Loading...
11-19-1991 Council MinutesAPPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 26, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 1991. ORANGE, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 19, 1991 309 The City Council of the city of Orange, California convened this 19th day of November, 1991 at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue. Oranae. California. 1:30 P.M. SESSION 1. OPENING ROLL CALL: PRESENT: steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz ABSENT: Spurgeon MOTION - Mayor Beyer SECOND - Barrera AYES - steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz ABSENT - Spurgeon Moved to recess to Executive Session for the following purposes:a. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)1) .b. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager, or city Council prior to such recess, unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed session. 3:00 P.M. SESSION 1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG l.2 ROLL CALL Steiner, Mayor Beyer, spurgeon Barrera (arrived at 3:15 p.m.)Coontz (present at 7:00 p. m.)1.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None PRESENT ABSENT Page 1 310 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Beyer introduced Weblos Pack 52, Den 4, Sue Gillford Leader from La Veta and Taft Schools. Mayor Beyer also introduced Yolanda Benson, Aide to Assemblyman Mickey Conroy and Assemblyman Conroy. Assemblyman Conroy presented Councilman Steiner with an autographed picture of willie Brown. 1.5 PROCLAMATIONS - None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. 1 Declaration of City Clerk Marilyn J. Jensen declaring posting of City Council Agenda of a regular meeting of November 19,1991, at Orange civic Center, Main Library, New Police Facility at 1107 N. 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 Request city Council approve the donation of unusable traffic paint to our sister City, Queretaro, Mexico. (P2500.0)ACTION: Approved.2. 3 Authorize the library to purchase 32 megabytes of memory for the Automated Library System for $32,756.00 allocated in Account 500-2004-781301-9302 (Automated Library System -Furniture, Machinery, Equipment Additions). (C2500. I)ACTION: Approved.2.4 Admission of the City of Lake Forest as part of Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. (A2100. 0 A.1147.B. 1)ACTION: Approved.2.5 Request from Chapman University for temporary suspension of permit parking restrictions (Area A) on Thursday, December 12, 1991. (S4000.S.3. 1)ACTION: Approved.Page 311 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 2. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 2.6 Receive request from Charles Moe to consider the reconveyance of vehicle access rights from Santiago Blvd. to properties located at 2138 and 2148 orangeview Lane (Parcels 65 and 66 of Tract No. 6937). (V1300.0) ACTION: Referred to Department of Public Works Staff for report. MOTION - Spurgeon SECOND - steiner AYES - Steiner, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Barrera, Coontz All items on the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended.END OF CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: Mayor Pro Tem Barrera arrived at 3:15 p.m.3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR BEYER 3.1 Request from Chamber of Commerce to allow the use of banners between November 19, 1991 and January 10, 1992, exempt from ordinance time limits, and waive banner permit fees for the same period.A2500.0 Banners)Bruce Patrick, 1733 N. Modoc Street, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and small business owners, in favor of this proposal.MOTION - Barrera SECOND - Mayor Beyer AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz Moved to approve request from Chamber of Commerce to allow the use of banners between November 19, 1991 and January 10, 1992, exempt from ordinance time limits, and waive banner permit fees for the same period.4. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS. COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS - None 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None 7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None Page 3 312 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 8.LEGAL AFFAIRS TAPE 504 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 7907 C2500.M) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to Carl H. Gaither of the Orange Public Works Department and commending him for 29 years of loyal and dedicated service. MOTION - steiner SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz That Resolution No. 7907 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 7890 A4000.0 No. 390)A Resolution of the City Council of the city of Orange granting Appeal No. 390 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1922-91.Appellant: Miguel A. Eizenga.MOTION - steiner SECOND - Barrera AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz Moved to continue this item to the 7:00 p.m. Session.9. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 10. ORAL PRESENTATIONS - None 11. RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AT 3: 35 P. M. AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.MOTION - Mayor Beyer SECOND - Barrera AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Spurgeon ABSENT - Coontz Moved to recess to Executive Session for continued discussion of the items listed on page 1 of the agenda and the minutes.The City Attorney announced they would also be considering, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), the pending case of:Lanz vs. citv of Oranae, Orange County Superior Court Case 56 64 85.No action was taken.Page 4 313 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 7:00 P.M. SESSION 12. INVOCATION - Pastor Rick Lake, Orange Hills Baptist Church 12. 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 12. 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS - None 12.3 INTRODUCTIONS - None 12.4 PROCLAMATIONS - None 12.5 PRESENTATIONS - None NOTE:The following item was continued from the 3:00 p.m. session:8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 7890 A4000.0 No. 390)A Resolution of the city Council of the City of Orange granting Appeal No. 390 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1922-91.Appellant: Miguel A. Eizenga. MOTION - steiner SECOND - Coontz AYES - steiner, Barrera, Coontz NOES - Mayor Beyer, spurgeon That Resolution NO. 7890 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.13. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2-91. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT.CITY OF ORANGE: (C2300.E GPA No. 2-91) TAPE 738 Time set for a public hearing on petition by the city of Orange to consider the adoption of a Growth Management Element as a requirement of the Revised Traffic and Growth Management Ordinance (Measure M)approved by Orange County voters on November 6, 1990, thereby qualifying the City of Orange to be eligible to receive new Measure M transportation revenues.NOTE: Negative Declaration 1389- 91 has been filed by the Environmental Review Board on this project.The Advance Planning Administrator reported Staff has drafted the Growth Management Element as a response to the Measure M legislation approved by the Orange County voters last November. This Growth Management Element is the only remaining significant requirement still to be adopted by the City that will qualify Orange for funding under Measure M.Page 5 314 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) There are still several lawsuits pending that are holding up funding. The orange County Transportation Authority anticipates those lawsuits will be settled by the first of next year. There are two ways cities can classify themselves in developing a Growth Management Element under Measure M. The first way is as a developed city, where infrastructure, including Fire, police and Flood Control facilities, are in place and only transportation issues need to be addressed. The second way is as a developing city, in which a variety of infrastructure needs have yet to be developed. For the purposes of orange's Growth Management Element, the City is considered a developed city, with the public infrastructure almost fully developed. Staff proposes that with the first Specific Plan for East Orange, a major amendment to the Growth Management Element will be developed, addressing transportation public facilities for the East Orange area. The existing City is being considered a developed city and therefore the Growth Management Element does not include the other types of public infrastructure, only transportation facilities. This element contains policies for planning and provisions for traffic improvements necessary for orderly growth and developments as identified in the Measure M legislation, the programs included are: Level of Service standards Development Mitigation Programs Development Phasing, and Annual Monitoring Programs The current draft of the Growth Management Element before the city council, as recommended by the Planning commission, is the fifth draft, which includes input from both Public Works and community Development Departments, as well as the Transportation Planning Committee, chaired by Councilwoman Coontz, and The Irvine company. The original draft of the element was based on the League of cities' model element, with modifications, including elimination of comprehensive phasing provisions that are presently implemented through the Orange County Growth Management Element on major projects within the County. Orange has not proposed comprehensive phasing because of the multiplicity of small parcels within the city. The Transportation Planning Committee reviewed the element on August 21st. The Planning Commission held a Study Session to review the draft element on September 23rd and a public hearing on October 21st. They recommended the city Council ratify the Environmental Review Board's Negative Declaration 1389-91 and approve the Growth Management Element, identified as General Plan Amendment 2- 91. The City Council is encouraged to take action as soon as possible, so the City is qualified by the first of January to receive funds, assuming the pending law suits are settled by then. 3 15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) councilwoman Coontz mentioned she knew there had been a number of drafts and there have been recommendations from individuals and organizations. Council has the fourth draft, not the fifth draft. The Advance Planning Administrator indicated there is a fifth draft, which is what the Planning Commission considered. Council was supposed to have the fifth draft, although the only differences between the fourth and fifth draft are some word changes recommended by The Irvine company. They are not significant changes. The one addition is in regard to the means of mitigating transportation impacts on projects. These words identify three different ways of mitigating traffic impacts. Originally, Staff identified one way. The Irvine Company asked that it be specified there are three different ways: the developer constructing improvements, other people constructing improvements, such as Cal Trans and the freeway system, or the third way is mitigation fees that would be required, similar to the TSIP fees. That was the primary difference between the fourth and fifth draft. Apparently, the wrong draft was included in the Council packets. Council wanted to see the fifth draft before taking action on it. Councilman steiner asked for clarification on Staff's position to consider the city a developed city and not include what is happening in East orange. The Advance Planning Administrator indicated the issues regarding East Orange and the public infrastructure are not fully discussed at the present time with the Irvine Company. Because Staff felt these issues could not be fully addressed, a significant amendment to the element will be required, to deal with the entire 7,100 acres. Staff has identified the City as a developed city, except for The Irvine Ranch portion of Orange's sphere of influence. With the first specific plan, the other public infrastructure would be discussed, other than transportation issues. Councilwoman Coontz asked if this is mentioned in the Growth Management Element document. The Advance planning Administrator was not sure if it was mentioned in the element itself. Councilwoman Coontz felt the parameters should be explained in the document, so there would be no false assumptions. Councilman Steiner felt the General Plan Amendment for East orange was such a specific General Plan Amendment, with so much detail and such a tremendous amount of work done, it should be mentioned in the document what was happening. The Advance Planning Administrator mentioned the one remaining problem is that all financial issues have not been identified. The public financing program has not been established for that area, which is what would affect the Growth Management Element: the establishment of the comprehensive means of paying for all the public facility infrastructure - POlice, Fire, libraries, flood control channels, as a part of East Orange.Page 7 316 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MAYOR BEYER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 4675 Mac Arthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, spoke on behalf of several clients of their firm. They have reviewed the Growth Management Element and feel the City Staff has done a very good job in preparing the document. Their staff has spent time with Gary Johnson, Bernie Dennis, and Frank Page discussing the City's regional transportation planning efforts, as well as some of the local planning efforts. They are supportive of Orange's Growth Management Element process overall, since it will provide needed funding to local agencies for improvements. The adoption of this Growth Management Element will have some very profound effects on the manner in which the development community processes an application in the City of Orange. The development process in general is a very complex one. The adoption of the Growth Management Element in orange and other cities will make the process somewhat more complicated. Their firm wants to make sure what is adopted has enough information and clarifies the process, so their clients, when they come into the City and process their application, know what the rules are for their property. The general Growth Management Element as structured is composed of two different parts: it has a section that deals with new development fees, and a section that deals with a development- phasing program. His comments were based on the fifth draft of the Growth Management Element. Their primary concern is on the future implementation of the plan.The way the plan is structured, there are a series of new fees discussed throughout the Growth Management Element. There is a Deficient Intersection Mitigation Fee", which is to be determined by all jurisdictions, in what is known as the Growth Management areas.This is a new fee, created by this City and other cities in the County in conjunction with evaluating regional transportation impacts on page 10 of the report). There is something discussed in the report called a "Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee" (page 10, item 1).They are not sure if this a part of the "Deficient Intersection Fee"or whether it is a new fee. When a developer comes to the city and looks at this document, it will be unclear what fee that applies to.On page 10, item 2, there is also mentioned a "Traffic Impact Shortfall Mitigation Fee", which is a third fee. It is also unclear on exactly what that is. There is a fourth fee called a Transport ion Impact Fee" for improvements within the City on page 10, item 2. It is unclear whether this is the TSIP fee.Page 3 1 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Elfend & Associates was very heavily involved when the city adopted their TSIP fee. They agreed to it as a part of the development agreement process for the Serrano Heights project. When it was enacted, it was to provide a funding mechanism for subregional improvements. That is another fee. On page 7, item D, there is a "Development Phasing Program Mitigation Fee", which is the fifth fee included in the report. Based upon their discussions with Gary Johnson, Frank Page and Bernie Dennis, they know there is likely to be another fee, which will be a part of the state's Congestion Management Plan process. They call it a Congestion Management Plan Impact Mitigation Fee", which would be the sixth fee. In addition to those six fees, the City has their TSIP fee, which is the Transportation Systems and Improvement Program fee. When they read this from a procedural standpoint and since somebody is going to ascertain which fees will or will not be applied, they would like to have the most direction in terms of what are new fees and what are not new fees, and exactly how they will be applied. The second part of the Growth Management Element deals with a Development Phasing Program. This is also a very important part of the proposal. It requires the preparation of a Development Phasing Plan for all new projects. They have seen other agencies working on their Growth Management Elements. In their Growth Management Elements, some other agencies have an exemption procedure. For example the State, in the adoption of their Congestion Management Plan, has an exemption for projects that have a Development Agreement. They assume the Serrano Heights project, which has an approved Development Agreement, would be exempted since it is a new policy and a new rule. When the Development Agreement was negotiated, all the policies in place at the time were what they assumed they would be responsible for. They also assume that projects which are phased projects with some sort of vested right would be exempt from this process. They would like to see an exemption clause in the adopting ordinance which stipulates that those projects are exempted from the Growth Management Element. In summary, they would like Staff to answer four basic questions: 1. Clarification of the new fees. Words are used inter-changably. They want to make sure when there is a comment regarding or definition of a fee, that if the fee is discussed one way on one page and another way on another page, it is the same fee.In their experience in processing something, they feel it is easier to have it clarified now, than have to clarify it with someone at the counter.Page J 1 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 2. They would like to see how the new fees are going to integrate with existing fees. The City has a TSIP fee. They haven't seen a capital Improvement Program. There may be one available, but he hasn't seen what the City is proposing in that area. They would like to see an integration of the information in the Growth Management Element. 3. They would like to have a clarification and verification regarding where and how this will be applied. It is their understanding it will not apply, as the CMP does not apply, to projects with a development agreement, or a project with a phased implementation program, where there is vested rights established. 4. Lastly, they would like to have a procedural road map created, where a developer or his representative would have a road map of how to comply with this process. This is one of many processes that will be adopted locally and statewide. They would like to have the maximum information, so when they sit down with Staff members, they are all looking at the same memorandum which sets forth that criteria. councilwoman Coontz commented the Transportation Planning Committee looked at this several drafts ago. One of the things she discussed with Jere Murphy this afternoon was her feeling that requirements should include the Transportation Demand Management Program, the TSIP, 7-year Capital Improvement, Mitigation Monitoring, etc. rather than just referring to those documents by reference. At the counter there should be an understanding that all these go together, because they are all required. The Growth Management Element is an element of the General Plan, but its components should be included, because they are so important. She also feels the whole plan should be reviewed after the first two major projects, so we know we are going in the right direction with it. Its such a new field.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, commented he was one of the birthing fathers" of the Growth Management Plan with the County.This is a very important document. If the sales tax was normal,about $1.7 million a year would be orange's share of the Measure M funds. Also, the money from 119 and III comes from this. It goes hand in hand with congestion Management and Transportation Demand.They all have to fit together. The non-transportation part of this can be taken care of with East Orange.However, he thinks it might be a good idea to make some reference in this document that other parts of the plan which are not applicable to the current situation will be dealt with later, or perhaps a restriction should be put in saying that any other portion of the plan in the developing city cannot proceed until that part of the element is in place. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 319 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) He suggests the City look carefully at development agreements. He wants to be sure that if development agreements or projects with vesting rights are exempt, they have included traffic phasing programs. There are some in existence without them. Woodcrest has a very extensive phased development plan. He was also interested in the difference between the TSIP fees and some of the programs Woodcrest has. He wants the Growth Management Element done right the first time. He feels there are enough valid questions to warrant a study Session with the Planning commission. It is important for Orange's plan to mesh with the five adjoining cities. There will be times orange will be only one of five voting members. The plan must be passed. Hopefully, it will be passed in the best shape possible. THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR BEYER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. The Advance Planning Administrator reported Staff does not see this element as creating any new programs in the city. They have packaged existing programs. This is the same approach some adjacent cities are taking, particularly Santa Ana and Anaheim. They are molding the element to fit existing programs. The one area that might be looked at will be the "Deficient Intersection fee", but that will not be considered until some time next year. Staff is presently talking about projects under Measure M with other cities. Mayor Beyer, Councilwoman Coontz, and Councilman Spurgeon are the representatives to the Growth Management areas, so they will have an opportunity to review any proposed fees prior to a vote by the Growth Management area organizations. Staff is concerned about maintaining competitiveness with adjacent cities in terms of fees. This is one reason they do not plan to add new fees to the existing program. Councilwoman Coontz felt some of these statements should be clarified, added to or expanded, so that when reading it, a verbal explanation is not necessary. This will prevent any misunderstanding as to what this encompasses. MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Steiner AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved for a joint Study Session with the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Growth Management Element, to be scheduled as soon as possible. Staff to address problems and questions mentioned in this public hearing prior to the Study Session and incorporate them into the Growth Management Element. The public hearing is continued to December lOth, 3:00 p.m. session.Page 11 320 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 13.2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT. SOURCE REDUCTION RECYCLING ELEMENT AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT: (C2300.L) TAPE 1823 Time set for a public hearing to consider the City of Orange's preliminary draft, Source Reduction and Recycling Element, and the Household Hazardous Waste Element, in compliance with State legislation, Assembly Bill 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which outlines specific plans the city will implement in order to achieve a 25% reduction in refuse sent to landfills in 1995 and 50% reduction by the year 2000. The Street Division Manager reported this public hearing is required by law to give an opportunity for comments from the public. All comments will be considered by Staff, for incorporation into the final draft document. The final draft is scheduled for adopted by the Council on December 10, 1991 at 3:00 p.m. After adoption, the documents will be sent to the County of orange for incorporation with all other County cities for an overall County Plan, which will be submitted to the State of California for final approval before January 1, 1994. The Recycling Manager reported the SRRE mainly supports the county of Orange plan, with certain tasks left up to the city to achieve. The overall goals are: To promote the solid waste management practices that lead to reductions, To incorporate the use of recycling and compost to divert resources, To be environmentally safe in disposal of what we do landfill, and Reduce the maximum amount possible of solid waste sent to landfills, in compliance with this bill. Council complimented Staff that our report was done in-house, where many cities went outside to have theirs done.MAYOR BEYER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING.THERE BEING NO SPEAKERS PRESENT, MAYOR BEYER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.MOTION - Mayor Beyer SECOND - Barrera AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, spurgeon Moved to receive and file the draft report, Final Report to be presented to Council on December 10, 1991.Page 12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1991 3 21 14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None 15. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 16. ORAL PRESENTATIONS Larry Bonham, 332 S. Olive, addressed the Council regarding bumper and window stickers. He feels everyone has the right to question authority, but they have an obligation to support government and work with them. 17. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - Barrera SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Steiner, Barrera, Mayor Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon Moved to adjourn at 8: 00 p.m.1'11<:I(~~~ 0 :P~ lK.V4V MARILYN J. NS~ C , ITYCLERKGENEBEYER, MAYOR B&~FRED BARRERA, MAYOR PRO TEM Page 13