The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4_27_2004 - Council Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 11, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING April 27, 2004 The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened an Adjourned Regular Meeting on April 27, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION 1. OPENING 1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 1.3 ROLL CALL PRESENT - Ambriz, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Alvarez (Councilmember Alvarez arrived at 3:40 p.m.)1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motion approving the recommended action listed on the Agenda. Any member of the City Council, staff or the public may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion or separate action. Unless otherwise specified in the request to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, all items removed shall be considered immediately following action on the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.3.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Mary E. Murphy, declaring posting of the City Council Agenda of an Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 27, 2004 at the Orange Civic Center north facing kiosk, Police Facility at 1107 North Batavia, aud Shaffer Park;all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before COffimencemeut of said Adjourned Regular Meeting; and available at the Orange Civic Center City Clerk's Office and Main Library at 101 N. Center Street.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorize its retention as a public record in the Office of the City Clerk.MOTION - Cavecche SECOND - Coontz AYES - Ambriz, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Alvarez The Consent Calendar was approved as recommended. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR T CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 27, 2004 4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY - None.5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None.6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None.7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 7.1 Review aspects of the East Orange Development Plan.Mr. Stan Soo Hoo, Assistant Community Development Director, reported this Study Session deals with traffic and circulation issues. Most of the technical reports are being done by Jones &Stokes; but some are being prepared by consultants; and those are being reviewed through a peer review process. Austin- Foust has prepared the traffic and circulation technical reports, and the City is using Parsons Brinkerhoff for the peer review.Councilmember Coontz asked that the Council be provided with an updated organizational flow chart outlining the names of all the consultants and how they interact with each other; which would also be helpful to the public.Mr. Dan Miller, The Irvine Company, introduced the consultants who will be reviewing the Traffic Analysis for the East Orange Planned Community.Mr. John Boslett, The Irvine Company, began a power point presentation, outlining the history of the multi- agency planning process from 1989 to the present, noting an 87% reduction in projected daily traffic trips from the original 1989 proposal. He reviewed the purpose and objectives and the participants of the planning process.Mr. Kendall Elmer, Austin-Foust, reviewed the Traffic Analysis Scope, including the impacts associated with implementing the proposed East Orange land use plan and the impacts of the proposed Master Plan of Arterial Highways amendments. Mr. Elmer reviewed the boundaries of the traffic analysis study area, and the traffic modeling package which includes short range (2007-2010) and long range (2025) projections. He reviewed proposed roadway improvements, traffic distribution patterns, short and long range impacts and mitigation measures for the intersections of Chapman and Prospect and at SR 2411SR 261 and Santiago Canyon Road. He reviewed proposed Master Plan of Arterial Highway amendments and related impacts.Council Ouestions Councilmember Coontz asked for clarification on the daily trip projections which stated they did not include trips for schools, parks and the golf CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 27, 2004 Mr. Boslett indicated trips for those purposes are not part of the residential numbers, but are included in the total daily trips. Councilmember Coontz asked about the County fee program for Santiago Canyon Road, and when it is projected that the County will have the funds for that. Mr. Miller explained it will be addressed as part ofthe annexation agreement. Councilmember Coontz asked about Culver Drive and if OCT A has the final decision for that. Mr. Boslett explained OCTA does have final say for Culver Drive. It will be a separate process and the City of Irvine will be the lead agency. Councilmember Coontz asked about TSIP fees and wanted to ensure the fees will be dedicated to the specific impacted intersections. Mr. Miller explained the fees will be paid to the City as part of Area C and that the Council will make the final determination on which intersection the fees are used for. Councilmember Alvarez asked about the mitigation plans for Chapman and SR-241 / SR. 261 and who will pay for those; asked about the Jeffrey Road extension; and asked if there will be a connector from Santiago Canyon Road to the roll road or ifit will come from south Jeffrey to the toll road.Mr. Miller noted The Irvine Company is negotiating a reimbursement agreement with TCA for these improvements. He also noted Jeffrey will stay on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways but is not part of this project; and there will be both a connector from Santiago Canyon Road and south Jeffrey.Councilmember Alvarez suggested that as part of a development agreement, there could be traffic counts identified as a trigger mechanism to bring forth certain improvements on Jeffrey,instead of waiting for problems to occur; and suggested the City could push for this. He also asked about the downgrade of Chapman Avenue to four lanes.Mr. Harry Thomas, Public Works Director, explained the City included the downgrade of Chapman in the application for the MP AH amendment and it is supported by traffic studies and should not be a problem.Councilmember Ambriz asked about the noise issues and how they are being addressed.Mr. Miller explained mitigation measures for noise will be addressed in the ElR.Mayor pro tern Cavecche commented on the complexities of traffic analyses; and pointed out that, as a policy maker, she not ready to vote to eliminate the Culver extension north of the toll road because there is always the possibility the City may want to look at another relief valve for that area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 27, 2004 She complimented the consultants who developed the traffic analysis, noting it was helpful to see the before and after data. Councilmember Coontz clarified that with regard to noise issues, there is going to be a certain amount of money and certain development agreements and it is up to the City to determine how much and where it is spent; and asked if there is a particular dollar amount, because it is important to know how much some of the mitigation measures cost versus what is in the development agreements. Mr. Miller stated they are currently discussing mitigation costs with staff. Councilmember Coontz also asked about the bat bridge at the toll road, which was put in for sand and gravel operations; and hoped The Irvine Company can work with the hauling company as the issue of crossings is a continual issue. 8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.9. LEGAL AFFAIRS-None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned at 4:15 p.m. CITY CLERK