HomeMy WebLinkAbout9_25_2001 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 9, 2001
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING September 25,2001
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on September 25,2001 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 Reverend Ginny Erwin, Trinity Episcopal Church
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Mayor pro tem Alvarez
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT -
None 1.4
PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS Recognition was
given to Economic Development Director, Linda Boone, for her recent public agency
award of the Ruby Slipper, from the Building Industry Association for a series of
articles that have served to educate residents about the broad issues affecting the local housing
market and the need for more housing in the community.Recognition was
given to Teen Volunteers for their outstanding service to the Orange Public Library
during the annual Summer Reading Club.The following
employees received Employee Service Awards:Karen Power -
Police; Lisa Tamburelli - Community Services; Marisol Lopez -Community Services; David O'Keefe -
Police; Lori Corbett - Police; Lisa Mattert -Finance; Jacqueline Whiteley - Police; Joan Wolff - Community Development;
Alan Rapoza - Fire; Stephen Phillips - Fire; Karen Klan - Library Not
present: James Fuenty - Police; Mark Hensler - Police; Janis Harrison - Library A proclamation
was presented to Karen Klan of the Orange Public Library, honoring her for40
years of employment with the City of Orange.Mayor Murphy announced:TAPE 700 Bracelets
are being sold as a fundraiser by the Oranli,e
Police Department to assist the
families of the fallen heroes from the September lIt terroristattacks; and a Pass the Boot
fundraiser is being held by the Orange Fire Department.PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
1.4 PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS (Continued)
The Orange Police Department held an Open House on Saturday, September 22nd
with approximately 1300 people in attendance.
Community meetings will be held on September 26 and October 3 to comment on the
proposed widening of the SR 22 Freeway.
The Council will adjourn this meeting in memory of Red Bauer, long time Orange
Park Acre resident and equestrian and Gary Conniff, retired City of Orange Fireman.
Councilmember Coontz announced the 10th Anniversary Race for the Cure was held on
Sunday, September 23cd. A 20 member team from the City of Orange, led by Barbara
Behrens participated in the race, raising $2000 for Breast Cancer research.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None.3.
CONSENT CALENDAR TAPE 850 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 September 25, 2001 at Orange Civic Ceuter, Maiu 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 August 23 and 30, 2001.
continued from September 11, 2001) and warrant registers dated September 6 and
13,2001.
ACTION:Approved.
3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting August 28, 2001
continued from September 11, 2001) and Regular meeting of September 11, 2001.
ACTION:Approved.
PAGE 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda.
ACTION:Approved.
3.5 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report, period ending August 31, 2001.
ACTION:Approved.
AGREEMENTS
3.6 Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement C95-986 with the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA). (A2100.0
AGR-2397-1)SUMMARY: This amendment updates existing Agreement C95-
986 making the City eligible to receive funding under the OCTA'
s Combined
Transportation Funding Program (CTFP).ACTION: Approved Amendment No.1 to Agreement
C95-986; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement
on behalf of the City.FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City will be
incurred as
part of the recommended actions.3.7 Agreement for the transfer of ownership of the
Police Service Dog, Bart, between the City of Orange, Officer Vic Steele, and Dan
Rabalais. (A2100.0 AGR-3526.A)SUMMARY: On May 23, 2000, the ownership
of Police Service Dog, Bart, was transferred from the City of Orange to Officer Vic
Steele. Officer Steele can no longer keep and care for Bart and Dan Rabalais, a former
City of Orange Police Department K9 handler has agreed to
accept ownership and responsibility for Bart.ACTION: Approved the Agreement relieving ownership
of Bart from Vic Steele and transferring that ownership to Dan Rabalais and authorized
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
agreement on behalf of the City.FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no
fiscal impact to the General Fund.3.8 Agreement between the City of Orange
and Correia Consulting and Design to prepare bridge designs
and construction documents
for Eisenhower Park.A2100.0 AGR-3861)SUMMARY: Approval of
Professional Services Agreement between the City and Correia Consulting Design in the amount not to
exceed $32,000 to prepare bridge
designs and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved the professional services agreement between the City and Correia
Consulting Design in the amount not to exceed $32,000, and authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds exist in Account #510-7021-485100-0092 in
the amount
of 32,000.3.9 First Amendment to consultant services agreement with
General Pump Company for the emergency action associated with the rehabilitation of Water
Wells 23 and 24, located at 3142 E. Walnut Avenue, adjacent to Santiago Creek;
and 2930 E.Collins Avenue, next to Fire Station No.2 respectively. (A2100.
0 AGR-3718.1)SUMMARY: The first amendment to the consultant services
agreement will increase the amount of money payable to General Pump Company for the
additional costs incurred for the rehabilitation of Water Wells 23 and 24, which
had developed operational problems and were
taken out of service.ACTION: Approved the First Amendment to
Consultant Services Agreement with General Pump Company; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk
to
execute on behalf oftheCity.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and available for the
contract amendment
in the following accounts:600-8011-
424101 Repairs to Buildings
and
Equipment 600-8011-
425100Maintenance of
Wells Total35,
051.00 37,470.
13 72,521.13 REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)3.10 First Amendment to
Consultant Agreement between Katie Coates Ageson, APR and City of Orange
for Plaza Preservation Project. (A2100.0 AGR-3525.1)Note: Mayor pro tem Alvarez abstained on
this item due to the proximity of his business.SUMMARY: The City Council
is requested to approve the First Amendment to the consultant agreement between Katie Coates
Ageson, APR and the City of Orange for the Plaza Preservation Project in the amount
not to exceed $11,000. The City is amending the
consultant agreement to provide additional compensation
for continued public relations services required for this project.FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds for the
project are
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Discussion
Councilmember Cavecche asked for clarification on why additional money was needed
for public relations for this project.
The Community Services Director stated the Plaza Preservation project is a very time
intensive and high visibility project, impacting merchants, businesses and visitors; and
the project schedule has been pushed back a little.
Councilmember Coontz asked for clarification on the term APR and asked that
terminology be explained in reports.
The Community Services Director stated APR stands for Accredited Public Relations.
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz,NOES - Cavecche ABSTAINED -
Alvarez ACTION: Approved
the first amendment
of the consultant agreement with Katie Coates Ageson, APR for the Plaza
Preservation Project in the amount not to exceed $11,000;and authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the consultant agreement on behalf of the City.3.11
Second Amendment to
Consultant Agreement between Chattel Architecture and City of Orange for Plaza
Preservation Project. (A2100.0 AGR-3167.C.2)Note: Mayor pro tem
Alvarez abstained on this item due to the proximity of his business.SUMMARY: The City Council
is requested to approve the Second Amendment to the consultant agreement with Chattel
Architecture for the Plaza Preservation Project in the amount not to exceed $
12,115. The City is amending the consultant agreement to provide additional compensation for
continued professional services required for this project. The professional services
will include additional time necessary to periodically monitor work relative to
construction observation.ACTION: Approved the Second
Amendment of the consultant agreement between the City of Orange and
Chattel Architecture for the Plaza Preservation Project in the amount not to exceed $12,
115; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the consultant agreement on behalf of
the City.FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds
for this project are in Account #500-7021-485100-9875 (Plaza
Preservation): $12,115.PAGES
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)
3.12 Agreement with Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) for Environmental
Health Services. (A2100.0 AGR-0041.
J)SUMMARY: For a number of years, the City of Orange has contracted with the
County of Orange to provide local public health inspection and monitoring services
required under various City ordinances relating to safe food handling and other public
health
matters.FISCAL IMPACT: The users, and not the City, pay for fees for services rendered by
the Health Care Agency. Therefore, there is no direct impact on the
City.
Discussion Councilmember Coontz asked if the Health Department had been notified about
the City's concern about grease traps in restaurants and if this issue would be included
in their
visits.The Assistant City Manager reported there has been a heightened interest of this issue
by the Health Department and they will maintain a higher level of
enforcement.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Cavecche AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ACTION: Approved
Agreement with Orange County Health Care Agency for Environmental Health
Services and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of
the City.BIDS 3.
13
A proposal to approve plans and specifications and authorize advertising bids for the annual
Slurry Seal Contract at various locations for the fiscal year 2001-02.S4000.
S.7)SUMMARY:
Plans and specifications have been completed for the annual street maintenance
slurry seal at various locations. The project is ready to be advertised for bids.
The estimated construction cost is $771,256.00.ACTION:
Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising bids for the Slurry
Seal at Various Locations 2001-02.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program and are
available in the following account:
262-5021-483300-3102 $844,184
Local Street
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.14 Project No. S.P. 3375; Taft Avenue Branch Library Renovation. Approval of plans
and specifications, and request authorization to advertise for bids. (C2500.I)
SUMMARY: Plans and specifications have been completed for the Taft Avenue Branch
Library Renovation Project at the northwest corner of Taft Avenue and Cambridge Street.
The project is ready to be advertised. The estimated construction cost is $1,152,407.00.
ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids for the
Taft Avenue Branch Library Renovation Project.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and are available in the Capital Improvement
Program in the following accounts:
310-9645-481105-9918 CDBG-
Renovation of Taft Library 725-
2001-481105-9918 CIP
Taft Library Renovation 725-5028-
481105-9918 Taft
Community Center 790-
1601-481303-9640
Data Processing Upgrade
Project 103,300.00662,
530.00 100,000.00 184,847.00 1,150,
677.00 Total 3.15 CLAIMS (Continued from September 11, 2001) (C3200.
0)The City Attorney
recommends that the
Orange City Council
deny the following
Claim(s) for damages:a. Tom Avik b. Larry Webster c. Freda
Main ACTION: Denied claims for
damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster.3.16 CLAIMS (C3200.
0)The City Attorney recommends that the Orange City Council deny the following
Claim(s) for
damages and deny the Application
to Present a Late
Claim:a. Elizabeth Moroughan
b. Chuck and Jennifer Naughton c. Mary A. Rose d. Cynthia Ann Tress ACTION:
Denied Claim(s) for damages and denied
Application to
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
CONTRACTS
3.17 Award of Contracts - Bid No. 012-03; (1) Project No. SP-3337, AHRP Project - Taft
Avenue Rehabilitation Phase 1 from Batavia Street to Glassell Street; and (2)
Project No. SP-3336, Taft Avenue Rehabilitation Phase 2 from Glassell Street
to Tustin Street. (Continued from September 11, 2001) (A2100.0
AGR-3838)SUMMARY: These two projects will rehabilitate Taft Avenue from Batavia
Street to Glassell Street, and from Glassell Street to Tustin Street. The two projects
are being combined into one construction project for economy of scale and
location benefits.ACTION: 1) Appropriated funds in the amount of $287,365 from Fund 550
to account no. 550-5011-483300-3910 for construction cost of
Taft Avenue Rehabilitation Phase 1 SP-3337). 2) Awarded a contract in the amount of $392,071.
01 to R.J. Noble Company,15505 E. Lincoln Avenue, Orange, CA 92865
for Taft Avenue Rehabilitation Phase 1 SP-3337), and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute on behalf of the City. 3)Awarded a contract in the amount of $559,702.
10 to RJ. Noble Company, 15505 E.Lincoln Avenue, Orange, CA 92865
for Taft Avenue Rehabilitation Phase 2 (SP-3336),and authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute on behalf ofthe City.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are
budgeted and are available in
the Capital Improvement Program in the
following accounts:1)
Taft Avenue Phase
1 (
SP-3337)550-5011-483300-3910
FY 01-02
934-9821-483300-
3910 FY 01-
02
Total 2) Taft
Avenue Phase 2 (SP-3336)
500-5011-
483300-3911
FY 01-
02 550-
5011-483300-3911
FY 01-
02
910-9801-483300-3911
FY 00-01 Total 287,365 AHRP 308,918 Northwest Project Area 596,
283 392,201 560,698 393,825 1,346,724
Capital Projects AHRP Tustin Project & Loan
Adm 3.18 Final Contract Change Order; Bid No. 001-31; Project
No. SP-3349, Improvemeuts to the existing Orange Senior Citizens Community Center (Continued from
September 11, 2001): (A2100.0 AGR-3755)SUMMARY: This Final Contract Change Order authorizes payment for the extra
work at agreed prices. The total contract
cost for this project is $186,538.00.ACTION: Approved
a Contract Change Order No.1 in the amount of $8,532.
00 to C.A.Granger
Construction, Inc.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
FEES
REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)
3.19 Approval of Emergency Transportation Fee Increase. (Continued from September
11,2001) (C2500.J.1.0.1)
SUMMARY: Maximum emergency transportation (ambulance) rates for Orange are
consistent with those approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The
Supervisors approved new rates effective July 1, 2001 and the City Council needs to take
a similar action approving maximum rates for the City of Orange.
FISCAL IMP ACT: The transportation fee increase will result in an approximate revenue
increase of $419,000.
Discussion
Councilmember Cavecche asked if the City is tied to the County rates.
The Fire Chief explained that the County establishes maximum ambulance rates and
cities typically act to increase their rates to coincide, but we are not mandated to do so.
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ACTION: Approved the
maximum rate schedule for emergency transportation ambulance) services adopted
by the Orange County Board of Supervisors that was effective July 1,
2001.PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
3.20 Purchase
of a 15 foot to 20 foot wide strip of land at 1520-1532 W. Chapman Avenue. (Continued
from September 11, 2001) (A2100.0 AGR-3839)SUMMARY:
This is one of the parcels necessary for the West Chapman Avenue Widening
Project. Offer was made and accepted by Syed M. Safdar and Naureen H.Safdar.
ACTION:
Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute all escrow papers and related documents
for the purchase of a 15 foot to 20 foot wide strip ofland located at 1520 to 1532
W. Chapman Avenue. Purchase price is $32,390.00 plus any related escrow costs.FISCAL
IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $32,390.00 are available in the Chapman Avenue
Widening Project - Account No. 550-50ll-483300-4038-(Measure
M-MPAH).
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.21 Purchase of a 5 foot to 9 foot wide strip of land at 1630 W. Chapman Avenue.
Continued from September 11, 2001) (A2100.0 AGR-
3840)SUMMARY: This is one of the parcels necessary for the West Chapman
Avenue Widening Project. Offer was made and accepted by Stuart D. Weske, Ian V. Weske
and Betty E.
Weske.ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute all escrow papers and
related documents for the purchase of a 5 foot to 9 foot wide strip of land located at 1630
W.Chapman Avenue. Purchase price is $23,365.00 plus any related escrow
costs.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $23,365.00 are available in the
Chapman Avenue Widening Project - Account No. 550-50ll-483300-
4038-(Measure M-MPAH).3.22 Purchase of a 5 foot wide strip of land at 1608
W. Chapman Avenue. (Continued from September 11,
2001) (A2100.0 AGR-3841)SUMMARY: This is one of the parcels necessary
for the West Chapman Avenue Widening Project. Offer was made and accepted by Ian V.
Weske and Betty E. Weske.ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute
all escrow papers and related documents for the purchase of a 5 foot wide strip of land
located at 1608 W. Chapman Avenue. Purchase price is $27,885.00
plus any related escrow costs.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $27,885.00
are available in the Chapman Avenue Widening Project - Account
No. 550-50ll-483300-4038-(Measure M-MPAH).3.23 Purchase of a 15 foot wide strip
of land at 1540 W. Chapman
Avenue. Continued from September 11, 2001) (A2100 AGR-3842)SUMMARY: This is one
of the parcels necessary for the West Chapman Avenue Widening Project. Offer was made and
accepted by Ian V. Weske and Betty E. Weske.ACTION: Authorized Mayor and
City Clerk to execute all escrow papers and related documents for the purchase of a 15 foot
wide strip of land located at 1540 W. Chapman Avenue. Purchase price
is $9,965.00 plus any related escrow costs.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount
of $9,965.00 are available in the Chapman
Avenue Widening Project - Account No. 550-50ll-483300-4038-(Measure M-MPAH).3.24 Purchase of a
9 foot wide strip of land at 1640
W. Chapman Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 2001) (A21 00.0 AGR-3843)
SUMMARY: This is one of the parcels necessary for the West Chapman Avenue
Widening Project.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute all escrow papers and related
documents for the purchase of a 9 foot wide strip of land located at 1640 W. Chapman
Avenue. Purchase price is $14,770.00 plus any related escrow costs.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $14,770.00 are available in the Chapman
Avenue Widening Project - Account No. 550-50ll-483300-4038-(Measure
M-MP AH).3.25 Purchase of a 5 foot wide strip of land at 1708-
1724 W. Chapman Avenue.Continued from September 11,
2001) (A2100.0 AGR-3844)SUMMARY: This is one of the parcels necessary
for the West Chapman Avenue Widening Project. Offer was made and accepted
by 1708-1724 West Chapman, LLC.ACTION: Authorized Mayor and City Clerk to
execute all escrow papers and related documents for the purchase of a 5 foot wide strip
of land located at 1708-1724 W.Chapman Avenue. Purchase price is $80,
010.00 plus any related escrow costs.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $80,
010.00 are available in the Chapman Avenue Widening Project -
Account No. 550-50ll-483300-4038-(Measure M-MP AH).3.26 Purchase of a 10 foot wide
strip of land at 2101 and 2133 W.
Chapman Avenue.Continued from September 11, 2001) (A2100.0 AGR-3845)SUMMARY: This
is one of the parcels necessary for the West Chapman Avenue
Widening Project. Offer was made and accepted by Hoskins Land Company.ACTION: Authorized
Mayor and City Clerk to execute all escrow papers and related documents for the purchase of a 10
foot wide strip of land located at 2101 and 2133 W.Chapman Avenue.
Purchase price is $50,656.00 plus any related escrow costs.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in
the amount of $50,656.00 areavailable in
the Chapman
Avenue Widening Project - Account No. 550-50ll-483300-4038-(Measure M-MPAH).REAL PROPERTY 3.
27 Request to appropriate $50,000.00 to maintain rental properties. (P2500.
0.1)SUMMARY: Certain improvements such as new roofs, new wiring and treatment for
termites have become necessary for City owned rental houses located at 1420 and
1432 Cannon Street, 5425 E. Valencia Drive and 617 W. LaVeta,
and other properties.ACTION: Transferred $50,000.00
from Fund 272-35000 (Unappropriated Reserves) to:272-5011-
424501-3424 $
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
FISCAL IMP ACT: Sufficient funds are available in Unappropriated Reserves to transfer
to these two accounts.
RESOLUTIONS
3.28 RESOLUTION NO. 9512 (C2500.P.3)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange terminating the emergency action
associated with the rehabilitation of Water Wells 23 & 24.
Well 23 is located at 3142 E. Walnut Ave. adjacent to Santiago Creek; Well 24 is located
at 2930 E. Collins Ave. next to Fire Station No.2.
Continued from September 11, 2001)
ACTION: Approved.
3.29 RESOLUTION NO. 9513 (C2500.M.16.1 LLN 2001-
10)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving Lot Line
Adjustment LL-200l-l0 adjusting lot lines of certain real property described as 388,
396, 404, 414,422 and 438 South Estate Drive (Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6, A, D & E of Tract
Map No. 15519 in the City of Orange, County of Orange, State of California, recorded
in Book 778,Pages 18 through 21, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Offices
of the County Recorder
of said County).Continued from
September 11,
2001)ACTION: Approved.3.30 RESOLUTION NO. 9514 (C2500.M.
16.1 LLN-2001-11)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Orange approving Lot Line Adjustment LL-200l-ll adjusting lot lines of certain real
property described as 2156 and 2160 N.Batavia Street (Parcels 1 and 2 in the City
of Orange, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 55, Page 27 of
Parcel Maps, in the Offices
of the County Recorder of
said County).
Continued from
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.31 RESOLUTION NO. 9515 (R3500.0)
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange consenting to and calling for a joint
public hearing on the proposed Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the
Orange Merged and Amended Redevelopment Project Area.
Continued from September 11, 2001)
See ORA Minutes Item No. 3.5)
ACTION: Approved.
3.32 RESOLUTION NO. 9516 (R3500.0)
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange finding that the use of taxes
allocated from the Orange Merged and Amended Redevelopment Project Area for the
purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low and
moderate income housing outside the Orange Merged and Amended Redevelopment
Project Area will be of benefit to the Orange Merged and Amended Redevelopment
Project Area.
Continued from September 11,2001)
See ORA Minutes Item No. 3.6)
ACTION: Approved.
3.33 RESOLUTION NO. 9517 (C2500.N.)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to Irene
Camey of the Community and Library Services Department and commending her for
more than twenty-six years of loyal and dedicated
service.Continued from September 11,
2001)ACTION:
Approved.REMOVED AND HEARD
SEPARATELY)3.34 RESOLUTION NO. 9518 (S3500.A.
I0)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange supporting the City of Anaheim'
s request to have Caltrans add the name "Anaheim" to the thirteen existing
directional signs along the northbound State Route 55 Freeway from John Wayne Airport to
State Route 91
Freeway.Continued from September 11,
2001)PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Councilmember Coontz reported she and Councilmember Slater have been on a
committee working with Cal Tans on the 55 Freeway project and this issue has not come
before them at that Committee. Cal Trans limits the number of signs along the freeways
and expressed concern that the City of Anaheim is asking for something special. She
suggested this be taken to the District Director and get a policy from Cal Trans.
Councilrnember Slater stated that most people traveling to Anaheim from the John
Wayne Airport area would use the 5 Freeway as Anaheim barely touches just the very
end of the 55 Freeway. He did not see any good reason why this signage was necessary
and could not support it.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ACTION: Continue to
a date uncertain.3.35 RESOLUTION
NO. 9523 (C2500.K)A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Orange expressing apprecIatIOn to Detective Joseph A.
DuPuis of the Orange Police Department and commending him for twenty four years
ofloyal and dedicated service.ACTION: Approved.SPECIAL
EVENTS REMOVED
AND HEARD
SEPARATELY)3.36 Request
for temporary suspension of permit parking restrictions within Permit Parking Area "I" (
McPherson Sports Complex) for a special event on Saturday -September 29, 2001. (S4000.
S.3.1.2)SUMMARY: The Orange Junior
Soccer Club will celebrate their 35th year anniversary with a "Celebration of
Soccer" at McPherson Sports Facility. Due to anticipated attendance it may be
necessary to park in the surrounding residential neighborhood adjacent to the sports
complex, which restricts on-street parking except by Permit.FISCAL IMPACT: None
Discussion Mayor pro
tem
Alvarez suggested staff should meet with organizations who use McPherson School on
a regular basis to get an ongoing schedule of events as the neighborhood should be
given advance notice. He also asked if any traffic control devices will be
used for this event.PAGE 14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Councilmember Cavecche stated she did not want to jeopardize the Soccer event, but was
concerned for the neighborhood and asked if the parking and traffic will be monitored.
Councilmember Coontz noted she had suggested in the past that these types of events be
calendared ahead oftime, both for the benefit of the Council and the neighborhood.
Councilmember Slater asked about mitigation measures which were implemented at the
time of approving the sports complex at McPherson School.
The Director of Public Works reported he was not aware of any mitigation measures that
have not been implemented but will review this.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff will be glad to meet with organizations and in the
future, will be sending out notices sooner. Traffic delineators will be used and traffic will
be monitored during this event to maintain safety.
Mayor Murphy suggested Council receive at least 30 days notice of any events such as
this.
MOTION - Cavecche SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ACTION: Approved the
request of the Orange Junior Soccer Club suspending permit parking restrictions within
Permit Parking Area I, on Saturday, September 29,2001.TRACT MAPS 3.
37 Request
from Sun Cal Companies to approve the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 16130, Final
Tract Map No. 16131 and Final Tract Map No. 14360.T4000.0 TRT
16131 /14360)SUMMARY: Sun Cal
Companies is requesting that the City Council approve the recordation of Tract
Map No.'s 16130, 16131and 14360. These maps are the remainder single-family homes
in Serrano Heights Development - Phase II, approved by Council as part of Tentative
Tract Map 14360. All plans have been approved, fees paid and bonds posted to guarantee
improvements.ACTION: Approved for
recordation Final Tract Map No. 16130, Final Tract Map No.16131 and Final
Tract Map No. 14360.FISCAL IMPACT: None.
PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
TRAFFIC SAFETY
3.38 Report on traffic safety related issues at the intersection of Prospect Street and
Maple Avenue. (S4000.0)
SUMMARY: A follow-up report of safety related issues at the Prospect Street
and Maple Avenue intersection considered by the City Council on May 8,
2001.ACTION: Received & Filed
report.FISCAL IMPACT:
None MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Cavecche AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Mayor pro
tem Alvarez abstained on Items 3.10 and 3.11. Items 3.10, 3.12, 3.19, 3.34 and3.
36 wereremoved and heard separately. 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 1600 5.1 Councilmember
Slater - Resolution supporting the preservation of Barham Ranch continued from August 14
and 28 and September 11,2001). (C2500.D)Councilmember Slater explained this
Resolution states publicly how the City Council feels about the ultimate use
of Barham Ranch, primarily that it be preserved in perpetuity as a wilderness park, added to
the County's park land system and eliminates the doughnut that is in the middle ofthe park
land.It is his understanding
that the County is interested in purchasing this land. He had received a letter from Supervisor Spitzer
saying the Supervisor is very interested in pursuing this and that the County has the
money to purchase it.The School Board had
requested the Council continue this matter from the last Council meeting until the Board had
an opportunity to discuss it. Since then, one of the Board members suggested the Board explore
the idea of selling the property to the County and it has been agendized for an upcoming
Board meeting. The School Board has been provided with a copy of the Resolution and are
aware of it.PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
This property is public land and within Orange's sphere of influence and we should give input on
how the Council would like to see Barham Ranch. The timing ofthis is important.
Councilmember Coontz reported she had talked to several Board members about this. They had
individual thoughts on it, and a consensus will probably come later.
Shirley Grindle, 5021 E. Glen Arran, stated it is very important to preserve Barham Ranch and
preserve the integrity of the County regional park system. This property is adjacent to Santiago
Regional Park, Irvine Park and the future Weir Canyon Park and it is important that the City let
the School District know how the City feels about the future use of Barham Ranch.
Mayor Murphy stated he has had an opportunity to hike this property and definitely feels it needs
to be preserved. This is a win-win situation as money can be used for educational purposes
and the land can be used for the entire resident
base.Councihnember Slater noted that if the property is sold to the County, the School District
would have the opportunity to use it for educational purposes, such as field trips or as a nature
center,which will benefit the School District and preserve the
property.RESOLUTION NO.
9510 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange supporting the preservation of
Barham
Ranch.MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Coontz AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to
approve Resolution No. 9510.TAPE 2320
5.2
Mayor pro tem Alvarez to report on the confidentiality of the City Council's attorney client
privilege being compromised. (Continued from September 11, 2001)C2500.D)
Mayor pro
tem Alvarez expressed concern that information which is traveling between the City Attorney and
the City Council is ending up in the newspapers and becoming public information.He asked
for a policy on how to keep information private and also on how to dispose of paperwork, and
wants an assurance that items discussed in Closed Session stay there.The City
Attorney explained the Attorney-Client privilege is a legally recognized protection against
the forced disclosure of communications between an attorney and a client. The privilege is
held by the client and in this case, the City Council is the client. Therefore, it would take an action
by the majority of the City Council to waive the privilege. No individual can waive that privilege.
He can suggest policies but it would need agreement as well as self policing efforts by
the Council.PAGE
17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Council agreed on the importance of acting as a governing body and moving forward with the
best interests of the City; and the need to buy into any policy relating to confidentiality of
documents.
The City Attorney was directed to develop a policy on how to dispose of documents; if memos
can be distributed in Closed Session so they are collected in Closed Session; and determine if
there are other ways to distribute confidential documents and make sure documents are tracked
from the Attorney's Office to the Council, and then properly disposed of.
5.3 Mayor pro tem Alvarez - request City Council to take action on withdrawing the City'
s membership from Orange County Regional Airport Authority (OCCRA).The
discussion on this item is stated for the record.Mayor
pro tem Alvarez - "I placed this on the Agenda because I thought it was timely in terms of the
City taking a second look at our membership in the OCRAA organization or also known as Orange
County Regional Airport Authority. The reason why I thought it was timely was there was a
mailing that had come out to members of our community. And if you recall, about a month ago
we had Councilmember Robert McGowan from the City of Villa Park mention that the OCRAA
organization was going to start using the name of the City of Orange in documents or paraphernalia
like this that they were going to be mailing out. It gives I think in my view, the inference that
the entire City of Orange is supporting what is being put out by the County and on page 3
of their document, in very small print - for the record - it says, this document has been created, produced and distributed
by the Orange County Regional Airport Authority for the County of Orange El
Toro Local Redevelopment Authority, also known as LRA, as part of the County's Just the
Facts public information program. OCRAA's 16 member cities - and it lists them and Orange is one
of them. And the reason why I bring this to your attention is if you recall when we became a
member of OCRAA it was basically for information that was going to be gleaned from our representative,
Councilmember Dan Slater, and that we weren't really going to be participating, it was
my understanding" in any kind of ad campaign.With that, I'd also
like to say that for the past seven years, we know that El Toro has been really divisive, in terms of what'
s going to happen there, in the County. I can't think of another issue in this County that has
been more divisive, either north or south, or east or west, in this County.I think the County's
plan for an airport is probably the most controversial that has come before all the citizens here in
Orange County.And I think two years
ago, when the City of Orange voted for Measure F, it was overwhelming.Over 60% of Orange voters
supported Measure F that was designed to stop an airport at El Toro.And despite the fact that
countywide it is almost 2 to 1 in favor of Measure F, the Board of Supervisors, of which OCRAA is
advising, continues to develop an airport, which quite frankly I don't think anybody in
this room or anybody watching on television supports.PAGE 18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Anti-airport volunteers have been circulating an initiative to repeal airport zoning at El Toro
and replace it with a land use designation that would create of one of the great metropolitan
parks.More than 140,000 County residents have signed a petition to place this initiative on the
ballot,of which
I was honored to be able to be one of the signatures along with our Assemblyman from
our District, Assemblyman Bill
Campbell.But also Chapman University, which is located in our City, has conducted recent surveys
that continue to show that the margin is more than 2 to 1 of Orange residents supporting
something other than the El Toro Airport. And that there is a strong support for an Orange County
Central Park and Nature Preserve Initiative in this County, and for good reason, and also in this
City.But Orange sits under one of the most likely flight paths that would take place ifEl Toro was
to become an airport. And if you recall from our study session of last week, even the
County officials could not promise us, or guarantee us, that there would be no flight paths over
Orange.And quite frankly, were quoted as saying that it would be, what they term, a maximum take
off-if I remember the term correctly - for an airplane to fly out of El Toro, and that increases the
likelihood, almost a hundred fold, that in an engine burnout that that would take place right over
the City of Orange. And because of our proximity to El Toro this means that the City of Orange
is going to be right in line - whether they turn left or right, or however you want to argue the flight
paths, Orange is in the path.And
because there is another alternative, which I term the Great Park, I think Orange would definitely
benefit. And there is no Councilmember sitting up here that hasn't publicly stated in the
past that we want more parks for Orange. And I think this is an opportunity for Orange residents
to really put forward what they would like to do. And I think us, as Councilmembers, I feel
should support a great park because it is going to benefit everybody in this County, not just in
Orange.The
County has offered Washington, and people in Washington, millions of dollars, as we both know,
as the fight has been fought in Washington and in Sacramento to try to lobby for an airport
that quite frankly, even Councilmember Bob McGowan from Villa Park calls the wrong way
airport.I
want to conclude by saying that I brought this forward. I think it's really time that we take another
look at our membership. If you recall from our study session that both myself and Councilrnember
Cavecche had asked what authority does OCRAA have in helping make this decision,
and the answer is they have no authority. What influence does OCRAA have over the Board
of Supervisors to determine policies that would be at El Toro Airport. We're basically told
they have no official authority. And because of that, I think we need to join everybody here in
the City of Orange in saying No to the County's Plan at this time. I think the only way they're going
to get a message from us is to withdraw membership from OCRAA. And maybe after that,
they'll begin to listen to the City of Orange and our concern."PAGE
19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Public Comments
The following people spoke in favor of withdrawing membership in OCRAA:
John Lewis, 4204 E. Townsend
Bill Campbell, 9501 Henderson, Villa Park
Peter Wetzel, 7217 E. La Cumbre
Brian Lochrie, 360 N. Pine Street
Kurt Belfils, 7223 La Cumbre Drive
Meg Waters, Trabuco Canyon
Steve Ambriz, representing Supervisor Todd Spitzer
Bill Kogerman, 25231 Mawson Drive, Laguna Hills
Mark Foley, 7420 Pinto Way
Cheryl Heinecke, Aliso Viejo
Fred Smoller, 611 North Glemose Drive
K Higgins, 456 N Shaffer Street
Jon Dumitru, 860 N. Kathleen St., #A
Tom Feeley, 5200 Irvine Blvd, #490, Irvine
The following people spoke in opposition to withdrawing membership in OCRAA:
Heather K. Somers, Costa Mesa
Col. Jack Wagner, Irvine, representing Orange County Regional Airport Authority, submitted
a handout from OCRAA
Alice Martinez, 3345 E. Vine Ave.
Kathleen Voshall, 20002 Santiago Canyon Road
Herb Barke, 2022 Spruce
Art Bloomer, Irvine
Councilmember Slater - "Last week we had a study session and it was great to have input from all
of the players. One was from a Villa Park, pilot and Councilmember who supports the airport but
not the plan the County is proposing. And we heard from the County and we heard from the people
that oppose the airport. As your representative on OCRAA for the last couple of years, I have
been very involved in trying to represent the City's interest at these meetings and I was glad to
hear the OCRAA representatives state that. In fact, I was Vice Chairman last year. They wanted
me to be Chairman this year, but I declined. So with that background and all the knowledge
I've gleaned, I'm really in a quandary here as to what to do, and I'll try to make this as
brief as I can to explain why.One
thing I can tell you for sure and I don't want this to sound like a leading statement, but more than
ever, even after the study session last week, I am convinced that for the future of Orange County,
we need to have an airport at El Toro. The County needs it for the future. What will happen
if we don't have this airport is that all we're going to do is drive the expansion of John Wayne
Airport and increase air traffic over the City of Orange.PAGE
20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
The impacts of arrivals over East Orange are already very very significant and a real nuisance.
That is only going to increase if we only have one airport at John Wayne. Again, as was stated,
John Wayne Airport is 500 acres. El Toro is 4700 acres. It has a 18,500 acre no-home
buffer zone around it. That airport can be built in such a way that it will not impact any
existing residences. But that's not what the County is shoving down our throats right
now.The Great Park sounds like a great idea. It's hard to be against parks - everybody loves parks,
but an airport alternative should include a park component and all of the airport alternatives
being put forward include a very very large park component. In fact, this park component is
very environmentally important because it will connect wildlife corridors. We need an airport
but we need one that's the most safe and impacts the fewest number of residences.
On October 16th the Orange County Board of Supervisors is going to again consider finally
adopting the EIR and adopting their favorite master plan. Well, I think sometimes that the three
pro airport Supervisors are doing a better job of opposing this airport than the two anti County
Supervisors. I mean, really. And I will say it, what they've been shoving down our throats for
the last two years is complete nonsense and that is, in my opinion, why so many people are now
coming to the anti airport side because they know that what the County is putting before us is
complete nonsense. The closest thing I can compare it to is driving down the freeway the wrong
way. This airport is completely backwards. They have this airport taking off with the wind,
toward the mountains and landings coming in over existing residences. That is just not
necessary. There exists an alternative out there - it's being put forward by the pilots, that has this
thing completely switched around. Aircraft would land from the north, take off over completely
undeveloped areas along Newport Coast. It would impact no existing residences in the
County. It would be the most safe and it would be very efficient. It would make the most sense.
But the people of Orange County are wise to the fact that what the County is proposing before
us makes no sense at all.The
thing that even upsets me even more is that I have not met a pilot yet that thinks that what the
county is proposing makes any sense. All the pilots are opposed to what the County is proposing
for very very good reasons. It seems to me like sometimes the County Board of Supervisors
are more interested in the future plans of the Irvine Company and other monied interests
in Newport Beach than they are in the existing residents of Orange County. And that's just
plain wrong. The runway that they're proposing, the northerly take off, is going to potentially
impact the City of Orange. It doesn't have to. It's going to go right over our sphere of
influence. And I stood on top of Loma Ridge when the 747's went over and I thought, this isn'
t going to be good. I told Bob Bennyhoff, I was standing right next to him, I said we are not going
to be able to build homes under this. But we can plan around it. It's going to be an impact for
the future of East Orange. It wouldn't have to be ifit were switched the other way around.As
for membership in OCRAA, I'm frustrated with that in a way. And there's a lot of OCRAA members
that are quite frankly frustrated too, because it seems like the County is driving that ship.
We are meeting again on October 10th and I'm going to agendize for that meeting that OCRAA
weigh in on what the County is proposing before it's too late.PAGE
21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Jack, I'm disappointed that at the last study session, you said that OCRAA was supporting the
County's plan or has decided to support the County's plan. We have never decided which plan
particularly we're going to support. I'm really not happy with seeing the City of Orange, as was
mentioned, listed as supporting the County's plan. It is a flawed plan.
Like I said, there exists a plan that does make a lot of sense that the pilots do support. I can't buy
the rhetoric against the airport. This is not going to be an LAX South. That is a completely
ludicrous statement. It can be extremely well planned. It could be a real shining star in the
County and have a park adjoined to it. It could be the best of both worlds. I think the Great Park
Initiative should be called the Great Pork Initiative. No one can convince me that an airport
won't generate the greatest amount of revenue for the County. A park is never going to do that.
Should the City Council take a leadership role? Absolutely. And I think the only way we can do
that honestly - and I'm hoping that as a member ofOCRAA and being very involved in this issue that
I can convince the Council to go along with me, I think we need to send the County a message
that they're going to hear because we have not gotten through to them. They are so stubborn
I can't even believe it. But I will support the withdrawal from OCRAA. I think it is the right
thing to do, and I'd like for the Council to do that unanimously. And follow my train of thought
here. I'd like to do so effective October 11th because we have one more OCRAA meeting
on October 10th at which I'd like to plead our case. But I would support the withdrawal from
OCRAA effective October 11th. I also suggest that we send a letter to the Board of Supervisors
supporting an airport, but opposing the master plan that they want to vote on on October
16th, because it is wrong for the City of Orange and it is wrong for the County. They need
to get that message.Also,
the pro airport pilots are supporting a reasonable airport alternative. They are struggling to
get that on the ballot. The Board of Supervisors won't even consider it. But here's an option for
the County to say, OK we have a proposal for a Great Park. We have a proposal for an airport
that makes sense on a regional basis. Orange County and Southern California has to be a part
of the big picture, and we can't just thumb our noses at L.A. and say, well, expand LAX or go
out to the desert or anything like that. Aircraft is the future of the County and we have to have
airports that we can support.This
unfortunate tragedy of September 11 th - I'
m quite convinced and I trust that our federal government is
going to do whatever it takes to ensure that aircraft are as safe as possible and I think that
we're going to return to normal air traffic activity very soon. And in the future there's going to
be a huge demand for air traffic.So again
I think what we should do is withdraw from OCRAA effective October 11th, state the reasons why,
send a letter to the Board of Supervisors supporting an airport but opposing the Master Plan
that they are considering and also suggest that they put the reasonable airport alternative on
the March ballot so the taxpayers, the citizens of Orange County can have a real choice on
what to do with this property. "PAGE 22
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Councilmember Coontz - asked about the October 11 th date.Councilrnember
Slater- "our last OCRAA meeting is October 10th. No ifs, ands or buts, we are going
to withdraw but it would be effective October 11th. But I want the chance to speak to the issue."
Councilmember
Coontz - "I appreciate the work that you have been involved with OCRAA because we
needed someone on the Council to represent the City of Orange. I also have to say that I
did watch the television program the other night in its entirety. I do appreciate that. I think one of
the reasons that we have remained in OCRAA is because we can't trust ETRPA to do what we
need to do for the City of Orange. We can't trust the LRA, we can't trust the Airport Working Group,
and we certainly can't trust the Mayor ofIrvine, Agran's fund of money, to help us, because
everyone has a different goal and it is not the City of Orange. As a daughter of a military officer,
I feel very strongly about the protection of our country. I am very sorry that the Marine Corps
left and I know that having read something the other day about Congress and their unwillingness to
let the program go ahead to reduce more airports in the United States. Not going to
let Bush do that. I hope that works because I think we need the airports. I lived on the coast during
World War II in the Bay Area and in San Diego, and I want to tell you that security is extremely
important to me.I believe
that you can give the message to OCRAA. I think there has been confusion about just where OCRAA
is going. I agree with you on that. One of the problems I see, however, is that the FAA
has not come out with their report. I have a feeling they're going to take their time,because they
certainly have national issues to deal with now that they're focusing on. So, I believe that
the whole issue of El Toro, wherever it goes, is going to take quite a while. It shouldn't
take a short time, but we think it should just because we're tired of the whole issue.A couple
of other thoughts on this. On the Great Park, someone mentioned that national parks make money.
They don't make money - absolutely not. I think the El Toro Plan includes just about everything you
could think of and it certainly is a larger area.I think the
bottom line is the City of Orange. People forget that the planes from John Wayne go over the City
of Orange and are continuing to go over the City of Orange, and that in the future,if we don'
t have an airport, it will become even worse. It won't be just East Orange. It will continue to be
this area right here, Old Towne, and all the major parts of Orange that have been in existence for
many years. So I appreciate the Councilman's words and I think none of these other agencies, including
the Board of Supervisors, is going to listen to us. We have to figure out many ways
to get our point across. And speaking to OCRAA is just one. And might I suggest that we
stay in there until you get something done. But that's up to you because you're the representative."Councilmember
Cavecche - "I
was actually pushed off the airport fence last November when I was attacked by the
Airport Working Group. And when I start to question the integrity of an organization, I start to
question the integrity of the message they're pushing. That really started PAGE 23
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
my investigation after November into this issue. And I'm not going to debate the Great Park
versus an airport because really I think the point we're looking at right now is - why is Orange in OCRAA
and is our voice being heard. As I came into office, my first feeling was we need to stay
in OCRAA so our voice can at least be heard in the process. And then I requested the by-laws
for OCRAA and I found out actually the County took away any authority that OCRAA has when
they set up the local redevelopment authority, the LRA, as the planning agency for the reuse
ofEl Toro. And OCRAA then lost all of its ability. It says, the final agreement eliminates the
provisions for OCRAA to act as the LRA. So, I know a gentleman came up and asked that we
need to stay in OCRAA so that our voice is heard. As someone who is against an airport at El
Toro, and as someone who spoke to a lot of people over the last few years, and found that the question
in the special election usually came down to, "are you pro or anti airport?" That was a question
I got on a regular basis. And just that alone - the statement is, the authority OCRAA supports - and
authority is kind of an ambiguous word when you're talking about OCRAA, but,it supports a
commercial aviation reuse of El Toro. So that alone would personally make me pull out. However, if
you want to just look at, do we want a voice in the process, do we stay? I know I received a
nice packet from OCRAA encouraging me to maintain a voice in the planning process through our
membership. But what I've heard, and I specifically asked that question of Mr. Wagner at
the last meeting, is the City of Orange has no voice in the planning process in El Toro. We have
no voice. So people who come and say we need to stay and we need to have our voice - the truth
is the City of Orange has no voice. OCRAA has no voice in this process, and if pulling out of OCRAA
is going to send a message to the Board of Supervisors that they had better start listening to
the cities and the people in this County, then we need to do that. And I appreciate Councilman Slater's
stance on this because he has worked very hard on this and I'm going to leave that
to Councilman Alvarez on whether he feels that would be acceptable to him.This is his process.
But unfortunately the Board of Supervisors set up the LRA in my belief to take away the voice
of the people of this County. And they did it so their plan can be put through. Anyone with any
brains, if you're pro airport, realizes that the only alternative would be what Mr. McGowan
is proposing. And I do not understand why the County Board of Supervisors doesn't get
it through. And I completely agree with what Councilman Slater said.They have done more
good for the anti airport movement than anyone in South County ever could. So I am
ready to cast a yes vote to pull out of this organization now, but I will also defer to Councilman Alvarez on
this ifhe is willing to wait until October."Mayor Murphy - "First and
foremost I think that the process has gone so far and the El Toro Airport did everything it could
to discourage people from believing in an airport at El Toro making any sense. And not
to amplify comments that have already been made, but you just keep scratching your head when
you look at the process. We're going to go ahead and vote for something even though we haven'
t heard from the FAA. I asked that question last week. Well,yeah, we might do that
and then we'll wait and see what the FAA says. We might create an airport that requires full power
on take off with tail winds going into the mountains. And I'm not a pilot. I'm not
technical. But I know that doesn't make any sense.PAGE 24
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Also, the Denver analogy troubled me as it did Mr. Wetzel earlier concerning the idea - forthose of
you have been to Denver remember where the old airport was versus the new airport. You'd better
plan an extra hour and a half with a whip and a chair to get through all it takes to get out there.
It's way way way out of town. And the environmental questions - the whole process in my opinion
is flawed. And the bottom line to it all is you have to convince the public in Orange and the
public in Orange County that this concept makes sense. And so far I haven't seen any efforts to
do that past the simple 3-2 majority on the current Board. And I'm discouraged about that.
I think if they had gotten the public more involved in the process earlier on, there might have
been differences, but basically what happened was it drew a line in the sand. And that line appears
to still be there even with different options of the airport. And so, the bottom line for me is
it doesn't pass the test from a public standpoint, it doesn't pass the test from a planning standpoint
and it sure doesn't pass the test from my personal standpoint. And that doesn't even go
into some of the other issues that were brought up tonight, taxpayer funds, we can go on and on.
I
will support getting out of OCRAA. Whether or not you participate in the last meeting is up to the
discretion of the maker of the motion. As I understand the process - and I need a clarification on
the process question, there's a 120 day period between the time we take this action tonight
and the time we are formally out of OCRAA is my recollection in reading the newspaper articles
about things previously. And I guess what I'd like to suggest is some specifics between
now and then. One would be the fact that make the decision on the participation at
that last meeting. And, two, I'd like to have a minute order as well to have the City of
Orange's name removed from any further publications from OCRAA effective now, not effective 120
days from now to make sure that that's part of the process as well.I have
to make a comment just on the side of this though and that is that it is a little interesting only from
the standpoint that if you look at the ETRPA information, the City of Orange is highlighted in
that particular document as well. They're careful - they say, serving the cities of rather than endorsed
by, so that's legitimate. But I was looking through my literature today and kind of chuckled
a bit when I saw the differences in the process.I think we'
ve definitely analyzed this one all the way through and it sounds like there may be a unanimous vote in
the offing if I'm guessing from what I've heard here. But I, as well, want to make sure that
all of our comments are on the record and noted for future reference. But I'm disappointed in the
process so far and there's no way we should be participating or least be portrayed as pro
on the plan that is in place."Mayor pro tem
Alvarez - "As my final comments, I'd like to kind of pull everything back to where we were at
the beginning. I kind of look at this as a full circle Mayor. Back in 97 I was the only Councihnember here
that took a position on Measure F along with the two representatives that are here
today, Assemblyman Bill Campbell and Senator John Lewis. When we'd go to
public events, we'd always kind of laugh. Senator Lewis would say, well the lone wolf in Orange that
doesn't support the airport is Councilman Alvarez. And we'd all kind of laugh. And as Assemblyman
Bill Campbell would go up to Sacramento, it was the same thing.PAGE 25
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
But if you begin to look at the process of where we are today, it's a little bit frightening, as you
pointed out. As we know, the decision for the flight paths for Orange will be made in
Washington by the FAA and we know they're holding the safety report that will basically tell
Orange residents what is going to happen in our skies above our City. And quite frankly, none of
us up here have been given that answer and as you said, it's unacceptable.
I take a look at Supervisor Spitzer's letter that was provided to us by Steve Ambriz and you look
at two things that are huge red flags. You have two Supervisors that are essentially filing reports
with the Office of Inspector General and the FAA over actions of the other Supervisors. Right
there, it tells you there's something definitely wrong with what is going on with their Board.
The other item that's mentioned in the letter too is the fact that this Supervisor, Supervisor
Spitzer, is asking our own City Attorney to research the matter to see if OCRAA was to be sued,
would Orange be drawn into this because we're a member of OCRAA. And it's things like that,
as well as other things that have been pointed out through all this testimony that raises a lot of
red flags.
I think it's important too as representatives of our own City that we represent the will of the
people. The will of the people here in Orange spoke very loud in Measure F. I think they'll be
very loud this coming March when I think they'll support the Great Park issue. As far as our
membership in OCRAA, I think Councilman Slater has done an excellent job, as he always does
when representing our City. But if you recall when our City joined OCRAA, I took it upon
myself to be a non-voting member and to join ETRP A out of my own cost out of my pocket.
I leamed quite a bit and I shared that information in Closed Session with Council because
I thought it was important for them and important for people in Orange to hear the other
side.I took an honest look at the airport plan and quite frankly, I can't see myself or taking
my daughter to a park next to an airport and expect at least to be able to converse with her
as airplanes are landing or taking off. And I can't figure out - they're arguing about a nature
preserve too. I don't know of any animal - walking, flying, crawling or stinging that's going to stay
in a natural preserve as airplanes are flying and landing over this natural preserve. It's not going
to happen. And we need to use some common sense there.So
as we began to look at this, really I began to see it as a Great Park or an airport, and quite frankly,
when I got elected in 1996, I promised I would never support anything that would threaten
the quality of life of any neighborhood in this City, whether it's Old Towne, Orange Park
Acres, the middle of Orange or North Orange. And really, we're looking at something - if we make
a decision, or if the County makes a decision to have an airport at El Toro, we're condemning future
citizens of Orange that aren't even here yet to having airplanes go over East Orange. It'
s not just Orange, and we need to think on a more broad scale. It's all the citizens in Villa Park.
It's all the people who live in Tustin and Yorba Linda and Irvine that are going to be affected by
this as well. And we need to look outside the box and we need to look at our neighbors to
the north and south, our neighboring cities. I think it's important that we really make a
decision tonight. And really to pull from our former Councilman Mike Spurgeon - he PAGE 26
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
was famous for two quotes, if you remember - "this dog won't hunt" and "it's time to fish or cut bait".
And I think as it's been pointed out by Councilmember Cavecche, that even if we take an action
today, which I recommend that we do, the clock starts ticking for 120 days. And this really
would address the issue that Councilman Slater has brought forward. I'd like to see him have
the opportunity within these 120 days to go to the October 11 th meeting - and even offer to send Councilmember
Coontz, because she's been here a long time to add their voices within this 120 days
to see if they can get something done. And I seriously doubt it because the record shows differently.
And with that I'd like to bring this all to a close.I'd
like to make a motion - I'm really happy to make this since it's been a long trek for me to endure four votes
on the opposite through the years, but I'm really happy to make the motion to request that the
City Council of the City of Orange withdraw its membership from the Orange County Regional Airport
Authority".Mayor Murphy - "I'
ll second that."Councilmember Slater -asked if
it could be effective October 11 tho "It's my understanding that we can make a
decision to get back in without much trouble. I'm not real clear on that. If you'd just add that - October
11 tho I'm not sure what the 120 days means exactly. I just want to make sure that we can go
to the October 10lh meeting.Councilmember Coontz - "As the alternate,
I'd be happy to go with you because you've done such a good job I didn'
t have to be the alternate and I will do so. And a little word here right now - and that is, South County
is where the money is. Everybody knows that. Follow the money. The money is in South County.
That's where all these organizations emanate from.And regardless, if we decide that we'
re not going to support an airport, what is going to be there?And that concerns me. Very much concerns
me, because we are not in the driver's seat as far as South County is concerned. A good example
of that is the jail. Every effort was made to put the jail in East Orange. Every effort is
to draw the lines for the airport to affect the City of Orange.We are supposed to take whatever South
County wants. And we have to recognize that. If you look at the cost, the money that'
s been expended in all the advertisements we've gotten - which most people throw in the waste basket, believe
me; tremendous amounts of money. We can't say that we have done that. We know
what it takes to run a city. The newer areas ofthe County have not met the situations that we have
with our public infrastructure and maybe one of these days we can laugh - we may have to.
Because they have plenty of money to spend on anything they want. They're elitist and that's not
the City of Orange. And I feel that we're not through when we deal with this airport issue. We have
to recognize that there's going to be something there ifthe airport doesn't go there and we
have to be prepared for it.Mayor Murphy - "I'll look to the maker of
the motion whether or not to modify - maker of the motion, do you wish to modifY your original motion or do
you wish to leave it as stands?"PAGE 27
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Mayor pro tem Alvarez - "Mayor, I'd like to leave it as standing. It does not prevent Councilmember
Slater and Councilmember Coontz from attending the meeting. But I'd like to start
the clock. We need to draw the line in the sand -let's do it tonight. "Councilmember
Cavecche - read from the by-laws which say that any member may withdraw from
the Authority at any time for any reason by giving written notice to the Board of its intentions
to do at least 120 days prior any regular meeting of the Board and said withdrawal shall
be deemed effective on the date.MOTION -
Alvarez SECOND - Murphy
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to request that
the City Council ofthe City of Orange withdraw its membership from the Orange County Regional Airport
Authority.Council recessed at 7:
22 p.m. and reconvened at 7:34 p.m.Councilrnember Slater - "Basically, I'
d like to propose one more motion, possibly two. The way we word this might depend
on if we get a unanimous approval or potentially a 3-2 approval.What I'd like
to do is to hammer our message home - send a letter to the Board of Supervisors opposing the current Master Plan
as they are presently considering and ask that they support the reasonable airport alternative and/or
at least be willing to place it on the ballot for March 3m so the County of Orange can
have a reasonable choice. The thing that may make a decision on whether that's unanimous or
not is to add verbiage to the letter that says we still support an airport. I'm willing to
go either way on that depending on if the other anti airport Councilrnembers are willing to send
a letter with verbiage opposing the current Master Plan and supporting the placement of the
reasonable airport alternative on the ballot."Councilmember Coontz - "I'm not
too sure about the reasonable airport alternative, whether it too has not passed FAA as
far as I understood. And so do you think that's the right wording for your proposal"?Councilmember Slater - "Well what
we could
do is strictly ask that it be placed on the ballot.That's not saying that we necessarily
buy off on it but it would give the County of Orange a choice."Councilmember Coontz - "Is there another parallel
to
that or not"?Councilmember Slater - "Not really. It's basically just
the County's proposal or - and it's been labeled a number of things - the Wildlands proposal is almost
the same, with very little variation as the Pilot's Plan, the McGowan Plan, and the Reasonable
Airport Alternative. They all point the other way - basically just turns it around."PAGE 28
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Mayor pro tem Alvarez - "I think from the action we took that I think reasonably, I think the Council
needs to just stick to its motion, that the action we took that essentially we don't support the
County's plan for an airport. That's the official plan as I understand it. That's the official plan
OCRAA is supporting at this point. I can agree with Councilrnember Slater that the proposal
being brought forward by Villa Park Councilman Bob McGowan has some validity to it,
but I really think that the action we took is a definitive one, and that when an alternative plan is
brought forward on an official level, then I think at that point we should address it as a body. I think
until then the only letter that I would support basically would be a letter to the County explaining
to them that we don't support the current plan and let our representatives - both Councilmember Coontz
and Councilmember Slater go back to the OCRAA meetings, since there will be
at least two to three that they can go to and fight what they want to fight for in terms of an airport.
We have that right. We have the blessing really of this Council to do just that, but I don't
think we can really take much more of an action than what we've already done."Mayor Murphy - "
Let me toss in my two cents worth too. While I appreciate the idea of trying to get that
message across, because I think one of the real catalysts to a unanimous decision to get out of
OCRAA was the lack of flexibility in the process and really 'my way or the highway'sort of planning
that's been going on. In the past some of the things you commented on earlier.I think it
would be more appropriate at this point, and I don't believe I would support putting anything else in
a letter other than we withdrew for the following reasons and sign it and then you certainly, as
representatives, have an ability to communicate the frustration with that process as well as
consideration for others. Then if something truly does happen or something comes back in an
official form, then we'll have to deliberate on that too and decide whether we're going to take a
stand or participate in that process. But I feel pretty strongly that based on what we heard at the
study session as well as what we discussed tonight, that it's more appropriate at this point to set
the wheels in motion to remove ourselves from OCRAA for the reasons we stated,.Otherwise, it's
almost like we're saying, gosh if you do this though we might get back into OCRAA, and if
somebody's going to pitch us on OCRAA again, for any reason, it needs to be generated from outside
us. We did our best. You did your best in representing the interests of the city including
expressing those questions about other alternatives and it sort of sounds like it fell a bit
on deaf ears. So I don't think a letter adding that now is the thing. I think we kind of got our message
and we're sending it now and then later on ifit comes down, we can consider it.But right now
my autograph is going to be on a letter which just says we're removing ourselves from OCRAA for
the following reasons."Councilmember Coontz - "In
other words, they've already got the message because we gave the message verbally today. So
if there is going to be any change in direction, I think they should be taking it in the
weeks to come."Councilmember Slater - "It wasn'
t my intention to even send a letter saying that we're withdrawing from OCRAA and why
other than just to say that we are going to do that. But I think it would add an
exclamation point to send a letter to the County Board of Supervisors saying that we are withdrawing
from OCRAA and why. But I also very much want to tell them that we are not just
getting out of OCRAA but we are opposed to the plan as it is currently PAGE 29
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
presented. If I could, with staffs help, draft such a letter and send it off under the Mayor's
signature. I would like to make a motion to that affect."
Mayor Murphy - "That's fine. Like I said I think it's something you can certainly do a draft obviously.
I want to see it. Actually, if the Assistant City Manager worked up a first draft, we'll refine
it and then you can refine it and frankly I'd take input from anybody on the Council that wants
to have a look at it. Because since it was unanimous vote, I also want some comfort level with
the communication."Councilmember
Coontz - "I think we should all see it."Councilmember Slater - "
I think that's great. It should be reviewed by the entire Council. I'd like to make
the motion - to send a letter stating we are withdrawing from OCRAA, the reasons why, and we are
furthermore opposed to the County's plan as it currently stands for the airport."Mayor Murphy - "I'll
second it for conversation."Mayor pro tem Alvarez - "I'
d like to ask Councilmember Slater if he would also include the minutes from our meeting, for this
particular item, so the County can see the comments."Councilrnember Slater - "That would be fine."
Councilmember Cavecche - "I think as long as
it's made clear that at least two members of this governing body are opposed to -Mayor Murphy -" I
think it's going to say
that five of them are opposed to the current process an the current airport."Councilmember Cavecche - "Unfortunately, that leaves the impression
that there may
be some of us who, if the process was changed and another airport
plan was put it, would be approving of that."Mayor Murphy - "I understand and that's why I wasn'
t
comfortable with the other wording that was suggested - for that very reason."Councilmember Slater - "It should be a
letter that all of us are willing
to sign."Councilmember Cavecche - "I appreciate that."PAGE 30
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to send
a letter to the Orange County Board of Supervisors stating we are withdrawing from OCRAA, the
reasons why, and we are furthermore opposed to the County's plan, as it currently stands, for
the airport; and to include the Minutes from this Council meeting discussion.5.4
Councilmember
Coontz - In Celebration of America and Tribute to our Veterans-a Veterans Day Memorial
Event at Depot Park on November 11, 2001.Councilmember Coontz reported on
November 11, 2000, the City of Orange dedicated a Veterans Memorial at the
Santa Fe Depot Park. The Memorial is dedicated to all past, present and future Veterans. The
Memorial was embraced by the entire community and has been well received.She reported the
Council
was very supportive of building a Veterans Memorial to honor those who served our country.
Recently, we were all awakened on September 11, 2001 with devastating news that our
country was under attack. For some, it was a reminder of the sacrifice that many have made
to keep this country free. Our country has been reunited over the last couple of weeks and
the patriotism that makes us all proud to be Americas has been heart-felt.She proposed that
on this November 11th, Veterans Day, we unite our community with a celebration of America,
and pay tribute to all veterans. The patriotism demonstrated across America has been
wonderful; and has provided a great deal of comfort to many who are suffering a loss.
Both the City Manager's Office and the Community and Library Services Department will coordinate
the event.Adrienne Gladson, 700
Lake Drive, spoke in support of this type of event and offered her assistance in planning
the event.Mayor Murphy encouraged
ideas from the community and reiterated the fundraising efforts by the Police and
Fire Departments to help benefit the families of the heroes of the September 11 th terrorist attacks. Citizens
can call the Mayor's Hotline at 744-5511 or e-mail the City with suggestions
for this event.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to approve the
City's participation in a celebration and tribute to our Veterans at Depot Park on November 11,
2001.PAGE 31
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS
6.1 Mayor Murphy - Planning Commission Appointment. (Continued from September 11,
2001)Mayor
Murphy announced his appointment to the City's Planning Commission will be Phil Bonina,
who has a great deal of experience and a true dedication to the City of Orange.Councilmember
Coontz noted she had interviewed the candidates for this position and wanted to ensure
that the Planning Staff and Commissioners work with the new Commissioner, providing him
with as much information as possible, including presentations. She noted the Planning Commission
should mirror the Council, as the Commissioners are appointed by the Council, and suggested
a need for consistency in processes. She thanked former Commissioner Randy Bosch,who
was her original appointment to the Planning Commission, for his assistance interviewing candidates
for this position.Councilmember
Cavecche thanked Councilmember Coontz for her appointment and her efforts in
bringing forth a good candidate for the Commission; and thanked the Mayor for allowing the Councilmembers
to have their choice to represent them as has been a tradition.MOTION -
Murphy SECOND - Coontz
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved to appoint Phil
Bonina to the City of Orange Planning Commission.TAPE 2 7. ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTS - None.
8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER -
None.9. LEGAL AFFAIRS 9.1 ORDINANCE
9-01 (FIRST
READING) (A21500.0 City Council Actions)An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Orange amending Section 2.04.250 of the Orange Municipal Code setting the
date when resolutions and ordinances of the City Council shall be deemed final.Continued
from September 11,2001)
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND - Slater AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
Moved that Ordinance No. 9-01 be read
by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.PAGE 32
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
9.2 ORDINANCE 10-01 (FIRST READING) (A2500.0 City Council
Meetings)An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange Amending Section 2.04.210
and 2.04.220 of the Orange Municipal Code and Adding Section 2.04.270 to the Orange
Municipal Code Relating to Decorum at City Council
Meetings.MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Cavecche AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that
Ordinance No. 10-01 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the
preceding vote.9.
3 ORDINANCE 11-01 (FIRST READING) (A2500.0 Vehicles, Permits)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Section 10.67.040 of the
Orange Municipal Code deleting the codified fee rates from the Section regulating the movement
of overweight and oversize vehicles and dirt hauling operations, and to provide for permits, fees
and inspections; and providing for the permit rates to be added to the City's Master Schedule of
Fees.
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance
No. 11-01 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding
vote.9.4
ORDINANCENO. 12-01 (FIRST READING) (A2500.0 Massage Therapy)An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange Amending Section 5.56.070 of the Orange
Municipal Code Relating to Massage Permit Requirements.MOTION -
Slater SECOND - Cavecche
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance No.
12-01 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.
10. RECESS TO
THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE 33
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
11. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The City Council recessed at 7:22 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:
a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:
City Negotiator: Personnel Director Steven Pham
Employee Organization: All Bargaining Units
b. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the
City Attorney, City Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess
indicates any of the matters will not be considered in Closed Session.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
A presentation was made to Elizabeth Walters, Norrelle Dickson and Megan Boulger, members
of the Case Batbusters Team, National Champions of the 2001 Amateur Softball Association for
Girls 16 and Under.
12. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mary Dargatz, 2534 E. Burly, spoke in opposition to the proposed dog park at Yorba Park,
suggesting the Council contact the Huntington Beach Council for information on the problem
Huntington Beach is having with their dog park and related noise issues.
Sand Sladen, 600 E. Jefferson, spoke in support of the proposed dog park at Yorba Park, and
asked for an interpretation of neighborhood park, as noted on a sign at the park.
Roger Bonzer, 2548 E. Burly, spoke in support of returning Yorba Park to a neighborhood park.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
TAPE 2 -460
13.1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 1209-01, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.
193-01,MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 1673-01,ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH: (
Z1500.0 ZCG-1209-01)The public hearing on petition by St. John's Lutheran Church
to consider Zone Change 1209-01 to change from Office Professional (OP) and Duplex Residential (
R2-6) to Specific Plan (SP) to accommodate a four-phase master plan for an
existing church and school campus in the Old Towne Historic District. The proposed zone changewould allow
for a floor area ratio of.55 for the St. John's campus. Also, Major Site
Plan Review No. 193-01 include: demolition of an existing office building and construction of a
new two-story, 55,500 square foot building at 450 E. Chapman Avenue, demolition
of an existing non-historic nursery center located at 151 S.Center Street and expansion
of the adjacent historic preschool building located at 141 S. Center Street, a new master
sign program and parking
lot improvements,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1673-01 has been prepared for this project
in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et
seq.Councilmember Coontz noted for the record that she is a member ofSt. John's Church. She
has checked with the City Attorney and is able to vote on this issue as she has no cash benefit
from attending the
church.The Director of Community Development reviewed the proposed plan. In response to
citizen concerns regarding parking and traffic circulation, she provided a table outlining existing
and proposed parking demands. The Church will be exceeding classroom parking requirements
and are proposing traffic mitigation measures such as staggered times for school hours and
larger breaks between church services. Also, staff does not recommend any formal agreement
between the Church and the City for use of the Civic Center parking lot, preferring to leave it as
an informal use and does not recommend designating Center Street as a one-way street
as this would impact other
surrounding streets.MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE
PUBLIC HEARING Randy Bosch, President of St. John's Church, 154 S. Shaffer, stated it is their intent
to remain good neighbors as they have been in Old Towne for approximately 120 years.
Their proposal preserves the Historic District while giving guidance to the future of St. John's. They,
too, are concerned about traffic issues and have proposed mitigation measures to alleviate them
as much as possible. They have received input from the Design Review Committee and
a historic consultant in formulating the architectural design of
the buildings.Councilmember Cavecche asked about window treatments, security entrances
and exhaust system for the garage, and the treatment for the garage roll down doors. She was
very concerned about the equipment for the heating and air conditioning system, that it not be visible
from the street but that the screening fit into the architectural character of the building. She
also asked about the proposed aluminum windows and why steel wasn'
t used.Mr. Hebenstreit reported they will be using roll down doors to provide security for
the garage and will ensure they are compatible with the surrounding architecture. The heating
and air conditioning system will be on the roof but will not be taller than any screening
and the screening will also fit into the architecture. The proposed aluminum windows will be
painted in a finish that will match the rest of the project and will be set back. They are not
using steel windows as it is difficult to get steel sash windows that meet
thermal requirements.Councilmember Coontz stated she is looking forward to the new buildings and
appreciated that the Old Towne Preservation Association was involved in reviewing the project. She
asked about the building treatment on the side of the Ainsworth House and about traffic safety,
especially at the corner of Almond and Center where cars park up to the very edge of
the corner.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Mr. Hebenstreit, noted they had reduced the mass of the building directly next to the Ainsworth
House to make it more compatible. With regard to traffic, they support any recommendation
from staff for parking and traffic safety, and agreed there are difficulties at the intersection of
Almond and Center.
Mayor pro tem Alvarez asked about windows, whether they were fixed or opened, and if the
proposed windows are acceptable in the design guidelines. He asked about student pedestrian
traffic across Shaffer Street and if there was a master plan for St. John's which included
Moreland Street. He congratulated St. John's on a great project, especially one of such
magnitude.
Mr. Hebenstreit explained the windows are mostly fixed, as they do not want windows opening
with the air conditioning system. The design guidelines identify a compatible look as being
acceptable and there are wood windows in the pre-school building but not in the main
office building. The pedestrian traffic across Shaffer will actually be reduced with the new
proposal;and there are no current plans for the use of Moreland Street in a master plan. The
current proposal will meet the Church's demands for the next 10
years.The Director of Community Development eXplained this is an in-fill development and
a non-historic structure which is being demolished; and under those
circumstances, alternative materials can
be used.Councilmember Coontz noted that several years ago, a survey was conducted to
determine if churches should stay in Old Towne and there was overwhelming support for them.
She noted that the surrounding parking lots are public and used by everybody, not just St. John's;
and that public parking lot issues should
be addressed.Janet Crenshaw, 400 N. Shaffer, commended the exhaustive efforts of St. John's, as
the proposal blends well with the surrounding architecture. She tanked St. John's, on behalf of
OTPA, for including them in
the process.Adrienne Gladson, 700 Lake Drive, appreciated the concern given to the
adjacent Ainsworth House and raised long term issues such as changes to the nearby Civic Center
or Library.Mayor Murphy complimented everyone involved in this project. It is a beautiful design
and will be a welcome addition to
Old Towne.Councilmember Slater also complimented the efforts that went into this project and agreed
it will be an improvement to Old Towne; noting that Chapman University could learn a lesson
from
this project.MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1673-01 and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program.MOTION -
Coontz
SECOND - Murphy AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Approve Zone Change No. 1209-
01 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-25-01.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND -
Cavecche AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy,
Coontz, Cavecche Approve Major Site Plan Review 193-
01 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No.PC-25-0l, with the
condition that the screening of the mechanical system and the garage exhaust system, and the
screening of the garage doors, be architecturally compatible with the building, to be determined by
staffreview.TAPE 2 - 2220
13.2 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NO. 02-01 - VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS (A2500.
0 Tentative Tract Maps)Time set for
public hearing to consider a request from PSOMAS Engineering for an Ordinance Amendment No. 02-
01; a proposal to amend Section 16.35.040 and Chapter 16.35 ofthe Orange Municipal Code
to provide for the processing of vesting tentative maps for non residential subdivisions.Note:
This
project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Councilrnember Coontz
asked for a clear identification, for public purpose, of what exactly these documents are
referring to and a clarification of the meaning of the terms involved.The Director
of Community Development explained that a vesting map conveys to the owner of the property
the right to proceed with the development. It gives entitlements to development,similar to
what a building permit would do.In the
late 1980's, the state legislature put into the Subdivision Map Act that cities needed to adopt an
ordinance that allowed for vesting maps ofresidential development. For the first year,this only
applied to residential subdivisions and thereafter, cities should amend their ordinance PAGE 37
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
and also apply it to non-residential subdivisions. This change was not made to the City'
s ordinance because no one had requested it. We now have a request from PSOMAS
Engineering who may be representing a development in the near future. Under state law, the City has a
time period in which we need to amend our ordinance to allow the filing of vesting maps of
non-residential
subdivisions.MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC
HEARING THERE BEING NO COMMENTS, MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Alvarez AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Find that
the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.ORDINANCE NO.
13-01 (FIRST READING)An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange Amending Chapter 16.35of Title 16 of the
Orange Municipal Code to provide for the processing of Vesting Tentative Maps for Non-Residential
Subdivisions.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Slater
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance No.
13-01 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.
TAPE 2 - 2400
13.3 BELMONT PARK,
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1667-00 CITY OF ORANGE: (
N1200.0 NEG 1667-00)The public
hearing to consider Phase II proposed park improvements for Belmont Park. The proposed conceptual
plan Phase II park improvements included one unlighted basketball court,restroom building,
tot-lot, one light pole for security lighting, bike rack and parking bay to accommodate
10 additional parking spaces. The City prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
1667-00 for the proposed park improvements and made the environmental document
available for public review. The City has received numerous letters in opposition to any park
improvement and some letters in support of the project. The Park Planning and Development
Commission held a public hearing at its August 16, 2001 meeting. Further, their
recommendation is being forwarded to the City Council, was continued to this time from
September 11, 2001.
PAGE 38
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Belmont Park is located at the southeast corner of Via Escola Avenue and Somerset Street (4536
E. Via Escola Avenue) within the residential community of Belmont Heights in the City of
Orange.
Note: Mayor Murphy noted requests had been received to continue this item. The Council did
not see the need to continue.
The Community Services Director reported back in 1994 Belmont Park was constructed in
connection with a Standard Pacific development. Due to financial constraints at the time, it was
decided the park would be constructed in two phases. Phase I improvements are currently in
place and Phase II improvements were to include a basketball court, restroom building, tot-
lot,security lighting, bike rack and parking. The City received strong opposition to
any improvements and the development was placed on hold. Over the last two years,
community meetings have been held and a hearing was held by the Park Planning and
Development Commission in August. The Commission evaluated concerns for security lighting,
easement access, pedestrian crosswalk, parking, noise levels, crime and park hours and has
recommended approval of the final site plan, excluding the basketball court, and modifying the closing
hours from 11 :00 p.m. to 10:00 p.
m.In response to Council questions, the Director of Community and Library Services
further reported he was not aware of any complaints about the lack of restroom facilities at the park,
all other City parks have restrooms, the proposed restroom is approximately 930 square
feet,standard hours for City parks are 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and the proposed tot lot would
be similar to the one at La Veta Park while being compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.Councilmember Coontz noted the area originally developed by Standard Pacific was
fairly confined and even though the park was planned, it could not be built because of the
bankruptcy and the lack of funds at the time. After all these years, the area of development is larger than
it was at first, which probably has something to do with the survey responses. It is difficult
to improve a park once additional development takes
place.Councilmember Coontz asked about the history of the surrounding area and how
many developments came in after the original 1994 development, as there probably was not
an understanding in later developments that the park was supposed to be improved. She
also requested an update of the zoning
map.Councilmember Slater noted there are a range of public opinions, and suggested they be
broken down into the four main issues - tot lot, basketball court, parking lot and restroom.
Councilmember Cavecche noted she had been out to the park site recently and there were major
drainage problems.
PAGE 39
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
The following people spoke in favor of further park development. Comments included the need
to enhance the current park site and the fact that the park development was promised to home
buyers of the original tract.
Pete Dearborn, 2709 Hampton Street
Gina Dearborn, 2709 Hampton Street
Rachel Silverman, 2677 N. Hampton Street
Letters in favor of the proposed improvements were submitted from the following:
Donna Lawson, 2674 Bentley
Claudia Flint, 2785 N. Rochester
Candace Tjoa, 2668 Bentley Street
The following people spoke in opposition to further park development. Comments included
definite opposition to the basketball court, restrooms and parking lot, with more of a willingness
to include a tot-
lot.Tim Zimprich, 2714 N.
Springfield Miguel Veliez, 4522 E.
Wickham Alice J. Dimick, 2720 Hampton
Street Kanu S. Patel, 4427 E. Wickham
Ave.Jon Dunning, 5125 Paddington
Court Terry Tognazzini, 2702 N. Talbot
Street Scott Maughan, 4513 E. Wickham, submitted petition of approximately 242 signatures
in opposition to further
development Comad Byars, 2704 N. Bentley
Street Stacey Robuck, 4419 E. Wickham
Ave.Elizabeth Corbett, 2716 N.
Longhurst Phillip Tramm, 4514
Wickham Sandra Fought, 4014 Oakhurst
Ave.Bill Gower, 2539 N. Cross
Gate Carrie Tramm, 4514 E.
Wickham Jackie Maughan, 4513 E.
Wickham Ross Fought, 4014 Oakhurst
Ave.MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING TAPE 2 - 5400
PAGE 40
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25, 2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Councilmember Slater pointed out that 62% of the returned surveys indicated a desire for
something to take place at the park; and he felt a sense of commitment to those who have lived in
the neighborhood a long time. He opposes the restroom and parking lot; supports a tot lot; and
suggested maybe a half court for basketball for the older children.
Councilruember Cavecche thanked Community Services for their efforts. She supports a tot lot,
but opposes any other improvements; and suggested that the play equipment at the tot lot be
increased to accommodate older children.
Councilmember Coontz congratulated Community Services and the Park Planning and
Development Commission for a great job; noting the Commission is in the process of looking at
all parks throughout the City. She expressed concern about the congregation of youth at the
Jones Ranch area and at the Edison property and asked that access be made available for Police
and for low lighting. From the comments made, she was very concerned that the Police
Department needed to respond more to the problems in the area. This is very important, and
asked for answers to the problems that were raised. She supports the tot lot, but opposes the
restroom, basketball court and parking. She agreed that the type of equipment at the tot lot needs
to be reviewed and other additions to the park, such as picnic tables, could always be looked at in
the future.
Mayor pro tem Alvarez also supports the tot lot with the idea of expanding it for older children,
and opposes the parking lot, restroom and basketball court. This is more of a passive park, and
should be kept that way; and it will save money for the City if the residents don't want any
additional amenities.
Mayor Murphy pointed out staff was pursuing certain improvements because that's what they
thought the neighborhood wanted. He supports only the tot lot and would like to see the
irrigation problems resolved. He was glad to see the involvement from the neighborhood, noting
that if the neighborhood doesn't want the improvements, the money can be used for parks in
other areas of the City.
Councilmember Coontz noted that although 11 :00 pm is the standard closing time for parks, it
seemed late, especially since there is no organized activity. There is also a concern about
lighting and the need to consider security issues to have assurance that the lights will not reflect.
MOTION - Cavecche SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 1667-00 finding that with the incorporation of mitigation measures
outlined in the environmental document, the proposed project would not have a
significant effect on the environment.PAGE 41
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MOTION - Cavecche SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche NOES - Slater Approve
a tot lot
at BelnlOnt Park with staff consideration for both younger and older children;exclude restrooms, parking lot
and basketball court; work on the drainage and irrigation system modification and the security
light standards; and modify the closing hours from 11 :00 to 10:00 p.m.Councilmember Slater
stated he
supports almost all of the motion, with the exception that he is concerned that there is
not much to do for children older than tot lot age; and would like to see a half court for basketball.
He supports the spirit of everything being done and congratulates the neighborhood; and is anxious
to see this park move forward at least somewhat.Councilmember Coontz also expressed
concern about the older children but could not take action at this time because
of no recommendations from the Community Services Department.Minute Order requested by
Councilmember Coontz - "I would hope that the Police Department would look at the problem
a little bit more closely in the neighborhood because it is obviously not acceptable - it wouldn't
be acceptable to me in my neighborhood; that they check on the access - they said they have access
to the Edison property. I think we need to know more about it. There needs to be some positive
activity working with the community. If the community can help the Police Department, then all the
better, because some of the issues are probably not issues that are in the category of
criminal issues, but that doesn't mean that they're not annoying and disturbing to the neighbors."14. PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENT 14.1 Report
on the request to
rezone the 300 and 400 blocks of South Grand Street.Gloria Bayer, 330 E. Palmyra, asked for
a postponement of this item because of the time factor and that there has not been adequate
time to study the issues.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche
ABSTAINED - Slater Moved
to continue to October 9, 2001 at
7:00 p.
m.Note: Councilmember Slater abstained due to property ownership in the area.
PAGE 42
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 25,2001
15. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche The City Council
adjourned at 11:1 0 p.m. in memory of Red Bauer and Gary Conniff to a Study Session with the
Planning Commission, October 2,2001, at 5:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room, for a review of
the General Plan and Zoning of property east of the 55 Freeway along the Santiago Creek currently zoned
Sand and Gravel.C M MURPHY
DEP
TY CITY
CLERK PAGE 43