Loading...
05-12-1992 Council MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING ORANGE, CALIFORNIA May 12, 1992 The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on May 12, 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, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz (attended 7:00 p.m. Session)1.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting - April 14, 1992 (Cont. from 4/28/92)MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - Barrera A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz ACTION: Approved.Regular Meeting - Apri!21, 1992. MOTION - Barrera SECOND - Mayor Beyer AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz ACTION: Approved. Adjourned Regular Meeting - Apri!22, 1992.MOTION - Barrera SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz ACTION: Approved.PAGEl CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 1.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Continued) Regular Meeting - Apri! 28, 1992.MOTION - Steiner SECOND - Barrera A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz ACTION: Approved. 1.4 PRESENTATIONS! ANNOUNCEMENTSIINTRODUCTIONS - None. 1.5 PROCLAMATIONS - None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - Tape 80 2.1 Declaration of City Clerk Marilyn J. Jensen declaring posting of City Council agenda of a regular rneeting of May 12, 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.2.3 Request permission to advertise for bids, the installation of traffic striping,pavement markings and raised pavement markers (annual contract) within the City of Orange. (A2100.0 A.1961)Fiscal Impact: $77,000.00 budgeted inFund No. 250, Traffic Safety Fund.ACTION: Approved and authorized Bid No. 912-30 to be advertised.2.4 Approve and authorize the award ofBid No. 912-20 "Plaza Public Address System" to Baxter-Griffin Co., Inc. Stanton, Ca., in the amount of $6,200.00 and reject all other bids. (A2100. 0 A.1962)Fiscal Impact: $6,200.00 budgeted in Fund 230, Advertising and Promotion Fund.ACTION: Approved.PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 2.5 Request permission to advertise for bids, the modification and installation of traffic signals and safety lighting at six locations in the City of Orange, as listed below: (A2100.0 A.1963) a) Meats Ave. at Cambridge St. - signal installation. Fund 284-5032- 483100-6042 88,200. 00.b) Taft Ave. at Shaffer St. - signal installation. Fund 284- 5032-483100-6068- 88,200.00.c) Lincoln Ave. at Orange-Olive Rd. - signal modification. Fund 284-5032-483100-6108 - $37,500.00 and 550- 5032-483100-6108 - $12,500.00.d) City Dr. at SR-22 Fwy. (2) - signal modification. Fund 284-5032-783100-6101 160,000.00.e) Orangewood Ave. at Poplar St. - signal installation. Fund 251-5032-483100-6078 - $88,200.00.Fiscal Impact: $474,600.00 budgeted in Funds 251, 284 and 550, Traffic Safety Capital Projects Fund, Transportation System Improvement Program Area B Fees and Department of Public Works Capital Improvements Funds.ACTION: Approved and authorized Bid No. 912-32 to be advertised.2. 6 Request Council approve the amended Consultant Services Agreement with Michael L. Ahlering and Associates to prepare a Noise Mitigation Report for the Santiago Phase I project in an amount not to exceed $29,650.00. (A2100.0 A.1875.1)Funding: 550-5011-783300-3904-00216 $4,236. 00 (Villa Park Rd. - Lemon to Linda Vista); 271-5011-783300-3905 $ 1,059.00, 550- 5011-783300-3905-00217 1,059.00,550-5011-783300-3905-00216 $23,296. 00 (Santiago Canyon Rd. - Linda Vista to Windes Dr.).Fiscal Impact: $29,650.00 budgeted in Funds 271 and 550, Special Gas Tax Construction and Department of Public Works Capital Improvement Funds from the County of Orange.ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.2.7 Request Council approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 88- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) REMOVED AND HEARD SEP ARATEL Y) 2.8 Request the Council adopt the draft long-range, five-year EDP Plan for 1992-97 and that the City Manager and Staff be directed to implement the provisions of the plan. ( C2500.J.2)Fiscal Impact: $2,591,000.00 over the next 5 years. MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - Barrera A YES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz ACTION: Adopted the draft of the long-range, 5-year EDP Plan for 1992- 97 and directed the City Manager and Staff to implement provisions of the plan as follows:Negotiate a new contract with CMSI to develop and install the GT- 2000 system contract to be returned later for approval).Develop request for proposal for UNIX-based processor to replace existing Prime and Sequel computers.Focus on GT-2000 applications in priority order.Establish City analysis teams with CMSI to plan analysis and design activities for high priority applications not covered by GT-2000.Work with CMSI to produce implementation plan for GT- 2000 applications.2.9 Request Council approve Lot Line Adjustment LL 91-7; Tract 10259; South of Chapman, west of Newport; High Horse Trai!s. (C2500.M. 16.1 LLA- 91-7) Fiscal Impact: None.ACTION: Approved.2.10 Request Council approve authorization for advertising to invite bids for:54000.0)a) Katella Ave. rehabi!itation from Sacrarnento St. to Wanda St. Funding:County AHFP and matching funds ($445,000.00).b) Glassell St. Storm Drain - Glassell St. from La Veta to Culver, Culver Ave.from Glassell to Orange St., and Orange St. from Culver Ave. to Chapman Ave.Funding: CDBG and Redevelopment Agency ($900,000.00).c) Pearl St. from McPherson Rd. to First St., and First St. from Pearl St. to Chapman Ave. Street Improvements.Funding: SB821 Sidewalk and Pedestrian Safety Funds ($85, 000.00). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) Fiscal Impact: $1,430,000.00 budgeted in Funds 310, 530, 550, 920, Community Development Block Grant, Drainage District No.1 Fees, Dept. of Public Works Capital Improvement Funds from County of Orange, SB 821 and Southwest Project Area Redevelopment Agency Funds.. ACTION: Approved. 2.11 Request Council approve proposed amendment of Home Improvement Program policy for Deferred Payment Loans and low interest loan programs allowing refinancing of First and Second Deeds of Trust and approve a request for subordination for sufficient funding appropriated for Case #440. (C2500.G.l.1 Deferred Payment) Fiscal Impact: None. ACTION: Approved. 2.12 Request authorization to approve additional funding and authorize the City Treasurer to prepare a check in the arnount of $6,000.00 Case #509. (C2500.G.l.1 Comm. Dev. Block Grant) Fiscal Impact: Budgeted in Fund 315, Community Development Block Grant Deferred Loan Fund. ACTION: Approved. 2.13 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM: (C3200.0) a. KERRY SCHUH for an alleged incident occurring on or about December 10, 1991. ACTION: Denied claim and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster. 2.14 Request to receive the single audit report for the year ended June 30, 1991, submitted by the City's independent auditors, Moreland & Associates, Inc. C2500.J.l.3) Fiscal Impact: None. ACTION: Received and filed. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz PAGES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) Item 2.8 was removed and heard separately. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved/denied as recommended. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR BEYER (C2500.K) NON-AGENDA ITEM:MOTION - Mayor Beyer SECOND - Barrera AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz Moved that the need to take action on the following item arose after the posting of the agenda.Mayor Beyer reported he and the other Councilmembers are concerned about the large number of vacancies in the Police Department at the present time. He feels that because of the urgent need for safety services and the problems that can evolve from this lack, the situation should be dealt with immediately. He is recommending filling five of the existing vacancies in the Police Department. The City Manager recommended that if Council wishes to approve this, it should be funded from AB702 Credit Reserves.Councilman Steiner asked Personnel if it was realistic to expect these officers would be on board prior to the end of this fiscal year. The Senior Personnel Analyst did not feel it was realistic they would all be on board before the end of this fiscal year, because of the extensive background investigation conducted prior to employment. Councilman Steiner felt there would not be a significant impact on this year's budget. Councilman Steiner was very supportive of filling the vacancies in the Police Department. When Council directed the hiring freeze and has seen the 45-46 vacancies that all departments have had to live with for quite some tirne, there has been a significant impact on their ability to provide service for the community.Council is aware it has been very tough to pick up the load in the existing work force.By the same token, Councilman Steiner has been alarmed by what may be as much as an 18% vacancy in Traffic and Patrol, by officers not only vacancies, but illness or not being avai! able for duty. Police Chief Duncan and the command structure was asked to take a close look at what internal maneuvers could be done with regard to moving sworn officers around, and that has been done. We are now waiting for the appointment of the new Police Chief to make any further organizational changes in the Police Department. That will take time for the new Chief to become familiar with the department, and he feels Council should go ahead and authorize filling the vacancies.PAGE 6 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR BEYER (Continued) If any other Department Head came to Council and made a very strong case in terms of public safety, Council would be receptive. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Mayor Beyer Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz Moved to ask the City Manager to work with the Police Chief to fill five existing vacancies in the Police Department as of May 13, 1992.4. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS ( C2500.D)MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Mayor Beyer Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz Moved that the need to take action on the following item arose after the posting of the agenda.Councilman Spurgeon reported the City Attorney has come back with some options and opinions on the subject of Council term limitations and campaign donation limits.Some time ago, he asked Council to direct the City Attorney to do this report.Councilman Spurgeon asked to have a Council committee appointed to work with the City Attorney and others and return to Council with a recommendation and ordinances, where required, and advisory ordinances, in terms of the term limitation.He felt an advisory ordinance was better than none.Councilman Spurgeon asked the City Clerk for the deadlines to get these items on the November ballot. The City Clerk reported it must be adopted by the last meeting in July, since the deadline for submittal to the County is August 7th.MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Mayor Beyer Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz Moved to appoint Councilman Spurgeon and Mayor Beyer to an ad hoc committee to investigate advisory term limitations and campaign donation limits and return to Council with a recommendation and ordinances or advisory ordinances, where required, no later than July 21,1992.PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None 7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS - Tape 1036 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 8000 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 modification of Tentative Tract Map 12458. ( T4000.0 TTM-12458)Modification to Tentative Tract Map 12458 Salkin Engineering Corporation MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Barrera Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 8000 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 8001 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 modification to Conditional Use Permit and to allow reconfiguration of and additional access to a private drive upon property situated approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of Cerro Villa Drive and El Rito Drive, on the north side of Cerro Villa Drive. (C3300.0 CUP-I441)Modification to CUP 1441 Salkin Engineering Corporation MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Steiner Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 8001 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12,1992 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) 8.3 RESOLUTION NO. 8002 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 property situated on the south side of Meads Avenue between Orange Park Boulevard and Ridgeline Golf Course. (Z1500.0 PZC- 1148)Pre-Zone Change 1148 Applicant: Keith W. Naylor MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 8002 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8. 4ORDINANCE NO. 9-92 (FIRST READING) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 17.06.020 of the Orange Municipal Code and approving the reclassification of property situated on the south side of Meads Avenue between Orange Park Boulevard and Ridgeline Golf Course. (ZI500.0 PZC- 1148)Pre-Zone Change 1148 Applicant: Keith W. Naylor MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Barrera Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Ordinance No. 9-92 have first reading waived and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.. 8.5 RESOLUTION NO. 8003 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange and denying the reclassification of property situated on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road approximately 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue. (Z1500.0 PZC- 1112-89)Pre- Zone Change 1112- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES A & A Ventures May 12, 1992 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 8003 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.6 RESOLUTION NO. 8004 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange and denying a General Plan Amendment of property situated on the east side of Crawford Canyon Road approximately 400 feet south of Chapman Avenue. (C2300.E GP A-3-91-B) General Plan Amendment 3-91-A (The City Attorney corrected this item to GPA-3- 91- B) A & A Ventures MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 8004 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.7 RESOLUTION NO. 8005 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange and denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a billiard entertainment facility with associated restaurant serving beer and wine in the CTR District upon property situated on the west side of Santiago Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue and Robinhood Place. (C3300. 0 CUP- 1946-92)CUP 1946- 92 John S. Otteman MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Barrera Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 That Resolution No. 8005 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote. 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) 8.8 RESOLUTION NO. 7998 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange adopting a policy to preclude taking of action at adjourned regular meetings which are designated as study sessions. C2S00.D) MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 7998 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.9 RESOLUTION NO. 7999 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line Adjustment LL 92-1 adjusting a Lot Line of certain real property situated on the east side of Lemon Street, approximately 140 feet north of Culver Avenue. (C2S00.M.16.1 LLA-92-1) Owner: Orange County Rescue Mission MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Steiner Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 7999 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote. 8.10 RESOLUTION NO. 8006 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange designating Agents for purposes of obtaining federal and state disaster and emergency assistance. (C2S00.E.6)MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Barrera Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Resolution No. 8006 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) 8.11 ORDINANCE NO. 10-92 (FIRST READING)An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange adding Chapter 12.66 of Title 12 to the Orange Municipal Code prohibiting encampment and camping on the public streets or public property. (A2S00.0 Camping) MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Spurgeon Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon Coontz That Ordinance No. 10-92 have fIrst reading waived and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote..9. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS - None 11. RECESS The City Council recessed at 4:00 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 549S6.9(a), to wit:City of Orange vs. Steven D. Wymer, et at United States District Court Case No. 92 2141 SVW.Serrano Irrigation District vs. City of Orange, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61 3800 4th District Court of Appeals #G011667 City of Orange vs. County of Orange, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 681889. City of Orange and Orange Redevelopment Agency vs. Donald D. Greek -Orange County Superior Court Case No. 642701 and Donald D. Greek vs.City of Orange, et at, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 6821 87.b. To confer with its attorney to decide whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code Section S49S6.9(c).c. To meet and give directions to its authorized representative regarding labor relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 11. RECESS (Continued) d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 549S6.9(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 unless 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 Becky Palamino, Coordinator Senior Citizens and Parenting Program, The Friendly Center. 12.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 12.2 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Beyer announced the appointment of John Robertson to the position of Police Chief. Mr. Robertson is presently Chief of Police for the City of Garden Grove, and has held that position since 1988. He is expected to be on board by mid- June.Mayor Beyer also announced that TRW has cancelled its plans to move out-of-state.The City of Orange thanked Assemblyman Mickey Conroy for the role he played in the negotiations. Victoria Cleary, Councilmembers Steiner and Spurgeon were also thanked for their assistance. Details of the agreement will not be made public until later this month, when all parties finalize the arrangement, and there is a public hearing.Councilman Steiner commented that with all the talk of business leaving California,with the many impediments to their success, the role of the City Council and Staff in having TRW stay in our communitymeans about 1,300 jobs for people working in Orange. That follows another bit of good news a month ago, when the City Council and Staff worked very aggressively to get the Orange County Transit Authority to relocate at Union Bank Square in the City of Orange, from Garden Grove.12.3 INTRODUCTIONS - None 12.4 PROCLAMATIONS - None 12.5 PRESENTATIONS - None PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tape 1590 13. 1 APPEAL NO. 396, VARIANCE NO. 1920-91 McDONALD'S CORPORATION: The public hearing on petition by McDonald's Corporation to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on December 16, 1991, approving Variance No. 1920-91 to allow the expansion of an existing fast food restaurant without increasing the number of parking spaces on the property has been continued from April 14 and April 28, 1992 to this date. The appeal is regarding condition of approval #3, requiring right-of-way dedication and improvements. Subject property is located at 1839 West Chapman Avenue. (A4000. 0 No. 396)NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.APPELLANT STATES THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL:McDonald's Corporation is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on December 16, 1991. The Variance application was to allow upgrading of the restrooms to meet UBC standards and extension of the drive-thru booth to increase speed of service, neither of which will increase sales at this location. Therefore, Condition #3 requiring a 10 ft. ROW dedication plus improvements cannot be financially supported by the project. We are, therefore, requesting approval of the Variance without this condition.THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.The Director of Community Development reported this item was continued from April 28,1992 because Council had two specific questions relating to the street improvement condition, dedication and improvement of Chapman Avenue at the frontage of the property. The Director of Public Works reported that, while dedication and improvement was required prior to 1982, at that time the standard was set in terms of the amount of square footage or the cost of the improvement that would trigger the dedication. The standard was set at 500 square feet, or an improvement of greater than 6,000.00. In looking at the construction cost index, the $6, 000.00 improvement cost was raised in 1989 to $15,000.00. Over that time, there had been a 31. 5% increase in the construction cost index. Because things have been rather slow in the intervening period, there has only been an 8.3% increase in the construction cost index since 1989.For that reason, the $15,000.00 figure has not been increased.Their estimate of the cost of the public improvements is $34,016. 15. Public Works has been consistent in implementingthe Code Section 12.52. At times like at this location,Staff would not want the improvement made at this time, but would rather hold off until the improvement would make more sense and perhaps be incorporated into a project that Staff might propose. Public Works would ask for a bond, rather than making the improvements at this CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilwoman Coontz asked about the type of bonding. The Director of Public Works indicated they are flexible on this, and usually allow the Applicant to pick the type of bonding he wishes to use, including letters of credit. The Applicant was asked which type of bonding he would prefer. He indicated the corporation would offer to dedicate the land at no cost. If the contingency of having to pay for the street widening, their choice would be to not do the improvements and wait until such time as the street is widened and paid for and perhaps reapply at that time. The corporation would probably not offer to dedicate the land at that time, and there would have to be condemnation proceedings. If they have to carry the burden of the street widening to enlarge their restrooms, etc., they will withdraw their application. Councilwoman Coontz reminded Council that the City has been consistent in the implementation of both the dedication and improvement of the street. Improvement of the street can be handled in any number of ways, but the dedication goes with it. If another option is allowed in this case, Council is changing its policy on this issue. The restrooms are being improved, but in addition to that, it is being done to provide better service, which is important to any business. It is a business improvement, not just a restroom improvement. If we make an exception in this case, we are going to have to allow that change for everybody who comes in. Councilman Spurgeon was disappointed to learn the Applicant had not discussed this matter with Public Works Staff since the last Council meeting. He felt the matter should be continued for one more week, to allow time for the Applicant to discuss the matter with Public Works Staff. If no compromise can be found, Council can make a decision at that time. Councilman Steiner suggested Redevelopment be involved in the discussions to determine if any assistance can given by them. MOTION SECOND AYES Spurgeon Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to continue this item to May 19, 1992 in order for the Applicant to discuss the matter with Public Works Staff and the Staff of the Orange Redevelopment Agency to see if a compromise can be reached which is agreeable to all parties involved.13.2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-92, ZONE CHANGE 1152-92,DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SANTIAGO CREEK ASSOCIATES:Time set for a public hearing on petition by Santiago Creek Associates to consider General Plan Amendment 1-92 to redesignate the site from Low Density Residential (2- 6 dwelling units/ acre) and Open Space to Low-Medium Density Residential ( 6-15 dwelling units/acre), Open Space and Commercial; (C2300. E CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Zone Change 1152-92 to change the zone from R-I-7 ( Single Family Residential,minimum lot size 7,000 sq. ft.) to Planned Community (P- C) to define development standards for development of 240 residential units, open space and a commercial component; and a Development Agreement.Subject property is an approximately 33 acre site, generally located west of Tustin Avenue, east of Cambridge Street and north of Fairway Drive, and includes 5.2 acres commonly known as the former Rosewood Tract.NOTE: In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an addendum to previously approved EIR 1143 has been prepared.The Manager of Current Planning indicated the project doesnot include the 4.5 acres between the project site and Cambridge, which is owned by the County of Orange.When the last proposal was presented, Council came to a couple of decisions. Council found that the EIR 1143 adequately addressed the environmental concerns for more than 400 units on the site, as well as a commercial component. Council also gave direction that La Veta, between Cambridge and Tustin, will no longer be considered as being included on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways.The Applicant is proposing to cluster low-medium density units on the 17 acres in the northern half of the site. 13.5 acres are proposed to be open space and creek improvements, and 2.5 acres are proposed to be neighborhood commercial. The focal point of development on the site is the creek section itself. It has been the desire of the community to have public access to the open space area, as well as providing for adequate flood control for the floods that occur in this section of the Santiago Creek.There are two creek sections proposed. One section includes a concrete box-type structure which is 45 feet wide and 12 feet deep, with a notch cutout for some softening of landscape area about 3 feet wide on one side. The proposal also includes textured concrete. This is included because Staff feels this will be easily accepted by the County of Orange for flood control and maintenance. The second section has more of a soft bottom, with a burried buttress wall, so there is no appearance of a hard concrete channel, but more of a sloping, soft-bottomed creek. This is quite a bit wider and shallower. The theory is that if a large flood comes through, it will scour out the soft bottom, and protection is still provided with the concrete sidewalls. This section has not been approved by the County, but is included in the proposal because it is the -preferred cross-section.The Zone Change conditions, included in the Resolution by the Planning Commission,indicate that one of these two options would have to be developed by the developer of the property, so that there is not a problem with a third or unknown section being developed with the approval of the County, but not the City. The condition reads that if anything different is proposed, it would have to be reviewed again by the City CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The planned community text is a zoning document for the development standards being proposed for the residential project. The Planning Commission spent a great deal of time on this. A number of conditions were included in their resolution, which have been included in the document presented to Council. The plan generally follows the City's R-3 and C-l Development Standards for the residential and commercial portion of the site. I The Environmental Impact Report was certified by the Council in February, 1990. The EIR evaluated a project that was much larger in scale than what is currently being proposed. To address that, the Applicant has submitted Addendum #3 to the EIR.The Development Agreement establishes the terms of development for the life of the project. The agreement has been prepared consistent with the format adopted by the City Council, and the terms include language regarding off-site flood improvements at a location of most benefit to the City. The Planning Commission required numerous conditions and revisions to this document, most of which have been included in the document before Council. Some minor adjustments still need to be made. Staff feels those can be made and included before the first reading to the Council.Councilwoman Coontz asked to have Staff explain why the development process is before the Council, since she has received numerous phone calls from citizens who did not understand. The Director of Community Development reported on February 11,Council took action to place the bond issue on the ballot. Concurrent with that action,Council directed Staff to proceed with a development plan process, go through public hearings and explore all the alternatives available for this property prior to the election,so that all packages of information would be fully understood. In the event the bond issue does not pass, there is a development plan in place that also includes a greenway.If the bond issue passes, none of the proposed development would take place.Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, made a presentation to Council on behalf of the Applicant. He indicated the property owner has tried to find a solution for a development which will preserve open space, which is what the citizens have indicated is their desire. The Greenway Committee has provided their input on the project. The committee wanted an outside firm to review open space opportunities, development options, treatment of Santiago Creek and acquisition potentials. The City of Orange retained the firm of Urban Edges for this purpose. They presented two plans: one for development and one for acquisition/preservation. This plan provided an approximate location for area development and a substantial amount of open space provided by Santiago Creek. Their study proposed a width of Santiago Creek of approximately 250 feet. The study indicated development would require channel improvements, including possible retaining walls. They recommended concentrating development in one area of the property and leaving the remainder of the property available for open space. The Urban Edges report acknowledged there may need to be increased density to provide these tradeoffs for green way CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) This report was accepted by the City Council in May, 1991, and several members of the audience spoke in favor of that plan. After the Urban Edges report was accepted, the property owner put on hold the Tentative Map and agreed that perhaps there was some way to work with the community, and to see if there was the possibility of a compromise proposal. For the next nine months, they met with the Greenway Committee to discuss acquisition of the property for a park, as well as the development plan alternative, which would somehow meet the criteria in the Urban Edges report. In December, 1991, the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance prepared a survey indicating a wide base of support for a bond initiative for acquisition of the property. In January, 1992, the Greenway Committee agreed to see if the measure could be put on the June ballot, and also to concurrently process a development plan. On February 11 th, there was a public hearing in the Council Chambers on this subject. It was clearly defined that both of these projects would come before Council: the bond would be on June 2nd, and a development plan would also be presented to Council. The information from Urban Edges and the Greenway Committee meetings was taken into consideration to prepare the land plan currently being considered by Council. The City of Orange would get the following things as part of the Development Agreement: the open space corridor is going to require substantial improvement - that would be a part of the agreement. The neighbors want the area to have vegetation,look green and be planted: the property owner would do this. The City desires some off- side channel improvements: the property owner will do that. Lastly, the County of Orange has said they want to know exactly how it is going to be maintained. The County will only maintain that portion dealing with flood control. The developer will work with the City and consider 2-3 different alternatives to help maintain that area, so it stays the way people want it to look. This involves the provision of a green way easement, so that some of the area can be incorporated within the project, kept as permanent open space and maintained by a homeowner's association, a landscape maintenance district, or some sort of endowment fund, with money set aside to maintain that area in perpetuity.Councilwoman Coontz asked about the off-side channel improvements. Mr. Elfend indicated they are looking at the provision of some off-site improvements which could occur from Cambridge to approximately Hart Park. That area is currently being defined.Mayor Beyer asked the City Attorney if the number of units could be reduced at a later time on this project. The City Attorney indicated the Tentative Tract Map would have to come back before the Council. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Development Agreement mentions 240 units and makes that number subject to all the existing rules and policies in place at the time of the agreement. Council cannot arbitrarily reduce the number of units. That is why the Development Agreement is being proposed by the Applicant: to lock in to the existing rules, or to go up to 240 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilman Steiner asked about the range of 6-15 dwelling units per acre allowed by the low-medium density. This would appear to allow some latitude in the number of units. Mr. Elfend indicated that if there are less than 240 units, there would be less improvements provided. The City does have the authority to lower the number of units as provided in the Development Agreement, but there will be a corresponding impact upon the improvements provided by the developer.MAYOR BEYER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.The following people spoke in opposition to the project:Margo Andrews, 504 E. Culver Avenue.Joseph Beckman, 1211/2 N. Glassell, #13.Maxine Quirk, 331 N. Olive St.David L. Horowitz, 1324 E. Chalynn Ave.Mike Hennesey, 155 Singingwood.Kelly Haggerty, 396 S. Gardener Dr.Ralph Masek, 2645 N. Santiago, Santa Ana.Bob Heaney, 1301 E. Fairway Drive.Lori Bauman, 1101 E. Everett Place.Carolyn Cavecche, 275 N. Shaffer.Marcia Edwards, 847 S Cedarwood.Mary Anne Skorpanich, 292 Cambridge St.Howard de Cruynenaere, 1825 E. Albion Ave., Santa Ana.Sharon Lockhart, 7943 E. Santa Cruz.Lauren Ficaro, 11202 Meads.Lisa Blanc, 368 S. Orange St.Larry Bonham, 332 S. Olive Street.Nina Savino, 171 N. Center St.Katherine King, 222 W. Palmyra.Fred Smoller, 630 West Palm, #22.Robert Siebert, 1308 Fairway Drive.They made the following points:Why have so many people jammed into one area. Why not make it more of a community, rather than just the townhouses.The citizens want lower density. William Lyon likes to put as much density on the land as possible. Orange is a beautiful City. We don't make creeks: maintain them for future generations. There should be no development on that land.Orange residents do not want for 240 units on this property. There is an immeasurable good to all our citizens in having a park.This area should remain open space and not be developed at all.Mayor Beyer, Councilmembers Steiner and Coontz were thanked for their support of the Santiago Creek Greenway Committee.PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12,1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The proposal being brought before the Council has not been reviewed by the Council-appointed Greenway Committee, nor were they informed about the Planning Commission hearing on the project. They feel this shows bad faith on the part of the developer. This is being rushed through by the developer. There is still time to work out a solution with the Committee on this project.The committee members did not know a density increase was being pursued at the same time as the bond issue. They thought they could continue negotiations once the results of the bond issue were known, that is, if it failed.There is nothing in the Urban Edges plan that approaches the density requested by the Applicant. It was recommended that Council not approve the Development Agreement and the Zone issue, but consider it after it is known the results of the bond issue.The Committee feels they were shut out by Council when Frank Elfend became involved in the process. The minute the bond issue came as an effort for the Santiago Greenway Alliance, the meetings of the Greenway Committee took a whole new tact.Negotiated development was never talked about further.Traffic is already a problem in the area. If the density is increased, it will be difficult,if not impossible, to make a left turn onto Tustin Avenue from Fairway Drive or the new project.More density means more profit to the developer, but is not a benefit to the residents in the area. The City should consider its legal position with this density being allowed.Save the pretty meadow for our children and the children of tomorrow. Orange is special: please keep it that way. Council should respond to what the community needs.Some residents can't understand how they would sell these units, when comparable units in the area are not selling, due to the economic times.The Committee feels they are very close to a compromise with the developer. They would like to have the matter continued for 30 days. An Environmental Attorney has looked at the CEQA documents and feels an addendum is inadequate, and a supplemental EIR is needed.If Council approves a Development Agreement just three weeks before the bond election, the citizens of Orange will not perceive the process as being legitimate.The following people spoke in favor of the project:Corinne Schreck, 446 N. James St.Carole Walters, 534 N. Shaffer St. Alice Clark, 205 N. Pine Street. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive.Nancy Thomson, 7296 Del Mar Ave.They made the following points:It was asked if the maintenance of the open space was included in the bond issue amount. The Director of Community Development indicated they could not legally include this in the bond amount.PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Since this is a flood control area, something needs to be done with the Creek in any case. The City of Orange was founded by people who respected property rights. We need to consider every voter, not just the noisy, demanding few.These people say they want a stream running through the property, but the only time there is water in the Creek is when it rains, and then flooding can be a problem. It is not a creek, it is a dry creek bed.By the time this bond is paid back, it will cost the voters between $45-50 million.Councilwoman Coontz commented that perhaps there was an abandonment of responsibility by certain members of the Committee. As Councilman Steiner was quoted as saying, there seems to be some confusion, because it depends on who you talk to what they are for or against. That seemed to be the problem with the Committee. Several committee members did not come forth for months, and now have begun making phone calls during the past week about the project.The Director of Public Works indicated no treatment of Santiago Creek should be done that would not be acceptable to the Orange County Flood Control Agency or they would take over full responsibility to the Creek, which means maintenance and liability. In order to do that, there is no chance that a purely natural creek as it exists today, and we have seen problems in the floods we have had over the past 20-25 years, and some improvement would have to be done to the Creek. They recommend treatment alternative "A", which the Orange County Flood Control District was proposing themselves. While that design could probably modified to some extent, their design was basically duplicated. MAYOR BEYER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Elfend indicated there were some comments made by Mike Hennessey about not knowing about this process the Council was considering, like the hearing on February 11. He presented for public record a copy of a press release put out by the City of Orange. Mr. Hennessey acknowledged the date of the Council meeting of February 11 and endorsed the June bond measure as well. When the bond measure and the project were moving concurrently, there were some members who decided to withdraw from the processs. A letter was written asking them not to withdraw. It is very difficult to come to a solution or find a plan that is acceptable to those people, when they don't want to meet with you. They did not want to meet with Mr. Elfend. Mr. Hennessey said that when we could come up with a channel that was designed to his satisfaction, he would support some type of development. Mr. Elfend and the developer used the criteria given to them by the committee members, and they felt this had been done. Mr. Hagarty also stated no one knew about the public hearing on February 11. Not only did Mr. Hennessey sign and participate in the press release, there was also a lunch with Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Masek. At that lunch, they were informed of the whole process and they indicated they were in support of it. PAGE 21 1 _ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Mr. Hagarty said Urban Edges did not discuss the fact that there was higher density. This is true, but the study talks about a $3-4 million acquisition cost that the City would need to get the type of development from a development area standpoint, that they are proposing. The tradeoff was the increased density. Mr. Masek stated he did not know about the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Elfend presented a letter from Mr.Masek dated April 16, talking about the Planning Commission hearing on the subject.Someone mentioned that an Engineer should have been involved. They did not get one, because they felt they had the necessary criteria provided by the committee members. Other comments were provided by Mr. de Cruynaere: that the Creek must drive the development plan and its the creek that determines how much development can be approved. Mr. Elfend submitted a memo dated November 7 prepared by the Community Development Department, indicated that the entitlement drives the property and that Santiago Creek is a major consideration. That is why they are proposing a 250 foot wide corridor. Some comments were made about CEQA documentation. Mr. Elfend referred to a CEQA booklet which is very extensive,indicating you only need to do a subsequent EIR if there is new significant information.They feel this development proposal is so much less than previously evaluated, there is no new significant information.Negotiations with the Greenway Committee broke down on May 7. There was a meeting with Lauren Faccaro, Kathy King and a representative of River Tech to discuss agreeing to work with the committee to have the Orange County Flood Control District adopt the Greenway Open Space Corridor they are proposing, with the type of improvements they feel the Council wants, which are minimal. The meeting was at noon, and later that day at another meeting, Mr. Elfend was told they were sorry they could not keep the agreement. Ms. Faccaro stated that she had indicated she need to go back to the Board to ask permission to continue with negotiations. That was not forthcoming and that is why she withdrew her endorsement.The conceptual nature of the Plan was discussed. A General Plan Amendment is conceptual. More detailed studies will be presented at a later date. The traffic study that was done was reviewed by the Traffic Department and numerous revisions were made. A Traffic Impact Analysis was requested: that information has been provided to City Staff and they are satisfied. The access location for the project was also a concern:this has also been resolved. Some are conditions of approval and will be met if and when a Tentative Map is submitted to the property. When the process was started over a year ago, the Applicant said they would bring to Council a compromise plan with an open space corridor. This has been done; it is what Urban Edges suggested and they are willing to work with the representatives to make the greenway plan what the community would like to see, with a minimal amount of improvements. The plan was reviewed River Tech, who thought the plan would work from an engineering standpoint.PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MINUTE ORDER COUNCILWOMAN COONTZ: "The Council has been somewhat assailed this evening. She reviewed what happened 20 months ago after a long period of time, with the original Burnette-Ehline development proposal, which was in August.The City Council, after listening carefully to the concerns and interests of the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance and other interested residents, created the Santiago Creek Greenway Committee to develop a COMPROMISE solution between the developer' s interests and those of the greenway advocates. This was after Council had made the decision to acquiesce to the community. There was discussion about traffic and transportation. Our Traffic Engineers felt the increase of density is incidental and would have no affect on the general plan. Council deleted the extension of La Veta through the property between Tustin and Cambridge.It was removed from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This was a very significant occurrence in the history of the City of Orange. The Council also demanded the developer demolish the uninhabitable Rosewood tract homes, which were both an eyesore and a Police problem, and had been there for 15 years. No one thanked Council for that. The developer had to pay for that.A number of other requests made by the Santiago Greenway advocates were granted by the City. They included the hiring of an appraiser for the property, chosen with the consent of both the developer and the green way advocates. Council has tried to be cooperative and supportive. Everything that Council has done, they have tried to be cooperative and supportive. The hiring of a consulting firm by the City, Urban Edges,in November, 1990, to prepare a series of conceptual plans to address the use of the property for everything from open space to development, which would include a greenway. It took them six months to prepare their presentation. That came to Council in May, 1991.The City participated in the cleanup and a nature walk through the property, through the printing of flyers, and the use of City equipment and personnel. Permission was granted by the developer, Wm. Lyon Company, for these activities on their land, which is a liability question. People have forgotten that. Council did this so that the citizens would understand they were truly interested in the community and what the citizens wanted. Council, at the suggestion of Councilwoman Coontz, hired a consultant firm to work on a Master Plan of Trails throughout Orange: the first time all the trails would be put together in the City of Orange. The Creek section was to be included and to pursue a comprehensive study of the re-zoning of the Creek and channel standardization, which cannot be done until this project is passed, to arrive at a more sensitive design for future development, which Council has always been for. Council hopes that either this project or the open space bond measure which is on the ballot will achieve that. PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The placing of a bond issue on the June ballot, which Council did not think of, for possible approval by the voters, for purchase of the entire acreage as open space. The green way advocates agreed to this parallel course. That's what a compromise is all about - horse trading. Numerous meetings have been held with individuals and groups of individuals in the community. There were formal meetings, informal meetings, phone calls at 10:30 at night. This has gone on for twenty months. The meetings were held with Community Development, Community Services, Public Works, the City Attorney's office and representatives of the developers. There is probably no other project in the City of Orange which has involved so much time. It almost equals the development of East Orange, which was extensive. It was a monumental task. Councilmembers Coontz and Steiner had a meeting on the subject when the Mayor was gone and they acted in his behalf, with part of the Santiago Creek Greenway Committee. After that meeting, they reported to the Council that a great effort remains to be expended in working towards the June 2, 1992 General Obligation Bond Issue election. This includes acquisition agreement negotiations, determination of flood control improvements, site development improvements and preparation of informational material to be distributed to the City. Public Works and Community Development Departments will explore the Acquisition Agreement issue with the City Manager, with the use of the current appraisal. There is a tremendous work and effort going on that apparently, very few people know about.A great deal of attention has been given to the particular type of park use that would be established if the bond issue passes. The request made to the Council by the Santiago Greenway Alliance and other green way groups, has been for open space and passive park purposes. It is believed by our Committee (Councilmembers Coontz and Steiner) that the Council needs to make a strong statement that if the bond issue passes,the Santiago Creek property should be developed generally according to the plan prepared by Urban Edges and approved by the Council. That would probably not be an active park. We want to convey the nature of the park experience to be provided to include conceptual grading and landscaping design. This is as much a development proposal as what the developer is proposing, and includes a lot of steps. At the same time, Council also needs to develop a Master Plan of Parks. Concurrent with the time period before the June election, the land owner will also be processing a development plan. The goal is to fully explore the alternative solutions, so that after the June 2,1992 election, the community will be fully aware of how the property is to be used in the future. Council felt that both things needed to be run at the same time.She referred to a document dated February 14, 1978. This same kind of discussion was going on then. The first issue was flood control and safety of people, security, cost of maintenance, and it goes on to some of the other issues which have been talked about regarding greenways. Council has done its job and she was sorry that apparently no one understands what compromise and complete cooperation is, which means Council must make the decision, because some of the committees are in somewhat disarray."PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MINUTE ORDER COUNCILMAN STEINER: "I do remember very clearly a very large crowd just like this nearly two years ago, where we dealt with all of these issues, and very strong statements were made regarding this property, and some understandings at that time with regard to what the major problems were with that development. At that time, those homes proposed by the developer took up almost the entire site. There was no greenway at all. We heard tremendous amounts of testimony two years ago about channelizing the Creek, covering it over and having it be a tunnel, which seemed absurd at the time. The Rosewood tract was an absolute mess and all sorts of people called Council on the phone, asking us to do something about that. He lives behind the Santiago Creek further north, where I look out at the Watt development and the Corps of Engineers solution to open space, which is a total concrete channel. I don't have the ability to look out at this creek, as many of you do. That certainly upset me 2 years ago. The commercial development two years ago was quite ill-defined. The La Veta extension, from Cambridge to Tustin, was a major issue at that time. For all those reasons, he voted against the development agreement at that time. He has been part of the process the past 2 years, meeting with just about everyone on this, including my friends on the Greenway Committee and the Greenway Alliance. I have been very upfront in those meetings. It has been my feeling all along, and I stated this at the library when the Urban Edges proposal was presented to us, that the ultimate outcome for Santiago Golf Course, short of purchasing it, would be a compromise, a tradeoff. I knew there was no way to keep everybody happy on this deal.Tonight, my friend Mike Hennessey made some very important statements regarding haphazard negotiations going in 9 different directions, which is like a moving target. I don't see how we would ever get closure on an issue like this, in that kind of an environment. Sometimes, when that much time goes by, and lots of things happened before I was elected to this Council, without resolution of an issue, maybe some folks don't want to see an end to the process. The danger is that this Council has never been in a posture of confiscation or condemnation of private property. This Council has respected property rights of all property owners, whether its a big developer, or a small homeowner. We have a great danger of the risk of a lawsuit for inverse condemnation of this land. We face another danger, which was talked about again a couple of years ago by one fellow who is not here tonight, Duane Spring. He said, if we don't have closure to this issue about the golf course, there is going to be this extension of La Veta.This Council unanimously voted down the extension of La Veta. Some interesting things have happened the last two years. The La Veta issue has resurfaced. Our Staff was very unhappy, in many cases, with the Council action, because they felt in terms of their arterial plan for highways, etc., that it absolutely had to go over from Cambridge to Tustin Avenue and we voted against that. Since that time, there have been increased pressures of traffic in this City, increased pressures on this Council to deal with traffic issues, etc. and a new variable which we heard a lot about from our friends in Old Towne, and that was the widening of La Veta, from Glassell on over.PAGE 25 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The Council did not support that widening. If this issue is not resolved in terms of development of this property one way or another, either by passage of the bond issue or by a compromise development under some form, Council will be under major pressure to reopen the issue of the extension of La Veta over to Tustin A venue and to expand and widen La Veta in the Old Towne area. That is a great danger, and you must evaluate that risk, which is significant. I hope we can understand those perspectives when we make these decisions." Councilwoman Coontz mentioned there are people who are promoting the natural creek at all costs, which means no development at all. That should be addressed in the bond issue. Those people who want that kind of project should be out working to push the passage of the bond measure. When Council considered putting this on the ballot, people came to Council and said they wanted athletic fields and stated there were several hundred people who would see to it that we got them. Council is trying to protect what the greenway people want, but Council is continually assailed. Councilman Steiner asked for clarification on the Planning Commission conditions, which states that a final map shall not be approved, nor shall any permits be issued for project grading or development prior to the approval of the Santiago Creek channel design by all permitting agencies. A final map may be approved, or development permits issued by the City only upon approval by either Creek Channel Option #1 or 2, as described in the Planned Community District booklet. Any redesign of the channel which is determined by the Director of Community Development as a substantial modification, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. The Current Planning Manager indicated this condition was put in to allow the City to retain control, in the event any changes were made. Councilwoman Coontz felt that regardless of what the channel design is, it should come back to Council. It is being confined to Creek Channel Option #1 or #2. Because this issue will be discussed with other agencies, perhaps there is another option that is in-between or a different configuration. She feels the wording should be changed to be more all-inclusive. She suggested stating that a final map shall not be approved, nor shall any permits be issued for project grading or development prior to approval of the Santiago Creek Channel design by all permitting agents. Creek Channel Option 1 or 2 as described in the Planned Community District booklet, or any other design of the channel, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council, in conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map. She feels this is more definitive and brings the channel question up with the Tentative Tract. The Current Planning Manager was agreeable to this.Mr. Elfend commented the provision for an alternative design is provided vis-a-vis the Development Agreement. It could be in both places. When one of the alternatives was proposed, they asked for something a little different, so a wording was put in to CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilman Steiner asked for one other requirement prior to final approval. He would like Staff identify for Council what issues would be involved in tradeoff to bring the development down below 240 units. Mayor Beyer would like the commercial strip changed to senior citizens housing. Councilwoman Coontz asked the cost of the maintenance of the greenway. If some of the greenway was included with the project, it would mean the density could be lowered: some of it would be public, and some part of the project. She would like this to be pursued as an option. It still needs to be determined how much it will cost the taxpayer. Then Council would have the opportunity to decide which of the tradeoffs to go for: lower density, or lower density with public/private use. Mayor Beyer asked how the section on the commercial strip could be conditioned to provide for senior citizens housing. The Director of Community Development clarified the Mayor is requesting to substitute "senior citizens housing" in the description of that area currently described as for commercial use. If that wording can be changed in the Planned Community text, that would have that effect. MOTION SECOND AYES Coontz Steiner Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to accept the addendum to the previously approved Certified Environmental Impact Report 1143, included all corrections and additions noted by the Planning Commission.MOTION SECOND AYES Coontz Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to approve General Plan Amendment 1-92 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC- 19-92.Coontz Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to approve Zone Change 1152-92 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-20-92, with the following changes: a final map shall not be approved, nor shall any permits be issued for project grading or development prior to approval of the Santiago Creek Channel design by all permitting agencies. The Creek Channel Option 1 or 2 as described in the Planned Community District booklet or any other design of the channel, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council, in conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map. MOTION SECOND AYES PAGE27 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 12, 1992 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The term "senior citizens housing" to be substituted in the description of that area currently described as for commercial use in the Planned Community text. Staff to identify the tradeoff issues involved in lower density, and to consider having the greenway be partly public and partly private, as well as flood control protection. MOTION SECOND AYES Coontz Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to approve Development Agreement as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2S-92. Councilman Spurgeon mentioned that Mr. Hagarty and Mr. Hennessey are welcomed and encouraged to get back into the process and provide their input. 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None 15. ORAL PRESENTATIONS Teresa Smith, 169 N. Shaffer, asked the Council who set the amount of $25 million for Measure Y. The Director of Community Development reported Staff made an estimate of acquisition and improvement costs, and Council concurred.16. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECOND AYES Beyer Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon The City Council adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting (Study Session) with the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 13, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the following:a. AEGIS Historical Buildings Survey Report findings.b. Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Status Report.4..( " ,-Marilyn J. Jens , C. . City Clerk PAGE 28