Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9_9_2003 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA OF A REGULAR MEETING September 9,2003 The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on September 9, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 4:30 P.M. SESSION 1. OPENING 1.1 INVOCATION Given by Pastor Perry Hipple, Church of the Nazarene 1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Mayor pro tern Emeritus Fred Barrera 1.3 ROLL CALL PRESENT - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT - Cavecche (Mayor pro tern Cavecche was present at the 7:00 session)1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS The Queretaro Silver Medallion Award for Humanitarian Services and Multiple Interchanges was presented by the Orange Sister City President Jane Dadant to Fred Barrera and Bobbie Druilhet, first Americans ever to receive this honor.Nora Jacob, Library Director (for Helen Viviano, President of the Friends of Orange Public Library), presented a $15,000 donation for the purchase of library books. Mayor Murphy announced the Friends of the Orange Public Library have given a total of 42,138 for this year.Nora Jacob, Library Director announced the volunteers raised more than $17,000 for the Library Foundation at this year's Street Fair.Rob Rohm, Orange resident, as a finalist in the Baby Ruth Real Deal Fan Contest, was introduced and recounted his experience of batting against Baseball Legend, Pitcher Nolan Ryan. Mayor Murphy announced the Creek Cleanup Day on Saturday, September 20th at Hart Park and Grijalva Park Extension,Mayor Murphy announced the new Miss Orange for 2003-04, Jacyln Normandie was crowned last Saturday night.2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None PAGE 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 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, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of the City Council Agenda of a Regular Meeting of September 9, 2003 at Orange Civic Center City Clerk's Office, north facing kiosk, Main Library at 101 N. Center Street, Police Facility at 1107 North Batavia, Shaffer Park and available on the City's Website www.cityoforange.org; 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. 3.2 Request Council Confirmation of warrant registers dated August 21 and 28, 2003. ACTION:Approved. 3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Adjourned Regular meeting, 3:30 p.m. Session and Regular Meeting, August 26, 2003. (C2500.D.4) ACTION:Approved. 3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda. ACTION:Approved. AGREEMENTS 3.5 Cooperative Agreement No. C-95-986 Amendment No. 5 between the City of Orange and the Orange County Transportation Authority as a formal recognition of Semi-Annual Review adjustments to the Combined Transportation Funding Program allocations and project scheduling. (A2100.0 Agr 2397.5)SUMMARY: Semi-annual reviews of project allocations and schedules between the City of Orange and Orange County Transportation Authority staff result in needed adjustments and project scheduling which accommodate project delay and accelerations,Cooperative Agreement No. C-95-986 Amendment No. 5 formalizes the agreed upon adjustments bi-annually,ACTION: Approved Cooperative Agreement No, C-95-986 Amendment No, 5 and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) FISCAL IMPACT: No impact on the budget. Adjustments to projects and schedules did not create any impact on the City of Orange budget. REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY) 3.6 Request for a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permits No. 2377-01,2378-01,2379-01 and 2380-01 and Major Site Plan Review No. 105-99, 106-99, 107-99, and 108-99 - Applicant: Equity Office Properties - The City L.L.C. (formerly Spieker Properties) (C3300.0 CUP 2377-01)SUMMARY: The applieant, Equity Office Properties, is requesting a one-year extension on the approvals to allow the development of four office towers that total approximately 1.2 million square feet in area, The four office towers are located in the vicinity of the intersection of Chapman Avenue and The City Drive.Councilmember Alvarez questioned fees involved with extensions. The Community Development Director responded this would be the final extension for this project.ACTION: Approved. ( See Item 3. 14 for Council vote count.)FISCAL IMPACT: None.BIDS 3.7 Approve specifications and authorize advertising bids for the Municipal Water Well Destruction for Well Nos. 2, 10 & 13. (C2500.P.3)SUMMARY: Specifications have been completed for the Municipal Water Well Destruction, The project is ready to be advertised for bids. The engineer's estimated cost is $50,000,00,ACTION: Approved specifications and authorized advertising bids for the Municipal Water Well Destruction.FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted and available in the following account:601-8011-425100 $50,000,00 Well Destruction 3.8 Bid No. 034- 09 (1) Project No. D-148, CDBG Project Shaffer Street Storm Drain Improvements Phase II from Culver Avenue to Palmyra Avenue; and (2) Project No. D-149, CDBG Project No. D-149, Shaffer Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Phase III from Palmyra Avenue to Almond Avenue. Approval of plans and specifications, and request for authorization to advertise for bids. (C2500. M.17)SUMMARY: Plans and specifications have been completed for the Shaffer Street Storm Drain Improvements Project Phase II and Phase III. The projects are ready to be advertised CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 473,000 including contingencies (10%), and construction engineering (5%). The two projects are being combined for economies of scale and ease of construction coordination. ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids for the CDBG Shaffer Street Storm Drain Improvements Phase II and Phase ill construction project. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and are available in the Capital Improvement Program FY 2003-04 in the following accounts: 310- 9645-483400-5380 310-9645-483400- 5326 CDBG Shaffer Storm Drain Phase II CDBG Shaffer Storm Drain Phase ill Total 325,000 325.000 650,000 3.9 CLAIMS SUMMARY: The following claim(s) have been received and investigated by the City Attorney's Office and/or the Risk Manager. After a thorough investigation with the involved departments, is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office that the claim(s) be denied. (C3200. 0)a. Vivian Derr b. Pamela Doyle c. Leslie Mangrum ( estate of Kathryne Whitney)d. Cormie Wells ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and refer to City Attorney and Adjuster.CONTRACTS 3.10 Notice of Completion and Acceptance for La Veta Park Sidewalk Replacement No staff report required).SUMMARY: The City Council awarded a contract to Ranco Corporation for sidewalk replacement at La Veta Park. The final cost of the project was $19,920.ACTION: Accepted public work improvement, authorized release of American Motorist Insurance Company, Bond #SU500728 in the amount often percent (10%) of amount of bid ($1,992,10) and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Notice CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 3.11 Final Acceptance of Bid 023-04; SP-3284; La Veta Avenue Street Widening from Main Street to 200' E/O Batavia Street, and authorization to file Notice of Completion with the County Recorder (No staff report required).SUMMARY: Bid 023-04; SP-3284; La Veta Avenue Street Widening Project.Contractor: Sequel Contractors, Inc. Staffrecommends acceptance of improvements.ACTION: Accepted public work improvement, authorized release of Federal Insurance Company, Indiana, Bond No. 8189-14-15 in the amount of$ 2,055,417.50, and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion,FISCAL IMPACT: None.3.12 Final Acceptance of Bid 023- 08; SP-3407; Annual Service Contract for Concrete Replacement at Various Locations 2003-03 and authorization to file Notice of Completion with the County Recorder (No staff report required).SUMMARY: Bid 023-08; SP-3407; Annual Service Contract for Concrete Replacement at Various Locations 2002-03. Contractor: Torres Construction, Staff recommends acceptance of improvements.ACTION: Accepted public work improvement, authorized release of American Contractors Indemnity Company of Los Angeles, Bond No, 170188 in the amount of 185,000.00, and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion,FISCAL IMP ACT: None.3. 13 Award of Contract - Bid No. 034- 05, Transportation Congestion Relief Funds Program (TCRF) SP-3424. (A2100.0 Agr 4356)SUMMARY: The City Council authorized receipt of public bids for the TCRF project on July 8, 2003. The City received 7 bids, and the apparent low bidder is Silvia Construction Company,ACTION: Awarded the contract in the amount of $219, 719,50 to Silvia Construction Inc" 9007 Center Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730,FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds for this program have been received from the State and are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program and are available in the following accounts:340- 5011-483300- 3119 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY) 3.14 Contract Change Order No. 1 and final; Bid No. 023-28; Project No. SP-3373,Grijalva Park Improvements (Volleyball and Basketball Courts). (A2100. 0 Agr 4253)SUMMARY: Contract Change Order No.1 authorizes payment for extra work at agreed prices. The total amount of Contract Change Order No, 1 is $14, 789.79,Councilman Alvarez requested information on the installation of sand volley ball courts as opposed to concrete volley ball courts, The Community Services Manager responded that the citizens preference is for sand volley ball courts, Councilmember Alvarez asked if the staff could take a harder look at how the courts are being maintained.MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Ambriz AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT - Cavecche ACTION: Approved Items 3,6 and 3,14 - Approved Contract Change Order No, I in the amount of$14, 789,79 to Klassic Engineering & Construction, Inc. for the extra work.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available following account:510-7021-485100- 0149 $14,789.79 Park Acquisition FEES 3.15 Fee Waiver for Senior Citizen's Center for Orange Elderly Services (O.E.S.) to facilitate an Orange Chamber of Commerce Mixer. (C2100.0) SUMMARY: The City requires a rental fee for City facilities. Orange Elderly Services is requesting that all fees in the amount of $500 be waived for its first annual Chamber of Commerce Mixer, which would be held at the Senior Citizen's Center on September 18, 2003 from 5:30 p,m, to 9:00 p.m, The intention of the event is to promote the programs offered at the Senior Center within the City of Orange and to educate those in attendance on all 52 senior programs administered at the Senior Center. ACTION: Approved the request for the fee waiver in the amount of $500 for use of the Senior Citizen's Center, FISCAL IMPACT: The fee waiver for the Senior Citizen's Center would result in a loss of revenue in the amount of$500. PURCHASES 3.16 Request by the Fire Department to purchase 26 Mobile Data Computers on a sole source basis. (C2500.H) PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) SUMMARY: This is a request that the City Council authorize the purchase of26 Mobile Data Computers, on a sole source basis, from Motorola in the amount of $206,733.19, When researching sources for the computer, the Fire Department found that Motorola is the only manufacturer that makes the computer with the required specifications. Therefore, Motorola is the only available source for the Mobile Data Computer with City specifications which justifies this sole source acquisition. ACTION: Authorized purchase of 26 Mobile Data Computers, on a sole source basis, from Motorola in the amount of $206,733,19. NOTE: Mayor Murphy abstained due to an employment conflict. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available in Account No. 120- 3021-481302-2955 - $208, 000. QUITCLAIM 3.17 Quitclaim of fuel modification access lot in Serrano Heights Tract No. 16130.D4000. 0)SUMMARY: Quitclaim ofa fuel modification access lot, being Lot F of Tract No. 16130 located on the north side of Skytop Court.ACTION: Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim Deed to KB Home Coastal Inc., a California Corporation for Lot F of Tract No. 16130. This lot was never used for fuel modification access,FISCAL IMP ACT: A $500.00 deposit has been collected to cover processing fees, RESOLUTIONS 3.18 RESOLUTION NO. 9768 (C2500.J.4. 2)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange changing certain job titles and reclassifying certain civilian positions within the Orange Police Department.ACTION: Approved,3.19 RESOLUTION NO. 9770 (C2500.M.16. 1)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line Adjustment LL 2003-01 adjusting lot lines of certain real property situated at 1407 and 1435 West Chapman Avenue in the City of Orange, County of Orange, State of California.Owners:Chapman and Main Center, A Partnership Todd 1. Shiffman Living Trust ACTION: Approved, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 3.20 RESOLUTION NO. 9772 (C2500.N) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to Richard KoHen of the Community Services Department and commending him for more than 29 years of loyal and dedicated service, ACTION: Approved. MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Coontz AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT - Cavecche Items 3.6 and 3.14 were heard separately; Mayor Murphy noted an abstention on Item 3.16. All other itemson the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended.END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY 4.1 Appointment of Design Review Committee member (ORI800.0.28)This item was deferred until a full Council was present.5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS 6.1 Community Video Advisory Board - Annual Report (ORI800.0.28)Pat Buttress presented the Annual Report for Linda Johnson, Public Affairs Manager for Time Warner Communications.Councilmember Alvarez asked about televising the Planning Commission meetings. Mayor Murphy noted the Community Video Advisory Board could review that request.Councilmember Coontz indicated this was a cost issue that had been discussed, Another issue that was put off was the ability to show maps and other visuals and she requested this be reviewed also.Councilmember Ambriz commented it seemed that in 1997, 1998 and 1999 there was a consistent number of subscribers and went up in 2000 but dropped in 2001 and then back up.Does this have to do with Direct TV. Ms. Buttress will ask Time Warner to provide that information. Councilmember Ambriz commented the services provided by Time Warner are great.PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS (Continued) Councilmember Alvarez further asked about the future of Cable TV in Orange. Ms, Buttress indicated they are continuing to go with the high definition TV and remain on the cutting edge of technology. Councilmember Ambriz thanked Chris Leist from Time Warner Cable, for all his dedicated work on City events, MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Ambriz AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT - Cavecche ACTION: Received and filed. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None. 8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.9. LEGAL AFFAIRS 9.1 ORDINANCE NO. 17-03 ( SECOND READING) (A2500.0-Water)An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 13.08.010 of Title 13 of the Orange Municipal Code relating to Water Deposits and Account Establishment Fees,MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Ambriz AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT - Cavecche Moved that Ordinance No. 17- 03 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding vote.10. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 11. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed at 5 :20 pm to a Closed Session for the following purposes:Item a, was not discussed) a, Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:City Negotiator: Personnel Director Steven Pham Employee Organizations: Fire and Police Associations PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 11. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION (Continued) b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Various segments of Tustin Branch Trail City Negotiator: David Rudat, Gary Wann, Harry Thomas Negotiating Parties: City of Orange and Union Pacific Railroad Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment, if any c. 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 PRESENTATIONS Mayor Murphy and Councilmembers recognized the achievements of the 14 year old and under Orange Pony Allstar Team representing Orange Pony Baseball District, Sectional and Runner up in the Western United States Zone Championship Tournament was introduced and presented with certificates. 12. PUBLIC COMMENTS Arianna Barrios, 360 N. Pine Street, Orange YWCA, thanked Council and staff for their support of KidFest during the Orange International Street Fair. Juan Pablo Serrano-Nieblas, 224 N, Olive Street, urged Council to develop a plan for the use of medical marijuana.13. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.1 APPEAL NO. 492 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-01, ZONE CHANGE 1208-00, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15750, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 249-02,VARIANCE 2113-02, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1647-00 FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES, INC. (A4000.0 APP-492)The public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of General Plan Amendment 1-01 has been continued from July 22, and August 12, 2003. The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 109 acres with 180 single-family residences. The proposal includes the dedication of six acres for a public park and dedicating for permanent open space 40 acres for the preservation of the Santiago Creek Channel. The subject site is located north of Santiago Canyon Road, east of Cannon Avenue, south of the Mabury Ranch Community, and west of Santiago Oaks CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) To implement the proposal the applicant has applied for the following: General Plan Amendment 1-01 proposes to change 44 acres from Resource Area (RA) to Open-Space OS and 53 acres from RA to Low-Density Residential, 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre LDR), and to delete portions of the subject site from the Orange Park Acres Plan and East Orange General Plan.Zone Change 1208-00 proposes to change 44 acres from Sand and Gravel ( SG) to Recreation -Open-Space (R-O), 6 acres from SG to R- 1-20 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 20,000 sq. ft.), 26 acres from SG to R-I-8 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.), and 21 acres from SG to R-I-6 (Residential, single-family, minimum lot size 6, 000 sq.ft,).Tentative Tract Map 15750 proposes to subdivide the subject site into lots for the development of single- family residences and the dedication of permanent open space,Minor Site Plan Review 249-02 proposes to subdivide the subject site into lots without direct access from a public street.Variance 2113-02 requests a waiver of development standards for the creation of one residential lot that does not comply with the minimum development standards contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance,Note: Final Environmental Impact Report 1647-00 was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of developing the subject site,The Public Hearing is closed.Mayor Murphy announced that the public hearing was closed; that this time was for deliberation and discussion of Council and staff.Councilmember Coontz commented there were some changes proposed and requested that Council be brought up to date on any changes or developments that had taken place since the last meeting,The Community Development Director reviewed the two plans that are the different versions of the proposed project. One alternative shows a park of 6 acres; a large area that is proposed to be zoned R-I-6 with a minimum of 6,000 sq, ft. lots; other areas of R-I-8 minimum of 8,000 sq. ft.lots; more equestrian style lots with a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. all south of the creek; open space of about 40 acres including the creek and a system of trails; 17 homes on the northern side of the creek; with the first tier of those homes being limited to one- story homes to preserve views from the Mabury side towards the creek. There is one CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) The other alternative plan does away with the larger 20,000 sq. ft. lots; it includes a private equestrian area and RV parking area. The applicant originally included a six acre public park with minimal development and has now offered to fully build out the park up to $2,1 million with a community facilities district to help fund this. Councilmember Coontz asked if either of the plans provided for the elimination of the variance. The Community Development Director indicated the variance is still on one lot. Mayor pro tern Cavecche re-confirmed that there had been no real changes since last month. The Community Development Director indicated that was true.Councilmember Alvarez asked the following questions of staff:The Council has basically two choices: the plan with the RV parking and the arenas or the other version, and also asked if the EIR covered everything? Director Angus confirmed.Councilmember Alvarez asked do the CC&Rs identify how the proposed arena and Recreational Vehicle parking area would be handled? He would not like to see them renting out to just anybody in Orange County? Director Angus assured that the arena was for the private use of property owners within the tract.Councilmember Alvarez asked are the homes on the north side of creek, the five homes closest to Mabury Road, single story homes? Will the others be two story? Director Angus responded the applicant has not proposed to limit them to one story,Regarding the two dams, Councilmember Alvarez asked what is their condition and policies in the event of rain? Director Angus referenced Public Works Director Harry Thomas' report on the dams at a previous meeting, The Assistant City Engineer, Roger Hohnbaum, added that the dam was built in 1963, with a capacity of 16,600 acre feet, with a maximum gated outflow of 3500 cfs. Based on the 1969 storm, gated outflow was estimated at 6,000 cfs. The dam is designed for a 100 year flood which would correlate to the 6,000 and is inspected once a year by the Bureau of Safety, To date, there are no reports of potential problems, Councilmember Alvarez asked if the City receives this report? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum had no knowledge of this,Councilmember Alvarez asked if there had been a second review of the 100 year flood zone?Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum responded that yes, there had been an update of the flood insurance maps and the City sponsored by Fieldstone updated that study to determine what the new flood plain would be with the 100 year flood. Councilmember Alvarez questioned the dam maintenance or capability to do what they are designed to do? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum reported they have no reason to believe that the dams pose any threat downstream.Councilmember Alvarez asked for the record, the revetment walls and treatment of the creek:define revetment wall; who decides the type ofrevetment wall that will be used? Director Angus PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) explained that there were several types of revetment walls, the more typically being riprap type construction of rock laid adjacent to each other; other walls or poured in place concrete walls. The Developer proposes a series of several types of walls along the creek, all tied back into bedrock, buried where feasible to give a more natural look, happening outside the riparian area and not disturb the riparian areas or animal life outside the creek bed itself. Councilmember Alvarez asked when you talk about tying back the wall- does the revetment wall require footing; what determines what materials will actually be used? What is the durability? Director Angus stated the general plans have been reviewed; they have done hydrological studies in conjunction with their consultants and the county flood control agency. Assistant City Engineer Honbaum added that all walls will require footing down to bedrock. The location on the creek, steepness of the bank, determines what type of wall will be used. Councilmember Alvarez asked who makes the determination on the height of the wall? Director Angus clarified the plans have different areas where they are proposing a more vertical wall and the slope of the wall will determine what construction technique will be used. A lot is dictated on how much land area they have to get the wall in, other constraints such as native plants they do not want to disturb, Specific construction details will be available after the project has been approved, a grading plan submitted and work with the Orange County Flood Control for an acceptable plan for flood control. The esthetics of the flood control facility is to retain a natural look of the creek. Councilmember Alvarez questioned that since the riparian area would not be touched, would the plant life expand into the riparian area holding the wall together? Director Angus reconfirmed that the creek bed would not be touched. Creeks over time move slightly, but with the revetment walls in place will create barriers. There is a lot of plant life in the creek now compared to 30 years ago when there was very little. The intention with this is to have the natural process continue. Councilmember Alvarez questioned the planned treatment of the culvert for Handy creek? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum explained that although there is not a final design, whatever revetment walls are put into place will facilitate the existing location ofthat outlet so it will not be changed, Councilmember Alvarez stated that culvert is in a riparian area, Would the City and the County be involved in determining the type of revetment walls? Director Angus explained that the applicant's proposal as to the precise type of wall in anyone area. The City, Public Works and Orange County Flood Control will review the plans for the individual segments of the wall which are continuous along the southern side and tying into some existing flood control improvements along the northern side. The plan will be approved and once construction is underway, there are more inspections. There is a second review of the plans by the resource agencies to make sure the delineation of the riparian areas and delineation of where the work happens are exclusive of one another so there is not encroachment into the riparian areas. Councilmember Alvarez further asked using the Huntington condo complex as an example, sometimes plans show something different than what is there now. How do we avoid this if the plans have not been finalized? PAGE 13 r- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Director Angus stated in terms of flood control protection, the project is conditioned in the enviromnental document where the mitigation measures are defined and the applicant will need to have a plan approved by Orange County Flood Control who will then accept and take ownership responsibilities ofthe creek for flood control purposes. Secondly, the mitigation measures require that flood control protection be buried and the creek be left in a natural state. If the applicant comes back and proposes more or a typical concrete box creek that would not be in compliance with the environmental documents, that would cause a new public hearing and a new environmental review, Building on Landfill, the health and safety issue: Councilmember Alvarez shared with the Mayor he had a three hour meeting with Sam Abushaban, Director, Local Enforcement Agency- Orange County Environmental Health (LEA) who oversees closed landfills), and Patricia Henshaw, in the same organization. Discussed was migration of methane gas, In this project, the land will be dug out and re-compacted; there will be a passive gas system in place, Does re-compaction act as natural barrier between the landfill and the proposed housing development?Director Angus described the Fieldstone property most adjacent to the landfill as having ponds and pits, The silt will be dug out and re-compacted, Re-compacted soil is less permeable and will act as a natural barrier to gas migration. Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum explained that methane gas is always trying to go upward, The gas can migrate laterally; but is seeking the path of least resistance. As the soil is compacted and re-compacted they will create a more impermeable barrier. The gas will probably not go into it before it goes into the uncompacted areas. The passive system being proposed and suggested by the LEA offers the path of least resistance, by venting to the surface.Councilmember Alvarez asked if the creek would act as barrier? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum responded that the creek itself is not a barrier. Gases migrating laterally, would come out the side of creek bank and dissipate, Councilmember Alvarez asked if the project would disturb the landfill or create more of a problem? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum responded no. Councilmember Alvarez asked if the County had any record of gas migration north of creek?Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum responded the landfill is approximately 140-150 ft. deep and to the extent that it could get to the other side of the creek is possible; it was not certain that the County had probes on that side. Councilmember Alvarez asked ifthere were probes south of Santiago Canyon Road? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum stated that they did. There were two sets, perimeter probes on the north side of the roadway and another set of probes located in the tree wells on the south side,Councilmember Alvarez asked concerning the passive gas system, on the home side of the fence,who determines where it is located? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum stated that the final design was not finished. This will be done by consulting with LEA, IWMD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Director Angus confirmed that it is conditioned and as a mitigation measure, it is required that the plan be approved by LEA, Southcoast Air Quality Management District and the City. Councilmember Alvarez questioned again, with the project re-graded, re-compacted and the passive system put in place, would the re-compaction act as a gas barrier or at least slow it down? Director Angus explained what the applicant has proposed and the LEA is in support as a condition is that the perforated pipe system takes the gas back towards the boundaries of the landfill and vents it into the air. So it is a series of measures all working together. In addition there is a condition in terms of the impermeable layer barrier under any structures and venting through the pipe system around structures to make sure in the event those other systems catch everything, there is another layer of protection of probes and the membrane under the many structures and a venting system. Councilmember Alvarez in looking at the site plan he asked about the placement regarding the homes northwest of the park - how will that system be put in place with the hardscape there? Director Angus stated that the plans had not been reviewed yet;that the passive system was not exclusive to where the homes are to be built. The passive system is underground channeling any gas that is rising in that area back to the landfill for venting,There will be an additional layer of membrane protection under the homes, Councilmember Alvarez asked if the County system was comparable to what the City uses at Yorba Park? At Newport Coast the monitoring is done by Orange County Fire. What is being proposed on how the City will handle monitoring?Director Angus explained that the homeowners association will come up with a plan on how the gradient probes will be monitored; their plan must be approved by LEA; there is an attempt to get Integrated Waste Management to take more responsibility for monitoring. The City contracts out for monitoring and reporting of probes at Yorba Park. Councilmember Alvarez asked that considering the probes will be on private property, how will information be shared with homeowners? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum stated that LEA can be requested to notify the City or the homeowners association if an exceedence of the 5% standard emission occurs.Councilmember Alvarez commented on the system in the homes that other gases are created not just methane and is underneath the homes foundation - does the building code require this system be pressurized so there is assurance as they are installed they are air tight in terms ofliving space? Director Angus stated the building code prescribes a buffer zone of 1000 feet for building near a landfill. Assistant City Manager Sibley explained that the system was of perforated lines; that air was pushed through the probes to make sure they are clear when installed and are operational. Councilmember Alvarez expressed concern that the system was at the home will be part of the home. What ifit was damaged during construction and no one knew it? Director Angus assured that inspection signoffs were required at each stage of building which makes the site safe for construction, What about utility lines; is there technology available to protect them from methane gas? Director Angus described the condition concerning the utilization of utility trench dams to ensure against gas migrating, Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum described how the methane gas, traveling into utility trench dams, is trapped and not PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) allowed to travel along the trench lines into the homes, Councilmember Alvarez asked if there were any record of incidents in the Jamestown neighborhood, which is the same distance to the landfill as this project? Director Angus did not know of any incidents. The County is putting monitoring devices on the Jamestown side of Santiago Canyon Road, The Assistant City Engineer commented because the County has been monitoring that side of the roadway, the LEA upon finding any gas concentrations threatening homes, would take action, Councilmember Alvarez asked the City Attorney who is going to have liability? The City Attorney stated the City is required to insure that standards existing at the time are fully implemented; these standards are set by public agencies, If any liability that would exist, it would lie with the public agencies that own and operate those facilities. Councilmember Alvarez had a meeting with three school board members, Steve Cameron from Fieldstone regarding a potential school site. Is there any updated information on this? Director Angus responded the developer was proposing holding off on development for approximately 18 months to see if the school board is interested in purchasing a site. Meetings are still on-going with the school district and Fieldstone. Councilmember Alvarez clarified that negotiations were between just those two parties? Director Angus confirmed this and that there was no condition that addressed giving the school district a certain period of time, The City Attorney commented Fieldstone did propose a condition that Fieldstone would in good faith attempt to negotiate an option agreement whereby OUSD would have the option to purchase property for a middle school.Councilmember Ambriz had the following questions for staff:In a memo dated August 7, 2003, it was stated in the CC&Rs that the homeowner association was responsible for monitoring and maintaining the probes; what is the cost of monitoring?Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum cited it would cost approximately $1,000 to monitor a probe.There will be additional probes on the Fieldstone site, Councilmember Ambriz asked who would pay for the monitoring if the homeowner association could not afford or was unwilling to pay? The Assistant City Manager stated that the primary gas recovery system rests with Integrated Waste Management as enforced by the local enforcement agency, which is an arm of the State. The probes will only hit some point of exceedence if there is some other problem on the County's landfill; the County and LEA consistently monitors these probes. The County is most interested in limiting their liability and it is in their best interest to keep that gas from going anywhere. Councilmember Ambriz asked if mitigation measures are not maintained and monitored effectively, what are the consequences? Director Angus stated in terms of the mitigation measures, many of these have trigger points early in the project, prior to grading permits being issued. Ongoing ones become the responsibility of the homeowners association.Councilmember Ambriz asked at what point would the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA)get involved? The City Attorney stated that if the EPA felt the LEA was not properly enforcing the regulations, the EP A would get involved,PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilmember Ambriz asked about levels exceeding the standards and what would happen next. Director Angus explained that action, such as changing the venting, would take place so the incident of migration is depleted and methane gas is vented to the surface and dissipates. The Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum added the County has installed a vacuum curtain and if it is not functioning properly the probes would determine that. If there is an exceedence of standards, where the County probes indicate over 5%, the adjacent homeowners association would be notified and they can have their consultant monitor the probes so they are aware of the gas levels prior to getting to the home locations. Councilmember Ambriz commented with Y orba Park built on a landfill, there will be signs advising users, will this park have the same signs? Director Angus stated Y orba Park is built on the landfill itself, this park would be adjacent to the County landfill. The City Attorney believed that the park should not require warning signs unless there is a history of release of methane above acceptable standards, Councilmember Ambriz indicated with the example of the Tustin Marine Corp base, are we fully aware of what is in the landfill? The Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum stated that it was a municipal fill, composed mostly of household and construction waste. The Assistant City Manager stated there was no hazardous waste in the landfill. Councilmember Ambriz asked if methane gas is trapped can it be explosive? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum answered yes, methane gas in concentration of 5 to 7% in a confined area and subject to a spark would explode, Also, anything enclosed and not ventilated could potentially trap methane gas depending on the concentration, Councilmember Ambriz asked would there be a chance the homes next to the landfill, particularly the garages, could trap methane gas? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum indicated it would have to pass through a minimum of three protection barriers before this could happen, Councilmember Ambriz commented on the inspection and dam safety, and will recent cutbacks affect the county agency that would limit their ability to inspect the dams? Assistant City Engineer Hohnbaum responded no, Councilmember Ambriz asked about the dam's classification; was it a high downstream hazard potential dam? It would be crucial to know before the project moves forward, Note: Staff will research the answer. Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked the following questions of staff: Are the revetment walls south of the creek placed where they are because of where the houses are placed? Director Angus responded yes, If the engineering has not been done, the revetment walls, trails, bio-swales, how do we know how much land should be allowed for this? Director Angus explained the developer to- date has done the best they can do and accounted for enough land area to ensure that everything fits. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked who is the "they" that has to come to a monitoring agreement with LEA? Director Angus stated that "they" referred to the developer, LEA will approve the plan as to the monitoring system; the homeowner association can negotiate with Integrated Waste Management to take on that monitoring. Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked what are the requirements on how often the probes have to be checked? Director Angus stated that LEA will set up a schedule for monitoring and will be dictated on their findings at the perimeter of the landfill. Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked will disclosure to new buyers be required and what will have to be disclosed? Councilmember Coontz stated she had asked a similar question several years ago regarding The Irvine Company's first development - Santiago and suggested the City look into those issues for the future because of what second, third buyers would be told. The response was that disclosure was up to the real estate community, Also, at the time there were issues regarding how the arterial roads were shown and there was never an answer given. Because of so many mitigation measures now, there needs to be a better answer. The City Attorney stated that the general rule is that homeowners and real estate agents are required to disclose any condition on which a reasonable buyer would consider purchasing a property, Purchasing near a landfill would be one of those conditions, Councilmember Coontz asked if the City could look out for the initial owner. Director Angus stated that there is a condition requiring what disclosure had to be presented to each new property owner.Councilmember Coontz asked the following questions of staff:Councilmember Coontz stated that working with The Irvine Company she had so many questions about keeping informed on the mitigation issues. Has staff come up with a way or program to keep Council informed? Director Angus explained that the mitigation monitoring program discusses who is the responsible party for ensuring that individual mitigation measures are followed and an initial deposit by the developer pays for the staff time to conduct the ongoing mitigation monitoring.Councilmember Coontz stated the Council wants to know the progress on this project. Should this be listed as a condition? Director Angus said direction would be given to staff to report back to Council.The following questions were asked by Mayor Murphy:Who would pick up the cost of monitoring the bio-swales, vector control, monitoring and others? Director Angus indicated vector control and the bio-swales, a condition was added in, which would preclude any build up of stagnant waters,Mayor Murphy asked about the conditions requested by Mike Spurgeon at the last public hearing concerning the reduction of the number of single story homes on the north side, conditions on treatment of existing trees, and construction issues, Mayor Murphy suggested going through the PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9,2003 13, PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) CC&Rs to have a restriction that someone could not go into those houses thinking they could build a second story. Given the single story house given the elevation there, does that take the top of the house equal to or below Mabury Avenue? Director Angus indicated in the code there is a single story overlay district that limits the height of any single story and the elevations along Mabury are approximately are in the 430 ft. range. Taking away the first row, range in elevation from 416 to 420 ft, so approximately 10-15 ft, below the elevation of the road and below the elevation of the homes on the other side.Director Angus indicated the developer recognized Mr. Spurgeon's suggestions, but have not come back to staff with a revised plan for that area. Steve Cameron responded they were agreeable to eliminating the five lots and making it open space; agreeing the remaining lots would be single story homes. Whatever staff would want to do with a single story overlay would be fine with them.Mayor Murphy commented on the agreement with the school district, as negotiations move forward, will the property be made available with the requirements for site selection standards that the State Board of Education has? Steve Cameron replied that was their intent; that they understood state site requirements and have met with the School Staff and their Attorney.Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked the City Attorney if the project was approved, knowing it would not be built that way, would it invalidate the approved EIR completely? The City Attorney answered no, We do not know that the property will be sold for a school site; ifOUSD does acquire the site, OUSD would be required to do an EIR with another public hearing process.CONCLUDING STATEMENTS Councilmember Coontz commented one of the things she likes to do, when there is a land use issue, is to look at the history of the area, In this case, it is so important to look back at Mabury Raneh and what had happened in the early 70s. The reason I wanted to do that was because there are some Mabury Ranch residents who have been very concerned about this project and it is always nice to know what happened before Mabury Ranch was built. When I came on the Planning Commission, there had been a great deal of talk about Mabury Ranch and I did not know the history. What I found out was that previous to the Mabury Ranch development, there were vehement arguments against the proposal by Standard Pacific because of both "flood and fire concerns." This was after the 1969 flood, and by that time there were a lot of safety measures put into effect including the Villa Park dam and there was also a fire up in that area. I feel the complainers really did not worry about public safety issues, they just did not want development at the time. I've researched the minutes and talked to other people who were around during that period of time, Some of the people around for this development today were the same individuals who also opposed the building of Lorna Cannon which is a major PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) north/south thoroughfare necessary for the safe delivery of emergency services (that's police and fire) and the only north/south thoroughfare east of the 55 freeway at the time. The Mabury Ranch development was eventually approved by the City Council in spite of the people who, as I said, are still in evidence today on this project. It was approved by the City Council with great sensitivity to development. The Lorna Cannon extension to Imperial in Anaheim came later. Villa Park was not particularly helpful in that respect, but Anaheim was and we would have had a little smoother ride on Lorna/Cannon if we had not had the problems from Villa Park at the time. I feel this is something that people from Mabury Ranch need to know because the same arguments being used today, They are somewhat emotional. Fieldstone has done an excellent job addressing the issues. Mabury Ranch is a nice development. I have worked with Mabury Ranch residents from the day it was built, trying to help them with many of the issues that have come up over time. One of the things about the Fieldstone proposal I am especially interested in is the clean up of the creek; the stream bank protection for the entire length of Santiago Creek in that area; two miles greenway trails that circle the project and connect to Santiago Oaks Park. The Greenway Committee, going way back into the 70s, emphasized the preservation of the creekway yet nothing has ever been done. The City hasn't had the money to do anything about it and won't in the foreseeable future, Fieldstone will produce what the City or any other interest group has not been able to do in over thirty years. As Mayor, I assured the community that we would have a balance of open space and parks for the community in every development and that's what we worked forward to for a number of years. We needed to catch up with the overwhelming demand for not only sports parks for our youth but other recreational opportunities like the creek restoration, the creek is a part of the linear park system, There are extraordinary mitigation measures required today in all development. Fieldstone has covered all issues of concern and addressed them sufficiently by a host of technical experts and governmental agencies. There are many public benefits offered which have never before been offered or agreed to by any developer in the history of the City, never, not even The Irvine Company. If the applicant is refused development approval: The site will continue to be an eyesore. Sand and gravel nuisance will continue indefinitely; trails and equestrian access will diminish or disappear for lack of investment. There will be no equestrian facilities. No paid for and completed sports park Continued creek blight including vector control problems, Questions of water runoff remain. No potential for a school site. In general no public facilities, PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13, PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) I think the Fieldstone development will be both an asset to the community and to the continued escalating value of Mabury Ranch for its escalating value and the residential areas surrounding it. It's a good project. We have some issues regarding mitigation monitoring that we can handle. We should move ahead with it any way that we can, Mavor pro tern Cavecche commented there is a list here in their staff report that explains the order and what Council has to do. The very first vote that this Council has to take before we can look at the tentative tract maps, before we can look at anything, is the general plan amendment change; that's what it requires first and those are the first questions that we really need to address before we even look at the tentative tract, and that is that we are changing the general plan of the City of Orange. I went through a lot of the documents, I'm sure you all know we got boxes of documents. One of the comments is that it is appropriate to consider the intent and policies of existing City community plans such as the East Orange General Plan and the Orange Park Acres General Plan when making recommendations regarding any change in land use designations, I know my colleagues weren't real happy, because you all had to go through these too, but I requested the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange General Plan and the Santiago Creek Greenbelt plan from back in the 1970s, to see what the intent for this land has been for decades in this community. The General Plan designation is Resource, and I think I asked at one of the last meetings from Mrs Angus, she basically confirmed that the City has used Resource as a holding general plan designation for a long time, The impact of deleting the subject site and the boundaries of the OPA plan, is that the site would no longer be subjected to the OPA plans designation of permanent passive open space and that any development on this site is not subject to OPAs plan of residential density of one dwelling unit per acre and minimum lot size. That's a big deal to me, Where you guys have fought for a long time for your community and Orange Park Acres is such a special place. And, in all honesty, to me, the intent of the communities of Orange has always been to leave this property open space; that's what the General Plan is, that's the intent of the community and at this point I'm going to hold with that, that the intent of the community is to keep it that way. Somebody in the very first hearing that we had said "Do what's right; you need to do what's right, not just what a few people want you to do," The easy vote would probably be a yes vote on this; Orange Park Acres is going to get their arena, its something we all want up here to preserve their community and the life style that we have but in my heart I don't think that the right vote is to approve this project; I think that the right vote is to honor the intent of the east orange community over the decades. Once you get past the General Plan Amendment you have to go to the Zone Change and look at the tentative tract map and even if I could get past the general plan, I have too many questions. I have too many questions about revetment walls, where are they going to be built (if! hear one more time well that hasn't been engineered yet and we're not too sure!). You know, I'm used to having tentative tract maps where I can actually see what the houses look like that are going to go there, There are a lot of questions about the methane monitoring. How much is it going to cost the homeowners association; what are the problems going to be. I wanted the County to put a dog park in that area and they wouldn't even put a dog PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) park on that site because they didn't think it was safe and we're being asked to put homes there. At this point I just don't think that this is the right plan. I'm sticking to the intent that the communities have had for decades in this city and that is keeping this open space. So that's where I stand, Councilmember Alvarez commented he wanted to thank staff for enough reading material to get his eye prescription readjusted. Like any project we've looked at in the past seven years, especially projects that deal with public hearings, I always try to include public input and try to include several meetings with city staff. I also like getting outside of the box and getting information independent of the City and independent of the builder and essentially try to draw a conclusion that, as Mayor pro tern Cavecche said, one that we can live with. In doing that, I thought I did do my due diligence in terms of looking at everything essentially taking the questions that everybody asked me to ask either thru e-mail or meetings, basically, to turn around and ask those tough questions. So I began to do that and went to the people that ultimately I respect that helped get me up here and the people that ultimately we have to respect in terms of their expertise in terms of their schooling, their knowledge and their experience as to what this project brings, Methodically I reviewed the project maybe with a little bit of a jaundiced eye knowing that or hearing what was going on at the Planning Commission, things that were going on there, I knew that was going to be a tough one. I looked at the dam issues, looked at everything concerning the dams and floods, the dam inundation act and as a thirteen year old I remember helping with the 1969 dam on Collins. I again met with people at the County that I had mentioned, both Mr. Sam Abushaban, who I am going to send a thank you note to and Patricia Henshaw who spent several hours with me and basically gave me landfill 101 for three hours and gave me an education on what this means; showed me the technology brought out all the technologies that will be implemented, what they referred to as the membrane both that goes underneath the homes, the PVC pipes and the vents that will be used for the project. Quite honestly, I thought probably that was something that would turn up a red flag and by the time my initial three hour meeting and an additional meetings with them came up, basically showed that there are technologies in order for homes to be built next to landfills. I discussed with them not only this landfill but the landfill at Oak Ridge School and its relationship to this whole project,Coyote Canyon landfill where there are two million dollar homes built next to.The conclusion I drew after asking a lot of questions regarding safety issues, is the technology has been there, it is not new technology and is technology that allows for homes to be built near landfills, It is a technology that is absent in the Jamestown development which is important to bring up because these homes are just as close to the development and yet there have been no explosions and no traces of any incidences there in Jamestown neighborhood for over 15 years.As far as the extraction systems, the City has its own at Yorba park. The Council is aware of this because Yorba Park landfill has been there a long time before this whole issue of methane gas has been raised, same with the Villa Park landfill. In looking at all this information I came to the conclusion, the County and all the agencies that look at landfills are doing the best they can, the records are there, the technology and expertise is there, From their perspective having an event that mayor may not ever go into this neighborhood to them is remote. All technologies are being used in this development. Concerning the health and safety of the neighborhood,PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Fieldstone has minimized it to such an extent that in order to have an event at this neighborhood, Mabury Ranch or Jamestown, gas that is not under pressure, is going to have to get past the county monitors, vacuum system, the passive system, membrane system, a passive system underneath the house and a concrete slab which I don't think is possible. After asking City staff if there is an event could I detect methane gas and was told by the County also, that even if! laid on the ground I would not detect it. The creek and the greenways are important to me, I want to be assured we will have a creek space that will have a chance to look natural. In my seven years as a Councilmember I have gone out on a limb to protect open space and supported the Great Park as well as sending a letter to Senator Correa supporting the Santa Ana River Conservancy because it included Santiago Creek plus the proposal of the Fieldstone park. At some point you have to trust the engineers and staff who are very talented. Regarding the tentative tract map, I support the Mayor's comments in terms of the removal of the homes along Mabury Road, I've always said in my seven years I would not approve any development that had a direct negative impact to the neighborhood and Serrano Heights has much more of an impact now than this neighborhood will have because they are separated by a creek. James town area to the south is a development that will be part of the traffic issue but the City is already addressing this in the East Orange General Plan. As far as the open space, I supported Barham Ranch. In taking the risk politically, the great park, the 301 waiver of stopping the sewage dumped into the ocean, it is important to note Councils have to take risks in making decisions. The final one for me was to get three school board members, myself and Steve Cameron to meet and ask Fieldstone to consider it. I support the Mayor's addition in terms of hoping negotiations can come to fruition, There has not been in the past any examples where the Council has tried to give the school district as much opportunity to step up. It was a golden opportunity and hope the seeds were planted. Councilmember Ambriz commented this project has had a huge impact on the community whether you are for or against it, it has gotten the community involved, One thing the documents have not talked about is the quality of life. A few years ago the Salem Lutheran expansion, many residents were opposed to that expansion because of the impacts of traffic, congestion, etc. On this issue you have to remove the emotion, Fieldstone has bent over backwards to try to get the word out on the project and meet with the residents, I took my research outside of the County of Orange and did research on the internet and looked at various projects throughout the United States, I came to interesting findings which led me to where my questions went. One of the first things that upset me about this project is that when this Council gets two acres, we cram in 29 units of affordable housing which is really affordable apartments. This past week, the Orange County Register ran an article talking about the median income for different cities throughout the County, Being a young professional and having a lot of friends trying to get homes - are they going to live in this project? No - because thereis no PAGE 23 UT .-. -- -- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13, PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) way they can afford $700,000 homes, I know I have been very vocal with the Fieldstone representatives on the need for affordable housing. When I talk about affordable house, I'm talking about homes, not apartment units, but homes that are reasonably priced for the young families that are trying to make it in today's society. As you know, in the last six months homes have gone from $384,000 to $428,000. I'm lucky but there are a lot of kids that grew up here that want to own a home in Orange and cannot. It is becoming a common practice throughout the United States to redevelop sand and gravel pits. Some people are building parks, golf courses and apartment units, There are problems associated once the development process goes, It is clear to the Fieldstone group that approval here tonight is not a guarantee this project will go forward because there could be a lot of concerns, Do I have a comfort level that the facility is clean? No I do not. We talked about the methane gas issues and the landfill issues. I looked outside of California researching methane gas and in North Carolina a young Mother ignited a pocket lighter which exploded and was around a methane pipe - this does give me great concern,Last week this Council approved a temporary dog park at Y orba Park, but there will be signs that say: Enter at your own risk. As an elected official, that does not give me a good comfort level.Will you see me walking my dog at Yorba Park? Probably not. Our goal as a Council is to look for a permanent site.Once again, I do not have a comfort level with the methane gas issue and wish Fieldstone the best ofluck with all the mitigation measures to protect the residents and those kids at the park.Mavor Murohv commented this is a project that is coming into its fifth year of evaluation and analysis. The project proposed now is a lot better than the project in the past on the basis of input and activity from a lot of folks involved, It is unfortunate, however, that it has come down to a situation where there are those that feel they are either on the winning side or the losing side because typically I look for projects that are successful and can create a win-win for the vast majority of folks. This project has the opportunity to do that but there are those folks out there they have already made their minds up that it is either no project or nothing else can happen and it is not realistic. I weigh things on the basis of do they meet the environmental conditions, the requirements involved and do they add something to the community. My colleagues have already discussed in great depth all the things I might point to, but I think it does meet the requirements. I think the analysis and evaluation on this project has gone further and deeper than virtually any other project I can think of during my tenure on the Council. It brings amenities to the community that I'm not confident would be delivered in another fashion, whether you talk about trail connections, the equestrian facilities, the active park, and the 40 acres of linear park. The other important component is not only the dedicated site for the over crossing on Santiago Canyon Road, but also the over crossing built to safely get horses across. It scares me when I PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13, PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) see horses crossing Santiago and Chapman Avenue at Chandler Ranch Road. We are fortunate we haven't had any serious accidents, but the quicker we can get some of those folks on trails and offthe road, the better offwe will all be. I am encouraged but not convinced on the school issue. I am encouraged Fieldstone brought it up as an issue and encouraged tonight to hear confirmation the sites that will be discussed later on can be built to State standards and I will be monitoring that part of the process. But, also recognize there have been no agreements and now the school district is no further along in that process than there were before, Finally, I want to confirm the additions: the CC&R requirements, second story addition for reduction of the number of homes north of the creek being one story. We talked about the height of the buildings, the request and suggestion and concurrence from the developer, also had a line in it that said the highest elevation of roof lines would be flush or "same level" with Mabury Avenue, These notes were submitted on August 12, 2003 public hearing. Steve Cameron commented Fieldstone could not build a single story home any lower than 20 ft. high, there must have been a misunderstanding. Mayor Murphy confirmed based on the map there will be 4 or 5 ft. above the base level of the road, but below the elevations of the houses. Mr. Cameron indicated there will be probably 200 yards away. Councilmember Coontz commented she was on the Integrated Waste Management Commission for many years and had no problem with the proposal. However, we need to hear from staff on a regular basis regarding the progress of mitigation monitoring. Council Action: Mayor Murphy announced the following motions are being made on the basis of supporting the proposal to construct 183 homes and a 2-acre horse stable.MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz NOES - Ambriz, Cavecche Moved to approve and certify Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1647-00; the findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding considerations dated August 12, 2003; the Mitigation Monitoring Program dated August 12, 2003 and the Conditions of approval and mitigation measures dated August 12, 2003.Councilmember Coontz commented the Orange Park Acres Plan and the East Orange Plan are outdated and have had many changes over the years, For example, the original East Orange Plan talks about ranch style homes which are not found today. Some of the specificity of these two plans are no longer applicable to the Orange Park Acres and East Orange area. We have recognized that in many different ways over the years.PAGE 25 r~-.-.. -_. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz NOES - Ambriz, Cavecche Moved to approve General Plan Amendment 1-01.MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz NOES - Ambriz, Cavecche Moved to adopt Zone Change 1208-00 MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz NOES - Ambriz, Cavecche Moved to approve Tentative Tract Map 15750 with the following: subject to conditions of the five lots along Mabury Avenue be maintained as open space and not developed as residential lots as shown on the tentative map remainder oflots north of the creek be limited to one story, also noted in the CC&Rs additional development on those units in terms of a second story would not be allowed adding a condition proposed by applicant requiring the applicant to negotiate with the school district for a middle school site that meets state standards. Approve Minor Site Plan 249-02 MOTION - Mayor Murphy SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to deny Variance No, 2113-02; direct staff to bring back the necessary resolutions and ordinances to finalize the actions at the earliest possible date.MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to direct staff to keep Council informed of the mitigation monitoring program.14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None.PAGE 26 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 9, 2003 15. ADJOURNMENT MOTION -- Mayor Murphy SECOND - Coontz AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche The City Council adjourned at 9: 40 p.m,d~~;t CAS A RA J THCART, MC CITY CLERK PAGE 27 r--' __ m_..._