03-10-1992 Council Minutes5'
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 24, 1992.:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OF A REGULAR MEETING
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 10, 1992
I
I
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on March 10, 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, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon ABSENT -
None 1.3
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting -
February 11, 1992 MOTION - Barrera SECOND -
Steiner AYES - Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor Beyer,
Coontz, Spurgeon ACITON: Approved.Regular Meeting - February 18,
1992 MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Barrera AYES - Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz,
Spurgeon ACITON: Approved.
Regular Meeting - February 25, 1992 r-I i
MOTION - Barrera
SECOND - Coontz AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor
Beyer,
Coontz, Spurgeon ACTION: Approved.
1.4 PRESENTATIONS!
ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTRODUCTIONS. None PAGEl
6
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
1.5 PROCLAMATIONS
a. National Children and Hospital Week was presented to a representative from
U.C.I. Medical Center.
r,
I
2. CONSENT CALENDAR - Tape 170 2.
1 Declaration of City Clerk Marilyn J. Jensen declaring posting of City Council agenda of a
regular meeting of March 10, 1992, at Orange Civic Center, Main Library, Police facility
at 1107 Nonh 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.REMOVED
AND HEARD SEPARATELY.)2.
3Request by the International Society of Arboriculture to hold its annual Arbor Faire and Tree
Trimmer Jamboree at Han Park on June 26-27,1992. (R12oo.0)
Council asked the cost to the City on this item. Staff indicated the cost to the City is
approximately $1,600.00 annually.
MOTION - Steiner SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon ACITON: Continued to
March 17, 1992. Staff to bring justification for this expenditure.REMOVED AND HEARD
SEPARATELY) ~2.4 Authorize
executionof agreement between the City and the City of Orange Symphonic Band for advenising
and promotional purposes (Fund 235-0102-427800-7002,
Advenising and Promotion, $1,900.(0) (A21oo.0 A.029.P)
Council wanted clarification on how many concens would be held in the City of Orange,
to benefit Orange citizens. Staff indicated there are 7 concerts scheduled in the City of
Orange, of which 6 remain to be held before the end of the fiscal year.
PAGE 2
1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
2.CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
l MOTION - Steiner SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon ACITON: Approved and
authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.2.5
Request
Council approve the submittal of the proposed street improvement project on Lama Street between
Taft Avenue and Mesa Drive to the Orange County Combined Transponation Funding Program
for Fiscal Year 1992/93. (Refer toLegal Affairs,Resolution No. 7963,
Page 8.) (S4OOO.S.7)ACITON: Approved.2.
6 Request
Council approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No.13125; Lama
Street nonh of Serrano Avenue. (T4OOO.0 No. 13125)ACITON: Approved.
2.7
Request to execute an agreement with Leonard and Eleuteria Cruz, to connect 16662 E.Main Street
in unincorporated County territory, to City-owned sewer. (A21oo.0 A.1922)ACITON:
Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.2.
8 Request authorization to apply for an Olympic Job Opponunities Program Grant from the
U. S. Olympic Committee for panial payment of an O.J.O.P. employee's salary for the
months of January and February, 1992. (A21oo.0 A.1737.A)ACTION:
Approved.2.
9 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM: (C3200.0)1
I.
TIMOTHY EDWARDS for an alleged incident occurring on or about February 3,1992.
2.
BRIAN MARKS for an alleged incident occurring on or about October 28, 1991.3.
LAUREN, BRYAN & ANGELA NASH for an alleged incident occurring on or about August
14, 1991.ACITON:
Denied claims and referred to City Attorney and adjuster.PAGE
3
8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Spurgeon
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Items 2.3
and
2.4were removed andheard separately. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved/denied as
recommended.ENDOF CONSENT CALENDAR
3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR
BEYER - None 4. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Councilwoman
Coontz gave a repon
regarding Proliferation of Telephone Solications Improperly Using the Endorsement of
the Orange Police or Fire Depanments. (C25oo.D)Over the past few years,
there have been a proliferation of telephone solicitation calls to residents of the City of
Orange from charitable organizations giving erroneous information that donations received will benefit either
the City's Police or Fire Depanments. These calls have ranged from funds for disabled
police dogs to charitable variety shows for disadvantaged children. The calls are made
from telephone banks and if you respond that you would like to check out the charitable organization
with the Depanment, the caller replies that they will call YOU back.Solicitation effons have
increased during
the downturn in the economy - probably because charitable donors are more likely to
donate their hard-eamed dollars to a locally-affiliated organization during a recession.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars may be flowing out of the City of Orange to
charities which are either not legitimate or have a high overhead and little actual charitable giving. She
has discussed this situation with the Police Chief, City Attorney and the President of
the Orange Firefighters Association.From her conversations with
Depanment Heads, solutions may already be in the making, since the Orange County City
Attorneys Association and the Police Chiefs Association are in various stages of discussion on
this matter. Any positive move made will benefit the community as a whole and the organizations
which serve community needs.Councilman Steiner indicated Children'
s Hospital and the Orangewood Children's Foundation have been severely victimized
by this scam. Charities for Truth in Giving has been trying to get a model ordinance adopted
by the County, but has been told by the Board of Supervisors there is no funding to have
a central registry in Orange County for charitable donations. He suggested having the League of
Cities review the model onllnance which has been developed by this group, and trying to
get it adopted on a local level.PAGE 4
9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
4. REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS (Continued)
I MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz Spurgeon
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to accept
Councilwoman Coontz's recommendation that the City Manager's office, in conjunction with the
City Attorney, investigate how other cities monitor charitable organization solicitations, consider setting
up a local Social Service Register Clearinghouse as an ancillary position at City
Hall, use the services of the new organization, "Charities for Truth in Giving",and/or develop
anordinance, keeping in mind the effectiveness of the proposal and budgetary constraints. The City
Attorney to repon back to Council after March 19, 1992.5. REPORTS FROM
BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS - Tape 553 5.1 The Applicant'
s appeal of a Design Review Board decision to prohibit the internal illumination of a fabric
awning proposed as a wall sign on a commercial building. (4428 E.Chapman Avenue.) (A4OOO.0
No. 1-92)The Manager of
Current Planning reponed the DRB did not approve this sign because of the backlighting. Council asked
if their denial was based on policy or ordinance. The Manager of Current Planning reponed
the DRB has a policy of encouraging an opaque background. The use of light-colored
or translucent backlit panels is not allowed in the ordinance.Rick Erickson,
2050 E. Walnut, the Appellant, introduced the architect for the project, Rick Finkel with
Bundy-Finkel Architects, who spoke on his behalf. Mr. Finkel indicated they have reduced
the amount of lettering on the awning, but tried to retain the integrity of the canopy.They
have tried to integrate the entire canopy, not as a sign, but as an architectural element. He cited
other examples of that type of sign in the City, although the colors are darker. He indicated the
sign awning was the Applicant's sole way of creating attention to the building. He asked Council
to look at the overall package and decide whether it was an asset to the community.Councilman
Spurgeon was hesitant to make exceptions to the sign ordinance, when it took so long
to come to agreement on the ordinance and get it passed. Councilman Steiner and Mayor Pro
Tem Barrera felt we should suppon and encourage businesses, especially in the current economic
climate. Councilwoman Coontz mentioned the sign ordinance was revised because the City
Council got tired of having to deal with the sign ordinance the City had.PAGES
1 0
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
NOES
Steiner Barrera
Steiner, Barrera
Mayor Beyer, Coontz,
Spurgeon I Moved to approve
the
appeal. MOTION FAILED. Appeal is denied.5.2 Nomination of
Rudy Diaz to the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Ans Advisory Commission. Term to expire
March 31,1994. (ORI8oo.0.1O)MOTION SECOND AYES Beyer
Barrera
Steiner,
Barrera,
Mayor Beyer,
Coontz, Spurgeon
Moved to confirm the nomination of Rudy
Diaz to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Ans Advisory Commission.6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - Tape 1-
1415 6.
1 Request the City Council take
action by motion directing the Community Development Depanment to initiate an Ordinance Amendment Public
Hearing Process regulating outdoor food vending. (A25oo.0 Mobile Food Handling)
Councilman Steiner expressed his desire to have
administrative approval by the Staff, rather than a Conditional Use Permit. The Director of
Community Development indicated the draft amendment requires a CUP. However, this could
be decided during the public hearing process.Public hearings would be held before the
Planning Commission and the City Council. The Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce
indicated the Chamber did not feel a CUP would be necessary. He suggested it be
limited to one per area.MOTION SECOND AYES Steiner Barrera Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor
Beyer,
Coontz,
Spurgeon Moved
to direct
the Community Development Depanment to initiate an
Ordinance Amendment Public Hearing Process regulating outdoor food vending. Staff to change
the draft of the ordinance amendment to make it a Staff administrative decision, rather
than requiring a Conditional Use Permit.PAGE 8
1 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - Tape 1-1758
7.1 Repon from City Manager regarding membership in the Friends of the 1-5
Coalition.Account 100-0101-429600, General Fund, $300.00) (OR18oo.
0.39.1)The City Manager reponed the Friends of the 1-5 Coalition is a group
of private and public section interests dedicated to the prompt completion of the 1-
5 corridor improvement program in Orange County as mandated by voters in approving Measure M. The
current focus of the group is to ensure that OCTA's funding levels are
adopted by the California Transponation commission as pan of the 1992 State Transponation Improvement
Program. Most of the cities southerly of Buena Park are in favor of this, as well as many
of the business communities, such as The Irvine Company, Carl Karcher Enterprises, Hilton, Angels, Rams,
etc. The cost is $300 per year. Councilman Steiner indicated he has been asked to serve
on the Friends of 1-5 Coalition, representing Orange. He feels there is an advantage to the City
of Orange to
be
a
pan
of the
process.MOTION
SECOND AYES Barrera Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Mayor
Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to approve membership in the Friends of 1-5 Coalition and the
appropriation of $300.00 from account 100-
0101-429600 to pay membership dues.7.2 It is recommended that the Council, by motion, adopt a
policy concerning the roles of the Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager. It is funher
recommended that the City Manager be directed to incorporate this policy into the City
Manager's Administrative
Manual. Tape 1-1836 C25oo.A.l)The City Manager asked to have this item continued for
approximately two weeks so that he can discuss the matter with
the Councilmembers individually. Councilwoman Coontz felt this should be handled in Executive Session,
since there are personnel matters involved. Some Councilmembers also wished
to
discuss this item with him individually.r Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, felt this was a
citywide policy of great interest to the citizens and should not be discussed behind
closed doors. Councilman Steiner agreed the issue of roles and responsibilities of elected officials is a public
matter. However, he felt it should be discussed individually with the
City
Manager
to
get Councilmember'
s input.
MOTION SECOND AYES Coontz Steiner Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer,
12
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
7.REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER (Continued)
Moved to refer this item to the City Manager for individual consultation with each
Councilmember.
8. LEGAL AFFAIRS
8.1 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. (A25oo.0 Landscape
Standards)The following people
spoke:Coralee Newman, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council regarding this
item.She met with Staff after the first reading of this ordinance to try to resolve some issues with
the Planning Commission and the City Council. The changes recommended by Staff have no
effect on the onllnance amendment. It was recommended the ordinance be approved, with
any changes to be made by
resolution.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, endorsed this
action.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES Barrera
Coontz Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Ordinance
No. 1-92 have second reading waived and be adopted and same was passed and adopted
by the preceding vote.8.
2 RESOLUTION NO. 7961 A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange authorizing the Public Employees Retirement
System to grant an additional designated period for service credit for the City of Orange. (
I1200.0.7)MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz
Spurgeon
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer,
Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No. 7961 as
introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.PAGE 8
13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
8.3 RESOLUTION NO. 7964
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving an option agreement to the
Orange Redevelopment Agency regarding the Pixley parcel for housing purposes and approving
related matters. (RA21oo.0 A.1923) (Northeast Corner of Pixley and Almond)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Barrera Mayor
Beyer Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No.
7964 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.
4 RESOLUTION
NO. 7963 A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Orange requesting the Orange County Local Transponation Authority and
the Board of Supervisors to include within the Orange County Combined Transponation Funding
Programs the improvement of Loma Street. (S4000.S.7)Refer to Consent
Calendar Item 2.6.)MOTION SECOND AYES
Spurgeon
Barrera
Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor
Beyer, Coontz,
Spurgeon That Resolution No. 7963 as introduced
be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.5 RESOLUTION NO.
7962 A
Resolutionof the City Council
of the City of Orange repealing Resolution No. 6850 and rescinding approval of Lot Line Adjustment
No. LL-87-4 concerning Lots No.1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 86-239. (
C25oo.M.16.1 LL-87-4) (Southeast Corner of Batavia and Angus Street)MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz
Spurgeon Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor
Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No. 7962
as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.PAGE 9
14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
8.6 RESOLUTION NO. 7960
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange authorizing the destruction of certain
City records, documents, and papers in the possession of the Police Department and which
records are no longer required for the conduct of City business pursuant to the authority granted
by Sections 34090, 34909.5, and 34090.7 of the Government Code of the State of California.
C25oo.K)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Spurgeon Coontz
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No.
7960 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.
7 RESOLUTION
NO. 7965 A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of
the City of Orange and approving the reclassification of propenies situated east of
Rancho Santiago Boulevard and south of Santiago Canyon Road. (ZI5oo.0 No.1144-91) (Pre-
Zone Change 1144-91 - Owner: City of Orange)MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz
Spurgeon Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor
Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No. 7965
as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.8
RESOLUTION NO.
7966 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 general office and commercial
uses in the industrial district upon propeny situated on the west side of Main Street,
nonh of Katella Avenue. (C33OO.0 CUP 1927-91)Conditional Use Permit
1927-91 - Owner: Burke Commercial Development)MOTION SECOND AYES
ABSTAIN
Steiner
Barrera
Steiner,
Barrera, Coontz,
Spurgeon Mayor
Beyer PAGE 10
15
15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
That Resolution No. 7966 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the
preceding vote.
8.9 RESOLUTION NO. 7967
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the
Planning Commission of the City of Orange and approving the subdivision of propeny situated
on the west side of Main Street, nonh of Katella Avenue. (C25oo.M.16.1 TPM-
91-26O)Tentative Parcel Map 91-260 - Owner: Burke
Commercial
Development)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES ABSTAIN
Barrera Coontz
Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Mayor
Beyer That Resolution
No. 7967 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.
8.10
RESOLUTION NO. 7968 A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator
of the City of Orange and granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of
an existing service station. (C3300.0 CUP 1928-91)Applicant:
Abdel Aziz - 4502 E. Chapman Avenue)MOTION SECOND
AYES
ABSTAIN
Coontz
Steiner
Steiner, Barrera,
Coontz, Spurgeon
Mayor Beyer That Resolution No.
7968 as introduced
be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.11 RESOLUTION NO.
7970 A
Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Orange finally accepting the completion of a cenain public work and improvement. Bid
No. 912-3; Beylik Drilling, Inc. (A21oo.0 A.1832)Construction of Water Well No.
23 - East Side of Santiago Creek and Walnut Avenue)PAGE 11
16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
MARCH 10, 1992
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz Spurgeon
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No.
7970 as introduced 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 -
Tape 1-2825 Pat Buttress, invited
the Council to the Orange Rotary Club Police and Fire Awards luncheon on Thursday, March 19,
1992 at 11:45 a.m., at Turnip Rose. Councilman Spurgeon will be the Master of Ceremonies.
Carole Walters, 534
N. Shaffer, addressed the Council regarding the following topics:a. Copy charges:
She feels the charges for getting copies of documents at the City are too high. She suggested
the City install a coin-operated copy machine for public use.b. Santiago
Golf Course Greenway Bond Issue: Ms. Walters feels the public has the right to know the
whole truth about the open space at the golf course before the vote. If the bond issue passes in
June, the City of Orange can raise taxes for the upkeep of the propeny, salaries for the employees and
whatever else in the future the City wants to do without voter approval. When propeny value
goes up, so do taxes. The $5-10 per $100,000 value could double or even triple in
a shon time, if the bond issue passes. She used that figure because it is not known what the amount
will be at this time. Down the road, if the City wants to build houses on the propeny,they
will need to replace the soil, because the previous homes were built on a landfill. If this happens,
the taxpayers may have to bear the cost. The City says they won't build on it, but the people
amund the golf course were told it would stay as open space. She wanted to put the other side
of the argument on the ballot, but was given the wrong cutoff date.Ms.
Walters feels City officials should take the responsibility to get the whole truth out to the voters.
Councilwoman Coontz indicated the Greenway Committee will put out a repon in the near
future, which will answer the questions Ms. Walters has asked. (Elloo.0)Alice
Clark, 205 N. Pine Street, hoped that when the study was made, a valid, honest appraisal would
be used. She asked about the progress of the Queen Anne House. The City Clerk indicated
this will be on the agenda for March 17, 1992.PAGE
12
17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
11. RECESS
The City Council recessed at 4:45 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following pwposes:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a), to wit:
City of Orange vs. County of Orange,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 68 18 89.
b. To confer with its attorney to decide whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(c).
c. To meet and give directions to its authorized representative regarding labor relations matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(b) (1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.
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 uuless the motion to recess
indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
12. INVOCATION - given by Maria Knifechief, Bahai Faith.12.
1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 12.
2 ANNOUNCEMENTS- None 12.
3 INTRODUCTIONS- None 12.
4 PROCLAMATIONS a.
Native American Week - presented to Anastasia Quintana.PAGE 13
18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
12.5 PRESENTATIONS
a. Request by Vietnam Vets Reunited to hold a flag raising ceremony on behalf of POWs
and MIA's.
Frances Schuster, Recording Secretary, 340 N. Flower, addressed the Council with this request.
They asked for a flag raising ceremony and to fly the flag daily to bring public awareness to the
fact that there are still soldiers from the Vietnam War who are unaccounted for.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Spurgeon Steiner
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to approve
the request to have a flag raising on behalf of POWs and MIAs, and to fly the flag for the
year. Date of the ceremony to be coordinated with City Staff.13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
13.1 PRE-
ZONE CHANGE 1145-91, CITY OF ORANGE: Tape 1-3670
Time set for a public hearing on petition by the City of Orange to consider Pre-Zone
Change 1145-91, to pre-zone change four residential lots frorn County Estate Residential
to City R-I-40 Single Family Residential Minimum Lot size One Acre) District prior
to annexation to the
City.ZI5oo.0 No. 1145-91)Subject project contains four parcels of land with a combined area of
4.6 acres located on the east side of Meads Avenue at the nonheast and southeast
corners of Meads Avenue and Acre Place, a private road, addressed 20292, 20321 and 20312 Acre
Place. One parcel is vacant and
does not have an address assigned.NOTE: This project is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15319.
MAYOR BEYER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.THERE BEING NO
SPEAKERS,
THE
PUBLIC
HEARING WAS CLOSED.
MOTION SECOND
AYES Mayor Beyer Coontz Steiner, Barrera, Mayor
Beyer, Coontz,
19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
CEQA Finding: Moved that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Mayor Beyer Coontz
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to approve
Pre-Zone Change 1145-91 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No.
PC-54-
91.13.2 APPEAL NO. 394, CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1937-91, RAY
AND DENISE TIlffiAULT:
Tape 1-3815 Time set for a public hearing on petition by Ray and Denise Thibault to appeal
the decision by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1991 denying Conditional Use
Permit 1937-91 to allow the expansion of an existing residential accessory structure in
the C-l (Limited Business District) zone. Subject project is located on a rectangular-
shaped parcel approximately 0.15 acre 6,615 sq. ft.) in size, at the nonheast corner of Palm Avenue
and Cleveland Street (603 E.
Palm Avenue). (A4OOO.0 No. 394)NOTE: This project is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.THE APPELLANTS STATE
THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL:I do not want to add unnecessary restrictions to my Deed. What
I have applied for is consistent with the General Plan. C-l with residential uses-with a C.U.
P. I am not asking for a business use or a separate rental
unit, therefore the Planning Depanment and Commissioners are addressing a situation that does not exist,
and any deed restrictions would make my propeny appear
to have a problem it does not have."The Manager of Current Planning clarified
that the Planning Commission had not denied the Conditional Use Permit. It was approved, but added
a condition to which the Applicant is taking exception. A residential use in a C-l is allowed
by a Conditional Use Permit. It is a single family home with a detached garage, with a
recreation room built on top. The application was to expand
the recreation
20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Because of the unique situation that the zoning is commercial and the General Plan designation
is 6-15 dwelling units per acre, the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate to require
a Deed Restriction on the propeny to give clear documentation to any future owners.
The Applicant objected, feeling it might cause a problem in the event of future sale of the
property.Councilwoman Coontz asked if this propetty could be rezoned R-2. Staff
indicated the Applicant preferred to keep the commercial zoning. Council asked if there were other
ways to handle this, without a deed restriction. The Current Planning Manager indicated this
was not required, but suggested to protect any future buyers of the propeny, who might
not investigate whether there were any restrictions to
the propeny.MAYOR BEYER OPENED THE
PUBLIC HEARING.The Appellant, Ray Thibault, 603 E. Palm A venue, addressed the Council regarding
his appeal.The original plans called for 600 square feet. The final plans approved by the
DRB and Planning were for 130 square feet. He cited other propenies in the area which have
built without deed restrictions being required. He feels this is a violation of his rights. Regarding
his propeny being rezoned as R-2-6, it was approved by the Assistant City Attorney,
Historic Planner, but it was vetoed by a Staff Planner. He said he could live with the R-
2-
6 zoning, without the deed restrictions.The following
people in favor of the
appeal:Doug Stobo, 317 N.
Cleveland.John Volkoff, 365 N. Cleveland.THERE BEING NO FURTHER
SPEAKERS, THE PUBLIC
HEARING WAS CLOSED.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor
Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon CEQA Finding: Moved that this project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California
Environmental
Quality
Act.
MOTION SECOND
AYES Coontz
Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon
Moved to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission recommendation to institute a
deed restriction on the propeny.
PAGE 16
2'1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Coontz
Spurgeon Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved
to direct the Planning Department to initiate a Zone Change to R-2-6 on the
propeny,with the concurrence of the1'Iuperty owner. There will be no fees charged to the
propeny owner for the Zone Change, since this is being initiated by
Council.13.3 APPEAL NO. 393, CONDmONAL USE PERMIT 1934-91, VARIANCE
NO. 1918-91, PRAFUL PATEL:
Tape 1-4670 Time set for a public hearing on petition by Prafu1 Patel to appeal the decision
by the Planning Commission on December 2,1991 denying Conditional Use Permit 1934-
91 to modify an existing freestanding sign as a "Freeway Sign" upon propeny located 140
feet south of KateHa Avenue, approximately 230 feet west of State Route 55 (Costa Mesa
Freeway) at 1936 E.Katella Avenue; and the denial of Variance 1918-91 to increase the
number of signs and sign display area upon propeny located south of Katella A venue, approximately
700 ft. east of Tustin Street, at 1930 E. Katella
Avenue. (A4000.0 No. 393 NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines, Section
15301(g) and 15311(a).THE APPELLANT STATES
THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR APPEAL:I, Praful Patel, am appealing the decision of the
Planning Commission for the following reasons: 1) The subject propeny, due to unusual
topographical characteristics, is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other propenies under
identical zoning classification. 2) The Commission's decision denied all signage applied for,
with no further resolution or recommendation to the Appellant for convening to and identifying
a major new hotel franchise.3) The total area of proposed signage is close in measure to
signage already existing on the subject propeny; and is consistent with the City of
Orange criteria for allowing freestanding signage through a
variance and conditional use permit."The Manager of Current Planning reponed this project involves four
separate signs, and is very different from the project which was reviewed earlier by the City
Council. The propeny has no frontage on Katella Avenue. Because of no access on Katella, the
sign on1inance does not allow any signs
at all
22.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Regarding the freeway sign, the Planning Commission felt allowing the sign might encourage r
businesses along Tustin Street with deep lots that might qualify for freeway signs to apply. The
Planning Commission was concerned because this is a Conditional Use Permit, which allows for
any propenies to apply with the same freeway frontage and might cause a proliferation of
freeway signs. Council asked if there ~ other landlocked pan:els, like this one. Staff
indicated they all adjoin this parcel. However, being landlocked had nothing to do with the
Conditional Use Permit application. The rest of the application is to allow a Variance, because
of special circumstances unique to this propeny. The other three signs being requested fall in
the Variance category.
MAYOR BEYER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
The Applicant, Praful Patel, owner of the Ho Jo Inn, 1930 E. Katella A venue, addressed the
Council in favor of the appeal.
THERE BEING NO FURTIIER SPEAKERS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
Spurgeon Coontz
Steiner,
Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon CEQA Finding:
Moved that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act.MOTION SECOND
AYES
Spurgeon
Steiner
Steiner, Barrera,
Mayor Beyer,
Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to uphold the appeal
as presented, subject to the conditions recommended in the Staff repon, deleting condition #2.14.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT- Tape
1-5670 14.1 Presentation by
propeny owners on East Culver between Shaffer and Cambridge requesting to change the
zoning in their area from R-1-6 to R-2-6 with no RCD (Residential
Combining District) overlay. (Rl2oo.0)
The following people spoke in favor:
Ralph Zehner, 630 E. Culver.
Eileen Henfelder, 720 E. Culver Avenue.
PAGE 18
23
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued)
f', Kenneth Bremlow, 652 E. Culver.
Mark Ante. 536 E. Culver.
They made the following points:
They believe this will bring the zoning into parity with the surrounding area.
It would allow the propeny to be used at its highest and best possible use and still complement
Old Towne.
A petition was presented from approximately IlO% of the area pioperty owners in favor of
rezoning.
Upzoning these lots would be a great benefit to propetty owners.
The Street Engineering Department has indicated the traffic impact would be minimal.
One propeny owner was told by City Staff at the time of purchase the property was expected
to be rezoned R-
2.They are requesting this be approved by the Council and go directly to the
Planning
Commission.The residents on the south side of Culver ,are CQncemed about noise, crime, traffic
and congestion. The proponents feel adequate garage and off-street parking will keep
the upzoning of Culver Avenue from being
a problem.Some residents plan to rent tosenior citiz,ens if they are granted the rezoning and
can add additional units to
their propeny.Councilwoman Coontz asked the expectations of the residents. and whether they
had considered the possibility of lot splits. Mr. Anle has already split the ~ts, but has not built on
them yet.Mr. Zehner preferred
the rezoning.The following people spoke
in opposition:Shannon Tucker, 556
E. Culver.Patty Ricci, 618
E. Culver.Frank Tucker, 556
E. Culver.Greg Ray, 546
E. Culver.Margo Andrews, 504
E. Culver.They made the
following points:I - Propeny ownership is a privilege and entitles owners to some basic rights. However.
along with such privileges comes a level of responsibility to all the neighbors and accountability
as members of the neighborhood community. Early zoningordi!\anCCs were aimed at safety
and nuisance control. The idea was to protect individual propeny ,values by prohibiting
offensive use of surrounding land. The use of zoning has gradua,lly been expanded and now it is used
to promote the general welfare of the entire community, not the individual. The
maximum development and its subsequent effect, must be the formulative basis for any decision to
rezone.PAGE
24
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued)
In a 1986 decision, the California Appellate Coun held that, although the Applicant for rezoning
of a propeny denied that he had plans to develop such propeny, the rezoning could only be
meaningful as a first phase for redevelopment of the propeny. and held that for the purposes of
CEQA, the project included the ultimate physical development of that propeny.
Culver Avenue is comprised of single-family homes, located on parcels from 9,200 to over
46,300 square feet. There are 350,000 square feet of land on the south side of Culver A venue.
Under proposed R-2-6 zoning, 58 - 6,000 square foot parcels could be created, resulting in a
potential buildout of over 100 units, where only 18 exist today.
Any development of the rear ponions of the parcels on Culver Avenue has an impact on the surrounding
neighbors as well. The narrow, deep lots on Culver Avenue cause neighbors to share
more vista than an average-sized or more traditional-shaped
lot.The proposed wne change, using no RCD overlay would expose the entire neighborhood to a
change in streetscape and potentially place multiple looming structures within view from 4-
5 backyards away, as well as the front and rear of the propeny. This detracts from
propeny owners' highest and best use as a single-family
residential home.The land-use element of the General Plan recognizes the area in question
as low-density residential, allowing 2-6 units per acre. Under current zoning, these large lots are
able to be split to 6,000 square foot lots, enabling single
family residence on each.In 1977, Conditional Use Permit No. 849 and Land Division No. 331 appeared
as one request for a 3-way lot split, with the intention of placing a single-family home on
each lot on the south side of Culver Avenue. This Applicant's bid for development
involved multiple hearings at City Council and Planning Commission through continuances
and appeal. Ultimately, the decision was made to deny the project. The denial was based on the desire of the
City to retain a single-family atmosphere in contrast to the character of
multi-family detached housing, to dissuade similar development of these unique lots, and for safety reasons, due
to
the unique shape of the lots.The City Council is being very prudent in overseeing the outgo
of taxpayers' money, given the current fiscal crisis and the state of the economy in 1992. In
1977, the City Council was originally asked to consider these issues on a lesser scale. It was
wisely determined at that time,after many Staff hours of research, that this would be detrimental to
the City of Orange, as
described in the General Plan.The Orange Taxpayers Association considers itself a watchdog
organization for the fiscal responsibility of the City of Orange and its Vice President is
advocating this proposal, which will undoubtedly incur a great deal of Staff time and research, paid for by
the taxpayers, for the personal
benefit of a few.The opponents are asking for the same privilege of living in these homes for
long periods of time, without renters, who
come and go.Petitions of propeny owners who are against this proposal were presented to
Council. Some had signed the petition in favor, and then changed their minds when they found out
what it
actually entailed.
25
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued)
This would destroy the rural feeling of the Richland Farm Tract single-family homes. Those
who wish to develop and achieve the highest density on their propeny are not thinking of the
impact on the neighborhood.
Over 100 units, where only 18 houses are now, would seriously erode the neighborhood with regard
to crime, parking, city sewers, water and fire protection, noise and general appearance.The
current rate of police calls for single-family homes is one call per residence. With multiple
units on a lot, the number of police calls increases to two calls per unit. Fire protection would
be difficult, because of the 175 foot driveways.Those
who feel this increase in zoning would not have an impact on the street need only to drive one
block south to Chalynn to see the affect of overdevelopment on the quality of life.Changing the
zoning without the approval of all the propeny owners goes against the philosophy of Orange
Taypayers Association, of which the petitioner is Vice President.This increased density
would require an amendment to the General Plan.This zone change would
not benefit the entire neighborhood.These residents feel the zoning
is already in parity with the surrounding propenies. There are far more houses zoned R-l
than are zoned R-2.The southwest quadrant is
not a good example, with its increased crime, trash and noise.Development will provide additional tax
revenue to the City, but will not offset the cost of Planning Commission studies, Environmental Impact Repons,
the review of Conditional Use Permits and Variances that will be
required.The proposed zone change has no
restrictive convenants, which dictate the residents of this development be senior citizens.If the City
Council decides to pursue
this proposal, they were asked to have Staff perform a review of the impact of this project to
determine if it is in the best interests of the City.Alice Clark, 205 N. Pine Street, mentioned that
Ralph Zehner was not coming fonh in his position as a Board Member of the Orange
Taxpayers Association. She asked the members of the Old Towne Preservation Association, who are opposed
to the rezoning, to identify themselves as well.Council commented they had made
a commitment to
handle this rezoning request in the same manner as that of the homeowners in the
Southwest Quadrant. Councilman Steiner expressed concern about the climate on Culver, which is
pitting neighbor against neighbor. There may even be differences of opinion of people living
under the same roof.MOTION SECOND AYES Coontz Spurgeon Steiner. Barrera, Mayor
Beyer,
Coontz,
Spurgeon
PAGE 21
26
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (Continued)
Moved to refer this proposal to Community Development Depanment with the 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.
15. ORAL PRESENTATIONS
a. Request by property owners in the vicinity of 2238 Walnut Street, who oppose the "Granny
House" square footage extension. (C33oo.0 CUP 1881-90) Tape
2-863 The following people spoke
in opposition:Betty C. Robens, 1752 N. Morningside Street, owner of propeny at
2222
E. Walnut..James E. Robens, 1752 N.
Morningside Street.Carol Van Horn, 2237 E.
Walnut Avenue.Jeff Grose, 2222 E. Walnut
A venue.Paul Kelly, 2329
E. Oakmont.They made the
following points:At the meeting of November 26,1991, Council ordered the addition returned to its
original
Size.The owners tried to make Mrs. Robens change her mind about being opposed to the project.
The garage is 200 square feet, an oversized single garage. The propeny owners have 4 cars,and
none of them are parked in the garage.The
extension on the garage was left, and the connections remain. They have recently installed a
window and a sink in this area.There is
trash all over the area and congestion, caused by the rental unit.The propeny owners
are in violation of City Code.These people were given
a permit after-the-fact for the extension on the garage.The owners show
blatant disregard for City Codes.The Council should consider
putting an age limit on 'granny pads'.When people are in violation
of City Ordinance, they should be fined. This would bring revenue to the City and perhaps
eliminate some of these problems.The City should consider monitoring 'granny
house' permits, to make sure they are being used for this purpose.A petition signed by
154 people in
opposition to the extension was presented to Council.The City would open the door to many
other similar problems if they allow compromise to this situation.Once the space is there, the owner
will find
a way to use this addition.PAGE 22
27
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
15. ORAL PRESENTATIONS (Continued)
At the November 26 Council meeting, someone said they would look into having the electricity
put underground. It is still overhead.Who
is really in charge at the City? If the Council does not hold firm on this, there will be more problems
later.The Community
Development Director confirmed the living area was returned to its original 640 square feet,
as approved by the Conditional Use Permit. The extra addition on the garage was reviewed by
Community Development Staff and the City Attorney. Since the addition on the garage was
not pan of the living space, a building pennit was issued for the 12 square foot addition.The
following
people spoke in favor of the Applicant:Irene Moore,
2234 Walnut Street.Sengdao Vongruksukdi,
2238 E. Walnut Avenue.Boonchoo Vongruksukdi,
2238 E. Walnut Avenue.Lloyd Mihm,
2243 E. Walnut.They made
the following points:These Applicants
are not deceptive, they come from another country and do not understand all our rules and
regulations. .The owners were
not able to bring the mother there to live, because the addition was not completed.A petition of
29
homes, with 32 signatures in favor of the permit was presented to Council.The opponents have presented signatures
on their petition which are outside The owners were forced to move
into the addition and rent out the house in order to make the mongage payment which was increased by loans
taken out to complete the addition.Councilwoman Coontz mentioned Council had asked for '
granny pads' to be monitored, for the very reason of possible problems such as
this one, where they might be used in an illegal way.Council asked the Community Development Director to
write a letter to the Edison Company.The line is supposed to be temporary.
The wiring is supposed to be underground, and they may need a reminder. Council discussion centered on
Staff issuing this permit for the garage extension, and whether this viola.ted Council
directive. The City Attorney wasasked to review the options available for disposition, in view
of the permit having been issued.MOTION SECOND AYES NOES Steiner Coontz Steiner,
Coontz
Barrera,
Mayor
Beyer,
Spurgeon PAGE
23
28
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 10, 1992
15. ORAL PRESENTATIONS (Continued)
Moved to direct Staff to monitor the use of this space to make sure it retains its use as a garage,
and not for occupancy by any individual in the future. Staff to conduct regular inspections every
six months. MOTION FAILS.
Council asked how many of these 'granny pads' were located in the City of Orange at the present
time. The Community Development Director estimated about six. Council asked for a repon
back on the monitoring which was asked for previously. This entails inspection of the sites.
MOTION
SECOND
AYES
NOES
Steiner Coontz
Steiner, Coontz
Barrera, Mayor Beyer,
Spurgeon Motion resubmitted: Moved to
direct Staff to monitor the situation every six months by inspection, to make sure
the garage is not being used for living quaners. If Code Enforcement finds any violations, they
should come back to Council for direction to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. MOTION FAILS.
MOTION SECOND AYES NOES
Coontz
Mayor
Beyer
Barrera,
Mayor Beyer,
Coontz, Spurgeon Steiner
Moved to direct the Applicant to
bring the
garage back to the original size, with the addition removed from the structure. The Permit was issued
after the fact and therefore does not comply with Council direction at the meeting of November
26, 1991. Staff to conduct inspections every six months.16. ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned
at 10:
20 p.
m.AAh~~ ~~~Marilyn J. Je sen, C .C,fCity
Clerk
PAGE 24