Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3_12_2002 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 26, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA OF A REGULAR MEETING March 12, 2002 The City Council ofthe City of Orange, California convened on March 12, 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 Dr. Stan Smith, First Christian Church 1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Association of Girl Scouts 1.3 ROLL CALL PRESENT - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - None 1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS Proclamation was presented to Jamie Fingal, Association Chair, Orange Girl Scouts celebrating Girl Scout Week March 10 - 16,2002.Proclamation was presented to David Smith, General Manager of the Country Inn, 2002 Central County Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Business Leader of the Year in Orange.Councilmember Cavecche announced that in the recent Ladies Home Journal Magazine,the City of Orange ranked 19th overall, of cities under 300,000 population, for best cities for women to live in; and ranked 5th for low crime.Proclamation was presented to Georgia Summers, Chair of Women's Studies Department at Santiago Canyon College, celebrating the Month of March as Women's History Month.Mayor Murphy announced the City Council will adjourn in memory of Gary Granville,Orange County Clerk- Recorder. The Council commented that Mr. Granville was a superior individual who made great contributions to the County. He was a consummate public servant and role model and will be missed.PAGE 1 T---------------------------- ..---- --- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 2.PUBLIC COMMENTS TAPE 760 Stephen Heilman, 1429 E. Oakmont, spoke in opposition to the City code which prohibits trailers from being parked on residential property, and asked Council to reconsider this restriction. 3.CONSENT CALENDAR TAPE 820 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 March 12, 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 February 21, 28, 2002.ACTION: Approved.3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Adjourned Regular Meeting, February 19,2002 and Regular Meeting, February 26, 2002.ACTION: Approved.3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda.ACTION: Approved.3.5 CLAIMS The City Attorney recommends that the Orange City Council deny the following Claim(s) for damages:a. Laurence Carl Broady b. Shawn Mahdaui c. Jim Martin ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) CONTRACTS 3.6 Contract Change Order No.1; Bid No. 012-11; Project No. SP-3374, Slurry Seal at Various Locations for the fiscal year 2001 - 2002.SUMMARY: This Contract Change Order authorizes payment for extra work at agreed unit prices. The extra work consists of approximately 50 additional streets with 1,400, 000 square feet of slurry sealing at various residential streets to prolong pavement life. The total contract cost for this extra work is $151,829.32 including 10% contingency.ACTION: Approved a Contract Change Order No. I in the amount of $151,829.32 to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. for the extra work.FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted and available in the following account:262-5021-483300-3120 $151,829. 32 (Local Street Maintenance)3.7 Final Acceptance of Bid 012-03; SP-3336; Street Rehabilitation Improvements for Taft Avenue from Glassell Street to Tustin Street and SP-3337 - Street Rehabilitation Improvements for Taft Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street, and authorization to file Notice of Completion with the County Recorder (No staff report required).SUMMARY: Bid 012-03; SP-3336; Street Rehabilitation Improvements for Taft Avenue from Glassell Street to Tustin Street and SP-3337 - Street Rehabilitation Improvements for Taft Avenue from Batavia Street to Glassell Street. Contractor: R. J. Noble Company.Staff recommends acceptance of improvements.ACTION: Accepted public work improvement, authorized release of Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of Connecticut, Bond No. 83 SB 1036092, in the amount of 951,773.00, and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Notice of Completion.FISCAL IMP ACT: None.3.8 Change order to P.O. #R19334 to Hydrosolutions of California for final phase of underground fuel contamination cleanup project at the Water Yard.SUMMARY: In November 1998, the City entered into a contract with Hydrosolutions of California to perform all tasks required to assess the extent of the soil contamination for the old underground fuel tanks at the Water Yard. This assessment has been completed and the results reviewed by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). OCHCA is requiring a cleanup program utilizing Vapor Extraction. Hydrosolutions has prepared a work plan that has been approved by OCHCA.Hydrosolutions has prepared proposal # 01341-19 for the final phase that has been approved by OCHCA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) ACTION: Approved change order to P.O. #R19334 in the amount of$43,967.75. FISCAL IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in account number 720- 5023-484400-9856 Underground Storage Tanks.3.9 Contract Change Order No.1 to DRP Construction, Inc. for Seismic Strengthening of the Water Division Pump House, Bid #001-20; W-596.SUMMARY: In February 2001, the City entered into a contract with DRP Construction for the seismic strengthening of the Water Division Pump House at Water St. and Almond Ave. Additional work has become necessary to preserve the existing historic structure.ACTION: Approved a contract change order in the amount of $ 247,945.76 to DRP Construction, Inc. for additional work and approved transfer in the amount of $275,000 from Account No. 601-8011- 484400-8200 (Water Capital Projects Res. I- B) into Account No. 601-8041-481200-8211 Water Plant Seismic Retrofit..FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval of transfer sufficient funds will be available in the Water Plant Seismic Account No. 601-8041-481200-8211.54,000.00 RESOLUTIONS 500-2011-481200-9901 3.10 RESOLUTION NO. 9569 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange terminating the emergency action associated with the repair of the roofs at the city' s Administration and Public Works buildings at 300 East Chapman Avenue.ACTION: Approved.3.11 RESOLUTION NO. 9570 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving a General Plan Amendment to Redesignate 7.90 acres of property located north of Chapman Avenue and Chapman General Hospital, East of Santiago Creek to OS ( CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 3.12 RESOLUTION NO. 9571 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to Mike Harper of the Orange Police Department and commending him for more than thirty two years ofloyal and dedicated service. ACTION: Approved. 3.13 RESOLUTION NO. 9572 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving a General Plan Amendment to Redesignate approximately 20,000 square feet of property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Handy Street and Palm Avenue, and west of Santiago Creek from LDR (Low Density Residential) to OS (Open Space). General Plan Amendment No. 2001-04 - Northern Area NOTE: Councilmember Cavecche voted No to remain consistent with her previous vote on this issue. ACTION: Approved. WAIVER OF FEES 3.14 Request for Senior Center Fee to be waived. SUMMARY: The City is required to charge persons utilizing its facilities a fee for this service. Second Harvest Food Bank is requesting the use of the Senior Center and is further requesting that all rental fees be waived. ACTION: Approved waiver of fees for use of the Senior Center by Second Harvest Food Bank for their volunteer luncheon.. FISCAL IMP ACT: The wavier of the rental fees for the Senior Center would result in a loss of revenue of $500. MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Councilmember Cavecche voted No on Item 3.13. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended.END OF CONSENT CALENDAR PAGE 5 T- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 4.REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY TAPE 850 4.1 Appointment of City Traffic Commissioner. Mayor Murphy announced he is recommending Mark Burkhardt for appointment to the City Traffic Commission. Mr. Burkhardt has lived in the City of Orange for a number of years and is actively involved in the community. Councilmember Coontz asked that all new appointees to any Board, Committee or Commission be given an introduction to their respective jobs along with the legal and ethical considerations of such an appointment. The City Manager and City Attorney were directed to make sure the requirements of the job and all legal and ethical issues are conveyed to all new appointees. Mark Burkhardt, and his family, were introduced. MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to appoint Mark Burkhardt to the City Traffic Commission, term to expire June 30,2004.5.REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS TAPE 1020 Non-Ae:enda Items Councilmember Coontz asked that a presentation be arranged from the Orange County Water District and the Orange County Flood Control District on water reclamation projects and the Ground Water Replenishment System.Mavor pro tern Alvarez provided an update from the recent Orange County Sanitation District Board meeting. The District asked the Board to approve a $50 million expenditure to begin the disinfection of waste water; however, the Board decided to postpone the discussion for 30 days and authorized the Sanitation District Manger to spend $200,000 and come back with a report whether they would continue with this recommendation. The Sanitation District is moving slowly on this issue and he will provide a further report in approximately 30 days.Mayor Murphy noted this issue was separate from the 301(h) waiver issue.Councilmember Slater reported on the City Motto contest. The Committee, comprised of Scott Parker, Nancy Collins, Karen Herrera, Bruce Patrick and himself, have received approximately 180 submissions for a City Motto. They want as many people as possible to know about the competition, so beginning April I st, there will be five locations throughout the City where people can submit an entry. These locations are City Hall, Main Library, El Modena Brach Library,Mall of Orange and hopefully Borders Books at The Block. Prizes will be awarded for the 1st PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued) through 5th places and the winners will be announced at the City's July 3rd celebration. The Committee is looking for ideas of 5 words or less, which should describe Orange and be timeless. He gave examples of ideas already submitted such as, The Plaza City and California's Main Squeeze. He will provide periodic updates. 6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None.7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 7. 1 Capital Improvement Project No. 6100, Tustin Branch Trail Project. Approval of Consultant Services Agreement and appropriation of funding for the preparation of Environmental Documentation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).SUMMARY: This Consultant Services Agreement authorizes the consultant to prepare an environmental document and process the document through the appropriate state and federal agencies, in compliance with CEQA and NEPA.NOTE: A request was submitted that these items be continued to the 7:00 p.m. Session of March 26th in order for more people to be in attendance.MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to continue to March 26, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in order for additional staff analysis and map correction.7.2 Capital Improvement Project No. 6100, Tustin Branch Trail Project. Approval of appropriation of funding for a Consultant Services Agreement.SUMMARY: The requested appropriation of funding for a Consultant Services Agreement will allow the City to retain Joan Wolff, AICP as a contract planner to manage the City's Tustin Branch Trail Project. Ms. Wolff will serve as the project manager on behalf of the City for the Tustin Branch Trail Project and will conduct activities as defined in the attached contract and scope of work. Ms. Wolffs responsibilities would include coordinating public outreach efforts and managing the preparation of an environmental document in compliance with CEQA and NEPA.MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to continue to March 26, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in order for additional staff analysis and map correction.PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 7.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)TAPE 1350 7.3 Report from the Police Department concerning impacts from Internet Cafes. Consideration of adoption of interim ordinance suspending approval of such uses pending further study by Community Development Department. Discussion Police Chief Romero reported the City has issued five permits for Internet Cafes. These businesses are places which allow the public access to the internet via computers on their premises, and also provide snacks and beverages. Other jurisdictions nationwide are experiencing problems with public safety and one neighboring city already has 20 cafes in their city. These cafes seem to be a magnet to crime and gang activity. There is no supervision and minors have been seen at these locations during school hours. Minors can also access adult internet sites. The Police Department has identified some gang members at these establishments and have made some arrests for drug possession. He noted some of these businesses are open until 2:00 a.m. during the week and 3:00 a.m. on weekends. He recommended the Council adopt Ordinance No. 4-02 which will place a moratorium on these business until they are able to scrutinize them more closely.Councilmember Coontz thanked the Police for their work and asked what business category these establishments fall under, as the Council has been unaware of these until just recently.The Community Development Director reported these businesses were first described as computer stores, but Staff has found that they operate more as game arcades. The first four businesses did not go through a review process because they came through under a different description and were described more of a retail use. They now require a Conditional Use Permit process just like arcades, and is also reviewed in the Staff Review Committee which is comprised of representatives of all departments.The City Manager noted these businesses did not completely represent the type of business they wished to conduct and the City was misled.Mayor pro tern Alvarez spoke in support of an Interim Ordinance and suggested paying particular attention to the hours of operation. There is no educational benefit to these businesses as they are high tech arcades, and should not be open past 10:00 p. m.Councilmember Cavecche asked if the permit now in process would be affected by the Urgency Ordinance.The City Attorney stated the City needs to continue to process an application already submitted,but can prevent the use.Carl 80hn, Attorney, 1105 Brookhurst, Garden Grove, is representing Nettoyou.com. He stated his client applied for a Conditional Use Permit in January. His client is currently paying PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued) rent on a commercial space because he was told he could put this type of business at that location. He urged the Council not to adopt an urgency ordinance as there are already very stringent conditions in place which the businesses must meet before they open. Mayor Murphy spoke in support of the recommendation of the Police Chief. He agreed there is a need to evaluate these businesses for what they are and not what they have been represented as. ORDINANCE NO. 4- 02 An Urgency Measure of the City Council of the City of Orange prohibiting the establishment of new Cybercafes.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Coontz AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance No. 4-02 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding vote.8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.9. LEGAL AFFAIRS - None.10. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 11. 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:NOTE: Council did not discuss this item. I) Nieupointe Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. City of Orange, et aI., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02712 b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) ( one potential case)c. Public employee performance evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: City Manager d. 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.PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 7:00 P.M. SESSION 12.PUBLIC COMMENTS TAPE 2040 Gloria Boice, 143 N. Pine, thanked the Council for their recent decision on the zoning at Santiago Creek. Jerry Carroll, 354 S. Tracy Lane, submitted a petition containing approximately 300 signatures in opposition to a dog park at Yorba Park. He also thanked the Mayor for his efforts in working with the School District. 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16218; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 185- 01; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2372-01; VARIANCE NO. 2098-01;MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1670-01; BRANDYWINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The public hearing to consider a request from Brandywine Development Corporation for construction of a 21-lot gated single family planned unit development at 1740 Bolingridge Drive Bolinger Estate), involving the subdivision and grading of approximately 5.4 acres of land; on-site circulation consisting of a private loop road.; common open space for the project provided by four lots (total 1.63 acres); and including the demolition of an existing single family residence and assorted accessory structures and removal of much of the existing vegetation, was continued to this time from October 9, 2001 and January 22, 2002.Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1670-01, Response to Comments and a Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.The Community Development Director reported this project has been redesigned from its original plan. Some of those changes include retooling some of the homes along Sunview and moving them further away from Sunview, moving one of the lots, changing the access from one road to two, eliminating a gate from the community and providing additional on site parking. A Variance is also no longer required because of the elevation changes which eliminated a three story model. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised as the project has been revised.Councilmember Coontz stated the Agenda should have noted the Variance had been removed as part ofthe revised plans.In response to questions by Councilmember Cavecche concerning the storm water runoff, the Community Development Director stated that as part of the grading plan, the builder will need to complete a water CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilmember Cavecche asked about the new water quality management program that has been set forth, and if this is something the Council needs to be concerned about with this level of development. The Public Works Director reported the City is not operating under the new five year permit which was just approved; but still operating under the drainage area management plan from the previous five year permit and the two appendices under that plan. TAPE 2570 APPLICANT: Jim Barisi, Brandywine Development, reported this is a new and improved development. They have incorporated input from staff, the Design Review Committee and the surrounding neighborhood; and the conditions of approval are stringent and demanding, but acceptable to them. Bob Mickelson, P.O. box 932, Orange, reviewed the original site plan and the new site plan, noting the differences between them. Mr. Barisi reviewed the changes to the architecture in the homes. They are utilizing Craftsman and Cottage style architecture and have reduced the square footage of all the plans. They have softened the elevations, wanting the styles to be unique, yet blend with the surrounding neighborhood. Council Ouestions Mayor pro tern Alvarez asked about the rear elevations to the homes on the north side of the development. Mr. Barisi stated that wherever a dwelling is visible from an exterior or interior street, they have provided additional architectural treatment, especially on the second story. The homes on the north end of the project were not treated as it is impossible to see them because of the steepness and angle of the hill and the foliage. The slope on the north end is heavily wooded, much of which will be preserved and enhanced; and only dead trees will be removed. Councilmember Cavecche noted that in comparing the old and the new plans, the footprints of the homes are identical. It is the scale and height of the homes which have been reduced. She also asked about total volume and the number of each plan. Mr. Barisi indicated the 21 homes include 4 Plan Ones, 6 Plan Twos, 7 Plan Threes and 4 Plan Fours. Councilmember Slater asked about the oak grove on the west side of the property, the significance of the oak trees and their health, the California Pepper trees and if any of the trees are native to California. PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Mr. Greg Applegate, Arborist for the project, reported there are nine oak trees along the west edge that are not native to California. All of the trees are stressed and four were topped because of their proximity to wires. He stated the California Pepper trees are not native to California. There is a Torey Pine along the very north edge of the property which is native to the San Diego area. Councilmember Coontz commented on the beautiful view of Anaheim Lake looking out from the north edge of the property. MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING TAPE 3460 The following people spoke in favor of the project: Joe Hoffinan, 1629 Bolingridge J. Michael Vanderhoof, David Smith, 1839 Sunview Steve Carter, 1830 E. Bolingridge Mark Wallace, 1902 E. Bolingridge Their comments included: the property has been neglected and the developer will replace the trees; save as many trees as possible; the project will revitalize the neighborhood; developer has done a great job. The following people spoke in opposition to the project: Carol Hilly, 1642 E. Bolingridge - provided suggestions for keeping oak trees by moving the off street parking Anthony Hilly, 1642 E. Bolingridge Robert Nicolini, 1712 E. Sunview Their comments included: concern with drainage problems; loss of oak trees; loss of historical and cultural significance; displacement of animals and endangered species; project should be scaled down; construction traffic; disruption to neighborhood during construction.Mr. Barisi addressed the drainage concern on the west side of the property. The plans call for the builder to intercept the runoff in a collection device and take it down to Sunview. A retaining wall will be built on the builder's side of the drainage device along with a landscape screen. All this will be maintained by the Homeowners Association to ensure proper long term maintenance.He also noted there will be one to one tree replacement and most of the wildlife lives on the north slope.In response to questions by Mayor pro tern Alvarez, the Community Development Director reported on the archeological survey and how things are dealt with as they are discovered. A certified Archeologist or Paleontologist will be on site to monitor the site during grading, and if materials are encountered during construction, the contractor shall immediately stop work in the area until the nature of the significance of the find is determined.PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilmember Cavecche asked about the suggestion made by Carol Hilly to move the off street parking in order to save the trees. Mr. Barisi stated moving the parking would not have an affect, as it is the drainage system and retaining walls that will disrupt the root system of the trees. MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING TAPE 4260 Councilmember Slater stated he is a proponent of open space, but there is no other alternative for the use of this property. There are more things about this project that he likes than he doesn't like and the developer has worked with the neighborhood in making good changes to the project. He was glad to see the amount of open space on the southern end and the slope on the north end being maintained by the Homeowners Association. This project will be an asset to the neighborhood. He wished more trees could have been saved, but in walking the property, he really didn't see many trees worth saving. This is a result of poor stewardship on the property and it really has not been maintained since Chapman University bought the property. Councilmember Cavecche expressed concern with the runoff and the need to raise the bar in managing this. She wanted to ensure the developer is held accountable for the water runoff and will personally monitor this situation. She chastised Chapman University for allowing this property to deteriorate and for selling off the trees. The property was a gift to the University and should have been used for what it was intended. She is willing to support this project, with the provision that Lots 4 through 11 include rear-sided architecture. These lots are along the north ridge and the properties can be seen from a distance.Mr. Barisi agreed to the additional architectural treatment for Lots 4 through 11.Councilmember Coontz agreed the property is in poor condition and the trees were not taken care of; however, it can not be assumed that Chapman University is responsible for the removal of all the trees, citing Hewes Park as an example of an area where trees have been removed over the years. However, Chapman University should have been a better steward of the property. As far as erosion control and drainage is concerned, there is a sufficient mitigation measure in place to cover that. She was impressed with the changes the developer has made to the project, and appreciated the developer's sensitivity to the development and the neighborhood.Mayor pro tern Alvarez stated the developer has done a wonderful job in addressing the concerns of the neighborhood. He was glad to see the gates removed from the project, which allows the homeowners to be part of the entire neighborhood and not segregated with a gate.Mayor Murphy congratulated the developer for listening to the comments and concerns of the neighborhood and incorporating those concerns to improve on a project that will enhance and benefit the neighborhood.PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) COUNCIL ACTION TAPE 5150 MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Coontz AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to adopt Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1670-01 and the associated Response to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring Program.MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to approve Revised Tentative Tract Map Mo. 16218 subject to conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 01-02, with the provision of the addition of rear elevations to Lots 4 through II.MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to approve Revised Major Site Plan Review No. 185-01 subject to conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 01-02.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Cavecche AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to approve Revised Conditional Use Permit No. 2372-01 subject to conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 01-02, with the provision of the addition of rear elevations to Lots 4 through 11.Council recessed at 8:25 p. m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.TAPE 5250 13.2 APPEAL NO. 485 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2389-01, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1680-01, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT AA 01-67 - MAYOR PRO TEM ALVAREZ Time set for public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Conditional Use Permit 2389- 01, Negative Declaration 1680-01 and Administrative Adjustment AA 01- 67, an application to construct a new second story addition to a single story 1923 Bungalow, including the demolition of a single car garage and the construction of a new attached two- car garage, upon property located within the Old Towne Orange Historic District at 142 N. Cambridge.PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Note: Negative Declaration 1680-01 was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and Public Resources Code Section 21082 adopting Local CEQA Guidelines for the Historic District.Reason for Appeal:The approval of this project would threaten the Historic fabric of the Old Towne Historic District by not following the basic agreements that were established at the formation of the district.The Cumulative Effect of this decision will have a negative impact on the future of the historic district.The bulk and mass of this project is greater than the historic intent of the original building and of existing structures ofthe same nature within this district.The attached garage element is not consistent with the longtime practice of detached garages,an established standard for the District, including this property.The use of the F.A.R. (floor area ratio) for this project is not consistent with existing historic structures within the district or homes of a similar design. In this case the FAR formula has created the bulk and mass issue for second story additions."NOTE: Councilmember Slater reported a conflict of interest as he had sold a home across the street from the subject property within the last year; and left the dais.Mayor pro tern Alvarez stated he appealed this project solely on his own and was not asked to do so by any homeowner. He expressed concern with the project after reviewing comments by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission and wanted Council to take one final look at the project to ensure the integrity of the Old Towne Historic District was not threatened.The Community Development Director reviewed the application, noting it meets all the hard standards such as setbacks, height, FAR and open space. However, there are softer standards,such as historic design standards, which are more open to interpretation of compatibility issues.The Planning Commission split 3 to 2 on this issue, but did find that the project met these standards. She reviewed the aspects of the appeal, such as cumulative effect, bulk and mass, the attached garage and FAR.Mayor pro tern Alvarez suggested discussing each of the four aspects ofthe appeal separately.He asked about the cumulative effect of this project, citing examples of South Olive Street and South Lemon Street; and was concerned this would be setting a standard for future projects. He noted this structure is essentially being doubled in size. He asked about contributing versus non contributing structures, and about adverse ratings and how it is determined if a project of this nature will be contributing or not. He asked if there is a scale used to determine whether the threshold is being met or not regarding the cumulative effect of the change of this entire project.PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Mr. Dan Ryan, Sr. Planner, reported the project needs to be looked at in terms of the block context of Cambridge where principally all the structures are one story bungalows. Different neighborhoods have different development styles and context and this project needs to be looked at in relationship to surrounding development on Cambridge. Contextually, there is some concern that because this property is on the edge of the District and adj acent to commercial property, that it would have less of an impact. There are some examples in Old Towne where there are corner lots which were developed as two stories. These are considered bookends on the block. Mayor pro tern Alvarez, stated that given the standards applied to this project, he is able to draw the conclusions that the context of the block is single story, there are detached garages, and if there are any additions to the existing home stock, they are basically single story. He asked what percentage of change must occur before there begins to have a cumulative effect. TAPE 6360 Councilmember Coontz noted the discussion needs to be on cumulative effect on this particular block. She was interested in the negative impacts of the future of this block and maybe other blocks like it in the R-1-6 of Cambridge. She noted the edge of the Historic District is the east side of Cambridge and that other parts of Old Towne are not in the context of what is being considered with this project, and asked to focus on this application and this block.The City Attorney stated cumulative effect relates to this project, in relationship to reasonably foreseeable future projects, and any negative impacts on the historic significance of the neighborhood. There is also the question of whether this project, standing alone, will have a negative effect on the historic significance of the neighborhood. If this project were approved, it does not necessarily mean that the Council would be bound to approve a similar project if the Council could find that there are differences in the projects such as a mid-block second story as opposed to an end of block second story.Mayor pro tern Alvarez expressed concern that if this project were approved, the Council must be prepared for the next similar project.Mayor Murphy reiterated that if findings were made that this project was approved because of the uniqueness of its location, then another project would not necessarily have to be approved just because this one was. He asked if the proposed development would put the National Registry at risk.Mr. Ryan explained the issue, and how it is written under local CEQA guidelines, is how it is viewed from the public space from the street, and whether that is adverse or not. Based on that language, he would concur with the Design Review Committee.Councilmember Coontz read a section from the CEQA Guidelines regarding substantial adverse changes that threaten loss or destruction of the quality that caused the original formation of the local historic district, primarily from street sidewalk or other public way and secondarily, which is still important, from the adjoining properties or the neighborhood CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilmember Cavecche noted comments from the Design Review Committee which talked about modifying original structures and whether the work was reversible or not. Mr. Ryan stated this addition is not reversible but the question is whether it is adverse to the structure itself. Councilmember Coontz spoke on the bulk and mass issue, noting the extreme bulk and mass of the proposed addition. She provided overlays of the original structure to show the difference between what is currently there and what is proposed; indicating the scale is not properly shown. She noted the bulk and mass probably fit the FAR, which the City has been trying to change for years. She asked to what extent does this affect the historic fabric of both the house and the block because it is made to look like a Craftsman style but is actually a Bungalow. Mr. Ryan explained the general differences between a Bungalow and Craftsman style house. Bungalows were usually one story, Craftsman were 1-1/2 stories. Craftsman had sleeping porches and more varied roof forms. Architectural details were more refined in the Craftsman as far as the use of materials. Bungalows were more simplified in nature.Councilmember Coontz asked how new additions would be addressed under CEQA. Under CEQA it states new additions shall not destroy historic features compatible with those in terms of massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and it surroundings.Mr. Ryan stated the recommended issue for additions to historic buildings is constructing a new addition so there will be the least possible loss of historic materials and the character defining features are not obscured, damaged or destroyed.Councilmember Coontz expressed concern that the corner commercial lot was considered for criteria when it was a later addition to Old Towne and not as old as the structures being considered.Mayor pro tern Alvarez stated in looking at bungalows with a second story, the bulk and mass of the second story, historically, were homes that were originally built that way in the 1930's. The sizes were quite a bit smaller and consisted usually of small bedrooms with lots of windows, and used for ventilation. The proposed addition does not meet the mass and scale and size requirements and questions whether it meets architectural features.TAPE NO. 2 Mr. Ryan noted the Edwards House as an example of a second story which is approximately 55% of the size of the first story. Mayor pro tern Alvarez noted the proposed addition exceeds 55% of the first story.Mayor pro tern Alvarez spoke on the attached garage element, which he did not feel was consistent with the long time practice of detached garages established as a standard of the PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Historic District; drawing the conclusion that the accepted standard for the area is a detached garage with a long driveway. He also spoke on the FAR issue, noting the FAR which is being applied is a City wide FAR. Although the project meets the FAR, he pointed out the Council has asked for a FAR that needs to be used in the Historic District. He concluded that the FAR formula for an accepted second story Bungalow, is far less than what is being proposed. Mr. Ryan noted the typical historic FAR for this neighborhoods would be in the range of .21 to 31. The FAR for this project is .42. Mayor Murphy suggested a traditional FAR in an Historic District is not legally binding because the City has not adopted a separate FAR for the Old Towne District. The Council is still operating under the design guidelines for the City in terms of FAR. The City Attorney reiterated the FAR is the maximum allowable development, but the Old Towne Design Guidelines require to look at bulk and mass in relationship to other homes in the neighborhood. Mayor Murphy stated that while he understands the concerns expressed of whether this is representative of what the Council is looking for in Old Towne, the real issue would not be the FAR because that is well within the City requirements. The issue is more on other areas such as bulk and mass. Findings for upholding an appeal on a project need to be made on what is legally required rather than what desired. Mayor pro tern Alvarez noted the FAR being discussed is city wide and it is the maximum allowable. The maximum allowable needs to be balanced with the accepted historic standards is for a second story bungalow. Councilmember Coontz stated the FAR has not been addressed, which has been a continuing problem. It was supposed to be revised, and the inconsistency is illustrated when talking about cumulative effect and bulk and mass. The City Attorney stated FAR is important from a discussion of bulk and mass, and in relationship to other historic contributing structures. In discussing FAR and whether it meets the Old Towne Design Guidelines, it is important in relationship to other structures. Whether it meets the minimum requirement is a zoning issue. TAPE 2 - 320 Robert Imboden, representing the Applicant, stated the cumulative effect issues were dealt with at the Planning Commission meeting. This request does require a Conditional Use Permit which requires a project be reviewed with regard to its surroundings, impact to the neighborhood and Historic District and its compliance with the standards that are in place at that time. He read from the Old Towne Design Guidelines, noting his interpretation is to observe a corner development as not being typical with mid-block development. Typically, corner structures are larger with larger bulk and mass. With regard to the office building to the south, the reality is PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) that the building does exist, and the entire area needs to be looked at not just the immediate block. He submitted a map to the Council of those properties which are either two stories or have the appearance ofthree story in volume. With regard to the historic FAR, the Council should not limit the use of structures to the historic FAR, as what was acceptable in the early 1900's is not necessarily acceptable today. The Old Towne Design Standards and the Preservation Element actually encourages the simple improvement of properties and recognizes it as an important key to the overall preservation of the District. There needs to be a balance of the past while meeting the needs of today. He recognizes the significance of Old Towne, but time should not be frozen. Development standards do not allow for development to take place the way it did in the past. He asked that this project not be compared to the area south of Chapman. This request is not for an accessory unit or any new use and preserves the historic use. Mayor pro tern Alvarez noted that the Historic District was created to preserve what was there. He agrees there needs to be give and take, but Old Towne needs to be preserved. Councilmember Coontz noted the preservation movement started many years ago with many people involved in it, and talked about the involvement of Consultant Judy Wright establishing the preservation element. She asked about why OTPA put this area on the National Register. Mr. Imboden reiterated there should be recognition of the historical significance of Old Towne and preserving it, but did not think the intent was to freeze anything. He then submitted pictures to the Council to illustrate second story additions. He discussed the reversibility of a project, stating that this project is reversible - it's simply a matter of money. He noted the only facade being touched, except for the south which is receiving restoration, is the rear.Councilmember Coontz questioned if Old Towne preservation is not following the reasoning for why Old Towne was put on the Register and not protecting the historic structures, then why is it on the Register? She also asked about the reference to this property being at the edge of Old Towne, noting the edge of Old Towne is as important as the middle. She also asked about airplane bungalows, noting a true airplane does not go all the way out to the edge.TAPE 2 -1140 Greg Early, 142 N. Cambridge, reported they have gone through all the proper channels and processes, incorporating ideas along the way. Their intent to preserve the property and maintain a single family home. He asked the Council to respect their rights to develop the property within the City guidelines. He then reviewed comments by both the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission.Merilyn Early, 142 N. Cambridge, reported the review process has worked, noting the issues discussed have all been thoroughly reviewed at various levels. They have received significant community support for this project, as well as support from OTP A. She submitted a petition containing approximately 39 signatures in favor of the proposed project.PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Councilmember Coontz stated the Council did not receive any formal letter from OTPA stating their position of the project and, therefore, did not want to assume their position. TAPE 2- 1410 MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING The following people spoke in favor of the proposed project:TJ. Clark, 811 E. Chapman Chip Buckley, 910 E. Maple Leslie Buckley, 910 E. Maple Corrine Schreck, 446 N. James Their comments included - the majority of residents on Cambridge favor the project; this will be a significant improvement to the neighborhood; this is a corner house and is able to support a larger structure; the Earlys have met all City requirements along the process. The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed project: Gloria Boice, 143 N. Pine Robert Boice, 143 N. Pine Dale Fairchild, 282 N. Cambridge Their comments included - decisions should be made on rulings of the California Supreme Court that even a small contribution to existing cumulative impact could be considered a significant impact; this is a significant house on its own and should not be considered a corner lot; additions should be kept single story and made in keeping with the historic context of the area.Mayor Murphy announced communication had been received from the following:In opposition:Robert Boice, 143 N Pine The Kennisons, 173 N. Pine Julie Davis, 193 N. Pine Ann Hobson, 130 N. Pine Mr. & Mrs. Alvin Rogers, 150 N Cambridge (letter read by City Clerk)In favor:Mark Dremmel, 424 S. Grand Vince Boglino, 426 N. Lemon Peter Burtam Marty Matusak, 340 S. Grand Priscilla Selman, 191 S. Cambridge Marilyn Ware TAPE 2150 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12,2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Mr. Imboden reported this is a specific project for a specific site. It requires a Conditional Use Permit which requires discretionary review. This structure does not stand in the Historic Register because of its own significance, but it is a contributing structure to the neighborhood and will not affect the neighborhood. He concurred OTPA had not submitted a formal letter with their position, but suggested the Council had received phones calls from members of OTPA indicating their position. He also asked that this project be held to current standards, not future ones. MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Mayor pro tern Alvarez reported the challenge before the Council is to enforce existing standards and uphold this District. In reviewing the four aspects of the appeal, this project does not meet the threshold in terms of the context of the block and the nature of the existing home stock within this area. This area is a single story neighborhood and other alternatives for an addition should have been explored. The second story is too big and far exceeds the threshold for what should be acceptable for the neighborhood. The project should have respected a long driveway and detached garage element; and he is not prepared to set a new standard with this project. There are some good elements to the project, and suggested sending it back to the Planning Commission to develop a project more compatible to the neighborhood. Mayor Murphy noted that an expansion ofthis type would require a two car garage. Councilmember Coontz stated she has been involved with preservation since the 70's, and had hoped the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee members would have more of an historic background to deal with issues like this. She also expressed concern with a potential conflict of interest due to the fact that the architect Mr. Imboden works for is a member of the Design Review Committee, which can be intimidating to other Committee members. She noted Council makes the final decision and other groups are advisory to the Council, and referred to the California Supreme Court case, indicating there needs to be more information available to those who make decisions and those who advise the Council. No formal opinion was given from OTPA, and she noted there have been different positions from members of OTPA. Old Towne is a huge area, and she hoped they would hear from more people in the future. Councilmember Cavecche stated this was a difficult decision for her as she has personally been involved in similar cases from both sides. She agreed that the applicant had done due diligence, but in reviewing the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee Minutes, she found a common thread in comments made regarding using the location of the project as a reason for approval. She heard comments such as the building was on the edge of the District and that it was a logical transition from the adjacent commercial building into the neighborhood. However, in asking for a Conditional Use Permit for the second story, one of the rules of a Conditional Use Permit is to consider the project in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plans in which the project is located. She did not agree that a two story structure should not be PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) allowed anywhere on this block. There is a potential project here, but had some reservations with the south elevation, massiveness of the structure, and the problems with compatibility of the structure with the rest of the block. She suggested a compromise be looked at. Mayor Murphy stated he had no concerns with the process this project has gone through because the integrity of the process was upheld every step ofthe way. He empathized with the applicant in trying to respond to concerns, noting the first plans came in with a detached garage but were changed after comments made by the Design Review Committee. This type of inconsistency is frustrating because it is left to interpretation. He stated this proj ect meets the specific standards and guidelines and he could vote to support the project at this time. He was encouraged that this is a proposal for a single family residence and suggested a continuance rather than upholding the appeal and denying the project completely. Council discussed possible ideas for improving the project, agreeing that the biggest concern is the bulk and mass of the second story. Mr. Imboden asked for very specific guidelines and a quantifiable measure of how this can meet the approval of the Council. Council agreed the bulk and mass of the second story needs to be reduced and the extension over the garage needs to be eliminated. An attached garage could be acceptable if the bulk and mass were reduced. It was also noted that landscaping can be used to help with privacy issues on all sides. It was suggested this be continued to April 9th. Councilmember Coontz noted that any time there were extreme changes to a plan, it had to go to the Design Review Committee. The City Attorney stated the Council has the discretion as to whether or not it would go back to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Imboden concurred with a continuance to April 9th for final determination. MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Murphy AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Slater Moved to continue to April 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None.PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 12, 2002 15. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Slater AYES - Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Slater The City Council adjourned at 11:15 p.m. in memory of Gary Granville, Orange County Clerk-Recorder to an Adjourned Regular Meeting, Study Session at 5:00 p.m. on March 19,2002 in the Weimer Room to discuss Department Budget Goals.rJ4~~~~~CASSANDRA J. C. N CART, CMC CITYCLERK tltJe- ~~~MARK A. Y MAYORPAGE 23