a per unit basis. There are 54 reponing crime districts in the City. Of the 48 residential districts the top two are Districts 32 and 22. District 32 encompasses the northwest quadrant of Old Towne. District 22 encompasses the southwest quadrant and is severly suffering from overcrowding and crime.Only means of controlling crime is by controlling density, called zoning.Quality of life and sellability of homes in the subject quadrant was discussed.Prospective buyers did not want to take the risk because of the numerous apartments and 4-plexes.Buyers want to convert homes to Doctor's offices, bed and breakfast inns, and retail stores.Property values are consistently higher in other more stable areas, such as the northeast and southeast quadrants of Old Towne, which is a direct result of their zoning.Property rights which are guaranteed by law are subject to certain limitations and restrictions include the righl to occupy and to use real property, to sell it in whole or in part, to bequeath it and to transfer by contract the benefits to be derived by occupancy and use of 494 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) FEBRUARY 25, 1992 Referred to a letter dated December 12, 1990, by Mr. Slater inquiring about the Council directive regarding an inventory of properties in Old Towne which are spotzoned, PJoperties zoned commercial, office professional or manufacturing, which are primarily in residential neighborhoods and are presently being used as residences. Staff responded to Mr. Slater in a letter dated December 27, 1990 regarding the unique patterrns of and relationship of land use and zoning in the Old Towne area. This request is on a priority list of Council's request with other projects. Mr. Slater requested there be no more delay and Council formally initiate a study of the zoning in the Southwest quadrant. Doug Lake's home is zoned industrial and is incompatible, and the opening statement of the petition reads as follows: "The undersigned residents of Orange hereby petition that all residential parcels in the southwest quadrant bound by La Veta on the South, Batavia Street to the west, Chapman to the north, and Glassell to the east, which are currently zoned R-3, R-3A, RCD and R-4 be rezoned to R-2-6, Residential Duplex District, allowing a maximum of two units be built on a typical residential lot. We further petition that all lots currently used as residences on the south side of Almond, east of Cypress Street to Glassell in the four hundred block of West Maretta be rezoned from C-2 (Industrial) to R-2-6. The following reasons are listed: 1) make southwest quadrant zoning consistent with the remaining three old town quadrants and to eliminate spot zoning; 2) high density zoning is the single greatest contributor to economic decline and dis-investment in historic areas, State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation; 3) high density development distracts from the small town atmosphere which Orange City Council and residents have expressed desire to maintain; 4) the current trend toward high density development is contributing to the creation of slums, increased crime, gang formation, graffiti and drug traffic; 5) Should this quadrant be developed to its full potential, unresolved traffic, parking and overcrowding conditions will be greatly intensified and a sufficient part of Old Towne will be lost. Mr. Lake submitted copies of the petitions.Steve Nelson requested the following statements be in the minutes: "My wife Barbara and I live at 375 S. Olive St where we own a single family residence that was built in the Gothic Revival style sometime prior to 1889. My neighbor, Anne Seibert has asked me to appear this evening to speak in support of proposed zoning changes in the South West Quadrant of Old Town that are designed to protect property values, preserve the historical resources and protect the quality of life in this area. I am happy to do so, and I would like to thank the City Council for placing this matter on the agenda and allowing me the time to make my presentation.Anne specifically asked me to report my personal recollections of zoning changes in this quadrant that have occurred since Barbara and 4 95 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) I prepared a short minute report to that end, but recent events have made that report seem less important. Therefore, in the interest of time I will sum up my personal recollections as follows: In 1974 Barbara and I bought our house which we believe was in a neighborhood that was zoned R-2. During the following year or two I participated in numerous City Council and Planning Commission Meetings after which I came to believe that our neighborhood had been re-zoned R-4. During the past 18 years, I have vocally opposed the conversion of single family residences to apartment buildings. During this 18 year period, five houses with historical significance, on the 300 block of S. Olive St. alone, have been torn down and replaced with 30 apartment units. Within this one city block, 30 families now live where five families used to live. There are 12 houses left. This increase in population has resulted in overcrowding that has had a severe negative impact on our neighborhood environment, has significantly reduced our quality of life and has had an adverse effect on the dollar value of the remaining 12 homes.I strongly urge the Council to adopt the proposed zoning changes thereby halting this decline.Now for the more recent efents that I mentioned earlier. I recently went to the Planning Depanment to find documentation supporting my recollections. When I got there, I asked for direction in researching the zoning history of my own property, and specifically asked to see the zoning map that I had examined back in 1974 before we purchased our home. Let me take time here to compliment your staff in the Planning Department. Although they were very busy with other matters, they took the time to promptly and courteously answer my questions and to point me in the right direction.Unfortunately, they were unable to locate the zoning map from 1974. I would ask the City Council to have that map located because it will be very useful to everyone concerned during the upcoming process. I made copies of what I found and delivered them to the City Clerk's Office this morning. I believe you will find them in your folders.I would first bring to your attention the District Map of the City of Orange dated April, 1946.I have attached copies of relevant portions of the original ordinance to the inside. Please read the original ordinance at your leisure. It provides good insight into the original intent of our current ordinance. I would also ask you to examine the legend on the front of the map.Please notice that there were only three residential districts established in 1946. And 1 would ask that you examine the Southwest Quadrant on the map. Notice that I have highlighted my own neighborhood on South Olive St. between Almond St. and La Veta. Hree again you can see that there were no residential properties zoned above R-3. Since as a property 496 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVmONMENT (Continued) research was limited to my own property and immediate neighborhood, I was unable to determine when and where the R-4 district was first established and where and when it was first used in my quadrant. I would ask the council to find out because that information will be important in determining the relative value of the interests of early property owners.In fact the only zoning change affecting S. Olive St. that I could find records of at the Planning Depanment was Zone Change 734. In your folders, you should find 4 sheets of paper stapled together and labeled: Zone Change 734 7/8/75. The first page is a copy of a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council that directly affects my neighborhood which is included in study Unit I. Please read the two highlighted paragraphs with me: I) Low Density = R-4??? 2) Inclusion of E. side of Lemon (apts) and West side of Glassell (major commercial thoroughfare) skews statistics; 3) Churches on Glassell and Lemon streets; 4) Reference to houses as being over 35 yrs. old reflects the values of a earlier era when older homes were considered disposable by many people; 5) 55 foot lot width is incompatible with R-4 zoning.The second page is a copy of a chart from the same Planning commission Recommendation.These are the actual recommendations: 1) Please notice that there were 16 study units. I can only report on what happened in my study unit. But what happened there is going to make you wonder about the other 15 areas. 2) Notice that the recommendation was for my neighborhood to be re-zoned from "low density" to "high density."The third page is most interesting. This is the minutes of the City Council' s action in response to the Planning Commission's recommednations. The first highlighted portion refers to EIR 185. Please read this short portion with me.... (after reading)... I) I haven't found a copy of Em 185. I hope the Council does find a copy. I'd love to read it. 2) The Council deliberated and decided to disregard the Environmental Impact Report. 1 wonder how that affected the other 15 study units? 3) Then the council predicted that the "advantages of developing the project outweighed the adverse effects"... .Eighteen years have past. I believe that it's now time to review the situation and to determine whether the prediction was true.Has the advantage of developing outweighed the adverse effects? If so, how? If not, we had better come into compliance with the EIR. immediately and find ways to remedy the damages.The second highlighted portion is the action taken on my neighborhood, please read it with me... The fourth page is a copy of a memo to Bert Yamasaki from John Lane showing that Mr. Lane understood the Council's action regarding my neighborhood and that he accurately transmitted that information to Mr. Yamasaki. Please read the highlighted portion with me....The current zoning map clearly shows all the lots on both sides of Olive St. between Almond and La Veta to be zoned R-4. For the past 18 years, development has been 497 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) the basis of R-4 zoning. But I have been unable to find any justification for this development which is in non-compliance with Zone Change 734. I request that the City Council suspend any pending demolition permits and prevent any new demolition permits from being issued for property located inside Sub-Area "B" Unit 1 until such time as the Council can confirm it's authority to issue such permits. And I request the Council give the highest priority to resolving this apparent conflice as quickly as possible.Summare of Requests: 1) I strongly urge the Council to adopt the proposed zoning changes thereby halting this decline. 2) Locate the zoning map used in 1974. 3) Determine when and where the R-4 district was first used in the S. W. quadrant. 4) Review the effects of the present policy of non-compliance with EIR 185 and take appropriate action. 5) Suspend development activities in Sub-Area "B" Unit 1 until the Council can confirm the area's proper zoning and make this determination as quickly as possible.Ann Siebert presented the following proposal: Request Council direct the Planning Commission to study the rezoning issue at a public study session with staff, and then a public hearing. We would like this to be done within the next 30 days. The Planning Commission is to bring back a recommendation to Council for a final vote.Opposition:Letter was received by Realtor Cindy Baker, 1992 President of the Orange County Association of Realtors expressing opposition.Letter received from Amos and Anna H. Nissley, 833 W. Almond, opposed Letter received from Will Chambers, 242 S. Olive St., (see Page 22) The following people spoke in opposition:William R. Warne, Attorney, representing Don E. Smith, property owner in the area (Report submitted and on file in the City Clerk's Office)T. J. Clark, 811 E. Chapman, President of the Orange Taxpayers Association Alice and Duncan Clark, 205 N. Pine St.Manny Rodriguez, 242 S. Olive Bill Leming, 2720 E. Walnut, distributed handouts of disclosure statements for property Their commentS were expressed as follows:The proposed downzoning will lead to blight by discouraging the maintenance and improvement of non-conforming properties.The proposal is fundamentally unfair. It takes property rights from the people who have invested in our community, people who have 498 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVmONMENT (Continued) The following comments are by Mr. Clark, who requested they be part of the minutes: "Our organization is opposed to blanket downzoning. Downzoning in the Southwest quadrant will have a negative effect on the property values of R-3 and R-4 zoned lots. It will create many non-conforming properties with the resultant hardship in securing loans, refinancing or selling.It will decimate our low to medium income rental stock, causing rent to rise for those who can least afford it, seniors and the disadvantaged. It will rob owners of potential income and in many cases, of their retirement hopes and dreams. The present zoning is appropriate for the area, which has traditionally been zoned for commercial, office professional, light industrial and multiple family providing the greatest portion of the low to moderate income rental stock in the Old Towne area. Multi-family is important as a buffer to the commercial, office-professional and industrial development, as the City is attempting now in the development of the depot area in the northwest quadrant. We are not opposed to individual property owners downzoning their own property, but are extremely opposed to them down zoning their neighbor's property. We applaude young people, largely the first time buyers who found affordable homes in the neighborhood and lovingly restored them voluntarily, but that should not give them the right to remake this quadrant at the expense of our housing rental stock and of the owners's whose income and retirement funds are threatened.We would like to know what the proposed zoning will be on the City lot at Almond and Pixley when housing is developed there. We think it is not only unfair, but unethical for the City to take property rights from owners against their will and convert them to the City's purpose. At this time, with the Mayor's permission I would like to have Alice Clark present our petition.Alice Clark's following comments were requested to be part of the mintues:We contacted only those whose property would be adversely affected by downzoning,owners of lots zoned R-3 and R-4 built out or not, both resident and non-resident. We mailed about 200 petitions and received back petitions covering 78 parcels in the southwest quadrant.We also got many coming in from other quadrants wanting to support us. We've had many phone calls from owners of units who said they were told they were grandfathered in and did not need to worry. We'd really like to know if someone had been misleading them.Some of our responders had already signed another petition, but either weren't aware of their development rights or simply changed their minds. One petition was signed by an owner,resident of a single family home in a low density lot, who wanted his name included because he is constitutionally opposed to downzoning. We also had an R-2 and one owner f~cing Old Town on the west side of Batavia, but we hereby submit petitions covering 75 R-3 and R-4 parcels, which includes a few industrial in the southwest quadrant of Old Towne Orange. On the advice of Council we are keeping the originals in our files, but will produce them upon your request. The Nutwood tract is full of 499 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) We stress voluntary preservation is continuing whether they feel it or know it or not. People just keep doing great things. Zone Changes are costly as Council has said. They require lots of staff time, advertising, study sessions and public hearings. We think the costs of any zone change should be borne by the applicant as it is with any developer. I would like Dan Slater to turn over half of his retirement to me and see if he doesn't think that's a taking." Corinne Schreck requested her letter be a part of the minutes, since she was not allowed to speak: "I care about America and our freedoms--I care about preserving our democracy, so I pay attention to what my elected local city official do, and what my tax dollars pay City Staff for.I believe if I purchased a property with a particular zoning and a lender lends a mortgage for that propeny as zoned than anything less would be LESS!! Many realtors and lenders also agree. Why should properties be pushed into a non-conforming use status? Why should owners have less than that which they purchased?Old Towne Orange with its Design Guidelines, Design Review Board, Codes, Ordinances, a Planning commission, an appeal process to City Council and last but not least pure public people pressure--HOW--with all the above could a bed project ever get built in our sensitive Old Towne area. We already have in place rule on top of rule, regulation on top of regulation, inspections and final inspections. Where does it end? Is it not hard enough to make a living and hopefully have a little retirement when your senior years arrive.If! purchased a property beside a train track, moved in and didn't like the noise of the train going by should I complain for years and tell the train people to move their tracks, even though I knew before I purchased that a train was going by.If a person purchased a property in a section of town where there is higher density than R-l what would you expect when you buy that property? You would expect multi units? I myself live very close to El Modena High School. Have you ever heard me come to you and state--Oh the school has football games and they are at night? And then there is all that extra traffic coming and going. There is graduation and all the other events associated with a high school.I knew I bought close to a high school when I moved in so I 500 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) There has existed in Old Town Orange for several years spot zoning. If certain people wish to downzone their property then so let it be. But I do not approve of my neighbors telling me that I also should follow in their footsteps because it pleases them. This seems to me as an infringment of my rights. As a concerned citizen and property owner in the S. W. Quadrant I ask this body to carefully consider NOT taking away my zoning and the VALUE I feel there is in that zoning. " Will Chambers, 242 S. Olive Street, submitted the following letter for the record: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, I don't understand what is going on and who started the downzone petition. As Council knows, each City is required by the state to have a General Plan. The plan has many required parts. This is a "constitution" for a City's future development. One of the tools used to bring a general plan to life is zoning. The State has long required that all zoning be consistent with the General Plan. My home and neighborhood has been zoned multi-housing since 1946. When I bought my home around 30 years ago, I had five children. In order to get a large house that I could afford, I had to buy an old house in an area that was zoned for multi-housing. At that time two story apts were being built on my back property line. I didn't mind as I figured I could do the same. A check with the City assured me that I could. Keeping this in mind, I again checked with the City every few years, including yesterday, and was assured that I could still do it as the zoning in the General Plan had not changed. As this is my home I do not plan to build at this time, but if my home were destroyed, it is very comforting to know I would still have a conforming R4 lot on which to build.South Olive Street from Chapman to LaVeta has developed as planned to multi-housing including a Senior Center building just 1/4 block away, built where two old houses that burned used to be. All the development on South Olive is conforming and has been a steady improvement of the street. I thank the City Planning Department and the Deisgn Review Board for doing a great job seeing that development goes according to zoning. The reason people bought on Olive was to get an old house that they could fix up and build income units as they knew it was zoned multi-housing.Now we have a few property owners who have developed their property the way they want it and now they want to violate my rights and down zone my property. By having rent~rs and nonowners sign a petition to downzone so they could say they had the approval of the neighborhood as a whole, suggests that there may be "loophole" ways to downzone. This is not the American Way. renters don't pay property taxes and most do 5 01 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLA~G AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) This Council knows that zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. All developed properties in this area are conforming, multi-housing. With a downzone all existing developed propenies would become nonconforming and not consistent with the General Plan. I know that Council believes in the most fundamental form of human right the right to own propeny.This Council also believes that people have the right to use their land as zoned. South Olive has been zoned multi-housing for half a century. There are ten lots left on my block with only a single house on it. Eight of these owners want to keep the R-4 zoning, and two others are undecided. None would speak in favor of downzoning. I have tried to stay on zoning as this is the issue. I respectfully request that Council stay consistent with the current General Plan and reject the request for downzoning altogether. Thank you."Ann Siebert explained the boundaries and area outlined in a map given to Council: They are asking Council look at for R-2 , 200, 300 & 400 blocks of S. Olive, Palmyra at Olive down to Lemon Street on both sides; Palmyra on the other side of Lemon that fronts on the north side;Cypress Street to Almond; Marietta area that is now M-l; RCD Overlay - off Batavia,Almond, Pixley 300 & 400 blocks, M-l industrial area also.Council discussion ensued relative to sending this to the Planning Commission for review with Study Sessions, including staff involvement, and returning to Council with a recommendation.The Director of Community Development was asked if they would be able to accomplish these requests considering there are existing vacancies in that department. He indicated there is a great amount of information that can be packaged to address these concerns. There is a historical planner on staff who is able to gather the information requested. A report on a time schedule will be presented to Council after checking with the Planning Commission.MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Coontz Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer r I I Moved to refer this proposal to Community Development Department with a request that the professional planners review the request, make logical, professional recommendations regarding any zoning changes and/or retention of present zoning to the Planning Commission for their recommendation to the City Council.PAGE 502 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1992 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued) Councilwoman Coontz requested ( with Council concurrence), that Council receive a priority listing from the Community Development Department on which projects they are planning to do, with timelines, in order for Council to understand their workload, and Council will make their own recommendations as to which projects have priority, especially as Councilman Steiner mentioned we have a shortfall, and some projects should not go ahead of others. Council commented the other request for Culver Avenue will be treated in the same, equitable manner as this proposal. 15. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 16. ORAL PRESENTATIONS John Ritter, 194 S. Pixley, reported there is graffiti which spreads down to the 600 block of Glassell. Mr. Ritter indicated he had reported this one month ago, with no results. The City Manager announced he will investigate the problem.17. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Barrera Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor Beyer Moved to adjourn at 9: 40 P.M. to March 4, 1992 at 5:00 P.M. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting to discuss labor relations. GENE BEYER MAYOR tfJh. () ~4fD4' V'MARILYN J. ENSE't/CM , CITY CLERK BY:7""~<FR D L. BARRERA, MAYOR PRO TEM PAGE 24