HomeMy WebLinkAbout1_8_2002 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 22, 2002
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING January 8, 2002
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on January 8, 2002 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 Ed Trenner, Grace Brethren Church
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilmember Joanne Coontz
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT -
None.1.4
PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS Recognition was
given to the Orange North Rotary, Sunrise Rotary, Wal-Mart and Target Stores
for their donations to the Orange Police Department Youth Services Bureau.Detective
Leslie Barrett introduced Ken Caplin of Orange North Rotary, Jerry Morris of Rotary
Sunrise and Andrea Lykes, Lisa Lattrell and Robert Sanchez of Target Stores.2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS TAPE 235 Mark
Burkhardt, address on file, spoke on the issues facing the McPherson Neighborhood
Association and their willingness to work with the City and the Council.Mel
Vernon, 363 N. Lincoln, spoke on a requirement by the Fire Department to add a fire hydrant
on property he owns on Sandberg Lane. He stated the addition of this hydrant would
be a significant hardship and he asked for an investigation and appeal of the Fire Department
decision.The
City Manager was directed to investigate this issue.Mike
Stevens, President of the LAX Expansion Organization, Inglewood, asked the Council
to be more vocal in supporting development of the EI Toro Airport.Shirley
Conger, P.O. Box Ill, Corona del Mar, spoke on the Orange County Central Park
Initiative, Measure W, and asked Council to reconsider their decision on the EI Toro Airport.
PAGE
1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
Gordon Haag, 3427 Timberlake, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the EI Toro Airport.
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 City Council
agenda of a regular meeting of January 8, 2002 at Orange Civic Center, Main
Library at 101 N. Center Street, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, the
Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board, and summarized on Time-
Warner Communications, 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 December 6,13,20,
2001.ACTION:
Approved.3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting December 11, 2001
and Adjourned Regular Meeting December 18,
2001.ACTION:
Approved.3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the
Agenda.ACTION:
Approved.3.5 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report, period ending November 30,
2001.C2500.
F)ACTION:
Approved.
AGREEMENTS 3.6 Application/Permit for Police Department's use of Coast Community
College District facilities, specifically Golden West College, to administer physical
agility tests for Police Officer candidates. (C2500.
K)SUMMARY: The City requires that all Police Officer candidates undergo a
physical agility test. In the past this test has been administered at Golden West College.
A PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
requirement of using this facility is that the City completes an application/permit for use
of the college facility that releases, indemnifies, and holds harmless the college against
all claims.
ACTION: Approved the Police Department's use of Coast Community College District
facilities, specifically Golden West College, to administer physical agility tests for Police
Officer candidates and to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the College, the District,
the Board of Trustees and each of their agents, employees, and representatives from any
and all liability, claims, judgments, or demands, including reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, which may arise from all injuries, deaths and damage to property. Approval is
retroactive to include an incident that occurred earlier for which a claim has been
received.
FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown, depends on claims received. One known claim at this
time that appears defensible.
3.7 Award of Professional Engineering Services Agreement for a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project - Shaffer Street Storm Drain Improvements
Phase I from Santiago Creek to Culver Avenue (D-142).
A2100.0 AGR-
3923)SUMMARY: This agreement authorizes the Consultant to provide field
surveying,geotechnical investigation, engineering reports, and preparation of plans,
specifications and cost estimates for the CDBG Shaffer Street Storm Drain Improvements Phase
I Storm Drain Improvement Project. The City has entered into a separate agreement
with the same Consultant, which will exceed the $30,000.00 threshold for agreements in
a fiscal
year.ACTION: Approved an agreement with Thielmann Engineers in an amount not to
exceed 25,670.00 and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute on behalf of the
City.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are
budgeted available in the following
account;310-9645-
483400-5379 (Detail 16136)in the
Capital Improvement Program
and 334,000 CDBG 3.8 Agreement authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Sewer Agreement with the City of Anaheim for connection to a portion of the
Serrano Heights Development to the City of Anaheim sewer system. (Continued
from December 11,
2001)A2100.0 AGR-3906)SUMMARY: SunCal Developers have requested that that the
City of Orange enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim to allow a portion
of the Serrano Heights sanitary sewer system to be
connected to the Anaheim system.Note: Staffrequested a continuance of this item to January 22nd as
the final details of the
agreement are still being negotiated.ACTION: Continued to
January 22,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
FISCAL IMP ACT: None. The developer is required to pay to the City of Anaheim any
required sewer connection and/or maintenance charges.
3.9 First Amendment to Attorney Services Agreement with Beam, Brobeck, West &
Sullivan for legal services. (A2100.0 AGR-2904.C.
l)SUMMARY: The City entered into an agreement with Beam, Brobeck, West &
Sullivan to provide legal services with regard to the Vista Royale matter. The proposed
First Amendment will increase the not to exceed amount from $29,000 to $79,
000.ACTION: Approved First Amendment to agreement with Beam, Brobeck,
West &Sullivan and authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the
City.FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available in the legal services account,
740-
0301-
426100.APPROPRIATIONS 3.10 California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP)
High Technology Grant Appropriation. (
C2500.K)SUMMARY: This request is for an appropriation of $8,187 of remaining
FY 00-01 CLEEP funds to Account No. 100-4011-471301-2254
to purchase touch screens for the mobile data
computers located in the patrol vehicles.ACTION: Appropriated $8,187 of FY 00-
01 CLEEP funds to Account No. 100-4011-471301-2254 for the purchase of
touch screens for
the mobile data computers located in the patrol vehicles.FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate
CLEEP funds are available to cover the appropriation.BIDS 3.11
Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Program - Glassell Street Reconstruction from Almond Avenue to 300 ft. south
of Culver Avenue (SP-3322); Approval of Plans and Specifications
and Authorization to Advertise for Bids. (S4000.S.7)SUMMARY: Plans
and Specifications have been completed for the G1assell Street Reconstruction Project from Almond
Avenue to 300 ft. south of
Culver Avenue. The project is ready to be advertised.ACTION: 1)
Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for the Glassell Street Reconstruction Project
from Almond Avenue to 300 ft. south of Culver Avenue. 2)
Appropriated $237,069 from Fund 550 to Account 550-5011-483300-4005.FISCAL
IMP
ACT: After
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
920-
9811-
483300-4005
550-5011-
483300-4005
Total Funds
249,615 237,069
486,684 Southwest Project &
Loan Administration Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Program 3.12 Project S.P. 3380, Bid No. 012-15 -
Rejection of Bids and Re-advertising, ADA Wheelchair Access Ramps
Various Locations 2001-02. (S4000.S.3.2)SUMMARY: The City received six bids with
the low bid of $120,473.85. Ranco Corporation, the apparent low bidder, claims it
has made a clerical error in its bid.ACTION: 1) Rejected all bids received
for construction of the project. 2) Authorized re-advertising for bids for
the ADA Wheelchair Access Ramps Various Locations 2001-02.FISCAL IMP ACT:
Funds are budgeted and available in the following
account:310-9645-
483300-
1328 $ 143,710.00 (Community Development Block Grant Funds- ADA Improvements)CLAIMS 3.13
The City Attorney recommends that the
Orange City Council
deny the following
Claim(s) for
damages: (C3200.0)
a. Thomas Dula
b. John Ford c. Joseph Fortier d. Mark Frank e. Adrienne Gladson ACTION:
Denied
Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster.CONTRACTS 3.
14 Award of Contract - Bid No. 012-16, SP-3330;
Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Program - Orange-
Olive Road Pavement Rehabilitation from Glassell Street to Meats Avenue. (A2100.0 AGR-3924)
SUMMARY: The bid opening was held on November 27, 2001. Three (3) formal bids were received
for this project ranging from $216,
216.00 to $250,953.10. All American Asphalt was the apparent
low bidder.The rehabilitation for the project include traffic control, cold milling
asphalt, asphalt concrete deep lift, asphalt concrete overlay, asphalt concrete leveling
course, traffic loop detectors, water valve and manhole adjustments, survey well
monument adjustments, and all appurtenances, signing, striping and
all pavement
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Awarded a contract in the amount of $216,216.00 to All American Asphalt,
P.O. Box 2229, Corona, CA 92878-2229 and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute on behalf of the
City.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Fiscal Year 01-02
Capital Improvement Program in the
following
accounts:
550-
5011-483300-
3205 500-
5011-483300-
3205 934-
9821-483300-
3205 Total Funds 113,
892 116,
454 156,648 386,994
Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Program City Funds Northwest Project Area Tax Exempt
3.15 Final Acceptance of Corporation Yard Seismic Retrofit Improvements and authorization
to file Notice of
Completion with County Recorder. (No staff report required.) (A2100.0 AGR-3678)SUMMARY:
Project No. SP-3275; Bid No. 001-15 - City
of Orange Corporation Yard Seismic Retrofit and ADA Improvements. Contractor: DRP Construction Company,3319
Rancho La Carlota Rd., Covina Hills,
CA 91724. Job Location: 637 West Struck Avenue. Staff
recommends acceptance of improvements.ACTION: Accepted on-site improvements, authorized release of Lyndon Property
Insurance Company of Missouri, Bond No. 102010149, in the amount of $628,000.
00,and authorized
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion.FISCAL IMPACT: None.
3.16 Final Acceptance of Plaza Preservation Project and Bank of America
Parking Lot Improvement at 345 E. Chapman Avenue, and authorization to
file Notice of Completion with County Recorder. (No staff report required). (A2100.0
AGR-3697)SUMMARY: Bid No. 001-21; Project No. 3327 - Plaza Preservation Project, and
Project No. 3319 - Bank of America Parking Lot Improvement at
345 E. Chapman Ave.Contractor: Terra-
Cal Construction, Inc., 14530 Joanbridge Street, Baldwin Park, CA.91706.
Staff recommends acceptance of improvements.NOTE: Mayor pro tem Alvarez
abstained due to property interest.ACTION: Accepted on-site improvements, authorized release of Fidelity and
Deposit Company of Maryland, Bond No. 8082675, in the amount of $1,
193,380.55, and
authorized the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.17 Final Acceptance of traffic signal and striping improvements at various locations
and authorization to file Notice of Completion. (No staff report required).
AZ100.0 AGR-
3677)SUMMARY: Bid No. 001-17; Traffic Signal and Striping Improvements at
the locations listed below. Staff recommends acceptance
of improvements.Chapman Ave. at Chandler
Ranch Rd.Lincoln Ave. at
Canal St.Glassell St. atTaft Ave.
lOrange-OIive Rd.Lincoln Ave.
at Orange-Olive Rd.Katella
Ave. at
Handy St.
Striping Modification
Signal Installation
Signal Modification
Signal Modification Signal Modification ACTION: Accepted traffic signal and striping improvements,
release of Gulf Insurance Company of St. Louis, Missouri, Bond No. BE2622768, in the amount
of $199,000.00,and authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute
the Notice of
Completion.FISCAL IMPACT: None.3.18 Contract Change Order No.3 for the installation of
additional LED traffic signal lamp units at 44 critical
intersections. (A2100.0 AGR-3711)SUMMARY: This contract change order authorizes payment
for extra work at agreed prices for additional LED installations including
complete signal head change-outs. The total cost for this change order is $13,520.00; the total cost of
this project is $105,605.01.ACTION: Approved Contract Change Order No.3 in the
amount of $13,520.00 to Baxter-Griffin
Co. for extra work to be performed.FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds in the amount of $
13,520.00 are budgeted as follows:
Account #
272-5032-483100-6465 - Installation of LED Indications DONATIONS 3.19 Donation of surplus used
police uniforms to
Queretaro, Orange's sister city in Mexico. (C2500.K)SUMMARY: The Police Department has
a supply of used police uniforms that no longer have any market value to the City
and would like to donate them
to Queretaro, Mexico for use by its Police Department.ACTION: Authorized the
donation of used police uniforms to
Queretaro, the City
Orange's
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.20 Donations from Orange North Rotary, Sunrise Rotary, Wal-Mart, and Target to
the Youth Services Bureau. (C2500.
K)SUMMARY: Orange North Rotary, Sunrise Rotary, Wal-Mart and Target
stores have selected the Police Department's Youth Services Bureau as a beneficiary
of funds.ACTION: 1) Accepted the donations of $1,800 from Orange North Rotary
and Sunrise Rotary, $100 from Wal-Mart, and $500 from Target, which will
be deposited into account 100-4031-293900. 2) Appropriated $
1,800 to account 100-4011-427601 Printing and Binding).
3) Appropriated $
600 to account 100-
4001-
449600-2305 (DARE Program Donations).FISCAL IMP ACT: None.RESOLUTIONS
3.21 RESOLUTION NO. 9554 (C2500.M.16.1 LLN-2001-16)A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line Adjustment LL 2001-16 adjusting
lot lines of certain real property situated at 745,763 and 791 South
Main Street in the City of
Orange, County of Orange, State
of California.
Owners:Orange Town and Country, LLC A California Limited Liability
Company ACTION: Approved.3.22 RESOLUTION NO. 9555 (C2500.M.16.1 LLN-2001-19)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line
Adjustment LL 2001-19 adjusting lot lines of certain real property situated at 133 North Shaffer
Street
and 513 East Chapman Avenue in the City of Orange,
County of Orange, State of California.Owners:Kenneth F. Arthur,
as his sole and separate
property Dion
L. Gardner, Trustee under Declaration of Trust dated
5-24-62 Cathleen D. Drake, Successor Trustee ACTION: Approved.3.23 RESOLUTION NO. 9556 (A4000.
0 APP-484)A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Orange denying Appeal No. 484 and adopting the recommendation of the Planning Commission
to deny Zone Change 1210-01 to amend the boundary of the Chapman
University Specific Plan
to include
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Appellant: Chapman University
NOTE: Mayor pro tem Alvarez voted No to stay consistent with his previous vote on
this issue.
ACTION: Approved.
REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)
3.24 RESOLUTION NO. 9558 (A4000.0 APP-
483)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange upholding Appeal No. 483
and approving Negative Declaration No. 1668-01 and Major Site Plan Review 169-
01 for the construction of the All Faiths Chapel, subject to conditions,
demolition of Cheverton Hall and construction of a temporary parking lot located within
the Chapman
University Specific Plan.
Appeal No. 483
Appellant: Chapman
University Council Discussion For the record, Councilmember Coontz reported that at the hearing
of the Chapman University All Faiths Chapel, it was only the third time she had ever been
absent from a Council meeting. However she looked at the video of the meeting and
also read the Minutes. She felt the Council really participated in a good
discussion and appreciated the Council zeroing in on many of the important points of the
Chapman Chapel Appeal.She was happy that the design of the Chapel was changed, as she had an idea
of what the original Chapel looked like without even seeing it and would call
it retro-modern. There is a great deal of improvement, but in looking at the Resolution,
she had some problems.She commented that the City Attorney has added some information
to the Resolution, as provided to Council in their hot file, but given the extent of
the discussion and concern and all of the items that the Council discussed and asked about,
she felt the Resolution was not as inclusive as many other land use resolutions
the Council has approved.One of the things that disturbed her was the use of
the Chapel, which Councilmember Cavecche had asked about. Councilmember Coontz thinks
everyone already knows her feelings about the present Chapel on Maple and Grand and its
extended uses which go beyond the rights of the land owner and zoning. There have
been many problems with that Chapel, just one of which was that it was being used for
dance classes with the excuse that
people dance in churches.Councilmember Coontz did not see anything in the Resolution
that referred to wedding uses even though a definitive question was asked about the use
of the Chapel. She wasn't sure if anything else was missing from it, but that is
a concern. Another concern is that the Council is directing the Design Review Committee (
DRC), which does an excellent job, to decide on what the architecture is going to be. There
is a
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
suggestions but they have the purview to do what they consider to be Old Towne
Standards, Design Guidelines, etc. They would be looking at Design Guidelines and the
Specific Plan for Chapman University.
Her concern is that the resolutions are developed at a Planning Commission meeting or at
a City Council meeting, and not at a Design Review Committee meeting. So what the
Council has done is given them the purview, been very extensive about details, about
what they like and don't like, with DRC having the final say. The Resolution is
approved without the Council ever looking at the outcome.
The Resolution should come back in order for Council to see what the Design Review
Committee has done. The DRC has been directed to review it and the Council should
not pass the Resolution until after it comes back to them, especially after all the
conversation, questions, discussions, etc., which was a very long process. There are
people who have come before the Council with even stronger opinions about the process
and whether or not it sets a precedence.
Councilmember Slater noted that he voted against the appeal for some of the same
reasons mentioned by Councilmember Coontz. He was uncomfortable with it not
running the full course considering it was, from his perspective, a new project. He asked
for clarification if Councilmember Coontz wanted an opportunity to see how it comes
out of the DRC before adopting the Resolution.
Councilmember Coontz noted that she would like to continue the Resolution, and would
like to look at it carefully. The use of the Chapel is extremely important. There can be
problems with the details in the Resolution. There have been resolutions in the past
where one word caused the developer to say a fence is a wall, legally. There was an
instance where the Council had approved a fence, and the development ended up with a
wall and nothing could be done about it. So from experience, the wording of the
Resolution is fortification for what the Council has asked for and decided on. Another
thing is that the motions did not include any conditions, so it is only the Resolution that
picks up all the discussion that is in the Minutes. The Minutes alone are not always
legally strong enough to defend a position if somebody assails it.
Mayor pro tem Alvarez reiterated his comments from the public hearing. When the
Council first took action on this, they deemed that the CEQA conditions had been met
and it was recommended for approval by staff. The Negative Declaration was also
recommended for approval by staff. He had specifically asked about the design that it
wasn't changing from the original project, so basically, what the Council centered on
was the one item that needed to go back to the DRC, which was the final outcome as to
the elevations of this particular project. He stated this is the proper step to take. The
thresholds were met and they agreed with what the staff concluded. The Council has the
opportunity, and they asked the consultants to make sure of this, to review the designs
prior to getting to the DRC so they can provide some input. He would recommend
PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
adopting this Resolution and take the opportunity to review what is going to be brought
before the DRC and provide comments at that time. It is up to the DRC if they want to
change them or not, or proceed. But that is the system and would like the Council to stay
with it, and see what the DRC ultimately comes up with, including any comments the
Council may include.
Mayor pro tem Alvarez did not feel postponing the Resolution is necessary, because they
basically followed the recommendations of the staff and localized the real issue with this
problem which is what ultimately the Chapel will look like. That was the direction and
the conditions that they set - that it would go back with the redesign and the materials would
be shown and resubmitted to the DRC.Mayor
Murphy suggested that from a process standpoint, what the Council decided was to
approve the concept, approve the overall design, and look to the DRC to handle the architectural
detail which they typically do in any sort of project. That's the reason he was
comfortable with moving ahead and taking the actions the Council did, and he is comfortable
with moving ahead with the Resolution at this time. However, he would like
to look at specific concerns, and the use concern is a good one, as it was one that was
asked specifically. He also noted there were some assurances that this was not going to
be a wedding chapel, and putting something in the Resolution noting that particular discussion
would be fine. But he has confidence in the DRC and their abilities to follow through
with the architectural elements that are remaining on this particular item.Councilmember
Coontz noted the City Attorney has already amended one of the conditions
of approval regarding design. Council needs to be careful with resolutions and
conditions of approval when making motions on something as important as the Chapman
Chapel, which has gone through a long process. Chapman University has been very
creative about some of the uses of their property and she wants to be sure Code Enforcement
does not have to go back in for disagreements of use with Chapman University.
The
Director of Community Development suggested adding a condition of approval that makes
reference to Attachment 6, which was part of the original Planning Commission staff
report, which lists the typical events expected to be scheduled at the Chapel. She reviewed
the list which talks about educational uses, chapel-type uses and weddings, and
states that weddings must be University related, will be restricted in hours and it will not
be a wedding chapel.
Mayor Murphy noted the point is well taken that the Council needs to make sure that
what is decided is also reflected in the Resolution
The City Attorney commented on a letter from Joan Crawford, whose concerns include
those expressed by Councilmember Coontz, and that the project lacks specificity to make
certain findings under CEQA, which is that it won't have any impact on the historical
PAGE 11
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
resources and the National Historic District. He pointed out the Negative Declaration
has 16 categories of findings and 76 sub-categories. Only one ofthose
sub-categories talks about the project's impact on historical resources. The City has typically
set out Old Towne Design Standards to pre-judge what projects will have
an impact on historical resources and what ones won't. If the Old Towne Design
Standards are met,which the DRC determines, the assumption is that the project will not
have any impacts.That is really all the Council has done - they've looked at the project,
saw some significant design changes, and said while the Council doesn't know the
details regarding coloring and materials, it will be sent back to the DRC, which was set up for
this very purpose, to review those to make sure they conform with the Old
Towne Design Standards. He did not feel this constitutes any violation of CEQA. He also
noted that even if these decisions go back to the DRC, they can
be appealed.Councilmember Coontz noted they should at least add to the Resolution
the City Attorney's suggested amendment and Attachment 6 as noted by the
Director of
Community Development.Councilmember Cavecche appreciated Councilmember Coontz's comments
on the chapel uses as she had a lot of questions about this and was pleased that
a definite statement was made that this will not be a wedding chapel, and concurred that it
was a good idea to add the uses to the Resolution. However, she was not even
real satisfied with the list of uses, as the last comment in Attachment 6 was that there needs to
be a specific plan put together for weddings. She noted this Attachment includes a long
list of who can have weddings at this Chapel, which includes even friends, and her
concern is that there will be problems with traffic and noise. She does support sending
the design back to the DRC, but would like to include uses, even though she's not sure
how specific they can get
with this.Councilmember Coontz noted there are all types of weddings and given
the problems with the current chapel on Maple, there is a need for a plan for what the
constraints are for weddings. She also noted that many Universities make money
on weddings.Mayor Murphy asked the Applicant to comment on
this issue.Mr. Ken Ryan stated they do not envision this as a money-making
wedding facility, but there is a possibility of an occasional activity. It is intended as an
educational and all-faiths facility to reach out to the academic needs of the campus. He
stated the Council could pick a number of weddings allowed per year or include language stating
this is not intended to be a regular ongoing
wedding chapel facility.Councilmember Cavecche stated she did not have a problem with
putting a number restriction on it as this would be
a concrete condition.Mayor pro tem Alvarez stated he could not support limiting the
number of weddings,because if this is done at this chapel, it should be done to every church
in Orange.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
need to be fair to the community and look at it in a broader picture. Based on the fact
that the Chapel is located on the University property, there will be plenty of parking.
The Director of Community Development read the condition of Attachment 6 -weddings
must be University related (students, faculty, staff, trustees, alumni, friends)and
will be restricted to certain hours so as not to interfere with the progranuning of campus
spiritual groups. The Board has already stated that the All Faiths Chapel will not become
a wedding chapel. The City needs to develop specific guidelines for weddings.She
suggested that if this is put into the conditions, the University needs to come back to staff
with the plan.Councilmember
Coontz stated this is a good idea for the University to come back and change
the wording so that they will bring their plan back to staff.Mayor
pro tem Alvarez stated they are heading in the right direction in allowing staff to come
up with language on this. It is also important to remember there are already policies
in place to deal with any event that is held on University property.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche NOES - Slater Moved to
adopt Resolution No.
9558, to include changes provided by the City Attorney and include Attachment 6 with
the stipulation that the University bring back plans to staff for the regulation of
the uses of the chapel. The wedding plans are subject to the approval of the Director of
Community Development, and can be appealed.Councilmember Slater voted No to
remain consistent with his thoughts at the last meeting, whereby this is circumventing
the City's own process by taking this route. He also noted that this discussion
on weddings is probably because of the problems associated with the chapel on
Maple, and suggested Chapman could move the operation from Maple to the new
Chapel on the campus.Councilwoman Coontz commented there have
been numerous Mayor's hot lines on that Issue.TRACT MAP 3.25
Request
from SunCal
Companies to approve the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 16222. (T4000.0 TRT-
16222)SUMMARY: SunCal Companies is
requesting that the City Council approve the recordation of Tract Map
No. 16222. This map is a subdivision ofa portion of previously approved Tract 15695 and
a lot SunCal Companies obtained from the County of Orange PAGE 13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
in a land exchange. All plans have been approved, fees paid and bonds posted to
guarantee improvements.
ACTION: Found that Tract 16222 is in substantial conformance with Tentative Tract
14359, and approved the request from SunCal Companies for the recordation of Final
Tract Map No. 16222.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND -
Slater AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Item 3.24
was removed and heard separately. Mayor pro tem Alvarez abstained on Item 3.16 and
voted No on Item 3.23. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended.END
OF CONSENT
CALENDAR 4.REPORTS FROM
MAYOR MURPHY TAPE 1600 4.1 Council
appointments to Boards, Committees and Commissions.Mayor Murphy provided
a memo to the Council outlining proposed committee assignments. He reviewed the list,
noting Councilmember Cavecche will be assigned to the Cities-Schools Committee; Councilmember
Slater will be assigned to the Growth Management Area Committee with Councilmember
Cavecche as the alternate; Councilmember Cavecche will be assigned to the Orange
County Vector Control Committee; and Councilmember Coontz will be assigned to the Orange-
Santa Ana JP A with Councilmember Slater as the alternate.Councilmember
Coontz indicated it was not her choice to be on this particular committee, stating there
needs to be more of an understanding about what all these positions involve. It was noted that
Councilmember Cavecche was interested in the Eastern Transportation Corridor, but is not reflected.
Councilmembers need to understand what the opportunities are, noting for instance that
the appointment to Waste Management is made by the County Board of Supervisors. There are
two alternatives to the County Waste Management Commission - one is an appointment by the Supervisors
and the other is an appointment by the League of Cities or an election of the League. It
has nothing to do with the City of Orange. There are also appointments made by non-profit
organizations. Councilmember Coontz suggested making changes to the Boards,Committees
and Commissions book so it is easier to understand and certain committees should be
separated out. There is also an opportunity on committees like the Eastern Transportation Corridor
for the alternate to learn about the process.PAGE
14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY (Continued)
She noted these appointments were not what was indicated to her and stated that all committee
appointments need to be made at the same time. Usually, committee assignments are made when
the Mayor takes office, which has already been a year. Also, some members of the Council have
their specific desires for committee assiguments which may be different.
Mayor Murphy noted these appointments are the only changes being made and that all other
assignments remain in place. Rather than reiterating every committee assignment, he is only
suggesting at this time the ones that will be changing to balance responsibility now that there are
five members on the Council.
Councilmember Coontz noted there are different commitments for each committee, as some
meet more frequently than others; and to really provide a balance, they should all be reviewed as
has always been done in the past.
Councilmember Slater appreciated putting a permanent member on the Cities-
School Committee; and suggested putting a permanent member on the Economic
Development Partnership Committee to provide more
consistency.Councilmember Cavecche appreciated the opportunity to be able to serve on regional
boards.MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Slater AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Cavecche NOES - Coontz
Moved to approve
the following Council appointments: Councilmember Cavecche to be assigned to the
City-Schools Committee; Councilmember Slater to be assigned to the Growth Management Area
Committee with Councilmember Cavecche as the alternate; Councilmember Cavecche to
be assigned to the Orange County Vector Control Committee; and Councilmember Coontz to
be assigned to the Orange-Santa Ana JP A with Councilmember Slater as the alternate.Councilmember
Coontz voted No only for the fact that all Committees and Commission should be
considered at this time, as it is already a year late.5.
REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS TAPE 1810 Councilmember
Coontz reported on the problems with Channel 6, the Community Access Channel,
noting that it had been black throughout the entire holidays. With assistance from ACS,
the City's computer consultants, the City was able to fix the problems on Channel 3, and she
again asked for assistance with the problems on Channel 6.The
City Manager was instructed to look into this issue.6.
REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None.PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None.8.
REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.9. LEGAL
AFFAIRS - None.10.NOTICED HEARINGS
TAPE 1890 10.1 PROPERTY
ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN, 2245 WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE: (A2100.0
AGR-3930)Time set
for a noticed hearing on resolution of necessity to acquire a strip of land for the West Chapman Avenue
Widening Project. The City is seeking a strip of land in fee of approximately 1,429
square feet along with a temporary construction easement There are no buildings located on this
strip ofland.2245 West
Chapman Avenue Assessor Parcel Number 39-372-09
Property Owner:UItramar, Inc., a Nevada Corporation
RESOLUTION NO. 9557
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange declaring the public interest and
necessity of acquiring certain real property located at 2245 West Chapman Avenue and
authorizing the acquisition thereof.
The City Attorney reported a letter had been received from the property owner's attorney just a
few hours before the meeting. There is not adequate opportunity to respond to all concerns at
this time, so asked that it be continued to the January 22, 2002 Council meeting. He noted that
in continuing the matter and responding to the letter, the City is not waiving any legal objection
to the admissibility of the letter or any oral comments in the administrative hearing due to the
fact that when the notice was sent out on December 10, 2001, the property owner was notified
they had 15 days from the date of the notice to let the City know if they have any comments. If
they don't respond within those 15 days, they waive any ability to speak. They did not receive
the letter until about 29 days after that date.
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to continue
to January 22, 2002.11. RECESS TO
THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 8, 2002
12. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The City Council recessed at 5:40 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 - existing litigation:
City
of Orange v. Airport Working Group, Orange County Superior Court Case No.01CC09018
Hopsen
v. City of Orange, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 814636 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.13.
ADJOURNMENT MOTION -
Cavecche SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche The City Council adjourned
at 6:15 p.m.C:1s~~C/:TA/~
CASSANDRA . CATHCART, CMC CITY
CLERK 1~-4
MAYOR PAGE 17