HomeMy WebLinkAbout10_10_2000 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 14,2000
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING October 10, 2000
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on October 10, 2000 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 Ken Macklin, First United Methodist Church
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Presentation of Colors and Pledge led by Boy Scout Troop 241
Scout Master Dan Claypool
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Murphy, Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez ABSENT -
None 1.4
PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS The Director
of Community Services announced John Stratman representing Pacific Bell had a conflict and
could not attend the Council meeting. Pacific Bell generously donated money which covered the
costs of four concerts in the Park. Mayor Coontz suggested the Director of Community Services
send a letter thanking Mr. Stratman for Pacific Bell's generous donation.Councilman Slater
presented a proclamation to Warren Johnson, O.c. Fire Authority Chaplain,for heroismduringanapartmentfireinOrange.Mayor Coontz
presented a proclamation to Dr. Eddie Hernandez, Chancellor, Rancho Santiago Community CollegeDistrictandDr. Mark Rocha, President, Santiago Canyon College for the Joint Use
Soccer Facility dedicated on August 25th.The City
Manager presented an award from the Municipal Treasurer's Association United States and Canada
to Helen Walker, City Treasurer.Mayor's
Announcements:Walk Your
Children to School Day was held October 4,2000 Millennium Clock
Dedication will be held on October 15, 2000 at 3:00 p.m., Depot Park Mayor's
Prayer Breakfast will be held October 19, 2000, 7:30 a.m., Phoenix Club PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
The Director of Community Services announced the Third Annual Children's Halloween Treats
through the Streets will be held in the downtown Plaza area on October 26, 2000 from 4:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m.
1.4 PRESENT A TIONS/ANNOUNCMENTS/INTRODUCTIONS (Continued)
Mayor Coontz announced the Council will adjourn in memory of Beverly Nestande and read the
following statement: "It is with deep sadness and loss that we adjourn this meeting in fond
remembrance of Beverly Nestande dear friend of Orange who passed away Wednesday,September 27, 2000. Although slight in stature she stood tall in her efforts on behalf of abusedchildren. She was a leader of men and women and her passion for life set a wonderful exampleforothers. Community involvement was paramount to Bev who was an expert in raising funds
and raising consciousness for important causes. She was an angel among us and we were all
better for knowing her. We extend our sincere sympathy to her family as we adjourn in
reverence and tribute to Beverly Nestande at our meeting on the 10th day of October, 2000."
Mayor Coontz requested that all Councilmembers sign the letter which will be transmitted to her
son.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City Clerk announced she had received a letter requesting it be read into the record. MayorCoontzaskedtheCityAttorneythecorrectprocedure. The City Attorney indicated the letter
could be read into the record under public comments, however, the Council could not take anyactionontherequest.
The City Clerk read the following:
Letter received by the City Clerk's Office on October 10, 2000 from the Law Offices of
Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, dated October 10, 2000, regarding: General
Plan Amendment No. 3-00, Zone Change No. 1205-00, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2339-00,Variance No. 2089-00,
Nieupointe Enterprises/Barry
Cottle Dear Ms. Cathcart:Please be advised that this firm represents Nieupoint Enterprises and
Barry Cottle in connection with their applications pertaining to the above-referenced matters. It
is my understanding that a rescheduled public hearing on these matters has been set before
the Orange City
Council for October 24, 2000.Because of certain opposition which has surfaced since the date of
the public hearing before the planning commission on these matters and because of other issues
which have arisen which may impact the decision of the City Council to either approve or reject
these applications, it is the intention of the applicant on October 24, 2000 to request a
further extension until November 28,2000, which was the applicants' original request, of this public hearing
in order to be adequately prepared to address all issues which might affect the
decision of
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
Accordingly, I respectfully request that during the public hearing portion of the 4:30 and 7:00 pmregularlyscheduledsessionsoftheCityCouncilmeetingtoday, that you read into the publicrecordtheapplicant's intention to request this further extension on October 24,2000.
Thank you for your cooperation with this request. Very truly yours, Dennis G. Tyler."
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motionapprovingtherecommendedactionlistedontheAgenda. Any member of the CityCouncil, staff or the public may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendarfordiscussionorseparateaction. Unless otherwise specified in the request to remove anitemfromtheConsentCalendar, all items removed shall be considered immediatelyfollowingactionontheremainingitemsontheConsentCalendar.
3.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City CouncilagendaofaregularmeetingofOctober10, 2000 at Orange Civic Center, MainLibraryat101N. Center Street, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, theEisenhowerParkBulletinBoard, and summarized on Time-Warner Communications, all of said locations being in the City of Orange andfreelyaccessibletomembersofthepublicatleast72hoursbeforecommencementof
said regular
meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as
a public record in the Office ofthe City
Clerk.3.2 Request Council confirmation of warrant registers dated September 21 and28,
2000.ACTION:
Approved.3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting September 26,
2000.ACTION:
Approved.3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the
Agenda.ACTION:
Approved.
AGREEMENTS 3.5 Agreement with LeMar Lundquist for house rehabilitation. (A2100.0 Agr.
3617)SUMMARY: The City Attorney's office has negotiated an agreement with
Mr.Lundquist to repair/replace the siding on his residential property located 133
South Shaffer Street. The City Council directed staff to negotiate a settlement to repair
or replace the siding on Mr. Lundquist's residential
property.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved Settlement Agreement with Mr. Lundquist and authorized the CityManagertoexecuteAgreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The actual cost of the agreement will not be known until theplywoodisremovedandanestimateismadeofthenecessarywork. Funds are availableinAccountNo. 740-1412-433100, SelfInsured Liability Fund. If the cost oftherepairworkexceeds $30,000, it will be brought back to the City Council, but thecostisexpectedto
be less.3.6 First Amendment to Attorney Services Agreement withWoodruff, Spradlin &Smart for personnel legal services. (A2100.0 Agr. 2886.
A.l)SUMMARY: Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart Law Offices was retained torepresenttheCityintwowrongfulterminationlawsuits. Legal costs have exceededtheCityManager'
s authority.ACTION: Approved First Amendment to Attorney Services AgreementwithWoodruff,Spradlin & Smart and authorized Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf oftheCity.The City Attorney is requesting that an additional $60,000 be approvedforcontinued
legal services.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in Accountnumber100-0301-
426100-9865,Personnel Legal Services.3.7 First Amendment to Berryman Henigar contract in theamountof $10,000 for GASB 34 Infrastructure Valuation Services. (
A2100.0 Agr.3S81.1)SUMMARY: The City has previously contractedwithBerrymanHenigarforthecompletionofapavementconditionsurveytobecompletedthroughouttheentireCity.This amendment would require additional services to placeavaluationupontheseCitystreetfacilitiesinordertomeettherequirementsofGovernmentalAccountingStandards
Board (GASB) Statement Number 34.ACTION: Approved the firstamendmentforPavementManagementConsultingServicestoBerrymanHenigarinthe
amount of $1 0,000.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are availableinAccount100-5001-426700 (Department of Public Works Administration - Contractual Services)
in the amount of$2l,980.3.8 Project No. D-134; CDBG Project - Fernside Street, Crystal View Aveuue, and Glenside Street Storm DrainImprovements, approval of plans and specifications and
advertising for bids. (C2S00.M.17)SUMMARY: Plans and specifications havebeencompletedforthestormdrainconstructiononFernsideStreetfromBrentwoodAvenuetoCrystalViewAvenue, on Crystal View Avenue from Fernside Street to
Glenside Street,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
from Crystal View Avenue to 180 feet northerly. The project is ready to be advertisedforbids. The estimated construction cost is $328,680.00
ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized advertising for bids for theCDBGstormdrainconstructionproject.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program andavailableinthefollowingaccount: 310-9645-483400-1819 (Detail16130) $435,000 Community
Dev.
Block Grant)BIDS 3.9 Reject all bids received for Bid No. 001-08, andrequestauthorizationtore-advertise the
project. (S4000.S.3.3)SUMMARY: The City received 8 bids for BidNo. 001-08 (Traffic Signal & Striping Modifications at various locations). Staff recommends thatallbidsbe
rejected and the project be re-advertised.ACTION: Rejected all bids receivedfor
Bid No. 001-
08; authorized re-
advertising the project.Katella & Handy
Signal Lincoln & Orange-Olive Signal Chapman/Chandler Ranch Rd. Striping FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the project is available inthefollowingaccounts:Lincoln & Canal Signal 284-
5032-483100-6059 $105,
000.00 Glassell & Taft
Signal 284-5032-483100-
6122 12,519.00
284-5032-485100-
6122 38,000.00 550-5032-483100-6147 45,000.00 284-5032-483100-6146 48,691.24 272-5032-483300-3406 14,905.00 264,115.243.10 Projects No. 2974 &
No. 2975 - Approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bidstheseismicretrofitoftheCityYardGarageandWarehousebuildings. (P2S00.0.2)SUMMARY: Plans and specifications have been completed for the seismic retrofitoftheCityYardGarageandWarehousebuildings. The project also comprises re-roofing
of both buildings and ADA
improvements, which included installation of a new elevator in the Garage building. The project is ready to be advertised for bids. The
estimated construction
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and available in the following accounts:
500-5011-481105-2974 $166,990.00 (
City Yard Warehouse)550-5011-481105-2974 $
171,957.00 (City Yard Warehouse)500-
5011-481105-2975 $ 70,000.00 (City
Yard Garage)550-5011-481105-2975 $204,
246.00 (City Yard
Garage)725-5028-481105-9851 $130,000.00 (Corporation Yard Improvements)Total $
743,193.00 3.11 Award of Contract, Bid
No. 001-05, Landscape Maintenance Assessment District Services to Lanco Landscape Management. (A2100.0
Agr. 3615)SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City Council award Bid No.
001-05 to Lanco Landscape Management in the amount of $171,600
for landscape maintenance services at the Santiago Hills (86-2) Shadow Ridge (
82-1) and Sycamore Crossing (94-1) Landscape Maintenance Assessments Districts and reject
all other bids. behalf of the City.ACTION: I) Approved the award of Bid No. 001-05 to
Lanco Landscape Management in the amount
of$171,600.00; and 2) authorized the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute the contract on behalf of the City.FISCAL IMP ACT: Sufficient
funds are available to pay for landscape maintenance services
for the remainder of FY 00/01 in the following accounts:
100-7022-424301,Landscape Maintenance, $
4,
000; Account No. 290-7025-427100, Contractual Services,2,400; Account No. 291-7026-424301,
Landscape Maintenance, $100,000; Account No.
293-7024-424301, Landscape Maintenance, $8,000.CONTRACTS 3.12 Award of Contract -
Bid No. 001-01; D-133; Featherhill Subdrain Project north of Meats
Avenue. (A2100.
0 Agr. 3614)SUMMARY: The project improvements include the installation of new 4 and 8 inch
PVC perforated subdrain piping for interception of subsurface water seepage within the public right-of-
way.ACTION: Awarded a contract in
the amount of $176,000.00 to David T. Wasden, 3220 Star
Canyon Circle, Corona, CA 92882,
and authorized the Mayor and
the City
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
FUND TRANSFER
3.13 Change Order No. One for Hart Park Lighting A2100.0 Agr.3S43)
SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City Council approve change order number one
to Building Energy Consultants in the amount of $6,547.92 for additional trenching for
conduit and a modification to the switchgear of the main panel as part of the Hart Park
Lighting Project. Since the project fund will need additional funding, a transfer from the
Park, Acquisition and Development (510) unappropriated reserves in the amount of
6,547.92 is requested.
ACTION: I) Approved Change Order No. One to Building Energy Consultants in the
amount of $6,547.92; 2) Approved a transfer in the amount of $6,547.92 from Park,
Acquisition and Development Fund (510) unappropriated reserves to the Hart Park
Lighting Account, 510-7021-485100-0029; and 3) authorized the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute on behalf
of the City.FISCAL IMP ACT: After the fund transfer is executed, there will be
appropriate funds to pay for this Change Order in the following account:
510-7021-485100-0029 (
Hart
Park Lighting): $6,547.92.RESOLUTIONS 3.14 RESOLUTION
NO. 9338 A2100.0 Agr. 3616)A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Orange approving a Cooperation agreement with the Orange Redevelopment
Agency relating to the Metrolink Station Restroom Improvements on North Atchison Street
and approving the award of contract for Bid
No. 990-
46 to Hollister Construction Company.ACTION: Approved.
3.15 RESOLUTION NO. 9340 C3300.0)A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Orange upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission and granting
an accessory second housing unit upon
property located
at 1802 North
Kimbark Lane.ACTION:
Approved.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Alvarez AYES - Murphy, Slater,
Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez All items on the Consent
were approved as recommended.
END OF
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
4. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ
4.1 Board of Supervisors new proposal regarding Musick Jail negotiations and remotejailsite (three top sites are within the sphere of influence of the City of Orange on theCity's eastern borders).
Mayor Coontz announced if it was not for newspaper articles she would not know what is beingplannedfortheCity's sphere of influence. During the first part of last week there was an articleconcerningthejailissue. The Mayor received a call from Supervisor Coad's office indicatingtherewasanamendmenttotheiragendafortheirOctober3' Board of Supervisor's meeting.This went out to the other board members from Chairman of the Board, Supervisor Smith. MostoftheofficesdidnotreceivethisinformationuntilFridayanditwasasurprise.
Mayor Coontz attended the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 3'd and spoke. The agendaitemwasarequestfromthecitiesofLakeForrestandIrvinewhohavebeeninvolvedintheMusickjailissueandtriedtopushforwardissuesfortheirownbenefit. Mayor Coontz indicatedshedidnotknowwhytheywantedtoformanewcommitteebecausethereisanexistingBlueRibbonCommittee. The City Manager is a member of the Blue Ribbon Committee and theyweretoldtheycouldnotrevealtheirdecisionsandrecommendations. The composition of the
new committee was discussed with two representatives from Irvine, two from Lake Forrest,unknown representation from the Sheriff and it was unclear about the Blue Ribbon Committee.
Mayor Coontz felt the City of Orange was being left out and this new committee was beingformedtosupplanttheotherone. It was announced the members would not vote. Mayor Coontz
questioned why the sudden urgency. The goal was to have the new committee return with a
report to the Board of Supervisors on Election Day, November 7'h. There was an amendment to
the issue by Supervisor Coad which did not get anywhere. Supervisor Spitzer indicated thereshouldberepresentationfromSantaAnaandOrange, however he did go along with the idea. It
was changed so there would be two representatives from the Blue Ribbon Committee, one
representing Santa Ana and one representing Orange. The City Manager indicated he had notbeennotifiedofthefirstmeeting.
The question was asked when the court case would be announced and the County Counsel
indicated he did not know. Mayor Coontz felt perhaps politically Chairman Smith would like
this to be finished on his watch. Also, they would like to make some type of agreement ahead oftimebeforethecourtdecisionbecausethejudgemaydecidetheenvironmentalimpactreportis
fine.
Councilman Alvarez commented if the County is preparing for what will happen in the courts on
Measure F, through the City Manager, as it comes down, the City should come up with its own
strategy whatever the ruling is on Measure F. Mayor Coontz instructed the City Manager todiscussthiswithCouncil.
Mayor Coontz commented Supervisor Coad tried to separate the long term jail from the Musick
Jail Facility and was not successful.
S. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None PAGE
8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS
6.1 Report from the Finance Director on the annual review and approval of theStatementofInvestmentPolicy (SIP) for Fiscal Year 2000-01. (ORI800.0.27.
16)The Finance Director presented the
report.SUMMARY: Per recommendations from the Investment Advisory Committee andtheInvestmentOversightCommittee, it is proposed that several changes be made to the City'sandRedevelopmentAgency's Statement of Investment Policy. The recommended changesincludeincreasingourauthorizedinvestmentsintheLocalAgencyInvestmentFund (LAIF) andrevisingthelanguagerelatingtoMoneyMarketFundstobeconsistentwiththeStateofCaliforniaGovernmentCode. Additionally, as a result of having our policy reviewed and certified bytheMunicipalTreasurersAssociationoftheUnitedStatesandCanada, more definitive languagewasrecommendedforannuallyreviewingfinancialinstitutionsandinvestinginGovernmentsponsoredinvestment
pools.Mayor Coontz thanked the Finance Department and the
committee.Councilman Alvarez indicated he was pleased with the chapter spelling out theprohibitiveinvestmentvehiclesand
practices.RESOLUTION NO.
9339 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving and adopting a StatementofInvestmentPolicyandrepealingResolutionNo.
9164.MOTION - Slater
SECOND - Murphy AYES -
Murphy, Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez Moved to
approve Resolution No. 9339.6.2
Investment Oversight Committee First Quarter Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2000. (ORI800.0.27.16)The City
Treasurer summarized the activity of the Investment Oversight Committee.Mayor pro
tern Spurgeon asked the City Treasurer to identify the members of this committee and the InvestmentAdvisoryCommittee. The City Treasurer responded the members of the Investment OversightCommitteeare: City Treasurer, City Manager, Finance Director. The Investment AdvisoryCommitteemembersare: Jim Hanson, Hal Jackson and Charles Simons.Ex-officiomembersareCityTreasurerandtheFinanceDirector.Mayor
Coontz commented they have done an excellent job and were appointed at a time when it was
difficult to get people who had the qualifications to be on this committee. The Mayor suggestedtheybeinvitedtothenextCouncilmeetingsotheymaybeacknowledgedfortheirparticipation.
PAGE
9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS (Continued)
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Spurgeon AYES - Murphy,
Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez Moved to receive
and file report.7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS -
None 8. REPORTS FROM CITY
MANAGER - None 9. LEGAL AFFAIRS - None 10.
RECESS TO THE MEETING OF
THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 11. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION The
City Council recessed at 5:
23 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:a. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
pursuant to Government CodeSection 54957.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 12.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Luis Caballero,
487 S. Grand,
spoke regarding the pending proposed second unit addition at 475 S. Grand Street. There are
already density problems in that area and requested the Council re-zone portions of the southeast
quadrant of the Old Towne Area to R-l; re-zone the 300 and 400 blocks of
South Grand Street to R-l; and adopt a moratorium on second units in certain portions of
the southeast quadrant of Old Towne until the density issues are resolved. (ZIS00.0)The City
Manager reported this item has not gone through the Planning Commission yet and staff will
review this matter and report back to Council.Councilman Slater
also asked staff to see if there is a discrepancy between the zoning and the General Plan
in this area.Councilman Alvarez
reported he and Planning Commissioner Tita Smith recently met with this neighborhood to
provide general information for the neighbors.PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
12 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued)
Michelle Turner, 400-Block of North Cypress, submitted copies of a letter to the Council. She expressed concern about the gang activity and graffiti problems in her neighborhood, and suggested graffiti removal services be available on weekends. The Police Chief wasinstructedtoworkwithMs. Turner in resolving these issues. (C2S00.N.
4)Mr. Nick Lall, 6231 E. Mabury, appreciated the Mayor's comments regarding BeverlyNestande,and suggested an appropriate way in which to honor her would be to name Rock Creek Parkafter
her.13. PUBLIC
HEARINGS 13.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-00, ZONE CHANGEANDPRE-ZONE CHANGE 1204, SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT1278,THE IRVINE COMPANY - SANTIAGO
HILLS II Time set for a public hearing on petition by The Irvine Company proposing to develop1,746 dwelling units on 494 acres and
to consider:General Plan Amendment 2-00 to change the East Orange General Plan (EOGP) from Mixed Use, Employment, Low-Medium Density Residential, MediumDensityResidentialandOpenSpacetoLowDensityResidential, Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Open Space. Also to change the Orange GeneralPlanfromPublic
Facility to Low-Medium Density Residential.Modify
various portions of the Circulation Element.Modify
portions of the text ofthe EOGP.Zone Change and Pre-Zone Change 1204 to zone andpre-zone
the entire site to PC (Planned Community) Zoning.The property is generally located eastofJamboreeRoad, west of the Eastern Transportation Corridor and south ofIrvine Regional Park (in addition, 25acresofthe494acresislocatedwest
of Jamboree Road and north of Chapman Avenue).NOTE: Supplemental EIR 1278 was preparedto
supplement final
program EIR 1278 for this project.STAFF PRESENTATION:Mr. Stan Soo Hoo, Community PlanningManager, presented a brief overview of the project.The project area consists of 494 acres, generally located south of Irvine Park, between the Eastern Transportation Corridor andJamboree, with
a plan to develop approximately 1746 housing units.In 1989 the City adopted theoriginalEastOrangeGeneralPlan (EOGP), which encompassed approximately 7,000 acres. The original theme in 1989
was to
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10,2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
planning areas, (this project being Planning Area 1) with an urban center and mixed uses within
each area. The current plan, however, eliminates the town centers and its mixed use concept, and
instead proposes residential development in a manner similar to the existing Santiago Hills
community, located immediately west of this location. The General Plan Amendment is
necessary to accomplish this.
Mayor Coontz pointed out this development proposal is on land owned by The Irvine Company
which is a portion of the General Plan approved in 1989, which is a much larger acreage. There
was speculation years ago that a proposal would be developed sooner, but the timing to start
construction of the Eastern Transportation Corridor and the recession in the mid-90's
have contributed to the delay. She also asked speakers to clarifY abbreviations as they
speak.The Circulation Element requires an amendment because of the reduction in traffic volumes as
a result of the reduction in building density from the original
Plan.The text of the of the EOGP requires an amendment also due to uses no longer proposed for
this
location.A zone change is necessary to establish a PC (Planned Community) zone for the entire
area.This zoning allows the applicant to utilize development standards similar to the existing
Santiago Hills development rather than generic
standards.A pre zone change is necessary as this property is mostly unincorporated area and
requires annexation to the City. This pre-zoning is effective only
upon annexation.At the Planning Commission hearing, Staff was directed to discuss
affordable housing opportunities with the applicant. These discussions did occur, however, it was
concluded that more time is needed to develop a specific program, and will be developed prior
to annexation.Another issue raised at the Planning Commission was the effect of this development
on the nearby existing retail centers. It was concluded that with this development, there is
the potential that the existing vacancy factor in the two nearby centers would be reduced by 50%.
This will provide increased revenue to the City based on an increase in
retail sales.With regard to fiscal impacts, the original proposal included a commercial component in
the 25 acre area next to Santiago Canyon College. This has subsequently been eliminated due
to strong community sentiment, which results in a fiscal deficit of approximately $80,000 per
year at project build out. To remedy this, staff has worked with the applicant to require them to
pay the City $400,000. Each unit will be assessed a share of this $400,000 and collected at
the time building permits
are issued.In response to questions from Councilman Alvarez, Mr. Soo Hoo explained the
agreement with the applicant is guaranteed for $400,000 over five years, even if the number of
housing units changes, with no continuing payments after that. After five years, the project does
suffer a
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
deficit. However, there is additional property to the east of this project that will eventually be
annexed to the City, and it is the City's intent to pursue fiscal opportunities with that property in
order to achieve an overall balance.
Mayor Coontz asked for an explanation of the entire process. Mr. Soo Hoo explained that after
Council action on this proposal, the 494 acres will need to be annexed to the City, at which time
the zoning becomes effective. The development process then begins with tract maps submitted
by the applicant for Planning Commission and City Council review. There will be a minimum of
two public hearings for every tract map submitted.
Kathleen Brady, Bonterra Consulting, Environmental Consultants, reported an environmental
impact report (EIR) was previously certified in 1989 as part of the original East Orange General
Plan. The Supplemental EIR focuses on changes in the environment and the project over the last
11 years and incorporates new information since that time. Government Code states that when a
project has an EIR, it can be supplemented if there are either major changes to the project area,
changes in circumstances or new information is available. Both the original and supplemental
EIRs need to be considered. Both EIRs were circulated for review for 45 days and two
workshops were held for community input. Key issues raised at the workshops include traffic
impacts, fiscal impacts, noise, biological resources and water quality issues.
Councilman Alvarez asked about the water runoff management plan and who will be responsible
for monitoring development in relation to the wetlands. Ms. Brady explained the applicant will
prepare an urban run off management plan. The applicant is also responsible for monitoring the
program for five years as established by the Army Corps of Engineers. After five years, the
responsibility may go to the Homeowner Associations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:TAPE 1540
Mr. Dan Young, Applicant, The Irvine Company, stated the original East Orange General Plan
was established to guide development in East Orange. This application is a step in a process that
will require a great deal of public input and as the tract maps are prepared specific questions will
be addressed in much more detail. He then gave a Power Point presentation, highlighting: the
location map, history of the 1989 plan and revisions that have occurred, the public meeting and
community input process, revisions since the application was submitted earlier this year,
responses to community input such as reducing traffic impacts lowering densities, the 68
environmental mitigation measures, the mixture of residential uses from low to medium density,
the circulation system, landscape plans, and their commitment to architectural diversity.
He reported the project works within the constraints of the East Orange General Plan, which sets
a ceiling for development, and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The
applicant has worked with environmental groups in identifYing preserve habitats and are
committed to preserving wetlands.
PAGE 13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
He reported they have a commitment to education and are providing an elementary school in the
area as well as a business plan for refurbishing existing middle and high schools. They also have
a commitment to maintain quality of life by providing trails and parks in both the short term and
long term.
Councilman Alvarez asked about their proposal to provide $3 million in lieu of park land to be
used for the park on Prospect. He asked about using that $3 million to purchase the commercial
site next to Santiago Canyon College.
Mr. Young stated that option was not discussed as it would not be financially feasible. It was
pointed out the value ofthat commercial site could run as high as $15 million to $20 million.
Councilman Slater asked about impacts to the intersections of Cannon and Santiago Canyon
Road and at Chapman and Prospect, which are already heavily impacted, and requested
information on timing and funding of improvements for these intersections.
Mayor Coontz also asked for information on how these intersections relate to the 7-year
CIP
Plan.The Director of Public Works reported at the time the current CIP Plan was prepared
and approved by Council, they had not yet submitted applications for the latest round of Measure
M grants. Those applications were filed in June and they have received some
preliminary information, but it is not definite until it goes to the OCT A
Board.The City submitted a total of 12 projects for grants, the first priority being the realignment
of Cannon Street which encompasses the intersection at Santiago Canyon Road. That project
is estimated at a total cost of $2.4 million, with the grant application being $722,000.
Construction funds are expected in FY 2005/06 under the grant program, and it is expected to have that
project under construction in that time frame. The intersection at Chapman and Prospect was the
third priority submitted. That project is estimated at approximately $2 million, with the
grant application at $1.2 million. Construction funds are expected in FY 2003/04. The intersection
at Chapman and Y orba, which is also impacted, has previously been funded through
grants.Construction is expected in FY 2002/
03.The Irvine Company is paying fees for these improvements, either through the
Transportation System Improvement Program or a fair share contribution. The impact at these
intersections from this project is a small portion of the total traffic volumes at these
locations.Mayor Coontz asked about the completion of these improvements and how they will fit
into development timing, as these improvements are necessary even though the increased
traffic impacts are minimal in relation to the entire
problem.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
The Director of Public Works reported the construction at Santiago Canyon and Cannon isscheduledforcompletioninFY2006/07, which was contemplated in the CIP for a project abouthalfthesizeindicatedhere. However, the project was expanded to include entire intersection.For the intersection at Chapman and Prospect, the schedule is compatible with what is in the CIP.
Councilman Alvarez asked about the traffic capacities along Chapman and Santiago CanyonRoadandwhatwilloccuriftheseimprovementsarenotmade; and what volumes will be addedwiththisdevelopment.
The Director of Public Works reported the present volume on Chapman is at 25,000 cars per dayatCrawfordCanyon, dropping to 18,000 and 13,000 further east. Capacity for a 4-lanehighwayisapproximately25,000. Current volume on Santiago Canyon Road is 23,000 atCannondroppingto15,000 further east. Capacity is also approximately 25,000. TAPE
2850 Mr. Kendall Elmer, representing Austin Foust & Associates, Traffic Consultant, reportedthedevelopmentwouldincreasetrafficonSantiagoCanyonRoadby3,000 cars per day overtheexisting23,000 and on Chapman it would increase by 10,000 over the existing 25,000. (These figures were corrected later in the meeting to 2,000 cars on Santiago Canyon and 6,000 carsonChapmanAvenue). He also noted it was his understanding that capacity for these types of4-lane highways was approximately 37,
000.MAYOR COONTZ OPENED THE PUBLIC
HEARING Those speaking in
favor:Barbara DeBoom, President CEO, Orange Chamber of
Commerce Anthony Torres, 218 Sweetwater, Chairman East Orange NeighborhoodCommitteeAlanBurns, 8203 E.
Hillside Cecilia Bustamonte, 1100 W. Steward
Dr.Marilyn Ganahl, 2035 Lewis
Dr.Kim Nichols, 317 Mominglory
Way Shirley Grindle, 5021 E. Glen
Arran Sister Kathleen Maloney, St. Joseph Health System 500 S. Main
St.Jaquie Woolsey, 7930 E. Elderwood
Ave.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada
Dr.The following comments were
expressed:Members of the East Orange Neighborhood Committee (EONC) have met with The IrvineCompanynumeroustimesandhavebeenveryinvolvedinreviewingandcritiquingtheEIR.
They have helped develop a comprehensive set of mitigation measures.This
is a realistic course of action and the best possible plan for this area.The project
will be monitored throughout all phases.PAGE 15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
The Irvine Company has addressed School District issues in providing for a new school and therefurbishingofexistingschools.Details
will be addressed and monitored as tract maps are developed.Shirley Grindle
requested the City Council direct staff to work with The Irvine Company, the County, OCTA andthecommunitytorelaxstandardssothatSantiagoCanyonRoadcanbepulledbackfromimpactingIrvinePark, without impacting safety. She also recognized the need to improvealreadyimpactedintersectionsatChapmanandProspectandatCannonandSantiagoCanyonRoad.Representatives from St.
Joseph Health Systems asked that affordable housing opportunities be provided with thisproject. Suggested that five acres or 150 units be dedicated for affordable housing as aconditionofapproval.Mr. Bennyhoff suggested developing
a plan for the entire 7,000 acres; and also recognized that water issues still need tobeaddressed.The Chamber of Commerce was
in support of new housing which is needed for increasing employment and suggests a commercialcenterinthenextPhase.The Council recessed at 9:
06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.Speaking in a neutral position:
TAPE 4300 Mara Brandman, address on file,
addressed the need for multi-purpose recreation trails and linkages throughout the entirearea; and supported the suggestion to develop a plan for the entire 7,000 acres.Thosespeakinginopposition:
David Newton, 9823 Brier
Lane, Cowan Heights, Santa Ana, asked that noise concerns be addressed by the noiseconsultant.Red Bauer, 11062 Meads
Ave., Orange Park Acres, asked about the trail undercrossing to Irvine Park, which is necessaryaspartoftheoveralltrailsnetwork. It is a widely used trail system, and Council needs to considertheunsafeaspectoftryingtocrossthestreets.Councilman Slater asked Mr.
Bauer if he was referring to the proposed crossing near the Holy Sepulcher Cemetery. Mr. Bauerindicatedtheonenearthecemeteryisnecessaryalso, but he is referring to the undercrossing
that was taken out during the construction of the toll road which was supposed to continue
from Canyon View into the Park.Mayor Coontz pointed out
there is information on a web site inferring that she took the crossing out as a memberoftheEasternTransportationCorridor. Extensive research was done on this subject and it was
a staff activity that never came to the Board. There was supposedly a quote on the website which was
not the style of how she talks. This is a gross error and typical of what happens during election time.
The trail is gone, but mostly because of the issue of Canyon View being removed in The
Irvine Company plan before us.PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
David Hayward, 9761 Rangeview Dr., Cowan Heights, Santa Ana
Kathy Quizling, 9761 Rangeview Dr., Cowan Heights, Santa Ana
Sparky McGraw, 7329 E. Morninglory
Tom Anderson, 1392 N. Stallion St.
Nick Lall, 6231 E. Mabury
Niles Koines, 18022 Western PI., Tustin
Christopher Koontz, address on file, expressed concern that the replacement oak trees are notcomparableinsizetothosebeingremoved. This does not represent a reasonable range of avarietyofsizeofoaktrees.
Janet Koepke, 20162 Santiago Rd.
Marty Poort, 11021 Meads Ave.
Sybil Leffler, 10693 S. Orange Park Blvd., speaking on behalf of Oak Trees
Alex Mintzer, 465 N. Christine St.
Charles Leffler, 10693 S. Orange Park Blvd, Orange Park Acres
Laura Thomas, 7211 Clydesdale, Orange Park Acres
Julie Jones Ufkes, 20121 E. Clark St.
Dave Belardes, San Juan Capistrano
Craig Attanasio, 5744 E. Creekside #47
Sandy Rickard, 4615 E. Walnut (was not present - July Ufkes read one sentence in the letter)ErichFigley, 1822 Sirrey Dr. Cowan Heights Juan
Pablo Serrano Nieblas,Ellen
Toth, 20091 E. Clark, submitted a petition requesting postponement RichardSiebert, 1388 N. Kennymead Mark
Sanford, address on file Sherri
Meddick, Silverado - submitted a letter dated October 8th "Preface and Request for 30-day
Continuance"Theresa
Sears, 7733 Santiago Anita
Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Dr.Doug
LeMieux, 1387 Kennymead,Charles
McNees, 11211 Orange Park Blvd.Carolyn
Noble Petition
dated October 5,2000, containing approximately 150 signatures, was submitted.PetitiondatedOctober2000, containing approximately 49 signatures, was submitted.The
following comments were expressed:This
project will have significant County wide impacts with irrevocable wildlife damage.This isoneofthefewruralareasleftinOrangeCounty.This is
not a small part of the process, because if approved, density is cast in concrete.The OPA Board
has not been included in the East Orange Neighborhood Committee (EONC)meetings with The Irvine
Company, and would like a direct meeting with the Company.The EONC does not
represent the entire community.PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10,2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Objections were raised to taking park money in lieu of park land, as land can never be recovered.
Stop
comparing this project with Santiago Hills I project.More active
parks are needed in East Orange.City services will
be impacted, including Police and Fire and also new schools will be needed.New development shouldn't
begin until after traffic improvements at intersections are complete. The original 1989 Plan
should not be used as a base line.Traffic and safety impacts to
residents along Santiago Canyon Road. Comments were made that the City is "settling" for
the "best deal" they can.Environmental concerns include: Oak trees will
be destroyed and replacement trees are not comparable to original ones. Wetlands are being
impacted. Hydrology and watersheds issues have not been addressed. Archeological resources need
to be saved. Traffic was not addressed throughout the canyons. Water run off
management plan should be completed.Suggestions were made to continue this matter
until traffic and environmental concerns are addressed and a water run off management plan
is provided. Handy Creek already has problems with water shed - request postponement until an
independent firm can do a water run off management plan The following correspondence was received
prior to the Council
meeting:Richard Statuto, St. Joseph Health System - requesting specific options
for affordable housing John H. F. Ufkes, 20121 E. Clark, Orange - pointing
out
deficiencies of the SEIR Kathy Eckstaedt e mail) - in opposition Julia A. Jones-Ufkes, 20121
E. Clark,
Orange Christopher Koontz (dated October
4, 2000),10242 Lolita, Orange Christopher Koontz (
dated October 8, 2000), 10242 Lolita, Orange Anthony Torres,
East Orange Neighborhood Committee, 218 N. Sweetwater Lane,Orange
Ken Osborne, 7451 Mt. Vernon Street, Riverside Charles Leffler, 10693
S.
Orange Park Boulevard Sybil Leffler, 10693 S.
Orange Park Boulevard Eleanor V. Brewer, St.
Joseph Health System, requesting an opportunity for
affordable housing in the project Jamie Goodding, 11041 Meads Avenue Scott Mather,
Orange Cares, 480 S.
Batavia, requesting inclusion of affordable
housing Laura Simonek, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, regarding the Allen
McColloch Pipeline Friends of County Ridges, Parks and Wildlife Wanda Smith,
California Regional
Water Quality Control Board Laurie Marine, 2335
Oakmont, Santa Ana D. Hood (e-mail)57
postcards PAGE 18
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10,2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
NOTE: Councilman Alvarez left the podium at 10:50 p.m. and returned at 11:00 p.m.
MAYOR COONTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
RECESS - The Council recessed at 11:06 p.m. and recouvened at 11:12 p.m.RESPONSES
TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS TAPE #2 - 1330 NOISE IMP
ACTS Matt Jones,
Manager of Environmental Services at Mestre Greve Associates, addressed noise impacts. Subsequent
issues from the initial noise analysis have revolved around impacts on Cowan Heights
and Peters Canyon Reservoir and the elimination of the hill ridgelines. A letter dated July
24th addressed initial concerns and additional concerns of noise impacting wildlife in the parks
were addressed in a letter dated August 25th. The criteria used for determining significant noise
increase was, I) significant noise increase of 3 decibels which is the level noticeable by
most people, and 2) the future results of noise increase being more than the City standard, which
is a 65 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) standard. This is a 24 hour average noise
level. In the initial EIR they looked at how the change in traffic will impact noise levels. It
was found not to be a significant impact, in that it was less than a decibel change.They looked
at the increase in noise in Cowan Heights as a result in the removal of the ridgelines, which
act as a noise barrier from the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) to those areas, but
only reduces it for a certain segment. The whole length of the ETC contributes to the noise level.
They did an analysis and found in some instances the noise level would increase up to 5
decibels but the resulting noise level was well below the 65 CNEL. They concluded there was not
a significant impact. For all noise modeling on the ETC, they have used 65 mph speed limit and
a 55 mph on Jamboree.In looking
at Peters Canyon Reservoir and the impact on wildlife, they found levels from the ETC would
increase by only approximately 3 to 6 decibels, but will be no significant impact to wildlife. There
is no good standard on what is a significant noise impact to wildlife, but the argument is
usually that it interferes with bird calls.There was
an assertion that noise levels from vehicles have changed in recent years - but they have seen no
indication of this.There was also
an assertion that the General Plan calls for a 40 decibel level for a quiet and rural area. However, they
found that both the County and City General Plans have set 65 CNEL as acceptable criteria.They
were asked
if they could possibly use Noise Ordinance criteria, which is used to control noise being generated
on private property from impacting adjacent property. However, the State precludes from controlling
noise on a roadway. Noise levels can be controlled for planning purposes for how
much noise is acceptable on a residential area, and that's the 65 CNEL level.PAGE 19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
HYDROLOGY IMPACTS
Mark Anderson, RBF Consulting, addressed hydrology impacts, specifically for Handy Creek
flooding and Handy Creek Wash. When the Santiago Hills I development was proposed, there
was a Master Plan of Drainage developed for that project and they recognized that Handy Creek
had limited capacity, especially through Orange Park Acres. As a result, there was an extensive
study done to deal with the tension of storm water runoff. Within Phase I, there is a park site,
which is actually a detention facility. The function of that is to take the peak off of any storm
and release it at a controlled rate so that rate matches the capacity of the downstream facilities.
They also recognized they were the receiver of water from upstream which is basically the area
of East Orange. They recognized that area would be developed. The EOGP had not been
developed, but there were assumptions regarding how that land might ultimately utilized. Those
assumptions were fairly accurate to the current proposal. In making those assumptions, they
recognized that water would create a problem for them, so they incorporated the Peters Canyon
Reservoir as a detention facility as well.
In looking at the project there are two major water sheds from the future Santiago Canyon Road,
that area to the north generally drains through Irvine Park into Santiago Creek. The area south of
the future Santiago Canyon Road generally drains south to the Peters Canyon Reservoir.
The difference between this project and Phase I, is that since 1992 there has only been a spill
from Peters Canyon Reservoir - a controlled release - to Phase I three times. So the impact from the East
Orange area has only contributed to Phase I three times in that time period. The rest of it has
actually gone into the reservoir and been contained. However the water in Phase I functions independently
because it has it's own detention facility. They work in cooperation with each
other, but there are issues related to OP A that could be isolated to Phase I and really not be
a part of the upper General Plan area.Another point
is the discharge to Peters Canyon Wash. They have been in contact with the dam operator for
Peters Canyon Reservoir. There is a dam at Peters Canyon Reservoir with an outlet controlled by
a valve. It is required by dam safety that in the event there is any failure that within a
set period of time the dam could be lowered to 50% of its capacity. That's why that outlet exists.
The operating instructions to the operator used to be that they do not release water from this
reservoir, until several years later when the County received complaints of mosquitoes in the
area. Vector Control asked dam operators to lower the water level in the Reservoir to eliminate the
breeding ground for mosquitoes. They explored alternatives other than releasing the water,
but decided the best means for dealing with the mosquito problem is lowering the reservoir. They
have done this four times since 1992 for mosquito abatement purposes. There is no way
for that water to reach Peters Canyon Wash unless someone physically releases the water to go
that direction.Also, since
1992 the Reservoir is continuing to decline in elevation in storage. There is not adequate runoff
to maintain the water level in the Reservoir. Without major supplemental water,that Reservoir
will start to dry out - perhaps completely. Itneeds a supplemental water source,PAGE 20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
or with this development it will increase the volume of water runoff that will reach the lake andactuallyprovidemorewatertothatReservoir. If water is released, it is by choice _ choice by theCounty. They do so now for mosquito purposes.
Councilman Alvarez asked about the storm runoff water. What will its impact be to the wetlandseastofJamboreeaswellastoPetersCanyonReservoir. Because of a retention basin, is itsupposedtobecapturingmaterialandessentiallyscreeningoutwaterbeforeitgetstothoseareas?
Mr. Anderson first stated there are many competing interests and the purpose of the runoff
management plan is to deal with the various interests. In the two drainage areas described, IrvineParkandPetersCanyonReservoir, they normally would not divert water but let it go its normaldirection. They might detain it but not redirect it. However, they have been encouraged by theCountytodoadiversion. The Irvine Park's facilities are undersized and there is a concern forthehabitatinPetersCanyonReservoirandtheintentoftheplanistotaketherunofffromtheirprojectandalsofromeasterlyoftheCorridorandreleaseitatacontrolledrateandhavethelowflowsdivertedintothewetlandareas. That helps replenish and provide water to the wetlandsandthewetlandsalsoprovideawaterqualityfunctioninthattheyhelpcleanoutthelowflow
water entering into those wetlands.
TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Mr. Kendall Elmer, Austin Foust & Associates, corrected an earlier statement about trafficvolumes. This project would increase traffic by 2,000 cars on Santiago Canyon Road and 6,000
cars on Chapman Avenue.
With regard to the impacts on Santiago Canyon Road east of the project, first, it is a requirementthattheapplicantpayfeespursuanttotheCityofOrangeTSIPProgram, the Foothill Eastern
Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program and the Santiago Canyon Road District. With
regard to the general impact assessment on Santiago Canyon, particularly the ingress and egresslocations, it was suggested that the study area be expanded to include those intersections. The
reason the study area was not extended was that the findings of the traffic impact analysisessentiallydidnotidentifYsignificantimpactseastofthesite. The distribution pattern of traffic
that is projected to and from the site estimates that only about 2% of the project trips will travel
easterly of the site. That equates to approximately 20 to 30 trips during peak hours. That is not
classified as a significant impact according to either City or County standards.
With regard to vehicle capacities on Santiago Canyon Road, the most recent study assumed a
capacity of 18,750. Santiago Canyon Road was not classified as a local commuter street, as it
does not have much side traffic, and has significantly higher travel speeds. Because of this, for
calculations, they used half the capacity normally used for a four lane primary arterial. In fact
the County is currently updating the Santiago Canyon Road Fee Program to assess what types of
improvements can be constructed and also reassessing the current operating capacity.
PAGE 21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Another issue raised was confusion over the hours used for study purposes in the traffic analysis.For each intersection studied they took traffic counts for two-hour periods to capture theonehighesthour, and at each location, wherever the highest hour occurred for those two-hour counts,that was considered to be the peak hour. They did not stick with a set
peak hour.Stan Soo Hoo spoke to an issue raised about the City's relationship with BonterraConsulting, the environmental consultants. There was an agreement executed by the City, BonterraandTheIrvineCompanyoutliningtheresponsibilitiesoftheconsultant, to be responsibleexclusivelytotheCity; and Mr. Soo Hoo personally oversaw the work of
the consultant.Councilman Alvarez asked why so many mitigation measures needed to be adopted iftheprojectwasdonecorrectlyinthe
first place.Mr. Soo Hoo stated that some of the measures were strengthened, reworded or
made more acceptable to the community and doesn't necessarily mean the program was deficient.
They are now more customized to meet the
community needs.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Kathleen Brady, Bonterra Consulting, stated that there were originally 50
mitigation measures and that has been increased to 68, many of which deal with biological resources.
Also, the Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) requirements were not
originally included as mitigation measures since they were already a requirement, but the County requiredthattheybeincludedasmeasures. She also clarified the Santiago Canyon Road Fee
Program. The mitigation measure in the original EIR indicated the method of the project's participation
in the Fee Program was to be determined prior to or concurrent with the approval of the
first zone change application. However, at that time, the Road Fee Program had not been
developed. The supplemental EIR does incorporate that measure by requiring that the applicant participate
in the Fee Program which has now
been developed.With regard to cultural resources, the mitigation measure does require a testing
program before grading and also grading observation, which was referred to as the need to have monitors
on site.Regarding trail crossings, all trails will be designed to full standard. There was alsothequestionofhavingthemunderneathChapmanAvenue. Because there is such a
substantial elevation difference between the north and south sides of the roadway, this would create anextremelylongtunnelandtherewouldalsobeextensiveimpacttothewetlandsin
the area.Councilman Alvarez asked how the wetlands will be protected during the grading
process. Ms.Brady eXplained the area is marked off with fencing so as not to infringe onto other
areas; and monitors will be on site at all times. There are also mitigation measures for controlling
dust as well as the use of water trucks, and they meet all AQMD requirements. Monitoring can
be done in a variety of ways, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program requires the City Engineer
to make
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10,2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
sure it is implemented. It is usually included in the construction specifications so they arecontractuallyresponsibleforimplementingit.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE
TAPE 2600
Mr. Dan Young asked to clear up a misunderstanding, explaining that he is not aware of anycommentmadebyTheIrvineCompanythatahydrologymistakewasmadeinSantiagoHillsPhaseI. In response to citizen requests for a continuance, he suggested that by moving forwardwiththeapprovalprocess, they can start to address the issues raised at the meeting. Once thisprocessisapprovedforexample, they will do a detailed hydrology study based upon anapprovedzoningplanandEIRthathasthemitigationmeasuresthattellsthemhowtogoaboutdoingthatplan. The applicant will return with information about water quality, water shed, therunoffmanagementplan, the impact on the habitat, and how to pull all that together. ThisinformationhasbeenaskedforbytheCountyandimposedonthembythePlanningCommission, but the time to do this is at the tract map phase when they have the specifics andengineering. This will address many of the concerns made.
On the issue of the trails, they will continue to work with the Trails Committee and thecommunityonanoveralltrailsplan, as they already have a working relationship with these
groups. They will work with the City and community in developing an update of the MasterPlanofTrailsfortheirportionoftheproperty. They will be proactive in working through theremainderofthe7,000 acres and have already moved this project through the process with anyandallgroupsthatwerepresent. There were public hearing processes that everybody wasinvitedtoandtheywillcontinuetodothis. The issues raised will be addressed prior to
construction and will be a matter of public hearing and additional environmental review. Ifallowedtomoveforwardtheycangettheanswerstothecommunity's questions.
They will work with the City on creative and innovative ways to extend Santiago Canyon Roadwithaslittleimpactaspossible, and on other traffic and intersection improvements.
Councilman Slater asked about the possibility of Santiago Canyon College purchasing the 25
acres adjacent to it; and asked for some history on this property.
Mr. Young stated they met with the College and asked them if they wanted to purchase that
property. The College responded they do not have any funding opportunities either in the short
or long term to do so. They would like to have the property but are not in a position to purchaseit. The Irvine Company asked the College if their long term plans are adequate to meet the
growth of this area and the College assured them they can; and the College has stated for the
record they do not object to this proposed re-zoning. The Irvine Company has hadoptionagreementsfornearly20yearswiththeCollege, but the College has never exercised any of
the options. The Irvine Company has also assisted the College in reconfiguring their Master
Plan.Mayor Coontz asked Mr. Young to explain the process involved, what will happen in the
future and how issues will be
addressed.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10,2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Mr. Young explained if they receive an approval tonight for the General Plan Amendment and
zone change, they will assemble a team that will include engineers, planners, architects, experts,
etc. who will work for approximately six months to develop tentative tract maps showing lot
locations, street locations, how they will interface with wetlands, cultural resources and other
questions raised. This will all be laid out as they develop the tentative tract maps. They will also
do a water run off management plan for the whole area. As part of the run off management plan,
and outlined in the mitigation measure, they are required to survey sensitive habitat areas as they
develop ideas on how to handle urban water run off and storm water in a comprehensive
hydrology plan. They will also look at the Santiago Canyon Road extension.
Also, during this time, they will work with all community groups and exchange ideas for design
guidelines, architectural ideas, etc.
Mayor Coontz asked how many acres are included in this vision. Mr. Young stated the tentative
tract map phase focuses on the current Santiago Hills application. However, once it is approved,
they will immediately begin work on the master planning process and will look at the property
across the Corridor including the entire 7,000 acres.
Mayor Coontz asked if the City's costs and needs have been determined to address the City's
responsibilities; and who will manage the City responsibilities overall. It is extremely important
there be teamwork, with oversight, for all the individuals involved with these responsibilities.
The City Manger stated they have not assessed the entire costs and needs. The City will use
outside consultants to actually review this work, as the Public Works Department is already
prepared for specific issues regarding grading consultants and other environmental consultants.
If the City's costs are above and beyond normal costs, they will be passed on to the applicant.
Management of the City's responsibilities will be staffed accordingly.
Councilman Slater asked for an explanation of the City's decision to accept the park fees in lieu
of park land, when there is already a park shortage in the City, and how it relates to the proposed
park on Prospect Street.
The City Manager explained when the applicant's proposal was reviewed with areas identified as
parks, the City looked at the usability, the future and the immediate needs. Even with land,
money is still needed to develop the land. In this particular case, the City is attempting to build a
regional park facility in the area of Prospect, one that can be developed immediately because of
the shortage of parks. However, the City does not have the money to develop this project
without stretching it out over several years.
In consideration of where The Irvine Company will be taking their planning process, should this
phase be approved, there have been discussions of a much larger facility, at least 35 acres, on the
east side of the Corridor to help absorb the need in that area. But in order to meet the immediate
financial need to get the Prospect Park developed at this time, the City has negotiated an in-
lieu fee to be paid up
front.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Councilman Alvarez agreed there is an immediate need for a sports park and the City should
balance that need against the in-lieu fees; and asked how the City will ensure those fees are
paid.The City Attorney explained there will be language included in any annexation agreement
or development agreement to ensure a sports park in future
phases.Mr. Dan Young explained that as part of this entire process, the City has to agree to annex
this property to the City, and a pre-annexation agreement will secure
the fees.Mayor pro tern Spurgeon wanted to ensure this money would not go into the General
Fund, as has happened in
the past.The City Manager explained that in the past this type of money was used for small
park rehab projects in lieu of General Funds, but now there is a policy to target these funds
for
specific projects.Mr. Young reported there is a mitigation measure which states that prior to the approval
of the first tentative tract map for Santiago Hills, The Irvine Company shall develop a
program for providing park land that would meet the City's need for active
sports facilities.The City Manager explained development of the Prospect Park was discussed as part of
the last budget process and is included in the Capital
Improvement Budget.Mayor Coontz asked about trails being dedicated to the County, the Master Plan of
Trails, and what cooperation will be provided by The Irvine Company for the review of the
Master Plan.Also, can the trails come under the same scrutiny, evaluation and determination
of cost responsibility. She noted the current policy eliminates any financial responsibility of
the City.However, this policy was developed during the recession and at that time the City could
not get involved in any issues except the most basic ones. We should not go forward with
the trails project indicating we will deny financial participation because that has not been decided
yet. We need to have assurance from The Irvine Company that their consultant will work with the
City's consultant on
this issue.The City Manger indicated in 1993 the policy of the City Council was that they
supported the trail system but would not participate financially, but with the change in the economy,
this issue will be brought back to the Council. The City has not had a change in policy, but
in addressing this issue again, it can only be more generous financially at
this point.Mr. Dan Young indicated, for the record, they will participate with the City on the
Master Plan
of Trails.Councilman Murphy asked about the improvements to intersections that are
already substandard prior to any development which will further degrade these intersections. From the
schedule that
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
has been discussed, it sounds like the intersections will not be improved any time close to whenthehouseswillbebuilt, and asked if these improvements can be moved ahead?
The City Manger pointed out the City is not prepared financially to move the improvementsforward.
The Director of Public Works reported the City does not have the flexibility to move the projectsforward, as they are heavily committed to grant funds, and the current schedule is the mostoptimisticthereis.
Mayor Coontz reported when she was a Planning Commissioner, during the development of
Santiago Hills Phase I, she had been invited to spend a night at a residence along ChapmanAvenuetohear, first hand, the traffic noise. In addition to the normal passenger car noise, what
was not anticipated was the noise from semi trucks and the lights shining into homes. This was a
problem all along Chapman, and at that time, The Irvine Company was required to providedouble-paned windows, air conditioning and buffers for certain homes. This type ofimpactneedstobeaddressedduringthetractmapphase. Other issues learned from Phase I, and
which need to be addressed, include architectural style issues such as the design of windows which
can be difficult to treat, and length of driveways. She asked for a more detailed explanation of
the design
guidelines.Mr. Dan Young explained that once the tract map phase begins, they will know where the
lots will be located and if additional mitigation measures are necessary. They have taken ideas
and issues from Phase I and made changes for Phase II. Some of these changes include
traditional driveway lengths, landscaped areas adjacent to the curbs and issues with corner lots and
garages.The City Attorney asked to clear up a few issues, pointing out that Mr. Soo Hoo was hired
full time to work solely on this project. He is a former Planning Manager and former Assistant
City Attorney with the City of Orange, and there have been numerous ongoing discussions
and significant review of this proposal by both the environmental consultant and Mr. Soo Hoo.
Also,with regard to deferring mitigation measures, it is not unusual for mitigation measures to be
in broad terms at this phase in the planning process, especially with a General Plan Amendment
or Zone Change. Sometimes there is no real practical method of devising a mitigation
measure until there is a specific project. For example, until there is a site specific plan, a water run
off management plan cannot be devised. The key is to ensure there are feasible mitigation
measure that can be implemented and in force. He also asked for a more detailed explanation, for
the record, of why a Supplemental EIR was developed as opposed to a new EIR or subsequent
EIR.Ms. Kathleen Brady indicated Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code states that when
a project already has an EIR prepared for it, that no subsequent or supplement EIR shall
be prepared unless one of the following events occurs: I) substantial changes are proposed for
the project that require major revisions to the EIR; 2) substantial changes occur with respect to
the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in
the EIR; or 3) new information which has not been known and could not have been known
becomes PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
available. Also, the CEQA guidelines, Section 15163, explains that even if you have one of thesethreecircumstances, that if you can supplement the EIR - basically take the information that is necessarytomaketheEIRadequate - that that is an acceptable approach, by just having the additions andchangesanddoasupplementationthattheEIRisadequate. That allows building on thepreviousdocumentation. In this case, final EIR 1278 looked at the East Orange General Plan areaataprogrammaticlevel, looked at a wide range of alternatives, looked at cumulative impacts onalargescale, and it allows this project to be more focused on supplementing the information thatisnecessaryforthePhaseIIarea.Mr. DeBerry
explained the initial EIR addressed and reviewed a project which had significantly more andgreaterenvironmentalimpactsthanwhatisproposed. Therefore, the City, along with the environmentalconsultant, looked at the new project and determined that the impacts were either lessorthesamethantheimpactsthatwerereviewedintheEIRbackin1988. That is why the supplementwaschosen.Ms. Brady
indicated when they looked at the changes, the elimination of 1.5 million square feet of mixeduse, providing more open space. Basically, the type and intensity of the impacts were going tobelessbecausetheprojectproposedlessdevelopment. So rather than needing to do a new EIR, they were able to document what the changes and impacts would be.COUNCIL COMMENTS
TAPE 4360
Mayor pro
tern Spurgeon stated although in a perfect world it would be nice to see things stay the same, thatisnotreality. The City needs to learn from past mistakes and do a better job than what wasdoneinthepast. He appreciated the efforts of the community, in particular from Shirley GrindleandBobBennyhoffwhohavebothbeeninvolvedinEastOrangelandplanningforalongtime. They both know land planning and understand the East Orange area and are aware ofrealities. While not representing all of East Orange, they have tried to bridge a gap and force someofthechangesthathavetobemade. We need to move to the next level where some of thesespecificissueswillbeaddressed, and move ahead with a vision for the entire area and not justforSantiagoHillsII.Councilman Slater
stated in all the years in this City he has never seen a project scrutinized the way this
project has. This project requires a sign-offfrom the California Department ofFish and GameandtheNatureReserveofOrangeCounty, and some of the 68 mitigation measures includeplantsurveysandinventoriesofvariouskindsofbirds. These things will take place beforeanybulldozerssetfootonthatproperty. He has always voted independently and always onaprojectbyprojectbasis, and to clear up a statement made earlier, reiterated that he has not receivedanyfundsfromtheIrvineCompany. The Irvine Company has provided an opportunity forallmembersofthecommunitytomeetwiththemandhethankedthemembersofthecommunitywhohavespentagreatdealoftimemeetingandnegotiatingwithTheIrvineCompany. He particularly noted the efforts of Shirley Grindle and Marilyn Ganahl in preserving openspace, and how they have reviewed and scrutinized every detail of this project. Every developmentprojectshouldhavethesameamountofreview, including parks, schools and traffic PAGE
27
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
mitigations. There are many win-win situations with this development. In particular, itwasnotedthe $17.8 million that is being set aside for schools, which the City desperately needs, plus the efforts to possibly obtain another $20 million for schools. He agreed with the removal ofthecommercialsite, because as development occurs east of the Corridor, a viable commercialcenterandqualitysportsparkcanbedevelopedatthatpoint. He agreed the City needs to continuetoworkwithTheIrvineCompanyandlookattheremaining6,500 acres and ensure thatfuturedevelopmentisappropriatefortheentire
community.For the record, Councilman Slater wanted to make sure the City requests their desire topreservetheoakgroveattheentrancetoIrvineParkandinstructstafftoseeksolutionsincooperationwiththeCountyandTheIrvineCompanytoavoid, as much as possible, the impact to this rowofoaktrees, including the elimination of the sidewalk on the north side and possibly eliminatingthemedianinthemiddleoftheroadsothereisnottoomuchgradingandalsoconsiderasplitlevelroad. That road should be, if at all possible, aligned slightly to the south so there is aslittleimpactaspossibletoIrvineParkandtheridgelinetothesouthsideof
it.Councilman Alvarez agreed the City will be looking at this project very closely from nowon.At this level, the information is more general but as the project moves forward, it will getmoredetailedandmorespecific. There will be more opportunities to mold this project intosomethingbeneficialforeveryone. He appreciated the comments from the community as they
are important and can be used as guidelines for the Council as the project progresses. He
was particularly concerned about policing the mitigations. This is a large scale project and
there needs to be adequate staff to monitor the mitigation
measures.Councilman Murphy recognized the efforts of the communities and neighborhood committees
in creating a project, in cooperation with The Irvine Company, which is a good start on a
much larger project to the east. While it is a good project currently, there is still room to make it
a great project. He expressed concern about the circulation issues, specificallyimprovingintersectionspriortotheSantiagoHillsIIprojectortheconnectionofSerranoAvenue; and
it was his understanding that the Serrano connection could be as early as next year or the year
after.There are questions from a financial standpoint, not only from the funds that are in deficit on
this project but also any ability to connect this project and the next project that might come
forward.There was a time span of about 12 years between Phase I and Phase II, and although he doesn'
t expect that to repeat, the City can not afford to wait another 12 years for the promises ofprojectssuchasthesportspark. He would like to see an active sports park included in this phase or
tied to this phase so that it can support the area being
developed.Councilman Murphy was especially troubled by a citizen's comment made earlier that, "wegotthebestdealgiventheconstraintsofanelectioncalendar". He was not comfortable voting on
a project that anybody infers is tied to the upcoming election. Therefore, he recommendedtheycontinuethisprojecttogetanswerstosomeofthequestions, as he did not see a rush toapproveitnow. He would like to support it too; and he looks forward to growth - but responsiblegrowth. He wants to make sure anything that comes into the City contributes and doesn't take
away from the resources that are already here. He asked for more answers to questions before he
PAGE 28
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
could move forward. He would like to see a continuance suggested for no less than 45 days inordertoensurethatsomeoftheseadditionalquestionsgetanswered.
Mayor Coontz stated it shouldn't matter if it is an election year or not, and the Council alwayshastoanswertothecommunity, no matter when it is. The first General Plan is being looked atasnotbeingadequate, which can always be done in hindsight, but there was a great deal of workdoneonthefirstPlan. During the Phase I discussions, she tried to get the School Districtinvolved, which wasn't happening; so she helped develop the joint use school which has turnedouttobeverysuccessful.
She further stated that, some of the issues important in developing the first General Plan wereeconomicissues, circulation, police and fire service, design guidelines, architectural styles,environmental issues and the involvement of the community. When it was decided to necessitatetheeconomicpolicy, because it was realized that residential doesn't pay for itself, that was fortheentireacreage, not just for one part of it. We are focusing on one part of it, and she wouldliketohavetheconfidencethatinthebalanceoftheoriginal7,000 acres, they can address that.She pointed out they have never before requested a developer to provide the City with aneconomicbenefit. There needs to be a focus on the balance of the development with theeconomicpolicythatwasoriginallyestablished.
Other issues unresolved in the original plan were trails and Irvine Lake. The ownership of theLakeinvolvesTheIrvineCompanyandtwootheragencies; and anything dealing with water is
extremely complicated. The Lake has a lot of potential, as outlined in the original General Plan.
Mayor Coontz expressed appreciation to all the citizens in attendance and their thoughtfulcomments. This initial phase has taken a great deal of time and energy and a great deal of timeandenergywillalsobedevotedtothebalanceoftheproject. The City is more sensitive todayaboutissuessuchastraffic, the environment and trails, which are important aspects to this
community's lifestyle.
Councilman Alvarez stated he had a particular concern about the density and any resultanteconomicshortfall. He also asked Councilman Murphy if there was any specific question he had
that might be addressed by staff.
Councilman Murphy stated there were not only issues to be addressed by staff, but the issue that
community groups would like additional opportunities to meet with The Irvine Company,especially related to the trail plan. There is also the question on circulation improvements, as
there are already problems and this development is going to add to those. The project is close,but some of the issues raised at the hearing need to be addressed a little more fully before goingforward, and he doesn't want to rush the project.
Mr. Stan Hoffman, fiscal consultant, addressed the question raised by Councilman Alvarez
regarding density and its affect on the fiscal balance. A fiscal computerized model was
developed and essentially if you start to lower the density and move toward more single family
PAGE 29
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
homes, the values are higher and the balance is improved. However, the property tax is a small
share of the revenues relative to the other factors. It does contribute and move in a positive
direction, but the value would have to go higher. If large lots with high-valued houses
were built, you could essentially drive it to a positive, but you'd have to raise the value of the
house more than what would be necessary in this project. It can be improved, however, with
more single family, which has been proposed. It wouldn't be a positive unless it went to a much
more radically different
density.Councilman Alvarez asked at what point it breaks even. How much more single family
would be necessary for the City not to have to
pay?Mr. Hoffman stated they only ran the model showing the result of not having residential on
the property that was initially proposed for commercial. That alone did not make it break
even.There are relatively small changes in the figures due to property taxes, because the City
only receives a small percentage, approximately 17%, of property
taxes.Councilman Slater again expressed his appreciation for the input from the community, and
stated the Council should not consider the election with any decision. He stated he is usually
accused of being anti-growth, whereas he is actually for balanced growth, which he
thinks this development is. He did not see any reason to continue this any further as it has
already
been scrutinized.Mayor pro tem Spurgeon did not want to continue this, as he did not believe
anything could happen in another month that would make any significant changes. There
are numerous safeguards in this proposal and they need to move forward to the
next level.Mayor Coontz requested that elements of the EIR be taken out and put together so they
are easier to understand, as it is difficult to go back and forth, looking at the complaints, the
responses and the letters. With the volume of information in the EIR, this is important, and in the
long run,would be helpful for the project. The minutes are in a traditional form, and this way it
would be more convenient to see if The Irvine Company is meeting what they put on the record,
and what the staff needs to do. She requested this be a part of
a motion.MOTION -
Murphy Moved to continue this item to get answers to some of these questions that have been
raised.MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF
SECOND MOTION - Spurgeon
SECOND - Slater AYES -
Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez ABSTAIN - Murphy
PAGE 30
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2000
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Moved to certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1278 with the findings listed inPlanningCommissionResolutionNo. PC-
57-00.MOTION -
Spurgeon SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez ABSTAIN -
Murphy Moved to
approve General Plan Amendment No. 2-00 as outlined in Planning Commission ResolutionNo. PC-58-00, and to include the following additional
specifications:1. The applicant will coordinate with the City in the City's updating of the Master Plan of
Trails.2. The City indicates its desire to preserve the grove of Oak trees along the alignmentofSantiagoCanyonRoad, near the entrance to Irvine Park and staff is instructed to workwiththeCountyandTheIrvineCompanytoseeksolutionstoavoid, as much aspossible,disturbance to these trees. Possible design measures may include: eliminating the
sidewalk on the north side of the arterial, eliminating the center median (to reduce the amountofgrading), or designing a split level road. Also, the road should be aligned slightly tothesouthinordertominimizevisualimpacttoIrvineParkandminimizedisturbancetotheexistingridgeline. These measures are to be investigated with the understanding thattrafficsafetymustnotbe
compromised.MOTION - Spurgeon
SECOND - Alvarez AYES -
Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez ABSTAIN - Murphy
Moved to approve
Zone Change and Pre-Zone Change 1204 as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-59-00, including all issues that come under the zone change agreed toincludingdesignguidelines.
NOTE: Councilman Murphy abstained because although he is not against the project, he stillfeelsthereareafewissuesthatneedtobeaddressedandcannotsupportittonight.
The City Attorney explained a Resolution and Ordinance will be brought back to the CityCouncil, confirming their actions of this meeting.
Mayor Coontz requested after the Minutes are completed, a staff recap be provided to ensure allpointsareincludedintheResolutionandOrdinance.
14. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None.PAGE
31
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
15. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Murphy,
Slater, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez October 10, 2000
The City Council
adjourned at I :20 a.m. in memory ofBeveriy Nestande.1:dc~c
CITYCLERK OANNE
COONTZ MAYOR
PAGE 32