HomeMy WebLinkAbout3_27_2001 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 10,2001
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING March 27, 2001
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on March 27,2001 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 David Daniel, Calvary Chapel
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Orange Association of Girl Scouts
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT -
None 1.4
PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS TAPE 100 A Proclamation
honoring Girl Scouts 89th Anniversary, March 12,2001, was presented to Susie Ratzlaff,
Cadette, Senior Advisor and Community Volunteer representing the Orange Association
of Girl Scouts. Presentations were given by Sue Burns and Melissa Ratzlaff of
the Girl Scouts Association.The following
employees were recognized with Employee Service Awards: (C2500J.4.18)Michael Harary -
Personnel; David Pasino - Police; Barbara DeLand - Community Development; Debbie Ritchey - Community Development;
Pamela Doss - Community Services; Antonio Barragan - Public Works; George McKinney -
Fire.Mayor Murphy announced:Police Chief Andy Romero wasawarded
the "2001 Hero"
Award at the recent Orange County Department of Education Human Services Conference for
his work with the youth in the community.There will be
an Open House on March 28th,
5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., at the City Hall Weimer Room. on the Plaza Preservation Project. This will
be an opportunity to review the plans, process and timing for the project.
Dash for Dare" will be held April 7th at
Fred Kelly Stadium.PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS (Continued)
Councilman Alvarez announced he received numerous donations and cards for Timothy
Salas, who is a young child fighting brain cancer. He also presented an angel, hand made
by Richard Crider, as a gift from Mr. Crider to Timothy.
2.PUBLIC COMMENTS TAPE 630
Mark Burkhardt, 3447 Ruth Place, thanked Gary Wann, Community Services Director
for his assistance in obtaining playground equipment at La Veta Park; and spoke about the
importance and effectiveness of the public bike trail meetings the City has been holding.
He also introduced the McPherson Neighborhood Association newsletter, which is
devoted to the proposed bike trails this month.
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 March 27, 2001 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 March 8, 15,
2001.ACTION:
Approved.3.3 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report, period ending February 28,
2001.C2500.
F)ACTION:
Approved.3.4 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 13, 2001
and Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 20,
2001.ACTION:
Approved.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.5 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda.
ACTION: Approved.
AGREEMENTS
3.6 Annexation Agreement Request by Stuart and Brenda Galentine to connect their
property to City of Orange sewer. (A2100.0 AGR-
3734)SUMMARY: Stuart and Brenda Galentine, owners ofresidential real property located
at 10342 Randall Street in unincorporated area of the County of Orange, have requested
to connect their house sewer lateral to the City sewer main in Randall Street. They
have executed an annexation agreement with the City of Orange and are requesting
City Council
approval.ACTION: Approved the connection request from Stuart and Brenda Galentine
and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute this annexation agreement on
behalf ofthe
City.FISCAL IMPACT: None. The property owners will pay all connection fees prior to
the sewer
connection.3.7 Geotechnical Consultant Services Agreement with Constant & Dickey, Inc.
relating to Vista Royale land movement. (A2100.0
AGR-3733)SUMMARY: Staff is recommending that the City Council terminate
the geotechnical consultant services contract with AMEC/AGRA due to the separation from AMEC
of the individual consultants that the City has utilized. In addition, staff
is recommending approving a contract with Constant & Dickey, Inc. to provide
geotechnical services relating to the Vista Royale land movement in an amount not exceed $
50,000.ACTION: I) Approved the termination of the AMEC/AGRA agreement;
2) authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign contract with Constant & Dickey, Inc. in
an amount not to exceed $50,000 and 3) approved transfer of all funds currently
appropriated for AMEC/AGRA to Constant &
Dickey, Inc.FISCAL IMPACT: None. The new contract with Constant & Dickey, Inc. will
be funded by a transfer of those funds appropriated for AMEC/AGRA in the
Professional and Consultant (Vista Royale) Account
No. 100-501-426700-4990.3.8 Consultant Services Agreement, RFP 001-24, for
Tot-
Lot at Hart Park. (A2100.0 AGR-3732)SUMMARY: Staff recommends
approval of an agreement with Coast Recreation, Inc.,in an amount not to exceed $60,000, for
the design
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
for the tot lot at Hart Park. Installation of the equipment will be handled separately, after
the design plans are prepared for bid purposes, the bids are circulated and an award can
be made. It is anticipated that the cost for installation will be an additional $45,000, for a
total project cost of $105,000. Since this project was not initially funded through the
Capital Improvement Proj ect process, staff is requesting that funds be transferred from
the Shaffer Tot Lot project and the EI Modena and La Veta Restroom projects, which are
being deferred to future years. Staff will return to the City Council for authorization to
bid and award of contract for installation at a later date.
ACTION: I) Transferred an appropriation from the Park, Acquisition and Development
Fund (510), account 510-7021-481105-0087 (EI ModenalLa Veta
Parks Renovation) in the amount of $20,000 to account 510-7021-
481200-0027 (Hart Park Renovation); 2)Transferred an appropriation from
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Fund (310), account 310-9645-
485100-1327 (Tot Lot Improvement Shaffer Park), in the amount of $
85,000 to account 310-9645-485100-0027 (Hart Park Renovation); 3)
Awarded the Consultant Services Agreement, RFP 001-24, between the City and Coast Recreation, Inc., for the
design and purchase of play equipment for the tot lot at Hart Park in an amount not
to exceed $60,000; and 4) Authorized the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.FISCAL
IMPACT: After
the transfer has been
executed, sufficient funds will
exist
in the
following accounts:
510-7021-
481200-
0027 (Hart Park Renovation):310-9645-485100-0027 (Hart Park Renovation):TOTAL:20,
000 85,000 105,000 BIDS 3.9 Project No. 3353, Approval of
plans, specifications and
authorization to advertise for bids the seismic retrofit and first floor renovation
of the Fire Headquarters building. (C2500.H)SUMMARY: Plans and specifications have been
completed for the seismic retrofit and first floor renovation of the Fire Headquarter building.
The project also comprises re-roofing and
ADA improvements. The project is ready to be advertised for bids. The
estimated construction cost is $1,500,000.ACTION: Approved plans and
specifications and authorized advertising for bids for the seismic retrofit and first
floor
renovation
of
the
Fire
Headquarters
building.FISCAL IMP
ACT: Funds are
budgeted and available
in the following
accounts:565-3021-
481105-2977 565-5011-
481105-2977 550-5011-
481105-2977 565-3021-
481105-2978 565-7028-
485100-2511 Total
142,949.45 113,
807.00
277,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.10 Purchase of an NCR 7731 Remittance Processor System through a State of
California Cooperative Purchasing Agreement. (C2500.J.l)
SUMMARY: Purchase of a new NCR 7731 Remittance Processor System from
Technology Unlimited Inc. for the Utility Services Division through State of California
Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) Agreement Number 3-
97-70-0304A.ACTION: Authorized purchase of the new NCR Remittance Processor
System for the Utility Services Division in the amount
of $86,688.FISCAL IMPACT: $88,000 is budgeted and available in
Account No. 600-1222-
471302,Water Fund Capital
Purchases.REMOVED AND HEARD
SEPARATELY)3.11 CLAIMS (C3200)The City Attorney recommends that the Orange
City Council deny the
following Claim(s) for
damages:a. Rhonda
J. Hall b.
Michael Thornton FISCAL IMPACT: None.Mayor Murphy asked for a clarification on the location listed in
the report for the second claim. The City Attorney ensured
the location would
be corrected.MOTION -
Murphy SECOND - Salter AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney
and
Adjuster CONTRACTS 3.12 Project No. 3228 - Award of Professional Services Contract for Chapman
Avenue and Tustin Street Critical Intersection Widening. (A2100.0
AGR-3731)NOTE: Councilmember Slater abstained on this item as he owns property
within 500 feet of the
subject location.SUMMARY: This contract authorizes the consultant to complete field
surveys, right-of-way engineering, and preparation of plans, specifications and cost
estimates for the Chapman Avenue and Tustin Street Critical
Intersection Widening
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Awarded a contract in the amount of $106,555.00 to Joseph C. Truxaw &
Associates, 265 S. Anita Drive, Suite III, Orange, CA 92868, and authorized the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute on behalf ofthe City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted or are available in the following accounts:
284-5011-483300-3228 $147,
600.00 (TSIP)3.13 Final Contract Change Order; Bid No. 990-
46; Project No. SP-3342,Metrolink Station
Restroom Improvements. (A2100.0 AGR-3630)SUMMARY: This Final Contract Change Order
authorizes payment for the extra work at agreed prices. The total contract cost for
this project is $46,062.00.ACTION: Approved a Contract Change Order No. 2 in the
amount of $2,088.00 to Hollister
Construction Company for the extra work.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted or
are available in the following account:926-9811-485100-
3006 $
2,088.00 (Metro link Station Restroom Improvements)
RESOLUTIONS 3.14 RESOLUTION NO. 9423 (A2100.0 AGR-3189)A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the completion of a certain public work
and improvement; Bid No. 989-12; A & B Electric; Furnish and Install Electric
Equipment for
Well No. 25 and
Reservoir No. 9A Pump Station.ACTION: Approved.
REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)3.15 RESOLUTION NO. 9430 TAPE 770 A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Orange approving a Traffic Signal and Easement
Agreement between
the City of Orange and Syufy Enterprises, a California Limited Partnership.Councilman Slater stated, "The reason
I pulled this item is that I believe there are some issues regarding this proposed signal
at the entrance to the SyufY project that we need to approve today to move
this forward. I guess sometimes you make a decision that you regret but I've had some
heartburn about this signal ever since it was first proposed, and finally I guess I decided that it was
the appropriate thing, but the more I thought about it I think I should have gone with
my initial gut
reaction in
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Especially when driving by it, these two signals that are proposed would be the closest
I've ever seen any signals back to back. Staff seems to be presenting the picture that the
main reason for the signal is to help out the King's Fish House. And it just doesn't sit
right with me to approve a signal to help one particular restaurant, which by the way
every time I'm in it seems to be doing quite nicely. It seems like it's a very growing
concern there. So to provide a signal just for this restaurant, when I think probably
basically it was the design of the center in the first place and the traffic circulation that
leads to this whole issue to begin with. And then there are potential safety concerns also
that I think Traffic and Engineering have addressed. However, there is I believe a
potential of traffic backing up into the intersection of Main and Katella. And also, I
guess, I can't buy the argument that people coming from westbound on Katella or the
Anaheim area would not stop at this restaurant just because they weren't able to make a
left turn directly into it. They can certainly make a left turn into the signal prior to that,
which gets you into the main parking lot. And I think as busy as the movie centers are,
it is probably the same distance to walk to King's Fish House as it would be to buy a
ticket to go to a movie. Anyway, I have spoken to the City Attorney's Office, and he
probably would like to say something about it but he's suggesting that if we change our
direction on this, and I may be alone on this, but if we do change direction on this he may
recommend a continuance so that we can analyze how this would impact the City from
the applicant's perspective. So, anyway, I can't further support this project."
Councilmember Coontz stated, " I think this has been a problem, an access problem for
quite a while. We do have problems with the City of Anaheim whenever Anaheim has
any activities going on there's been a difficulty to our own commercial establishments on
Katella, as far as access is concerned. But even though, as I understand it, and maybe we
have to have some more information from Linda Boone, our Economic Development
Director. Yes the Fish House did put money into this but then it does benefit all of the
east end of the Syufy project, which is where the restaurants are. And having gone into
that area for a long period of time, I know it's been a problem and we've discussed this
before. It's come all the way to the Resolution. I think it's extremely helpful. There is a
curb, there's a lack of knowledge about what's there in Orange in that area after you
come from Anaheim and I think it's a help. And of course, anything that we can do for
the economic benefit of that area would be a positive. Perhaps it was overlooked at the
time of the design, but this is why there was a request to put this through. That's all I
have to say about that."
Councilman Alvarez stated, "Questions for staff - I was looking at the layout that we have
as part of our staff report. Two questions - I'm curious as to the distances between the intersection
at Main and Katella and the proposed signal. That's question one.Question two
would be, how does adding this signal affect the Super Street status, if it does, of
Katella Avenue. If! understand right, the whole theory behind that Super Street was to
not to continue to add signals but to be able to synchronize the signals and minimize the
need for them in order to move traffic east and west."PAGE 7
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
The City Manager stated "in regard to specific issues on traffic, we can have our Public
Works Director, Mr. Thomas, address that and he may be the appropriate one to address
that particular issue and then overall, Linda Boone, our Economic Development Director
is also here to address some of these. And they were all thoroughly looked at, in fact
proposed by traffic engineering studies by the proponent by this before we moved
forward on this shared cost, and then further reviewed by our own traffic staff pretty
thoroughly. Mr. Thomas and then Linda Boone."
The Director of Public Works stated, "I don't have the precise distance of the signals,
approximately 450 feet I believe from Main to the proposed signal location. As far as the
Super Street, or as they're now called, Smart Streets are concerned, signal progression is
a significant element as are the widenings at various intersections to provide additional
turn lanes and one of the other features of Smart Streets are raised medians to control
access to adjacent properties and limit access as much as possible to signalized
intersections. At the present time, Katella does have funding for Smart Street
improvements, but not in Orange. In our review at that particular project when it was
proposed, and the comments that we made at the time, were that we didn't feel that those
improvements were really necessary on the Orange segment and we were very concerned
about the impact the proposed Smart Street improvements would have on our adjacent
retail properties, because we rely very heavily on driveway access, whether that's good or
bad, because a lot of driveways we use two-way left turn lanes rather than raised
medians to provide access and it has worked successfully for us and the volume on
Katella,although it's a six lane facility, the maximum is about 32,000 cars a day which is
not what you might expect on a facility of this width nor is it comparable to the
volumes further west. So we are not included and we are not likely to be in the foreseeable
future since all of the funds in Measure M for the Smart Street program are committed if
not over subscribed for the balance of Katella, Moulton Parkways, and I believe Harbor is
the other street that was funded out of some 27 or 29 streets in this
category."As far as the operational aspects of this are concerned, this only controls traffic in
one direction, that's westbound as it's a free movement - eastbound. It is a left turn in and
right turn out only. There are no ped crossings, so that means the amount of green time
devoted to the left turn movement is going to be fairly short, even if the pocket is fully
loaded. You're probably looking at no more than about 15 to 20 seconds, and typically,
for a crossing of a street like Katella which is controlled by the pedestrian timing, that
time would be on the order of 35 seconds or so to successfully cross that roadway
because of its width. It's never good to have closely spaced traffic signals from an
operational standpoint, or irregularly spaced traffic signals. It does inhibit the flow of
traffic, but unfortunately, in an urbanized setting, those ideals conditions are seldom
achieved, and where the type of land use that predominates the area is strict commercial,
or commercial that depends very heavily on access to the adjacent roadway, it's even
more difficult to achieve that ideal. Our feeling is that the signal is designed in the best
manner possible for the conditions out there to minimize the operational problems. We
don't feel that a back up situation is going to occur to the extent that's it's going to create
PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
problems at Main, at least not under current conditions. And it does provide an enhanced
situation for access to the site. Relying on U-turns has its problems even though there
is a left turn arrow at the intersection. Heavy U-turn movement at the intersection
of two multi-lane streets like this is not a real good circumstance either and that'
s theother option - there is an access I think off Main further north. You'd have to be
fairly familiar with the area to be able to recognize that, however. So weighing all
those considerations from an operational standpoint, we feel that what's presented to you is the best
we can achieve under the circumstances for the goals that are intended. The agreement
that is before you this evening really ties up some loose ends from the action that was
taken in January. It commits the owner of the property to pay for the annual
operation and maintenance of the signal. Grants an easement to the City for access to the
facilities that are on their property for maintenance purposes. It validates or verifies
their commitment to abide by the public contract code, which they are doing. And basically
is the document that we need in order to assure that the developer is assuming their fair
share of the burden of this particular installation in terms of its operation and
maintenance costs.If there are any questions, I'd be happy
to respond."Councilman Alvarez stated, "Mr. Thomas you kind of raised a few more
questions for me. Correct me if I'm wrong, when this development was developed by City laws,
it had to come up with a traffic plan for the traffic flow as far as traffic flowing in and
off the property. I know that had to be done and I'm really questioning what goals
we're meeting by adding another signal if the developer paid to have that, and now what
we're doing is adding another signal because he essentially took a design that's
not functioning for them now when it comes to traffic. That's kind of the conclusion I'm
drawing now."Mr. Thomas stated, "I think the issue that's there is the site plan that was
approved did not have the on-site circulation that would allow full access to the west end of
the site to that signalized main entrance and this particular installation addresses that
issue for those activities in about as effective a manner as it can be done
under current circumstances."Councilman Alvarez stated, "my final question, has the City spent any money
so far on this project. What commitments, as far as the City side of it, I
understand SyufY is looking to pay for everything, but I'm curious what we have
paid so far."The Economic Development Director stated, "it's been well over a year
ago that staff started getting inquiries from the businesses and the landowner at
the Stadium Promenade and they came to us because they said that they got repeated
complaints from customers who would come into the restaurants and say, I can't believe I took my life
in my hands trying to get here. Now that's an exaggeration but these are the kinds of
stories we got.And the constant complaints from the customers is what motivated
the restaurants to come to staff and say, do something, because people are going to go someplace
where it's more convenient. And staff has spent a great deal of time,
not just Economic Development, I think almost every department staff in the City has worked
on this deal and we researched it and analyzed it so many months that the property owner
will tell
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
that they were very irritated with us. But you're right, there were some pros and there are
some cons and the only way you work something like this is to analyze it and research it
and collect the facts. We did have a study, a traffic study, that we paid for, by Katz 0
Kitsu Company and the conclusion, and that was reviewed by our City Engineer, and the
conclusion of that was that this left turn lane would not significantly impact the Katella
traffic. And after staff got that report, I think we had a little more comfort. But in the
end, what it came down to for us was the benefits of the light are that people can make a
left turn lane in to the center instead of going down to Main Street and making a U-
turn.And I need to correct Harry because if you make a left at Main and then try to come
into the property from the north, it's illegal. It's a double yellow line there and you can'
t cross it. Sometimes people did that, thinking that looked like a good way to get in.
And we really investigated trying to take away that double line, because we thought, well,
if they can get in by a U-turn and by turning left and coming in from the north,
that should be sufficient. But all the traffic people told us that that was a more
dangerous situation because of the trucks coming out of the oil business there. That just couldn't
be done.But this particular light worked. And we felt like that the negatives - and that is
the people going west on Katella would be stopped whenever there is somebody that
wanted to turn left into the shopping center were outweighed by the benefits. And I think, we'
ve said a lot about convenience, but the real issue here is safety, and people
making maneuvers that they're not comfortable with or might cause danger. After all the
analysis and the traffic study, we went to the Traffic Commission on December 13th and
they approved the installation of the light, and they didn't do it quickly or without
much thought. It was debated at length and I think they did a very thorough job.
Again,looking at the pros and the cons which we all admit that there are. Then on January 23'
d,we presented the light to the Agency Board. At that time we approved $85,000 from
the Agency and SyufY, who was the landowner, committed $45,000. Part of the reason
we wanted to put money for the signal was because when we had done the improvements
to Katella, the sidewalks, the palm trees and all the stuff that makes it look so beautiful,
the company had not used all the money that they had been allocated. So we thought
that was fair to take the money they had saved to use to install the light. After it was
passed on January 23'd, then we raid to prepare the final plans. Bids were advertised and it
was awarded on February 15t. The award of the contract was to Steiny and Company
and they are set to pull permits. At that January 23'd meeting, I'd like to add, that
Gordon Biersch, Acapulco, Chili's, Kings Fish House, all testified. It's just not the
two restaurants that think it's a good idea. One of the reasons we made a
significant investment in improving the vision and the beauty of that street was to try to draw
people coming from Anaheim. The Pond draws a lot of people and it is about convenience.
And we want to make it more convenient for them not to stop at the brewery that's on
the other side of the bridge. I think that we will all admit that if we had to do it again,
we would have like to have seen a different plan. The landowner is very candid
about PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
saying, they made a mistake, they made a big mistake. But what we have to think about
is, do we just say, you made a mistake so we're going to abandon you and not help you
and it's just over and done with and write the center off? We thought that given the
tremendous investment in that center, $85 million, mistakes were made, absolutely, but
this is worth fixing it. In addition, I want to say that as a part of our agreeing to this, the
City, the landowner has agreed to put over a million dollars into the center to correct their
mistakes. They are going to completely refigure the parking lot. They're going to, and
I've never known this to happen, but the developer is actually going to eliminate square
footage so that it flows better. And this is just one small part of, I shouldn't say small, it
was one large part of trying to fix the mistakes that admittedly were made at that center."
The City Manager stated, "I don't want the audience nor the Council to go away with the
impression that the City has invested significant amount of money in this project. Going
back if you recall originally, we did appropriate some money from some of our flood
control monies that had accumulated and also a small amount of redevelopment monies.
But the vast majority, high ninety percent figures, were invested by the company itself,
by SyufY Enterprises. What money we were really putting forth was the beautification of
Katella Avenue when we re-zoned it so that it could have entertainment uses. That is
the primary area where our money was invested, not in the project itself. So this is
just another small amount we have invested in this project, but I'm not sure if we're
even close to hitting the $1.5 million for an $85 million
project."The Economic Development Director stated, "there is no redevelopment money in
this development at
all."Bob Bennyhoff, 10242 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, spoke about the
dangerous turn into this center and that the signal will be a
benefit.Councilmember Coontz stated, "I consider this to be a remedy. I think something
was said about the fact that this was their proposal, for the development. But it did
go through all the processes of the City of Orange and so you can't blame the
developer,because you know how many applications that we have that are exercised all the
way through the system - Design review Board, Economic Development, in this case Traffic,
before it ever comes to us, Planning Commission; and I think this was something very
new to us and it is very difficult to get in and out of there. Of course, if you come out on
the east end, you've got to go east on Katella. You can not make a left hand turn and go
north, which is what I like to do. So access in any direction is difficult, access and exit.
So I think we've learned a lot from this. This was very new to the City of Orange. This
is an area that we were not proud of a number of years ago. It has changed Katella
entirely with the Katella Corridor. And we also had some competition with Anaheim,
who denies access very often in their activities that are going on at the Pond to the east
end of Orange. And people are adamant that they come over here and it is not always
easy for them do so. So the more that we do in that respect, the better it is for economic
development and our City."
PAGE 11
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Councilman Slater stated, "Question - I've heard two different numbers in how much we'
re being asked to spend on this project. It's not the developer paying for all this. Is it 60,
000 or $85,000?"The
Director of Economic Development stated, "It is kind of confusing. This is redevelopment
money that goes into street improvements. It's tax exempt funds. What we
were doing is taking $31,812.95 that was left over, that were new funds, and then 53,
182.05 that was left over that they had saved by doing the construction. The two figures
together gives you the $85,000."Councilman
Slater stated, "I'll just conclude, I still feel as I do I think that's a great restaurant
too. I go there quite often and I wish them all the success in the world. From what
I can tell they're not struggling. I guess I would want to really see what kind of an impact
or how they are doing before I could really determine if this was necessary or not.But
irregardless of that, once a signal goes in it doesn't come out and I know the rest of my
life, I'll be looking at it and Ijust can't in good conscience support it."Councilmember
Coontz stated, "The question is, we keep mentioning that King's Fish House,
but the only reason, they're very entrepreneurial and they have a number of restaurants,
but as I understood it, they're just the front runner in seeing to it that something
got done. The changes would benefit that whole development there, not just King'
s Fish House. That keeps being mentioned, but has absolutely nothing to do with it other
than the fact that they were the lead in determining that there was a problem. Is that correct?
That's what I wanted to be sure of."Mayor
Murphy stated "Just a couple of observations, this would have been a really healthy
conversation to have back in January when before we made the commitments and spent
the front end of the money to do the engineering and put out the bids and award the contract.
I frankly still feel the same way I did in January when I voted for it, and that is that
it's a combination of private enterprise plus the City's responsibility in terms of projects
and safety of access as well as making an environment such that businesses can thrive
so that they can generate sales tax dollars which then comes back to the City in terms
of how we fund our services. And it seems to me, given the lessons learned, that this
investment, and it is a tandem investment between SyufY the owner, on behalf of the tenants
there, all the tenants, along with some funds that were saved from the previous project,
and an additional twenty some odd thousand dollars. is a reasonable thing to do as
an addition to try to improve a situation right now that has safety issues number one,but
also implications from a business standpoint as well. I would support moving forward
on this and would encourage the Council that when we do want to talk about these
things that we make sure that we do it up front on these things and not let half the PAGE
12
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
money get spent before we come back to it. Now certainly anyone has a right to have a
change of opinion, and I respect that and your thoughts, but I would just encourage that
we do some of this homework up front and then allow, once we do give the direction,
allow the process to follow through. I would support the suggested Resolution and
welcome comments from some of my colleagues."
Councilman Alvarez stated, "I think we're really having a problem with this and I don't
think I supported this quite frankly. I don't see our voting record on here. The
breakdown of the money really is not quite as simple as it's shown here. If you look on
the staffreport dated January 23'd, there is the $53,000 that's reappropriated funds from
the original owner participation agreement, which I assume that was with SyufY and then
the Agency throws in new funds of an additional $31,812 and then the folks the SyufY are
going to drop in another $42,000 for a grand total of $127,000 for one signal. I didn't
realize signals cost that much, but it just seems like a huge investment. It reminds me
almost when we were looking at those blinking crosswalk lights. It's a huge investment
and I really don't see the benefit for the public."
Councilmember Coontz stated, "Isn't SyufY putting III a million dollars or more.
Actually we're punishing economic development."
The City Manager stated, "I just want to urge the Council here to realize the allocation of
the money and although I know you're trying to be conscientious and prudent with the
dollars, again reflect on the amount of money that we have not invested in this shopping
center. Given our environment and the close balance that we have with our operations
going forward, we don't want to do anything that will jeopardize the further operations of
that center. It's difficult to calculate the actual return on investment, ahead of the fact,
but when you look at the dollars invested, it is truly miniscule compared to the
investment in the center."
Councilmember Coontz stated, "Does that include the future investment that you
mentioned that they're willing to put into it? A future investment of how much?"
The Economic Development Director stated, "well over a million dollars."
The City Manager stated, "We actually have a hotel site going in there."
The Economic Development Director stated, "Yes the hotel is another issue. But I would
like to agree with Councilman Alvarez that it is a very expensive light, but that is what
we wanted to do to make it have the absolute least impact on Katella that we could. It's a
light only triggered if someone goes in there and it's coordinated with the other light and
all the bells and whistles. This light does absolutely everything in order to impact the
traffic the least amount possible."
PAGE 13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Councilman Alvarez stated, "I wonder if we should just continue this and give us a
chance to look into it a little deeper. Is there an urgency in having the signal?"
The City Manager stated, "Linda can you advise us as to what stage we are on this thing.
This was only a clean up item as far as legality of approving a Resolution on this item.
We've gone through with Engineering and what part of construction are we at? What
kinds of commitments have we made?"
The Economic Development Director stated, "We've awarded the contract and they have
fulfilled everything in order to pull the building permits. So I guess we need to talk to
Public Works - can we keep them from pulling building permits and continuing?Because
then what would happen is they would build a light and we just wouldn't get reimbursed
for the maintenance."The
Director of Public Works stated, " The permits that are involved would be an encroachment
permit to construct in the public right of way and an electrical permit for the
project itself. Those are basically administerial actions. If they meet all the requirements
for the issuance of those permits, we don't really have a basis to deny those.And
I think they have fulfilled all their contractual requirements. As I indicated earlier,the
primary benefit of this agreement is to the City as things stand now because of the prior
actions that were taken and you heard the description of those. From a purely engineering
standpoint, our primary concern is to make sure the developer is obligated to pay
for the operation and maintenance costs and provide the easements so that we can legitimately
get access to the property to maintain the facilities that are within their driveway
area. There are some other elements in this agreement that are also beneficial.The
formal approval of the plans and specs provide some design immunity protection in the
event of future claims down the road, which can happen with any public facility and we
routinely plans and specs at the Council level for that reason. So these are the factors that
need to be weighed. I might point out that probably about half the cost of the installation
is the construction of the left turn pocket, because that requires modification to
the existing median, paving, new curb and gutter and a number of construction items.So
there is more work involved here than what might ordinarily be the case with a standard
signal installation. We can provide more detailed information on that if that would
be helpful. I don't know if it would change anything, but at this point in time,from
a staff standpoint, and staff wouldn't recommend this if we didn't think it was in the best
interest of the City. I think this agreement in particular is an important one from a City
perspective to have approved and move forward.The
City Attorney stated, "I guess I have a little bit different perspective. Obviously one of
the requirements of the agreement that was entered into I think it was between the Agency
and SyufY was that they would enter into this other agreement providing us the easement
and access. That hasn't been done yet. And I think because it hasn't been done,
that's a significant, and maybe not through any fault of their own, but I think that's a
significant provision in the agreement between the Agency and Syufy. So might PAGE
14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
thought on this was that if we don't' have the votes to approve this, give us two weeks,
come back to the City Council and say, okay, here's what the ramification are. It may
well be that based upon what little I know of this, we've already approved the project,
the contract has been awarded, so there's really no way, unless the Council votes 3-1
the opposite way, to stop the project from going forward. And it could be the project
goes forward and the only thing that doesn't happen is that we don't have our easements.
But I would like the opportunity to take that look and give the Council some advise on that
if there's not three votes to approve that
tonight."Mayor Murphy stated, "Can you clarifY the easement. It's a question from
Councilman Alvarez. Since he's a little under the weather, I'll speak on his behalf for a
moment.He's asking about the easements that are being referred to, where they are
physically
located."The Director of Public Works stated, "The easement is located within the driveway
area and the facilities that are being installed there are the vehicle protectors that
are embedded in the pavement or will be embedded in the pavement of the driveway and
I believe there are also some ofthe signal poles. It looks to be perhaps one signal pole
that is on the private property and there are some pull boxes and conduit connecting
the detectors and the signal pole installation to the balance of the traffic signal. Those are
the facilities that are on private property. The easement is necessary to provide access so
that we can maintain those facilities in the even they need to be replaced, repaired or
whatever the situation may
arise."Mayor Murphy stated, "Well I still honestly feel that based on all of what we know
that we really need to move forward on this thing and I'm going to throw a motion on
the table that we adopt Resolution No.
9430."Councilmember Coontz stated, "I will second it on the basis that there has been a lot
of work put into this. There's been a lot of opportunity for the Council to discuss
the aspects of this with the different City staff, if they felt they had a problem, and I think
the time is of the essence right now. We've made commitments as a Council and we need
to move
forward."MOTION - Murphy
SECOND - Coontz AYES -
Mayor Murphy, Coontz NOES - Slater,
Alvarez Moved to adopt
Resolution No. 9430.MOTION DIED MOTION -
Slater SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy,
Coontz PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Moved to continue Resolution No. 9430 to the April 10, 2001 Council meeting for a
report from the City Attorney on the consequences of denying the proj ect.
MOTION PASSED
TRACT MAPS
3.16 Request for a one-year time extension for the approvals of Tentative Tract
Map 15710 and Minor Site Plan Review 57-98 - George Klimek. (T4000.
TRT-15710)SUMMARY: On March 23, 1999 the City Council approved Tentative Tract
Map 15710 and Minor Site Plan Review 57-98, which allowed the subdivision of 6.2
acres into five parcels, each of which will be one acre or larger in size and to create
lots without direct access to public streets. The subject site is located approximately 500
ft. south of Santiago Canyon Road and east
of Jamestown Way.ACTION: Approved a one-year time extension for the
approvals for Tentative Tract Map 15710 and Minor
Site Plan Review 57-98.FISCAL IMPACT: The request for the time extension has no
impact on the city's budget. Implementation of the project will result in
the applicant paying all applicable fees related to site development as part of the issuance
of grading and
building permits.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz Items 3.11and 3.15 were removed and heard separately. Councilman Slater
abstained on Item 3.12. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved
as recommended.END OF
CONSENT CALENDAR 4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR MURPHY -
None.5.REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS TAPE
1930 5.1 Councilman Alvarez - Request use of Police Car for Taft Elementary School
Fundraiser.
Councilman Alvarez asked that this item be withdrawn from the Agenda, as the proposal has
developed into something larger than he is comfortable with.
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to withdraw
from the Agenda.PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
5.2 Councilman Slater - Request to adopt Resolution No. 9429 - supporting the John Wayne Airport
Settlement Agreement extension. (T2200.1.1.8)Councilman Slater
encouraged support of this Resolution so the City is not burdened with additional air
traffic into John Wayne Airport, indicating the cities of Tustin, Costa Mesa and Villa Park
also support similar resolutions.Councilmember Coontz
pointed out that Supervisor Coad's Office is currently researching the number of
flights at John Wayne Airport.Councilman Alvarez
stated that while he does not support the EI Toro Airport, he does support this Resolution.
He suggested that in addition to looking at the reported impacts of the proposed El Toro
Airport, the City also needs to look at the impacts ofthe John Wayne Airport.Mayor Murphy
asked if Councilman Alvarez would report back to the opponents of the El Toro Airport that
Councilman Alvarez supports this Resolution and the current restrictions at John Wayne Airport.
Resolution No.
9429 A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Orange requesting the Orange County Board of Supervisors commence
the extension process of the John Wayne Airport's Settlement Agreement to
assure continuation of current operation restrictions.MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Coontz AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz Moved to adopt Resolution No.
9429.6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES,
AND COMMISSIONS 6.1 Reappoint Mary Ellen
Laster and Diane Cotto as City Representatives to the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA)
Advisory Committee - terms to expire March 31,2003. (OR I 800.0.
3.2)MOTION - Murphy SECOND - CoontzAYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy,
Coontz Moved to
approve the reappointment of Mary Ellen Laster
and Diane Cotto to the Orange County Housing Authority, terms to expire March 31, 2003.
PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS (Continued)
6.2 Report from Audit Committee Chairman David Sundstrom regarding the activities
and accomplishments of the Committee during the past calendar year. (ORI800.0.27 .17)
David Sundstrom, Audit Committee Chairman, presented the annual report of the Audit
Committee.
The Council complimented and thanked the Audit Committee for their contributions. This
Committee was formed as a result of the County bankruptcy and has done a tremendous amount
of work.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to receive
and file.7.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
TAPE 2425 7.1 Report
from the Director of Public Works on the Award of Contract, Bid No. 001-25, Construction of
Water Well No. 26. (A2100.0 AGR-3729)SUMMARY: The
project improvements include drilling a pilot borehole to obtain downhole geophysical surveys,
installation of steel blank and louvered well casing, develop the well by mechanical and
pumping methods, and finally test the capacity of the well. The well site is located at
218 City Boulevard West.The Director
of Public Works reported staff is requesting a supplemental appropriation which is an advance
of funds that were programmed for this project for next fiscal year.MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Coontz AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz ACTION: I) Awarded the contract
in the amount of $379,375.00 to the lowest responsible bidder, Bakersfield Well & Pump Company;
2) authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract on behalf of
the City; 3) appropriated an additional $205,000.00 from Water Capital Fund 601 Reserves into Account
Number 601-8011-484101-8118, Well No. 26 Construction.8.REPORTS
FROM CITY MANAGER TAPE 2475 8.1
Presentation of the Second Quarter 2000-01 Budget Report which includes the period
July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. (C2500.E.4)SUMMARY:
This Second Quarter Report helps inform the City Council of departmental performance
for the quarter, including progress towards the achievement of departmental goals PAGE
18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER (Continued)
and completion of major capital improvement projects, and summarizes the results of the City's
financial operations.
The City Manager briefly reviewed the Second Quarter Report, reporting that in addition to some
adjustments to certain accounts, the primary issues are the recommendation of two new full-
time positions - a Police Communications Manager and a Traffic Signal Technician, and a $1.6
million adjustment to the Workers Compensation fund. He further reported that when a position
becomes vacated, it is carefully scrutinized and a cost benefit analysis is done to determine if the
position needs to be filled.
Councilman Slater stated there are good and necessary recommendations in this report and asked
what the unappropriated general fund reserves would be for the year. The City Manager stated
they are currently balancing those figures as the City goes forward into next year's budget and
suggested discussing this issue at the next Budget Study Session on April 9th.
Councilman Alvarez stated it was nice to see a greater emphasis on customer relations in the
departments' work plans.
Councilmember Coontz stated there needs to be more information provided to new employees
regarding the organizational aspects of the City. The City Manager assured her that this would
be included in the orientation for new employees
Mayor Murphy pointed out the money for the new position of Traffic Signal Technician is
actually a transfer of funds from an external source to an internal source, as the work this
position will perform was originally done with outside consultants and will now be performed in-
house and on a more efficient basis.
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to receive
and file the Second Quarter 2000-01 Budget Report; approve a $2,064,990 budget adjustment
from unappropriated General Fund reserves to be allocated into the specific accounts as
indicated in this report; approve a $964,805 budget adjustment from various non-General Fund
funds as indicated in this report; and Adopt Resolution
No. 9427 A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Orange establishing two new full-time City positions
and reclassifYing six existing City positions.9.
LEGAL AFFAIRS - None.PAGE 19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
10.NOTICED HEARINGS TAPE 2870
10.1 PROPERTY ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN, 2006 W. CHAPMAN AVENUE:
A2100.0 AGR-
3728)Time set for a noticed hearing on resolution of necessity to acquire the following strip ofland
for the West Chapman Avenue Widening
Project.2006 W. Chapman
Avenue Property
Owner:Assessor Parcel Number:
390-231-
03 Jeffrey Horner The Director of Public Works reported this is a 390 square feet strip ofland and that
in order for the Council to acquire any property, they need to make the findings that, I)
the public interest and necessity require the acquisition of the property for the proposed project;
2) that the proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3) that the property is
necessary for the proposed project; and 4) that an offer has been made to the owner of record
of the property pursuant to
California Government Code.No public
comments were received.
RESOLUTION NO. 9391 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange declaring the
public interest and necessity of acquiring certain real property located at 2006 West
Chapman Avenue and authorizing
the acquisition thereof.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Slater AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz
Moved to adopt Resolution No. 9391.
11. RECESS TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
12.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TAPE 3070
The City Council recessed at 6: 15 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:
a. Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:
Property: Parcel located at NW corner of Spring and McPherson
Negotiating Parties: Union Pacific Railroad and City of Orange
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
b. Public employee performance evaluation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: City
Manager
PAGE 20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
12. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION (Continued)
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.
Urgency Item to be added to Closed Session
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved that the
need to take action on the following item arose after the posting of the agenda:City of Orange
vs. Kord Group - Vista Royale Eminent Domain7:00 P.M.
SESSION 13.PUBLIC COMMENTS TAPE
3150 Roy Shebazian, 3808 E.
Palm, encouraged Council to support the proposed bike trails and to build up other modes
of transportation; and to seek transit improvements and bikeway facilities and to promote awareness
of existing facilities.14. PUBLIC HEARINGS 14.
1 2001-02
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
ACT PROGRAM (C2500.G.1.3)Time setfor
public hearing to consider the funding recommendations of the CDBG Program Committee and to
approve the City of Orange 2001-02 CDBG and HOME Programs. The City is proposing
to allocate a total of $1,619,750 in CDBG funds for a variety of community development activities.
This total includes the FY 2001-02 CDBG entitlement of $1,465,000 and $
154,750 of unexpended CDBG funds from prior years. In addition, the City is proposing to allocate
a total of $527,000 in HOME funds for property acquisition, housing development and rehabilitation.
The
Housing Manager explained the City receives an annual grant from HUD for activities that benefit
low and moderate income residents. The proposed recommendations are from the CDBG Committee
members who have worked for several months reviewing proposals and requests.The
Housing Manger thanked the Committee members - Jan Mickelson, Bea Vega, Mary Ellen Manning, Richard
Ledesma and Victoria James for their efforts. The Committee gave high priority to
City projects and also to projects of non-profit agencies based upon the projects'benefit
to low and moderate income residents, the agency's demonstrated capacity to carry out the
proposed activity and the reasonableness of the request.PAGE
21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27,2001
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
She explained there are three categories of funding - Administration (which can utilize no more than
20% of the total funds), Public Facilities and Improvements (65%) and Public Services 15%).
The
proposed 2001-02 CDBG budget of $1,619,750 consists of the current $1,465,000
entitlement and $154,750 in CDBG funds available from cost savings from prior years. The total
amount of funding exceeds the amount requested by approximately $250,000.
In response to questions regarding the Christmas In April Agency, the Housing Manager
explained this Agency received additional funding because their per unit cost is less than $2,000
and the CDBG Committee hoped they could expand the scope of rehabilitation work that is
proposed and help additional Orange residents.
Cy Baumann, 615 Cypress, Santa Ana, President of Christmas in April, stated they accept
referrals, many from the Senior Center and City agencies. They also actively solicit and recruit
from word of mouth and publicity. They are also trying to address handicap accessibility issues.
Councilman Alvarez asked about agencies that work with the Orange Unified School District.
It was pointed out that agencies such as Operation Clean Slate, the YMCAlYWCA, the
Assistance League and Lampson School have all made requests for funding in the past.
The Housing Manager further reported on the HOME program. The City's 2001-02 grant
is 527,000 and it is recommended to reserve those funds for future development, acquisition
and rehabilitation of affordable housing projects, with specific projects brought back during the
next year. The City does not have to identifY the specific projects at this time, but there is a two
year period in which the money needs to be
spent.MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC
HEARING The following individuals thanked the Council and CDBG Committee for supporting
their funding
requests:Kenneth Johnson, Director, CSP Drug Court Aftercare Program, 1821 E. Dyer
Road Kathy Leichtfuss, Orange Assistance League, 124 S. Orange
Street Kay Mather, Second Harvest Food Bank, 426 W.
Almond MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING Councilman Slater asked that a list be provided of the benefits the City provides to the
Orange Unified School
District.Councilmember Coontz also asked for a list of donations to the YMCA and YWCA that
directly involve school
children.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
14. PBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
March 27,2001
FY 2001-02 Community Development Block Grant Funding
Recommendations PROJECT/
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION City
Departments Economic
Development Administration and
Contingency Orange County Fair Housing
Council ADMINISTRATION TOTAL (20% Cap is $293,
000)PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
IMPROVEMENTS City
Departments Community & Library
Services El Modena, Prospect & Belmont Parks ADA Tot Lot
Imprvmt Public
Works ADA Ramp Improvements,
City-wide Storm Drain Const. - Collins from Shaffer to
Cambridge Strom Drain Const. - Shaffer from Santiago Creek to Culver
City Departments Public Facilities Subtotal
Non Profit Agencies
Christmas In April Serving Orange County
Rebuilding Together 2001-
02 Helping Our Mentally III Experience Success, Inc. (
HOMES)Riley House - Rehabilitation
Olive Crest Treatment Centers, Inc
Chestnut conversion project (Construction of office in foster home)
Orange Children and Parents Together, Inc.
Playground Climbing Structure Safety Matting
Nonprofit Agencies Public Facilities Subtotal
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL
PUBLIC SERVICES
City Departments
Community and Library Services
Prospect School, Killefer and El Camino Parks Programs
Police
Bike Team Program
City Departments Public Services Subtotal
Non Profit Agencies
American Family Living
Scholarship Counseling
Requested Recommended
269,430
23,570
293,000
269,430
23,570
293,000
171,000 $ 171,000
230,000 143,710
420,000 420,000
336,000 336,000
1,157,000 $1,070,710
15,000 $ 30,000
6,290 6,290
37,000 0
7,425 0
65,715 $ 36,290
1,222,715 $1,107,000
35,000 35,000
100,000
135,000
100,000
135,000
50,000 0
PAGE 23
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Assessment and Treatment Services Center
Youth and Family Counseling Program
Assistance League or Orange
Operation School Bell (purchase of school uniforms)
Casa Teresa / Hannah's House
Counseling Program
Community Service Programs, Inc.
Drug Court Aftercare Program
Council on Aging of Orange County
Long Term Care Ombudsman Service
Dayle McIntosh Center
Outreach to Orange (services for disabled individuals)
Friendly Center, Inc.
Teaching through the ArtslKindergarten Intersession Programs
Interval House
Interval House Crisis Shelters
Laurel House
24-hour Youth Crisis
Shelter Lutheran Social Services / Orange
County LSS / Friendly Center Emergency Assistance
Program Mariposa Women's
Center Mariposa Family
Program Operation Clean
Slate Campus Beautification Program for
Youth Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange
County Brown Bag Program (hi-monthly grocers for low
income
seniors)STOP-GAP Interactive Touring Plays for Seniors (theater based
therapy for seniors)
YMCA of Orange After
School Tutoring Program Nonprofit Agencies
Public Services Subtotal PUBLIC SERVICES TOTAL (15% Cap
is $219,
750)GRAND TOTAL
March 27, 2001 10,
000 10,000 13,
750 10,000 25,
000 10,000 9,
000 9,000 7,
000 7,000
5,980 0 10,
000 2,500 10,
000 10,000 2,
500 2,500 10,
000 2,500 20,
000 5,000
5,000 0 14,
800 11,250 6,
325 5,000
8,600 0 207,
955 $ 84,750 342,
955 $ 219,750 1,858,670 * $
1,619,750 Total allocation is comprised of the FY 2001-02 entitlement of $1,465,000 and $
154,750 from prior years that will be
reappropriated for FY 2001-02
Four Year Funding
Allocation Hisotry
1997-98 1998-99
1999-00 CITYDEPARTMENTS
Community and Library Services ADA Improvements-
City Facilities/
Main Libraryrraft Branch Library 250,000
o 2000-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
ADA Tot Lot Improvements 0 0 85,000 0 85,000
Prospect School/Killefer/EI Camino Park
Corrnnunity Programs 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 135,000
Senior Center Improvements 200,000 150,000 0 0 350,000
Community Development
Revised 2000 Housing Element 0 0 20,000 0 20,000
Clean Up Assistance Program 0 0 10,000 0 10,000
Economic Development
Administration and Contingency 268,620 184,170 150,000 262,665 865,455
Fire
Fire Prevention Specialist 50,310 0 0 0 50,310
Police
Foot Beat/Bike Officer 60,000 121,650 100,000 100,000 381,650
Graffiti Diversion Program 20,000 Fundedthru 0 0 20,000
OCHaif-
way
House Public
Works ADA Improvements-Curbs 122,220 [l]190,000 150,000 153,175
615,395 Street, Sewer, Storm Drain Improvements ~ 598,830 768,000 695,100 [3l 3,222,930 cJ1,
161,000 Street Light Improvements 250,000 0 0 0
250,000 Waterline Renewals 0 0 0 ~IOO,OOO
100,000
NON-PROFIT AGENCIES Assessment and Treatment Services Ctr 0 3,500 5,000 5,
000 13,500 Assistance League of Orange 4,000 4,000 5,000 5,
000 18,000 Casa Teresa 0 0 10,000 10,
000 20,000 Casita de San Jose 0 4,000 0
0 4,000 Christmas in April Serving Orange Co. 0 3,000 5,000 12,
350 20,350 Corrnnunity Service Programs, Inc. 9,000 5,000 9,000 5,
000 28,000 Dayle Mcintosh Center for the Disabled 6,000 0 5,000 3,
000 14,000 Episcopal Service Alliance 17,450 0 0
0 17,450 Fair Housing Council of Orange County 19,980 19,800 19,740 19,
935 79,455 Hart Corrnnunity Homes 1,200 0 4,000 16,
000 21,200 H.O.M.E.S., Inc. 4,900 13,000 12,8007,
755 38,455 Homework House 0 3,000 2,000 5,
000 10,000 Interval House 5,000 4,000 5,000 5,
000 19,000 Lestonnac Free Medical Clinic 0 8,500 0
0 8,500 00 Includes reprogrammed carryoveramount
of $164,170.21 Includes reprogrammed carryover amount
of $509,310.Includes reprogrammed carryover amount
of $588,000.Includes reprogrammed carryover amount
of $62,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 27, 2001
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Lutheran Social Services 0 0 0 3,000 3,000
Mariposa Women's Center 0 3,500 5,000 5,000 13,500
Olive Crest Treatment Centers 15,000 13,230 15,000 16,000 59,230
Orange Children & Parents Together 4,800 8,300 4,480 11,220 28,800
Orange County Council on Aging 5,000 4,000 5,230 0 14,230
Orange Co. Half-way House ( OCYFS) 0 10,000 3,000 0 13,
000 STOP-GAP 1,000 3,000 4,750 5,000
13,750 Turning Point Center for Families 5,000 3,500 0 5,000
13,500 YMCA of Orange 4,000 3,000 3,600 8,600
19,200 YWCA of Central Orange County 0 0 10,000 0
10,000
CDBG Program MOTION -
Alvarez SECOND - Coontz
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz I.
Approved the funding recommendations of the CDBG Program Committee for the City of Orange
FY 2001-02 CDBG Program shown on Attachment I.
2. Authorized staff to request and receive $1,465,000 in FY 2001-02 CDBG funding from
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and to
reappropriate 154,750 of CDBG funds from prior years for a total FY 2001-02 CDBG Program
budget of 1,
619,750.3. Authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute the Grant Agreement and
all related documents on behalf of
the City.4. Authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute Subrecipient Agreements
and all related documents with City departments and nonprofit agencies that will receive
FY 2001-
02 CDBG funding.HOME Investment
Partnership Act Program
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz
I. Authorized staff to request and receive $527.000 in HOME funds from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) for FY 2001-
02.2. Authorized the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement and all related documents
on behalf ofthe
City.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None.16.
ADJOURNMENT MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Slater
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz March 27,2001 The
City Council adjourned
at 7:30 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on April
9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room to discuss the Seven Year Capital Improvement Projects.
CASSANDRA J ('\THCART, CMC
CITYCL RK Cc lit
1-MARK
A. MlijijI MAYORPAGE27